Let's Process Our Feelings

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[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]

Sometimes you can be somewhat annoying.[/quote]

Its the why and how I am annoying, you know.

Thats not sophistry, if someone lacks impulse control and is upfront about it, he does not lack integrity.

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[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]

Sometimes you can be somewhat annoying.[/quote]

Its the why and how I am annoying, you know.

Thats not sophistry, if someone lacks impulse control and is upfront about it, he does not lack integrity.

[/quote]

True. I’m not usually drawn to people whose lack of control is either immediately apparent or heralded, so I don’t have a lot of experience with ethical, out of control types.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Em, I did answer your question yesterday but it might’ve got overlooked due to delayed posting.[/quote]

I didn’t see it. I wish they’d stop doing that to you.

[quote]pushharder 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]

Em, I’d take him for what he said. He’s open to a bit of an unconventional relationship, i.e., he’s not looking for a “plain vanilla” type deal. I think that could be a good thing for you.

I do understand your concern though. I had women express the same thing to me a few years ago when I told them my past. They were skeered they couldn’t provide what I was used to. I answered them like he just did, more or less.

Chances are good he has a higher sex drive like you are hoping. That of course should be a good thing for you considering your past.

I’m biased of course, but don’t let his initial attitude drive you away. If you meet him and things don’t smell so good, let him go.[/quote]

One worry is that he seems not to have had all of the experiences he’s open to, which may be a problem. But he’s funny and it can’t hurt to have lunch with him. I doubt that I’ll get involved - and who knows if he’ll want to - but maybe at some point I’ll decide that I’m tired of looking for forever love and he might then make a good friend.

Do you think you’d have settled happily into long term monogamy if not for the impact of infidelity?

I hope you “figure this shit out”, Em.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

Do you think you’d have settled happily into long term monogamy if not for the impact of infidelity?[/quote]

Please clarify and/or elaborate.[/quote]

I’ve been under the impression that your marriage ended due to infidelity, though of course I could have misread things. If so, I’m wondering if that swayed you away from swinging?

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Not at all, I know plenty of women who have and enjoy upfront casual sex. I have no problem with that, or the men who are upfront in stating that’s what they want.
[/quote]

How upfront do I need to be with it?

As you are well aware I’m the kind of guy that women dream about settling down with. Extremely smart, good provider, dreamy like a young Ryan O’Neal, track record of putting male babies in the belly, well adjusted, modest, hulky, sensitive as a lesbian, boyish charm, often seen in sweater vests…my concern is if I don’t address it immediately after ringing the doorbell and handing over the candy and flowers they will call me a cad.

[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]

x2

[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]

That line almost redeemed him for me…but…he’s simply not good enough for my littley EmmyQ…looking for European style women is omg…not good…it’s an obvious "huh huh…when teh ladiez ask what that mean I tell them what do they think it meanz?

Yeah, I’ve been thinking about it and have decided not to meet him. I’m not in his weight class. Mostly what I think is that whether he’s earnest or not, I’ll always worry that he’s the same restless sort of guy I keep trying to redeem. Mistrust does not make for a good foundation.

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Yeah, I’ve been thinking about it and have decided not to meet him. I’m not in his weight class. Mostly what I think is that whether he’s earnest or not, I’ll always worry that he’s the same restless sort of guy I keep trying to redeem. Mistrust does not make for a good foundation.

[/quote]

I’m Chushin, and I approve of this decision.

On another note, I worry that you may be feeling somehow “handicapped” in this whole game. The reality is that you are going to be one very special catch for the guy with the “eyes to see.”

Pearls before swine, and all that.[/quote]

Thank you. I do feel handicapped to some degree, but at the same time recognize that I seem to be having an easier time in some ways than seems typical. I also think that my romantic history, while having been hurtful, was comprised of men who genuinely loved me. So I was hurt by their behaviors, but not destroyed by the breakups, if that makes sense. Certainly it helps that both of them have expressed regret in losing me. My self-esteem is nicely intact.

