Sex Talk hates refreshing 500-comment pages! RAWR!
Um, so here's a question:
When seeking a partner, is it more important to look for someone emotionally compatible or someone sexually compatible? That is, which is likelier to show positive, versatile development during the course of a relationship?
Good thing we closed the other thread; there's no way it could have kept up with this volume of commenting.
New thread! Move along!
You realize that never works.
O RLY?
4: I think it's easier to teach someone what you like sexually than it is to teach someone what you like emotionally. Or maybe it's easier to learn and adapt to what a partner likes sexually than to change one's emotional makeup.
4: You need both. Which is more important depends on the person.
I think emotional compatibility trumps sexual compatibility. On both counts: easier to grow and develop sexually, and a rockier foundation if the emotional compatibility is not there.
I don't know, define "sexually compatible." Without knowing what you mean, I guess I would say emotionally compatible anyway. But if "sexually compatible" means "have a healthy and robust level of attraction for one another," I might go the other way.
9: Maybe versatility itself is all that is required, and people are versatile in different ways and with different people.
Do you guys grow more emotionally when you're in a relationship, or out of a relationship?
Geez Becks, you can be such a tyrant sometimes.
I think if people are compatible emotionally but not sexually, the sexual compatibility can develop as a result of their generosity and desire for each other to be happy. And if people are compatible sexually but not emotionally, the emotional compatibility is much less likely to develop.
But then again, that seems incredibly obvious to me, so I'm probably missing part of the point of the question.
O RLY?
I hadn't counted on the 1337. I've changed my complaint to saying that it was unnecessary rather than impossible, but it seems I was wrong about that too.
I think it's easier to teach someone what you like sexually than it is to teach someone what you like emotionally.
This, definitely. You usually can learn how to do the sexual things your partner wants. But without love and respect, you ain't going nowhere.
11: I guess I was thinking of sexual compatibility in the way that, like, someone might be really into a particular sexual thing, and wanting someone who can give you that sexual thing is important, but can one seek that out apart from seeking someone you feel comfortable with emotionally? I guess it's a dumb question, because it gets into all kinds of stuff, like whether having a relationship is the endgame or not.
But if "sexually compatible" means "have a healthy and robust level of attraction for one another," I might go the other way.
People can be sexually compatible without being particularly attracted to each other.
But if they aren't attracted to each other, how do they reach a point where they find out they are sexually compatible?
The answer: drugs and/or desperation.
Right?
13: Sadly, I think I grow more, period, when I'm not in a relationship. I'm naturally very restless, curious, and need a lot of social interaction, so when I'm single I'm running around doing a million things, taking up new hobbies, writing, and generally doing things that benefit me. When I'm in a relationship, my life is considerable more.. sedate. I don't like this, but it's the way is. There's something about having someone to come home to that makes me want to go there.
4, 9: What apo said: You need both. IMX, if there aren't essential incompatibilities in either, it just isn't going to work well. Either one partner feels deprived or one partner feels put-upon. Not a good recipe for a long-term relationship.
people are versatile in different ways and with different people.
I think that's right. The only rules I've really developed from my own observations are:
1. You can make a relationship work if you don't love each other; you can't make it work if you don't like each other.
2. The world divides into people who are basically content and those who are basically discontented, and these categories are much more innate than based on externalities. Long-term relationships with the latter are quite a bit more difficult, and more effort than I'm willing to exert.
That was "are essential incompatibilities" Arrrgh...
20 - me, too. That's sort of what I was wondering. I tend to grow more emotionally when I'm single though, also.
Also my most creative periods are all my most depressed periods. I think that's common, though.
22, point 2 - a smart person said, "If you want a happy marriage, marry a happy person."
I would grow more if I wasn't in a relationship. Being around one person all the time reinforces the status quo, by which I mean you act based on what you think your partner's expectations of you are.
After every breakup I've had, I've thought something like "Well, now I'll be able to write those essays" or "Well, now I'll be able to start going to church" or something like that.
This doesn't apply to long-distance relationships, which I am currently in, and which spurs me to improve myself so that my s.o. will actually notice the improvements. (she wouldn't notice as much if we saw each other every day, because the improvements would be too gradual)
more effort than I'm willing to exert.
