Might a gloss on the word 'trennung' be provided for the non-German speakers?
Are you implying that the reason x doesn't like the girl because she's fat?
Parting, cutting off, disconnection, secession, abscission, detachment, segregation, separation, divisiveness, division, and disunion are also given by my dictionary.
I heard about the post linked, but hadn't read it. They really will let just anybody write things on the internet, won't they?
x. traplnel's query, on another hand, disproves itself.
On the other hand, if you want to feel inferior to an idiot, read this.
8. You know, one day when he least expects it, we will get that jerk.
As long as you do it in a cliched manner.
I think I may have figured out who your IM correspondent was.
7: well, I think you can solve these issues (what to do, and the issue of whether one choice is the feminist one) by asking yourself two simple questions: first, is it a normal human reaction to enjoy being strung along by somebody who doesn't particularly respect you, and second, are women human?
are women human?
Not as cut and dried an answer as you might think, mortal.
12: More accurately, the second question would be, "Are women normal humans?"
Sigh. Way to end the discussion, Sifu. But yes, you're right. As I told Ben, I don't really have any doubt about what I ought to do; I was thinking, rather, that this might provoke worthwhile BSing about the nature of unspoken obligations in relationships, propriety in breakups, and other sundry topics.
I was going to say "What would you want someone to do for you in this situation?" but Sifu said it better.
Also, does she know about THS lady? Would that change her feelings/interpretation of your relationship?
(I think I'm tracking the pseud/recent activities correctly; apologies if I'm not.)
"What would you want someone to do for you in this situation?"
Hook me up with one of their hot friends.
16: Also, does she know about THS lady?
No, but I believe she knows that there have been such things; the original conversation was, as I recall, reasonably, painfully explicit about anti-monogamy, &c. But, again, adverse posession, the claims of time, &c.
There will certainly be a conversation, no later than shortly after next Wednesday's Frightened Rabbit concert to which she has bought us both tickets. I'm fairly sure it needs to be a pure breakup conversation.
Well, OK, Sifu and Witt are right. GOLDEN RULE FTW.
On the other hand, I wonder how much total global sex would decline if people stopped stringing along folks they don't particularly respect. 30%? 50%?
Hook me up with one of their hot friends
You can be my wingman anytime.
Thank god I'm not drunk enough to comment in the states' rights thread, or you would all be sorry. And learn something.
Adverse possession? What's that, now?
Wait but what if he's her Mr. Big?* What if Miranda** and Samantha*** are telling her he's just in it for the sex, but Charlotte**** convinces her she might as well stick it out in case it's true love that just hasn't blossomed yet?
*Herr Gross
**Lotte
***Helmwige
****Gisela
No, obvs, what Sifu said in 12.
This is so on topic to my life these days that I'm going to have to come out of lurking.
It's not being applied to me (happily paired) but a couple of guys that I know are doing the 'I don't want a relationship but I'll just keep sleeping with you and hanging out with you' thing in my social circle and it's driving me crazy.
It comes off as very selfish. You (not you specifically x.) know what you want and you know what she wants. You cannot give her what she wants so break up. Then find a nice girl who wants what you want. If you can't find a girl who wants the same things, well thems the breaks but for heaven's sake, you know that this specific girl doesn't want this so just move on and let her alone so she can find someone else.
Plus sex with people you respect (or at least ones you can talk to/laugh with) is way, way more fun.
We need to get one of trapnel's paramours in her to talk about his physical gifts and/or mental shortcomings.
22: I thought Wikipedia entries were incorporated by reference, but, ok, it was kind of metaphorical:
As much as it pains my anarchist heart to admit, obligations can arise without voluntary consent, and the concern is that romantic relationships are one area where that happens. In particular, a claim that one isn't ready for a relationship may be eroded by sufficient time elapsing during which one behaves in a boyfriendish manner.
24: Gah. Yes. You're right. I know. After the concert, I swear. Let's talk abstractly and generally now! Love! Obligation! &c.!
Adverse possession? What's that, now?
If you hold someone's genitalia for seven years, and do it in such a way that they'd have to notice if they cared about their genitals at all, you own them.
||
This ended, after six weeks, with a yolk sac but no fetal pole, and Mrs. Fillmore's D&C today. The Fillmore White House is a grey one today.
|>
Adverse possession? What's that, now?
Actually I think in this case it is entirely appropriate that x is metaphorically using property rights to describe a relationship with a woman. Because he's a feminist.
I agree with 24 until the last paragraph. Sex with uninteresting people, depending on other factors, can be totally worth a few minutes of conversation about The King of Queens. It occupies a different place in life, but...yeah.
||
What the holy fucking Christ is going on over at C. Timber? FFS.
>
29. That happened to my first wife and me, and it sucks. Not as much as Natilo's friend's tragedy, but nevertheless, condolences for what might have been.
Thesis: "I don't want a relationship but I'll just keep sleeping with you and hanging out with you" is rarely an affirmative, positive, clearly held desire. That is, it is not in fact a positive preference for most anyone and thus an extraordinarily difficult relationship status to acheive through nonproblematic mutual consent.
Rather, this state is almost always an uncomfortable and undesired default, the result of a precarious, and unstable oscillation between two simultaneously-held desires: "I would really like a relationship, but not with you" and "I just want to get laid tonight, and you work well enough for that."
33: The McArdle-baiting, or something else?
Thanks, all. (And don't think I don't know that a miscarriage diversion twenty-nine comments into a sex thread is just the very height of netiquette. As you were.)
You (not you specifically x.) know what you want and you know what she wants. You cannot give her what she wants so break up.
No, you know what you want, and you're guessing at what she wants.
I don't understand the calls to break up. Roughly, you owe it to her to (1) tell her honestly what you want in the (non-)relationship, and (2) break up with her if you're unhappy with the state of things. You don't owe it to her to break up with her if you suspect that she might secretly be unhappy about the state of things (although you probably owe her a conversation about that suspicion). If you've said you don't want a relationship, but you'd be happy to keep up the casual sex, and she says "great", I don't see the obligation to break things off just because you suspect she might be longing for more.
OTOH, I'd probably call things off with her just because I found her unattractive and uninteresting. That's certainly a good reason, and if you're unhappy spending so much time with her for that reason, then by all means call things off. But if you're not unhappy about it, then don't.
Really sorry to hear it, President Fillmore.
"I don't want a relationship but I'll just keep sleeping with you and hanging out with you" and "I just want to get laid tonight, and you work well enough for that" aren't incompatible.
Very sorry to hear that Fillmore. Condolences.
29: How awful, Millard. I'm so sorry.
33: It is the kind of thing that could use a good penis joke or the kind of thing where they get all upset.
26: Ah. Yes, certainly. I'd never encountered the term. Such a notion isn't alien to anarchism, I don't think.
urple's 40 says some other things I'd thought to say.
40 is eloquently channeling the small voice inside me that I'd taken for cowardice, but which might be on to something. Hmmm.
And jesus, Fillmore, my sympathies. That's awful. Ugh.
I'm interested in learning the amount of editorial clean-up that went into that IM transcript. If it was none I'm incredulous.
So sorry Fillmore.
I think that this bit "You don't owe it to her to break up with her if you suspect that she might secretly be unhappy about the state of things" is the part that annoys me. I'm not sure if I can articulate exactly why. Partially it's about downplaying non-verbal signs (does x's verbal statement that he doesn't want a relationship trump acting like a boyfriend (if he is)? Is she acting like she's unhappy without coming out and saying it?). But maybe you're not saying that. It also seems like a bit of a dodge - like she didn't SAY anything so you can treat her however. But it's more complicated than that.
There is a tendency (I think) for women to be afraid of asking for a relationship with a guy because asking can be seen as needing too much. Like you don't want to be that woman who is putting so much pressure on things so you just cross your fingers.
I don't know why I'm identifying with the women in these situations so much. I was much more of a sleep and run, never to talk to them again, person when I didn't want a relationship.
12 in particular seems way over the top. Or, at least, is using the phrase "strung along" very differently than I would. Now, perhaps x. is being dishonest or self-delusional about the clarity of his communication with her. (I doubt it, since he's analysing it here, but it certainly couldn't hurt to renew the conversation.)
The part that I couldn't really tell from the IM exchange is whether you'd be happier staying or going? I mean, if you'd be happier going, and the only question is "should I?", then the answer is trivial. If you'd be happier staying, though (which, again, given the uninterestingness of her, seems odd to me, but whatever), then I think you just need to be sure she understands where you're coming from on this, and if she's fine with it, then it's fine.
"If you've said you don't want a relationship, but you'd be happy to keep up the casual sex, and she says "great", I don't see the obligation to break things off just because you suspect she might be longing for more.
I suspect that the problem is that Trapnel both (a) doesn't think that his partner is capable of either understanding or fully expressing her real views on this issue and (b) he is worried that he himself may be caused, for sentimental or other reasons, to become increasingly emotionally ensnared if the relationship continues.
IMO, it is very, very difficult to maintain the ongoing casual sex thing with a single person for an extended period of time without emotional complication. It requires maintaining a fairly precarious balance that few have the intestinal fortitude to pull off -- and two people need to have that kind of fortitude to make the thing work.
Mr. and Mrs. Fillmore, I'm so sorry.
52: just using it in the normal idiomatic way. How do you use it?
Let me back up: if you're fairly sure she's unhappy with the current state of things, and that she'd really prefer things be broken off (if you're not going to "love her back"), and that the only reason she's not leaving is because of emotional immaturity (not sure that's phrase I'm looking for?) on her part, then sure, maybe it makes sense for you to (paternalistically) be the grown-up in the relationship and just end things. But if she seems like a stable person, and seems happy with the way things are going, then not. I'm guessing things are closer to the former than the latter, or you wouldn't have asked the question.
Or, at least, is using the phrase "strung along" very differently than I would.
Why? Mr X tells her nothing can come of it and she answers that one never knows what the future will bring. She's clearly hopeful for a future change rather than in love with the status quo. Mr X tells us that he can't even imagine having a substantive conversation with her and that he doesn't find her attractive. Mr X really does know that the future is not going to bring anything that Fraulein Y would delight in.
