Slog Comments
SL Letter of the Day: Infantile-ism
1
God, this was hard to read. BIATCH has some serious growing up to do, on many levels.
On another note, though, how come it's always the girls who aren't kinky and have to struggle to be GGG. There aren't any kinky women out there?
On another note, though, how come it's always the girls who aren't kinky and have to struggle to be GGG. There aren't any kinky women out there?
6
Good advice, Dan.
Now BIATCH needs to take it. Which I doubt she will.
5280--yes, we're out there.
Now BIATCH needs to take it. Which I doubt she will.
5280--yes, we're out there.
9
God, every time I read one of these stories by some dumb-as-shit adolescent kid, I feel guilty that I just made a kid that will inevitably turn into one of these little shits. So... sorry?
11
Also, Ibuprofen and Tylenol are not sleeping pills. Yeesh, at least take Dramamine if you're going for OTC non-sleeping pills that make you sleepy
13
@1 We're definitely out there, sometimes even suffering in kinky girl/non-ggg guy mismatches. Perhaps that's less common than vice-versa, or perhaps we just hear more about situations where it's the guy that's kinky.
14
5280, we are absolutely out there. We don't wear signs, we don't advertise, but we're definitely here. And to be fair, there's a whole lot of white bread vanilla boys out there who need to step up their games.
BIATCH need to understand that there's no such thing as equal or even here--unless you manage to split off a clone of yourself and make it whatever gender you're down with, no one will ever be able to exactly mirror your feelings. You can't tell the boyfriend that he should feel a certain way just because that's how you feel in that situation, and you can't in good faith manipulate him into producing the feelings that you think he should feel.
Little girl needs to get her head out of her ass.
BIATCH need to understand that there's no such thing as equal or even here--unless you manage to split off a clone of yourself and make it whatever gender you're down with, no one will ever be able to exactly mirror your feelings. You can't tell the boyfriend that he should feel a certain way just because that's how you feel in that situation, and you can't in good faith manipulate him into producing the feelings that you think he should feel.
Little girl needs to get her head out of her ass.
16
JESUS FUCKING CRIST. Makes adult women look bad. Makes adult men look WORSE because this is always the type of crazy they seem to "commit" to.
17
Oh my God, Biatch! You're asking for advice on how to mess with a man's head, a man you value, presumably, and you think that's an OK question to ask?
I'm one of those non-jealous, slow-to-anger, low-maintenance and trusting people who seem to attract the likes of you fairly often. I'll give you my advice: drop this sweet, normal guy so he can be with someone who values those attributes and will treat him with honesty and respect.
Also, you CANNOT punish someone for what they did in prior relationships. What's he supposed to DO about his past. You're going to make him feel bad and guilty about something he can't undo? Real nice.
5280, I'm a woman who is usually kinkier than my (male) partners.
I'm one of those non-jealous, slow-to-anger, low-maintenance and trusting people who seem to attract the likes of you fairly often. I'll give you my advice: drop this sweet, normal guy so he can be with someone who values those attributes and will treat him with honesty and respect.
Also, you CANNOT punish someone for what they did in prior relationships. What's he supposed to DO about his past. You're going to make him feel bad and guilty about something he can't undo? Real nice.
5280, I'm a woman who is usually kinkier than my (male) partners.
19
Good lord. Harping on a minor point, but the writer considers a friendship with past sexual involvement to be "100% platonic"? And you aren't that special, plenty of girls have platonic male friends. Get over yourself.
Seriously, even if you've felt insecure in the past over the bf's sexual history, be the better person. Drama will only backfire and then everyone will be fucked.
Seriously, even if you've felt insecure in the past over the bf's sexual history, be the better person. Drama will only backfire and then everyone will be fucked.
22
@1 and @20- Thanks for the invite. My problem is that I'm good at the sex and bad at the relationship. I think a lot of kinky girls have a tendency to go for bad boys who will give them the sex they want. I wouldn't say that I'm too damaged or crazy to date a nice, normal guy. It's more like, I have no idea what that would look like or how that would happen. I'm a super-sweet girl with submissive tendencies, which tends to make me an asshole magnet.
23
BIATCH,
What are you going to do if your SO tells you that he trusts you, absolutely? Are you sure you aren't mistaking lack of jealousy for indifference (or is he truly non expressive in his emotions)?
Pull on your big girl panties and THINK about what is bothering you, and deal with it. If your SO is mature enough (no guarantee what so ever for college aged males), this could be a major growing together opportunity. IF you know what you want, go and get it!
Peace.
What are you going to do if your SO tells you that he trusts you, absolutely? Are you sure you aren't mistaking lack of jealousy for indifference (or is he truly non expressive in his emotions)?
Pull on your big girl panties and THINK about what is bothering you, and deal with it. If your SO is mature enough (no guarantee what so ever for college aged males), this could be a major growing together opportunity. IF you know what you want, go and get it!
Peace.
25
I would really like to set some requirements for using the phrase "the love of my life"... such as, you have to have been with that person for more than 5 years, you have to be more than 25, and it can't be your first relationship...
(Yes I know some people find their special magical soul mate in junior high, but something tells me that might not be the case here.)
(Yes I know some people find their special magical soul mate in junior high, but something tells me that might not be the case here.)
28
This is whorism not infantilism.
She clearly can't get enough and has to walk that bridge for satisfaction.
29
@1 I am adding my voice to the chorus of kinky women. You'd be surprised how many boys won't do something as simple as a little name calling. I don't advertise my kinks either, but people often identify me as kinky because I do advertise the fact that I like bi boys. (I don't think being able to appreciate the awesomeness of bi boys should be considered "kinky", but I digress).
31
@30, I love my sweetie. I am not indifferent to her. I don't mind that she has a boyfriend. I don't care if she flirts with other people.
@29, I can be a little kinky, but name-calling is a tough one for me. Being respectful and 'nice' has been hammered into me pretty hard.
@29, I can be a little kinky, but name-calling is a tough one for me. Being respectful and 'nice' has been hammered into me pretty hard.
32
WOW, you are a college student? You'd never know it from your fractured grammar and multiple misspellings. Shit-can the psychodrama and focus on getting an education, before Act II plays out in a trailer park near you.
33
@2 times a million. I know it's really a minor point among the rest of this mess, but that's not what "platonic" means, you little twit.
YOU ARE WHY THERE IS AN ENTIRE USELESS SECTION OF CRAIGSLIST PERSONALS ARGH.
Okay, that said... I mean, I get it. My prefrontal cortex was incompletely wired up once too. She's feeling insecure, she doesn't have the life experience to deal with it, and she was, from the sound of things, probably poorly socialized during her schooling. I say that, of course, because this is a bullshit teenager question, not a college kid question, which can be frustratingly stupid but not usually quite this completely un-self-aware.
I GET it, but damn, is it frustrating. Act your age, BIATCH.
YOU ARE WHY THERE IS AN ENTIRE USELESS SECTION OF CRAIGSLIST PERSONALS ARGH.
Okay, that said... I mean, I get it. My prefrontal cortex was incompletely wired up once too. She's feeling insecure, she doesn't have the life experience to deal with it, and she was, from the sound of things, probably poorly socialized during her schooling. I say that, of course, because this is a bullshit teenager question, not a college kid question, which can be frustratingly stupid but not usually quite this completely un-self-aware.
I GET it, but damn, is it frustrating. Act your age, BIATCH.
34
Also, yes, definitely allow me to echo the sentiments of others in this thread that you are doing yourself a HUGE disservice by spending your energy on relationship drama while in college, instead of on, you know... college. I know. Firsthand. I have spent the last ten years with the nagging regrets left behind by my decision to major in My Crazy Girlfriend instead of Biochemistry.
Take a break from your boyfriend. Have some casual sex if you're horny. You can maintain a relationship but you need to take it easy. Study more, obsess and fret less.
Take some remedial English classes, too. I don't know what kind of program you're in that that kind of command of the language is appropriate, but it's not going to serve you well in your upper-division courses or any substantive career if you don't shape up.
Take a break from your boyfriend. Have some casual sex if you're horny. You can maintain a relationship but you need to take it easy. Study more, obsess and fret less.
Take some remedial English classes, too. I don't know what kind of program you're in that that kind of command of the language is appropriate, but it's not going to serve you well in your upper-division courses or any substantive career if you don't shape up.
35
She's too immature to be in ANY relationship, way too insecure and manipulative.
There is also the option that her boyfriend might just preemptively DUMP her insecure ass for trying to make him feel insecure about her trip and planting seeds of doubt stirring up drama, etc. I certainly would dump her!