Because I've done it for long stretches before and now I'm old and tired.
but can one seek that out apart from seeking someone you feel comfortable with emotionally? I guess it's a dumb question, because it gets into all kinds of stuff, like whether having a relationship is the endgame or not.
It's not a dumb question, we just don't have all the information. Of course you can seek it out outside of an emotionally comfortable relationship, but it depends what you're looking for.
I think I grow a lot in a good relationship, but I "shrink" in a bad one. Dating Max for 2.5 years really gave me a lot of time to think about what I wanted for my life and how to negotiate difficult problems while I wasn't worried about where my sex and regular affection was coming from.
Dating Max for 2.5 years really gave me a lot of time to think...while I wasn't worried about where my sex and regular affection was coming from.
See, if I'm not in a relationship I sort of forget that things like sex and regular affection exist after the first month or so of singledom, and that gives me more time to concentrate on other things.
22.2: ouch. I've been thinking lately that I'm finding myself to be one of the naturally discontented types - or at least a naturally not-particularly-happy type - and wondering what that means about me and the world.
My current relationship has too much "let's sit around and watch the paint peel and call it quality time" for my taste. I've got envy of my single days when I'd read more, do more stuff, everything on my terms.
18: I thought of that interpretation, as well - face it, if partner A is into swinging and partner B finds the idea loathsome, things can get ugly. [Remember 7 of 9's divorce?] Not everyone is capable of doing what turns his/her partner on. Same with various paraphilias - if you're a Plushie, you probably need to seek another Plushie with whom you are compatible rather than someone who doesn't find stuffed animals a turn on.
31 - not the first response like that I've heard. I know, it's sort of rough. You just be sure to get yourself a nice happy partner, 'kay?
Then, of course, there's intellectual compatibility. It becomes wearing if one's partner resents one's brain [or lack thereof].
Is a Plushie something different from a Furry? Please for ym sanity say "no."
I know, it's sort of rough.
I'm not saying that people don't deserve relationships or can't have successful ones, just that I'm not up for the challenge. Note: I also don't own a dog because they are too much work.
35: But I think one can take this too seriously. The desire for an intellectually compatible partner can reach absurd ends. At one point, I remember asking a friend if it was reasonable to want to break up with Max because he had, at some point before meeting me, purged his enormous book collection of Johnson's Lives of the Poets. My friend said, "No, that is not reasonable. You are what we call 'too demanding.'"
I have trouble evaluating that, DEditrix, in light of so many fantastic qualities my partner does have. Sometimes I feel like conversation just isn't sparky enough, other times I think it's fine and that sparkiness is part of the newness, honeymoon period, which fades over time.
18, 33: Along those lines--I suspect, actually, that if neither person is particularly into monogamy, the other sexual compatibilities (in terms of specific desires) are less crucial; if you're emotionally compatible enough, and into each other, you'll find ways of having great sex, and you can each get elsewhere whichever specific needs aren't being met.
Long-term relationships with the latter are quite a bit more difficult, and more effort than I'm willing to exert.
A-effin-men, brother. Also to your 27.
31: I'm not a terribly happy person either -- I work pretty hard on being tolerable to be around. I think it works okay, relationship wise. But I married happy.
Monogamy levels are important. My partner and I are considering ways of bringing other people into the bedroom, and I keep asking, over and over, "But really, how will you feel when you see me with someone else?" My partner says "I don't know, but it might be fun to find out." I am not ready until I feel I know the answer to that.
I wonder if a lot of my paranoia about lack of versatility in partners isn't residual from having dated damaged crazies while young. Like, I half expect the men I date to flip out at the least provocation or demand for flexibility.
I agree with 38. I definitely have taken it to absurd levels before, and, the one person I've dated who was my exact idea of intellectual compatibility turned out to be a disaster in other ways. You can't always get what you want, etc. I'm trying to train myself not to prize intellectual compatibility at the highest, because I think it doesn't tend to overlap with emotional compatibility, and also because having that as a priority just ends up having me falling in love with my friends. Dull.
Will you people cut it out with the Presidents already? That's for stories like, "I really needed lube, used motor oil, and my dick fell off in the toilet."
44 is acceptable.
That's for stories like, "I really needed lube, used motor oil, and my dick fell off in the toilet."
"...which is why I'm so grateful that I had 29 more in reserve."
I really needed lube, used motor oil, and my dick fell off in the toilet.