I'm interested in learning the amount of editorial clean-up that went into that IM transcript. If it was none I'm incredulous.
There were 6 lines cleanly cut, and that was it.
The part that I couldn't really tell from the IM exchange is whether you'd be happier staying or going? I mean, if you'd be happier going, and the only question is "should I?", then the answer is trivial. If you'd be happier staying, though (which, again, given the uninterestingness of her, seems odd to me, but whatever)
These were two of them:
(The other factor: I don't exactly have all that many friends [here].)
(Let alone sex partners.)
So. Someone to spend pleasant time with, watch movies with, cuddle with, dance with, have nice sex with, is hardly something to be blithely cast aside. I like spending time with her, but I'm rather concerned about the more-than-occasional signals of more-into-me-than-vice-versa.
I mean, if x. trapnel thought he could say "listen, I told you I'm not ready for a relationship, and I'm not, but I'm also specifically not interested in a relationship with you, because I don't find you that interesting, but I'm happy enough to have somebody in my bed, so if you want to keep having sex on those terms, I would do that", well, so much the more honest. But if he isn't willing to tell her things that he's willing to tell the internet about her, he certainly seems to be exploiting an asymmetry to his own modest benefit and her (quite possibly modest) loss.
55: involving an element of deceipt (possibly unintentional, though more often intentional).
I'm not really sure was deceipt is (intentional witholding of evidence of a transaction?) but see 59.
And, again: the last year I've felt unable to get out of bed perhaps 3 days out of 7. So, I should really have italicized the cuddle with, cuz that's doing a lot of the work in that sentence, what with the self-loathing.
"what deceipt is". Always with the typos in the attempts at little bitchery, that Sifu.
I don't see the obligation to break things off just because you suspect she might be longing for more.
Well, there's the question of self-respect.
I mean, if x. trapnel thought he could say "listen, I told you I'm not ready for a relationship, and I'm not, but I'm also specifically not interested in a relationship with you, because I don't find you that interesting, but I'm happy enough to have somebody in my bed, so if you want to keep having sex on those terms, I would do that", well, so much the more honest.
What if he just cut it to "listen, I told you I'm not ready for a relationship, and I'm not, but ... I'm happy enough to have somebody in my bed, so if you want to keep having sex on those terms, I would do that"? That seems good enough to me. And I thought that's what he'd told her. (And, if he has doubts about the extent to which she understood: he should tell her again.) If he's told her less than that, then yeah, he ows that to her.
But that still leaves open the "maybe someday, when he's ready for a relationship again." Which isn't going to happen.
65: so he has no obligation to share the fact that his feelings for her, in particular, are not relationship-y, even outside of any internal unreadiness he might suffer from?
I'm still feeling fairly comfortable with my deployment of idiom above.
66/67: Okay, change "not ready for a relationship" to "fundamentally against monogamy".
It sounds to me like the big problem is that Trapnel is worried about becoming emotionally dependent on someone he doesn't really anticipate liking or respecting all that much. Which he thinks, probably rightly, is likely to end badly, in a painful confrontation for both him and the woman, if he doesn't act preemptively now. That seems like a totally valid concern, and deeply tied into the self-respect issue.
People delude themselves in relationships all the time. It's what makes the world go round. Clearly the crux of the matter is that she watched an entire season of King of Queens. Cut her loose.
I mean, look, I'm agreeing you have to be clear with her. I just think "I don't find you that interesting" is perhaps unnecessarily cruel. How about: "Listen, I told you I'm fundamentally against monogamy, and if I were ever going to settle down with someone, I don't really think you'd be my type. But I'm happy enough to have somebody in my bed, so if you want to keep having sex on those terms, I would do that." Does that work?
I hope x.trapnel is at least using this woman to practice his German. It's the best way, they say: Deutsch horizontal gelernt.
"Honey, you make actual, notorious, exclusive, continuous, hostile, and open use of my heart."
58: There were 6 lines cleanly cut, and that was it.
Wow, that's the way you guys text? That is far weirder and more interesting than anything in the content.
52: If you'd be happier staying, though (which, again, given the uninterestingness of her, seems odd to me
This is the part I don't really understand either.
That said, there are a million reasons we tend to stay with someone even after we've realized we're really not very interested. In my experience, it's a function of laziness (of whatever sort), fear (of, say, being alone or of hurting the person), or more likely, and a variant of the fear, a liking for being-in-a-relationship. A given person has to identify which, if any, it is. Put together two people who really like being-in-a-relationship, and you get behavior that's boyfriendish when perhaps it shouldn't be.
The degree to which you're genuinely interested in the other person kind of has to be the motivating factor in making a move.
On preview, x.'s 62 and 58 clarify some things, but I post this anyway. I'd say: just talk to her about it. The language barrier is a problem, it would seem. Or is it a feature?
Come on, what urple said. How obtuse does someone have to be to respond to "I'm fundamentally against monogamy" with "who knows that the future will bring". You know! He just fucking told you!
71: so wait, telling her what he thinks of her is more cruel than not telling her what he thinks of her and still sleeping with her? Just to check, this is the option that's less paternalistic, yeah?
71 was me. And, btw, I don't disagree with 69, which I was lumping under the heading "if x. would prefer to leave". I mean, again, if you think you're better off breaking things off, the question is trivial: do it.
All that aside, trapnel should still break up with her because she sounds crazy.
...I'm rather concerned about the more-than-occasional signals of more-into-me-than-vice-versa.
It happens, but it isn't anybody's fault or a threat to anybody's integrity to continue a relationship after such an imbalance has been observed. The behavior to beware is treating an otherwise presumedly nice person -- who wants to be happy, like everybody -- unpleasantly or cavalierly because occupying the superior position in an unbalanced relationship makes one uncomfortable or embarrassed.*
* Regard this advice with the skepticism due the thoughts on love of a man whose personal life can best be described as depressingly failed.
OT: The new Sherlock series from Teabagland, now on PBS, is no less crappy than any other television artifact in which the sight of young people texting is supposed to stand for something. The movie with Tony Stark, billionaire playboy, Robert Downey, Jr., as Holmes wasn't all that great but the costumes looked terrific and I much prefer a louche, bohemian Holmes to the Ambassador from Aspergersylvania that this series proposes. The best Holmes, of course, was the late Jeremy Brett, whose Holmes was both Victorian-proper and bohemian, obsessive and melancholy, cool and quick to anger, and occasionally indicating the possibility of past, lost love rather than the lack of interest in women that for some reason is supposed to make the character interesting to modern audiences.
Also, British actors are pale. I don't object to this, but they really ought to try to get at least a little sun.
a function of laziness (of whatever sort), fear (of, say, being alone or of hurting the person), or more likely, and a variant of the fear, a liking for being-in-a-relationship
I'd bring all those issues under the larger tent of self-respect as well.
Ah, now, here we're getting the kind of arguments I was hoping for when I IM'd neB. (IMming, JP S., not texting; I certainly don't text like that on my non-qwerty phone!)
I think the only real question is whether The Conversation is to be a real talk, or a declaration of ending-things. Because, re: 71, whether or not reprinting this thread is more/less paternalistic, it's definitely crueler in the sense of intentionally inflicting pain; I can't just say 'You're not very interesting.'
So.
[Ok. It being 3am here, bedtime. But carry on, please! Also, I'm considering growing a beard, partly because I think I left my razor in the Netherlands--what do you think?]
there are a million reasons we tend to stay with someone even after we've realized we're really not very interested
This is right, but there still remain few good reasons to do so. If the relationship is temporally bounded by something like one of the parties moving, then sure, stay with the person the extra month or whatever until the 'natural' breakup point. But x.trapnel just moved back there for a year!
80: Stephen Fry is playing Mycroft in the sequel! (The RDJr one)
I think the only real question is whether The Conversation is to be a real talk, or a declaration of ending-things.
I'd vote for just ending things. But I am working off of the (possibly totally innaccurate and in any event extraordinarily presumptuous) view I expressed in 69, which is that your fears are as much about your own reactions as hers.
84: I loved him as Jeeves, but I hope he doesn't go too arch. I've always thought of Mycroft as the depressive to Sherlock's obsessive.
Beard! I'm going as a Freudian slip (did someone here mention that costume?) just so I can wear a fake beard.
Also, I'm considering growing a beard, partly because I think I left my razor in the Netherlands--what do you think?
When I worked at Fulbright in Berlin, a recently arrived American exchange professor called the office distraught because he hadn't brought a razor with him. He had no idea what to do. Wanted to know if he could buy a razor in Germany.
Wanted to know if he could buy a razor in Germany.
Tell him to join one of those student dueling societies.
86: Well, he's a real-life depressive. Maybe that will help. I have great faith in him (but boggle at the idea that he and wee RDJr could be brothers).
"Listen, I told you I'm fundamentally against monogamy, and if I were ever going to settle down with someone, I don't really think you'd be my type. But I'm happy enough to have somebody in my bed, so if you want to keep having sex on those terms, I would do that."
Oh this should help: Consulting Wikipedia's guide to the victorian language of flowers, you need to give her a bouquet including lime blossom, aconite, striped carnations, hydrangea, lemon blossom, morning glory, and whatever flower means "fundamentally against monogamy." If I remember my Shakespeare right, I think it goes something like "there's rosemary--that's for polyamory. I pray you, pal, don't get too attached."
29: Very sorry, too much grief today.
those student dueling societies
x.trapnel is in the right place for it.
IMming, JP S., not texting
Ah, right. You kids. Still ...
...and whatever flower means "fundamentally against monogamy."
"Maidens call it love-in-idleness." (Puck, I think, referring to the posy. Isn't aconite monkshood? Someone call Brother Cadfael!)
whatever flower means "fundamentally against monogamy."
The pudendron aka Hairy Alpine Rose.
I went to this New Delhi restaurant a couple of years ago. It was OK.
||
Think Progress, please look up the definition of "trespass".
