Damn, Dead Prez. "[T]his Love for which I am an Advocate, though it satisfies itself in a much more delicate Manner, doth nevertheless seek its own Satisfaction as much as the grossest of all our Appetites."
What, exactly, is the possible satisfaction of this platonic love? It sounds like it's sort of painful for both of you, but that sex isn't the answer. (Or that maybe sex is the answer for you, but not him?) What in the name of all that is holy does he want? Or is there nothing that satisfies it but time? The crush on your side sounds difficult, but it's made even more difficult by whatever this guy is thinking about.
I am not helpful!
Colleague is weird. Possibly very, very lonely.
He says he is telling me things, and feeling things for me, that he's only ever told/felt for his wife before . . . He has also mentioned, a propos of nothing at the time, that he would never be unfaithful to his wife.
I feel cold putting this this way, but I would say that this is probably a good moment to decide whether you're planning to have an affair with this guy, and if not, either find some way to cool off the romance or start avoiding him.
Are romance and deep friendship really inconsistent? To me, the economical explanation is that he's very much attracted to DFP but believes that the circumstances preclude adding a physical element to the relationship. If that's what's going on and DFP is OK with it, where's the harm? Don't most of us have friendships that we think might, in another life, have turned into romances?
That is, mentioning that "he would never be unfaithful to his wife", sounds to me like saying (and I'm not accusing him of plotting or anything, he sounds confused) "this relationship I have with you makes me think about being unfaithful to my wife." Which is about half a step away from "Let's fuck." I'd be really comfortable betting that if you let this drift, you'll either find yourself impulsively sleeping together, or you'll at least end up turning down a pass.
Having been a less embarassing version of colleague, I think that both B and LB are right. He's lonely, and will either go away or come closer if told.
Don't most of us have friendships that we think might, in another life, have turned into romances?
Not ones with photoshopped books of how we've transformed our friends' lives, mix CD's, "I miss you" emails, and so forth. That's wooing.
No man has ever swooned in front of me.
He sounds a bit high-maintenance.
2 nails it. He's just struggling with what it means about his carefully constructed self-image as a good husband. He'll cheat eventually and it will be an enormous trauma which he'll be unable to hide form his wife and you won't want to be anywhere near it.
Clarification: does "I have a decadent European marriage" mean that under the terms of your relationship, having an affair with this guy would not be a problem?
I have two thoughts. Firstly, why would it be relevant that he's the product of an English boarding school? Secondly, feeling like a teenager does indeed suck.
Possibly relevant data point: colleague is a product of an English boarding school education.
So were P.G. Wodehouse and Ian Fleming. Void for vagueness. I lean towards the LB/B side of things: to wit, he wants to have sex with Cleopatra Quincy Roosevelt, but is very lonely and diffident about his desire to have sex with her.
11 isn't quite right, but anyhow.
Like LB, I hate to sound cold, but it seems to me that there are only two decent options here: 1) Decide to cool this dalliance off before someone gets seriously and irrevocably hurt. And then, despite the temptation, stick to your guns. 2) Talk to your "best friend," letting him know about the discomfort, even pain, that the relationship is causing you. From there you can see if there's a mutually satisfying resolution. Though I doubt such an outcome is likely.
I should add: given that I'm a cynical bastard, I'd only opt for option the second if you know, precisely, what you want out of this. In other words, it seems to me that his motivations, for the moment, are not really at issue.
I would also say that if your decision is that you're not planning to have an affair with this guy, tell your husband about him and his general weirdnesses. This falls well within the category of "things that aren't necessarily a big deal, but no one likes surprises".
5: Quite correct. He's waiting for permission from DFP to change his mind and make the pass.
7: Yeah, the behavior is over the top, but one of the joys of getting older is that it becomes OK that everyone around us is crazy and we are too. It's a problem if DFP doesn't like the craziness, but if I'm reading right the question she's just asking how to interpret it.
why would it be relevant that he's the product of an English boarding school?
Evidence that he can't possibly be hitting on her because he's gay?
I feel cold putting this this way, but I would say that this is probably a good moment to decide whether you're planning to have an affair with this guy, and if not, either find some way to cool off the romance or start avoiding him.
This is great advice.
I have absolutely been in this situation.
I went from the really good friendship to love with a married woman. She loved her husband. She loved me. I loved her. Her love for her husband didnt bother me.
We didnt do anything physical, but the connection was amazingly powerful.
I absolutely believe that you can love more than one person.
But, you need to back away before someone gets hurt. That is not much fun.
Y'all are haters. I think it's sweet. Nothing need happen, since anything that could happen would be tragic for him, if not DFP, but either putting a kybosh on it or demanding resolution would be tragic. Sounds like you both need someone you can gush to or be gushed to, and neither of you probably get this in the marriage. Be careful, but enjoy the opportunity to feel lovesick as a responsible adult who knows better than to let her beloved friend ruin his life.
Could it be that the guy's unfaithful remark is just, "Don't get the wrong idea about this?" e.g., he knows how this looks, but he's just lonely? Not lonely-I-want-to-fuck, but lonely?
Doesn't mean that isn't something to steer clear of, because someone who is lonely in a kind of unbalanced way like this is likely to be an emotional rollercoaster in any event. If you flip the genders here, I think you all would at least allow for the possibility that a woman acting this way wasn't looking for sex or infidelity, just was looking for a friend. So maybe this is just a very very emo guy.
17 seems right, as does 23.
Rule #1: Never fool around with a married person who is at all ambivalent about fooling around on their spouse, and certainly not with anybody who might have bouts of guilt about it later, as this guy TOTALLY seems.
23:
I agree that nothing need to happen (ie no sex). But, the emotional energy is really hard to manage with two people. You are certainly not being fair to your spouse, even if you do not have sex with the other person.
I would suggest that sex without emotion is less dangerous to a marriage than the feelings this guy has.
And quite often, this kind of friend-love, when allowed to express itself, eventually folds into normalcy, once you've both really settled yourselves with not acting on it sexually. I have friendships like this with men and women, and after the "talking on the phone for hours about how much you value each other" phase, it can nicely settle into a warm, familial friendship with no hanky-panky.
Be careful, but enjoy the opportunity to feel lovesick as a responsible adult who knows better than to let her beloved friend ruin his life.
I'm a big believer in banking on poor impulse control, or, in Catholic-speak, avoiding the occasion of sin. If you're a recovering alcoholic, hanging around in liquor stores is a poor idea; if you're feeling lovesick, romantic dalliance with your extramarital crush is a poor idea if you're not planning to go forward with it. The potential for having an impulsive moment is too great.
I want to say run, Cleopatra Quincy Roosevelt, run! The guy is going above and beyond friendship into passive-aggressive lovey academic territory, and referring to both of your marriages either to salve his conscience or in hopes that you'll say 'forget about them' seductively and take off his pants.
But, Cleo, he sounds like a man who is coming apart at the seams, and you say you're friends. So maybe running is premature. I think you need to be clear to him that you're concerned, both about him and about the unwelcome messages he's sending.
27: I think that depends a whole lot on the players involved. Some lives are more compartmentalized than others.
Right. I'm inclined to wear my heart on my sleeve, and to loneliness, so I'm sympathetic, but it seems a bit much for it not to a pretty serious thing for him. And if he doesn't know, then he's doubly dangerous.
Talk to your "best friend," letting him know about the discomfort, even pain, that the relationship is causing you.
Dear god do not do this. He'll just moon even more, and either decide to take the leap into True Love or else he'll come to the conclusion (with your help, obviously) that Ah If Only Things Had Been Different, distance himself from you, and continue to moon from afar. Make up your own mind if you want to fuck him (and deal with the subsequent inevitable emotional dependence and blowup) or if you want to cool things off to avoid those things.
Now, cooling things off *can* include a talk about "look, it really seems like you're falling for me, and I'd be interested if we weren't both married, but." But it has to be firm that *you've* reached the conclusion; don't, whatever you do, invite him to help you decide what to do about it all.
Unless you really want to get dragged into this.
Y'all are haters have seen this situation play out many times before, and always with the same ending.
28:
Yes it can. But, you need time and space for that to happen.
It probably took a solid two years after we stopped the love talk before I could be around this woman and not wonder about what might have been.
Heck, now that I think about it, I still do. Darn it!!!
it can nicely settle into a warm, familial friendship with no hanky-panky
It can, but not when
this is just a very very emo guy
Will, friendship and love aren't mutually exclusive. I have a friend (not John) whom I'm pretty sure that I love, but I don't have any interest in anything romantic with him. I love him like a brother. I'm actually worried that some other people think that we might be interested in each other that way, and I know that he's not. I've actually wondered whether I should bring the subject up with him because of a couple of comments that people have made, but I'm leaning toward saying nothing. Anyway, please ignore this until a future thread, because I don't want to derail this thread. (Dead Female Prez definitely needs the advice.)
(And I'm not saying that you have to shun the guy, necessarily. Talking to your husband about the friendship, down to the 'I'm pretty sure he's not hitting on me, but I could be wrong' level, should be enough to keep the situation under control.)
34: "Unless you really want to get dragged into this."
Yes, that was precisely my point in everything that came after what you excerpted, B. The whole situation is a kind of trap, and should only be pursued if dfp wants to be snared or, more accurately, do the snaring. The only value in the conversation, in other words, is to become proactive.
Actually, what with the swooning and shit, I'd first eliminate the possibility that he's considering leaving his wife to come out of the closet.
The potential for having an impulsive moment is too great.
Not if you're neurotic enough.
Wait, I call foul. This is a Cheever short story, isnt it?
Season of Divorce??
He would be doing a fantastic job of getting me in the sack, except that he is very clearly not trying to get me in the sack.
You mean that if he were in fact trying to commit adultery with you, you would go along with it?
Because the bar for that is higher than the bar for just two single people getting into the sack.
BG:
I agree that you can love a friend. But, this guy appears emotionally dependent on her.
DFP: Does he own a gun?
I agree with the cynical team: guy is looking for permission to cheat on his wife. There's something wrong with the marital relationship -- maybe not something cripplingly wrong, maybe not something that warrants divorce, but there's something missing. He's looking for it elsewhere and he both does and does not want it to include sex.
The dude is leaking emotion everywhere, because he's got no other outlet for it.
What is to be done?
Honestly, depends what Frau Merkel wants. If she wants to have sex with the guy, she almost certainly can. Will he be a colossal jerk and pretend she seduced lil ol' weak-of-will him? I don't think we have enough information to know the answer to that question, although existing signs point more to yes than to know.
OTOH, if she wants him to back off, just tell him, and I near as guarantee he will, and with a quickness: there's more than enough data here to see he wants her to be in control of the relationship.
Friendship and love aren't mutually exclusive, but the romantic love has to be out of the picture somehow, whether it is because 'we could have, but that ship sailed', or 'we could have, and did, and we're over it', or 'there is honestly just nothing there.' This guy isn't being just friendly, he's doing things that absent the insistence that he's married, he's married, look very much like romantic interest.
This letter just doesn't sound like "ZOMG I want to rip his pants off!!!" to me. It sounds like a childlike crush on someone who has a childlike crush. Sure, he might be lonely, and she might be responding to that, but wanting a nice hug and time from someone is quite a few steps away from fucking them.
Maybe I'm just being defensive because I'm going to be staying with my best guy friend at MLA. He's married, and I really like his wife and respect their relationship. He and I are both really invested in one another emotionally, and I find a lot of our interactions very sweet and moving. I don't think either one of us is even remotely tempted to be sexual together, because it's not that kind of relationship. But there feels like there's this rule that you don't get to have nice quasi-romantic feelings for someone without making it "go" somewhere physically. I cry bullshit.
Wow, this is sort of weird. But I am getting actual, good advice, instead of the anticipated mockery or smackdown. Thanks, Mineshaft!
To answer the posed questions: I mention the boarding school background because he identifies as really really repressed as a result of this upbringing. Although, there is the frequent sentimental crying.
My "decadent European marriage" means that my husband knows everything about this, except the degree to which I am now pining - because, you know, this is painful and wildly embarrassing.
Also, my original intention when I realised I was becoming smitten was to cool things off too, but I have been spectacularly unsuccessful at this, on several occassions. Once he came to my office when I stopped responding to email and bawled. The he told me about his deep dark childhood trauma . . .
I feel a bit trapped actually. I would be OK if he actually made a pass. Then it would be all on the table. I'm OK if he just wants to be friends.
But no one has ever swooned in front of me before either, and I am just very very confused. Oh, and lovesick.
the occasion of sin
In America, it is not that virtue is great, but that temptation is small.
If she wants to have sex with the guy, she almost certainly can.
Oh, absolutely. Protesting too much and all that. But I'd bet my kids' college fund that if you bed this guy, you'll be having an extremely unpleasant conversation with his wife in no time flat, and the chances of it staying between the 3 of you are just about zero.
My "decadent European marriage" means that my husband knows everything about this,
Oh, then you sound like you're in good shape, you just need to figure out how to tell him to back off the romance some, gently.
you'll be having an extremely unpleasant conversation with his wife in no time flat
On the ground that, he will immediately shift the scene of confessional drama to his wife?
Once he came to my office when I stopped responding to email and bawled.
To quote Monty Python, RUN AWAY!!!!
This kind of attention gets old really fast.
A special bond is one thing. This sounds like a different kind of attachment.
Cala, I agree. I was responding to Will's comment in generic terms. I don't know enough about Will's relationship with his friend, but I think that it should be possible to have close attachments with people of the opposite sex which don't involve cheating on one's spouse emotionally.
This situation is probably a lot stranger than whatever Will was dealing with.
White Bear,
What does the "Z" in "ZOMG" stand for?
49: I see where you're coming from, and I have a friend from college with whom I have that sort of relationship: split the hotel room at a friend's wedding, and then-fiance(e)s knew about it and were reasonably cool with it. Everyone at the wedding who didn't know us assumed we were engaged to each other. In college, everyone assumed we'd end up married.