Didn't that happen to Coolidge?
46 us what I'm hoping is true. Historically I tend to date people who are not very interesting out of fear of being alone. Then I rationalize it. I don't want to repeat that pattern, so I'm trying to be stern with myself. I can't tell if that's what's going on here or not.
The presidents is a little hard, though - can you tell that me and George Washington in 44 are separate people?
22: I don't buy it. The world is not divided into contented or discontented people, there's a spectrum, and it varies depending on the context. I have a malcontent streak a mile wide about the state of the world, the country, often at work--about anything I perceive (rightly or not) as the arbitrary exercise of power. This is probably a bad quality over all, but it has its good points and I'm not sorry about it....in any case it does not translate into relationships at all. Not friendships or relationships with family members, and especially not romantic relationships. (I've literally never broken up in my life. Part of this is sheer dumb luck of course, and I would argue that part of it is just empirical accuracy--the world does suck that much, and my husband is that great. But the difference is striking enough for me not to buy a contented/not contented dichotomy.)
I'm probably taking this over-literally...I have known people who are never happy in general and think that all their friends need to be Improved, and if that's what you're talking about, I couldn't deal with dating them either.
Drat. and *just* when I was thinking of becoming Millard Fillmore West.
Re: intellectual: I mean basic intelligence, not judging potential lovers on their ability to discuss the Decadent Poets.
36: Just up your meds and you'll be fine.
Furries like to dress up as animals and have sex; Plushies like to have sex with stuffed animals. Aren't you glad you asked?
people who are never happy in general and think that all their friends need to be Improved
This is what I meant, though I wouldn't have used the word never. I mean, we're all fairly discontented with the government these days and everybody hates their job at times. What I'm talking about is more of a general approach to existence.
I have known people who are never happy in general and think that all their friends need to be Improved, and if that's what you're talking about, I couldn't deal with dating them either.
Yes, but they would be okay dating each other. Think the yuppie couple in "Best In Show".
52: Yeah, but basic intelligence sometimes doesn't count for much. I've dated several guys who were quite smart, but because they didn't read enough, or didn't pay enough attention to particular kinds of things, conversation with them drove me batty.
I firmly maintain that I want to be with someone who's going to expand my world rather than contract it, but I'm starting to wonder if looking for intellectual expansion is the wrong approach.
God, this site is like crack. I so needed to finish this paper today.
Thesis: Successful relationships happen not due to some ineffable quality of the participants, but as a result of nothing more than both participants being ready.
Thought experiment: Would you have married/stayed with/whatever your significant other had you met them during a different time in your life?
To 57: I agree completely. And perhaps not. But that doesn't mean I'm not very content and very happy and very in love. (But she does check, and I think this thought might freak her out).
Successful relationships happen not due to some ineffable quality of the participants, but as a result of nothing more than both participants being ready.
This is part of it. Sadly, it is not enough.
57 is easily answered: no. I needed the maturation and to have actually done the reading. Even two years before wouldn't have worked. If I'd transferred to a different Ph.D. program, as I was urged to do, I'd have become a different person. Timing was crucial.
Just as every person is unique, every pairing of people is unique. Trying to establish universal rules for this is doomed to failure.
I totally agree with 57. Obviously there's a chemistry component, but by and large I end up with people at my same stage of development, and I wouldn't have liked them at an earlier period of my development.
Don't successful relationships happen when the people have given up on their hopes and dreams and decide that whoever is around will do?
Would you have married/stayed with/whatever your significant other had you met them during a different time in your life?
Nope.
pis aller is the name of this concept.
Successful relationships with Miss Michigan and her four daughters.
57: I did meet my current boyfriend eight years ago, and he has asked why we didn't make a go of it back then, as we both admired each other and had plenty of opportunity to act on it. At the time, I was simply not put-together enough to have a relationship with a nice guy who would like me and care about me. I was a junior in college, fucking a bisexual foreign rock star, doing drugs, drinking way too much, and really had no idea what I was going to do after college. No way was I ready for someone like him, though it would have saved me a lot of heartache later.
67 is a great example of trusting instincts, and the value of hanging around. People lose their lives on hope, of course, and I'm not talking about that, but it's nice when initial unreadiness doesn't become the permanent pattern-maker.
67 does make me chuckle. I can't say why, but it starts with the "fucking a bisexual foreign rock star".
