threebyfate Posted May 10, 2011 Posted May 10, 2011 Ongoing experiences not only can reinforce, but can shatter and alter those opinions. As an adult especially, there comes a point where we begin choosing our own ideas - distinct from the past. There is not only recreating these ideas from the past, but also creating new ideas for the present and future - distinct from the past. I think we could be saying almost the same thing, only you might call it "recreation" and I would call it "creation".I see where you're going with this and mostly agree. But from my perspective, there's also the caveat of ingrained behaviours. If you're used to behaving a certain way, in order to get the response you want, you're going to continue behaving the same way. So, take an adult who creates an ideology of love that's counter or partially counter to what they grew up with aka abusive environment. Now take this same adult who's behavioural patterns remain the same or similar. How does this adult reconcile the two? It's very much like the old paraphrased adage about the definition of insanity, doing the same things over and over again and expecting different results.
dreamingoftigers Posted May 10, 2011 Posted May 10, 2011 MDM, I doubt that the whole "break" or "crisis" is a direct result of some sort of philosophical conditioning that requires 6 pages or 259 points of discussion. I will say this: when you find someone you truly click with, it isn't so damn hard and tiring. You enjoy their company. The rest is details. Good luck, don't jump back into it too soon.
Ms. Joolie Posted May 10, 2011 Posted May 10, 2011 So, take an adult who creates an ideology of love that's counter or partially counter to what they grew up with aka abusive environment. Now take this same adult who's behavioural patterns remain the same or similar. How does this adult reconcile the two? It's very much like the old paraphrased adage about the definition of insanity, doing the same things over and over again and expecting different results. There's just no denying ingrained behaviors, absolutely they are a major influence. It is tremendously helpful to recognize pattern behaviours, but after this recognition it is possible to implement something new based on new ideas, new practice, new conditioning and choice. So the OP is not doomed to create and experience relationships based on his past. He can recognize what he is currently doing and consciously create something new for himself. It may take recognition of his past in a big way first in order to get old behaviors out of the way, but a new future is possible based on his creation now.
threebyfate Posted May 10, 2011 Posted May 10, 2011 There's just no denying ingrained behaviors, absolutely they are a major influence. It is tremendously helpful to recognize pattern behaviours, but after this recognition it is possible to implement something new based on new ideas, new practice, new conditioning and choice. So the OP is not doomed to create and experience relationships based on his past. He can recognize what he is currently doing and consciously create something new for himself. It may take recognition of his past in a big way first in order to get old behaviors out of the way, but a new future is possible based on his creation now.Now this, I can get 100% behind. We all have choices as adults, caveated with the bolded amended with "It will take recognition".
Ms. Joolie Posted May 10, 2011 Posted May 10, 2011 Yeah, Mr. Dream Merchant. So now you know what to do.
blueskyday Posted May 10, 2011 Posted May 10, 2011 Enjoying this philosophical debate! I am a female who is tired of the dating scene. I understand where my anger and frustration is coming from: fatigue! When something makes us mad, it is often times because we aren't getting our needs met. Maybe the OP has a need to have things be easy, light, free...Maybe he doesn't want to put the effort into a relationship. I have felt like this, but I also understand that I need to take into account someone else's feelings. If the OP sleeps with someone who wants to be treated like a girlfriend, and is "courted," then those are her needs. He can decide whether or not to be in a relationship, but I think he should understand what people want is important, too...but not at his expense, most definitely. So, go for girls who are into sex only kind of arrangements. Or don't date for a while until someone is compelling enough to want to do the dating dance with them. Simplistic maybe, but I do think it is rather simple.
threebyfate Posted May 10, 2011 Posted May 10, 2011 blueskyday, you've brought another possibility to mind. If he's needing to "court" the women he's sleeping with, it's very possible that he's misreading cues, in that he's targeting women who are relationship oriented, instead of FWBs or ONSs. It's also possible his targeting is deliberate, since he might not be attracted to women who are FWB or ONS oriented, for whatever his reasons. If so, then he's misrepping himself to get laid. If it's the latter possibility, that's a foundational issue where women he perceives as "sluts", he doesn't want to sleep with. And yet, he also doesn't want a relationship with women he's been sleeping with since he's still looking for his ideal mate. Cognitive dissonance.