But if said friend were giving off not just the usual vibes but started sending me photoshopped albums and crying a lot, I think that we'd be moving on to something very very different.
There really are worse things in life than excessively sentimental guys. DFP just needs to figure out where her boundaries are and what she needs to do to preserve them. Easy!
This must be the least-ambiguous Ask The Mineshaft ever.
Obviously, the guy is acting creepy. Chalk it up to AWBness that if DFP can't help but find that behavior charming rather than creepy, that her instincts might be right about him. If he's being genuinely manipulative or encroaching (which that behavior would look like to anyone else) and not sincere, DFP would have felt that and been repulsed by it, no?
The guy could use a therapist. I don't deny that. But I'm interested in the fact that his behavior makes DFP feel good about him, rather than bad, and that she trusts that he's not coming onto her sexually.
BG (and Cala):
I get the friendship thing. One of my best friend's in college was a woman. We stayed together all the time. We are still very close.
It is love, but not romance and sex.
(Her sister and I ended up living together and engaged until we broke it off 4 years ago.)
Urban Dictionary:
zOMG is a varient of the all-too-popular acronym "OMG", meaning "Oh My God".
The "z" was originally a mistake while attempting to hit the shift key with the left hand, and type "OMG"
Also used in all-caps, 'ZOMG' is generally used in a sarcastic manner, more often than not a humiliating fasion. It is also used as a device for stating the obvious.
"zOMG! you r teh winz!!one!!eleven!"
61: But we've still got a circuit split, with Bear and NPH on the "Not necessarily an issue" side. So we can always find ambiguity!
started sending me photoshopped albums and crying a lot
Stipulating that, to my knowledge, I've never been hit on by a guy wanting to conduct an adulterous relationship, I must say also that this doesn't sound like the normal way to do it.
58: I saw Ben's explanation in another thread, and thought it was good. Like "teh" or "!!1!" it's an ironic representation of a typo that now works as a sort of intensifier + mild irony. And it makes it easier to say aloud than "OMG," which you kind of have to spell out. (I think I've only used it aloud maybe twice.)
But I'm interested in the fact that his behavior makes DFP feel good about him, rather than bad, and that she trusts that he's not coming onto her sexually.
I think if she trusted that, she wouldn't be writing into our crack staff of advisors. He doesn't sound like a bad guy, I agree that her judgment makes it seem that his intentions are good, and it sounds reasonably likely that he'd sincerely say that he's not trying to seduce her. It just sounds to me like a situation that's going to end up there unless actively managed in a different direction.
66 is right. A dude who wants to get in your pants won't act in "unmasculine" ways around you, unless it's one of those obvious "but I'm so sensitive! [handupshirt]" ploys.
66: You and your quests for normative behavior. Photoshopped albums are the new mix tapes. And crying a lot is the new text-messaging.
My experience suggests that guys will act unmasculine if they suspect it will work, but I do agree that I think something else is going on here that's making the guy so emo. (Cleo, is it a recent change?)
Once he came to my office when I stopped responding to email and bawled. The he told me about his deep dark childhood trauma . . .
Loss of control is inconsiderate, and not a harbinger of his being mindful of others later. Has Mr Snuffles put others' interests ahead of his own in the past?
I disagree with 69, depends on the people involved.
71- I would have said that mix CDs are the new mix tapes, but he's got that covered too.
66, 70: It doesn't sound like he's hitting on her cynically, it sounds like he's in teenage hearts&flowers love. That just happens to be a risk factor for other categories of teenage behavior.
69: I have often appealed to the Mineshaft when my good feelings about a situation are at odds with the way I'm "supposed" to feel about it. Sometimes we have irrational positive emotion, just like we get irrational negative emotion. And in both cases, I usually find I should have trusted my own weird feelings rather than a socionormative conclusion.
one of those obvious "but I'm so sensitive! [handupshirt]" ploys.
w-lfs-n is taking notes.
77: I'll add that I really do appreciate the advice I've gotten here, insofar as I've often gotten both a summary of the normative take as well as encouragement to take my (weird) gut feelings about things seriously.
42 to 70. But these are academics we're talking about, so, y'know, the line can be really thin.
AWB is perfectly correct that I find this behaviour charming rather than creepy. Sigh.
But this really is making me want to rip off his pants, I'm sorry to say, and I don't actually think that is in the realm of possibility. Also, it would be a shitty thing to do.
Mostly, maybe I'm looking for reassurance that I haven't actually lost my mind and this is, objectively speaking, a weird situation.
If I could normalise it as a close friendship, that would be really really great. But I'm just not sure how at this point.
Howcome someone hasn't put him in a canvas bag and tossed him into the ocean, like you're supposed to do with puppies and other needy creatures? Hmm?
Re: emo/repression: I think this guy is doing some heavy-duty dichotomizing. OMG you're the only one I can talk to like this! etc. He doesn' t know how to be emotional with someone without all of the other stuff spilling over and accompanying it.
He doesn't sound self-knowledgeable or together enough that he can pull off the mature love that Bostonialgirl is describing, nor the no-harm-no-foul type affair that AWB and NPH seem to be describing.
Eh, I'm just repeating everybody else's good sense from upthread. Listen to will and Apo and everybody, DFP.
Crying a lot just means he's a pussy. That doesn't mean he doesn't want to Caesar Cleopatra's asp.
I can't believe LB and only LB referenced "gay."
81: I think you should express affection toward your friend without taking advantage of him (which sounds like it's not what he wants and would sort of ruin his life) and devote the extra libido to fucking your husband's brains out at every opportunity.
A dude who wants to get in your pants won't act in "unmasculine" ways around you
versus
But this really is making me want to rip off his pants
Mostly, maybe I'm looking for reassurance that I haven't actually lost my mind and this is, objectively speaking, a weird situation.
You haven't lost your mind, and it is objectively weird. But if it's making you want to rip his pants off, and you really don't want to, at some future date, realize that you have ripped his pants off, this is your moment for telling him to back off, or starting to avoid him.
87: Presumably, w-lfs-n still taking notes.
devote the extra libido to fucking your husband's brains out at every opportunity UnfoggeDCon2.
a) Let's say it's the same story, without the unfaithful remarks, and it's two female colleagues. Then the issue would just be about whether somebody was being too clingy or too much emotional work, not about whether someone wanted to get into someone's pants.
b) Let's say it's the same story, without the unfaithful remarks, and it's two male colleagues. Mostly I would assume that the male colleague who was sending me photoshopped albums and crying on my shoulder was either 1) gay and hitting on me or 2) having a really, really bad time at home with some horrible issue or 3) mentally ill in some respect.
But it does seem to me that it is possible that male and female colleagues could be more in situation A) and less in situation B) under some circumstances. I have had women colleagues/friends where I've tried to help them get over insecurity or fear about tenure/career issues, etc, when we were all junior faculty together. Now that everyone is settled into mid-career and family life and stuff, there are fewer of those kinds of conversations, because most of the external things driving those anxieties have gone away or dulled into middle-aged angstiness. But you could see those kinds of friendships spiralling into more emotional intimacy without being at all about sex or romantic love, and maybe all the more in professions with reasonably balanced male/female ratios. Doesn't mean there aren't big issues here, as per A) above--people can emotionally trespass against one another without sex or romance ever being involved.
86 and the first sentence of 88 are right. This is the Mineshaft, people. What's so hard about "do nothing"?
DFP, we've all been talking as if the problem is that this guy seems confused and romantically interested in you, but 81 makes it sound like the real problem is that you are falling in love with him.
87: Yep, I go for the weird emo dudes. Apparently.
89: Fair point.
I'd first eliminate the possibility that he's considering leaving his wife to come out of the closet"
seems unfinished, though. I think you dropped off "and running off with your husband."
"It has been one of my longtime ambitions to have a grown man faint at the mere sight of me" ...paraphrased from memory, a line from a Vonnegut work.
On topic, I am with AWB, and against all who disagree with her. Get whatever romance you can when you can from where ever cause everything ends in tragedy anyway.
87 I do agree with, and it doesn't have to be an act. Some people are really like that, and some women are attracted to it, some aren't.
Oh, sorry, in situation A) it could be about getting into ze pantz if there are one or more lesbians/bi involved.
94: Yes, this is a major problem. I thought the "sad and lovesick" oart gave that away . . .
92 only seems plausible because it ignores all of the bits about it being a situation with romantic interest and with remarks about infidelity.
94: Well, yeah. She described herself as lovesick right in the post. That's the only reason I've been saying she should shut it down -- putting yourself in a position where you (in one way) want to do something that (in another way) you don't want to do, and you have endless opportunity to do it (see recovering alcoholic, bar), seems to me like an excellent way to find out that you've gone ahead and done it when you weren't paying attention. If she wants to have an affair with this guy, he seems clearly to be up for it. But if she doesn't want to I think she's much better finding out some way to back off.
God, there's nothing more depressing than a lovesick oart.
2 is definitely correct.
You know, I don't actually think it's ok for people to act like they have a crush on you in order to get the positive attention it tends to bring.
I had a friend who started pulling some of this stuff, and I was very confused, and after I determined that no, he did not actually want to fuck me or date me (though I wanted to do both), I was like "cut it out." We're still friends, and he doesn't write me moony emails anymore.
Well, uh, DFP, then the issue is partly not what the state of his marriage is, but what you're meaning to say about yours with its decadent Europeanness and all. I mean, are you lonely? needing somebody new? Or just lusting for the hurt-puppy man? If it's the latter, maybe you just need to teach your husband some new emo tricks.
I would be sorely tempted to tell this guy to grow a pair, but that would be rude, and probably counter- productive.
Zee* to the OMG, people, walking into her office, unloading the deep dark childhood trauma and crying at her because she stopped answering his emails? That is the yuppie redeveloped downtown heart of emotional manipulation city. DFP, I understand how you feel as does anyone who's been a teenager but girlfriend, run. Run for the motherfuckin' hills.
Good, healthy, intense friendships certainly involve emotional vulnerability and the sharing of pasts and sometimes of secrets and lots of moments of unexpected intimacy. Bad, unhealthy, obsessive relationships also involve all of those things but played for obtaining instant and total control of the terms of the relationship. I find that a good metric for that distinction is whether the moments of intense intimacy come shortly after he whose heart doth burst forth has failed to get his way.
--
* I like to pretend it stands for "zounds!"
There is no way this could end well.
DFP: your husband may be fine with this, but his wife may not. So unless you know that's not the case, it sounds like you really ought forcefully to cool off the situation before you do something about which you later feel shitty.
108: The man in the manly pants says true things.
110: Especially since there is no fucking way Mr. Leaky doesn't leak his affair to her.
Hey, you know what? You're friends. Have you thought of having your buddy and his wife over for dinner as a couple? That seems like a possible route to breaking up the intensely dyadic friendship. Make friends with his wife, so she's a real person to you.
Have you thought of having your buddy and his wife over for dinner as a couple?
A foursome! Why didn't anyone think of that before?
Further to 113: That may be an insane idea. I'm just trying to figure out processes for cooling things off.
113. I like that LB. Humanize the "other".
Or at least invite him out with other people he might like at your institution. It might be good to know whether he can function with you in a group, where the dynamic can be you two interacting with everyone else, even if as a unit.
112: Amen. The whole "I'm so repressed, I have to share everything to undo that?" Totally. Mrs. Leaky would get the whole narrative, helpful illustrations and a pamphlet to read at home the moment anything went bad. This guy has got "drama queen" floating in the air above him in letters of green flame at least six feet high.
The only reason you should continue to hang around with this man is if, like Bob McM, you have a fundamentally tragic view of life and are so confident that everything always ends up in tears anyway that adding some hott sex and heartwrenching but entertaining drama to the tears seems like the least awful option.
111: He is persuasive, particularly the second sentence of the second paragraph. If that's what's going on, it's bad.
My thinking on this is shaped by a few things, one of which is that I never had trouble keeping my pants on even when I shouldn't and therefore don't worry too much about accidentally doffing them when I ought to be keeping them on. But if DFP is worried that she'll suffer from poor impulse control around this guy, I'd agree that she needs to be looking for ways to make sure that doesn't happen.
113: I have actually contemplated that. But if *I* was in that situation, I reckon I would totally pick up on the weird crushed-out vibes some complete stranger was having towards my husband, and I don't think I want to subject the poor woman to that.
She sure doesn't want to share a room at the overbooked conference, IYKWIMAITYD.
108.3: I like to think of it as an exaggerated Frenchy article: "Eet eez, how you say, zee OMG."
Geez, wot a bunch of sane healthy people. People like y'all is why I became a hermit.
What would Werther say? What would Carrington say?
That is the yuppie redeveloped downtown heart of emotional manipulation city.
Great line.
The thing that's worth mentioning, in his defense, is that DFP doesn't object. If you were to do that to a random person who reacts in a "I'm sympathetic but you are being weird, please leave soon" way then it would clearly be crossing boundries, and emotionally manipulative. If, in this case, he has reason to think the behavior is acceptible within his relationship with DFP, then it's still probably emotionally manipulative, but doesn't have the element of ignoring the other persons emotional response (the "How dare you think about anything other than me, or shut me out, when I am in such pain" flavor of emotional manipulation).
122: if you (a) don't even think you could control your crushed out vibes around his wife and (b) think she might be made uncomfortable by that, I'd like to repeat 110, this time in bold font.
105: Leblanc, the "knock it off" conversation is one I have considered - although, frankly, I am leaning towards complete denial. (Well, dissecting it all here, first; then working on the denial part.)
How did you manage that successfully?
She should be subjected to it, no, DFP?
Mrs. Leaky would get the whole narrative, helpful illustrations and a pamphlet to read at home the moment anything went bad.
