The General Conversation Area

[ayase]

As for the Mae West quotation - not everyone is happy wasting money on a well marketed blend Scotch, just because it might take a little more time and effort to find somewhere serving the single malt you are looking for.

Yeah, but there's a difference; that's wasting money, which is a finite resource. Unless you think sex allows your partner to steal your vital life essences I don't think it's really analogous, AFAIK people aren't allotted a finite amount of sex or love.

I don't understand why people don't just talk to the people they enjoy conversing with, f*ck the people they find physically attractive and simply live in (largely vain, in my experience) hope that those things might one day collide.

This is due to that men and women think differently. I don't see male prostitutes on the street for a woman to pay up and jump on for example. This is because women are complex with their needs while men are more straight forward in comparison. Generalisation maybe but also true.

Yeah. I think my problem is that I prefer straight-forward women, who seem to be in the minority (ones who are laid back rather than hellishly demanding even moreso). I make no secret of the fact that I prefer women who think in what would probably be regarded as a more masculine way, and have on more than one occasion fallen for lesbians because of this. I'm not a stereotypical laddish type and I wouldn't dream of demeaning anybody. I just don't get why other people make these things so complicated, not just women either.

See, there's the problem. General conversation. Inane and verging on dishonest if your real intention is to get into somebody's pants. Can't we just be honest with each other?

Talking to someone is to gauge how worthy their intent may be. When a man wants to have sex on a plate - it is very obvious. So what is wrong with men 'working' (ie. having a conversation) to fufill their own need? It works both ways. No wonder morals are going down the toilet.

Sex isn't a female need too? If one person isn't interested then I understand, but if two (or more) people are attracted to each other (regardless of gender) what else really needs to be established or makes you more "worthy" other than that attraction?[/quote]

 

[Sy]

I find talking about pugs is a good conversation starter. Everyone likes pugs.

 

[ilmaestro]

As for the Mae West quotation - not everyone is happy wasting money on a well marketed blend Scotch, just because it might take a little more time and effort to find somewhere serving the single malt you are looking for.

Yeah, but there's a difference; that's wasting money, which is a finite resource

Let's say I think those people would still exist even if you had a third tap at your kitchen sink that produced said Scotch.

Of course, the following part of your statement is true-"ish". If you were analyzing humans from the POV of some 12th dimension entity who liked to play games of chess using other, lesser, civilizations as his pieces, you could probably say that is a reasonable conclusion. In the real world, of course those things are limited, by many factors. You just don't know how limited they are, and there is great variance to that, so those things it is easier to comprehend if you classify them as unlimited.

 

[Ryo Chan]

I find talking about pugs is a good conversation starter. Everyone likes pugs.

 

[Vashdaman]

Unless you think sex allows your partner to steal your vital life essences

Bingo (though I don't think women necessarily steal your essence, more so that men just lose it. That's not to say that some women can't steal it, however ). Ever wondered why men are often so knackered after emptying the proverbial tank? Well, this is actually a pretty big topic, but as a rule I would say; As men we do have finite amounts which can be released without having an impact on overall vitality. I think that when in a loving relationship, there is more of an exchange of energy as opposed to just a loss on the mans part. I think that loveless sex may fulfill an anatomical need, but is just a waste of energy. So I endorse ilmae's analogy, well played sir.

I would also agree with the others, that politely approaching strangers in the street isn't unacceptable. As Rui said, the main things are that your respectful, are receptive to how open a person might be to it, and can take a hint effectively. As long as you have these things down, then it shouldn't have to turn into one of those "err this is awkward/creepy" moments.

Have to say, it's not something I've done frequently though, mainly because I don't really ever get a strong desire to chirps a female based purely on looks when there isn't some aspect of her personality I'm infatuated with too. I guess you could sort of say I've done it on a couple of occasions though, but it was only once I'd received "the look", and I then approached with some semi passable opening convo. I actually ended up being in a relationship with one of those women (met a train station) for a few months. It is very, very rare for me to do that kind of move though.

 

[20thCenturyBoy]

Just to add to what people are saying I think it's a bit unfair to say that men don't want the more "complex" things that women want. I think attraction starts out often as just that, an attraction to a certain element and more often than not you're likely to see someone before you speak to them so that attraction is going to be the primal instinct of physical appeal. However, personally as a man (at least I think I am :lol: ) I want more than just that, I want complimenting personalities and at least some things in common, moreover I want someone to simply share and be with. I feel at times that I could put aside the physical/sex side and just be happy to have someone to spend time with, enjoy being around and if I could simply hold them close that'd be fine. But as I said these things tend to start out with that initial sexual appeal so in saying I couldn't be with someone purely for physical attraction, at least I don't think so, then I couldn't be with someone if I wasn't physically attracted to them.

vashdaman, feel proud to have recieved the look and take pity on those of us who have yet to (at least to our knowledge).