Also, if I am handicapped it’s largely by things that in other contexts are strengths.

I just have to avoid libertines like SenSay and lunatics like the hunter guy.

So right now that leaves me with the hockey playing bio-medical guy, who just keeps seeming nicer and nicer. He’s a quiet kind of funny, and seems to be genuinely good-natured, happy, settled. He’s been helping renovate a fixer-upper this week for a pregnant family member and last night it came up in conversation that he can build a house. That’s sexy. We’re going out tonight. I hear from him regularly, but not overwhelmingly.

I like Iraq better with every email as well. But the distance, the distance.

I’m thinking about disabling my profile to focus on these two and take a break from politely returning messages, as well as getting confused/distracted by new guys who seem interesting, e.g. the European guy.

[quote]sen say wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Not at all, I know plenty of women who have and enjoy upfront casual sex. I have no problem with that, or the men who are upfront in stating that’s what they want.
[/quote]

How upfront do I need to be with it?

As you are well aware I’m the kind of guy that women dream about settling down with. Extremely smart, good provider, dreamy like a young Ryan O’Neal, track record of putting male babies in the belly, well adjusted, modest, hulky, sensitive as a lesbian, boyish charm, often seen in sweater vests…my concern is if I don’t address it immediately after ringing the doorbell and handing over the candy and flowers they will call me a cad.[/quote]

Aren’t you married?

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[quote]sen say wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Not at all, I know plenty of women who have and enjoy upfront casual sex. I have no problem with that, or the men who are upfront in stating that’s what they want.
[/quote]

How upfront do I need to be with it?

As you are well aware I’m the kind of guy that women dream about settling down with. Extremely smart, good provider, dreamy like a young Ryan O’Neal, track record of putting male babies in the belly, well adjusted, modest, hulky, sensitive as a lesbian, boyish charm, often seen in sweater vests…my concern is if I don’t address it immediately after ringing the doorbell and handing over the candy and flowers they will call me a cad.[/quote]

Aren’t you married?
[/quote]

Yes…and apparently a libertine…it just makes me all the more irresistible…it’s tough being me…

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[quote]sen say wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Not at all, I know plenty of women who have and enjoy upfront casual sex. I have no problem with that, or the men who are upfront in stating that’s what they want.
[/quote]

How upfront do I need to be with it?

As you are well aware I’m the kind of guy that women dream about settling down with. Extremely smart, good provider, dreamy like a young Ryan O’Neal, track record of putting male babies in the belly, well adjusted, modest, hulky, sensitive as a lesbian, boyish charm, often seen in sweater vests…my concern is if I don’t address it immediately after ringing the doorbell and handing over the candy and flowers they will call me a cad.[/quote]

Aren’t you married?
[/quote]
Apparently irrelevant for him.[/quote]

You know us libertines…I have to google it, but I’m sure it’s pretty cutting edge stuff…

[quote]sen say wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[quote]sen say wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Not at all, I know plenty of women who have and enjoy upfront casual sex. I have no problem with that, or the men who are upfront in stating that’s what they want.
[/quote]

How upfront do I need to be with it?

As you are well aware I’m the kind of guy that women dream about settling down with. Extremely smart, good provider, dreamy like a young Ryan O’Neal, track record of putting male babies in the belly, well adjusted, modest, hulky, sensitive as a lesbian, boyish charm, often seen in sweater vests…my concern is if I don’t address it immediately after ringing the doorbell and handing over the candy and flowers they will call me a cad.[/quote]

Aren’t you married?
[/quote]
Apparently irrelevant for him.[/quote]

You know us libertines…I have to google it, but I’m sure it’s pretty cutting edge stuff…
[/quote]

I was going to put roue, but it needs an accent over the “e” and TNation is funny about punctuation, so I substituted it. Being a roue is worse, because eventually you become an old roue, which suggests a certain foppishness.

And foppishness isn’t alpha.

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
And foppishness isn’t alpha.

[/quote]

What about fappishness?