Oh God, yeah. I bet he's already rehearsing the scene.
The thing that's worth mentioning, in his defense, is that DFP doesn't object.
Well, kind of. He doesn't sound like a bad guy, and I don't think he's trying to do anything wrong, and she's on some level enjoying it. But he does seem to have ramped up the intimacy in a response to her attempt to pull away a little by not answering some emails.
Get whatever romance you can when you can from where ever cause everything ends in tragedy anyway.
Well, yeah, but sometimes it's the next morning and sometimes it's at the end of a long life. The next morning stuff tends to be messier IMX.
But if *I* was in that situation, I reckon I would totally pick up on the weird crushed-out vibes some complete stranger was having towards my husband, and I don't think I want to subject the poor woman to that.
But subjecting her to a more-than-flirtatious relationship with her husband behind her back is OK? If you two meet, and she senses that her husband is excessively attached to you or you to him, the *she* is likely to take action to cool his ardor. So maybe it's not such a bad idea to meet (though I agree that dinner at your house might be especially inauspicious for this; office holiday party, maybe?).
DFP, I think maybe you're making a mistake in thinking that this drama is about you. The drama is in his head, and it's all about him. Right now, it's a drama of delicious yearning and forbidden love; and later it will be a drama of torment and remorse and can his dear lovely angelic wife ever forgive him? Don't be manipulated into playing along. Tell him to cut that shit out.
No one here is suggesting that DFP jump him, I don't think. But if DFP's feelings are really high-key right now, I doubt repression of them is going to keep something disastrous from happening. I don't have a lot of faith in repression as a way of handling strong impulses. Playing them out, in a milder way, in a public setting, however, can take some of the sting out.
McManly has it right.
Guys who cry that much should probably be on medication.
He doesn't sound like a bad guy
He sounds like a candidate for a restraining order.
Playing them out, in a milder way, in a public setting, however, can take some of the sting out.
Right. Like seeing what the relationship looks and feels like conducted in front of both of your spouses.
And: if his wife has her own shit together, the existence of mutual crushiness that you're both working to control isn't necessarily a black mark against either of you. (Yeah, that's optimistic.)
But he does seem to have ramped up the intimacy in a response to her attempt to pull away a little by not answering some emails.
Yeah, it really depends on how this played out. If DFP agrees with this summary than I agree with RMcMP that it's a problem. If DFP thinks that, when she wasn't responding, she was also sending out signals that said, "I'm hoping you won't be disuaded, and will continue pursuing me" then it's different. That still seems problematic, but less so.
Tell him to cut that shit out.
This, which I think follows leblanc's similar advice, seems right to me. But I've never had anyone storyboard my relationship to her, so I'm well out of my depth here.
And DFP might be surprised how meeting and being around the spouse changes the way she feels and acts. Just don't drink too much.
126: Ah, but you see, that's exactly what he did when she didn't answer his email. Email.
Maybe DFP can get a bundling bag for her "friend"
http://threerivershms.com/bundling.htm
113 sounds like a good idea if you don't want to go the 'cut that shit out' route. Seeing how Mr. and Mrs. Leaky interact could be edifying, and humanizing the other probably is a pretty good thing since there isn't really a way of sleeping with Mr. Leaky and having the end of the story be about puppies and sunshine.
If DFP thinks that, when she wasn't responding, she was also sending out signals that said, "I'm hoping you won't be disuaded, and will continue pursuing me" then it's different.
Well, she's obviously ambivalent (like, she knows she is and said so). If she weren't, this wouldn't be a problem at all. She still sounds as if she'd be happier overall if she could get the relationship cooled down, and he's working to make that cooling down not happen. This doesn't make him the devil, particularly given that his attentions are welcome on some level, but their interests seem to be in opposition, and he's being emotionally manipulative in the service of his interests.
I feel like the "how to deal with him" answers are basically correct but not really to the point. Forgive me, DFP, but if a friend were to relay this question to me, I'd be concerned that she was feeling miserable and unappreciated in her marriage. Which is to say, nevermind this guy, focus on what's going on with you such that his behavior has touched a cord. There's some need he's satisfying, but interactions have momentum and inertia and this one isn't headed to a good place.
143: Honestly? It was when I realised that I seemed to have a deep deep aversion to the prospect of meeting his wife (which I think is probably going to have to happen soon if I am really going to try to normalise this relationship rather than just cut it off), that I realised *I* had a problem.
Before that, I just thought he was acting weirdly - ie, that the problem was his.
Oh, dear.
149 seems important. If you're averse to meeting his wife, you need to meet his wife immediately.
touched a chord
Music, not string. You're probably right in terms of the underlying stuff, but the immediate practical issue is handling the relationship with the guy -- the marital relationship is another project. (And I'd think you'd want to get the thing with the guy shut down before exploring possible cans of worms. Working on your marriage is important, but can produce temporary negative feelings while you're dragging things to light. And you don't want to go there while you have your buddy there to console you lovingly.)
149: Dinner party, then. Shall we offer recipes?
I'm getting the vibe that DFP is looking for some kind of OK to sleep with the guy, or at least seems pretty resistant to solutions that rule this out. In that context, 148 is a good question.
150. Absolutely. A big red flare just went up. Get thee to the nearest Applebee's, for some friendly banter among friends, and friendly spouses.
150 is right. But! If you meet his wife and don't like her, you need to be careful that this doesn't become part of a rationalization to cheat.
Also, surely you should try speaking about this at greater length with your husband. I realize that that might be a mistake in some relationships, but it sounds as if you have the sort of foundation that makes such a discussion possible, even if it is embarrassing and painful for both of you.
i lean strongly towards the rmcmp view, that he is fundamentally a manipulator.
but i also agree with those who are focusing on the practical rather than the more abstract.
so the practical thing to do is: never hire products of english boarding schools.
i lean strongly towards the rmcmp view, that he is fundamentally a manipulator.
This may be true, but it seems like he's focussing all his efforts on one woman, which is unusual among the people we generally describe as manipulators.
never hire products of english boarding schools
With apologies to our own boarding school contingent, it frightens me a bit that such places continue to exist.
155.2 seems right to me.
Hell, where was DFP when I was a teenager? Dramatic, repressed, and UNMARRIED, baby.
Get thee to the nearest Applebee's
Eatin' good! In the neighborhood!
One of my favorite advertising slogans of all time, since Applebee's is such a bulwark of the ersatz suburban strips that killed our charmingly archaic "neighborhoods".
Also, surely you should try speaking about this at greater length with your husband.
Possible avenues of attack: "I'm really fond of X, but I'm starting to worry that he's getting too crushy on me -- let's have the X's over; I want him to know you and see us as a couple. That should cool things off, and it'll be fun, you'll like him." Conspiring with your husband against X, if you see what I mean, seems to me to be the way to go.
157--
eh, hard to say. some cons just recognize a mark when they see one.
no; that's not quite right. i don't think he is that conscious of his own being a con. he is clearly not that calculating; instead, he is just enjoying an immense power-trip, with (as far as he is concerned) no negative consequences.
how often do most men get to produce in a woman the desire to rip off pants? (in my case: never).
so he gets to experience the pleasure of getting her all hot and bothered and mixed up and confused. and that can be a lot of pleasure. but he still controls the outcomes, and keeps it safe for his own marriage.
i think it's basically a shitty thing to do.
148: That's actually very sweet, ogged. And not the first time that question has come up in this thread.
I think it's natural to wonder whether attraction or openness to someone else indicates an insufficiency in one's own relationship. That really bothered me at first, too, because it's not like my husband and I are swingers or anything.
To clarify: my husband is perfectly capable of vulnerability and tenderness and expressions of sentiment and romance, but he also finds the behaviour of my colleague highly cheesey and entertaining, in an "omg how emo" way. He has a very good bullshit detector, and largely finds academics neurotic and preposterous.
The colleague is coming on strong with the brooding adolescent romantic routine (with the explicit proviso that this never become anything sexual) and while yes this is prefectly ridiculous, it is also a completely different kind of relationship with a completely different kind of person. It's not an insufficiency in my own relationship that's drawing me towards this: it's the difference between them.
So I'm trying to think hard about whether it's possible for me to explore this and, like, learn stuff about life and the people in it, without ending up actually very hurt. Or being an arsehole. Does that make sense?
I say from experience, y'all, identifying someone's behavior as stalkery or manipulative or creepy is not productive for tamping down a sexual response to that behavior. Objectively, it might be true. But as long as DFP is reacting with desire, it doesn't matter.
I'd like briefly to get back to the swooning. Let me be sure I understand: he handed you his picture-book, you thanked him, and he passed-out? Did you catch him or did he fall thump to the ground? Did you call 911?
Is Applebee's one of the places that refuses to serve rare meat, "for health reasons"?
"I'm really fond of X, but I'm starting to worry that he's getting too crushy on me -- let's have the X's over; I want him to know you and see us as a couple you with your shotgun."
163: Yeah, knowing you inspire a very localized response in someone who doesn't feel that way about anyone else is a huge turn-on. But when there's a wife involved, it's not a good reason to act on it. I say focus on recognizing the wife, since that seems to be the only real wrench in your gears at this point.
So I'm trying to think hard about whether it's possible for me to explore this and, like, learn stuff about life and the people in it, without ending up actually very hurt. part of a murder suicide.
Is Applebee's one of the places that refuses to serve rare meat, "for health reasons"?
You want some e. coli with your steak?
So I'm trying to think hard about whether it's possible for me to explore this and, like, learn stuff about life and the people in it, without ending up actually very hurt. Or being an arsehole. Does that make sense?
Yes, and the answer is that you've already taken that about as far as it can safely go. You have to be able to either hold it at this level (recognizing that his cooperation is needed for that to work) or dial it back from where it is now.
Yeah, knowing you inspire a very localized response in someone who doesn't feel that way about anyone else is a huge turn-on.
I guess this is only true if you otherwise know and like the person who has a crush on you.
You want some e. coli with your steak?
Cooking any piece of red meat past medium rare should be a crime.
Dear Person Who Wrote In,
You must immediately kill this person.
Regards,
FL.
You want some e. coli with your steak?
E.coli should not be anywhere near steak if it has been washed before cooking. It could be in ground beef.
173: Well, sure. But knowing that someone you respect and admire has strong feelings for you is going to be very powerful, even if you're not in a position to act on them.
only real wrench in your gears
I'm sorry I misread that as wench, and thought you had changed your mind about a daliance.
173: I'd say it's more about feeling known by the person who has a crush on you, too. Lots of people have vague, stalkery, manipulative crushes on people they don't really know very well, which of course feels ridiculous and insulting.
People are so harsh! Yes, it's not the best way to act, and no, of course I'm far too sensible to ever behave this way, but . . . gosh, feelings can be strong sometimes. Not everyone who breaks down in tears inappropriately is a big ol' phony manipulator.
One possibility here is to just speak to him directly about this. I understand the downside: That explicitly acknowledging feelings of this sort can be totally hott in such a way as to result in the removal of clothes. But calling people on shit and being brutally frank can sometimes be an effective way of dealing with these things, for some people, in some circumstances. I'm thinking: telling him that you're confused, that there seem to be a lot of feelings in play here, and that you will have to cut things off if it continues in this way.
It seems important that they're friends. I hate the idea of just backing away from a friend without explanation, especially when it obviously causes (sincere) pain.
165: The swooning was pretty spectacular, Brock. I thanked him for the storybook and he made this little orgasmic "oh" expression, then his whole body sort of visibly slumped and melted.
But he didn't actually pass out or anything, no.
180: One possibility here is to just speak to him directly about this. I understand the downside: That explicitly acknowledging feelings of this sort can be totally hott in such a way as to result in the removal of clothes. But calling people on shit and being brutally frank can sometimes be an effective way of dealing with these things, for some people, in some circumstances. I'm thinking: telling him that you're confused, that there seem to be a lot of feelings in play here, and that you will have to cut things off if it continues in this way.
You've stated the downside, but I think you're underestimating the chances of it. I see confession, blowup with hurt feelings, short period of distance, return to increased intimacy.
I'd say it's more about feeling known by the person who has a crush on you, too. Lots of people have vague, stalkery, manipulative crushes on people they don't really know very well, which of course feels ridiculous and insulting.
Yeah, I think I might have one of these on somebody. Problem is that I would have to get to know her better before I can detect whatever non-perfect qualities she might have. But it would be hard to do that without doing the sort of thing that I wouldn't want to admit to my significant other, that is, go on a date-type excursion with her.
FL is heartless and mean.
No one wants to be the guy to point out it's Old Yeller time.
184: Yeah, that's interesting. I don't think it has to be a date, but, if you don't want to cheat on your SO, you could try imagining her taking a dump or being mean to a kitten or something in her private time.
167. No, no, you love teenage me. Modern me is bitter, cynical, and emotionally unavailable.
153: No, no, I know the Mineshaftians too well to think I was going to get any encouragement to actually lure this guy into cheating on his wife here. Quite the contrary.
183: I'm clinging to the idea that adults can speak frankly and honestly about their feelings from time to time without having it blow up in their faces. I'm not sure that's sensible, but I very much want it to be true. At any rate, I do admit that the prudence of attempting this obviously varies from case to case.
but, if you don't want to cheat on your SO, you could try imagining her taking a dump
Maybe he already does, and it's part of the crush.
No, no, I know the Mineshaftians too well to think I was going to get any encouragement to actually lure this guy into cheating on his wife here. Quite the contrary.
YOU - DUMP THE CHUMP
HE - DITCH THE BITCH
YOU LET HIM RUN SOBBING INTO YOUR ARMS AND START A NEW LIFE TOGETHER
188: Well, I identified the possibility initially -- I mean, people do have affairs, and do end marriages. I'm generally opposed to the idea, but people do what they do, and plenty of good people do things that seem less than optimal. I'm not telling you not to have an affair with the guy, just not to put yourself in a position where you do it accidentally or impulsively.