When they were handing out heartaches you know you had to have you one.
69: Yeah, when he pretended he didn't recognize the English words for "crab lice," that was pretty funny, too.
I'll ruin it, bc I doubt it would happen, but that would have been awesome if the thread ended on 70. Just trailed off...
59: Definitely not all of it. I said 57 from observing most of my friends, in law school or graduate school, meet great women, date them, and screw it up or sabotage it, and then, as soon as they have a job, a new place, and a car, pretty much get engaged within the year. It's like they wake up one day, thinking they're missing something, 'oh right, a wife', and bam, it's all over.
Note to all women: if say, you get engaged, and your starry-eyed younger sister says, e.g, are you two soulmates, don't respond with a pragmatic, 'it works', as then you get a lecture on how nothing less than gushy enthusiasm is acceptable.
Just sayin.
"I firmly maintain that I want to be with someone who's going to expand my world rather than contract it, but I'm starting to wonder if looking for intellectual expansion is the wrong approach."
I am absolutely the wrong person to advise about this, since I've not had a successful relationship since the 20th century, but I still think that you are right.
All I can say is that given a choice between that relationship, and none, I've picked the first, and there's been at least a little choice involved.
Observation might suggest I'm an idiot, as ever, of course.
Gary's commented. That's it, thread's over, move along.
59: You know, it's interesting. I was talking to a friend yesterday, and he was saying that he thinks within two years, most of our friends are going to be engaged or married. Like once they start at their firm jobs, that's going to be the "next logical" step for them, and they're going to start buying property, buying cars, getting married and moving to the suburbs. It's depressing, but I think he's right.
57: That's possible, but I've also seen the reverse--sometimes people you think are just bad at relationships, not ready to commit etc. turn out to have just not met the right person yet.
I was just shy of my 19th birthday when I met my husband, so your second question is hard to answer....We have joked about what would have happened if my parents had moved to his neighborhood in Brooklyn rather than my town Long Island (they talked about it) and he'd seen my awkward phase in all its glory, but I don't think that's what you're asking.
I suppose a more interesting question is whether we would have gotten together if we'd met when we were much older. It would have been hard outside the context of college or grad school, because in person we're both quiet sorts at first. On the less mundane level--I'm actually having a really hard time answering, because we've been together for such a large % of our adult lives that it's very hard to imagine it away.
I don't think this is a sign that loves conquers all and it doesn't matter when you meet someone. He was definitely unusually put-together for a college sophmore guy....I don't think I was, especially, but my way of coping with not being entirely put-together was to find a few people that I trusted completely and stick with them. And 19 year old girls are probably more mature than 19 year old guys on average.
75: He probably is right.
Is there a good (german?) word for the desire to get back into lockstep and start following the script? At least you know where you're going.
75: Seems to concur with my experience. I should point out that the guys in question aren't obviously settling: they're marrying beautiful, intelligent, sophisticated women who should be out of their league, and they're madly in love. It's just that it wouldn't have happened two years earlier.
There's no chance I would have dated/married my spouse at any other time in my life other than the particular time that I did. Not earlier, not later. It took an incredible convergence of unfortunate circumstances for us to end up together. And somehow we sealed the deal, and, well, indissolubility and all that. And we've made it work for a long time now. But sometimes it's tough being married to someone you neither like, nor respect, nor are attracted to, nor are otherwise interested in. Especially tough if, like myself, you're something of a romantic at heart, prone to falling for people rather hard.
another general questions: are all PhD programs marriage-factories, or just my husband's?
In our circle of friends, basically everyone who started grad school in a relationship ended up married to that person, a few more coupled up within the program. There was one girl who broke up with her college boyfriend and a couple of new things that didn't take, but over all, there was definitely something about PhD student that seemed to make people cling together. Nothing at all comparable in law school (though law students are also much younger on average, and PhD students are more the nesting/marrying age).
Dude 79 is seriously fucked up. This new George Washington this is crazy.
I'm in a biological PhD program...I know three engaged couples who met in the program (for one of them, both left with an MS). It's not a very big program either.
81: I bet 79 happens all the time, but people rarely admit it. What about all those people who get married because someone is pregnant?
What about all those people who get married because someone is pregnant?
Evidence that emotional compatibility rarely follows from sexual compatibility. O SNAP! The thread has eaten its own tail!