proactivedreamer Posted May 11, 2011 Posted May 11, 2011 I agree with blueskyday. I think that the OP is frustrated with the kinds of women he is attracting,which is resulting in not getting his needs met. He spoke of the "games women play", but I think this goes for both sexes. The reality is that there are mating "rituals", and you don't have to participate. I am off the dating scene and wanting to take a few years to myself. I think people place too much emphasis on being in relationships and dating. Sometimes, it's necessary to take some time for yourself, grow, travel, be the best version of yourself possible, so when that person comes along, you will be so much more receptive to loving them. You might find that you attract a different caliber of women, op, if you just take some time, grow, and be kind to yourself. Hope that helps
spiderowl Posted May 11, 2011 Posted May 11, 2011 Seems to me you are too busy chasing numbers and courting women for sex without a relationship that you can't see that this scoring game is pointless. The time I feel that relationships are obligations are when I am not attracted to or interested in the guy. I guess you might be feeling likewise. Your lifestyle is not going to get you the kind of woman you need - a hard-headed woman (as in Cat Stevens' song) who won't put up with your crap and can take you or leave you. The kind of woman who can deal with someone like you, a guy who is just chasing sex and has no empathy or understanding of the importance of character, is going to be immediately put off by your behaviour. Fundamentally, you disrespect women. As long as you disrespect them this much, you are onto a loser. You resent having to chase women. You don't want to engage with them on a relationship level at all. How can your love-life be anything but superficial and unsatisfying? What are you offering these women? Why would a woman want to be involved with someone so emotionally cut-off? There is a serious issue here about how able you are to engage in a relationship because I'm not seeing any evidence you can. Let's hope this can change. I think if you reduce the number of women you are seeing, right down to not seeing any, only spending time with a woman if you feel attracted on all levels - emotionally, intellectually, physically and ... well I won't say spiritually because I'm never sure what that means! At the moment, you are chasing women for sex, purely for physical attraction. You are missing out on all the other levels of attraction. You don't really desire these women in your soul so it's no wonder you are avoiding them - which seems to be what you are doing once you've got them into bed. These women deserve better - they deserve relationships with a guy who cares for them. Leave them alone until you are capable of relating to women. There are alternatives to using women purely for sex. I'd like to think that one day you will meet a woman who will attract you on all levels and that she will be strong enough to take control of the situation and refuse to be abused. Sadly, at the moment I don't think you know how to care about a woman and so it would not be good for her. You need to do some soul-searching about what matters to you in relationships. Forget about the superficial and look for that classic female thing - a soulmate. Learn how to be a man not a kid who is looking for kicks. A great man knows when to exercise restraint and how to treat people with respect and fairness. I'm not seeing much of this from you yet.
guy777 Posted May 11, 2011 Posted May 11, 2011 Hate to say it, but maybe prostitutes would be some good therapy for awhile. They use you for money You use them for sex. The using is all defined ahead of time and no games. There is nothing beyond physical. You don't have to face any gauntlet or games with them trying to figure out if you care about them other than for sex.
Author mr.dream merchant Posted May 12, 2011 Author Posted May 12, 2011 Appreciate the replies, the PM's, and personal attacks. Took some time away from this thread, as the personal attacks and flames on LS have also becoming tiring. I don't blame some of the posters. They've seen me grow from an insecure ******* to a bitter *******, to now, finally, an egotistical ******* lol. But I think I'm changing. Posters say I don't respect women, etc. etc. Whether it means anything to any of you, I'm a very respectful and courteous man to women of any color, creed, size, etc. I am a great friend and would give the shirt off of my back for one if they truly needed it and I trusted them enough. I treat my mother well, not always, we butt heads often. She often does things that make little to no sense to me, and it kind of irritates me when that same illogical/emotional reasoning governs my lifestyle at times. I believe this may be the stem of my issue with women. My whole life my mother and I have been this way. We love each other unconditionally, but we just don't get along too well at times. A good example would be if my mother wants me to do the yard, she'll go outside and start up the lawnmower and starts pushing it around the yard. My father sees this, is angered, then yells at me to take over the situation. I get upset, because