174 is the truest thing said so far in this thread.
193: Does lamb count as red meat? Because it's good rare, but differently good well-done. For beef, I'm with you.
188: I will offer (at least tacit) encouragement to cheat at times, but not with this time bomb.
174 is sage, but more apposite to this post would be a different piece of cooking advice:
things that are kept on a low simmer too long without getting to the proper intense heat get very tough and tasteless.
On Thanksgiving we had a 9 lb top sirloin roast. Worth every penny.
174 is sage
But rosemary goes better with LB's lamb.
143 and 150 strike me as absolutely, 100 percent correct. (Two hits for AWB!) I've been in this situation before -- both parties, as a matter of fact -- and it's turned out well both times.* The thing is, after you meet the other person, you begin to understand the emo guy/DFP's life more richly, and it makes what you share seem more grounded and less high school.
Of course, with a sample size of two, this may just be anecdotal.
*Something else somewhat related once turned out horribly wrong, but hey, direct analogies aren't banned, only analogous ones, right?
I will offer (at least tacit) encouragement to cheat at times, but not with this time bomb.
Intriguing. Under what conditions? Or does "tacit" just mean that you don't have objections?
Nah, lots and lots of garlic, slivered and stabbed into the meat all over. Mmm. Lamb.
The frank conversation solution has its merits, and is more likely to be successful than the disappearing option has been, it is true. But I also fear kid bitzer is right in 162.
The possibilities for humiliation during any kind of talk in which he can maintain plausible deniability for inappropriateness while I am confessing my embarrassing feelings are too terrible to contemplate.
you know how you have to adjust the tension on sewing machines just exactly right, or you get a rat's nest of excess thread all piled up in one place?
my wife's quilting group calls this effect "thread-barf".
seems like it might be a useful term in blog circles, as well.
(this thought unrelated to dfp's problems, by the way).
No, no, I know the Mineshaftians too well to think I was going to get any encouragement to actually lure this guy into cheating on his wife here
you are fucking kidding, right? Go for it. This is like unbelievably cut and dried.
Haven't read the whole thread, but interestingly, an acquaintance of mine is in a very similar situation right now, except more disturbing for its lack of whimsy and swooning. Also, the colleague in question is definitely sour on [possessive pronoun] marriage.
Like I said to the acquaintance in question: Stories that start out this way never end well.
I'm surprised at you, dsquared. Helping someone as drippy as this guy get laid? Out of character. Next you'll be rescuing kittens from trees.
The 13th century had all the answers to this question. You must give him a scarf, he will write a long intricate poem, and then he will go get killed by Saracens.
does the "here" in 188 go with "encouragement" or "cheating"?
on the other hand, rereading, he sounds like a bit of a wet fart, so I modify my advice to say that the two of you should have an affair, but not with each other.
Mmm. Lamb
Which is not to say that DFP is mutton parading as lamb. Far from it, I'm sure.
Or get castrated, and you can write letters to each other from within your respective convents/monasteries.
206: you were right, I was wrong, I hereby eat crow.
The 13th century had all the answers to this question. You must give him a scarf, he will write a long intricate poem, and then he will go get killed by Saracens.
The tragedy of our age is that we are compelled to marry people we actually like, and therefore we feel non-religiously-motivated guilt about adultery.
Durng the summer, some friends of mine and I had dinner at Aquavit, and I ordered the venison steak "as close to raw as is legally possible." Our waiter topped that by telling me that the night before someone had asked that the steak "just be walked quickly through the kitchen."
I once put a woman in exactly this position, except she wasn't married. And I wasn't acting nearly so ridiculous. But I was both completely smitten with her and not wanting to cheat on my wife. But deep down I really did want to cheat on my wife. Except that I didn't. But I was so smitten. The truth is I couldn't figure out what I wanted, and I doubt this guy can either. If she had extended an invitation I'd have been in bed with her in an instant. And probably regretted it later. (Or maybe not?) She eventually said it didn't make sense for us to be quite so close. I cried like a baby. (But not in front of her... jesus.) I protested ("Do you think there's something inappropriate about our friendship?"); she backed off ("No, nothing explicitly inappropriate"). But she made sure things cooled and it was the right move. We're still friendly, just in a far more innocent way. The aching tension is gone. It left when the unstated possibility was removed.
It sounds as if he doesn't know what he wants and is looking to you to make that decision. That you are conflicted makes it tough, which is why his putting the decision on you is so unfair. If you're not comfortable having an affair with a married man, tell him to back off. That's what he needs. If you're trying to decide whether or not you're comfortable having an affair with a married man, that's a somewhat different question.
Or course, it's possible I'm reading too much of my own situation into yours.
See, I screwed it up. Back to copy/ paste.
210--
i prefer the version which speaks of "mutton dressed as lamb", since then you get the pun on "dressed" = cooked and prepared as a more tender meat vs. "dressed" = clothed and accoutered as a younger woman.
also--never stab slivers of garlic into your paramour, even if she is of a certain age.
So I'm trying to think hard about whether it's possible for me to explore this and, like, learn stuff about life and the people in it, without ending up actually very hurt. Or being an arsehole.
No. Not with this guy. He wants to be your obsessive forbidden love, not your learning experience, and it won't end well for either of you.
I think he's an emotional firehose and you just happen to be in the path of the water. And I think that your response is completely understandable, given that you like and respect the guy, don't find his attention threatening and that he spends so much time telling you how uniquely awesome you are. Who wouldn't respond to that? (It sounds to me like your feelings didn't develop until well after the onslaught o'lurve started -- is that accurate?)
I wouldn't cut him off cold, express ambivalence or do anything else that will fan the flames. I'd be really clear with him that you want to be friends, period, and that he needs to cool it with the the notes on your locker and the mix tapes, even if you don't feel like you're being totally honest with him.
Once you've de-escalated, then take a look at the need this filled and find a safer way to get that need met.
217. Make it so, Number One.
212: Hah. I'll take that as covering our earlier discussion of C-sections, as well.
Intriguing. Under what conditions?
Under the condition that it won't end your marriage. This is a very common situation for some people and an impossible one for others. Though I'll say that, for the most part, cheating only ends a marriage if one party already wanted out or the marriage already wasn't on solid ground.
215: Thanks, dead male counterpart. That is oddly comforting.
never stab slivers of garlic into your paramour
But bacon nails are OK, right?
For some reason I feel really uncomfortable not signing things. 215 was me.
222: Wait, actually, no, it's not, DMP. You *knew* you were smitten. This guy really does seem to think all these things add up to a strong platonic friendship, which seems sort of incomprehensible to me. Gonerill may be right. It's that or meet the wife, as AWB says, and I dunno that I have the skirt for that.
This guy really does seem to think all these things add up to a strong platonic friendship, which seems sort of incomprehensible to me. Gonerill may be right.
I don't mean to be harsh, but he's lying (or, more kindly, not telling you everything). He's probably not actively trying to seduce you, but Brock didn't say that he told his crush-object he wanted her -- he gave her the impression that he thought there was nothing inappropriate about their friendship. She was in the same position you are, just with less photoshop.
226: I strongly suspect he knows he's smitten too, he just isn't admitting that to you. I didn't.
But you're right that run away or meet the wife are the right choices, if you ask me.
Fuck LB. That's several times recently you've pwned me on my own life story.
It's also possible that just talking about the crush problem here will make the situation less dire. I often safe up and harbor secret crushes that get out of hand, but talking about them is how I get rid of them. Maybe not everyone works this way, but you may feel less intense about all this when you see him next, just by virtue of having brought it up here.
just with less photoshop
Somehow this matters a lot to me. Seriously, anmik, Photoshopping hot "friendship" montages is vastly more Stalinist than making a mix tape.
And Stalinism is not so much teh hott as teh crazy.
Under the condition that it won't end your marriage.
But this is "no objections," right? I was wondering if there were situations when you thought cheating ended up being a positive good.
229: Is this where I mention I've been stalking you?
232--
look, scmt, if you want to proposition apo, then just go ahead.
i don't think his wife will object.
228: I really really don't know that this is the case, much to my chagrin.
Evidence to the contrary: my husband's reaction to the drunken night a bunch of us spent together (no wife; he comes out a bit socially but his wife stays home with the kids): "honey, he wants *something* from you, but I don't think he's trying to get in your pants."
I was actually rather insulted by this, but I do think he is right.
He probably thinks he is smitten, just not in "that way". Which may be true in the sense that it may be true and this is a platonic friendship or it may be true in the sense that he is insane. If it is true, it is probably a combination of these. Maybe he is highly neurotic and wants to feel loved, just not for his penis, because the patriarchy is so riding his ass, and so forth.
But probably he is just lying to himself and wants you to love him, just not for his penis, because the patriarchy is so riding is ass, except that really he wants you to love him for his photoshopping, teary-eyed, swooning penis, he just doesn't know this last part yet.
Yeah, my crush got no photoshop or mix tapes or swooning. Just lots of friendly flirting (subtle enough that I could comfortably pretend we were just good friends), and lots and lots of time spent together. That was the thinking behind the last line of 215.
But one striking similarity is that what led her to re-evaluate the situation was her realization that she couldn't possibly bear to meet my wife, for basically the reasons you've described.
Photoshopping hot "friendship" montages is vastly more Stalinist than making a mix tape.
Mix tapes are a bad sign in themselves ... a few years ago a colleague of mine made me one, and I failed to appreciate that this was a sign that this person was kind of crazily in love with me and thought we were made for each other. I foolishly took the well-known fact that I was shortly due to be married meant that I wouldn't be seen as likely to jump into bed with anyone. Silly me.
230: AWB, that is exactly what I am hoping.
Mostly I just feel increasingly stupid. It is all so corny! Horrifying.
And it's not like I am ever going to breathe a word about any of this to anyone I know IRL. (I can hardly expect my husband to listen to me moan about it, either.)
235: Could be, but in that case you need to back off the romance for your own sake; even if he's not inappropriately crushy, you are.
"honey, he wants *something* from you, but I don't think he's trying to get in your pants."
Okay, that sounds like a different situation.
He can have a romantic-type crush on you without specifically thinking sexual thoughts. But if you start doing actual romantic things together, then the physical intimacy proceeds, usually, right?
Okay, I'm a long ways from being caught up on this thread, but let me echo Will and Apo and B and others that this is a dangerous situation. Been there, not pretty. The comment from DFP about "getting it all on the table" making it better -- so, so been there! Trust me, not helpful. Deep and meaningful friendship combined with acknowledgments of mutual smittenness combined with acknowledgments that nothing can ever happen is a perfect recipe for hurt all around.
I don't have any really good advice about how to manage this without damaging the friendship (and should probably finish reading the comments, because someone probably already offered a kernel of wisdom). If you back off without saying anything, feelings get hurt. If you "put it on the table," it's constantly "out there" and the friendship gets irrevocable weird. Realistically, the best way to avoid anyone getting hurt is to "take a break" for awhile. The friendship will probably never be the same, but that's probably better for everyone in the long run.
But this is "no objections," right?
Yeah, I guess that's more accurate. Encourage is putting it too strongly.
situations when you thought cheating ended up being a positive good.
I have advised it to friends before. I am certain in some of those cases that it was a positive good for them and what their wives/husbands didn't know didn't hurt them (yes, yes, STDs, that didn't happen). in other cases, I'm pretty certain everybody would have been better off if they'd just had a brief fling than feeling obligated to end their marriage first, just to find out the fling isn't really that big of a deal. But it was certainly too late then.
It's always about specific individuals (and pairings) and I couldn't lay out a blanket rule, but I steadfastly don't believe that fidelity is always and ever the best option.
Now that I think of it, isn't DFP's reaction analogous to being "love-bombed" by a cult? It can be overwhelming at first, doesn't tend to last for most people. The thing to do is not keep it or let it be kept in isolation.
(And yeah, I know analogies are banned but I have lots of guns and ammo)
DFP, you should spell out all the most ridiculous absurd fantasies you have here, where you can laugh at them and not have them anymore, or say them all out loud into a hole in a tree or something like in 2046. I have a girlfriend who lets me do this with her, and she does it with me, and we laugh (in a loving way) at one another.
"Maybe he is highly neurotic and wants to feel loved, just not for his penis, because the patriarchy is so riding his ass"
This rings very very true to me. And yet, I do not understand this mindset. There are people who think/feel this way??
239: Mostly I just feel increasingly stupid.
I wouldn't. You're in an uncomfortable situation (and my strong guess is that he is smitten, and just covering); not handling it gracefully doesn't make you stupid.
How old is this guy, anyway? It all reads like a semi-repressed mid-life crisis where the goal, from his point of view, is either to have his cake and eat it, or at worst to engineer things so that if "something happens" he won't be to blame. Of course, so far you're playing along too.
I have advised it to friends before. I am certain in some of those cases that it was a positive good for them and what their wives/husbands didn't know didn't hurt them (yes, yes, STDs, that didn't happen). in other cases, I'm pretty certain everybody would have been better off if they'd just had a brief fling than feeling obligated to end their marriage first, just to find out the fling isn't really that big of a deal.
I find that genuinely fascinating, in part because I trust your judgment here, and am therefore willing to swallow this whole. It's not so hard to imagine a situation in which it was better for everyone that there was a fling--easy, even--but it's unimaginable to me that I would trust my judgment enough to ever so advise a friend. The "no objections" thing is much easier to imagine.
"DFP, you should spell out all the most ridiculous absurd fantasies you have here"
Ha, ha, AWB. Because that always works out so well for you!
I think publicly confessing I am crushing on the emo boy is absurdity enough.
Well, spell them out somewhere. (FWIW, I have never discussed my fantasy life here.)
250: Well, I didn't just recommend it out of the blue over beers. It was as an alternative to some other proposed plan that had higher odds of bad outcomes.