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/10/27/democrat-arrested-cantor/
|>
To the folks who can't imagine staying with someone less interesting and/or less attractive for the sex, well, there's clearly a gender difference there.
I have stayed with a not-very-interesting-or-attractive partner for too long because a) the sex was fantastic and b) she was a genuinely good person and I felt like I should want to stay together.
100: And she broke your ankles when you tried to leave.
To the folks who can't imagine staying with someone less interesting and/or less attractive for the sex
Wait, what folks are those? I don't think anybody who comments on unfogged can be too unfamiliar with the concept of spending time with people you find unattractive and/or boring.
HEYOH!
Someone to spend pleasant time with, watch movies with, cuddle with, dance with, have nice sex with, is hardly something to be blithely cast aside.
Sigh. In every dream home, a heartache.
No, but seriously folks, I would be surprised if less than a majority of the people in this thread hadn't stayed with somebody longer than they should because, hey, free sex.
89: The obvious solution would be for x.trapnel to find, as expeditiously as possible, someone with whom he *is* interested in a relationship, and then dump the first girl for her.
It sounds as though the barely getting out of bed 4 days out of 7 per week might be a problem there.
I understand what x. is saying, I think: he's leaning on her cuddling, knows he shouldn't given the NO FUTURE aspect of things, and he's looking for an excuse to continue in this vein anyway. And it's true, sometimes you gotta lean on people; but only if they understand that that's what you're doing.
The Conversation should probably be a real breakup in light of the fact that she's delighted to be yammering on about King of Queens; does she ever ask how you are, x.trapnel? On the other hand, if she's okay with being leaned on, well -- okay, never mind. I'm not sure you can continue with this in good conscience.
33: I know. I don't get it, but it's really a bit much.
Also, I think 12 gets it exactly right.
The Conversation should probably be a real breakup in light of the fact that she's delighted to be yammering on about King of Queens....
"Schatzi, your yammering has become tiresome."
102: We should all list how attractive our current partner is. Plus our salary.
107: Now that makes me feel bad, Flip. I just meant that x. said that he doesn't find it very interesting, and thinks she's just obsessed with NYC. Of course, some people are wedded to sports fans. Go figure.
104 gets it right.
Sifu in this thread is ON FIRE
Actually, I feel uncomfortable calling him Sifu. He's not my master.
Speaking of attractiveness, I occasionally fancy myself as an adherent of function over style. Then Dad shows up in that straw hat...
http://www.kcet.org/socal/departures/lariver/the-narrows/sabrina-drill-jonathan-baskin-camm-swift.html
On a compassionate personal level, the urge not to break up with someone who gives you comfort and solace -- and sex -- is not hard to understand.
But even leaving that aside, there's a question of how you're going to feel about it [later]. Hydrobatidae is getting at some important things with his/her comments above:
There is a tendency (I think) for women to be afraid of asking for a relationship with a guy because asking can be seen as needing too much. Like you don't want to be that woman who is putting so much pressure on things so you just cross your fingers.
Right. This relationship isn't happening in a vacuum. It's happening in a culture where women often face significant pressure not to be "clingy" or "pushy" or "needy" and to recognize that "guys sometimes need time to grow up." Not to mention the prevalence of the "Someday my prince will come but he might look like a bad boy or even like someone who thinks he doesn't want to settle down but if I really really like him and hang on, then maybe he will see the light and declare True Love."
Now, maybe none of this is going on. Maybe a totally different set of cultural scripts is playing out. I don't have any firm opinion one way or another -- I don't think we know enough about this woman's character to gauge. I'm basing this purely on *how I think I might feel if I were in this situation and suspecting that the partner was harboring hopes that I knew were delusional.*
Wait a minute, what am I saying? I've been there. Granted, it was a decade-plus ago. Horrible experience. I felt sufficiently bad about myself that by the end I was nauseated every time we went out. Yeah, not fun.
I don't think anybody who comments on unfogged can be too unfamiliar with the concept of spending time with people you find unattractive and/or boring.
I'm pretty certain I've never dated an unfogged commenter.
Someone married a commenter. Who was that?
This relationship isn't happening in a vacuum.
Was that kiss for love or to get the last oxygen?
I don't think it's nice to have sex with people you find sexually unattractive. If there's one thing having sex with someone should be able to communicate, it's that you want to have sex with them. And yet I feel like every guy I know has some story about basically being *forced* on a regular basis to stick it in some woman he finds totally un-arousing. What's even sadder is when I have to meet this woman and all she wants to talk about is her diet plan, some new clothes she wants to buy, her frustratingly bad hair, how stupid she feels, etc. Girl, it is possible to find someone who at least enjoys fucking you. Dude, it is possible to find someone who at least makes you want to fuck them. Jesus Christ.
Maybe a totally different set of cultural scripts is playing out.
Indeed. It seems like we should consider the possibility that this woman has no desires of her own, and sees her role in life as propping up the damaged self-confidence of a thoughtful but somewhat dissolute American traveling overseas to find himself. If he doesn't let things play out until he reaches the conclusion of his redemptive arc, isn't he obviating her entire reason for being? That would be a shame.
Oh, cultural scripts. Not movie scripts. Totally my bad.
114: I can think of at least two people.
Wait, I can think of four people.
Or wait, I can think of way more people than that.
I am so sorry for Mr. & Mrs. Fillmore. That is very difficult to go through. AS for x.trapnel: break up with the lady in question. You are doing her no favors. You think she is falling in love with you, but you find her neither attractive nor interesting. Also if she likes to dance and you are European, you have an unfair advantage over her. Most American men who like to have sex with women don't dance very well. I can see you are trying to drum up support here by outing her as a "King of Queens" aficionado- but that's a little below the belt, no? Do the right thing, you know what that is. Also as a warning: I am told that people can fall in love with people that they feel superior too- some kind of narcissism no doubt- so watch out for that.
I don't think it's nice to have sex with people you find sexually unattractive.
I have heard that one before.
112: Horrible experience. I felt sufficiently bad about myself that by the end I was nauseated every time we went out.
Something like that, yes. As time and years have gone on, I tend to cut things off before they get to that point. When someone I'm involved with does it to me, that is, cuts it off because he feels certain that for whatever reason (and it might just be a problem of geographical distance or age difference), it cannot work, I can only respect that.
117 is brought to you by my earliest instruction in relationship theory from my mother. All romantic relationships must be based on mutual sexual desire. If you are not mutually sexually attracted to someone, for God's sake, just be friends--or enemies, strangers, whatever.
Also, "it's not you, it's me. Me not being attracted to you."
"You're breaking into a vending machine on a date?" is another example of the sorts of things you hear at the end.
117: Girl, it is possible to find someone who at least enjoys fucking you. Dude, it is possible to find someone who at least makes you want to fuck them.
Sidebar to note that in the best of all possible worlds, people fuck each other together, or, better yet, have sex or make love, but that's a terminological difference.
OH BABY LET ME MAKE LOVE TO YOU IN THE BEST OF ALL POSSIBLE WORLDS.
126: "I don't think Slim Jims count as 'dinner out', no."
One of the lines excised from the transcript consisted of my declaration that I wouldn't post the transcript. (And one might be able to make out the claim that, insofar as I edited what I posted, I didn't post what is in fact the transcript.)
IME, when you're involved with someone who hates having sex with you, you really do have to wait for them to fuck you or else it's rape.
or, better yet, have sex or make love
Oh god. My officemate and I used to say "fake dove" if we were making reference to someone saying "make love" so we wouldn't have to repeat the squickiest phrase in the English language. (The Inuit have no phrase for "make love." I am moving to Inuitia.)
133: We've had this conversation before. I get that "make love" is deprecated in many quarters, and "have sex" is a suitable compromise. I'm not down with the fuck and be fucked arrangement, however.
Now, maybe none of this is going on.
I think every single comment from X that addresses any conduct on the part of the woman indicates that it is going on.
It sounds as though the barely getting out of bed 4 days out of 7 per week might be a problem there.
Regardless of the girl, this is a big problem. Therapy, meds, exercise, meditation... All of these can help. Trying to make good choices when you are that depressed is asking an awful lot of yourself.
the fuck and be fucked arrangement
I mean, unless that's specifically what the two parties are doing on that occasion, which is fine.
I'm not down with the fuck and be fucked arrangement, however.
Jesus fucking Christ. I've been waiting in this closet for like five goddamn months and now she tells me.
Reading some of what I skipped (I'M WRITING TODAY), I want to "like" 92.
135: Ok, sorry to flog an archival horse.
I liked 133 very much. It makes me want to hide a speaker in smearcase's house and play the full 70s singer-songwriter oeuvre at him. Sometimes when we touch the honesty's too much . . .
Who's fakin' dove to your o'grady whiiiile you're out wan the frown?
I don't really see what's so awful about "make love".
145 takes on whole new shades of meaning if read in a comically thick russian accent.
145: You can't use any non-dairy topping or ball gags.
Goddamn it, Moby. I was going to make some love later, but recipe I found online must be wrong.
145: Neither do I, as will have become obvious. But really, didn't we have a huge argument about this before, maybe more than once? Anyway, when a friend writes to me about a new lover he's been pining for that they 'made love all night long,' I think that's just wonderful, and I find it pretty joyful and excellent. The kids these days say "awesome."
"We fucked all night long" just doesn't have the same ring to it. "He fucked me all night long" sounds like an exciting exercise, maybe a little exhausting, but at least Led Zeppelin went for "you shook me."
145 GETS IT EXACTLY RIGHT.
Sidebar to note that in the best of all possible worlds, people fuck each other together, or, better yet, have sex or make love, but that's a terminological difference
Or a personal preference. Variety is the spice, etc.
145: Well, it sounds cheesy, and it makes people think of Paul Anka and various other troubadours of 1970s and early 1980s AM radio. But other than that, sure, no problem.
(Other terms sound a bit rude, admittedly. But I think I prefer earthiness over cheesiness. Though I'll probably just change the subject to food or politics).
