The Hazards of Online Dating

SAI2 wrote:

That was intended as a tongue and cheek fun comment. It was partly me teasing you, but also partly an exaggerated expression of how I felt when I wrote it; i.e. persecuted.

You say exaggerated but it all comes across as you hanging yourself on a cross and making it about you when in fact whether it's me trying to tell you a little about how women think or her trying to tell you she just wants to be friends it's only about us not coddling the men. And hence my little poke back- while I recognize you are being facetious it's really the core of the issue in a lot of ways. When women push for what they think they are perceived and bitches or against men or wanting to hurt men. Just as many jokes are rooted in truths and hardships so is this one. I can appreciate both ends of that and say yes while I see you were joking you hit the nail on the head.

SAI2 wrote:

If you are going to hold me suspect when I try to lighten the mood with a bit of teasing humor, then we need to define the parameters of good intent and justified suspicion.

I am not holding you suspect. Indeed I just spent a few posts arguing for the opposite and maintain that view or I'd have stopped responding a while back. Please point out where I gave this impression and allow me to explain or correct.

SAI2 wrote:

After all, you are a mod here. I don't want to be banned for simply being me, regardless of the subjectivity/relativity of each of our good intentions.

Actually, I own the place. But you couldn't tell it could you? (hopefully) I plan on keeping it like that and there will be no banning of actual members, although I cannot promise the safety of spammers. I added on as many as wanted to be mods or at least didn't put up a fight when I gave the status because I wanted everyone to be able to do things here. I'm only the owner because someone had to put a foot down and make a move when this all went down. If you want to be a mod you can, I'll stick it on there. But if you are like NoCo and don't want to see the sausage made that's fine, too. If you make a call now on it and want to change later, that's fine. Think of this as our own personal bar. Everybody's welcome, draw a draft and grab some pretzels and the jukebox remote and have fun. If you drink all the beer maybe bring a few next time and take out the trash if it's full.

SAI2 wrote:

I still don't see what bearing this has on having a nice evening of sex.

Well, of course you don't! But for her it makes you less attractive. Especially as she seems to like the "bad boy" types as it is. Bad boys and alpha males are often mistaken for one another. Alpha men who have their shit together and don't have baby mamas and school debt or whatever are way more hot that a scrub with an 11 inch cock, to her kind. The scrub with the 11 incher (or some other equivalent quality he'll think the ladies might like) needs a cougar who doesn't give a toot about a long term secure relationship. Even the things that aren't biological become biological because how successful you are is exuded from every pore. It affects your health which also affects hormones which affects what you are attracted to and who is attracted to you. Read some of the other primate studies on it. I got a number of them from The Lucifer Principle but I'm sure by now they've been used elsewhere. Again, this does not have to be intentional on her part, she could simply be reacting to hormones and her version - her vocabulary for it boils down to "she doesn't think of you like that" i.e. friendzone.

SAI2 wrote:

I would have thought you would agree with that much; from a liberated woman's perspective.

Obviously I do. But I'm not her. Part of feminism is I have to shut up and let her make her choices too.

SAI2 wrote:

ironically, you seem to be painting women as being unable to share their bodies intimately unless they have a partner with wealth.

Then one of us has done this wrong. Not all women. Not at all times in their lives. I think the feelings boil down to less about wealth for wealth's sake and more about that biological imperative to make sure a mate is a good mate. A casual sex partner is not a mate. Needs and requirements for the two may not be the same.

Also, you say that like it's a bad thing. I'm not willing to paint women who require wealth as a prerequisite for intimacy as bad any more than I will paint women who require condoms or showers as pre-requisites. No woman owes any man sex and has every right to make her own rules and requirements- as do the men. Shall we shame the men who say "no fat chicks"? You know, I fuss at people for that too. I will not shame another for theirs as I do not wish to be shamed for mine. I do advocate honesty, but I will not say that goldiggers and sugar babies or the sugar daddies who seek them are bad.

SAI2 wrote:

Also though, what we mean by "poor" and "success" is important here. I may be considered poor in Saudi Arabia or Beverly Hills, but I may be seen as rich in the worst slums of India or South America.

Agreed. And you see a large number of American men trying to get Asian and Eastern European women for that very reason. Again, I will not shame those people. Some feminists suggest this is exploitation. It is. But it's the type of exploitation that particular woman chose and until the entire thing is fixed I will not down her for how she handles the patriarchy. I will not down those men who seek a 50's style household. Negotiate that with your partner and go for it.

SAI2 wrote:

then there is no reason,

But there is.
Unless you can look me in the keyboard and tell me that the thought of boinking you has never ever occurred to her then yes, there is a reason and to her it's a goodnuff' one.

SAI2 wrote:

as long as she is being honest that I am sexy and attractive to her

How'd she say it?
There is a difference between "you are sexy" and "I want to fuck you". To you they may be one in the same, the her- not so much I bet. I find a number of people extraordinarily sexy and hot but I would not want to bed them. Normally, when I come across someone like this whose physical attractiveness is so out of whack with how fuckable I view them I find out later we were so not a match for blatant reasons. I recently helped vet a young man for local events in the scene who normally would have been a type I would have enjoyed- very Keanu Reeves. I kept wondering why I wasn't reacting to him in what I thought would be a normal way. Come to find out he was a sub looking to hook up with a domme. Duh. That's why*. Other times I have found out that the man was gay, like Matt Boomer. I am convinced our brains pick up more than we process consciously. It may look great on paper but if it doesn't make the juices flow- it just doesn't.  

