Let's Process Our Feelings

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]Kakarat wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Kakarat wrote:
The girl in high school who painfully taught me most of what I know about women is trying to weasel her way back into my life by offering sex. These situations should always be avoided but I’m tempted by the experience because I’ve never had her.

I have nothing to offer emotionally.

Temptations… [/quote]

You could do the Spanish, glaze her face and never call her again?

It seems to be all the rage these days…[/quote]
Definitely something with never calling her again involved. She deserves it.

Although the bad energy is not something I need… [/quote]

I think you should say no thanks. Find good sex with someone you like and feel hopeful about. High school is stupid. Let it go, like you said, you don’t need the bad energy. You’ll wind up like Orion, all jaded and mean.[/quote]

O_O…

ALL jaded and mean?

Through and through?

Oh my…[/quote]

YUP.[/quote]

And you are sure you are lacking a mean streak?[/quote]

No, I have one, too.

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]Kakarat wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]Kakarat wrote:
Like Orion, I admire his straightforwardness, but

“So, in the spirit of responding to your concern about how we might be different vis-a-vis sex, yes, I cannot be with someone who is “plain vanilla.” I would surely be very soon restless. That said, I, like you, still do not know if we resonate or not in this arena. I guess the only way for us to know is to have sex! ;-)”

is just lame… [/quote]

Meh, these are quotes taken out of their context, which was a fairly lengthy conversation. I don’t think being well-written or wordy are lame (she says defensively).

[/quote]
I’m all for writing “well”; it’s attractive and it helps. But a man saying, “I guess the only way for us to know is to have sex! ;-),” is over extending himself. [/quote]

He was obviously joking, no? I’ve been pretty clear about my own inclinations regarding strangers and sex. I think our big plan is lunch, maybe a beer.

[/quote]

When a man writes that he wants to bone you he is joking?

Um,…, no?

[/quote]

Oh, no, I’m sure that’s real. I mean joking about doing that first thing to establish whether we resonate. [/quote]

What he should have done is establishing that a spark is very important thing to him.

You dont need to do the Spanish for that…

One kiss is all it takes:

[/quote]

I love that song!

But I believe that the way to know if he loves you so is in his behavior. That’s where it is.[/quote]

If you cant kiss a woman as the Good Lord intended her to be kissed, you cant fuck her righteously either…

And without that, you know…[/quote]

You’re aware that love and sex are different things, right?

[quote]orion wrote:
I totally get that, I do…

But, as a man my age, how many grudge fucks do you get out of life?

Dont take those opportunities for granted. [/quote]

I’m well aware. She knows she’s been bad and it’s creating desires I didn’t know existed.

She’ll be made aware that nothing could change if I do go that route.

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
I think you should say no thanks. Find good sex with someone you like and feel hopeful about. High school is stupid. Let it go, like you said, you don’t need the bad energy. You’ll wind up like Orion, all jaded and mean.[/quote]

Not a lot of women are well versed and in touch like you, Emily…

I have let it go, but it is also a sense of closure that it is done.

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]Kakarat wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]Kakarat wrote:
Like Orion, I admire his straightforwardness, but

“So, in the spirit of responding to your concern about how we might be different vis-a-vis sex, yes, I cannot be with someone who is “plain vanilla.” I would surely be very soon restless. That said, I, like you, still do not know if we resonate or not in this arena. I guess the only way for us to know is to have sex! ;-)”

is just lame… [/quote]

Meh, these are quotes taken out of their context, which was a fairly lengthy conversation. I don’t think being well-written or wordy are lame (she says defensively).

[/quote]
I’m all for writing “well”; it’s attractive and it helps. But a man saying, “I guess the only way for us to know is to have sex! ;-),” is over extending himself. [/quote]

He was obviously joking, no? I’ve been pretty clear about my own inclinations regarding strangers and sex. I think our big plan is lunch, maybe a beer.

[/quote]

When a man writes that he wants to bone you he is joking?

Um,…, no?

[/quote]

Oh, no, I’m sure that’s real. I mean joking about doing that first thing to establish whether we resonate. [/quote]

What he should have done is establishing that a spark is very important thing to him.