It was as an alternative to some other proposed plan that had higher odds of bad outcomes.
Take out a hit on the spouse and then attempt to collect on the insurance?
253: Apo, I don't know if you've thought about this or not, but you know what would take your mind off all the diarrhea and infant care? You should give some thought to having an affair.
252: No, no - I know. I just find your comments on dating/sex helpfully frank, and am always a little shocked by some of the responses that elicits. In a "wow, that person is way braver and more perceptive than me," way.
some other proposed plan that had higher odds of bad outcomes.
We either calculate these odds very differently or that must have been one atrociously bad proposed plan.
FP, you should spell out all the most ridiculous absurd fantasies you have here, where you can laugh at them and not have them anymore, or say them all out loud into a hole in a tree or something like in 2046. I have a girlfriend who lets me do this with her, and she does it with me, and we laugh (in a loving way) at one another.
I really don't know what kind of "absurd fantasies" you mean here. I don't really have sexual fantasies that differ from my actual sex life. And my fantasies about the girl I have a crush on basically extend to "I long for her", or "I want to walk down the street holding her hand and see her smile", moments like that every now and then.
253:Where? Can you give half the URL?
Is Extreme Flirting an Olympic Sport yet? Would you get points for intensity of expression, degree of inappropriate response, miscommunication, margins of preventing damage to others?
Hey, you know what's weird? Someone just called here looking for my husband (who's out of town), and he wouldn't leave a name or a message but the name on the caller ID says "Apo."
I like the idea of Apo's friends creating lots of false choices. "Apo, if I don't cheat on my husband, I just know I'll stab him in the kidneys while he sleeps. What ought I do??"
The only likely thing I can think of as an alternative plan is "I'm either going to have an affair with X, or I'm going to go home, tell my wife/husband I'm leaving her/him, move out, and then go have sex with X." While those obviously aren't anyone's only two options, if those are the only two under serious consideration, I can see (under some circumstances) arguments for the first.
249: We're both mid-30s. And yes I have been playing along with the whimsy and the swooning, it is true. (In my defense: I have done no photoshopping.)
It's more the realisation that we are playing different games that drove me to seek the collective wisdom of the Mineshaft.
And everyone has been surprisingly thoughtful and helpful about this. I expected to get way more flack than this. (That is not actually an invitation to start.)
Thanks, Mineshaft!
DFP is trying to kill the thread. Some thanks for all the free advice she's gotten!
260: He was just calling to make sure. It's all right Apo, it's safe to come over.
I'm trying to think of which sinister organization's name starts with Apo.
one atrociously bad proposed plan.
The main ones have been ending the marriage and proposing polyamory to a partner that I was pretty certain would be horrified.
He is gay, and dealing with it terribly badly. I have to wonder if he is bringing out the fag-hag in you, making you feel like you are more interesting than you used to feel you were, bolder and more dramatic; a worthy object of attention. Forget him; he'll be sobbing into his teddy bear for a few nights but he'll forget you, too, quite quickly, and he'll find someone else to be passionate and squealy about. Find a way of actualising the side of your personality he made you aware of. Wanting to sleep with him is a proxy for wanting to reclaim that part of yourself. You need to feel like you're interesting again. (Are you completely adoring this thread?)
bringing out the fag-hag in you
This very phrase crossed my mind, but I passed on it.
Someone just called here looking for my husband (who's out of town), and he wouldn't leave a name or a message but the name on the caller ID says "Apo."
Has your husband started working out and dressing better lately?
I see no evidence for most of 268. Even if this were a coming-out scenario, that tends to be paired with an intense connection to the person one comes out to, not the immediate dumping of one's (ahem) "fag hag." (Distasteful and misogynistic term, that.)
270: Yes, he has. Er, I mean, um, has he?
This guy has got "drama queen" floating in the air above him in letters of green flame at least six feet high.
Ayup.
Look, Apo's right. If you want to cheat, cheat. BUT. If you are going to cheat with someone who is this much of a drama queen--and if you are yourself prone enough to codependence to find it charming and seductive--then know what you are getting into.
What you're getting into with this guy is almost certainly some kind of massive breakdown where he confesses to his wife and there's a huge scene, or he doesn't confess but he leaves her and wants you to take him on, or at the very minimum an incredibly demanding affair. Sure, there's a remote possibility that you'll just end up with a really emotionally (over)intense friendship, or that eventually the emotional intensity will cool off into a not-so-unhealthy friendship. But in the meantime, you know, you and he both have other relationships to maintain. And getting obsessed with someone else is not good for a primary relationship. So even the best case scenario puts everyone into couples therapy in a year or so, and if you want to avoid the huge scene, it'll be the kind of couples therapy where he, and possibly you, have a secret that you don't want to talk about lest you hurt your spouse. Which doesn't bode well for the marital relationships in question.
That's what I mean when I say "know what you're getting into."
The main ones have been ending the marriage and proposing polyamory to a partner that I was pretty certain would be horrified.
Well, that seems pretty straightforward, actually. There doesn't seem to be a downside, in that situation.
I thought you might be talking about the situation in which one or both parties were just absolutely miserable, couldn't/wouldn't divorce, and, hey, you know, everyone deserves a little happiness in life, if just to get through it.
264: Shockingly, no - I could talk about my embarrassingly personal problems at length, and all day!
Like: how *does* one go about de-crushing, exactly?
I have never met a guy like this who wasn't the gayest person anyone he met had ever known. In fact, I have never met a guy nearly as gay as this guy. But 168 is still pretty dumb. If gay people can behave in non-stereotypical ways, then non-gay people can behave like gay people.
Like: how *does* one go about de-crushing, exactly?
Pwned by 184!
Wow, I wrote 275 before I read 268.
Ouch
DFP, if given your complete choice of outcomes, how would you prefer that this situation turn out?
275: Well, getting mad at him is a timehonored way. How dare he put you in this position? You tried to cool the friendship down, and he responded by weeping in your office? Has he no boundaries, nor respect for your boundaries?
This is a little unfair, because he doesn't seem to be messing with you on purpose, so much. But still, you do what you have to, and getting to see his advances as unwelcome encroachment seems like it might help you. Also, a lot of dwelling on how much fun it wouldn't be breaking up both of your marriages over this might help.
Who gives AWB shit for all the sharing??
DFP, Apo is right, there are occasions on which a foray into left field is the right thing to do, but people will get hurt, and there will have to be a lot of talking.
I can't believe this hasn't been suggested yet, but: he should have an affair with your husband. A little transgressive fantasy, a little secret camera thrill-ride for you, you know for sure whether he's gay or not, and nobody gets hurt except the horse!
Although 268 is a real possibility, yes.
The dumping of the fag hag, AWB, is what will happen when DFP, who has fallen for this guy, finds out that he's gay and then watches him start coming out to everyone else, realize it's not so bad after all, figure out what to do about his marriage (are there kids? If not, there'll be a pretty civil divorce, most likely), and then move on to happily dating men while expecting her to be completely thrilled for him. That's if he doesn't decide that she was a dear darling at the time, but he's embarrassed by his neediness, or isn't as enamored of her as he thought he was when she was the only person he could talk to, and he moves on into a new life and she passes into the realm of friendly acquaintance.
All of which is perfectly understandable, and will feel like shit to DFP.
DFP- You're fine. You've let your husband know about it and he's engaged you on it. He's absolutely right. Your colleague wants *something* from you and it's likely not sex. Don't be disappointed how he reacts.
Suggesting a double date or whatever is a potential disaster. Who says the wife would be at all interested? Like she's sitting at home waiting for this invite? Christ, I'm not 100% convinced he has a wife.
Your friend is a mess. He's got real big problems. Maybe he's gay or maybe childhood trauma? Who knows? And that's how you should be approaching it. Your friend has serious, deep-seeded issues.
280 is very sensible. Maybe even play with the fantasy outcome in which you let love have its way....and then spend months/years/the rest of your life working through the fallout.
279: a drunken bonk at a conference, followed by an "ok, that's out of our system; let's go back to being friends," would have been *my* preferred option. But this won't happen for many, many compelling reasons.
Well, I don't think he's coming out. I think he's actually not come out to himself yet, so he's creating mad amounts of drama to avoid it. That's why I said "terribly badly". But that also makes me think he won't treat her well-- he isn't treating her well, when you get right down to it-- because he's not in an honest place right now. He's making a fake emotional connection instead of a real one.
and apologies for the distasteful misogynist term; I just couldn't find another way of expressing the concept.
247: Oh sure, the whole love me, but not for my penis thing happens. Mostly it's just the old, "love me for me" thing. For some people experience teaches that the politics of sexual relationships pushes people farther away, rather than closer together.
Some guys really want to swoon and be a bit "girly". Most of these guys eventually find a balance where they can express this and still engage in a meaningful relationship. On the other hand, some guys may run into a period in their dating life where they have to suppress these instincts, to be "a guy", and they end up feeling as they have lost a bit of themselves. Maybe the guys marriage falls into this category.
Probably, in an ideal world, he would want to behave like he does with you but then, magically, also have the wild monkey sex. But, experience has taught him he has had to choose one or the other; hence the wife and then you.
I tend not to believe that getting anything out of your system helps. Maybe finding out that it wasn't something you wanted at all, but if you wanted it, you're going to want more.
Drunken bonks never simplify a complex situation; it will just turn the problem into a different, bigger problem.
286: That would be a totally acceptable solution except that his behavior seriously suggests that he wouldn't get it out of his system; he'd show up crying in your office even *more* often.
Also Alfi G. is quite wise.
Drunken bonks never simplify a complex situation; it will just turn the problem into a different, bigger problem.
Ah, you forget the possibility that they end up being completely sexually incompatible, or the quite likely possibility that the reality does not match the fantasy in some important way. Spark -- extinguished!
Problem! Bonk fix. (swig)
Okey dokey!
(clatter, smash!)
Oh, no! Problem bigger! Bonk so drunk.
True. Have a drunken bonk with him, give him a blow job, and bite his cock.
Seriously, Ned, have you ever had bad sex with a big emotional crush and it's killed the crush? If I have real feelings for someone, even mediocre sex will make the crush worse.
Though actually the emo love-me-not-my-penis thing might mean he'd fall for you even more.
289: I don't think that's quite right. Something you can't have gets built up in your head into something majestic and fantabulous and the rest of your life is just settling by comparison. A dose of reality (hey, that is nice but not actually that different and certainly not worth exiting stage left over) can be quite helpful.
274:"I thought you might be talking about the situation in which one or both parties were just absolutely miserable, couldn't/wouldn't divorce, and, hey, you know, everyone deserves a little happiness in life, if just to get through it."
I've seen this movie. Brief Encounter? Tea & Sympathy? I'll remember. I cried at the end.
Offer to have sex with him, retire to the bathroom to change, and emerge in a furry chipmunk costume? That should settle things, unless he's delighted, in which case you've got troubles.
My advice is not to involve the guy in a discussion (which will probably result in tragedy) or in sex (which will certainly result in tragedy), but to "let out" all this feeling in some other way. Write a really bad poem about your feelings, draw hearts all over it, laugh at yourself, and then set it on fire. Have lots of hot sex with your husband. Play tennis.
Hmmmmm, you know he does give off a very distinct gay vibe - even through the intertubes, apparently. I was very very surprised to discover the existence of the wife and children. And he has mentioned to me that his wife is really uncomfortable about his gay friends - I asked whether that was because he used to have boyfriends, but he said no.
I know plenty of straight dudes who come across as very fey and camp, and am always irritated that everyone assumes they must be gay. Why, for gods sake?
But the fact that people of our shared social milieu could actually be closeted, in their own heads, had never occurred to me. Until now.
296: Exactly; in the end, it all comes back to the penis. Absence makes the heart grow fonder, and so forth.
"Your friend has serious, deep-seeded issues."
right. so you can watch the whole drama from your front-row seeds.
alternatively, he may be highly seeded in the tournament, and likely to get into the semifinals of mcmanus' extreme flirting olympics.
but otherwise, i think "deep-seated" is what you want.
I've got it! Next time he starts crying on your shoulder, *you* start crying even harder. When he asks why, sob uncontrollably and explain that your husband thinks you're having an affair with him, and that you absolutely ADORE your husband and just don't know WHAT to do about this terrible problem because your friend needs you SO MUCH that you can't possibly abandon him but you don't want to ruin your marriage either....
He'll back off.
(I know this is mean, but I bet it would work.)
286: Hmm, given that, I think LB is right that part 1 (the drunken bonk) is the thing to watch out for here.
Help me, Mineshaftians! Is it really possible to behave so romantically around someone you sincerely consider your best friend?
The only times I've seen this happen, the guy has been gay. The only wrinkle here is that your pal is married - that I haven't seen before, personally. True story: my father's gay (and heterosexually single) brother used to act somewhat this way around my mom.
I take issue with 268 in that, if he is gay, I don't see anything wrong with what he's doing (except maybe the being-married part, but that's between him and his wife.)
I know plenty of straight dudes who come across as very fey and camp, and am always irritated that everyone assumes they must be gay. Why, for gods sake?
Because people, being more-or-less aware of how others perceive them, generally dress and act in a way that allows them to be perceived as they believe themselves to be?
305: I was going to say that, but then I thought, I have no idea what the phrase "deep-seated" means, whereas I can easily imagine how issues or problems could be figuratively seeded deeply, so I really have no problem with abandoning this vestigial word.
297: or sometimes people just like having to work for things, and when they don't have to work it's just not as interesting. how many times does someone leave their spouse for their lover, only to be promptly dumped? after all, efforts redoubled after she stopped returning email.
re: teh ghey... maybe she needs to tell him that she'd love to jump him but because she takes her wedding vows very seriously her husband needs to be there too?
if he is gay, I don't see anything wrong with what he's doing (except maybe the being-married part, but that's between him and his wife.)
