WhyYesThankYou Posted July 9, 2009 Posted July 9, 2009 With apologies for being pedantic, but my interest in linguistics extends even to my late-night, weekend frolicking. Is it still considered a "one night stand" if the person wants to see you again (and does)? If you have set out with the intention of something being a one-off, but then you end up seeing each other subsequent to that, then what was the original encounter? Is it still called a "one night stand" that led to something else? Or does the fact it led to something else mean it wasn't ever, or is no longer, a one night stand?
lora22 Posted July 9, 2009 Posted July 9, 2009 My understanding is that a ONS is someone you never see again...or at the very least, not someone you ever see romantically or intimately again.
alphamale Posted July 9, 2009 Posted July 9, 2009 Is it still considered a "one night stand" if the person wants to see you again (and does)? read the words ONE - NIGHT - STAND
Author WhyYesThankYou Posted July 9, 2009 Author Posted July 9, 2009 read the words ONE - NIGHT - STAND Right - I get that. What I'm saying is: If I go out on Friday with the intention of having a ONS, and do hook up with someone, and they go home thanks bye and you never hear from them again and don't contact them, then that is clearly a ONS. If you do that Friday night thing with the intention of it being self-contained, but then they email you and want more, want to see you again - was Friday still a ONS? Is it a failed ONS? In other words, my goal for Friday was a ONS, and I thought I achieved my goal. I'm wondering now though if I failed in that objective, since the guy wants to see me again. Did I actually have a ONS? Or not, on the basis that he wants to see me more (and I've agreed in principle)?
alphamale Posted July 9, 2009 Posted July 9, 2009 If you do that Friday night thing with the intention of it being self-contained, but then they email you and want more, want to see you again - was Friday still a ONS? Is it a failed ONS? its a ONS gone arwy
Author WhyYesThankYou Posted July 9, 2009 Author Posted July 9, 2009 its a ONS gone arwy Oh dear, then there's no hope for me. I can't even do shallow, anonymous hook-ups properly.
lora22 Posted July 9, 2009 Posted July 9, 2009 Right - I get that. What I'm saying is: If I go out on Friday with the intention of having a ONS, and do hook up with someone, and they go home thanks bye and you never hear from them again and don't contact them, then that is clearly a ONS. If you do that Friday night thing with the intention of it being self-contained, but then they email you and want more, want to see you again - was Friday still a ONS? Is it a failed ONS? In other words, my goal for Friday was a ONS, and I thought I achieved my goal. I'm wondering now though if I failed in that objective, since the guy wants to see me again. Did I actually have a ONS? Or not, on the basis that he wants to see me more (and I've agreed in principle)? I'd say at this point it's still a ONS, since all that's happened is the guy has contacted you. If you pursue something, it's no longer a ONS. I mean, how many girls do you know who have a ONS and then get attached to the guy, or assume he's into them, etc., and she goes after him? If he went into it thinking "It's only a ONS" and he's not interested in anything more from the girl, and so nothing happens (he tells her to back off, he ignores her, etc.), it's still a ONS.
Author WhyYesThankYou Posted July 9, 2009 Author Posted July 9, 2009 I'd say at this point it's still a ONS, since all that's happened is the guy has contacted you. Excellent points. Well, he has suggested a time, place and agenda for the next meeting. So I suppose if that actually takes place, then the ONS is no longer a ONS, or is officially a ONS-gone-awry (ONSGA). It had not occurred to me until reading your post that he could be just testing to see if *I* want to meet up again. Hmm. That would be devious. And sociopathic.
IrishCarBomb Posted July 9, 2009 Posted July 9, 2009 What is the point of the question? Does something significant change if the encounter is not purely a "one-night" stand with no strings attached?
BenThereDunThat Posted July 9, 2009 Posted July 9, 2009 Yeah, not sure I get the point of the question either. A ONS happens between two strangers, no contact info is exchanged, you do the deed and go your separate ways. Ideally it's a known ONS by both parties. Not that you actually talk about it beforehand. That's it. That's all there is to it.
Author WhyYesThankYou Posted July 9, 2009 Author Posted July 9, 2009 What is the point of the question? Does something significant change if the encounter is not purely a "one-night" stand with no strings attached? I'm just wondering about the terminology. Something's a one night stand if it's two people, one night - I get that. But if AFTER the one night stand, one of those people does track down the other, and if they see each other again, then do you still call the first encounter a one night stand? Like, could you say, "We met when we had a one night stand. And the next month we started dating"? Or if, after your supposedly one-off encounter, you end up getting together again, does that negate the one-night-standness of the original meeting? I'm really wondering solely about the label. Maybe I'm not asking the question very clearly. Like, if you're an only child... And then your parents have another baby, then you are no longer an "only child." You become the "older child." Is this making any sense?