80: In my Ph.D. program, people have brief affairs with one another, but there are no couples. I've met some really great guys and thought about going out with them, but it would fuck up everything about my social life there, probably for the same reasons that, on the other thread, people said having sex with friends makes you clam up around your other friends.
80.--I think it's a common trend, but it wasn't the case in my program.
84: Wait, only sexually compatible people get pregnant?
So, I'm determined to finish this paper before I sleep tonight. I have 5 pages, and it's supposed to be 15. I'm hungry. Should I take time to cook, or should I just order a pizza?
I think sexually compatible people are more likely to have sex with each other, which often leads to pregnancy.
Sometimes it's an unfortunate liaison and the people are forced to get married despite the lack of even a sexual compatibility.
There should be a "However" in the middle of 89.
I'm a dutiful guy, but 79 sounds like a dead relationship to me. I wonder how George thinks it looks to Martha?
85: Yes, the early camaraderie of my cohort dissolved quite sharply, and I suspect this was partially due to a serious and seriously problematic relationship among two of them. Ick.
91: Sure, but what can be done? If this is someone who's put up with this bad of a relationship out of a misguided sense of duty, despite having falling for other people and despising his wife, what would finally be enough of an impetus to leave?
You two and your cohort are in English, with very insecure futures. A big-name Economics program has a much better placement system. Marriage decisions turn on such things.
I think it's interesting that 91/93 assume that the 79 George Washington poster is a dude, despite the fact that we said George Washington was a pseudonym for any regular who wanted to temporarily go anon. Gender identification dies hard.
There's no reason to assume that 79 was posted by a man.
93: If I were going to guess, I'd think that George and Martha have kids, and that George thinks he's doing the right thing by keeping things stable for them. I can't say he's wrong -- my parents did that, and I think we were better off for it.
97: Another assumption pwn3d by 95 and 96.
I'll now stop being flippant and do some centrifuging. I have no advice to offer.
This president thing really is getting out of hand.
97 works just the same with the genders flipped.
I don't think 91 necessarily assumes it's a man. "Martha" is an obvious choice to pick to indicate the spouse of "George".
Yeah, I think all of our comments do. I assumed it was a man because most of the married women here seem really happy.
104: You're right. I'm pwned by my self.
105: With their husbands, at least.
I can see how you would be particularly attuned to this subject though, Mr. Leblanc.
108 to 106. I have no idea how attuned you are to husbands.
80: Not in my experience. Grad school tends to kill people's relationships, especially if they are long distance. I know a number of married graduate students, but most of them got married before starting here.
So what kind of pizza did you order?
I thought I'd controlled for 95 by pairing George with Martha. Aside from Abigail's kid concern, not wanting to destroy the other person is what prompted my query in 91. Many times the belief in the other's need for the marriage is mistaken or exaggerated. George may be wrong to believe in Martha's commitment.
Well, I started eating these crackers, and now I'm not as hungry any more, and so now thinking ordering pizza is inefficient, and I should just make some pasta already.
Yes, the president thing is a bit out of hand. Have I created a monster? We'll see. I agree with Ogged -- it was meant for things like 44 and 79.
Use it judiciously or I may take it away! I am, as LeBlanc sez, a tyrant.
Many times the belief in the other's need for the marriage is mistaken or exaggerated.
This seems very wise to me. Conversely, I've seen when someone has left a spouse they think is totally self-sufficient and the spouse has completely lost it.
Hmmm. I hope "What kind of pizza did you order" isn't the new "What are you wearing?"
This thread is so fascinating. You are all such interesting, swell people. I'm not going to confess anything, not even as George Washington, except to say that I feel quite a lot like Cala these days. I have no useful advice to give.
This is normally quite the wrong thing to say, but I really like this place, and all of you.
In all seriousness, one of the great things about Unfogged is that people have been willing to share intimate details about their lives with one another. It's much more powerful when someone you "know" shares something than a person using a pseud for their pseud. I didn't suggest the Washington thing to break that tradition but for people who had told me that they wanted to post things that kind of pushed the envelope of their comfort zone.
Re: intelligence, intellect, whatever: The Biophysicist clarified my concept by pointing out that what I really mean is an intellectual compatibility sufficient to facilitate communication, i.e., not having to explain oneself constantly, not having to dumb down vocabulary to be understood. That parity, coupled with both overlapping and divergent interests, so that each partner brings something new to the other, but there are things they have in common, as well, makes for comfortable interaction.
