Posted by ~~tabitha~~ on September 3, 2002, at 0:22:08
In reply to Tabby is on the prowl! » ~~tabitha~~, posted by Ted on September 2, 2002, at 21:17:04
>
> > Well, sadly, I tend to flip between aloof and clingy.
>
> Then we'll have to keep this purely physical, understand?Ouch! Tabitha suddenly feels a lot less flirty :(
>
> >But... concurrent affairs with a member of each gender, now that would be very nice.
>
> Ooohh! That sounds F-U-N! Can I watch? :-)
I think then it would be considered a threesome, wouldn't it?
>
> Sex is done purely for pleasure, and not just for one's own. It is the giving and receiving of the most ultimately pleasurable experiences nature has created. It is done only for pleasure. For proof: would you have sex, with anyone, if you didn't get *any* pleasure whatsoever from it?
I have to say, Ted, no offense intended, honest, but only a man could say this. If a woman is not assertive, and dates men who don't particularly cherish her, I guarantee there will be plenty of very non-pleasureable sex in her life. When I think pure physical pleasure, I think battery-operated devices.
>
> We have sex because we enjoy it and we have someone we love. Simple as that. My wife doesn't understand how I wouldn't be jealous if she had sex with another man. My position is this: Do she love me? Am I the one with whom she wants to spend her life? If so, then it doesn't matter if she gets pleasure elsewhere occasionally. When I am no longer the one she loves, then there is a problem.Hmm, I'm gonna have to be a little skeptical of this. If your wife really did have an affair, all of her own, not something for your entertainment, you'd really be OK with it?
>
>
> > I think it's that male/female wiring difference again. I gripe to my therapist about this, since after all it's much easier to find a fling than a partner...
>
> Really? When I was single, I didn't have one-night-stands. Either the women were total losers with whom I didn't want to waste my time or they were (at least potential) winners who I wanted to get to know better.
Well, trust me, it's easier to find "just sex" than a real partner. Ever listen to Liz Phair? There's a good song about this topic.>
> (Call me weird, but for me, women must have two characteristics: 1. they must be intelligent (I hate morons) and 2. they must be attractive; not fashionable or anything, just not coyote-ugly. If they fail test #1, then I don't bother with test #2.)Why do you think this is weird? Lots of guys like smart women. Lots of people have strange taste in looks too. The young lovelies get the most quantity of attention though.
>
> >My therapist says, why would you want to separate your sexuality from your emotions?
>
> Because it make life easier. MUCH easier.
Yeah, I tell her that. Somehow she thinks personality integration is a better goal for me than getting more sex.
> >So his quickie was my culmination of great cosmic passion.
>
> I'm sorry to say this, but I think the error was in your expectations. Now, had you communicated your expectations, you might have got more out of it.
>Oh I know it was completely foolish-- that was back when I was young and ignorant and believed that sex would make a man get attached to me. If I had communicated my expectations I"m sure he would have run the other way! But my point was, the man might come away from it convinced that there are plenty of women out there who want uncomplicated sex. I didn't, it just looked that way to him.
Another example, I knew an unfortunate young woman who dated several men at one company and got a reputation as the office slut. Then men assumed she was just sex-hungry, but I saw her as seeking validation. That place was terribly anti-woman, and the only possible validation a woman could get was sexual. She was a normal nice young woman when she started there, then gradually transformed. Poor thing got rejected by one guy after another, of course, because nobody wants to be the boyfriend of the office slut, though everybody wanted to go out with her once or twice.
>
> Beforehand, unless there has been some communication, one never knows if it is "just" a quickie. Afterwards, though, you have a chance:
>
> Here's a test. For each YES, give yourself 1 point:
>
> 1. Did he go out of his way to make sure she was completely satisfied?
> 2. Did he hold her and kiss her afterwards?
> 3. Did he stay with her for a while, perhaps hours, afterwards?
>
> 0-1 point: It was a quickie. Wham, bam, and thank you ma'am.
> 2-3 points: He is interested and caring. Not a quickie. He wants to see you again.OK Ted, I think you've just made my point. If the sign of a quickie is the man making little effort to satisfy the woman, then why on earth would lots of women want this???
> No. It takes getting used to, according to my wife. It is something you have to enjoy doing for your lover. First, it must be at least somewhat comfortable so you wont reject it. Second, you have to keep in your mind, "I have a little secret no one around me knows about until later, and then only my lover will know."
Don't give me ideas about little daytime secrets. See previous posts about inappropriate lust for young coworker. Maybe I should start wearing big granny panties, a la Bridget Jones.
>But you needn't advertise like a hooker.You mean I shouldn't ask guys if they want to see my thong? Dang, no wonder I don't have a boyfriend.
> That's a mistake. My wife is a size 18-20 and she is still sexier than probably 80% of women I know and see. It is all in your attitude. Sure she isn't as attractive as the VS girls, but so what. She is *sexy* and she is *mine*. :-)
Nice for her. But, um, Ted, how does she feel about all this extra-marital flirting?
>
> > I'm much more comfortable with cute dresses and shoes, then you get points for style and not just perfectly proportioned flesh.
>
> Good start. Now I could give you some tips on how to proceed, but in this public forum, I don't want to get Niki, Roo, or Dinah all upset or Bobby, Jay, Phil, or Greg (or Dr. Bob) all excited. :-)Phil! OMG! I forgot about Phil! Now I've probably ruined my chances with him :(
>
> >I finally learned, if a guy doesn't ask me out after I've shown plenty of interest, then either he's not that interested, or he's too passive for me.
>
> Well, that's certainly true, and it works both ways. But once he has shown some interest, have you tried it? Well?Yes I have. Once a guy asked me out a couple times, sort of a "let's go out sometime" thing, and I said yes. Then he never followed up. I was totally smitten, so I decided what the heck, I'd push it. I said, "do you still want to have lunch? Well how about this Friday?" We had lunch and he never asked me out again. That's been pretty much the result every time I"ve asked a man out. I've just come to believe, like that stupid book _The Rules_ says, if he doesn't ask you out, he's not that interested. Period.
>
> >Think I'll go out and radiate my loveliness to all those lovely flesh and blood humans out there. :-)
>
> Great! Just don't flash them too much -- you might get yourself in trouble. :-)
Um, I just meant like actually relax and make eye contact instead of my usual shy scurrying about. Baby steps, Ted, baby steps. :)
poster:~~tabitha~~
thread:29660
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20020829/msgs/29783.html