You dont need to do the Spanish for that…

One kiss is all it takes:

[/quote]

I love that song!

But I believe that the way to know if he loves you so is in his behavior. That’s where it is.[/quote]

If you cant kiss a woman as the Good Lord intended her to be kissed, you cant fuck her righteously either…

And without that, you know…[/quote]

You’re aware that love and sex are different things, right? [/quote]

Yeah, are you?

Because, traditionally, it is not men who have that problem.

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]Kakarat wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]Kakarat wrote:
Like Orion, I admire his straightforwardness, but

“So, in the spirit of responding to your concern about how we might be different vis-a-vis sex, yes, I cannot be with someone who is “plain vanilla.” I would surely be very soon restless. That said, I, like you, still do not know if we resonate or not in this arena. I guess the only way for us to know is to have sex! ;-)”

is just lame… [/quote]

Meh, these are quotes taken out of their context, which was a fairly lengthy conversation. I don’t think being well-written or wordy are lame (she says defensively).

[/quote]
I’m all for writing “well”; it’s attractive and it helps. But a man saying, “I guess the only way for us to know is to have sex! ;-),” is over extending himself. [/quote]

He was obviously joking, no? I’ve been pretty clear about my own inclinations regarding strangers and sex. I think our big plan is lunch, maybe a beer.

[/quote]

When a man writes that he wants to bone you he is joking?

Um,…, no?

[/quote]

Oh, no, I’m sure that’s real. I mean joking about doing that first thing to establish whether we resonate. [/quote]

What he should have done is establishing that a spark is very important thing to him.

You dont need to do the Spanish for that…

One kiss is all it takes:

[/quote]

I love that song!

But I believe that the way to know if he loves you so is in his behavior. That’s where it is.[/quote]

If you cant kiss a woman as the Good Lord intended her to be kissed, you cant fuck her righteously either…

And without that, you know…[/quote]

You’re aware that love and sex are different things, right? [/quote]

Yeah, are you?

Because, traditionally, it is not men who have that problem.[/quote]

Well, I think the men who believe that you can tell if someone “loves you so” by kissing them may have that issue, too.

But I think I’m pretty clear on the difference.

I think you also believe women are against sex unless as a means to something else (love, financial support). I don’t see it that way. Rather I see it as something good that is best served with other things. I don’t eat steak all by itself. It’s much more pleasing to me with sauted mushrooms and other vegetables, maybe a starch. Served alone it’s sort of bland and uninteresting. Same thing milk. Okay-ish on its own, but I’d just as soon not guzzle a big glass of it. Now, with chocolate cake, on the other hand, it’s both delicious and satisfying.

[quote]Chushin wrote:

MY first reaction on reading him was that he was subtly adjusting his presentation in order to increase his chances of getting laid.

[/quote]

Mine too. Too many undefined terms that can mean what ever the person reading would like it to.

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
I don’t eat steak all by itself. It’s much more pleasing to me with sauted mushrooms and other vegetables, maybe a starch. Served alone it’s sort of bland and uninteresting. Same thing milk. Okay-ish on its own, but I’d just as soon not guzzle a big glass of it. Now, with chocolate cake, on the other hand, it’s both delicious and satisfying.[/quote]
This has absolutely nothing to do with your point, but I eat steak by itself all the time. In fact, if given the choice, I will always pick steak in exclusivity. Eating vegetables and starches just occupies stomach space that could be better filled with more steak… Same thing with milk lol. I am always just chugging it, by itself, straight out of the jug, sometimes half a gallon at a time. So much more protein than chocolate cake.

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]Kakarat wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]Kakarat wrote:
Like Orion, I admire his straightforwardness, but

“So, in the spirit of responding to your concern about how we might be different vis-a-vis sex, yes, I cannot be with someone who is “plain vanilla.” I would surely be very soon restless. That said, I, like you, still do not know if we resonate or not in this arena. I guess the only way for us to know is to have sex! ;-)”

is just lame… [/quote]

Meh, these are quotes taken out of their context, which was a fairly lengthy conversation. I don’t think being well-written or wordy are lame (she says defensively).