There is also the option that her boyfriend might just preemptively DUMP her insecure ass for trying to make him feel insecure about her trip and planting seeds of doubt stirring up drama, etc. I certainly would dump her!
36
She's gonna fuck it up. It's already decided. Nobody ever went from being an insecure, manipulative headcase to a patient and understanding partner just from reading an advice column. With luck she'll learn from the ashes of this relationship after she's caused it to crash and burn.
37
@29: I could call you all kinds of names and talk all kinds of dirty.
Curious to hear what else are you and @14 are hoping a fella might do for you.
Curious to hear what else are you and @14 are hoping a fella might do for you.
38
Straight people, you are not aruging your case very well.
I can already hear this idiot talking like a very special episode of The Real World.
I can already hear this idiot talking like a very special episode of The Real World.
39
@34 has it right. You have some things in your attic that need sorting through, but now's not the time. This long, hard look inside can wait until school break. Right now, you need to be putting your energy into studying. You're probably stirring shit up as a way to procrastinate. Knock it off and get back to work.
40
#1: Although, in general, I think it's fair to say that there are more kinky men than women out there, it is unfair to say that 'it's always the woman who struggles to be GGG.' I am a woman with a few kinks. I love to indulge my partner's kinks (within reason - I do have limits). I have, however, noticed that many het men have a hard time fulfilling my kinks. I have a cross-dress fetish. I love watching men parade around in ladies lingerie. Most men I've broached the subject with think I'm a weirdo for suggesting it. I've even had male lovers become weirded out by my rather tame armpit-sniffing fetish. So let's not hang the ladies out to dry, shall we. It goes both ways, this GGG stuff.
41
To the commentator who wants to put boundaries around Love Of My Life declarations- God, YES!!! Please god yes. Dear god, sweet lord, please lord god sweet Jesus yes.
And, it is 100% okay to dismiss anyone less than 25. Maybe even 45?
Or maybe that expression should just evaporate forever.
Gross.
And, it is 100% okay to dismiss anyone less than 25. Maybe even 45?
Or maybe that expression should just evaporate forever.
Gross.
42
I am probably one of the few girls ever to have a 100% platonic relationship with someone of the opposite sex. However, we do have some history where I like him, we hooked up...
Pla·ton·ic [pluh-ton-ik, pley-]
adjective
free from sensual desire, especially in a relationship between two persons of the opposite sex.
There, BIATCH, now you have no excuse for misusing that word in the future.
Pla·ton·ic [pluh-ton-ik, pley-]
adjective
free from sensual desire, especially in a relationship between two persons of the opposite sex.
There, BIATCH, now you have no excuse for misusing that word in the future.
44
I am quite sure that neither sex has the upper hand on who is more GGG or who acts more shocked and offended by suggestions of even the mildest kink. Remember, there are surely thousands (hundreds of thousands) of people out there who are shocked, SHOCKED I tell you, shocked that oral sex even exists. I would even argue that neither sex has the upper hand on stupid teen drama, although the LW is looking much closer to 14 than to 19 here (or however old she is).
47
Is there a way for me to unread that? Still in college and still caught up in teenage bullshit drama? She can't be more than 20 years old, which means this is hardly a long-term relationship. Hopefully the boyfriend will see the crazytrain he's about to board and run the other direction.
48
Nobody who unironically uses expressions like 'obvs' is mature enough for a relationship.
@5 -- No, just young and stupid. Possibly lobotomized, I'd guess from that letter.
@5 -- No, just young and stupid. Possibly lobotomized, I'd guess from that letter.
49
@22 "I'm a super-sweet girl with submissive tendencies, which tends to make me an asshole magnet."
OH, is that how it works? That explains so much! Somebody has to turn "asshole magnet" into a pictograph. I'll wear it as a lapel pin, just to remind myself.
OH, is that how it works? That explains so much! Somebody has to turn "asshole magnet" into a pictograph. I'll wear it as a lapel pin, just to remind myself.
50
@49: Hah! Why not just say "I intentionally have terrible taste in men"? It'd save her friends from having to hear her whine for pity when she gets what she wants.
51
Dear GOD that was painful. I'm insecure as all fuck but I would never be bald faced enough to say "I need adoration." Jeebus.
52
Also @1 et al.: Yes I am kinky, yes there have been boys who have been squicked out by my (relatively minor) kinks, such as spanking and light bdsm. Thankfully I finally met one who isn't :)
(But he is also aware of the difference between indifferent and not jealous, so I can come by to play any ol' time ;)
(But he is also aware of the difference between indifferent and not jealous, so I can come by to play any ol' time ;)
53
One day, BIATCH, you are going to realize that *most* women (and men!) have "100% platonic friendships" with members of the gender they are primarily attracted to. And you are also going to realize that having hooked up with a friend doesn't make your relationship 100% platonic. Maybe 98%, but once it gets sexy, it's not really a purely platonic relationship anymore.
It seems as though you are expecting most hetero male/female interactions to be defined by sex, or at least the possibility thereof. This is probably because you are young and were poorly socialized in childhood and adolescence. But having this attitude means that not only can you not really think of friendship without the sex question, you also believe that it's not really possible for men and women to be interested in friendship without using that as a way to get sex & romance.
I am here to deliver the good news! There is more that men and women want from each other than just sex! It is possible to be platonic friends with people, to have never hooked up with them and to never *want* to hook up with them (or even to want it but know that it is a bad idea and so abstain).
Everyone else has told you why dishonest mind games are bad. I just wanted to address your misperception that platonic friendships are somehow rare or make you special. I'm sure there are many other things which make you special, but this isn't it.
It seems as though you are expecting most hetero male/female interactions to be defined by sex, or at least the possibility thereof. This is probably because you are young and were poorly socialized in childhood and adolescence. But having this attitude means that not only can you not really think of friendship without the sex question, you also believe that it's not really possible for men and women to be interested in friendship without using that as a way to get sex & romance.
I am here to deliver the good news! There is more that men and women want from each other than just sex! It is possible to be platonic friends with people, to have never hooked up with them and to never *want* to hook up with them (or even to want it but know that it is a bad idea and so abstain).
Everyone else has told you why dishonest mind games are bad. I just wanted to address your misperception that platonic friendships are somehow rare or make you special. I'm sure there are many other things which make you special, but this isn't it.
54
Letter Writer: When he is feeling jealous, that isn't adoration in disguise. It doesn't feel anything like adoration from the inside. It feels like misery. And it sure as hell won't feel like adoration to you if he feels it strongly enough to bring it up. It will feel like fights and accusations. Not what you actually want at all, I'll wager.
Nor will it feel like adoration once he figures out that you are deliberately playing head games with him to make him miserable because you've mistaken jealousy for adoration and have decided to extract it from him by force. What it will feel like then is a cold spot in the bed where he used to sleep, before he dumped your manipulative ass.
Nor will it feel like adoration once he figures out that you are deliberately playing head games with him to make him miserable because you've mistaken jealousy for adoration and have decided to extract it from him by force. What it will feel like then is a cold spot in the bed where he used to sleep, before he dumped your manipulative ass.
55
When I got to "my almost pathological need for adoration and attention" I told myself I should just stop reading right there.
If only I'd listened to myself.
If only I'd listened to myself.
57
If it would make you feel uncomfortable for your bf to go visit an old fling solo, then don't go visit your old fling solo. And tell your bf it would make you uncomfortable if the situation were reversed. If this relationship is so important to you, why would you fuck with it? I know you claim not to have feelings anymore. But it seems to me like a recipe for relationship destruction. I think it should be ok to establish relationship boundaries like this, as long as you both feel comfortable agreeing to them. And if you don't, maybe you should work that out now so you don't get surprised down the road.
58
@5 Histrionic personality disorder, agreed. Probably a few other cluster B streaks, too.
Everybody else: you're wasting your breath. Some people crave drama, conflict, and making others miserable in the same sense that the rest of us needs food, sleep, and a reliable relationship. You're just letting yourself get manipulated to play your assigned part in the drama.
Everybody else: you're wasting your breath. Some people crave drama, conflict, and making others miserable in the same sense that the rest of us needs food, sleep, and a reliable relationship. You're just letting yourself get manipulated to play your assigned part in the drama.
59
Oh god, sounds like something out of a Brett Easton Ellis novel.
People: don't diagnose this girl. This is like, one letter. You do not have enough information for any sort of disorder pathological or personality wise! I can safely say that most of you were/are twits in college, with a least one shamefully melodramatic relationship, and possibly you were also a hipster who liked to flaunt your dependence on sleeping pills/caffeine/cigs. But I digress.