Meyer lemons: worth the extra expense?
153.last: You can put less sugar in your lemon curd that way IYKWIMAITYD.
If you're dealing with depression keeping company with someone who wants you to be who you are not is profoundly destructive.
Also I endorse pretty much everything AWB and Fleur say upthread.
150.last: I'm reasonably sure Muddy Waters, recording in 1962, would have been causing himself more problems than just your disapprobation had he recorded the song "You Fucked Me".
You can roll me, parsimon, just like they roll the wagon wheel, way down in the country.
153.last: You can put less sugar in your lemon curd that way IYKWIMAITYD.
But I thought you wanted a little sugar in your curd?
Then there's Cee-Lo's smash hit of this past summer "Make Love To You".
I should delete 158 out of shame, but instead I will leave it up, so that I am constantly reminded that even I can fall.
Parsimon, I think you can blame my generation's hatred of "making love" on this song.
I associate the phrase "make love" with people who came of age between 1955 and 1975. This may be unfair.
This song would be absolutely, hilariously improved if "making love" was replaced with "fucking".
The most useful euphemism for "fucking", obviously, is "doin' it".
I blame 157 for putting "Wagon Wheel" in my head. Can you get rid of an earworm by giving it to strangers on the Internet?
Every couple should have their own cutesy euphemism that they can giggle about in public. "We should landscape all weekend... "
Besides being totally cheesy, the euphemism "make love" doesn't even make much sense. So no love is possible without sex because it must be made by having sex?
the euphemism "make love" doesn't even make much sense. So no love is possible without sex because it must be made by having sex?
Maybe this is why I have so little trouble pitching woo—I need to get the woo first.
Where does one do that?
Blume and I are gonna be "commenting on unfogged" allll niiight.
However, among things people said in 1968, "make love" is better than "ball".
175 gets it so, so right. "I'm going to ball my old lady."
158: You make your own lemon curd? I salute you.
I have a jar of chichi-labelled lemon curd that sits idle upon a shelf, silently mocking my intentions, or perhaps my pretensions. I had meant to make one of those lovely bakery-style tarts, with a shortbread crust, a lemon filling, and a fresh fruit (strawberries or blueberries, I thought) topping. But the season came and went, and the lemon curd still sits there unused, and the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I should probably just open the jar and spread its contents upon toast for my son, who loves lemon so much that he will eat the garnish (peel, seeds, and all) off the plate at a diner or restaurant.
161 ff.: Sure, goony songs that make use of the phrase have rendered the phrase goony to some ears. And in turn, "fucking" sounds excessively mechanical and/or slightly violent to my ear, although it accurately describes what we do sometimes in bed, but not all the times.
As I said, "have sex" works fine as a compromise. I'm not saying that "make love" is appropriate for all descriptive occasions; not at all. But nor is "fuck."
So several sources say "make love" was originally a translation of "faire l'amour" and simply meant to court or flirt. But wouldn't a better translation be to "do love"?
177: It's easy! And when you know how easy it is, you won't treat it like anything special anymore. Lemon curd on toast, lemon curd in crepes, lemon curd on cake...
175, 176: Why is "fuck" better than "ball"?
Sounds like something you do primarily with your balls, I guess. I'm against it. Also, fuck is more gender-neutral. I can fuck girls or guys, and can get fucked by girls or guys. Or if you prefer, I can make fuck with girls or guys.
"Ball" is associated for me with old, gross, lecherous male hippies. Think the guy on the commune with the dirty beard who would grope the 14 year old girls.
The Vialka album Tonight I Show You Fuck isn't fantastic or anything, but its name is great.
I can make fuck with girls or guys.
For some reason, this sounds to me like the chorus of an empowering, upbeat kids song.
"I can make fuck with girls or guys, I can jump up high in the sky."
I can make fuck with girls or guys.
Let's get to work on this one.
"I can make fuck with girls or guys, I can jump up high in the sky."
Then wear the gold hat, if that will move her;
If you can make fuck, make fuck with her too,
Till she cry "Lover, gold-hatted, fuck-making lover,
I must ball you!"
If Henry's alternating hair-tearing and spitting at McMegan over on CT wasn't giving me a laughing fit, 189 does. Is. I mean, correct for grammatical errors there.
Mary Catherine: This is the recipe I used, though I used a microplane for the zest. 10 minutes and done, and you end up with a lot of lemon curd.
"Would you like some making fuck BERSERKER"
"Did he say making fuck?"
when a friend writes to me about a new lover
I'm not particularly agin "make love", but I don't think I say it. ("Bumping uglies" for me, natch.) But "lover"? Totally a trigger for the SNL skit.
at least Led Zeppelin went for "you shook me."
Bad Company felt like making love. (But bad company usually does.)
For some reason, this sounds to me like the chorus of an empowering, upbeat kids song.
(Pwned, but with value added)
("Bumping uglies" for me, natch.)
What, not "knockin' boots"?
What? You kids don't even like "lover"? What the hell do you say for anything anymore? It's amazing you're even able to say anything at all!
What the hell do you say for anything anymore?
"Slampiece".
What the hell do you say for anything anymore?
"Dude" and "awesome"; "awesome dude" if you're sexually active.
Not to bitch, but God, what an incredibly depressing day this has been.
201: At least the Giants beat the Rangers.
If I get to the point in a relationship that I'd not be ashamed to use a form of the word "love," I no longer define them exclusively by the fact that we have sex. "Lover" strikes me as too intimate for someone I'm not in an emotional partnership with, and not intimate enough for someone I care about.
It sounds a bit much like "This is the person I make love with." If you're making love, hopefully that's not the entire substance of your relationship.
204: I'm not suggesting, apropos of the numerous other threads we've had here arguing over what to call a, erm, lover (boyfriend/girlfriend/partner/etc.), that "lover" is the preferred term.
Just that a sentence from a friend like "I have a new lover -- the woman I've told you about. We finally got together, and ... [stuff about what happened] and we made love all night" doesn't strike me as a weird or icky way of stating things at all, but quite natural in describing something that was heartfelt.
If you start dating one of the guys from Lethal Weapon, you can technically say, "I have a new Glover," but it sounds pretty weird.
"Lover" is spoiled by a too-close association with sex which makes it creepy in ordinary use. Also, there's the whole married woman taking a lover thing. And that crappy Marguerite Duras book/soft porn film.
And I know Parsi will hate me for this, but come on. No decent man would ever say "I have a new lover to whom I just made love." TMI, and creepily conveyed. One is supposed to keep these things unsaid.
No, a decent man would use the correct preposition.
"I have a new Glover,"
Maybe if Crispin dumped you earlier.
191: Eh, even before I clicked on that link, I was thinking Ina Garten.
AWB = the Barefoot Contessa of Unfogged!
(How the hell does Ina's husband Jeffrey make his money, anyhow? I mean, he seems like such a teddy bear, who loves baked goods and "perfect baked chicken," but have you seen that new addition to their house in the Hamptons!? That's some serious Wall Street cash flow, I have to suspect).
I just assumed she made the money that paid for that addition. (Are we talking the barn?) After all, she films things there, it is shown off in magazine lay-outs, and it is great product placement.
206: Oh. Well, apparently.
207: I don't hate you for it, Halford, I just don't understand it. It's not TMI when coming from a good and close friend about whom you care.
211: Wow, her husband is more interesting than I would have thought, but yes, it looks like serious Wall Street money according to his wiki bio.
Maybe if Crispin dumped you earlier.
True. And, really, I'd be showing off my home state's well-known hospitality. "Virginia is for Glovers," as they say.
"I have a new lover to whom I just made love."
I can only hear that delivered in these voices, so it's hard to take seriously.
I could only hear it in different but equally repulsive voices.
I'm far too impatient to listen through all the YouTube links that have been posted, but judging from the aspect and voices of the young men linked in 216, what I'm referring to in 205 bears no resemblance whatsoever to whatever people associate with the phrases in question.
Apo's observation about the hippie thing is sobering. Oh, yeah, right. What was I thinking?
You know what's an amazing movie? The Goldiggers of 1933. Including a long antiwar sequence. I am tempted to stay up all night to watch The Goldiggers of 1935 and The Goldiggers of 1937. God bless TCM.
Close tabs. Jesus, this movie is amazing. It's like a sequence of the best MTV videos ever.
Not a big fan of make love, but I'm ok with lover for describing someone you have sex with but which doesn't include a full blown relationship. It sure as hell is better than 'fuck buddy' or 'booty call'. And speaking of shifting meaning terms, at some point in the late seventies or early eighties the Polish word for 'fiance' started to mean gf/bf. I didn't realize this since my Polish was frozen in the late sixties and for a while I was constantly thinking 'you know you really should wait a bit, getting engaged in your teens is way too early'. Still better than the grandchildren of upper class/upper middle class Poles who stayed in the UK after the war; imagine a young person unselfconsciously using Thin Manese or Waughese.
On the OT, you've got the depression thing, you don't want it to get worse and linger. So, given that you've done the minimum in the honesty department, do what is best for yourself.
the Polish word for 'fiance' started to mean gf/bf
Spanish has the reverse problem. In some Latin American countries, novio/a ("boyfriend/girlfriend" in many countries) means the equivalent of "fiancé/fiancée". In Chile they use pololo/a for "boyfriend/girlfriend", which usage I support, because at least it's fun to say. And dating should be fun.
Not to mention it's certainly an improvement over prometido/a ("promised one") which implies you'll be pulling swords from stones or something.
Still better than the grandchildren of upper class/upper middle class Poles who stayed in the UK after the war; imagine a young person unselfconsciously using Thin Manese or Waughese.
I didn't know that, and it's awesome.
216: I can only hear it in the voices of the Fast Show's Tolerant Dutch Policemen.
"Hello there, Captain Stefan van der Haasgracht of the Amsterdam police here. With my partner, and also, I am very happy to say, my lover, Ronald."
Does anybody who speaks better Spanish than me know whether besar has undergone the same semantic shift as French baiser anywhere? This has been worrying me as a potential no-no.
