Author northern_sky Posted November 7, 2010 Author Posted November 7, 2010 Lol, I'm ridiculous. I'm listening to "Breakfast at Tiffany's" by Deep Blue Something and crying. I need to stop being so vulnerable.
Star Gazer Posted November 7, 2010 Posted November 7, 2010 I should have just gotten tested and found out. Who knows if he's even being honest. Not to freak you out, but... As has been discussed millions of times on LS over the years, a negative test today doesn't really mean anything, as many STDs take a while to build up enough to show in your blood work. Further, many so-called "full" STD tests don't even test for HepC and herpes (both of which take a while to show up). So, just because your tests came back negative in mid-September, and he was during the summer, doesn't prove definitively that either one of you are really, truly, 100% clean. Hence why casual sex is so dangerous!
Author northern_sky Posted November 7, 2010 Author Posted November 7, 2010 Had a talk with my friend spookie that led me to a few realizations: This guy is a loner at heart, the sort addicted to the chase who will probably fall for some chick unimpressed by his charms. The guys I'm drawn to are emotionally unavailable. I like them in part because they're like me which means they are attracted to emotionally unavailable women but because they have more confidence I lose my cool first. It's a game of chicken. I don't see any way out because what draws me to them -the fact that they're discriminating also keeps other people out. I think I will just stop trying for a long time.
threebyfate Posted November 7, 2010 Posted November 7, 2010 Had a talk with my friend spookie that led me to a few realizations: This guy is a loner at heart, the sort addicted to the chase who will probably fall for some chick unimpressed by his charms. The guys I'm drawn to are emotionally unavailable. I like them in part because they're like me which means they are attracted to emotionally unavailable women but because they have more confidence I lose my cool first. It's a game of chicken. I don't see any way out because what draws me to them -the fact that they're discriminating also keeps other people out. I think I will just stop trying for a long time.EU men are a total waste of time and emotion unless you enjoy a game of continuous chase, where as soon as he gets a bit close, you push him away. It's an emotionally unhealthy dynamic and can be very destructive to both participants. Now that you've identified this issue, it's something concrete to work on. The minute you identify an EU man, run for your life!
welikeincrowds Posted November 7, 2010 Posted November 7, 2010 what draws me to them -the fact that they're discriminating I LOVE discriminating. I absolutely adore it, travel the ends of the earth for someone who will tell me in particular detail what they hate about things in this life and then I revel in the pleasure of agreement, or the pleasure of argumentative disagreement. But is that necessarily a sign of someone who's emotionally unavailable? Can't someone's unavailability lead them just as easily to be completely indiscriminate? Can't someone hate everyone else, and love you? I don't see these two terms as related, somehow. I lose my cool first And you know, this confuses me too. It sounds like "emotionally unavailable, until I become available, at the expected and appropriate time." You're not unavailable in that you're vacant, you're unavailable in that you're untamed. Vulnerability is an expected part of a relationship. The idea is that you both become vulnerable to the same degree at the same time, but there's always a risk. Anyone doing anything of importance will have to lose their cool at some point, in order that they dive into passion.
Author northern_sky Posted November 7, 2010 Author Posted November 7, 2010 The problem is I lose respect for any guy who doesnt push against me by being as argumentative and feisty as I am. For whatever reason guys like that are eu the vast majority of the time. So as long as I'm uninvested they're drawn to me and our chemistry is red hot, but once the possibility of a relationship is on the horizon I betray some of my softer, more vulnerable self and they flee. Problem is I really want a guy who has this edge, but they can't deal with my emotional attachment. I LOVE discriminating. I absolutely adore it, travel the ends of the earth for someone who will tell me in particular detail what they hate about things in this life and then I revel in the pleasure of agreement, or the pleasure of argumentative disagreement. But is that necessarily a sign of someone who's emotionally unavailable? Can't someone's unavailability lead them just as easily to be completely indiscriminate? Can't someone hate everyone else, and love you? I don't see these two terms as related, somehow. And you know, this confuses me too. It sounds like "emotionally unavailable, until I become available, at the expected and appropriate time." You're not unavailable in that you're vacant, you're unavailable i that you're untamed. Vulnerability is an expected part of a relationship. The idea is that you both become vulnerable to the same degree at the same time, but there's always a risk. Anyone doing anything of importance will have to lose their cool at some point, in order that they dive into passion.