Dan's response was great, although I'm surprised he didn't lay into her a bit more for the druggy paranoia, unrealistic expectations, and blameshifting (and male slutshaming) going on here. Also: 100% platonic? Really? I wouldn't call ex flings or ex boyfriends "platonic". The fact that she is aware of the history between them enough to expect it would even be a source of jealousy, shows that she is very much aware of the very non-platonic past. Perhaps she feels some unresolved sexual tension with her "best friend" and her guilt makes her want to draw attention to it and have her bf notice it. (Of course this is pure speculation but that's something I've experienced, in the past.)
People: don't diagnose this girl. This is like, one letter. You do not have enough information for any sort of disorder pathological or personality wise! I can safely say that most of you were/are twits in college, with a least one shamefully melodramatic relationship, and possibly you were also a hipster who liked to flaunt your dependence on sleeping pills/caffeine/cigs. But I digress.
Dan's response was great, although I'm surprised he didn't lay into her a bit more for the druggy paranoia, unrealistic expectations, and blameshifting (and male slutshaming) going on here. Also: 100% platonic? Really? I wouldn't call ex flings or ex boyfriends "platonic". The fact that she is aware of the history between them enough to expect it would even be a source of jealousy, shows that she is very much aware of the very non-platonic past. Perhaps she feels some unresolved sexual tension with her "best friend" and her guilt makes her want to draw attention to it and have her bf notice it. (Of course this is pure speculation but that's something I've experienced, in the past.)
60
@54 for the flashback!
BIATCH, DO NOT TRY TO INDUCE FEELINGS OF JEALOSY or any other strong emotional response (like threatening suicide if he leaves you) because you will take his feelings and burn them out!
For me the difference between lack of jealousy and indifference is summed up in one word: trust. My wife and I have already been through the trials of taking care of (and losing) our parents, while taking care of our children, careers, and maintaining a nurturing romance. There were times when the sex dropped off the table (outside of vacations), but we worked back to (for us) GGG. My wife is battle hardened and tested; if she was going to flake out and bail out it would've happened years ago during things like contesting wills and hating our stepmother and such from my family. For my part, if she isn't saturated sensually and emotionally then it is my fault for not paying attention to her needs. Lately that has included gently pushing her to not overbook her commitments and to enjoy her hobbies more. In my case I am not jealous, but rather protective. I absolutely trust that she won't be taken from my side because it hasn't happened yet despite innumerable chances of disaster affecting us. I also (figuratively) work my ass off to have as much fun as possible with her, a feat she makes so, so easy.
The kind of relationship building trust my wife and I have, versus BIATCH, comes from (just lately getting to the milestone of) being together most of our lives, and understanding the concept of "enough". By enough, I mean being aware of when we have to work together to get things back in balance and appreciating that more can be a waste. Trust means getting messy without hesitation (taking the hit for the team), painful honesty (in one's self), careful ignorance (of things one "shouldn't know"), and exuberance in the face of the commonplace. That latter part is tricky because the opposite of Love is a lack of Love (not hate); indifference is often born of inattentiveness and distraction. In short "Love of my Life" is not something for college, but the experiences can be used as a foundation (any scientist will tell you a good, solid, negative result can be more useful than a positive in the course of an experiment; knowing what doesn't work is as important as what does.).
Peace.
More...
BIATCH, DO NOT TRY TO INDUCE FEELINGS OF JEALOSY or any other strong emotional response (like threatening suicide if he leaves you) because you will take his feelings and burn them out!
For me the difference between lack of jealousy and indifference is summed up in one word: trust. My wife and I have already been through the trials of taking care of (and losing) our parents, while taking care of our children, careers, and maintaining a nurturing romance. There were times when the sex dropped off the table (outside of vacations), but we worked back to (for us) GGG. My wife is battle hardened and tested; if she was going to flake out and bail out it would've happened years ago during things like contesting wills and hating our stepmother and such from my family. For my part, if she isn't saturated sensually and emotionally then it is my fault for not paying attention to her needs. Lately that has included gently pushing her to not overbook her commitments and to enjoy her hobbies more. In my case I am not jealous, but rather protective. I absolutely trust that she won't be taken from my side because it hasn't happened yet despite innumerable chances of disaster affecting us. I also (figuratively) work my ass off to have as much fun as possible with her, a feat she makes so, so easy.
The kind of relationship building trust my wife and I have, versus BIATCH, comes from (just lately getting to the milestone of) being together most of our lives, and understanding the concept of "enough". By enough, I mean being aware of when we have to work together to get things back in balance and appreciating that more can be a waste. Trust means getting messy without hesitation (taking the hit for the team), painful honesty (in one's self), careful ignorance (of things one "shouldn't know"), and exuberance in the face of the commonplace. That latter part is tricky because the opposite of Love is a lack of Love (not hate); indifference is often born of inattentiveness and distraction. In short "Love of my Life" is not something for college, but the experiences can be used as a foundation (any scientist will tell you a good, solid, negative result can be more useful than a positive in the course of an experiment; knowing what doesn't work is as important as what does.).
Peace.
61
my almost pathological need for adoration and attentionI can't be the only person here who noticed the fact that the word "almost" has absolutely no place in that sentence.
62
@11, that was my first idea, too. Taking Tylenol and Ibuprofen to fall asleep? Not a good idea...
BIATCH, as many have said, why play head games with someone you say you love? People feel what they feel. What he 'should' feel for you is not jealousy, but love. Does he love you? Do you feel that? Do you think that jealousy is a sign of love? Are there other signs as well?
It seems to me you're simply afraid he may not feel you are as important to him as you think he is to you. You're insecure. Well, give it a try. See how you feel. Try to understand him, what love means to him, what his love for you makes him do. And then ask yourself if you can live with that, or if you need something else.
Playing head games only leads to more doubts -- does he love me or is he just being manipulated into / made to pretend he does? All in all, sincerity in feelings is what you're aiming at ultimately, isn't it? And how do you get sincere love if you start out by getting it via manipulation?
Smile. Trust yourself. Think more about reality and less about "possibilities." Watch what he does and feel what he feels -- that's a better start for deciding whether or not he's really the love of your life (and you his) than imagining 'what he should be feeling' right now. As catballou said above, we're all sufficiently different that thinking someone should feel what you would feel in a given situation is nonsensical.
BIATCH, as many have said, why play head games with someone you say you love? People feel what they feel. What he 'should' feel for you is not jealousy, but love. Does he love you? Do you feel that? Do you think that jealousy is a sign of love? Are there other signs as well?
It seems to me you're simply afraid he may not feel you are as important to him as you think he is to you. You're insecure. Well, give it a try. See how you feel. Try to understand him, what love means to him, what his love for you makes him do. And then ask yourself if you can live with that, or if you need something else.
Playing head games only leads to more doubts -- does he love me or is he just being manipulated into / made to pretend he does? All in all, sincerity in feelings is what you're aiming at ultimately, isn't it? And how do you get sincere love if you start out by getting it via manipulation?
Smile. Trust yourself. Think more about reality and less about "possibilities." Watch what he does and feel what he feels -- that's a better start for deciding whether or not he's really the love of your life (and you his) than imagining 'what he should be feeling' right now. As catballou said above, we're all sufficiently different that thinking someone should feel what you would feel in a given situation is nonsensical.
63
The kink girls here make me laugh, they really do. This certain belief that there's tons of them out there simply because they're kink or they know other kink girls is a bit like being at NASA in the 60s: "there's TONS of rocket scientists, everywhere you wanna look! Why, I myself am a rocket scientist and I can point to over a dozen in this room alone!"
May I share some realities with you from my former life as a divorce lawyer? A lot of kink girls run into "vanilla" problems with their SOs because:
* They send two messages at the same time: "respect my boundaries" and "challenge my boundaries". Then their SO gets into trouble for not respecting their boundaries on repeated occasions, and stops challenging them. And then the kink girl goes and finds someone who'll blow right by their professed boundaries [as opposed to real ones like consent or safety], and great sex results, but so does a breakup with the SO. See @22.
* The SOs have been over-propagandized in their youth towards (a) a conservative sexual view, i.e. women on pedastal and nice girls don't do that , and so on and so on; or (b) an ideological feminist view where they're so busy apologizing all the time that they never have a frame for asking for or engaging in kink, i.e., the kink women who are into being dominated so thoroughly emasculate or render defensive their SO in the rest of their life that the man can't just switch to, say, spanking the crap out of her on a dime.
* There's a shitload of kink women out there who apply the same hoops to sexuality with their SO that other lowsexers do with vanilla: they talk a good game but it never seems to be the right time. (Please cross-ref to the million letters to Savage Love about no or low sex partners who insist up and down that they do want sex, just, well, not today and tomorrow never comes.)