226: Not to my knowledge. In my Spanish-speaking home, it's all besos all the time.
Thanks. That's something of a relief.
My roommate is from Colombia though, so YMMV.
225: I just looked that sketch up, and it's cute, but in my brief time in the Netherlands, I didn't meet even a gas station attendant who spoke English with that thick of an accent. It became sort of a game for my Danish roommate and me to try to find someone who didn't speak perfect English. We couldn't.
230. I encountered one (1) cafe owner in Amsterdam who didn't speak perfect English. On the other hand, I suspect his German was impeccable.
I agree with 40, 56, and 79. (urple and gswift)
Break up with her. There are better, more healthy situations out there.
But, most importantly, did he really ask Ben for dating advice!??!
I havent read the entire thread, but why hasnt that been addressed?
As far as I can tell, all the Dutch soccer experts who get interviewed on soccer podcasts sound exactly like Americans. On the other hand Italian soccer expert Gabriele Marcotti also sounds exactly like an American.
181: Oh, "fuck" is no good either. I've never heard anyone say that straightforwardly without seeming to intend some sort of shock value, along the lines of people who call God "the sky fairy".
193 lover
Apparently I am allergic to this morpheme in any but its unadulterated state. "Lover" always set my teeth on edge. (Was recently discussing terms for sig. other with a friend..."boyfriend" is too letters & sodas; "partner" sounds like their are contracts involved be that legal or Two No Trump; I have settled lately on: manpal.)
Also 189 made me laugh but I have always wished some editor would have pointed out how to Fitzgerald how godawful that little stanza is.
Will, I was asking Ben in his capacity as front-page poster; I was really asking all of you, through him.
And thanks for all of the advice, Mineshaft! I think urple and Parsimon got at the sources of my ambivalence, though part of it is simply that I feel a lot more comfortable acting on others' desires than my own.
(FWIW, Parsimon, I think 'lover' is perfectly appropriate in the context you mention.)
Hm, I should read the whole thread before I post. Anyway, slightly more seriously, "lover" was big among gays during a period I find a little unpleasant to remember (for one thing "making love"* was closely associated with death) so that may explain some of my recoil.
*oh my lovemaking god, I can't believe the number of times I have typed and read that phrase now. I am gonna poke my eyes out. And when I saw AWB had put in a link to music, I assumed it was going to be Air Supply's "Getting Laid (Out of Nothing at All)" and then it wasn't but I WENT AND FOUND THAT AND WATCHED IT ANYWAY because I am love-made in the head.
"Making Love" makes me think of that Harry Hamlin movie.
aaaand I wish Fitzgerald's imaginary editor had fixed that typo but I'm pretty sure everyone trusts I am generally good on their/there/they're.
So let me get this straight: x. has been spending pleasant time with this person, watching movies with her, cuddling with her, dancing with her, and having nice sex with her. Exclusively; that is, no other people involved on x.'s side, nor on the obsessed-with-NYC woman's side as far as x. knows. This has gone on for eight months. There was originally a limit on the period in which they'd live in the same area but that got more than doubled; and if staying with her wasn't a major reason then clearly it wasn't a major obstacle either. And yet x. says he is "fundamentally against monogamy" and "really not ready for a relationship".
I think x. either doesn't understand what the word "relationship" means or is using it in a nonstandard way, because to me it looks like he's in a pretty solid one and has been for a while.
And I'm not being snide about this. (Well, not just being snide.) Sure, be honest with her and don't string her along. But do you prefer your current lifestyle (absent the depression of course, which needs to be dealth with, probably with professional help, and for the record there's nothing wrong with that) to singleness? Are you going to go back to some Emersonian or PUA routine as soon as you no longer need help getting out of bed? Basically, exactly how strongly are you committed to non-committing as a lifestyle choice?
"Lover" and "making love" sound awful to me too; "fuck", when used other than as an expletive, sounds neutral casual, pretty close to 'had sex'. I don't really have a word that I like that fits 'had sex in a beautiful and emotionally important way', largely, I think, because anyone to whom I would want to convey that thought should have been there at the time and can figure it out for themselves.
On the original post and the 'she's not attractive' problem: this is one of those basic disconnects where people are speaking some crazy Martian language. In my world, getting to continue to have sex with someone who isn't attractive is not an incentive -- it's a disincentive. "I would like to continue having sex with this person" is almost tautologically equivalent to "I am attracted to this person/this person is attractive to me." I could see wanting to have sex with someone who wasn't handsome/pretty, but that wouldn't mean they weren't attractive to me, just that my tastes were broad enough to include them.
As far as I can tell, all the Dutch soccer experts who get interviewed on soccer podcasts sound exactly like Americans. On the other hand Italian soccer expert Gabriele Marcotti also sounds exactly like an American
Have I mentioned before my love of Peter Schmeichel's (he's Danish, but why let that spoil the story?) Mancunian accent?
80
and occasionally indicating the possibility of past, lost love rather than the lack of interest in women that for some reason is supposed to make the character interesting to modern audiences.
This is ex recto, but I'll bet that does make the character interesting to modern audiences, because it's so rare. At least in movies. How many movies have romantic subplots shoehorned in for no apparent reason? The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy comes to mind. A minor plot point of a one-sided crush of the book and radio series turned into the driving plot of the movie. And I don't know much about the old Doctor Who, but I gather its fans weren't happy about romantic subtext or text in the new series with companions and the Doctor.
Also to the original post, is this reminding anyone of Wodehouse/no-pants kid, back in the day, wondering whether to have sex with a girl he didn't think much of who seemed interested? I was on the "don't do it" bench mostly because they were teenagers, an age at which full disclosure of something like "I'm not all that personally interested in you, but we could have sex" seems unpleasant.
For adults, though, I don't know that x.trapnel's adverse possession worries are all that reasonable. If there's really been full disclosure of what you're up for, relationship-wise (non-monogamy, no implicit belief that it lasting forever would be on the cards or a good thing), and you're actually enjoying yourself in the moment (if you're not, that's why you break up with her. It's not about saving her feelings, it's because you don't want to spend time with her), it's not clear to me that assuming she doesn't understand or accept your position on what the relationship is makes sense.
Thinking ill of her while you're in a relationship with her is kind of lousy, but if you enjoy the time you spend with her, wouldn't it make sense to work on focusing on what you like about her, rather than breaking up with her because she's imperfect?
Swive is a good word. Gender neutral, transitive and intransitive and it's been out of use long enough to lose any extraneous connotations it may have had.
The guys I went to college with used "ball" as a verb to mean "play basketball", which led to a bunch of straight, mildly homophobic guys routinely asking one another if they wanted to ball.
Fillmores, I'm so sorry for your loss. I hope the procedure goes smoothly and recovery is swift. I'm glad you have each other.
235, 247: there's always "rut-bro".
AWB will be made to pay for putting that song in my head. My a cappella group (of course) performed it, briefly, as a joke, we swear, but the fact is it's kind of awesome.
Really, there's no better line of sung music in the entire Western canon than "And I'll ta-ake my clo-othes off too-oo."
I have always wished some editor would have pointed out how to Fitzgerald how godawful that little stanza is.
Really, that isn't nearly as bad as
"In the fall of '16 in the cool of the afternoon
I met Caroline under a white moon.
There was an orchestra--Bingo-Bango
Playing for to dance the tango.
And the people all clapped as we arose
For her sweet face and my new clothes."
would have pointed out how to Fitzgerald how
Oh dear god. Me speaking my native language, ladies and gents...
I kind of like the awfulness of that stanza. I like imagining there's a longer and even more bizarre poem that it's taken from, in which the hat and the bouncing make sense.
AWB will be made to pay for putting that song in my head.
Watching the video mostly just reminded me how very perfectly done "Dick in a Box" is.
On the original post, I'm with the Golden Rule camp - break up with her. It doesn't sound like she has her eyes wide open in this relationship. Dan Savage's campground rule comes to mind.
255: One likes to imagine a rather sour-expressioned Zelda, during the courtship years, finally snapping "look, I know it's hard figuring out what we womenfolk like and all but the bouncing? Not really working! And the hat just makes you look gay."
some crazy Martian language
Aaand women are from Venus.
Repeated sex with someone you don't like much is documented for both men and women. Google queries "keep going back to him" or "she treats me badly" yield a survey, or cheap entertainment if you're sufficiently cynical.
Musically, the blues is a pretty rich source of both mindsets, though of course it's performance rather than a report of mental state. Nevertheless, both Pat Benatar and Muddy Waters have memorable songs with a key lyric of "I don't want to be your friend" and neither of them are singing about one-night stands, I think.
Or an animated version of Gatsby, in which Gatsby is gold-hatted at all times, and begins to bounce whenever Daisy is in sight.
258: Don't like and aren't attracted to are different things, aren't they? If the complaint in the OP were just that she watched the King of Queens and they'd never had a substantive conversation, but he was staying with her for the sex, that would make sense to me. It's the "I'm not attracted to her, but I'm staying with her for the sex" that loses me completely.
That little stanza has come up before, in various permutations.
It's the "I'm not attracted to her, but I'm staying with her for the sex" that loses me completely.
I imagine this is connected to:
the last year I've felt unable to get out of bed perhaps 3 days out of 7. So, I should really have italicized the cuddle with, cuz that's doing a lot of the work in that sentence, what with the self-loathing.
260
He said "I don't find her all that attractive. " That doesn't mean not attractive, that either means not attractive enough to make up for lack of personality or not attractive enough to show off in public. Given the phrasing, probably the former, but the latter happens far more than anyone would like to admit too.
262: That could be it. In which case he should really get to a doctor for some therapy/drugs and break up with her.
But I've heard similar talk about seeking sex with people who the speaker isn't attracted to from other people in the past (Bear talks about it some above), and I've never understood it at all.
263: Also possible. If that's it, though, I'd want to lobby for not using 'attractive' like that -- a much clearer way to communicate that thought would be something like "While I'm attracted to her, she's not all that pretty."