Well, giving the man the benefit of the doubt, the marriage presumably happened before he "realized" he was (really truly) gay. That I can forgive. But it's kind of crappy to drag someone into falling for you by being *this* dependent on them.
306: or! Next time he does that, slap him across the face once, grab him by his lapels and say "for god's sake, man! Toughen up! This is life and death!" then stride off chewing your cigar and yelling at infantrymen.
313: Yes! Plus it'll totally push his boarding school buttons. Talk about catharsis.
And he has mentioned to me that his wife is really uncomfortable about his gay friends
whoa. this is the biggest warning sign i've seen all thread.
312--
the new theory seems to be that he's gay?
i doubt that, but i suppose i should just ask:
would gay men feel the same frisson from causing a woman to be sexually attracted to them? i mean, if chicks are just not your thing, would there be any rush in working this hard to get one hot and bothered about you?
318: Oh, sure. Making people focus on you is a rush whether or not you want to have sex with them.
would gay men feel the same frisson from causing a woman to be sexually attracted to them? i mean, if chicks are just not your thing, would there be any rush in working this hard to get one hot and bothered about you?
Um, yes. Everybody loves attention.
316--
"Talk about catharsis."
sure, talk about it all you want.
just don't expect the talking to actually deliver any.
That was my thinking, Apo.
Yeah, which is why I said under certain circumstances, I'd say go ahead and get it over with, but the more that comes out about this one, the more it seems like a minefield.
I have no idea what the phrase "deep-seated" means
Where's Labs when we need him?
(Doesn't it refer to something like a stanchion being properly seated in its socket?)
If this dude is gay as well as emo (which, let me stress, is really bad enough), I may have to hang myself out of sheer mortification.
319, 320--
how come nobody told me you two were gay men?
You might probe, conversationally, for an indication that he wants to come out to you. Unfortunately, I can't think of anything that wouldn't also sound exactly like you were inviting him to admit his attraction to you.
310: In this context, "deep-seated" is an anal sex reference.
But, then, so would "deep-seeded".
So, it's gay all-around!
Also, am I half-pwned by 323?
I may have to hang myself out of sheer mortification
No, no, gun control prevents suicide. You'll have to tough it out.
318:"would gay men feel the same frisson from causing a woman to be sexually attracted to them?"
All the hardcore seducers are self-closeted gays. Warren Beatty. Wilt Chamberlain. Ethan Hawke.
God's truth.
323--
"seat" has a variety of extended senses in which it means roughly "origin", "source", "cause" etc.
so "deep-seated" just means "having a deep underlying origin, source, cause, etc."
no particular reference to stanchions (!) and sockets (!!).
312: No no no. Women, you will probably be surprised to learn, can be grownups with volition in these matters. DFP's friend, who I wish to call Seemingly Gay Guy, is doing nothing but demonstratively expressing genuinely-felt affection. Not a thing in the world wrong with that, especially when you add in his explicit instruction that there can be no sex.
DFP, I actually did once have a guy I was flirting with decide he'd fallen for me and start acting like this, sort of. Once I realized what was going on I tried desperately to get him to come to his senses (he had a wife and a very young child) but even once he realized that I wasn't going to be his one true love, he ended up leaving his wife because he "deserved to be more fulfilled." It was really truly awful.
Being mortified is better than watching someone fuck up their life; all in all, it's probably best if he's gay.
Wilt Chamberlain.
That's a big goddamn closet.
329--
"All the hardcore seducers are self-closeted gays"
well, i'm certainly in favor of any theory that let's me tell myself that the guys who are getting more skirt than me are all just fags anyhow.
yup, i feel much better now.
. DFP's friend, who I wish to call Seemingly Gay Guy, is doing nothing but demonstratively expressing genuinely-felt affection.
I dunno. Surely he ought to be reading DFP's discomfort and adjusting his behavior accordingly.
318: Yeah, I was reading his behaviour more as cheesily brooding and romantic. There have been lots of piercing meaningful looks. None of my openly gay male friends have even given me looks anything like that.
331: Meh, I'm not a fan of that kind of emotional dependence under the guise of "friendship" or anything else. 'S got nothing to do with whether or not women can be grownups; 's got to do with being enough of a grownup oneself to be able to be responsible for one's emotional needs instead of throwing them all at someone else's feet.
330: Duh, I should have realized that. I hadn't ever thought much about the phrase before and was starting with "deep" and trying to come up with a sense of "seat" that worked. Should have been going at it the other way around. (This is also why I stay away from puzzles generally.)
would gay men feel the same frisson
I totally flirt with gay men for the attention. Are you kidding me?
It worked better when I was younger, though.
336: Right, but he's not openly gay. Maybe he's mistaking "omg DFP doesn't seem homophobic! She accepts me as I am!" for "omg I'm totally in love with DFP!" Kind of like how he got married in the first place?
310: In this context, "deep-seated" is an anal sex reference.
But, then, so would "deep-seeded".
So, it's gay all-around!
I think you have some seat-seeded issues, Alfi G.
342: The proper term is tease, slut.
335: What discomfort? She likes the attention, no?
337: I don't get the idea that DFP is put off by his neediness - if anything, she's expressed annoyance at the needs he doesn't seem to have.
339 is correct. Being hit on by gay men is totally flattering unless they're the kind of gay men who hit on you by grabbing for your junk.
None of my openly gay male friends have even given me looks anything like that.
An office I worked in had three senior people who were gay. The two who were campy as hell were the closeted, married ones. The one who was out was more of a he-man football fan sort (and the most viciously funny person I've ever known).
339--
but, honestly, why?
i mean--it's no more possible for me to elicit interest from gay men than from women.
but the second is at least something that strikes me as, in principle, a desirable state of affairs, because i am attracted to women and would like them to reciprocate.
but why exactly would i want gay men to find me attractive?
Being hit on by gay men is totally flattering
Word.
And now I have to go host our departmental seasonal party!
Seemingly gay guy will not be there.
why exactly would i want gay men to find me attractive?
I want everybody to find me attractive, just like I want everybody to find me staggeringly clever and disarmingly charming.
You know, if you convince yourself he's gay and just trying to come out to you, whether or not you're right it should kill the crush.
348: we'll agree to disagree about the second part of 345, I guess.
My gay male friends are forever feeling me up and wanting to french kiss in night clubs -- but they are in no way hitting on me. Or even flirting. I think it's still the traffic in women, but I'm being deployed more like a brooch. Odd that.
345 & 348 at least point in the same direction.
still; it's odd.
i assume that there is some overlap between the features that make you attractive to gay men, and the features that make you attractive to women.
so the attention from gay men tells you "my hair's still curly and my eyes are still blue", and that's good to know since the chicks dig that stuff.
but what if the set of attributes were disjoint? i.e., would it be pleasant to be attractive to gay men if the trigger for the attraction were features that were either neutral to or incompatible with your being attractive to women?
and if so, does this have to do with your desire for deep-seated stanchions?
282 is looking smarter all the time.
353: I have been having precisely that realisation, LB. Also, if this is a convoluted coming-out story, then it is not a story about how incredibly idiotically I have been behaving. (La la la, I cannot hear you.)
Yay, holiday party! And you can tell your husband you figured SGG out, and the two of you can giggle about him.
356: if anything, gay men tend to be more catholic in their tastes, so you can feel all sexually attractive and (like you should be acting) confident even if, by women's standards (such, e.g., in terms of natural confidence), you aren't particularly.
i.e., would it be pleasant to be attractive to gay men if the trigger for the attraction were features that were either neutral to or incompatible with your being attractive to women?
there's really no reason to believe that the attributes are disjoint. but more importantly, if someone thinks you attractive they usually try to make you happy so you will want to be around them. e.g. my old roommate and his gay friends would shamelessly hit on one of my straight friends that they found dreamy, most obviously by asking him long and detailed series of questions about his rock climbing and being fantastically interested in his responses. being the recipient of that kind of attention is fun even if (especially if?) you don't think it's sexual or don't reciprocate it.
gay men tend to be more catholic in their tastes
Altar boy jokes are inappropriate, right?
Yay, holiday party! And you can tell your husband you figured SGG out, and the two of you can giggle about him.
Okay, now I'm imagining the three of them taking the matter a bit too lightly and ending up in the sort of relationship we saw in the last half of Cabaret.
361:If a gay man comes on to you, and you think you are hetero, it means you are like totally wrong, dude. I suggest counseling, but only after weeks of experimentation and self-discovery.
My gay male friends are forever feeling me up and wanting to french kiss in night clubs -- but they are in no way hitting on me. Or even flirting.
If oudemia comes to DC Unfogged, I am feeling her up and then claiming to be gay.
My gf is just my moustache.
Actual, my gf's ex-husband is gay. She was very nice, and tried to help him talk to his family. She didnt tell a soul, until he was ready. She just said that they were incompatible. Even when some people tried to get her to work on the marriage, she didnt tell anyone until he was ready.
No, I was just trying to make a lame Catholic, priests molesting altar boys, joke from the quoted line, but didn't go so far as to come up with something actually funny.
360--
"gay men tend to be more catholic in their tastes"
way to rub it in. even the catholic gays have never found me to their taste.
still--doesn't the feedback loop break down at some point, when you realize that you are getting great reviews from people who have no discernment? "i must be a great chef; starving people love my food! that gives me lots of confidence for my next performance before the restaurant critics!"
My gf is just my moustache.
That's one hairy girlfriend.
Is there really a consensus all the campy boys are gay, though?
I really cherish the existence of men who are not afraid to perform their masculinity in non-normative ways.
(Please don't me return to this thread later while drunk, oh great god of departmental parties.)
Man, this is weird. Crushes like this happen often enough. We usually dismiss them, either as a stray thought, or if recurrent, with the clear knowledge: Whoa, stay away there.
What's different about this, then? That DFP can't get rid of the thought; or that the guy (gay, married, whatever) keeps at it. Sounds like a mutual stroke, really.
369: to describe gay men as "starving" is perhaps misunderstanding some things. "Noted gluttons love my food!" would be more accurate.
372: Not at all. I would have rejected 268 as just someone being annoying about a man who's not performing stoic masculinity well, except that it sounds like it clicked with you, and you know the guy.
What's different about this, then?
That this fellow appears to be entering a period of high drama in his life, and you generally want to avoid being caught up in other people's high drama.
374: to describe most of the gay men I know as
There.
If 373.1 were true, no one would ever have extramarital affairs. Since people seem to, I'm guessing "we" means "some people."
372:Well, there is Eddie Izzard. And every English guy who went to public school always strikes Americans...oops
That this fellow appears to be entering a period of high drama in his life, and you generally want to avoid being caught up in other people's high drama.
Recognizing, of course, that the "generally" is doing some work there. Colleagues' drama is very often a good thing to stay away from, but a certain amount of family's and friends' drama is part of what makes life interesting.
366: No, I don't let the gay boys do that anymore. I smack at them. But it's a pretty common move in gay dance clubs, even from boys one doesn't know: "You're cute! Love the tits!" (I love dancing, but really only do it in gay clubs.)
380:
Thus, the appeal of "Ask the Mineshaft."
Well, yeah. If the high drama is coming out, and you figure that out, it seems like something you could perfectly well be a supportive friend through without taking any damage from it.
What's different about this, then?
What's different about this is that somebody asked the Mineshaft, where just about any scenario -- from the outlandish and the outrageous to the shockingly normal and everyday -- is good for at least 500 comments.
373, 378: Also worth noting that sometimes the way crushes get controlled is by talking through them with friends.
Being hit on by gay men is totally flattering unless they're the kind of gay men who hit on you by grabbing for your junk.
All grabbing is undesirable.
365--
i'm going to sign up for the mcmanus plan.
if warren beatty is getting a lot more female action than me? he must be gay.
if somebody is getting a lot more gay attention? he must be gay.
let's face it: anyone who is sexually attractive to anything at all is just plain gay.
only us pug-uglys are straight, hetero dudes. small consolation, but you have to take it where you can.
I know plenty of straight dudes who come across as very fey and camp, and am always irritated that everyone assumes they must be gay. Why, for gods sake?
Because we live in a cruel, cruel world, in which our some people's sensitive natures mark them as fey forever.
What's different about this, then?
That he's *crying in her office.*
OT:
The other side filed their brief in my case before my state Supreme Court. An actual sentence from their brief:
"The undersigned does not use the internet, but his staff does, and they found an interesting quote from Thomas Jefferson...."
He also paraphrases Justice Roberts testimony at his confirmation hearings.
?!??!?!?!?!!??! Who writes that??! I realize that I havent written some not so great briefs in my side, but geeez.
Being hit on by gay men is totally flattering unless they're the kind of gay men who hit on you by grabbing you a drink
387 disproved!
All grabbing is undesirable.
Crap. I'm really sorry about that thing at the meetup, then, Slol.
people who have no discernment
Homophobe.
"all grabbing is undesirable" sounds like an awkward translation from the german.
maybe a mangled version of hegel on perception.
388:non-normative masculinity, thank you much. I got tons of the stuff. I extrude it.
And I am flattered, but straight KB.
And I am flattered, but straight KB.
Straight, uncut KB.
All grabbing of my person, Tweety. You can grab me a drink anytime.
Unless you're trying to hit on me. In which case dude, stop photoshopping yourself into your colleague's camp snapshots.
391: My current writers block arises from replying to an opposition brief that uses italics, bold, bold italics, and bold underlined italics for emphasis all on the same page. And it misspells Motion to Dismisss on the cover page.
Yet somehow I still can't write the blessed reply brief.
394--
chill, b. it was sifu who said that gay men will hit on anything.
(okay "more catholic in their tastes", cf. 360).
I'm really sorry about that thing at the meetup, then, Slol
Wait, you grabbed me and I didn't notice? What kind of a pass was that?