Maybe if you try it in a Franky t-shirt? I get no end of compliments from women when I wear OP items somehow :s

Sadly my lovely One Piece t-shirt and/or hoody do nothing of the sort

 

[ayase]

I get that different people feel differently about this stuff (some more differently than others) but it's one area I have real trouble understanding where other people are coming from. I have no doubt the feeling is mutual, I just find it a little baffling I don't ever seem to encounter anyone who shares my views on sex and relationships.

Of course, the following part of your statement is true-"ish". If you were analyzing humans from the POV of some 12th dimension entity who liked to play games of chess using other, lesser, civilizations as his pieces...

Aha. Yeah, er.. if. That would be pretty ridiculous eh?

controller ax709b12 requesting immediate extraction. Cover has been compromised, repeat: cover has been compromised.

 

[Zin5ki]

controller ax709b12 requesting immediate extraction. Cover has been compromised, repeat: cover has been compromised.

Roger, controller ax709b12. Return to Dustoff zone for extraction. Controllers b13 and b14 will provide powdered potato-starch refueling to all active units.

Over and out.

 

[Rui]

I get that different people feel differently about this stuff (some more differently than others) but it's one area I have real trouble understanding where other people are coming from. I have no doubt the feeling is mutual, I just find it a little baffling I don't ever seem to encounter anyone who shares my views on sex and relationships.

If it helps, I genuinely think that most of what you say about relationships makes a great deal of sense; for some reason though I do feel that my core personality is wired differently and so wanting the same kind of thing is unlikely. My nature is far too serious to be able to relax and enjoy your ideal scenario no matter how hard I try to imagine it.

I have met one other chap in the real world who had a similarly relaxed view of how relationships should be to you, though, and he tried to conduct his own life accordingly, but unfortunately they don't use this forum so cannot be presented as evidence. That and we had a fight and haven't been on speaking terms for a long time :s

R

 

[Vashdaman]

then I couldn't be with someone if I wasn't physically attracted to them.

I don't think there's anything shallow or wrong with this. Your right in that physical attraction is usually the first kind of attraction one feels toward another, and I think it's a important part of a romantic relationship. Though I guess it depends on the person, but having that basic animal attraction is an essential part of the relationship for me. It's definitely shouldn't be the 'only' or 'main' aspect of a relationship, but I don't think there's any shame in valuing that physical chemistry to an extent.

Sure, I guess it would be easier if I went to one person for straight up no strings no need to even talk- sex, and another for whose company I enjoy on a more emotional and intellectual level. But I would imagine that it wouldn't come anywhere close to the satisfaction of someone who ticks all those boxes. Personally, I'd rather skip sex altogether than have it with someone I don't have any deeper connection with.

Though, your views on relationship's don't seem all that rare to me, ayase. There seem to be enough people out there who are game for "no strings" sex with another they find physically attractive, whist having no intention of pursuing a considerably deeper relationship with that person. And that's essentially what you were talking about, isn't it?

I think the reason why many women (and to lesser extent men) have a problem with emotionless, loveless sex, is because it's one of the most intimate and special experiences two people can have together, and I don't think it feels right to share that experience with someone who is almost meaningless to you. I guess that on a biological level it's just fulfilling a natural and instinctual urge we all have, but humans don't function off of the same instinctual primal urges alone, that less sentient animals do.

 

[ayase]

I think the reason why many women (and to lesser extent men) have a problem with emotionless, loveless sex, is because it's one of the most intimate and special experiences two people can have together, and I don't think it feels right to share that experience with someone who is almost meaningless to you. I guess that on a biological level it's just fulfilling a natural and instinctual urge we all have, but humans don't function off of the same instinctual primal urges alone, that less sentient animals do.

See, I don't think sex even with someone you're not interested in a deeper relationship with should be either emotionless or loveless (I can't imagine sex ever being either of those things unless I was with someone I didn't find attractive in any way, in which case it wouldn't be happening in the first place) nor that it makes that person or persons meaningless to you. Lust is an emotional as well as a physical thing and hey, it's fun isn't it? At least on the rare and long ago occasions I partook in it it was. It's never simple relief when there's more than one person involved unless, as I say, one of the parties doesn't really want to be there. And I'd advise against that.