instead of simply asking me to do it, she instigates (sp?) a confrontation between my father and I. My whole life my mother has always done things this way. Instead of expressing what she wants in a clear direct manner, she beats around the bush or stirs my father up with subtle ways, and he jumps on my back. She is also, at times, unreasonably demanding. Well, it seems unreasonable to me. I know now it's because she's emotional. I guess being subject to this my whole life, I've kind of become conditioned to automatically get annoyed when women behave like this. :/ So to sit here and say it's because I treat people like ****, you're definitely wrong. People like me, if they didn't, I probably wouldn't be here now complaining about attracting the wrong women. But though they may be wrong, I still mess around with them because, well, ****....I'm a young man with a rather high libido. So I abuse my looks and other things, to get what I want out of them. But never in our exchange of words do I ever mention anything about a serious relationship, etc. They just....expect it of me. And it's that same subtle bull**** that just upsets me. Where was the contract I signed where I had to be obligated to you cause of your emotions? It's been like this for a while now, to be more exact, for the whole 2 years I've been single now. I meet a girl. We click. We have some physical relations. She starts to attach herself to me. I get upset because never was there a talk about attachment or feelings. I start to get annoyed by her presence alone, her subtle hints at a relationship, her complaints about untold obligations on my part. From Sheri, to Zerika, to Paige, all the way to Alexandra back down to Lior and back to Zerika....you get the point. I'm burnt out man. It just kind of worries me that I'll stay like this for a while, which is what I don't want. I just want to chalk it up to misunderstandings and me ****ing the wrong women, but were they the wrong women? Everytime I sleep with a woman I have to expect this now. Not because every woman does this, but because it always happens to me. Christ, I can't even keep female friends because it NEVER works out. It's always "Well I thought the way you smiled at me...." or "When you comforted me cause I was upset...." or some other green light that I wasn't even aware of me giving. The other 20% of the times it doesn't work is because I ****ed them under the impression that we would be able to keep it FWB but they always end up getting emotional. What the **** am I supposed to do bro? What can I possibly do that'll help people be straight up about things? The answer is nothing. People are right. I just need a ****ing hiatus. But it's tough when you've got a demon in your pants lmao. It's even more tough when women constantly give you the go ahead. I can't even wear a damn Hanes T-shirt anymore without some overweight or unhappily married woman or even this gay guy at work hitting on me. All the negativity, infidelity, subtle hint bull****, unspoken obligations on my part, all of that **** has just got me down. It's too much at times. ****, it's too much all of the time. All I want is a woman that I'm actually interested in. One who can say what the **** is on her mind, not sit around me clucking and chirping waiting for me to pick up on dumbass hints. Even if I get the hint, I'm gonna act like I don't. You're an adult, ****ing talk to me. Fishtaco's post hit home so hard I had to get up and go for a drive man. Just cruise and listen to some tunes. I don't want to blame my mother, but I can honestly say that being subject to all the stupid mind games, etc..from my own mother, has definitely made that one of the most intolerable acts EVER in a woman. I don't snap, but I get annoyed. And then I clam up and my body language goes from charming to "Get the **** away from me I don't care about you or your mind." Yeah there's **** I want to, have to get done. My degree, my career. I want a ****ing 7-series beamer and a Burgundy Escalade with the Gold trim. I want all of that ****. House? Eh, I'll take an apartment or a condo. But that stuff will take time. I'm 22 years old, with looks to make sure I procreate and I'm fairly smart with alot of ambition and pride. At times, it feels like the only thing I'm missing right now is a woman that I can actually feel for and love. But everytime I get my hand on a possible missing piece of the puzzle, it never fits and then I end up throwing the whole ****ing puzzle in the dumpster. Hiatus? I've tried but I'm tired of touching myself. Relationship? Can't get my hands on the one right for me. NSA lifestyle? Tried it, and I'm always the guy they want to settle down with. Hobby? ....... Maybe I'll pick one or two up, just to keep my mind off of things. And lmao @ the prostitute suggestion. I doubt I could ever go that route.
fishtaco Posted May 12, 2011 Posted May 12, 2011 Oh, you're only 22. Go ahead play around. You're still young. I don't see the problem. If I were your age (I'm late 30's), I'd do exactly what you're doing if I could. You still have a lot of growing to do, by that I mean self discovery. Unless you discover yourself, you won't be able to get into a successful serious relationship.