396: I got tons of the stuff. I extrude it.
Great, now McManus is modelling his dick.
Step away from AutoCad, Bob.
it misspells Motion to Dismisss on the cover page.
I think you can start by saying, "Counsel's "Motion to Dismisss [sic] ...."
399: Ooh, those are the worst. First you have to figure out what they're trying to argue so you can explain why it's wrong, then you have to state their argument in a way that will be clear to the judge but not persuasive, and only then do you actually get to respond. Competent opposing counsel make life much easier.
402--
unhand me, you autocad!
he said to himself.
you generally want to avoid being caught up in other people's high drama.
but a certain amount of family's and friends' drama is part of what makes life interesting.
All true.
Previously attested uninvited grabbing.
things that are kept on a low simmer too long without getting to the proper intense heat get very tough and tasteless.
Have you never heard of braising?
only us pug-uglys are straight, hetero dudes. small consolation
I think you can start by saying, "Counsel's "Motion to Dismisss [sic] ...."
Nope. Cheap shots are totally offlimits and guaranteed to make you lose.
The other side's brief scares me bc it is so bad.
402: Are you saying my masculinity is non-normative? I guess I said that. I need a boring trite literary allusion here...Genet! Can I remember those great last lines of OLotF? Not if my life depended on it.
Sigh.
pwned by Not Prince at 404. Give me competent counsel any day. Pro se and bad other sides scare me silly.
And I just rechecked the cover and I was wrong. It doesn't say "Dismisss". It says "Dismis".
Instead of not responding to his e-mails, how about responding to them swiftly but with minimal emotion/interest? Meet his purple gushing with short replies of "thanks", "talk to you later", etc. Hemingway his ass firmly and consistently and maybe he'll get the message.
Of course, if it leads to another breakdown in your office, it's further confirmation that McManlypants was right all along.
412: The worst thing is when you get sympathetic. Not this case, but another, I'm up against this completely pathetic schlub, with no idea how to manage his case. He's got a perfectly good cause of action against us, and pleaded six other claims that he doesn't have, which we're going to get dismissed. I kinda want to tip him off, which is wrong.
pug-uglys
"plug-uglies," oh aficionado of deep-seatedness.
415 almost summarizes the advice given for the main thread topic, oddly enough.
He's got a perfectly good cause of action against us, and pleaded six other claims that he doesn't have, which we're going to get dismissed. I kinda want to tip him off, which is wrong.
if he doesn't have the claims, is it wrong to tell him "hey dude, you don't have any claims, and they're going to get thrown out in a hurry"? is the concern that he can amend them to claims he does have and you'd rather postpone or preferably prevent that?
413: oh, well that's different--maybe that's not a typo at all. They probably just indended to write a motion to Dismis, and accidently dropped the thing off in the courthouse. Some of those old courthouses look like churches.
Hemingway his ass firmly and consistently
M/lls waxes poetic. I like.
415: There, the solution is avoiding evil clients, which you're working on.
418: Oh, we made the motion to dismiss already -- if his clients knew what was good for them, they'd settle for what we're offering. Wanting to tell him what he should have sued us for, on the other hand, would be wrong.
Maintain stoic masculinity everybody. Kudos to Brock for concealing his tears like a real man.
Maintain stoic masculinity everybody.
Do I have to?
M/lls waxes poetic. I like.
My PhotoShop Storybook for you is on its way, NPH.
Oh, no! Problem bigger! Bonk so drunk.
This delighted me entirely.
Do I have to?
I get the definite impression that you're the one making other people cry.
So who is watching the Victoria Secret special tonight?
An entire hour of women in their underwear! I must be getting old when the thought of it offends me.
426: Pull yourself together, gswift, LB will respond to your e-mails soon!
Also OT and court-related: tomorrow morning the Supreme Court hears oral argument in Boumediene v Bush, the brief for which Mr Adjunct helped write.
So my husband is either in DC to attend the argument, or else he's having an affair with Apo.
Newspaper headline: "gswift makes me cry all the time!"
I must be getting old when the thought of it offends me.
"Old" isn't the term I'd use, but tell yourself whatever you like.
424: It's OK, really, you can just send it to Sifu or Apo.
An entire hour of women in their underwear! I must be getting old when the thought of it offends me.
I'm offended too. What kind of wank spends an hour looking at non naked women? Discover the internet people.
that is awesome Invisible Adjunct. Good for him. (the apo affair part, of course.)
So my husband is either in DC to attend the argument, or else he's having an affair with Apo.
Those aren't mutually exclusive, you know.
I'm offended too. What kind of wank spends an hour looking at non naked women? Discover the internet people.
Gswift gets me. I'm in love.
432: I need to speak to you in your office.
437: Forwarded to secretary. Will schedule.
IA:
I'd be more worried that he is hanging out with the Carp and his bad influence.
Pull yourself together, gswift, LB will respond to your e-mails soon!
I'd stop by her office, but she'll probably give me that serial killer stare she gave Brock.
New study result:
"People who start having sex at a younger or older than average age appear to be at greater risk of developing sexual health problems later in life, a new study suggests. "
early is defined as before 14. Late is after 22.
New study result:
Mind meld. I was on preview for posting the same thing.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071204/hl_nm/virginity_health_dc
On the other hand, both "early" and "late" starters were at increased risk of problems in sexual function. This was true primarily of men, whose problems included difficulty maintaining an erection and reaching orgasm.
I'd stop by her office, but she'll probably give me that serial killer stare she gave Brock.
I wonder if LB's firm has an "eat what you kill" policy?
441: Causation or correlation? People who start unusually young would seem more likely than average to come out of living situations that aren't the best for long-term health, and people who start older than usual would include not just the geeky and clueless demographic that we all know and love but also folks who have physical issues of one sort or another that make it harder to get laid.
I had a student today who politely asked if he could take his final exam at an alternate time because he was paying $100 for a hunting-lease to go deer hunting this Saturday.
I think I have noticed that talking or thinking too much about sex can result in problems. This is a working theory, though.
446: is your exam on Saturday??
Tell him he can skip the exam entirely if he brings you venison, but otherwise you'll fail his ass.
Wait, you grabbed me and I didn't notice? What kind of a pass was that?
Obviously a terribly unsuccessful one. Sigh.
446: and people say chivalry is dead.
Is Teo going to the meetup? Someone bang Teo. It's for his health.
Heebie, deer hunting. C'mon. Have you no respect for local tradition?
452: Ben's already promised to. Y'all can look up the comment yourself; I have to loan my computer to PK now.
(Thank god Santa is going to bring him an eMac of his own.)
Heebie, deer hunting. C'mon. Have you no respect for local tradition?
Wait, I didn't tell you my answer!
I said, sure. Take it early with this other kid who'll be out of town. And he said, "great."
458: heebie's the Deer Hunter Helper!
A big white glove with antlers!
OT:
a dog ripped a large hole (dollar bill sized) in the sleeve of my leather coat. Totally ruined or can it be repaired?
Buy one of those window decals of the fake golf ball shattering the windshield, and sew it into the hole. Instant OMG YOU'VE BEEN HIT. The fun never stops.
we have two dogs. One is about to die (chemo, showing ribs, etc). The other one bite the coat. The gf is gone. If I tell her, she will buy me a new coat. I would like to avoid that.
I'm just leading him on, IA. No worries.
464: I'm assuming it would expensive but possible to repair, but I'm assuming that based on literally zero knowledge.
465: if you let on it's all a game I'm not turned on anymore.
I think 445 is a plausible explanation for the "lates" having a higher risk. I'm a late. Depends on why.
if you let on it's all a game I'm not turned on anymore.
C'mon Tweets, play the game.
Now that's a moustache. Take notes, will. Then pass them on to your wife.
Here's a nice song promoting VD awareness.
"People who start having sex at a younger or older than average age appear to be at greater risk of developing sexual health problems later in life, a new study suggests. "
I'm told that, for late starters, the problem can be remedied by "making up for lost time."
470 sounds disturbingly like a voice/melody familiar from School House Rocks.
472: She has a credit on this Jaco Pastorius album.
You know, in a way, you guys are all egging the drama on. This is where I like the male-stoical "I am in another emotional universe from this person in front of me, and they do not really exist" solution to these sorts of issues. That strikes me as preferable to the "let's have an honest discussion about our real feelings" kinds of solutions that keep cropping up here. But barring just letting Mr. Emo cry it out or keep making mix tapes while DFP keeps herself busy with the business of life, here's a couple of in-between strategies:
"My therapist says I need to focus on myself for the next six months. Sorry."
"I'm going to be away for a few months, and unfortunately it doesn't look like I'll have email."
"I've really got to get this manuscript finished. I'm just going to have to disappear for a while."
"I think I've gotten used to the fact that my husband killed a man before I met him, but maybe you never get over knowing something like that."
"I cook a great rabbit stew."
Yes, because male-stoical mendacity and repression always works at ending impractical affairs.
No, it just makes them the fault of other people.
You know, in a way, you guys are all egging the drama on.
Dude, we wouldn't be here if we weren't already bored.
Hell, I'm here and I'm still bored. Pick up the drama, people! Where's drunken DFP at?
Well, by this point in the office Christmas party, I'm usually sitting on the copier, so we could start looking there.
The deer hunt:
[Mrs Adjunct] lived on a farm in the White Lake district, a virgin forest well populated with wolves, bear and deer. If they wished to hear the wolves howl they'd blow the dinner horn which was made of the bow of an ox and the wolves would answer.
When Mrs. [Adjunct's] brother and sister came to visit, the brother asked, 'Mary, would you like to have some deer meat?' And she said 'Yes.' He wasn't long gone when he returned and asked them to go with him to bring the deer in. He was not long fixing up the deer he had shot, and when they got back home, he asked them if they took notice of him looking up on the rock which was nearby. They had not noticed. He said there was a wolf on the rock watching them while he was quartering the deer. He said, 'If that fellow had howled for his companions, we wouldn't have gotten much deer.'
A nothing anecdote, really, but I like it for its "Little House in the Big Woods" feel. From some notes that my great-Uncle Tommy [Adjunct] scribbled down in the 1940s, shortly before he died. Uncle Tommy and Aunt Bridget owned a tavern, next door to which my father grew up, downstairs from which his grandmother ran a small grocery. The tavern was considered a little bit disreputable back in the day, but has since been gentrifried and is now considered an historical landmark, and a yuppie hangout.
But anyway, there's more than one Saturday in the beer hunting season, and that student has a nerve, no matter how politely he asked for an exemption.
Also, there are local traditions of hunting with guns that have very little to do with the kookiness of American gun culture.
Also, Tim Burke probably has a point: honest discussion of our various and ever-changing emotional states is surely vastly over-rated. And male stoicism is not always, and not necessarily, a force for evil.
does anyone want to have a drink in DC tomorrow?
the beer hunting season
I mostly hunt beer with blowdarts.
You know what recent explanation really didn't bore me? Richard Curtis' police report.
I hunt blowhards with beer.
That's good. They have way overbred with all their natural predators driven off, and you're really just making the population stronger.
wait, what time is the Supreme Court argument in Boumedienne? Damn it, I should have booked an earlier flight.
Whoa, that Richard Curtis thing. Awesome.
And then I keep them in my lair. My blowhardslair.
488: My favorite part is when he tells the police that he's being treated like a suspect. Well yeah mister. Suspected of soliciting prostitution.
Do gay guys just know how to have fun, or are they totally bored by sex?
I'm a little drunk. And lamenting my career and phoning my mom. This should be awesome.
Do gay guys just know how to have fun, or are they totally bored by sex?
I think we may have a sampling bias with all the Republicans in the news.
I think we may have a sampling bias with all the Republicans in the news.
Nonsense! Republican gay guys probably have all sorts of ribald pillowtalk. You know, "trickle down," and the like.
The moral of the story here is get the money before you let the Republican ride you bareback.
496: advice that comes too late for this country.
wait, what time is the Supreme Court argument in Boumedienne?
10 a.m, but you should be there by 9. And it's expected to be standing room only, what with the future of the principle of habeas corpus in America being at stake and such.
If Roberts sides with BushCo on this, he is pure and unadulterated scum. Which he probably will, and which he probably is, alas.
The real crime here is that Curtis apparently has *terrible* taste in men. The upside down backwards visor frat boy look??!?
I want to know what the toy stethoscope was for.
Sex getting boring after the baby, Apo?
I'm a little drunk. And lamenting my career and phoning my mom. This should be awesome.
Stop making me laugh.
And anyway, why not call my mother instead? She has a high tolerance for drunkenness (God.), and she's really good with the novenas. "Say a little prayer for Cala," she might say, and before you know it, your name's on a prayer card.
oh, well. No chance I could've gotten in by then anyway (it's snowing here, O'Hare will probably be screwed up in the morning).
Sex getting boring after the baby, Apo?
Once you've had sex with a baby, nothing else ever measures up again.
And anyway, why not call my mother instead? She has a high tolerance for drunkenness (God.)
Your mother is God?
I do believe it is time. You'll never have a more perfect excuse.
505 totally beats my ass-licking comment.
That'll teach me to coast.
509: We could make it the mouseover text and see how long it takes for the FBI to come interview me.
Always raising the stakes. You bastard.
I dare you.
Oh god, I hadn't watched that since I told you about it. I believe I'll die from laughter now.
I laughed out loud the entire length of that video.
Mr. B. came and looked over my shoulder and said "please don't play that while I'm calling my campaign coordinator." Prude.
511: huh!
Well, he wasn't crying.
It certainly hasn't gotten any less funny with time.
I'm still laughing. I want to watch it again but Mr. B. might kill me.
That should totally have been a front page post, though. Not 500+ comments deep.
503: Oh god, my sister is always saying novenas for me. It's crazy. Anyhow, my other sister called, so I didn't call my mother until just now, and slurred a little but I don't think she noticed.