* There's an awful lot of women who so are so conflicted about their kink that they can't do it with their SO because, well, they give a shit about what their beloved thinks about them but they don't about what a stranger or acquaintance does. Therefore it is easier to, say, indulge in weird stuff with the latter because they're not terrified about losing the respect of their SO.
* If anything goes wrong within the kink frame it is the man's fault whether it is or isn't. Think I'm wrong? Go a few posts back to the girl who asked for and got an open relationship while she was out of the country, breaks the rules of that relationship and now it's her bf's fault. I've known more than a few men tune out kink girls simply because after the 2nd or 3rd time this sort of shit happens: vanilla presents less drama.
Just a few thoughts from divorce files and from the countless numbers of people who tell lawyers shit that they don't tell other people. And before I'm flamed, please do remember that I'm talking about failed relationships here. If you've been married 13 years and your kink like is working fine then obviously you don't enter my data pool.
More...
May I share some realities with you from my former life as a divorce lawyer? A lot of kink girls run into "vanilla" problems with their SOs because:
* They send two messages at the same time: "respect my boundaries" and "challenge my boundaries". Then their SO gets into trouble for not respecting their boundaries on repeated occasions, and stops challenging them. And then the kink girl goes and finds someone who'll blow right by their professed boundaries [as opposed to real ones like consent or safety], and great sex results, but so does a breakup with the SO. See @22.
* The SOs have been over-propagandized in their youth towards (a) a conservative sexual view, i.e. women on pedastal and nice girls don't do that , and so on and so on; or (b) an ideological feminist view where they're so busy apologizing all the time that they never have a frame for asking for or engaging in kink, i.e., the kink women who are into being dominated so thoroughly emasculate or render defensive their SO in the rest of their life that the man can't just switch to, say, spanking the crap out of her on a dime.
* There's a shitload of kink women out there who apply the same hoops to sexuality with their SO that other lowsexers do with vanilla: they talk a good game but it never seems to be the right time. (Please cross-ref to the million letters to Savage Love about no or low sex partners who insist up and down that they do want sex, just, well, not today and tomorrow never comes.)
* There's an awful lot of women who so are so conflicted about their kink that they can't do it with their SO because, well, they give a shit about what their beloved thinks about them but they don't about what a stranger or acquaintance does. Therefore it is easier to, say, indulge in weird stuff with the latter because they're not terrified about losing the respect of their SO.
* If anything goes wrong within the kink frame it is the man's fault whether it is or isn't. Think I'm wrong? Go a few posts back to the girl who asked for and got an open relationship while she was out of the country, breaks the rules of that relationship and now it's her bf's fault. I've known more than a few men tune out kink girls simply because after the 2nd or 3rd time this sort of shit happens: vanilla presents less drama.
Just a few thoughts from divorce files and from the countless numbers of people who tell lawyers shit that they don't tell other people. And before I'm flamed, please do remember that I'm talking about failed relationships here. If you've been married 13 years and your kink like is working fine then obviously you don't enter my data pool.
64
Let's not forget, too, the occasional comic side of things. To all the kink girls professing your numbers and availability, I point you to the poly girl who wrote in some weeks ago complaining about the phrase "unicorn" to describe women like her who were willing to sleep with couples. We're not unicorns, she protested, we're horses, saying (essentially) that they are easy to find and easy to ride, so there .... And then she goes on for almost a thousand words on her parameters, requirements and instant deal-killers. Does the man of the couple takes the lead in contacting her? Ineligible! Do they want to meet her in a bar? Ineligible! ... And so on and so on and so considerably on. The cognitive dissonance was actually quite comic.
65
@seeker, even though I see where you come from and there's a lot of truth in your comment, I hope you realize the exaggerations also. (As you said yourself, the happy married kinksters who've been merrily spanked by their SO's for 13 years don't get into your data pool.)
All you're describing is people conflicted about their own kinks/sexuality, plus people manipulating each other -- both situations very well known among vanilla people. (Oh, how much did 19th-century writers write about how marriage was a trap!...). All the situations you describe have vanilla counterparts. And to every girl who sets impossible standards there is a guy PUA negging low-self-esteem girls for quick thrills.
The world is not a fair place. And so much depends on whether your SO is or isn't a good person, despite appearances. Not for nothing did people use to say that marriage is a lotery.
All you're describing is people conflicted about their own kinks/sexuality, plus people manipulating each other -- both situations very well known among vanilla people. (Oh, how much did 19th-century writers write about how marriage was a trap!...). All the situations you describe have vanilla counterparts. And to every girl who sets impossible standards there is a guy PUA negging low-self-esteem girls for quick thrills.
The world is not a fair place. And so much depends on whether your SO is or isn't a good person, despite appearances. Not for nothing did people use to say that marriage is a lotery.
66
It is wise for men to avoid platonic relationships with women; it lowers one's testosterone levels to spend too much time around women one isn't either fucking or dismissing utterly.
You know the type of man who has female friends: weak features, balding, little facial hair, chinless, spineless, and all-too-accommodating--holding on dearly to the vain hope that thus he might lure her into a romantic relationship. It's one thing to take a friend's spouse out to a movie, totally another to actually go out and seek conversation with women that goes beyond the intent of "screw, skank?"
You know the type of man who has female friends: weak features, balding, little facial hair, chinless, spineless, and all-too-accommodating--holding on dearly to the vain hope that thus he might lure her into a romantic relationship. It's one thing to take a friend's spouse out to a movie, totally another to actually go out and seek conversation with women that goes beyond the intent of "screw, skank?"
67
ankylosaur, I concede your points, thoroughly. I'd just note, thought, that there did, in those files and from what other applicable professionals (other lawyers, counsellors, and such) and kinsters have told me in shop talk is that there does seem to be a gender divide among people who aren't fucked up in measures small or large: there's more kink guys than kink women; kink guys place fewer barriers and hoops in their own (or the woman's) way in indulging the guy's kink; kink guys are less conflicted about the partner/stranger respect thing than kink women; when things go south on something kink, as a general rule kink guys blame themselves ("I shouldn't have asked her to do X, and now that X has become a barrier between us it's my fault") and kink girls blame the guy ("now that X has become a barrier between us I need him to sort out why we're having a problem"); kink girls often think that there are way more kink girls then there really are. Why these things are so I will leave to the psychologists and sociologists ... and SL threads.
You're right about `confilicted', though. There's a reason why all the serious kinksters that I personally know tend to operate in fairly tight self-selected communities: it's far easier to get enjoyably laid with people in the circle than it is with some gay or gal going through their goddamned `to kink or not to kink' phase. To vulgarize a line stolen from Barbara Tuchman, they choose Othello because they know they'll get action, and with Hamlet they'll only get drama.
You're right about `confilicted', though. There's a reason why all the serious kinksters that I personally know tend to operate in fairly tight self-selected communities: it's far easier to get enjoyably laid with people in the circle than it is with some gay or gal going through their goddamned `to kink or not to kink' phase. To vulgarize a line stolen from Barbara Tuchman, they choose Othello because they know they'll get action, and with Hamlet they'll only get drama.
68
Addendum to #60, BIATCH
Trying to force emotional responses usually doesn't work, what is more likely to be effective is opening possibilities. Try to anticipate obstacles and minimize or avoid them to allow your desired result to occur. I used this kind of approach to "manage from below" when I was working with a large group in the middle of a hotly contested search for a disease gene. By anticipating and removing obstacles to minimize aggravation, the whole group was a lot happier and motivated (and yes, we got patent rights). In comparison our boss's approach was to keep a "work harder" drone going, with occasional thrills of abuse (to be fair, he was super human in his work ethic; to be expected of a Harvard professor), and an unending stream of funding, difficulties in getting face time, and sheer unadulterated brilliance. He was the motivator, I was the "go to" facilitator that had a much better life as a result.
Pushing results is difficult and likely to fail when you are working with relationships. "Making the way easy" is a lot more effective, and a lot less obtrusive.
Peace.
Trying to force emotional responses usually doesn't work, what is more likely to be effective is opening possibilities. Try to anticipate obstacles and minimize or avoid them to allow your desired result to occur. I used this kind of approach to "manage from below" when I was working with a large group in the middle of a hotly contested search for a disease gene. By anticipating and removing obstacles to minimize aggravation, the whole group was a lot happier and motivated (and yes, we got patent rights). In comparison our boss's approach was to keep a "work harder" drone going, with occasional thrills of abuse (to be fair, he was super human in his work ethic; to be expected of a Harvard professor), and an unending stream of funding, difficulties in getting face time, and sheer unadulterated brilliance. He was the motivator, I was the "go to" facilitator that had a much better life as a result.