sanskrit Posted May 12, 2011 Posted May 12, 2011 You are on the right track, the burnout feeling comes from their issues, not yours. As long as you are representing yourself fairly and not being insincere and promising them things, worry about what you want, let them worry about what they want, and simply refuse to be guilted by their unwarranted expectations and manipulation. You have to take some of that type of manipulation from your mother, but certainly not from random women you get physically involved with. All the "you are just a misogynistic user" insults you get here are just noise from people who can't accept the truth that a man who looks out for himself and doesn't build his world around pleasing women is completely normal and healthy. It enrages them and they have nothing but baseless insults and subtler "you really need to work on yourself" insults to reply with.
threebyfate Posted May 12, 2011 Posted May 12, 2011 Are you clear with these ladies from the outset that you're not looking for a relationship? If not, it's a passive-aggressive way to get laid. But the fault lies primarily with these girls who aren't having an exclusivity/relationship discussion with you before dropping their pants. Buyer beware.
sanskrit Posted May 12, 2011 Posted May 12, 2011 (edited) Are you clear with these ladies from the outset that you're not looking for a relationship? If not, it's a passive-aggressive way to get laid. But the fault lies primarily with these girls who aren't having an exclusivity/relationship discussion with you before dropping their pants. Buyer beware. Your first paragraph contradicts your second. He has no responsibility, nor moral nor ethical duty whatsoever to qualify his desire for sex as "I want sex but not a relationship." His only responsibility is to avoid insincerely claiming that he wants a relationship when his actual goal is just sex. Two entirely different things. If "buyer beware" is good advice to anyone, it is MDM, because he is the one driven to frustration by others' assumptions of implied (imaginary) terms supposedly hidden somewhere in the decision of consenting adults to have sex. There are no implied terms or warranties today in the decision to have sex. People of both genders have sex constantly in this country for the sake of having sex. If one of the parties has an unexpressed expectation accompanying the simple desire to have sex, it is THEIR responsibility to express it, not the other party's to read their minds. Today, the "passive aggressive" behavior is not failing to mention that one doesn't want a relationship when seeking sex, but rather having the ulterior agenda of trapping someone into a relationship due merely to agreeing to have sex with them. Equality is grand isn't it? Edited May 12, 2011 by sanskrit
welikeincrowds Posted May 12, 2011 Posted May 12, 2011 nor moral nor ethical duty whatsoever to qualify his desire for sex as "I want sex but not a relationship." I disagree. Sex is a vulnerable act and it establishes an implicit agreement of faith and trust, however "NSA" the connection is -- if you need evidence, remember that if both parties don't play fair, the sex can devolve to rape at any time. Anyone who has sex is aware of the investment of trust (because the performance is mutual), and so makes an implicit agreement to uphold that trust by having sex. If the pretenses for that investment are at unclear, or falsely assumed -- especially such that if they were clarified, the agreement (sex) would not be made -- then that is a lie by omission: immoral and unethical treatment. Granted, threebyfate is right that it's both their faults. But it is still an infraction, and it has consequences. Building on this, the example of someone who has sex without clarifying that they are not interested in a relationship, and the example you gave of the person who had sex without clarifying that they were interested in a relationship, are equally wrong behaviors. I am not sure how or why you've decided that one is more wrong than the other, or why you insist on bringing gender into the issue.
threebyfate Posted May 12, 2011 Posted May 12, 2011 It is a difference in morals, combined with compassion. With welike, there is a belief in fairplay and compassion. With sanscrit, his beliefs are predatory, at least as it relates to women.
Intricategirl Posted May 12, 2011 Posted May 12, 2011 I'm not reading this as "I don't want a relationship". Not at all. I'm reading it as "I want a relationship, but on my own terms, and I'm not getting it and I'm frustrated by that." So I don't even think the discussion about whether he's being honest exactly plays into it, because he seems to feel like they aren't being honest with him. OP, one thought for you to consider... I don't know your mom. I know there are moms like that. But in the same scenario, I would grab the lawnmower and start mowing it myself. It's not a means to get someone else out there to do it for me. It's because the damn lawn needs mowed! In fact, my own personal damage is that I'll never ask because I've never had a single person in my life that's reliable enough that I could expect them to mow it if I asked. So instead, I just do it myself because I know I'm reliable enough. I would walk out there with every intention of finishing that lawn by myself. And if someone came out and offered to help me, yeah, I might accept the offer. But I wouldn't have a clue what was going on in the house, and that there was an argument over it, or that someone thought I was doing that to passive-aggressively get them to mow. Instead, I'm out there mowing because the lawn needs mowed and I can do it. Like I said, I don't know your mama. She may very well be pulling that. But the point I want to make is that just because she's not asking does not automatically mean she's hinting. The same is true for some girls in dating. There certainly are girls that hint, there are those that come right out and tell you, and there are some where it may strongly come across as hinting that they want more, but they are trying to do something completely different, and the motivations driving them might not be something you're picking up on.