[/quote]
I’m all for writing “well”; it’s attractive and it helps. But a man saying, “I guess the only way for us to know is to have sex! ;-),” is over extending himself. [/quote]

He was obviously joking, no? I’ve been pretty clear about my own inclinations regarding strangers and sex. I think our big plan is lunch, maybe a beer.

[/quote]
He’s only joking if you are, trust me.

So I just worked up the courage to open this thread.

[quote]spar4tee wrote:
So I just worked up the courage to open this thread.[/quote]

I may nominate you for funniest poster next time around.

And I will further say that my dating life has been calm for like three weeks now. And before that I wasn’t dating, just being creepy-texted by the ghosts of dating past. This is the first crisis I’ve had lately!

And it wasn’t even a crisis, just a question.

So now I have Iraq, to whom I yesterday confessed I was dating others and then said if anyone nearby seemed to be knocking my socks off, I’d let him know (he has a stateside return date, and asked something like “will you still be available then?” and I of course fell apart in my “be cool” plan). Then I felt like an asshole over the “I’ll let you know” piece, so I anguished over it for a couple of hours, then dug the awkward hole a little deeper by apologizing. But it’s all turned out fine. And now I have space and my conscience is clear.

There’s the hockey player, whom I like more and more, but who is also incredibly low-key. We’re going out New Year’s Eve. Yesterday we were talking on the phone about NYE and he made his first off-color joke. Although we went to a museum together and were laughing over whether a woman was holding a cat - no, a baby pig - or whether those were her breasts. He didn’t seem at all shocked when I help the magnifying glass up to peer closely at it. I still worry that he’s too proper for me.

While the poly guy is seeming too the-other-way.

But I think I’m doing a good job of either choosing less desperate people or establishing clearer boundaries, or both.

[quote]csulli wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
I don’t eat steak all by itself. It’s much more pleasing to me with sauted mushrooms and other vegetables, maybe a starch. Served alone it’s sort of bland and uninteresting. Same thing milk. Okay-ish on its own, but I’d just as soon not guzzle a big glass of it. Now, with chocolate cake, on the other hand, it’s both delicious and satisfying.[/quote]
This has absolutely nothing to do with your point, but I eat steak by itself all the time. In fact, if given the choice, I will always pick steak in exclusivity. Eating vegetables and starches just occupies stomach space that could be better filled with more steak… Same thing with milk lol. I am always just chugging it, by itself, straight out of the jug, sometimes half a gallon at a time. So much more protein than chocolate cake.[/quote]

This shocks me like nothing else on TNation has, except maybe the page of yucky vaginas coupled with the previously-unfamiliar term “meat flaps.” (That was a bad day. I wish I could un-have it. Or at least un-have that piece of it.)

The milk I get, lots of people do that. And it’s not just good with cake, I like it with meals, too. But steak with no broccoli? ~blink~

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Push, are you around?

I want to ask you whether you think going out with this guy would be a bad idea for me. In messaging back and forth he mentioned looking for a “European” or “natural” attitude, by which he meant regarding sex, and asked where on the spectrum I fall. I offered every single thought I had about where I might fall, because you know how I love to tell everything, noting what I think is a fairly high sex drive and a monogamous/dedicated bent, then asked him where HE falls. Among other things he said:

[quote]To further address your question, I’ll expand on the above. I have no judgments about or restrictions against anything sexual as long as it involves (however many!) consenting adults and no one gets hurt. Group sex? Well, 3 is a group, I suppose. I’ve tried it, and it wasn’t what I thought it would be. But, that was because it was 2 (female) friends, one of who was into it, but the other did it more for us. I remain open to it, but like almost anything else sexual, am not specifically looking for it.

I am also open to polyamory, but, again, am not specifically seeking that. Since it seems to mean different things to different people, I define polyamory not an open relationship where sex with others is a free-for-all. Rather, for me, it is intimate relationships with a minimal number of select women with whom I would have some level of emotional connection and attachment. Again, while open to it, I’ve never experienced it.[/quote]

So I said I thought he may be more liberated than I am, that I do best in a traditional LTR, and that I want to be careful not to stumble into a relationship with someone who wants more than I can provide, and will become restless. He answered:

[quote]Noted re no poly-anything. But, I will remind that I wrote that I am open to it, not actively seeking it. I am not actively seeking anything other than a relationship or relationships that just will feel right, “click,” and simply work for me.