Pushing results is difficult and likely to fail when you are working with relationships. "Making the way easy" is a lot more effective, and a lot less obtrusive.
Peace.
70
Addendum to #68,
You want to have an intimate outing with your SO. Check your schedule for conflicts, and the weather. Pack a sumptuous meal (take out is OK), chill the libations, and prep the accessories required for the outing the night before. First thing in the morning roll your SO out of bed and hand them their bathing suit. Pack them into the car (still sleeping is OK), and wake them up on the beach (or other destination) for the intimate part. And so on...
Peace.
You want to have an intimate outing with your SO. Check your schedule for conflicts, and the weather. Pack a sumptuous meal (take out is OK), chill the libations, and prep the accessories required for the outing the night before. First thing in the morning roll your SO out of bed and hand them their bathing suit. Pack them into the car (still sleeping is OK), and wake them up on the beach (or other destination) for the intimate part. And so on...
Peace.
73
@60 - thank you. I can't tell you how refreshing (freeing? helpful?) it is to hear from someone who's in a LTR, who's gone through the daily shit and is still together. For me, it's not the "OMG he slept with someone else before we met I MUST PUNISH", it's "oh god, why can't we short sell the other house and why is the tax escrow so high and my mother is making us crazy and if our daughter doesn't stop trying to ride the dog I'm seriously going to go have three shots of tequila and some benadryl and YOU can take over" stuff. And letters like this don't help - all I can think is, yeah, sweet cheeks, try dealing with some REAL drama and see how you do. DARE YOU.
74
@ Seeker 6079. Your comments imply that troubled relationships that involve kinky people have broken up solely due to the "issues" of the kinky woman.
I went through your stated points one by one and what I see are examples of men and women who aren't communicating with each other about what they want sexually from each other and not communicating what they want in other area's of their life.
It's funny that you only see kinky women fucking up relationships. Don't like kinky women much Seeker 6079. Bane of your existence and all I would guess.
I went through your stated points one by one and what I see are examples of men and women who aren't communicating with each other about what they want sexually from each other and not communicating what they want in other area's of their life.
It's funny that you only see kinky women fucking up relationships. Don't like kinky women much Seeker 6079. Bane of your existence and all I would guess.
75
Mr Seeker - I had a post of moderate length eaten after submission which led with the question of "almost" and what would be required to drop that modifier.
Mr. J, I also noted her use of the S-word, and wondered whether it is a plus that it is being used to shame males as well as females (and/or others) or whether S-shaming is always bad. As I am only pro-feminist (out of respect, believing that, IF a man can be a feminist proper, he must be straighter than bi-gay), perhaps a real feminist could pronounce on the question with some authority.
Although I don't use the S-word, I would use the portmanteau word SLORE had it not died out, as a tribute to Mr Weir.
Mr. J, I also noted her use of the S-word, and wondered whether it is a plus that it is being used to shame males as well as females (and/or others) or whether S-shaming is always bad. As I am only pro-feminist (out of respect, believing that, IF a man can be a feminist proper, he must be straighter than bi-gay), perhaps a real feminist could pronounce on the question with some authority.
Although I don't use the S-word, I would use the portmanteau word SLORE had it not died out, as a tribute to Mr Weir.
76
Ugh, jealousy is not a sign of caring, it's a sign of insecurity and a desire to control one's partner. I've been in this relationship; do your partner a favor, BIATCH, and either get a handle on your manipulative, dysfunctional shit, or dump him so he can find someone worth his time.
78
The term 'Modus Ponens' comes to mind. "If you really felt such-and-such then you would do such-and-such." If you know someone is very different from you, why on earth would you get upset when they respond to situations differently from you? Isn't life difficult enough? Also, if you need your partner to suffer to validate your suffering, then that's not love, it's CODEPENDENCY.
80
If you need your partner to suffer to validate your suffering, then that's not love, it's codependency.
Love would go like this: "I hate feeling jealous and assume it's equally unpleasant for my partner. I love my partner. Boy I'm glad my partner doesn't have to suffer through feeling jealous!"
Love would go like this: "I hate feeling jealous and assume it's equally unpleasant for my partner. I love my partner. Boy I'm glad my partner doesn't have to suffer through feeling jealous!"
81
The BF has lots of bad relationships in his past because he likes them. She is just his next ex. She could takes Dan's advice and grow up, or she could become one of the crazy ex's that plague this guys life.
He probably likes crazy ex's. They demonstrate how important he is to other people.
He probably likes crazy ex's. They demonstrate how important he is to other people.
83
What amazes me about this letter is that she spelled "use to" correctly as in "he did use to be a slut." That just blew my mind.
84
@75 Mr. V
I find that "slut" has become synonymous with "sexually prolific" and as such, in my mind at least, it is purely descriptive, i.e. not judgmental in any way. It also recalls a rather silly old way of thinking that I don't believe is the norm at present. We live in "post-slut" America. That's part of why Santorum seems like a ridiculous caveman.
I find that "slut" has become synonymous with "sexually prolific" and as such, in my mind at least, it is purely descriptive, i.e. not judgmental in any way. It also recalls a rather silly old way of thinking that I don't believe is the norm at present. We live in "post-slut" America. That's part of why Santorum seems like a ridiculous caveman.
86
Hey @73 crivins,
Good luck with the real-estate.
For the record, when I started drinking only for taste (a nice tequila is well savored), NEVER when I was down, things were easier to keep on keel. It doesn't suck to be the always dependable designated driver.
Sometimes it helps to admit, at least to yourself, "yeah, I'm scared". Then, when you don't die, things seem to keep on going, even if your dog doesn't have a saddle.
Peace.
Good luck with the real-estate.
For the record, when I started drinking only for taste (a nice tequila is well savored), NEVER when I was down, things were easier to keep on keel. It doesn't suck to be the always dependable designated driver.
Sometimes it helps to admit, at least to yourself, "yeah, I'm scared". Then, when you don't die, things seem to keep on going, even if your dog doesn't have a saddle.
Peace.
87
@85 I can almost guarantee that the asterisk is a disclaimer of a literal reading of the phrase "defend to the death." Dan will strenuously defend infantilism but will not literally risk his life in the defense of infantilism.
And yes, let me agree with those who are annoyed with BIATCH's multiple misunderstandings (ibuprofen is a sleeping pill? hookups are part of 100% platonic relationships? boy-girl friendships are super-rare?).
Having said all that, I think BIATCH is more young and inexperienced than actively malevolent. I hope she takes Dan's excellent advice--he really nailed the fact that she just wants to get a rise out of her laid-back fella, and that there are better ways to get the reassurance she wants/needs than to manufacture bullshit drama.
And yes, let me agree with those who are annoyed with BIATCH's multiple misunderstandings (ibuprofen is a sleeping pill? hookups are part of 100% platonic relationships? boy-girl friendships are super-rare?).
Having said all that, I think BIATCH is more young and inexperienced than actively malevolent. I hope she takes Dan's excellent advice--he really nailed the fact that she just wants to get a rise out of her laid-back fella, and that there are better ways to get the reassurance she wants/needs than to manufacture bullshit drama.
89
@67(seeker), I certainly agree that the cases you mention do exist -- I know several men who had problems similar to the ones you mention (though they were more vanilla, still the spirit was the same). But I wonder if your experience as a divorce lawyer wasn't gained mostly representing the husband rather than the wife -- which might give you a skewed perception of who does what when it comes to sex and kink.
I agree there are many women out there who seem to think that it's all the man's responsibility: if things aren't going well in the sex/kink department, then it's up to the man to find out where the problem is and solve it (call that 'little princess complex' if you want).
But -- again in my experience -- there are also men who took advantage of their girlfriends/wives and manipulated them into doing things they didn't want to do, simply because they (the men) had the stronger, more magnetic personality. I've also seen men who blame everything on their wives ('she never understands me', 'she's never ready', 'she's let herself go', 'no wonder I had an affair -- look at my missus!') and don't seem to imagine the lack of sex/kink activity might have something to do with them. As well as the somewhat tearful wives who go 'ohh... he's not interested in me anymore like he used to be...' (ah! if I had a dollar every time I heard that...)
If you want an example of such a guy, look at @66 above, who thinks only male losers would be friends with women.
All in all, seeker, a lot of what goes wrong in relationships depends on the personalities involved. With feminism, women have gotten a lot of arguments to use in their fights; but frankly, whether or not they will use these arguments, and with what success, still depends so much on their personalities, how smart or stupid they are, how quick or slow, how manipulative or sincere... And the same for the men: some have personalities/problems/issues that make them easier prey to manipulators (I've met several mild-mannered men who seemed to be controlled by their girlfriends -- but frankly, also by their parents, their bosses, their friends, or anyone they were afraid of...)