As for the matter of having a not-uncommon attitude, the thing there is that I seem to exist somewhere in an otherwise unoccupied void between classes and societal norms where I can't really get along that well with anyone if I'm honest and not wearing the Mask of Fake Friendliness +1 I hung up for good when I quit being a salesperson. If I go down the pub on a Friday night I don't even find the loud tarted-up girls particularly physically attractive. And the more refined girls seem to want all that complex ****. I probably need to retreat back into a subculture again...

If it helps, I genuinely think that most of what you say about relationships makes a great deal of sense; for some reason though I do feel that my core personality is wired differently and so wanting the same kind of thing is unlikely. My nature is far too serious to be able to relax and enjoy your ideal scenario no matter how hard I try to imagine it.

I have met one other chap in the real world who had a similarly relaxed view of how relationships should be to you, though, and he tried to conduct his own life accordingly, but unfortunately they don't use this forum so cannot be presented as evidence. That and we had a fight and haven't been on speaking terms for a long time :s

That's some comfort I guess, though perhaps the fact that you fell out with him isn't. I'm becoming rather bemused in my observations that having a cavalier attitude to a lot of things tends to bring out an even more violently negative reaction in others than even taking a contrary position would. It seems a bit like people think "Either agree with my view or oppose it, but don't you dare dismiss the idea that this is important!" I don't really understand how nonchalance can upset people so much. Humanity is very, very strange - Sometimes I do feel a bit like maestro's 12th dimension entity...

 

[ilmaestro]

fwiw, ayase, I see your point, I just don't think it holds much general value outside of an academic exercise within the confines of this kind of debate.

I think people who hold totally individual (at least, individual enough that you are unlikely to actually randomly meet someone who agrees with you) opinions on certain things are not rare enough that you should be worried to be in that situation - you're just unlucky that yours happens to be on a topic that holds more significance than most.

controller ax709b12 requesting immediate extraction. Cover has been compromised, repeat: cover has been compromised.

 

[Vashdaman]

See, I don't think sex even with someone you're not interested in a deeper relationship with should be either emotionless or loveless (I can't imagine sex ever being either of those things unless I was with someone I didn't find attractive in any way, in which case it wouldn't be happening in the first place) nor that it makes that person or persons meaningless to you. Lust is an emotional as well as a physical thing and hey, it's fun isn't it?

Well lustful sex should be enjoyable I guess, but I'm not sure how much actual love would be involved, especially when it's with someone whose simple conversation can't even be tolerated. So yeah, it's not emotionless but personally, I don't think I'd find strictly lustful sex without the love and respect a very rewarding or positive experience . It would make more sense to me, if it was at least someone like a friend you would care for and whose company you would enjoy, and who was say up for a sexual relationship, but without any of the other stuff.

I'm not saying your opinions are wrong or anything though, just sharing my views. I have known many whose favorite pass time is very casual sex, it just doesn't appeal to me personally.

As for the matter of having a not-uncommon attitude, the thing there is that I seem to exist somewhere in an otherwise unoccupied void between classes and societal norms where I can't really get along that well with anyone if I'm honest and not wearing the Mask of Fake Friendliness +1 I hung up for good when I quit being a salesperson. If I go down the pub on a Friday night I don't even find the loud tarted-up girls particularly physically attractive

I think I see what you mean. But the thing is, that most people who look after themself and who doesn't have serious self esteem issues, they will probably want be careful about who they let into their bodies. So you can see this would require them to get to know any prospect lover.

 

[neptune2venus]

And the more refined girls seem to want all that complex ****.

Well if they were offering any different, they may as well be prostitues or one of those types that get drunk and are on the look out for one night stands.

In an ideal world. we'd all get what we want - but alas it is not to be sometimes. There are other things to think about such as pregnancy and STDs. But perhaps that's another topic entirely!

 

[ayase]

And the more refined girls seem to want all that complex ****.

Well if they were offering any different, they may as well be prostitues or one of those types that get drunk and are on the look out for one night stands.

I'm not really comfortable with judging people like that, nor do I think it's a very fair observation. Promiscuity =/= moral bankruptcy or having taken leave of your senses. Does a woman have to be drunk to be interested in casual sex? My personal view is that the reward or price for sex should be sex; equivalent exchange, if you like. If someone wants something other or extra in exchange, then surely it's them who might as well be a prostitute? Of course, if both parties expect something extra that's fair enough, and that's what most people seem to be saying is the norm. If people don't value sex and require something else in return then I don't think they should bother having it. I certainly don't think they should base relationships around that sort of exchange.