But, I will tell you that sex is very important to me. It is both physically amazingly enjoyable, and a beautiful form of communication. I.e., I love making love, and I love fucking.

So, in the spirit of responding to your concern about how we might be different vis-a-vis sex, yes, I cannot be with someone who is “plain vanilla.” I would surely be very soon restless. That said, I, like you, still do not know if we resonate or not in this arena. I guess the only way for us to know is to have sex! ;-)[/quote]

I wonder what you think, whether you think someone like me has a chance with someone like this. He’s smart and very funny, looks very fit, etc. But I don’t want to set myself up for first a sexual advance that will bowl me over, and then wind up hurt because I’ll get attached.

I’m asking you because his attitudes sound a lot like yours, and you’re now in a monogamous relationship, right? And because you know me and what I’m looking for, I think.

Edit: Obviously, as always, I wonder what Chushin thinks, too. [/quote]

Hey. First, I want you to know that I have a lot of respect for you, and that you “as always” care about my opinion means something to me.

Ok, to cut to the chase: I think I’d be pretty careful with this one, given what I know about you. (I’m tempted to say, “Stay away!” but that would imply that I know more than I can or do.

I think that your first reaction to what he wrote (in between his quotes, above) indicates that YOU know he’s probably not a good idea, too.

MY first reaction on reading him was that he was subtly adjusting his presentation in order to increase his chances of getting laid.

I don’t know; I tend to be really good at avoiding destructive relationships by being overly cautious and paying attention to any warning signs. In this case you want a monogamous LTR; he’s “open” to multiple love relationships. That seems like a warning sign to me.

^^^ the best I could do from Bangkok, on my iPhone, with my honey pulling at me to go shopping with her.[/quote]

Okay. Guard UP. I think I’ll still do the lunch just for fun, although it may be a bad idea. Probably is. He is interesting, though, and I think it would be a good time. He’s well aware that I’m dubious about our relationship potential, and a relationship is what I’m seeking, so it’s not like I’m setting up false expectations. Our current agreement is that we’ll almost certainly have an enjoyable afternoon regardless of whether anything follows.

I’m sure even the hockey player who hasn’t kissed me yet has sex on his mind. At least I hope so!

But the hockey player and Iraq are looking for monogamy. But then, my experience has been that people will say they’re monogamous, but then fail to be that in reality. :frowning:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

But the hockey player and Iraq are looking for monogamy. But then, my experience has been that people will say they’re monogamous, but then fail to be that in reality. :([/quote]

Then Y U date guys with no integrity?

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

But the hockey player and Iraq are looking for monogamy. But then, my experience has been that people will say they’re monogamous, but then fail to be that in reality. :([/quote]

Then Y U date guys with no integrity?[/quote]

Because it can be difficult to tell?

I’m trying to change that, though. Impulsive types need not apply.

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

But the hockey player and Iraq are looking for monogamy. But then, my experience has been that people will say they’re monogamous, but then fail to be that in reality. :([/quote]

Then Y U date guys with no integrity?[/quote]

Because it can be difficult to tell?

I’m trying to change that, though. Impulsive types need not apply.[/quote]

Impulsive and lacking integrity is not the same.

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

But the hockey player and Iraq are looking for monogamy. But then, my experience has been that people will say they’re monogamous, but then fail to be that in reality. :([/quote]

Then Y U date guys with no integrity?[/quote]

Because it can be difficult to tell?

I’m trying to change that, though. Impulsive types need not apply.[/quote]

Impulsive and lacking integrity is not the same. [/quote]

True, though I think they go hand-in-hand. Impulsive people override moral misgivings to pursue in-the-moment desires.

Anyway, I suppose that’s why I’m on here dissecting my love life, so I can have help figuring all of this out so next time I fall in love, it will be with someone good.