264: A lot of the time I think the person is just lying. They are attracted, but they don't want to admit to being attracted to someone that doesn't reach some standard of beauty.
260. Simplifies considerably if the depressed trapnel has trouble admitting the attraction to self and others.
By the way, alcohol is bad for bouts of depression, IME at least. Not getting out of bed sounds clinical, get help. trapnel, trouble sleeping? If yes, that's another warning sign.
266: Yeah, that's sort of why I'm grumbling about the usage. There seems something pernicious to me about a systematic confusion between "I am/am not sexually attracted to this person" and "I do/do not believe this person would be considered pretty/handsome by most of my social group."
trapnel is depressed and drinking, unless he's linguistically very unusual, neither diction nor syntax is going to hold up under scrutiny.
I don't get the consternation. There are some people whose attractiveness acts as a magnet that makes you want to have sex with them. Sometimes, the sex might even be bad or unsatisfying, but that doesn't cut into the attractiveness. There are other people whom you want to have sex with because the sex itself is satisfying, even if it isn't compelled by the same sort of magnet of sexual attraction.
From my memories of depression, the thinking can go something like, "I cannot believe I am such a worthless jerk as to care whether my so called friends would think this person attractive, therefore maybe I don't really find them attractive, because why would an attractive person waste time with somebody who is such a worthless jerk as to care..."
But I am not x.
270: But you're still attracted to the second category of person, even if not for exactly the same reason. If given the option, your sexual drives impel you to, you know, move closer to them and start touching them, because you know that the result of doing so will be pleasing. (I'm not exactly sure why I'm saying this in the assumed persona of a sex-robot, but let that pass.) Drawing a sharp distinction between sexual attraction to a person and 'that state of mind which impels one to desire sex with that person' seems really odd to me.
If given the option, your sexual drives impel you to, you know, move closer to them and start touching them, because you know that the result of doing so will be pleasing.
I sometimes feel this way about my right hand, but I wouldn't say I find my hands sexually attractive.
272: Meh, I understand it completely. It's possible to find the physical act of sex enjoyable with someone, because you like they way they move or something like that, but only so long as you're able to not think too hard about what they look like (or who they are in general). It's the "close your eyes and fantasize about someone else" scenario, which is a common enough cultural trope that it shouldn't be totally alien. Being drunk enough to focus on the physical stimulation, rather than your feelings about the person (including both looks and personality), is another alternative. In my experience, for my psychological makeup, these relationships are totally unsustainable, because with time, the less I like looking at them (or thinking about who they are in general), the more that fact is going to rise in salience during sex, and the less the fact that I like the way they touch me is going to compensate. However, I do have experience being on the knife edge where I'm not attracted to the person (i.e., I don't like looking at them, and looking at them doesn't inspire lust) but I do like the sex (i.e., I think they are good kissers; sex feels good physically). I usually have to make a bit of an effort to redirect my attention to the part of the situation that's appealing. When that takes too much effort, I'm off the knife.
Clarifying?
Not getting out of bed sounds clinical, get help.
Well, yes; it's clearly serious, and I am taking antidepressants--and have been, in various formulations, for most of the last 15 years. Currently have only a meds-maintenance psychiatrist here, rather than a therapist, but yes, finding the latter is a high priority.
Remarks about the counterproductivity of drinking are well-taken.
It's the "I'm not attracted to her, but I'm staying with her for the sex" that loses me completely.
What Heebie said in 262. Also: being desired is itself a turn-on, often. I don't see why it's so baffling that one might continue sex (plus cuddling! and movie-watching) with someone one considered fairly 'meh' in pure physical attractiveness-terms, given the rest of the context.
Anyway. Off for the night, I hope--refreshing Unfogged threads like a rat in a crack-addiction experiment probably isn't so healthy for me, either.
274: Okay, that's something I can sort of follow. Maybe I just have a narrower knife-edge than people who conventionally make that distinction -- I can imagine "I have to get drunk and pretend you're someone else, but it still feels good", but I can't quite see it feeling good enough to make sex under those circumstances desirable. I'd end up falling off into either "Come to think of it, I guess I can see your appeal, unconventional though it is" or "I really don't want to be here," one direction or the other.
You should marry her. Immediately. In Virginia.
Do you really care where they marry, as long as they move to your state later on?
No, X. should get her pregnant. Babies typically fix these types of relationships.
The context for this comment is that, as I've mentioned before, all but a couple of my closest friends are women, and even out to the 2nd or 3rd order of friends, I tend to get along better with women, and hear more of their stories and perspectives.
So, with that, I would seriously try to put myself in this woman's shoes and think about her interpretation of this situation. It sounds very likely that the way it has transpired has given her more than a little cause to think that it is a serious relationship, and will continue indefinitely. If that is not the case from x's perspective, which it appears not to be, then the occasional offhand comment about not being into monogamy is probably not enough to overcome the other physical and emotional aspects of what y'all are doing. What is she telling her friends about this? "Oh, there's this guy I've been doing for a few months, but it's nothing serious, even though I'd kinda like it to be, so I'm not going to stress out about it?" Seems unlikely.
The plain-as-day obvious thing for x. trapnel to do here is to snap his hips.
And she may well have thought watching King of Queens would endear him.
Enough about her, though: what about him? X seems an articulate and interesting fellow, if a little bit at sea. No doubt there's a woman out there who will both cuddle and have substantive conversation with him. As Ma Bailey said of Mary Hatch, a girl that can help you find the answers.
My advice: go to the library.
242: that is, no other people involved on x.'s side
Apparently there was an extraordinarily intelligent, politically engaged, and attractive younger woman (with beeyootifull! breasts) who later sat on his lap in a Miata a few weeks ago. One wonders whether that encounter has something to do with x.'s current dissatisfaction and attack of conscience over the nature of the relationship with NYC-obsessed-woman.
I gather x. is gone now, but friend, as an occasional fellow depression-sufferer, I'd say try to use the leap of imagination provided by the encounter with Miata-woman to begin to bootstrap yourself out of the depressive situation. That doesn't mean running around trying to hook up with hot chix; it means remembering that you don't have to settle for things that don't inspire passion. Being able to have an intelligent, lively conversation with someone is important.
t sounds very likely that the way it has transpired has given her more than a little cause to think that it is a serious relationship, and will continue indefinitely. If that is not the case from x's perspective, which it appears not to be, then the occasional offhand comment about not being into monogamy is probably not enough to overcome the other physical and emotional aspects of what y'all are doing.
I was wondering about that: if, as seems possible, x. would want to go on with the relationship on its current terms if it weren't implicitly deceptive, can it be brought onto actually honest terms? (To the extent that x isn't enjoying himself with her, he should just break up with her already, rather than doing anything complicated, of course.)
I'm not actually sure if this suggestion would be an asshole thing to do, but I'll throw it out there. We've been told that x. explicitly stated that he wasn't up for anything monogamous -- that may have drifted into the background, but it's been said. X. -- what if you got more vocal and concrete about planned/attempted non-monogamy? Talking with NYC-obsessed-woman about other women you're thinking about pursuing, old girlfriends you might visit with the thought of reawakening something, whatever sounds (or is) plausible.
If she's all "Sounds like a great idea -- wear the blue sweater if you're going to hit on her, it really brings out your eyes," you know she's genuinely on board with the non-monogamy. If she's angry and hurt, you apologize, say you're really not up for monogamy, and break up with her. The only risk is that she'll be hurt by it, but decide that it's worth trying to hang onto the relationship anyway, and fake being okay with it -- that, I think you'd have to be sensitive enough to figure out, and then break up with her.
This seems like a brilliantly cunning plan, but also like kind of an asshole thing to do, so I'm not sure. Does it sound like a good idea to anyone else?
285: Duh, I forgot Miata-woman. Yeah, if the plan in 286 makes sense, talking to NYC-obsessed woman about Miata-woman would be a route into that.
Talking with NYC-obsessed-woman about other women you're thinking about pursuing
Bad idea. Asshole move. Don't do it.
This seems like a brilliantly cunning plan, but also like kind of an asshole thing to do, so I'm not sure. Does it sound like a good idea to anyone else?
I actually did this at one point, and it didn't go over well. It was kind of an asshole thing to do, in retrospect. But I did get a wife out of the deal in the end, so w'evs.
It would totally be an asshole thing to do.
You know, it feels that way to me too, but I can't quite see what's wrong with it. Like, if they'd gotten together on announcedly non-monogamous terms (which they did) and had been chatting about other partners all along (which it doesn't sound like they were), there wouldn't be anything wrong with that.
But seriously, I had forgotten about Ms Miata. I'd say that at this point, if you don't feel as if you could tell Frau NYC about Ms Miata, then you've implicitly accepted that you're in a monogamous relationship, and you just cheated on her. So you should end it with Frau NYC. If you do think you could tell Frau NYC about Ms Miata without being a jerk by doing so, then I would, just to check, and if she's okay with it then I wouldn't worry about her state of mind about the relationship. And if you already have told her about Ms Miata and it was fine, than I don't think you need to worry about her expectations.
Name chosen for maximal connotation of idiocy.
I was once a person who was given only the very weakest reassurances and boy did I hang in there anyway. Do not underestimate the role of self-preserving self-delusion. Telling her you are not in it for the long haul was responsible, and maybe it's presumptuous to assume she wants more than you do anyway, but if your general sense is that she may be holding out for you to realize she's great and you're not going to, better for everyone to cut bait, strike the set, whatever other metaphor I am missing for everyone going home and starting afresh. It's hard to give up comforting contact in a time of depression, but it's also no fun to be somebody's "fine for now," or rather no fun to have been that when they get-undepressed, find someone new, or just finally stop giving you enough positive cues to fuel suspension of disbelief.
if you don't feel as if you could tell Frau NYC about Ms Miata, then you've implicitly accepted that you're in a monogamous relationship, and you just cheated on her
Couldn't disagree more. He stated from the get-go that he wasn't just not entering a monogamous relationship with her, but that he was fundamentally anti-monogamy. You can't get any clearer than that, and it isn't even possible to cheat within that structure. Also, no obligation whatsoever to fill her in on any details of the rest of his dating life.