Author northern_sky Posted November 7, 2010 Author Posted November 7, 2010 You actually sound eu to be honest, albeit less confident than J. The very fact that were both on this board suggests more emotional availability and interest than somebody like j is capable of - he'd think this site was bulls$&7. But even the guys I find appealing on ls seem eu. What really appeals to me is somebody who is extremely sharp, insightful and a tad cynical. I have yet to find a guy who fits this criteria and is not eu and usually pining over some bitchy ex who rejected him. QUOTE=welikeincrowds;3086300]I LOVE discriminating. I absolutely adore it, travel the ends of the earth for someone who will tell me in particular detail what they hate about things in this life and then I revel in the pleasure of agreement, or the pleasure of argumentative disagreement. But is that necessarily a sign of someone who's emotionally unavailable? Can't someone's unavailability lead them just as easily to be completely indiscriminate? Can't someone hate everyone else, and love you? I don't see these two terms as related, somehow. And you know, this confuses me too. It sounds like "emotionally unavailable, until I become available, at the expected and appropriate time." You're not unavailable in that you're vacant, you're unavailable in that you're untamed. Vulnerability is an expected part of a relationship. The idea is that you both become vulnerable to the same degree at the same time, but there's always a risk. Anyone doing anything of importance will have to lose their cool at some point, in order that they dive into passion.
Author northern_sky Posted November 7, 2010 Author Posted November 7, 2010 EU men are a total waste of time and emotion unless you enjoy a game of continuous chase, where as soon as he gets a bit close, you push him away. It's an emotionally unhealthy dynamic and can be very destructive to both participants. Now that you've identified this issue, it's something concrete to work on. The minute you identify an EU man, run for your life! Sometimes I wonder though if there are smart, discriminating, confident men who aren't eu. Or more than like five to go around. I guess the larger problem is I'm most attracted to a specific type of alpha male. Not the meatheaded type, but a smart, driven, witty variety. These guys are either eu or they're eventually turned off by my social awkwardness.
welikeincrowds Posted November 7, 2010 Posted November 7, 2010 You actually sound eu to be honest, albeit less confident than J. The very fact that were both on this board suggests more emotional availability and interest than somebody like j is capable of - he'd think this site was bulls$&7. But even the guys I find appealing on ls seem eu. What really appeals to me is somebody who is extremely sharp, insightful and a tad cynical. I have yet to find a guy who fits this criteria and is not eu and usually pining over some bitchy ex who rejected him. I can't tell what's a compliment here and what isn't. So you think I'm less confident than this guy, and but more emotionally available? And I guess me being on LS implies that I'm lacking confidence? Or something? I'm sure you're being very nice to me. Anyway, you'll find that. Cynicism is just an easy and ignoble reaction to a personal sensitivity to life's grievances. So naturally it involves a certain emotional unavailability toward the entirety of the world, but also, usually, a glut of emotional depth that's being protected or ignored. I'm sure exes are generally a part of it, but they don't have to be recent. At least with the cynical you know they are capable of love.
Author northern_sky Posted November 8, 2010 Author Posted November 8, 2010 (edited) I can't tell what's a compliment here and what isn't. So you think I'm less confident than this guy, and but more emotionally available? And I guess me being on LS implies that I'm lacking confidence? Or something? I'm sure you're being very nice to me. Anyway, you'll find that. Cynicism is just an easy and ignoble reaction to a personal sensitivity to life's grievances. So naturally it involves a certain emotional unavailability toward the entirety of the world, but also, usually, a glut of emotional depth that's being protected or ignored. I'm sure exes are generally a part of it, but they don't have to be recent. At least with the cynical you know they are capable of love. Haha. I wrote that from an iphone, so it wasn't very coherent. I actually like you quite a bit (since you're smart, discriminating and perceptive) and was thinking you're probably the kind of guy I'd find cute in real life. Yeah, I think the fact that you're on LS means you are by default more emotionally attuned than he is. But you still strike me as possibly being EU overall. Again, that's just a vague vibe I get so I could be totally wrong. Meh, emotional depth schmep. I've spent my whole life trying to unlock the emotional depth beneath cynical facades. At a certain point it doesn't matter if it exists when it is forever out of reach, you know? I always told myself that if I tried hard enough I could get there, and sometimes I did manage to pry beneath the surface and found myself facing a giant abyss. Other times, I would get the rare, rare emotional outpouring and cling to that for months as evidence that they had a soul. Based on dating guys like this and trying to understand them, I think a lot of them go through life feeling very faint emotions and the random extreme high or low. So for the most part their emotions aren't there for them, or will ever be with regularity. Often the highs are getting overexcited about some girl from a distance that they barely know. But they can't deal with real, reciprocated intimacy. I don't count that kind of high as a real emotion since it's not tied to anything real. It's "safe." The one emotion always available to them is anger. Heh. Most of them don't have trouble feeling anger and bitterness in abundance. I still idealize the image of a cynical, smart guy who is vulnerable beneath the surface and will open up to the right girl (=me), but I don't think this type actually exists. Edited November 8, 2010 by northern_sky
Star Gazer Posted November 8, 2010 Posted November 8, 2010 The problem is I lose respect for any guy who doesnt push against me by being as argumentative and feisty as I am. That's interesting. I don't think I would have described you as either one of these things. Maybe we have more in common than I realized.