Taramere Posted July 9, 2009 Posted July 9, 2009 If you do that Friday night thing with the intention of it being self-contained, but then they email you and want more, want to see you again - was Friday still a ONS? Is it a failed ONS? In other words, my goal for Friday was a ONS, and I thought I achieved my goal. I'm wondering now though if I failed in that objective, since the guy wants to see me again. Did I actually have a ONS? Or not, on the basis that he wants to see me more (and I've agreed in principle)? It's a failed one night stand. I think the point of a one night stand is that you've a chemistry with the person. Rationally, you know that a relationship with them would absolutely not be a goer (maybe there's too big an age gap, distance gap, temperament gap or whatever else), and you don't want to kid yourself that you can handle an extended fling when you know very well that you'll get attached and it will end in tears. So you have sex while the physical chemistry is sizzling but before emotional attachment has time to set in, and you decline to exchange email addresses or phone numbers. Without getting into the whole "I'll get emotionally attached, it won't work out etc etc" stuff that they'll assume is womanspeak for "please reassure me and talk me out of this way of thinking."
hitzpink Posted July 9, 2009 Posted July 9, 2009 Does it even matter?? There isn't a specific "label" for an intended ONS that turns into something else. If I really felt the need to explain it to people, I would just say "We intended for it to just be a one night stand, but it turned into more." I mean....am I missing something here? Do all of the random ways relationships begin need to have their own special labels? "Failed" ONS makes no sense to me. If somebody came to me and said "hey, I had a failed ONS" I'd think it "failed" because the guy couldn't get it up or something. Not that they started as a ONS and then began dating each other!
Adunaphel Posted July 9, 2009 Posted July 9, 2009 Like, could you say, "We met when we had a one night stand. And the next month we started dating"? I think I'd just say "we had sex on the first date".
rod_in_gtown Posted July 9, 2009 Posted July 9, 2009 Simple. No more contact = ONS If you don't see each other again even if there is further contact, it's still a ONS. If you see each other again, and become intimate without the intention of being in a relationship = FWB / Booty Call (nothing wrong with that) If you see each other again and become friends without being intimate ever again = He's Friend-zoned in the worst way. If you see each other again and continue and on again / off again relationship = You're John Mayer If you see each other, grow into a relationship and eventually get married, then you're my cousin and his wife
2sure Posted July 9, 2009 Posted July 9, 2009 It is possible you are in the midst of being upgraded from ONS to F*** Buddy.
Author WhyYesThankYou Posted July 9, 2009 Author Posted July 9, 2009 Thanks, all - some good definitions/distinctions in there, and a few good laughs, too... John Mayer... hahaha! The question and its answer aren't "important," other than that language has meaning, and we're on a board where people use words and language to try to convey meaning, achieve a shared understanding about that meaning, and get a useful, mutually intelligible response. So the words we use and how we use them matter. I guess I was being a little esoteric with how you label a "one night stand" if it leads to more, but I'm interested in language, so thought I'd ask. (Also, thinking about the linguistic ramifications of seeing the person again is a handy distraction from thinking about the actual issue.)
IrishCarBomb Posted July 10, 2009 Posted July 10, 2009 Hmmm... Fling Tryst "Thing" Liason Excusion Affair Hooking up "Snuggle" buddies Friends with Benefits Sex Friends F*** buddies D*** in a box Dial-a-d*** The list can go on and on...
bac Posted July 10, 2009 Posted July 10, 2009 Oh dear, then there's no hope for me. I can't even do shallow, anonymous hook-ups properly. You do not understand. The Shallow hook ups are the most difficult ones. Because you have to be a great player to get them and girls do not want the shallow hook ups.
likeORIGAMI Posted July 10, 2009 Posted July 10, 2009 Its still a ONS. He just wants more sex from you since it was so easy to obtain. Good luck.
Author WhyYesThankYou Posted July 10, 2009 Author Posted July 10, 2009 The Shallow hook ups are the most difficult ones. Because you have to be a great player to get them and girls do not want the shallow hook ups. I am a girl, and I did want a shallow hook-up. Just for that night. I think I did too much talking. Now he claims to be all into my charm and intellect. I wish he understood that my discussing the psychosocial linguistics of reflexive Slavic verbs is just my own personal form of foreplay... I wasn't trying to engage him in any sort of ongoing dialogue.
Author WhyYesThankYou Posted July 10, 2009 Author Posted July 10, 2009 He just wants more sex from you since it was so easy to obtain. Good luck. Thank you... It may have been easy the first time around, but it will take him 10 hours to travel to where I am for Round Two. Which he seems willing and eager to do. Either he is insanely desperate, or I have unwittingly allowed an attachment to occur.
Recommended Posts