In the end, I'm an individualist, I guess. Fend for yourself, try to see what the other people around you truly are, be fair to them and to yourself... and you'll avoid most (though not all) trouble.
More...
I agree there are many women out there who seem to think that it's all the man's responsibility: if things aren't going well in the sex/kink department, then it's up to the man to find out where the problem is and solve it (call that 'little princess complex' if you want).
But -- again in my experience -- there are also men who took advantage of their girlfriends/wives and manipulated them into doing things they didn't want to do, simply because they (the men) had the stronger, more magnetic personality. I've also seen men who blame everything on their wives ('she never understands me', 'she's never ready', 'she's let herself go', 'no wonder I had an affair -- look at my missus!') and don't seem to imagine the lack of sex/kink activity might have something to do with them. As well as the somewhat tearful wives who go 'ohh... he's not interested in me anymore like he used to be...' (ah! if I had a dollar every time I heard that...)
If you want an example of such a guy, look at @66 above, who thinks only male losers would be friends with women.
All in all, seeker, a lot of what goes wrong in relationships depends on the personalities involved. With feminism, women have gotten a lot of arguments to use in their fights; but frankly, whether or not they will use these arguments, and with what success, still depends so much on their personalities, how smart or stupid they are, how quick or slow, how manipulative or sincere... And the same for the men: some have personalities/problems/issues that make them easier prey to manipulators (I've met several mild-mannered men who seemed to be controlled by their girlfriends -- but frankly, also by their parents, their bosses, their friends, or anyone they were afraid of...)
In the end, I'm an individualist, I guess. Fend for yourself, try to see what the other people around you truly are, be fair to them and to yourself... and you'll avoid most (though not all) trouble.
90
@67(seeker), a couple of specifics -- it's true, in my experience, that there are more kink men than kink women, and that the men are usually more accommodating and easy-going in their kink than the women; but it seems to me this comes more from the fact that men worry a lot more about sex than women (and when they, men, have a kink, there is a higher chance that it'll become a little bit of an obsession for them). Just as with sex in general. Isn't the traditional wisdom that men trade love for sex with women, and women trade sex for love with men? That's an exaggeration+oversimplifcation combo, I know; but there's some truth in it.
Because men worry more about sex, the kind of personality in which the guy is willing to do anything to get his itch scratched (you might call that a "Leonard-type" personality, after the eponymous character in The Big Bang Theory) is not infrequent.
Having gone through my own 'conflicted' phase (you know: 'oh my god, what's my problem? there must be something wrong with me!...'), I appreciate that more self-assured kinksters might prefer to avoid their company. But I note the conflicted people do need some guidance. In a still mostly kink-unfriendly society, it's not easy to grow up with a kink...
The Barbara Tuchman line you mentioned (I loved her "the 14th century" book by the way) is quite apt. I think I'll steal it myself. :-)
Because men worry more about sex, the kind of personality in which the guy is willing to do anything to get his itch scratched (you might call that a "Leonard-type" personality, after the eponymous character in The Big Bang Theory) is not infrequent.
Having gone through my own 'conflicted' phase (you know: 'oh my god, what's my problem? there must be something wrong with me!...'), I appreciate that more self-assured kinksters might prefer to avoid their company. But I note the conflicted people do need some guidance. In a still mostly kink-unfriendly society, it's not easy to grow up with a kink...
The Barbara Tuchman line you mentioned (I loved her "the 14th century" book by the way) is quite apt. I think I'll steal it myself. :-)
91
I'll forgive her idiocy because she's (hopefully) only 19-20 years old. At least she's identified that she's an annoying child and is asking for help. That's got to count for something?
But yeah, lots of invented-drama at that age.
But yeah, lots of invented-drama at that age.
92
@87(Functional Atheist), I agree concerning BIATCH. Who was it who said once something "I thought I was in the throes of horrible conflicts and paradoxes; I was simply young"?
BIATCH wants to feel loved. She doesn't want to be one of those "women who love too much." She wants her partner to like her as much as she likes him (or as much as she thinks she does). She thinks he should feel what she feels, just like she feels it, when she feels it.
She's just young. She'll grow.
BIATCH wants to feel loved. She doesn't want to be one of those "women who love too much." She wants her partner to like her as much as she likes him (or as much as she thinks she does). She thinks he should feel what she feels, just like she feels it, when she feels it.
She's just young. She'll grow.
93
ankylosaur @89. I'd be the first to concede that my experience is coloured and may be anomalous. (FWIW my files worked out roughly 70:30 women:men, and I've only a tiny fraction of my life hanging with and listening to men [I was in my 40s before I spent as much personal time with men as opposed to women, including other professionals], so factor those in mind.) I'm just going on what I noted above, which extends beyond my files. Is it possible that that wider experience (other lawyers, mental health professionals and just plain listening), too, is anomalous? Sure, I freely concede that possibility as well. I just think that after twenty or so years of dealing with stuff professionally and as an interested amateur I get to make a generalization or too, quite comfortable with the fact that somebody else's 20 years might produce a wholly opposite personal conclusion. They're free to post that, and best kinky wishes to 'em. It's just that in that time I never -- to take one example -- saw a marriage end because the woman had a kink and her man wouldn't do it, but did see more than a few end because of sexual death, and the husband only found out later that his wife was into X or Y, or he was into X and she wouldn't have it. This is where you are right to note the individual dynamic. In file A it might have been because the wife didn't like her husband enough to want to do the kink with him; in B it's because she didn't know she had the kink (or wasn't willing to face it) until the next lover came along, in File C because it's a kink she can only engage in with someone with whom she has an emotional distance (and so on and so on).
FWIW, I think that @66 is a parody troll, but, again, I could be wrong.
Caution: I thoroughly bastardized the Tuchman quote. In its original form it is something like, "switch the protagonists in Hamlet and Othello and there are no tragedies: Othello wouldn't have hesitated to kill Claudius, and Hamlet would have seen through Iago in a second". iirc it's from The March of Folly.
More...
FWIW, I think that @66 is a parody troll, but, again, I could be wrong.
Caution: I thoroughly bastardized the Tuchman quote. In its original form it is something like, "switch the protagonists in Hamlet and Othello and there are no tragedies: Othello wouldn't have hesitated to kill Claudius, and Hamlet would have seen through Iago in a second". iirc it's from The March of Folly.
95
Am I the only one who thinks having hooked up with a friend in the past makes a future hookup LESS likely? I was a girl with a lot of guy friends, some of whom I hooked up with and, once we did, the sexual tension was dispelled. The sex was just another shared experience, like a cool show we went to or a fun trip we took.
96
@94 I'd agree, but the LW does come across as seeking drama because she's clueless as to how to address her own situation rather than drama because she's mean. The former can be resolved, the latter, not.
98
"I can honestly say I am probably one of the few girls ever to have a 100% platonic relationship with someone of the opposite sex"
Okay. She is too young to be in a relationship.
Okay. She is too young to be in a relationship.
99
"my almost pathological need for adoration and attention"
This is where I stopped giving a fuck about the girl, her love for the dramaz, and her budding personality disorder.
"I am probably one of the few girls ever to have a 100% platonic relationship with someone of the opposite sex. However, we do have some history where I like him, we hooked up"
Blah blah "I'm not like other girls" blah.
This is where I stopped giving a fuck about the girl, her love for the dramaz, and her budding personality disorder.
"I am probably one of the few girls ever to have a 100% platonic relationship with someone of the opposite sex. However, we do have some history where I like him, we hooked up"
Blah blah "I'm not like other girls" blah.
100
@97 (seeker6079): I know why you would think that, and I confess it is probably a more commonly expressed attitude (whether or not it represents the truth) in the under-30 crowd, but after giving it some thought, I came to this conclusion as applies only to myself (and I'm 49).--Note: all the usual disclaimers apply: I'm not presuming to speak for anyone but me.
I have had one-off sexual encounters with a number of established friends or men whom I was in the earliest possible flirtation stage, which were successfully rolled back to easy friendship. In all these cases, the sex was uninspired, not very satisfying, but not truly horrific, either. Almost always, this seems to be a mutual reaction, but it remains an unstated one. We don't really talk about it, but as neither of us is eager to repeat it, and we already liked each other's friendship and company, we just kind of ignore that it ever happened.
It's when the sex is good, or really good, that I have trouble. Because if sex is good or really good, I want to repeat the experience as soon and as often as possible. And once I start having repeated, really good sex with someone, I have a hard time staying in the emotional "just friends" zone. The more frequently I have sex with someone, the more my feelings tend to grow. But I have a hard time not trying for more sex if the sex was good.