In an ideal world. we'd all get what we want - but alas it is not to be sometimes. There are other things to think about such as pregnancy and STDs. But perhaps that's another topic entirely!

Hmm. When what I want is simply honest and reciprocally enjoyable relationships with other human beings it seems a bit of a shame if I can't have it. Oh well. As for STDs and pregnancy, contraception is easily available (except for people who choose to take moral guidance from religious leaders whose hobbies include encouraging people to overpopulate the planet and spread AIDS).

 

[ilmaestro]

Hmm. When what I want is simply honest and reciprocally enjoyable relationships with other human beings it seems a bit of a shame if I can't have it.

You give the impression that you want them exclusively on your terms, though, which reduces the potential for sympathy.

 

[ayase]

What can I say, I've consciously chosen living authentically over compromise and dishonesty because I find it better for my mental health and general well-being. I would hope that I do live on my own terms, and wouldn't expect any sympathy for that. Sympathy isn't really something I appreciate or require - I tend to find it condescending bordering on demeaning.

Relationships clearly aren't something I require either - I believe I could appreciate them, though again, only if it was on my own terms, yes.

 

[neptune2venus]

As for STDs and pregnancy, contraception is easily available (except for people who choose to take moral guidance from religious leaders whose hobbies include encouraging people to overpopulate the planet and spread AIDS).

I was waiting for the contraception argument. Contraception is not 100% even when both parties are protected. There is always going to be that slight chance. Not that I'm condoning sexual relations, far from it. I imagine the morning-after pill would be mentioned which is not a form of contraception and any 'decent' woman would not be in there being cross-examined by a phamicist and overdosing her body with oestrogen, weekly. However, sadly this is becoming the norm. Men do not have to worry about becoming pregnant and the life changing (perhaps stigma) that becomes attached to it.

Relationships clearly aren't something I require either - I believe I could appreciate them, though again, only if it was on my own terms, yes.

Relationships are a two-way process unless you may find someone else that is compatible. But how will you know? A conversation may have to occur which brings the topic back full cycle.

 

[Rui]

I agree with neptune2venus on contraception. My policy has always been that in spite of modern medicine I have no interest in sleeping with anyone I wouldn't be willing to have a child with (or willing to share some hideous disease with) if something went wrong, which rather raises the bar for assessing the suitability of potential mates and makes casual relationships less desirable. My slowness to trust people and to warm to them at all also makes it pretty much impossible.

Ayase: I fell out with the person I mentioned for completely unrelated reasons, so please rest assured that having the views you do is no problem

R

 

[ayase]

I was waiting for the contraception argument. Contraception is not 100% even when both parties are protected. There is always going to be that slight chance. Not that I'm condoning sexual relations, far from it. I imagine the morning-after pill would be mentioned which is not a form of contraception and any 'decent' woman would not be in there being cross-examined by a phamicist and overdosing her body with oestrogen, weekly. However, sadly this is becoming the norm. Men do not have to worry about becoming pregnant and the life changing (perhaps stigma) that becomes attached to it.

Again, personal opinion of what being a "decent woman" entails is going to be subjective, but I don't think in the normal course of things (if people are using other forms of contraception and given their relatively low failure rates) a morning after pill would be required every week. Of course, our definitions of promiscuity may also differ. Then there's the matter of abortion, but that's another thorny debate.

And I think that these days men certainly do have to worry about the life changing nature of having a child. If they are in a relationship with the mother and pregnancy is unexpected but it's decided they will have the child, then hat's life changing. If the father is not in a relationship with the mother and she still decides to have the child, that's life changing too as he's still legally responsible. Perhaps in the days a man was able to get a woman pregnant and take no responsibility to the mother or child you'd have a point, but those days are long gone.

Relationships are a two-way process unless you may find someone else that is compatible. But how will you know? A conversation may have to occur which brings the topic back full cycle.

See, I don't have a problem with talking to people or conversing with them if I find their company sufficiently interesting (and there's one of the problems, in that I tend not to be physically attracted to the few people I find interesting, and to not find particularly interesting those I'm physically attracted to) it's just the whole "dating" or "assessing compatibility" thing or whatever you want to call it. It just seems so transparent and unnecessary.