Okay, I can see that telling her about other women is not polite, and if it were done in a gratuitous way, it would be a dick move, but it is a way to safeguard against the other problem, which is carefully avoiding mention of anything that might be wrong with the relationship and any pull you might feel to go elsewhere. Because, look, when you say you're not into monogamy, and then you never do or say anything in her presence that proves it, well, actions speak louder than words, my friend. "I'm getting through to him," she thinks.
It's different if you have an agreement that you can go outside the relationship and she has specifically asked you not to share details. Otherwise, why should she believe you over her lying eyes?
Oops. There was supposed to be tag closure a bit earlier in there.
In my only (and current) experience with an openly non-monogamous relationship, we mostly haven't talked about our other partners. We prefer to keep our separate sex lives wholly separate.
This situation is - issues of geography aside - alarmingly similar to the beginning of my time with BOGF.
What I'm saying is: GET THE HELL OUT BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE.
She may be nicer and saner (albeit duller) than BOGF was, but the bottom line is that long term intimacy with someone you don't, ultimately, care for that much is a bad, bad path to take. I can understand why it made sense when the time horizon was 6-8 mos., but it's unconscionable over 20 mos.
If I keep writing I'm liable to revert to all caps, so I'll just say it one more time: End this. For everyone's sake. The groundwork is laid for nothing good; the best case is only modest amounts of hurt, and the worst (or perhaps most likely) case is wasted time combined with horrible feelings. GAH.
PS - I came by to see if there was any interesting discussion of the CT post, in case anyone was wondering.
294: I don't disagree with you on whether he's done anything wrong, and I don't think he's obliged to keep her up to speed on every thing he's doing. But like F says in 295, he's worried that despite the full disclosure of non-monogamy at the outset, that she really does think they're in a monogamous relationship.
If, based on his sense of her reactions, he feels that he really couldn't tell her about other women without hurting her, then I'd say that means he feels pretty sure that her current expectations of him are monogamous (unjustifiedly so, but I don't think that matters). If he's sure that those are her expectations, and he doesn't want to be in a relationship on those terms, he needs to get out of the relationship.
JRoth, I'd been wondering about that Cuban place. Now I'll try it.
298.last: The McArdle thing? While everything Henry said is completely justified, I'm starting to think he should have a drink and think about something else. There's no real good to come from arguing about McArdle. (Of course, I commented on the thread, but I'm like that.)
If, based on his sense of her reactions, he feels that he really couldn't tell her about other women without hurting her, then I'd say that means he feels pretty sure that her current expectations of him are monogamous
Yes, this. If you find yourself holding back specifically because you are afraid of hurting her, then you are leading her on. If, on the other hand, you are staying silent because you have an agreement not to talk about it, then play on.
Yes, people have sex with people they don't find attractive, and there's no "what do you really mean by attractive in this society of ours" needed. I've basically been the guy in 117, except that I would never have called it "forced" or anything, I knew what I was doing, but other than that, fair enough, and yeah, I feel guilty about it and wouldn't do it again, but it doesn't seem like all that rare or outlandish of a problem to me.
243
"I would like to continue having sex with this person" is almost tautologically equivalent to "I am attracted to this person/this person is attractive to me."
It's possible to never say "I would like to continue having sex with this person" at all but still have sex with them repeatedly. Some people can go months without a reality check. That doesn't sound like either x trapnel's situation or mine, but it's possible. My reason was that a long time went by when I knew there was a problem but didn't actually do anything about it. Eventually, outside circumstances did make the problem go away, but it would probably have been better to quit earlier or not start in the first place.
I just find the thought process that leads to doing that really confusing. No one was forcing you, you weren't attracted -- what made actively choosing to have sex win out over a good book? I got FWL's description of a situation where the sex itself was really good, despite the fact that the partner was unappealing, so if that's what it was, it makes some sense to me. But what it sounds like you're saying... I have trouble seeing why the situation wouldn't spontaneously come to an end, when you found other things to do instead.
292: it feels that way to me too, but I can't quite see what's wrong with it
What a strange sentence. You don't knowingly hurt someone unless it's absolutely unavoidable. x.'s assessment of NYC-woman is that she's fallen for him, and he clearly cares about her; she will be deeply hurt by disclosures about his other potential partners. Especially if he offers them up in a gay and jolly, excited tone.
The nattering about what it means to be in a stated non-monogamous relationship is just that: nattering. Talk to anyone in that sort of relationship, those who are actively polyamorous, and you hear that relationship management is job number one, careful talking is key, and great care is taken to see that hurt is avoided. That doesn't mean hiding things, but it does mean not being a dick.
That doesn't mean hiding things, but it does mean not being a dick.
The question is whether the relationship is such that he is effectively hiding things.
There's a lot of wisdom in this thread. 274 and 293 both describe situations which ring true.
I was thinking about X Trapnel's situation on my drive into work (I know, that's ridiculous), and it struck me that basing his actions on presumptions about what the sort-of girlfriend is or isn't thinking is probably a very bad idea. One of the key lessons I think I've learned (and one of the hardest life lessons to learn, at least for me) is that you can't govern your actions based on what you anticipate to be other people's thoughts. You can't control the other person, and, honestly you never really know what they are thinking.
She may or may not be self-deluded, she may or may not know what she wants or be able to communicate it (and language barrier is a big problem here); she may be looking for a way out on her own.
The key question, and really the only thing that Trapnel can control, is: What does Trapnel want? From a distance, it sounds like he's mildly contemptuous of this woman, and that having her in his life is, while comforting, also somewhat depressing in the sense that he doesn't find her that attractive or interesting. It also sounds like he's interested in seeing a bunch of other women. If that's true, it seems like he's setting himself up for an increasingly unhappy series of encounters and should probably get out now.
Anyhow, that's how I might think about it, and it seems a more fruitful path than worrying about the ethical implications/moral philosophy of whatever, which I've always found to be entirely useless in any practical situation.
I stand by my upthread recommendation to watch The Golddiggers of 1933. Just an incredible movie.
305, 306: Well, exactly (to 306). The point would be to start actively not-hiding things, in the most sensitive and not hurtful way possible, just to make certain that those things were not in fact hidden from her.
298: Which CT post? The one with three ToS comments to it already?
The question is whether the relationship is such that he is effectively hiding things.
We already know they're having sex.
No one was forcing you, you weren't attracted -- what made actively choosing to have sex win out over a good book?
Speaking for my experience, it wasn't active disattraction - BOGF wasn't hideous (by most standards she was probably "cute" at worst, but there were specific things about her that turned me off), and so it was easy enough to get past that, especially when she was trying to get me into bed (and I had, for instance, failed in my efforts with a couple more attractive options). But on an ongoing basis, that lack of attraction - the fact that I never thought, in the middle of the day, "Man, I can't wait to get with BOGF" - was deadly to a healthy relationship.
On some level it's a booty call in which one partner mistakes it for a relationship. The fact that there's non-booty time involved only serves to exacerbate the situation.
I'm starting to think he should have a drink and think about something else. There's no real good to come from arguing about McArdle.
I think there's real value to that kind of definitive takedown. Her specific posts have been taken down countless times, but the bottom line is that she's most notorious for the 2x4 thing, and as long as she's able to handwave that away ("I already apologized, it was a metaphor, I was young and foolish"), then her credibility survives and her critics appear to be somehow unfair. But if that defining moment is shown to be even uglier than it had appeared, then I think it really starts to cripple her effectiveness.
In practice, she's probably made of pure Teflon, but it's worth at least the occasional effort, especially if she's going to pull shit like Steppin Fetchit on the bus.
The question is whether the relationship is such that he is effectively hiding things.
I gather from what he's said about adverse possession that he is, in effect, hiding things. So then the question is whether he should stop hiding them (in what manner?) or just break up with her.
Despite what Apo says about whether x. is 'cheating', hiding things -- effectively lying -- is about the worst thing you can do. That said, I do not advise that x. carry on gaily about Miata-woman to NYC-woman; that's just cold-hearted and cruel, and I still don't get why anyone (LB) would be puzzled as to why.
If x. wants to get himself out of the depression cycle he appears to be in, a careful Conversation with NYC-woman about the nature of their relationship to date, a frank statement that he's leaning on her at this time and likes it, but is concerned for her, would be ideal. Hell of a conversation to have.*
On preview: wow, that reads like not much more than a recap of the conundrum as I understand it. Sorry.
*The language barrier is a big problem.
I agree with 311, by the way. I'm not sure that Henry's definitive takedown was very effective, being so very fucking long, and with the fisking, but refusing to back down with McMegan is a good thing.
I don't even want to talk about her Steppin Fetchit crap lately.
hiding things -- effectively lying -- is about the worst thing you can do
I disagree that this is in any way lying. Dating is in the *dead center* of the strike zone of what is commonly considered one's private life. And it's called that for a reason.
Dating is in the *dead center* of the strike zone of what is commonly considered one's private life.
It's not usually private from people you're dating.
Mostly, I want to agree with you, but there's a difference between telling someone you're involved with that you're not into monogamy, and making it clear to them that you're actively practicing non-monogamy while you're with them. The background assumption of monogamy seems to me to be strong enough that the first doesn't count as full disclosure of the second.
Once you've got full disclosure that you're actively practicing non-monogamy across (and pars, that's all I meant.) I don't think you owe any more information than that to a dating partner. But you owe that much.
For me, I don't think contractarian terms like "full disclosure" "owe to" etc. are particularly useful in analyzing relationships. Given the circumstances and the apparent level of intimacy, would disclosing the details about Trapnel's other hookups be more likely than not to be hurtful to his partner? Seems like the answer is yes, and there's no desire on his end to have the kind of intimate relationship that would require disclosing everything. So I'd say "don't share."