So in order for me to have that "well, we got *that* out of our system; now we can just be friends," I have to have had uninspiring sex.
(Really bad sex is different. That can drive a wedge between friends. And the biggest awkwardness comes when it was great for one person, but not the other, or when even if both partners had as good a time, one wants to repeat the experience or repeat it a lot, and the other doesn't, for any number of reasons.)
I think that while a lot of people might not share my reaction, those of us who do, are not necessarily likely to be of the same generation so much as the same temperment/personality/orientation/whatever the word is. But I think it is part of youth culture today to at least mouth the platitudes of what I think can be a coercive (in the sense of what Mill called the "tyranny of the majority" --perhaps in this case a very vocal minority) sex positivity, from which one daren't public distance oneself at the risk of sounding old-fashioned or prudish or unenlightened.
Don't know if that made any sense.
More...
I have had one-off sexual encounters with a number of established friends or men whom I was in the earliest possible flirtation stage, which were successfully rolled back to easy friendship. In all these cases, the sex was uninspired, not very satisfying, but not truly horrific, either. Almost always, this seems to be a mutual reaction, but it remains an unstated one. We don't really talk about it, but as neither of us is eager to repeat it, and we already liked each other's friendship and company, we just kind of ignore that it ever happened.
It's when the sex is good, or really good, that I have trouble. Because if sex is good or really good, I want to repeat the experience as soon and as often as possible. And once I start having repeated, really good sex with someone, I have a hard time staying in the emotional "just friends" zone. The more frequently I have sex with someone, the more my feelings tend to grow. But I have a hard time not trying for more sex if the sex was good.
So in order for me to have that "well, we got *that* out of our system; now we can just be friends," I have to have had uninspiring sex.
(Really bad sex is different. That can drive a wedge between friends. And the biggest awkwardness comes when it was great for one person, but not the other, or when even if both partners had as good a time, one wants to repeat the experience or repeat it a lot, and the other doesn't, for any number of reasons.)
I think that while a lot of people might not share my reaction, those of us who do, are not necessarily likely to be of the same generation so much as the same temperment/personality/orientation/whatever the word is. But I think it is part of youth culture today to at least mouth the platitudes of what I think can be a coercive (in the sense of what Mill called the "tyranny of the majority" --perhaps in this case a very vocal minority) sex positivity, from which one daren't public distance oneself at the risk of sounding old-fashioned or prudish or unenlightened.
Don't know if that made any sense.
101
Like, one time, like I had this like boyfriend and like he was super weird and like OMG what do I do???
102
@29 & @40 - Oh dear - yes, well, maybe you are out there in numbers, but you certainly don't advertise it! I would love a combo of this - I love a little cross dressing and I'm hetero-flexible as an extension of that - and this sends most of the women I'm into running for the doors. In fact, only the otherwise crazy were cool with it.
I'm with divorce lawyer on this - I've found all sorts of women who will get freaky with me when we are not in the committed relationship, but they want to play the good girl in the LTR.
I'm with divorce lawyer on this - I've found all sorts of women who will get freaky with me when we are not in the committed relationship, but they want to play the good girl in the LTR.
104
Were I in Boyfriend's shoes, I imagine I would respond to that gambit, (even Dan's very gently worded version) with, "Oh, so you are saying you think I _should_ be jealous? Is there a _reason_ for me to be jealous? In that case, the trip is off. Or else go, but I won't be here when you get back."
Then, after a couple of seconds of deer-in-the-headlights from her, I would explain, "Either you are trustworthy, or you aren't. There is no in-between. If you are trustworthy, then there is no reason for me to feel jealous, period. In fact, if you are trustworthy and I feel jealous anyway, that would make me a paranoid, controlling asshole. Is that who you want as a boyfriend? Because that isn't me.
"So...what's it going to be? Trustworthy? Or not?" And then calmly return to whatever it was I had been doing.
Shorter version: I trust you completely, but I am completely not interested in head games.
Then, after a couple of seconds of deer-in-the-headlights from her, I would explain, "Either you are trustworthy, or you aren't. There is no in-between. If you are trustworthy, then there is no reason for me to feel jealous, period. In fact, if you are trustworthy and I feel jealous anyway, that would make me a paranoid, controlling asshole. Is that who you want as a boyfriend? Because that isn't me.
"So...what's it going to be? Trustworthy? Or not?" And then calmly return to whatever it was I had been doing.
Shorter version: I trust you completely, but I am completely not interested in head games.
105
@100: "So in order for me to have that "well, we got *that* out of our system; now we can just be friends," I have to have had uninspiring sex."
So what you're saying is that you're *not* automatically platonic friends with every person you've slept with.
So what you're saying is that you're *not* automatically platonic friends with every person you've slept with.
106
It seems like we've been getting way too many Letters of the Day recently from idiot 20 year olds in relationships that aren't going to last out the year, no matter what Dan tells them. Where's the fun, kinky stuff these days? It's starting to sound like a relationship advice column in a college newspaper...
Oh, and if you and your best friend have hooked up, even if it was back in high school (all of, what, a year ago?) you are not one of the "few girls ever to have a "100% platonic relationship with a member of the opposite sex." Good God.
Oh, and if you and your best friend have hooked up, even if it was back in high school (all of, what, a year ago?) you are not one of the "few girls ever to have a "100% platonic relationship with a member of the opposite sex." Good God.
107
@104: The problem is that what she's telling us here is not what she's going to be telling the boyfriend.
108
@105: I'm not, and I don't think that if I were only south of 30 I would be. That was my point--I was responding to seeker6079's contention that he thought the attitude a generational one, and I think that despite that being the kind of popular attitude expressed, it is possible that at least some people under the age of 30 feel differently depending on different variables, as I do.
If your point is to expose BIATCH's misunderstanding of the phrase "100% platonic," my comment is not meant to address that.
If your point is to expose BIATCH's misunderstanding of the phrase "100% platonic," my comment is not meant to address that.
110
@95 and @100:
That's interesting, and correct re my assumption on the under-30 guess. I'm about the same age as you, and grew up in a fairly ordinary suburb but went to Catholic schools. Pretty much every date carried with it the assumption that it was at least potentially Step One on the road to marriage; the notion of a relationship for "just right now", or a hookup would have been seen as either odd or wholly unacceptable.
That's interesting, and correct re my assumption on the under-30 guess. I'm about the same age as you, and grew up in a fairly ordinary suburb but went to Catholic schools. Pretty much every date carried with it the assumption that it was at least potentially Step One on the road to marriage; the notion of a relationship for "just right now", or a hookup would have been seen as either odd or wholly unacceptable.
111
@107: Yes, that's true; according to what she wrote, she was intending to just start acting weird on him to make him nervous. Hopefully she can see 104 as an example to figure out why he isn't in the wrong for not displaying jealousy. (I have to admit that was just a modification of my response to salespeople who want to sell me the extended warranty: "You mean I'm actually going to need one? Then sell me a different product. One that isn't so damn likely to break.")
You touch on the other thing that bothered me, though. If she sees his lack of jealousy as uncaring, what happens when her first couple of gambits fail to get a rise out of him? She will see that as confirmation of her fear, and she will escalate and escalate, until she either actually does cheat for real (probably rationalizing to herself the whole time that it's okay because he clearly doesn't care about her), or she succeeds in making him totally paranoid. (What a cruel thing to do to a naturally trusting person.) Or, best result, he figures out what she's up to and drops her for being a manipulative drama-torture-artist.
You touch on the other thing that bothered me, though. If she sees his lack of jealousy as uncaring, what happens when her first couple of gambits fail to get a rise out of him? She will see that as confirmation of her fear, and she will escalate and escalate, until she either actually does cheat for real (probably rationalizing to herself the whole time that it's okay because he clearly doesn't care about her), or she succeeds in making him totally paranoid. (What a cruel thing to do to a naturally trusting person.) Or, best result, he figures out what she's up to and drops her for being a manipulative drama-torture-artist.
112
@95,97: I thought hooking up got easier after the first time, when you realized you weren't going to fall madly in love, and you were both a bit relieved.
Speaking of generational differences ... "hooking up" which doesn't carry sexual implications among the older (35+) set. As in, "Seems like every time I ask this 20-something female friend of mine if she wants to hook up, we end up fucking. Which is awesome, but confusing."
Then the newly single, nice-boy, older guy gets schooled and discovers he's been boldly propositioning his younger female friends. And, even more shocking, they've been accepting without raising an eyebrow.
Speaking of generational differences ... "hooking up" which doesn't carry sexual implications among the older (35+) set. As in, "Seems like every time I ask this 20-something female friend of mine if she wants to hook up, we end up fucking. Which is awesome, but confusing."