SAI2 wrote:

The more I think about this, the more I am convinced she won't tell me she's not attracted to me physically because she's afraid I will no longer be her friend.

Then the thing to do would be to just wait and let her see it doesn't matter. If it really doesn't matter to you (something I have my doubts about but we'll forget that for now) then let it not matter and drive on with being the best of friends and don't even give it another thought. Long after she's found that guy and married you'll still be there as her friend and all will be happy. Time will show her what just saying it can't.


*Have you considered that? That she could be actively looking for a dominant type even if she doesn't know that's what she's looking for? If that's the case, then there's your answer. And that dynamic often over-rides others in men and women.

SAI2 wrote:

Lisa did a wonderful thing by responding as she did to my previous post. It went a long way to reassuring me that she intends for the time being, good intention. I will do my best to assume good intent from her from now on, but it wouldn't be fair of me to assume that she can or will sustain this any more than it would be fair to assume the same from myself or anyone else. We do the best we can. But it may rear its ugly head once again... who's to say?

What.  The.  Hell.  Stephen.

Here's what you just said to me:

"Lisa did a wonderful thing... it went a long way to reassuring me..."

But, you qualified your statement with not-so suble insult:

"... she intends for the time being good intentions... it wouldn't be fair of me to assume that she can or will sustain this..."

Two points here.

1: Your insulting qualifying statements will be true forever.  For everyone you encounter in your lifetime.  Friends, family, lovers.  The point being, why state the obvious and sound like an insecure child? You passively accept my gesture: "Lisa did a wonderful thing...", then aggressively tell yourself not to: "... she intends for the time being...wouldn't be fair of me to assume that she can or will sustain this...".
Your totally unnecessary 'caveat' doesn't help forward conversation.

2: You inaccurately project your insecurities. It paints a huge picture. And people know.

Probably people you'd like to be more intimate with.

Lisa, what I said was what I said if you read my entre post in its intended context. Unfortunately you have chosen to take what I said negatively, with an unintended interpretation, and partly why you come to that conclusion is due to editing my post to highlight what you see as an offending passage.

I was speaking to Jenni, trying to impart to her my concern about her need to feel we should all try to not be suspicious of one another and should know one another well enough by now, etc.

"For the time being" was included in my statement because it is a fact that ALL OF US, myself included, can only guarantee so much with regard to assuming sincerity and honesty. Over time, each of us can and likely will slip up and derail, causing us each to at various times under various circumstances to be suspicious - which is only natural. So, for the time being we do the best we can. But there can be no guarantee that "faith", or ideal peace, will be sustained when things get hot and stressful due to the nature of debate and argument.

It would not be fair of me to assume any of us were that superhuman that we wouldn't slip and be suspicious - as you are demonstrating right now my point.

There was no insult nor malice in my statement, and I qualified my statements with those points precisely so that we might all understand our common humanity to err and misjudge one another... in that I am quite secure.

So please don't panic. I appreciated your response very much and was not suggesting in any way that you might likely betray our trust in some passive aggressive cruel way.

If you are interpreting my posts as a slight against you, please just ask me to clarify so I can perhaps reword or show you what I actually meant by what I said. My post was never meant to be taken the way you seem to have taken it. I don't deny that perhaps my writing needs work too, but sometimes no matter how many times you think about how to write something, you just have to put it out there and let the cards fall as they may. I can't please everyone all the time with what I say and how I say it, or I'd never be able to post anything.

I hope we are still good, you and I. Good intentions. Yes?   

SAI2 wrote:

It would not be fair of me to assume any of us were that superhuman that we wouldn't slip and be suspicious - as you are demonstrating right now my point.

This is a perfect example.  Does anyone on this planet think that anyone else on this planet is superhuman?  Unless you're under 2 and half years old, your bold proclamation is condescending at best, totally childish at worst.  It was most definitely unncessary.  You continually belabor this point.  One could even get the impression that you keep saying these things because you have ill-intent.  It's always you questioning others as to their intent. As you are demonstrating right now.

SAI2 wrote:

There was no insult nor malice in my statement, and I qualified my statements with those points precisely so that we might all understand our common humanity to err and misjudge one another... in that I am quite secure.

And you're doing it still.  

"Gee Stephen!  I had no idea there was a common humanity!"...  "Wow! Are you saying humans err AND misjudge one another?"

Normal people would consider that sentence to be an awkward thing to say.  They say (to themselves), 'why did he just say that... yet again'

SAI2 wrote:

So please don't panic.

It's okay, Stephen, I think I can do this.

SAI2 wrote:

I appreciated your response very much

I'm very glad you appreciated my response.  It would have been so much easier for you had you stopped writing at that point.  And all the points that you decide to take more steps to clarify the obvious.

SAI2 wrote:

and was not suggesting in any way that you might likely betray our trust in some passive aggressive cruel way.

"To the moon , Alice".