sanskrit Posted May 12, 2011 Posted May 12, 2011 Sex is a vulnerable act and it establishes an implicit agreement of faith and trust, however "NSA" the connection is -- if you need evidence, remember that if both parties don't play fair, the sex can devolve to rape at any time. What exactly is the connection between having an unexpressed expectation that a relationship will result from casual sex ... and... rape? Could you flesh that out just a wee bit more for me? because just saying "here's proof" isn't quite cutting it for me. Or rather. "The sky is purple, here's proof... banana pudding." See what I did there? I learned it from you. Let's make this gender neutral to see how ridiculously absurd expecting people to know one's unannounced expectations is: Let's say my neighbor asks me to go to a concert because he knows I like the band and he wants company. We go and have a great time. Soon thereafter, the neighbor starts asking me to paint his house, and gets annoyed when I decline. His reasoning is, "Hey I asked you to the concert, you should help paint my house in return." My response is "You never said you needed help painting your house, and that you expected help in return for inviting me to the concert, I thought you invited me to the concert because we would have a good time going to the concert, nothing more." The neighbor replies, "If you didn't want to paint my house, it was up to you to say you weren't interested in doing favors for me before accepting my favor of taking you to the show." I reply, "How the hell was I supposed to know you wanted your house painted or any other favors as a condition of going to the show, when YOU NEVER TOLD ME THAT?!?" The neighbor replies, "You should know that most neighbors actually expect further favors when they agree to do anything with you. That's common knowledge.":lmao: Is the absurdity starting to sink in? at all? At one time, it may have been common knowledge that women who had sex expected some relationship to form. Can you say with a straight face that is the state of affairs today? Isn't it possible/likely that women who agree to have sex today merely want the fun and pleasure of sex? That they may even be a majority among people OP's age? "Do I want to get tied down in a relationship? Hell no, I just want to have fun and that includes getting laid." Don't lots of women have that sentiment, and have a right not to have their unexpressed motives second guessed by their sex partners UNLESS THEY ARE DISCLOSED AND DISCUSSED BEFOREHAND? Anyone who has sex is aware of the investment of trust (because the performance is mutual), and so makes an implicit agreement to uphold that trust by having sex. If the pretenses for that investment are at unclear, or falsely assumed -- especially such that if they were clarified, the agreement (sex) would not be made -- then that is a lie by omission: immoral and unethical treatment. More gaping non sequitur, but... If there is any mutual trust exchanged in consensual sex between relative strangers, that trust concerns only the sex act itself. By agreeing to have sex, for example, the only implied agreements the parties are making involve not being abused, hurt, etc. during the act. Trying to extend these few implied expectations to externals like whether a future relationship will subsequently form after sex is a nonstarter, unreasonable. But it is still an infraction, and it has consequences. The hell it is, or rather let's get the coloring book out and make this crystal clear. In today's culture, if you agree to casual sex, and expect a relationship tp form afterwards, it's YOUR duty to state such in advance, not the other person's duty to read your mind, and certainly not their duty to make unwarranted assumptions and give some disclosure like, "I want to have casual sex with you, relative stranger, but I don't want a relationship." If they want to make a "no relationship" disclosure, that's great. If they don't, no harm no foul, certainly no "infraction." If you don't want to have NSA sex? Great! Don't have NSA sex. If you don't want to have sex outside a relationship, that's great. DON'T... HAVE... SEX... outside a relationship. You have complete control over whether to have sex or not, whom to have it with, and the understandings you reach ahead of time about where it will lead. Outside such understandings, it's just sex, not a prelude to ANYTHING. I am not sure how or why you've decided that one is more wrong than the other, Then reread my posts, I couldn't be more clear. or why you insist on bringing gender into the issue. Simply because it is a gender issue. Or rather, how many men who if they didn't express their desire for a relationship to a woman beforehand, would twist logic and rationalize to make a case that despite the fact that they never told the woman they wanted the sex to lead to a relationship, she was somehow at fault for not mentioning that she didn't want a relationship? None. No mature, ethical ones anyway. They might be disappointed, but they sure as hell wouldn't try to lay blame at her door, to vilify her, call her a "user," or toss a bunch of express and veiled insults her way. It -is- a gender issue, at least how it is framed here on LS. The fault in this thread lies -entirely- on those who seek to guilt OP into something he never agreed to or represented that he was interested in. THEY are the manipulators, and their annoying, pestering and unreasonable behavior towards OP has burnt him out.