The Biophysicist and I met online, in a CIS forum, so our initial impressions of each other were wholly dependent on how and what we wrote. When we decided to meet in real life, we acknowledged that there might not be any physical chemistry, but figured we could amuse ourselves discussing science fiction and other mutual interests, if need be. We did, however, find it difficult to get out of Logan Airport before wreaking havoc on each other's wardrobes, so it was all good.
I feel quite a lot like Cala these days. I have no useful advice to give.
At first, I read this as a hilariously underhanded insult.
Having test-driven these presidents, we'll settle down and keep the trick for need. No need for mom.
At the time, I was simply not put-together enough to have a relationship with a nice guy who would like me and care about me.
This describes all of us, at one point or another. It's impressive when you can notice it, and refrain from entering into a doomed-to-fail relationship. More often with me, I've looked back on relationships and thought, "Man, if I was dating her now, it'd go much better."
On the other hand, that's not to say that entering a doomed-to-fail relationship is necessarily a bad move.
117: I'm not sure how to read that, but I hope you haven't come down with a case of grading essays. If you have, I recommend a whiskey and giving everyone A-s.
121 - I know. Everyone gets excited with a new toy.
I had many moments during my first long-term relationship when I thought
"This relationship is going perfectly! We really seem right for each other and I can't imagine breaking up! This makes me very worried. What if we get married and I have to spend the rest of my life with her, without ever having the typical dating/varied lovelife experience?"
122: It goes the other way, too. I look back on some of the guys that I dumbly decided to date, particularly one for a very long time, and happily think that if I met that person today, I wouldn't make that mistake again. It's a great comfort to me that each of my relationships seems to be more healthy than the last. It makes me happy and hopeful.
re 119: I've told president Bill that any future searching for a partner I could imagine doing would certainly be online.
I'm not devoting all of my attention to Unfogged this evening, so things have moved on a bit, but 79 breaks my heart.
127 - Similarly, I'm at least happy that in each of my failed relationships, I've made a different mistake. Figure that has to be better than making the same one over and over again.
I usually try very hard to be hilariously underhanded, but I meant nothing against Cala.
126: I think I would have felt this way if I'd started dating my boyfriend eight years ago. He would have been goofy and nice and giving, and I would have spent the whole time thinking, "I should be out right now having dangerous, scarring experiences with strangers!" I would not have been able to appreciate his kindness with the maturity that comes of having been really immature.
Merely that Cala's comments, particularly 57, matched the way that I have been thinking lately.
And not fair to ban me in the one thread where I haven't been an ass to anybody.
Text, that whole "I LOVE YOU GUYS" thing when your all Becks-style is such a cliche.
What if we get married and I have to spend the rest of my life with her, without ever having the typical dating/varied lovelife experience?
I think this one really defines your relationship temperament, because (in my experience, anyway) you never get over this, no matter how many varied experiences you have, and no matter how wonderful your partner is. What makes a difference is how you react to it, which of course changes with time.
I've been with the same person for ... holy crap, 9 years, and of course I sometimes have "what am I missing out on" feelings. They just don't bother me enough to act on them. That wouldn't always have been the case.
Okay, dudes, it's been fun. I am seriously going to write this motherfucking paper now, lest I die.
M. LeBlanc is banned!
Soon ALL the "Latest Comments" positions will be mine!
74: "Gary's commented. That's it, thread's over, move along."
I must now bonk you on the head.
I will soon write up my essay "you drive someone crazy," which likely no one but As-- wossname, will identify as a copy about Miriam C.
When did the Apostropher become an emotional genius?
Maybe it's just the large knot that is now growing on my head, but what in tarnation does your final sentence mean? (I checked Standpipe's blog, but found nothing.)
Crap. 143 to 141.
See what I get for not following my own rules?
we've made it work for a long time now. But sometimes it's tough being married to someone you neither like, nor respect, nor are attracted to, nor are otherwise interested in
Obviously, I don't know anything more about your relationship than the quoted bit above, so give my thoughts the according weight, but it doesn't sound like you've made it work, just that nobody has moved out of the house.
When did the Apostropher become an emotional genius?