There's 'details' and then there's the fact that they're occurring. What level of detail is appropriate/non-hurtful is something you'd work out within the relationship. But if you're in a relationship where you don't think you could reveal the bare fact that you were hooking up with other people without hurting your partner, I'd think that you should either get out of the relationship, or quit hooking up with other people.
314: I have no objection to protection of one's private life; I protect mine pretty strongly. It really depends on the nature of the relationship in question: is this one in which the two parties expect to be more or less up-to-date on each other's emotional lives? If so, and if something like a new attachment is having an impact there, not being informed of this counts as withholding important information. It seems to me.
I don't have an entrenched opinion on this that applies to every case, to be honest. I've been in both situations: in which I or my partner was fooling around, or was having thoughts and encounters, and sometimes we told each other, while other times we did not (it came out years later, in a confessional way).
What I'm not willing to say is that there's a hard and fast rule. You're dealing with a human being whose emotional well-being has to be taken into consideration. Simply saying, "I'm not hiding anything, or lying, or misrepresenting, because these things are by definition private" doesn't cut it, to my mind.
274: Huh. I find if I enjoy having sex with someone enough, I begin to think of that person as better-looking and even more fun as time goes on. If the person is so irritating that they're no longer attractive to me, I won't be able to enjoy having sex with them.
319: Well, yeah. I'm having (clearly) a hard time empathizing with people who don't react that way.
Maybe this got addressed earlier, but do we have any reason to believe that this woman has been wholly monogamous during their acquaintance? Everybody has been working on that assumption, but trapnel gave her an open-ended Get Out of Jail Free card at the outset as well and random hook-up opportunities are generally more available to women than to men.
Obviously, I don't have the slightest reason to lean one way or the other on the question, but.
307:I stand by my upthread recommendation to watch The Golddiggers of 1933. Just an incredible movie.
Seconded. I like the final number "Lullaby of Broadway" in Golddiggers of 1935 but 1933 might be the overall better movie. Dames
42nd St and Footlight Parade with "By a Waterfall are also terrific. Cagney, Powell & Keeler, Joan Blondell, Aline MacMahon...you just gotta smile. With people like Blondell, Rogers, and MacMahon cracking wise in the very tough cynical plots, and Keeler being clueless but irresistible, and the over the top numbers, the objectification subverts itself. Always remember, Busby delivered many many paychecks with those harps and pianos.
Dating is in the *dead center* of the strike zone of what is commonly considered one's private life.
It's not usually private from people you're dating.
Yes. Exactly. I mean I get that people are private but you should tell people you're dating/in a relationship with that you are dating other people. Unless there is a prior and fairly recently renewed statement of non-monogamy. A general 'not monogamous' call at the beginning of relationship wears off after a while especially when it can be argued that your actions belie your words. Like getting a follow-up booster shot.
And I totally agree with 319.
I guess I'm thinking in particular of this guy I hooked up with once, who was the roommate of a friend from college. He was sort of dumb and really pretty in a not-my-type way, and even sort of conservative. But we were laughing and dancing at a party together. We had super-fun sex all night and never saw each other again.
Years later, when our mutual acquaintance found out, he gave me a lot of shit about it. You *slept* with him? But he's so young and stupid! Etc. And I found myself really earnestly defending the guy, on the basis of little more than excellent, good-natured sex, which, to me, seems like an admirable quality for a guy to have.
It's true that if we'd seen each other again, we would have been too irritated with each other to keep up the attraction, fun memories notwithstanding. Luckily, we both saw that coming and prevented the awkwardness.
I'm pretty much in agreement with Parsimon. Once you're seeing someone as both friend and boinkmate it doesn't matter what you've said - you still have an obligation to look out for their interests in at least some minimal sense. Trapnel gets this, hence the paternalism worries.
...which is to say, I think having sex with someone once or twice while the novelty is still there and it's fun is a great idea. Why force yourself to watch every sexual relationship with someone you don't particularly like die a slow, resentful, miserable death of saying nasty things about them and then smiling wanly to their face? Gruesome.
321: No reason except that x. doesn't seem to think so. If she's really on board with the casual non-monogamy of it all, that's great and he shouldn't worry about it.
I seem to have lost track of the thread. I don't know what having a one night stand (hook-up) with someone has to do with x.trapnel's situation, which has been going on for 8 months and counting.
322 -- Bob, I was hoping you'd take the bait and comment on that, and I'm glad you did. I have yet to see GD of 1935 or GD of 1937, so I can't compare, but hopefully I'll do so soon.
The truly amazing scenes in GD of 1933 were, for me, the contrast between the first "In the Money" number and the incredible "Forgotten Man" number at the end (which is just an incredibly bold way to end the film).
I'm saying it's totally reasonable to have sex with people you don't particularly find super-appealing because, hey, it might be fun! But it's not reasonable to keep having sex with them when you're sure it's not.
330: Right. Sorry. I think x. has said that it remains fun (though not fun based on "she's super attractive"), and he really likes the cuddling. Cuddling sounds like a manifestation of loving kindness, which is perhaps important to him at this time. It doesn't sound as though the woman is a horror, and un-fun.
It doesn't sound as though the woman is a horror, and un-fun.
This does seem to be the key difference from my BOGF experience. However, the fact that, after 8 months of sex and cuddling, he's still describing himself as not attracted to her is a huge red flag for me.
As for the monogamy part, BOGF and I were quite plainly (and sometimes explicitly) non-monogamous the first few months we were together. Then came an ultimatum/challenge (which I stupidly didn't run away from; she was a very astute manipulator), and monogamy came to be (well, more or less. Ahem).
x. doesn't seem to be in danger of that outcome, but I think he could be on the path to at least that challenge/ultimatum.
JRoth (great to see you!), I don't think anybody is arguing that x. shouldn't break up with her. It's mostly whether he's awful, even downright irrational or unreasonable, if he doesn't. I don't think he'd be an awful person if he doesn't (yet), though he clearly should. I think he should make a point of trying not to hurt her in the break-up process, though.
Well, I'm not totally sure he should break up with her. If he can reassure himself that she's actually on board with the non-monogamous, non-long term nature of the relationship (which seems possible to me), and if he's actually enjoying the time he spends with her (which also seems possible), I don't think he should break up with her -- the point of my suggestion that he actively disclose his non-monogamy was to see if he could decently salvage a relationship that both people were enjoying, by making sure that they were both on the same page. It'd suck to break up with her to keep from breaking her heart, if he was wrong about her long-term expectations and she just liked having him around to keep her warm at night for the next year.
Go back and read about Miata woman. Then think again about what you'd tell this guy.
Miatas are small, fast, cheap, and fun.
335: very good point. Here's the link. I didn't remember it until I saw 335 and might have never read it in the first place, but now that I read it, well, it makes things easier.
335-37: Huh. You know, if X. sounded at all as if he were in the market for his one true love, I'd say that the enthusiasm for Ms Miata (even if she wasn't a live possibility) was good evidence that he should break up with Frau NYC. For someone who's not looking for monogamy, on the other hand, does it work like that?
A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush?
Plus, drunken enthusiasm.
The answers don't always come from one true love, and I didn't mean to suggest that only Donna Reed would do. And maybe X. is as enthusiastic about NYCfan as he showed himself to be about Miatienne at the important intervals. The snapshot's a little different, but that's how snapshots are. Nothing further from me.
meh, if you want to be paternalistic, keep dating here until you meet someone else, cheat for a week, and let her know. She'll cry that weekend and be over you by next week, pending meeting someone else, which will be much faster.
is it more paternalistic to force someone to confront their self-lies and to own their own choices, even when they don't want all that damn responsibility?
But this is really about you wanting to think of yourself as a 'good guy' and still be able to break up with her.
and, 'ploughin' has a certain accuracy.
Those points weren't really coherent, btw, just some things that were missed.
I agree w/307. Most people would prefer to have someone else's values etc to adopt. it relieves one of the existential crisis.
The longer you date someone the more the question of "would I want to have a child with this person" starts to creep up. As in, what if she accidentally gets pregnant and wants to keep it.
334 is the non-paternalistic reason and method for keeping it going. My comments have been aimed at getting x.t. to understand that if he doesn't end this soon, he will regret it for the rest of his life. And then find true love 6 weeks later and be very happy.
But the second part isn't guaranteed, and the first part is.
GET OUT!!!!!!!!
345.last: That's what my house said right before the walls ran with blood. I'm thinking it was the wind.
Moby, sounds like you need an architect/exorcist.
This entire thread could have been avoided if x had just emailed Emerson in the first place.
||
So, imagine someone you've been messaging with via OKCupid for about a week catches wind of a public performance in which you're participating and suggests that she might attend, including providing her phone number along with instructions to text her with the specifics of the event. Is there a polite way to say OH GOD PLEASE DON'T without having it sound like an outright rejection?
I'd be very much interested in meeting her, but not under these circumstances (when nerves will already be running wild).
|>
Is there a polite way to say OH GOD PLEASE DON'T without having it sound like an outright rejection?
Something along the lines of your second paragraph, perhaps.
349: Teo is correct. There's nothing wrong with saying that you're excited to meet her, but that you'll already be freaked out and nervous about the event.
350-1: Message sent and confirmed by her saying she "totally understands" and suggesting I can always text her when I'm done if that works better for me. Thanks, internet confidence builders!
Heck, I think you should invite her to your public/performance event. If the relationship works out, you will have met cute.
Wait, was this your debut as a stripper?
Thanks, internet confidence builders!
Any time, Tom.
Neither Nebraska nor Missouri would be there with you Jefferson. Thanks.
||
Whoa. It turns out both this girl and Girl 1 from this thread (pictured here, to answer neb's question) were born on October 31. Spooky.
|>
Good thing we have a tenured university professor here to answer questions like that.
No. In retrospect, that was probably for the best.
Did she happen to move to the SFBA?
No, she moved back to her home state, which is just about as far away from the Bay Area as it is possible to get while remaining in the continental US, and went to law school.
Everything went well, but we never caught up with each other, despite a few passing texts in the night. We are, however, getting "coffee or a beer" in forty-five minutes.