sanskrit Posted May 12, 2011 Posted May 12, 2011 (edited) It is a difference in morals, combined with compassion. With welike, there is a belief in fairplay and compassion. With sanscrit, his beliefs are predatory, at least as it relates to women. You can't string two posts together without direct, personal attacks on other posters, can you? Perhaps you should see someone about that. So now I'm "immoral," "dispassionate" and a "predator" because I think people are responsible for expressing their own expectations before choosing to have sex, and that if one doesn't have any other expectations than the desire to have sex that they needn't disclose anything EDIT: other than the presence of disease? Q... E.... D and L...O...L Edited May 12, 2011 by sanskrit
welikeincrowds Posted May 12, 2011 Posted May 12, 2011 Sanskrit, take it easy. I'm not calling you out or calling you names. I disagreed with you and I stated my reasoning as to why, that's all. That's why I'm hesitant to keep going, because I don't want to derail. I don't think what you're bringing up now is very relevant to MDM's issue in this thread (I touch on this later). I'm also on my lunch break and I can't believe that this is what I'm spending it on. But you've asked, so I will answer. What exactly is the connection between having an unexpressed expectation that a relationship will result from casual sex ... and... rape? I don't know any more than you do! That's certainly not what I argued. I established that there is an investment and an acceptance of trust (an agreement) when two people have sex. In case that does not go without saying, I reminded the reader that once that agreement is violated, we give that infraction the name "rape" and we consider it a crime. Let's make this gender neutral to see how ridiculously absurd expecting people to know one's unannounced expectations is:I can agree that that was absurd. It does not address the trust investment (attending a concert does not make one as vulnerable as having sex) and it doesn't refute my argument, if that was your intention (your example would be analogous to what I would consider to be unethical behavior). I want to remind you that I agreed with you that the unvoiced expectation of being bound to a relationship after sex is unethical, as is the unvoiced expectation of not being bound. Again, it is not because of a relationship or not a relationship. It is unethical because an agreement is made (see above). Both parties have a duty to ensure that the terms of the agreement are clear before they agree. If either party withholds, that party is at fault. That includes the person that thinks sex means I love you. That includes the person that assumes that she won't think this means anything. Assumption = foul, regardless of what the expectations themselves are or aren't (which means any party line about "young people today," for example, is not relevant to the point). I don't mean to be so clinical about sex here -- it's not like I'm literally thinking in these terms when I'm taking off her underwear. But we're talking about ethics, so there you have it. I've restated my argument for you in as clear terms as I can make it. And look, we're not talking about plaintiffs seeking damages from corporations here. We're talking about the people we're sleeping with: someone you want to kiss and hold and **** senseless, and otherwise make feel good, for its own sake. I may be mistaken, but you seem to disagree with my argument on the face of it, and seem to want to find reasons to justify your gut reaction. (Hopefully you can find some flaw in its structure in order to nullify it, because that's the cleanest way out.) Perhaps it's because you don't want to feel responsible for someone else's expectations, and you don't like the idea that you sign off on them when you have sex. OK, fine. You don't want to be held responsible for breaking another person's heart -- but you might, you really might, if you don't clarify this ahead of time. "It's not my fault if she assumes and gets hurt," maybe, maybe not; but regardless, it was easily prevented. One quick convo: "I'm not looking for a relationship right now." All of 30 seconds. What's it matter to you? It can't be the effort. So either you purposefully omit out of some arrogant principle, or to prevent the loss of sex -- either way, that omission is a lie, and it misleads your lover. Simply because it is a gender issue. Or rather, how many men who if they didn't express their desire for a relationship to a woman beforehand, would twist logic and rationalize to make a case that despite the fact that they never told the woman they wanted the sex to lead to a relationship, she was somehow at fault for not mentioning that she didn't want a relationship? None.Hm, you must not read LS enough! Good on you for that. Personally, I've read this one on all sides of the gender spectrum. But anyway, again -- both parties in this example, the man and the woman, would be at fault, according to my argument. The fault in this thread lies -entirely- on those who seek to guilt OP into something he never agreed to or represented that he was interested in. THEY are the manipulators, and their annoying, pestering and unreasonable behavior towards OP has burnt him out.I disagree. I think the issue you are arguing is not especially relevant to OP and is not evident in this discussion. If you have some downtime and you have nothing better to do, go back and read some of MDM's threads. He has conflicts with women. He shuts down to confrontation and avoids listening to the concerns of others. Do you think this behavior will continue to serve him well in life? He has an expectation that women he dates should "understand men" but he frequently posts here about how he doesn't "understand women," and how he doesn't particularly care to. He will literally walk away from a woman mid-sentence, turn his phone off, and hang out with his friends instead. Do you condone this behavior; do you think it is representative of a good man? Your advice, at its essence, says "yes," it's her problem for getting involved with you. I don't think that's a very fair way to portray MDM, and I also don't think your advice promotes an ethical way of life.