Star Gazer Posted November 8, 2010 Posted November 8, 2010 Yeah, I think the fact that you're on LS means you are by default more emotionally attuned than he is. I don't think being on LS means anything more than wanting to look beyond our own little internal world for answers.
welikeincrowds Posted November 8, 2010 Posted November 8, 2010 I still idealize the image of a cynical, smart guy who is vulnerable beneath the surface and will open up to the right girl (=me), but I don't think this type actually exists. You mean the jerk with a heart of gold, who also happens to have read Foucault? Yep. That's pretty much the fantasy. I'm sorry to say that you'll never find it. Personally, I used to be searching for a crazy bitch or a woman in pain that I can tame or comfort and show true love. You know, like Katerina and Petruchio? Or a damsel in distress? There's about a million reasons for it, the most important ones probably rooted in my childhood. Doesn't matter. You just can't fix broken people. It's unhealthy and it's not your job. It's also a fantasy, not a real relationship. Good thing real relationships are so much better.
Author northern_sky Posted November 8, 2010 Author Posted November 8, 2010 That's interesting. I don't think I would have described you as either one of these things. Maybe we have more in common than I realized. Yep, well I'm pretty different in person. In fact, this was what J said he liked about me.
LisaLee Posted November 8, 2010 Posted November 8, 2010 Yep, well I'm pretty different in person. In fact, this was what J said he liked about me. I thought you said most people described you as being shy.
Star Gazer Posted November 8, 2010 Posted November 8, 2010 I thought you said most people described you as being shy. I thought the same thing...that people described her as being "deer in the headlights" as well as socially awkward. Between her posts and what she says people who know her IRL say, I would have never ever described her as "feisty." But maybe that's because, IME, feisty women are confident. Playfully confident.
Author northern_sky Posted November 8, 2010 Author Posted November 8, 2010 I thought you said most people described you as being shy. It totally depends on the context. I'm generally shy around people I don't know. But once I open up, I tend to very talkative and dominant. However, I never get to that place with somebody whom I feel that I have nothing in common. If I feel like I have a lot of common ground with somebody else, and I'm talking about something that excites me, I can sometimes skip the awkward beginning stage and be myself from the start. This is what happened with J. The day we started talking, at a local burger joint with some friends, I felt confident because I was around people who shared my interests. I remember actually worrying that I was dominating the conversation. It basically became me and him debating, while everyone else was kind of quiet. When we hooked up he kept saying how much he liked how outspoken I am, and how his biggest turn off was girls who didn't have strong opinions.
Author northern_sky Posted November 8, 2010 Author Posted November 8, 2010 I thought the same thing...that people described her as being "deer in the headlights" as well as socially awkward. Between her posts and what she says people who know her IRL say, I would have never ever described her as "feisty." But maybe that's because, IME, feisty women are confident. Playfully confident. How I am online and how I am in real life are different. Furthermore how I am with people I don't know and people I know well are very different. Most of my close friends and family describe me as "feisty." I feel confident when I'm comfortable around people. I've always been assertive and outspoken with people close to me, even as a baby according to my parents.
Author northern_sky Posted November 8, 2010 Author Posted November 8, 2010 One thing I'm not is bubbly, though. I'm far too cynical to be bubbly.
Author northern_sky Posted November 8, 2010 Author Posted November 8, 2010 Just asked my mother if she would describe me as fiesty (visiting home this weekend), and she laughed and said, "Yeah. You're very temperamental and strong-willed."
Star Gazer Posted November 8, 2010 Posted November 8, 2010 I'm really, truly surprised, based on your years of threads here. Feisty is very different to me than strong-willed or temperamental. Maybe it's just semantics.
Author northern_sky Posted November 8, 2010 Author Posted November 8, 2010 I'm really, truly surprised, based on your years of threads here. Feisty is very different to me than strong-willed or temperamental. Maybe it's just semantics. I think it's very hard to judge a full person from threads they start on the internet. I come here when I am feeling vulnerable and in need of guidance.
Star Gazer Posted November 8, 2010 Posted November 8, 2010 I think it's very hard to judge a full person from threads they start on the internet. I come here when I am feeling vulnerable and in need of guidance. I'm not relying on the substance of your threads. I'm relying about your own descriptions of your behavior, your own descriptions of your personality, and your own descriptions of what others have said about your personality. This is the first time EVER that you've used the word "feisty" to describe yourself. But I stand by feistiness and confidence being related, as there's a certain level of assertiveness required. So if you think you're feisty, if others think you're feisty, then you're likely more confident than you give yourself credit for.
Jannah Posted November 8, 2010 Posted November 8, 2010 Feisty is someone who is spunky and sassy.........
welikeincrowds Posted November 8, 2010 Posted November 8, 2010 I think it's very hard to judge a full person from threads they start on the internet. Nonsense, I do it all the time.
Recommended Posts