You thought he was just a pretty face, didn't you?
142: Lord knows I'm no emotional genius, but what insight I do have, I've gotten the hard way.
147: Better you than me, big guy. I seek only the leavings from the repast that is your emotional knowledge.
148: Is there a wrapper? Can I lick the wrapper?
Now you really are banned, you selfish bastard.
153: Nice. Why didn't I think of that?
As long as we're being vulgar, I think my cat just farted.
This thread has fallen apart...I'll reveal anonymously that I'm engaged to someone who doesn't want to go down on me...it isn't nearly as big of a problem as I'd have imagined it would be...because we love each other...and I don't have that much of a sex drive...but it makes it more likely that I'll fantasize about people other than the one I'm engaged to.
unless you're Labs
Hang on, it might still work. How tall is he again?
158: What's the objection to going down on you?
158 is written in the exact style a former pastor of mine used for his column in the church's weekly newsletter.
I'm actually really curious about this. I mean, I'm sure there are perfectly valid reasons for refusing to engage in oral sex (past abuse, can't stop thinking about the patriarchy, etc.), but it's pretty uncommon in my experience.
I do feel very sorry for 79.
I was going to ask 158 if s/he just doesn't like going down on him/her or refuses to but it really doesn't matter. Either way, it sucks. As bad as your partner refusing to do something is your partner doing it grudgingly and reluctantly.
167: You're totally right, Becks, in that no one can or should talk someone into doing something they don't want to. OTOH, there's been a lot of stuff I didn't want when I was younger because I associated certain acts with compulsion (and the patriarchy) that now, in safer, more equal relationships, I find rather delightful.
I mean, I'm sure there are perfectly valid reasons for refusing to engage in oral sex (past abuse, can't stop thinking about the patriarchy, etc.)
158 might be a girl, y'know.
I have never, ever thought of the patriarchy in the bedroom.
170: Shouts of "Who's your daddy" notwithstanding.
For the same reason you've never, ever thought of Carrot Top in the bedroom?
169: Some guys can't stop thinking about the patriarchy either, like how they're part of it and how they don't have to eat pussy if they don't want to.
170: Don't start. Seriously. I had like a month two years ago when I could not have an orgasm because all I could think was that everything I like in bed is fundamentally oppressive.
It's impressive when you can notice it, and refrain from entering into a doomed-to-fail relationship.
I'm slowly learning to do this. Of course, this just means I avoid the less-than-ideal relationships, rather than enter into any good ones, but I suppose it's a (frustrating) start.
I apologize for 172. If it's any consolation, we'll suffer together.
172: This made me laugh really loudly when I realized it could potentially ruin my sex life for a month. DAMN YOU, STANDPIPE!
Sorry if 170 came across as snotty. It just would never cross my mind. Sex is a chance to think unserious thoughts so something like politics or the patriarchy or whatever just wouldn't enter my mind.
So now everybody who reads Unfogged is going to think of Carrot Top oppressing them when they have sex. Fantastic.
But! Just before I go, I'll say that the only time the patriarchy crosses the mind is when I'm already annoyed. Like "If dude wasn't so concerned with his own pleasure instead of mine he'd be going down on me instead of merrily fucking away without realizing that I'm bored. Fuck the patriarchy!"
it makes it more likely that I'll fantasize about people other than the one I'm engaged to
There's nothing wrong with that, monk(ette). Or should I call you...Washington Irving?
As bad as your partner refusing to do something is your partner doing it grudgingly and reluctantly.
Sure, as long as you leave room for something that your partner tries pretty much just for your benefit or to humor you, and eventually comes to enjoy.
Anyway, I don't want to pry as to 158, even anonymously, but if you haven't discussed it, that would be a good first step. If you have, and you've decided that it's not indicative of a larger or deeper problem, then it's great that you love each other, and you're lucky for that.
for some of us, it isn't just a fantasy.
Actually, the reason I had that problem, I remember, was not just the patriarchy, and it wasn't two years ago. It was in February. Bitch linked to a post of mine about sexualized violence against women being confused for BDSM sex, and one of her guy commenters went into great detail about how all sexual pleasure is merely reinterpreted pain. He was saying all this "Next time you're having sex, think about X" stuff, and I hated him for it. When I guested for her a month later, I pretty much banned him from the outset because I could not deal with his interpretation of femal
