underpants Posted August 14, 2007 Posted August 14, 2007 I muse this theory. I also think this may have led to a few of my own past mistakes. Do you think. Attraction level is proportionally related to the length of time it has been since you have had intimacy?
lino Posted August 14, 2007 Posted August 14, 2007 I don't really think its the case for me but for others I think its definitely so. I've seen examples of it many times.
Author underpants Posted August 14, 2007 Author Posted August 14, 2007 I don't really think its the case for me but for others I think its definitely so. I've seen examples of it many times. I would ask how long you have you gone without? No need to answer. I just think I have gone for very long periods (years even). Then it is just like literally f-it. I need some contact. Thus is born a dysfunctional relationship. Or someone I communicate this with and of course because I am not wanting a relationship they have to conquer me (emotionally). Is this making any sense?
oppath Posted August 14, 2007 Posted August 14, 2007 My experience, once I started dating regularly, is that the longer I've gone, the more attractive girls I eventually dated. In the short term, yes, going a while, I say "to hell with it" and get with someone, though not seriously, that I otherwise wouldn't date. Then I get the stink on me. Then women are coming out of the woodwork.
Trialbyfire Posted August 14, 2007 Posted August 14, 2007 Hey unders, I'm not certain I understand the question. Could you please reword or expand on it for stunned ones like myself?
Author underpants Posted August 14, 2007 Author Posted August 14, 2007 I guess my basic premise is: Is attraction level based proportionally on the length of time it has been since intimate relations. And please nobody go Clinton on this.
Trialbyfire Posted August 14, 2007 Posted August 14, 2007 Okay, I think I understand that and would say no, at least for me. To use an analogy, length of time = thickness of beer goggles. I find the longer I go, the more selective I get and it becomes more and more difficult to invest.
Author underpants Posted August 14, 2007 Author Posted August 14, 2007 Okay, I think I understand that and would say no, at least for me. To use an analogy, length of time = thickness of beer goggles. I find the longer I go, the more selective I get and it becomes more and more difficult to invest. Well, maybe... Except the beer goggle part. More the ...maybe you are more then my gut and libido are fighting each other for....let's see your penis and we shall evaluate everything in the morning. Thus born ....a situation. Mine you, I have only had one (okay 1 and a half) ons, but the one lasted 10 years. I just can say with out a doubt that I have come full circle into knowing absolutely nothing about the opposite sex. I feel sometimes as though I have selectified myself right out of the pond. This scares me.
jcster Posted August 14, 2007 Posted August 14, 2007 I find the longer I go, the more selective I get and it becomes more and more difficult to invest. Me too. I tend to do better in the relationship department if it's one after another with no breaks. But now, it's too late, and I'm enjoying being single.
Trialbyfire Posted August 14, 2007 Posted August 14, 2007 I just can say with out a doubt that I have come full circle into knowing absolutely nothing about the opposite sex. I feel sometimes as though I have selectified myself right out of the pond. This scares me. I can pretty much predict how my male friends or relatives will react to most things but add in personal love interest and I don't have a clue beyond knowing they want some nookie. Have you been actively looking? If so, you know it never works. It only rains men when you're either not looking or don't want it to happen. Me too. I tend to do better in the relationship department if it's one after another with no breaks. But now, it's too late, and I'm enjoying being single. Uh oh, you're in big trouble now. Here they come...
Author underpants Posted August 14, 2007 Author Posted August 14, 2007 Gosh no, Looking equal looking for trouble in my book. In case you didn't know I follow that book of the cynic. I have just stumbled a few times and I look back and wonder about where I might have unknowingly (or knowingly) tripped. Yes, the nookie. It is nice NO? It is all handled with a surgeon's gloves sometimes. Who's operating? I just am perplexed that if you want to have it, they don't want to give it. If you don't want it, they want to give it. I guess this is supposed to make me laugh instead of cry....or them...see I am just so out of the pond and flopping on the shore. I just don't know anymore. Did I just write some silly poem? How bad...please forgive me.
Trialbyfire Posted August 14, 2007 Posted August 14, 2007 Nookie with surgical gloves? Don't confuse a security check at the airport for an encounter, no matter how cute the guard is. *runs out and buys a plane ticket* Then keep running, whether you want to give it or not. Sooner or later, one of the ones you want will catch you.
monkey00 Posted August 14, 2007 Posted August 14, 2007 The conclusion is pretty straightforward, as the old saying goes - "Happiness comes when we aren't looking for it." Distraction is perplexing. But what's more perplexing is people wanting what they can't have (or at least what's hard to attain).
Author underpants Posted August 14, 2007 Author Posted August 14, 2007 Distraction is perplexing. But what's more perplexing is people wanting what they can't have (or at least what's hard to attain). Okay, here is where you might need the foil helmet. Come deep into my tiny brain. When you entertain those who you do not want. They want you more. When you yield to those whom you do want, they pull away. This can be the same person. What's up with that?
monkey00 Posted August 14, 2007 Posted August 14, 2007 Okay, here is where you might need the foil helmet. Come deep into my tiny brain. When you entertain those who you do not want. They want you more. When you yield to those whom you do want, they pull away. This can be the same person. What's up with that? I think people are more skilled at reading body language than they realize. Neediness is unattractive, on the opposite..confidence, passion, and certainty is attractive. As I try to tell my friends - men don't need women, however they are welcome to join us for an adventure ride if they wish.
Trialbyfire Posted August 14, 2007 Posted August 14, 2007 I think people are more skilled at reading body language than they realize. Neediness is unattractive, on the opposite..confidence, passion, and certainty is attractive. As I try to tell my friends - men don't need women, however they are welcome to join us for an adventure ride if they wish. Ummm...I beg to differ. Y'all would have some difficulty if there were no women around...
monkey00 Posted August 14, 2007 Posted August 14, 2007 Ummm...I beg to differ. Y'all would have some difficulty if there were no women around... Well..guess i cant argue with you there TBF...you've won this round! I shall return! Let us not forget test tube babies!
Trialbyfire Posted August 14, 2007 Posted August 14, 2007 Well..guess i cant argue with you there TBF...you've won this round! I shall return! Let us not forget test tube babies! And blue balls...
Author underpants Posted August 14, 2007 Author Posted August 14, 2007 Maybe I am just my paranoid self. However, peeps from NY scare me. Back to topic. I guess, in layman's terms. Does time away make us more...indiscriminent with our choices?
Trimmer Posted August 14, 2007 Posted August 14, 2007 Do you think. Attraction level is proportionally related to the length of time it has been since you have had intimacy? Actually, I have no doubt this is true. I recently passed two years "without", and I think it makes me look just stunning. Nookie with surgical gloves? Don't confuse a security check at the airport for an encounter, no matter how cute the guard is. Google <"Security Joan" "Donald Fagen" lyrics>
Trialbyfire Posted August 14, 2007 Posted August 14, 2007 Google <"Security Joan" "Donald Fagen" lyrics> Some guys like women in uniforms...
lino Posted August 14, 2007 Posted August 14, 2007 I would ask how long you have you gone without? No need to answer. I just think I have gone for very long periods (years even). Then it is just like literally f-it. I need some contact. Thus is born a dysfunctional relationship. Or someone I communicate this with and of course because I am not wanting a relationship they have to conquer me (emotionally). Is this making any sense? Recently not long but I have had longer periods of drought before & I still won't settle for less than I want or get into a bad relationship (not intentionally anyway!) I understand what you mean though and agree completely. I don't get like that though.
Recommended Posts