Don't worry about your mom, Cala. Click on Ogged's link instead.
That's a pretty big penis for a baby.
It feels like old times, doesn't it?
It is either a tribute to or an indictment against my upbringing that 506 made me laugh out loud even as it made me feel guilty.
Don't feel guilty, IA. Everyone fantasizes about that sort of thing.
Fucking hell. That's a permanent skid mark on the fine underwear of my mind.
526:
Actually, a lot of gay babies hang out with adult women instead of girl babies.
530: Now I weant to go in and edit IA's comment to refer to 511.
533: I've already decided I'm going to believe that's what it refers to.
Also, I'm going to take off my peants.
Now I weant to go in and edit IA's comment to refer to 511.
My sense of guilt is catholic, which is to say, all-purpose and all-encompassing and open to all possible contingencies.
Sometimes I wonder if I shouldn't feel less guilty, which thought, naturally, only makes me feel more guilty.
No one appreciates a straight woman.
Gawd, Probe is a minefield of laffs. "Mm, mm, that's beaver."
479: I am back and also drunk, but now I have to leave again.
Also, I kept laughing abruptly at memories of people's comments at random points during the festive party. There's no real explanation for this sort of good humour at an academic party at the end of the year . . .
Hey, remember that friend of mine I was talking about a while ago? After not hearing from her since then, I was just about to send her a message asking a question related to the present my mom gave me for Chanukah tonight when I refreshed Facebook and saw that she had sent me a message apologizing for not getting together in a while and explaining that she was really busy and stressed out and would remain so for some time. Interesting.
(This comment is, surprisingly, significantly more on topic than most of the most recent 100 comments.)
Also, I'm 23.
Patience, young teo.
Remember, you have two offers outstanding.
Huzzah, teo!
(She's not a babysitter, right?)
She's not a babysitter, right?
No, a housesitter.
I have not actually seen any of these houses, mind you.
You could just pitch a tent in the backyard.
God, I'm a child. I'm going to sleep. Supposed to snow here, and I have to get up early for a possible long-ass slippery commute to work. Good night all!
439 -- I'm not home, so Mr. A is safe from that, at least. I hear, though, that the demand for Boum. is such that lawyers are hiring homeless women to stand in line for them.
IA, do I know Mr. A? Send me an email.
555 -- Posting a live email? What, are you drunk? And isn't it homeless persons of either gender?
487 -- They're putting out the audio right after the argument, so you can listen to it tomorrow anyway.
498 -- I don't think CJ Roberts' vote is particularly in doubt.
If 541 was to me, you realise I was at an academic party, right? There is rarely good dirt to dish after an academic party . . .
557: Change begins with you, DFP.
Not for nothing, but if I were observing a SC session, I'd bring rotten vegetables, just in case. Fruits would also work, if they were sufficiently nasty, yet still throwable.
re: the above thread, several comments -
Bastard. That should have been a numbered list.
That should have been a numbered list
It is in the RSS feed.
For some reason I feel the need to clear my name, even though it is a disposable alias for this very reason. And even though the thread has moved on to a fun place which doesn't need to be dragged down. I don't think all campy/emo guys are gay. I just think that one is. I'm good at intuiting things about people, and am usually completely right to the point where it's spooky, and there must have been something buried in the words of the letter that clued me in. However the sheer certainty with which I feel and express intuitions annoys me-- my brain normally functions at a very logical, evidence-requiring level. So I chose a name which I knew I would never use again, in case that aspect of my personality annoys other people too, which apparently it did, including a couple of my favorite commenters.
564 was me, back to my usual self doubting neurotic mode. I should probably go look at that porn.
Passerby- Don't worry about it. I did initially think you were kind of a jerk for exactly the "Hey, not all campy guys are gay!" reason you identify. But given that you appear to have turned out to be right, at least that DFP had strong inchoate suspicions and was telegraphing them, I had stopped thinking you were a jerk even before 564.
NarrarGcM--
Man, you're hard on people who are acting a little silly for whatever reason. Some of my favorite people, including me, end up behaving like idiot teenagers sometimes regardless of their age.
re:566
Well, I probably am hard on them.
But, that's not because I think I am sitting in some castle of superiority. I can and do act like an idiot myself*, but I still think I am being or have been an idiot when I act that way. The times when I've behaved a bit like Mr Leaky are times when I behaved like a dick, not times when I was deserving of much charitable sympathy.
One of the nicest but also, simultaneously the most annoying. things about Unfogged is how charitable everyone can be about someone who's behaving like a total cock.
* although hopefully less often now than previously
I think the charity was mostly being extended to FDP for enjoying Leaky's antics, than directly to Leaky. I mean, you're right that people have been pulling this shit since and before Chaucer made fun of it, but they pull it because it works -- having someone lose their mind over you is thrilling even for someone who's generally pretty stable and adult."How could you possibly be crushing on such a pathetic loser?" didn't seem like a profitable angle for anyone to take.
(And I pwned you on questioning dsquared's uncharacteristic tolerance.)
560: have you considered that he might have been drunk?
Have you never heard of braising?
Ah, dear Ben, a proper braise begins by browning the meat at searing heat on the stovetop. Without that step, the dish will be insipid.
481: I was born in those woods. New town, made initially by German POWs, to house families for the Canadian atomic research center just after the war. So people inevitably from urban Canada or Europe suddenly thrust into the real "Idea of North" Canadian wilderness. Bear and Moose walking the streets. The first year, my dad watched wolves run down a dear on the frozen river from his office window. Everybody had a story of suddenly encountering "megafauna," as we say now.
Passerby, I'm with LB, and I should have said earlier that your annotations to your first comment made me realize you weren't just being a dick to DFP by calling her a fag-hag who would get "dumped" by this guy once he comes out. That's the only part that got to me, and I doubt you meant to generalize that way. I'm a little defensive about the kinds of friendships gay men make with straight women, especially across coming-out issues, because, yeah, they are really confusing for everyone and sometimes end in sadness, but they are real emotions everyone's having and, like in everything, friendships are only as good as the friends involved, and sometimes last a long time.
But, no, I don't think anyone thinks you're a dick.
(Erm, joke! I didn't think you were being unpleasant earlier.)
I really cherish the existence of men who are not afraid to perform their masculinity in non-normative ways.
I missed this above. So is all of this happening in an English or Comp Lit department?
Mr Leaky isn't violating gender-specific norms of masculinity. He's violating age-specific norms of general human behaviour.
Yes, he is violating age-specific norms which apply to both men and women, but: he is also and the same time violating gender-specific norms of masculinity.
No such thing.
Saying there are no real emotions activates socially patterned channels in certain physical subsystems of Baby Jesus.
Damn, this thread jumped up to nearly 600 comments pretty damned quick. Recap, anyone?
Recap, anyone?
Roughly, people are weird.
584: So basically, it's an Unfogged thread. Gotcha.
Recap, anyone?
485 to 540 you should probably read. Especially Ogged's link.
585--
basic plot involves excessive displays of inappropriate emotion.
commenters thereupon displayed excessive delight in vicarious emotion.
but considered differently, we banded together to perform a heroic rescue, saving a stranger from an emotional mistake.
I love you, ya crazy kids. off to bed. don't break the internet while I'm asleep, and remember: friends don't let friends click on apo's links.
"I saw a plastic sack which contained a light grey length of nylon rope, a plastic doctor's stethoscope, and other items I could not immediately identify."
I'll never be able to listen to "He Was A Big Freak" again without thinking of this.
Is ogged's link safe for work?
The link text is "Most hilariously weird porn ever". What do you think?
Well, that's why I haven't yet clicked it.
re: 590
That's such a great song.
I thought the link was going to ttaM's mix that contained that song.
It's even better than this song!
It's safe as long as you've got 30 seconds at work where nobody else is looking at your screen, which I'm guessing most commenters do. The sound doesn't add much, so put it on mute and just imagine her saying "Oh, yeah, baby," which is the only good part.
which is the only good part
Dude, the rattle.
which is the only good part
Philistine.
Oh, yes, the rattle. Well, you can see it's a rattle but hearing it really does add that little something.
597:
It's safe as long as you've got 30 seconds at work where nobody else is looking at your screen and you're not going through a nosy parker firewall or proxy. Not one you probably want on Ye Olde Website Access report.
It's even better than this song!
Good song, but neither of those guys in the video look like freaks. I like freaks. And since that's tangentially related to the topic, my own two cents is that Emo Guy's big mistake here isn't being emo or unmanly, necessarily, but being emotionally manipulative. The man in the Manlypants gets it right here.
603: That is stunning and awful. Now I hate him even more.
Is Huckabee finished?
That story has been public knowledge for some time, so the question is whether pushing it again, with the help of some new sources, will be enough for it go gain significant traction.
For my part, I hope not. I'd really like Huckabee to win the R nomination. He's come out against waterboarding and Guantanamo. He's not liable to lead a dirty, unconscionable campaign like Bush or Giuliani*. I don't want him to be President, but based upon my current knowledge I think that a race against Huckabee would be the sanest of all available contests. Truly, I have my fingers crossed for Obama v. Huckabee.
*I'm not saying I figure he'll be nice. Particularly not against Clinton. But I don't figure him to be as much of a dirty fighter as others.
606: Obama v. Huckabee? The campaign itself might be slightly saner than some other matchups, but in my view, nominating the two most religious serious on either side would shoot all to hell any idea of reducing the power of theocrats.
Obama's not a theocrat, though; he's not trying to legislate his faith.
Huckabee I think is actually too Christian, as opposed to Republican-humping Christian, to be nominated.
' "How could you possibly be crushing on such a pathetic loser?" didn't seem like a profitable angle for anyone to take.'
Funnily enough, this is just the angle I *expected* everyone to take. I was very very surprised not to be subject to way more mockery on this front . . .
It's pure self-interest, DFP. We've all either crushed on pathetic losers ourselves at one time or been the pathetic losers upon which we don't wish to recklessly discourage others from crushing.
I haven't read the whole thread (Christ, people, are you trying to get me fired from my job!), but I suspect no one has cojones necessary to suggest the right solution. DFP must only not sleep with the guy, but tormet him with her unavailability. She must dress like it's Slutoween, corner him in his office, kiss him tenderly, and then say, "No, we must never speak of this again. We could have had a lifetime of happiness together, but it was never meant to be." I'm sure Bob could supply the necessary Goethe quote to use.
Yeah, we're all down with the pathetic loser demographic. Except for the male Brits, who are apparently cooler than the rest of us. Goodness knows why they hang out here.
611: Every Day Is Slutoween.
Male Brits use the Internet to compensate for the fact that back in the pubs they cry like girls.
excuse me: is this the thread for pathetic losers?
"Cleopatra Quincy Roosevelt" is so much more entertaining than the pseud I was using yesterday that maybe I'll stick with "Cleo" for subsequent threads. (Threads which, oh happy day, will contain no excruciatingly embarrassing personal information about myself.)
You're cool, bitzer. Get the fuck out.
Oooh. Yes. Let's make DFP basically re-enact Brideshead Revisited, without the Catholicism, but with all of the sexual ambiguity.
Give Leaky a teddy bear and name it Aloysius.
617--
if you're using lb's yardstick for coolness from 612, i.e. male brits, then this is not the kind of flattery i want.
although, who am i kidding. i'll take any kind of flattery i can get, even ironic or two-faced.
I ain't no emo dude, I'm just sayin'.
(after the back and forth about the citation of Clash lyrics in the other thread, I feel the need to stand with the "posting links to song lyrics counts as a substantive contribution" crowd. Of course, in this case it's too late to matter.)
608: Oh, I agree about Obama, he's not that bad. If he gets the nomination I won't have a problem voting for him. He could be better, but no one's perfect. Maybe "theocratic" was the wrong term, but I do think he's the most openly and publicly religious among serious Democratic candidates, isn't he? At least, that's the caricature I've absorbed.
She must dress like it's Slutoween, corner him in his office, kiss him tenderly, and then say, "No, we must never speak of this again. We could have had a lifetime of happiness together, but it was never meant to be." "For I have only four seconds to live."
Then when she comes in the next day, "I got better."
Maybe "theocratic" was the wrong term, but I do think he's the most openly and publicly religious among serious Democratic candidates, isn't he?
I think that's Hillary, but it may depend how you measure.
Meet the wife and kids with him there. I bet there's a good chance that his act around wife and kids has a large chance of turning DFP totally off. Either his drama queen act won't leave much room for genuine connections with them, esp the kids, or else his deep connection with them will tell DFP just how secondary and peripheral she really is in his life.
I'm sure Bob could supply the necessary Goethe quote to use.
"Klopstock!"
Gets 'em every time.
441, 443: It's anecdotal, but case in point: moi. Both I and wife were late starters. Erectile dysfunction, check.
Whether or not those facts are related is a lot more speculative and indirect. But I think it's possible that our relative lack of experience with other sexual partners (related to our late starts) may have contributed to the development of our sexual differences, and our difficulties in resolving them subsequently. And while I haven't been able to tease out how much physiological vs. psychological factors are responsible for the ED, the persistence of our differences would be a major contributor to the latter. So there could be a causal link there, but it's really hard to be sure.
146 there isn't really a way of sleeping with Mr. Leaky and having the end of the story be about puppies and sunshine.
Well, it could end with Mrs. Leaky killing DFP's puppy in the cold hard light of morning.
"Maybe he is highly neurotic and wants to feel loved, just not for his penis, because the patriarchy is so riding his ass"
This rings very very true to me. And yet, I do not understand this mindset. There are people who think/feel this way??
Bizarre, but true. I've screwed up clear-cut opportunities a couple women who I was intensely attracted to because I wanted to make sure they knew I didn't just see them as lust objects etc. In other words, I was nightmare version of a Nice Guy (TM) (Dsquared-identified drip division.)