sanskrit Posted May 12, 2011 Posted May 12, 2011 On further thought, there are exactly three implied warranties that attach to casual sex: 1. The sex will not involve you being forced to do anything you find objectionable or anything you don't freely consent to. 2. The sex will not endanger your health in any material way resulting from the sex acts we perform or communicable disease. 3. The sex will not involve anything that is materially illegal unless we both consent to participate in the illegality jointly and severally. Perhaps people should carry the above around on a card and read it in its entirety to prospective sex partners. I may just start doing that for laughs, will probably turn out to be a great icebreaker. Everything else, unless it is expressed beforehand, and absent false promise or fraud, is an attempt at unfair, ex post facto manipulation.
sanskrit Posted May 12, 2011 Posted May 12, 2011 Hm, you must not read LS enough! Good on you for that. Personally, I've read this one on all sides of the gender spectrum. I have been reading and posting to relationship boards, this one and others, since 2007. Have read thousands and thousands of posts in that time. I have never, not once, seen a post by an emotionally mature, ethical man vilifying a woman, calling her a "user," "immoral," a "predator," or "dispassionate" for declining to mention before the sex that she didn't want a relationship and being uninterested in a relationship afterward. I -have- seen posts where men wondered why a woman declined a relationship after sex, "was the sex not good? what did I do wrong?" etc. OTOH, have seen dozens if not hundreds of posts here and elsewhere, where female posters attempt to vilify a man when he states that he is just interested in NSA sex. Everything from direct, noxious insults, such as calling him a predator or user, to more veiled attacks such as "you need help," "you need to work on yourself," etc. Many of those types of insults, veiled and direct, are right here in this thread. Stating that "if you aren't telling these women you don't want a relationship, that's a passive-aggressive way to get laid," is just one of the more subtle attacks that men receive that women DO NOT receive. If a woman made MDM's OP, the response would be "OK, good luck getting past your burnt out issue." If a woman made a post stating, I'm burnt out with all these men I have NSA sex with pressuring me into a relationship, I just want NSA fun but they won't stop pressing for more, the responses would be one of three types 1) Cool, I won't pressure you at all after NSA sex. Here's my email address, 2) OK... yawn, and 3) AWWWWW, you are just having a string of bad luck with weak men who don't respect your wishes and only care about what they want. I just think it's so offensive in this day and age that when a woman wants NSA sex, she can't be taken at face value, that she must necessarily want a relationship. It sucks when you just want to get laid and they turn into lovesick puppy dogs. I feel your pain.
sanskrit Posted May 12, 2011 Posted May 12, 2011 (edited) (attending a concert does not make one as vulnerable as having sex) In MDM's stage of life, NSA sex is just as casual for many men and women, probably a strong majority, as going to a concert. If you think otherwise you have blinders on. Most of the rest of your post repeats this mistake. and I have read MDM's threads. Have posted to them in the past. I usually stay out of them until the unnecessary, catty insults start going his way, and then I decide to shine some light on the insults for what they are, like pouring salt on a slug. I enjoy that. Edited May 12, 2011 by sanskrit
Recommended Posts