Then the newly single, nice-boy, older guy gets schooled and discovers he's been boldly propositioning his younger female friends. And, even more shocking, they've been accepting without raising an eyebrow.
113
@100: Upon reflection, what you said. The situations where it was easy to stay friends all involved unremarkable sex.
114
@111: "If she sees his lack of jealousy as uncaring, what happens when her first couple of gambits fail to get a rise out of him? She will see that as confirmation of her fear, and she will escalate and escalate, until she either actually does cheat for real (probably rationalizing to herself the whole time that it's okay because he clearly doesn't care about her), or she succeeds in making him totally paranoid."
You're thinking about this too rationally. Her letter indicates to me that in the absence of nervous tension and drama, she self-generates enough to keep her entertained. She doesn't want a stable relationship, she wants something a little more scripted.
You're thinking about this too rationally. Her letter indicates to me that in the absence of nervous tension and drama, she self-generates enough to keep her entertained. She doesn't want a stable relationship, she wants something a little more scripted.
115
@93(seeker), all in all I do see myself agreeing with you; it's just that my experience with listening to women and men complain about what went wrong in their failed marriages/relationships (people tended to like me as a confidante; but my sample is probably smaller than yours, only about a few dozen people of both genders) made me think differently, more along the lines of 'people who don't know how to talk about things -- make big secrets of, or have big emotional/negative (and I include here also ignoring) reactions to, sexual things are more or less evenly distributed'. You've never seen a marriage split because the woman wanted X and her husband wouldn't do it; I heard precisely this story from two women, former girlfriends of mine, about previous boyfriends. (In both cases, said women were submissives, and their boyfriends just couldn't process that.) But indeed I have, as you, heard that more often from men than from women.
You wrote:
Well, this is indeed a list of people who didn't know what to do with their kinks, and were ashamed/afraid enough not to be open about it with their husbands. I've met women like that. I've also met men like that -- hell, I myself was once the male equivalent of your file B, and I've met a few male C's ("I can only do this with a prostitute"). But all in all... not knowing what one wants, feeling that what one wants "is wrong" or "bad", and disconnecting it from the person one loves (a kinky version of the Madonna-whore dichotomy) are all symptomes of a culture that still tells people the wrong things about sex.
More...
You wrote:
In file A it might have been because the wife didn't like her husband enough to want to do the kink with him; in B it's because she didn't know she had the kink (or wasn't willing to face it) until the next lover came along, in File C because it's a kink she can only engage in with someone with whom she has an emotional distance (and so on and so on).
Well, this is indeed a list of people who didn't know what to do with their kinks, and were ashamed/afraid enough not to be open about it with their husbands. I've met women like that. I've also met men like that -- hell, I myself was once the male equivalent of your file B, and I've met a few male C's ("I can only do this with a prostitute"). But all in all... not knowing what one wants, feeling that what one wants "is wrong" or "bad", and disconnecting it from the person one loves (a kinky version of the Madonna-whore dichotomy) are all symptomes of a culture that still tells people the wrong things about sex.
116
@112: ""hooking up" which doesn't carry sexual implications among the older (35+) set. As in, "Seems like every time I ask this 20-something female friend of mine if she wants to hook up, we end up fucking. Which is awesome, but confusing."
I find that bizarre.
"Meet up", sure. But the origin of "hook up" involves goods and services being "exchanged", so there's the implicit suggestion of canoodling. That, or your friends are sleeping with their drug dealers.
I find that bizarre.
"Meet up", sure. But the origin of "hook up" involves goods and services being "exchanged", so there's the implicit suggestion of canoodling. That, or your friends are sleeping with their drug dealers.
118
@116: If you mean that it was bizarre of me to not know I was propositioning someone, then in retrospect I have to agree with you, but I thought I was asking if they wanted to hang out.
In my defense, "hooking up" meant "meeting up" to most people (at least that I knew) until the last 15 years or so. I still hear people my age (44) or older using it to mean "meeting up." When the relationship allows, I explain the new meaning to them, lest they accidentally proposition any younglings.
In my defense, "hooking up" meant "meeting up" to most people (at least that I knew) until the last 15 years or so. I still hear people my age (44) or older using it to mean "meeting up." When the relationship allows, I explain the new meaning to them, lest they accidentally proposition any younglings.
119
@116 I'm 40, and we used to say "hook up" to mean "meet up" all the time; it was very standard and never occurred to anyone that it meant an exchange of anything. I have to carefully remember not to use it.
121
oh, I always have to edit myself so I don't say "hook up" meaning to meet up when talking to anyone under 35 or so!
122
@seeker6079 (63, etc)
The anecdotes you have collected in your tenure as a divorce lawyer are no more or less reliable than the anecdotes supplied by kinky women here. Neither are data, and neither are a more valid a source of information or truth than the other--and its embarrassing to pretend otherwise.
The anecdotes you have collected in your tenure as a divorce lawyer are no more or less reliable than the anecdotes supplied by kinky women here. Neither are data, and neither are a more valid a source of information or truth than the other--and its embarrassing to pretend otherwise.
123
@1. Yes we're out there. And we struggle sometimes with finding kinky guys. I met a guy recently who asked what I was into. I gave him a very brief and nonspecific answer since we hadn't hooked up yet. he asked me what S&M was. Needless to say, we didn't hook up.
124
@1: I am a kinky woman and do exist, but I admit that my relative rarity causes me to have very few dating/relationship problems and therefore I have no reason to write to Dan.
125
I think there are lots of kinky women whose kink is scary to themselves AND not very appealing to the kind of reasonable adults they want to marry. There are more submissive men AND women than there are dominants of either gender. In my experience the solution, as Dan says, is for people to do a better job admitting their kinks, despite their fear...and for everyone to be more GGG about playing the role their partner wants them to, from time to time.
None of which is any help to the LW now, but maybe in 5 years, with a different lover.
None of which is any help to the LW now, but maybe in 5 years, with a different lover.
126
@63 seeker,
Some time back there was a letter from a guy about his ex-wife, with whom he had attempted to try BDSM, showing up in pictures online being disciplined by a local couple. Dan of course gave advice about how the LW should deal with it, but no one came up with a why it happened. I think your cases explain it.
Needless to say the LW was distraught by his, and his ex's, circumstance. It seems so pointless that she couldn't share with her then husband unless she couldn't stand him, but you indicate the opposite, that she cared too much to deal with his knowledge of her. I was wondering though, do you ever see couples reconciling after the kinkster comes out?
It all seems so sad.
Peace.
Some time back there was a letter from a guy about his ex-wife, with whom he had attempted to try BDSM, showing up in pictures online being disciplined by a local couple. Dan of course gave advice about how the LW should deal with it, but no one came up with a why it happened. I think your cases explain it.
Needless to say the LW was distraught by his, and his ex's, circumstance. It seems so pointless that she couldn't share with her then husband unless she couldn't stand him, but you indicate the opposite, that she cared too much to deal with his knowledge of her. I was wondering though, do you ever see couples reconciling after the kinkster comes out?
It all seems so sad.
Peace.
127
@99 - you nailed it on the head. Her self-manufactured drama screams "Pay attention to me!" even though it isn't worth it. Next guy will be a different situation so she has another excuse to write in.
128
@126 - Not a single reconciliation. In those cases the wife, having had a chance to explore that part of her sexuality, never looked back to the now-dead relationship. The marriage was like an aircraft that broke up because of the failure of one part: the pilots might go on to fly other planes, but there was nothing that anyone could do to turn wreckage into a flying proposition again.
@122. Really? I rather think that embarrassment lies more in raging against every single post on the web which isn't a peer-reviewed paper, but, hey, whatever floats your boat. One thing that I have noticed, though, is that the tendency to say "that's not data!" increases in angry lockstep with how much the sayer disagrees with what is being said, whereas things (s)he agrees with cease to be invalid and magically become things like "valuable firsthand accounts" or "applicable life experience".
@122. Really? I rather think that embarrassment lies more in raging against every single post on the web which isn't a peer-reviewed paper, but, hey, whatever floats your boat. One thing that I have noticed, though, is that the tendency to say "that's not data!" increases in angry lockstep with how much the sayer disagrees with what is being said, whereas things (s)he agrees with cease to be invalid and magically become things like "valuable firsthand accounts" or "applicable life experience".
129
@128 seeker,
Just out of curiosity, while you didn't see reconciliation in those cases, what about in others (in the general case)?
It seems counterintuitive that relations end because one party held the other in too high a regard, but we are talking about humans here. At least nowadays the freedom to try again to find whatever it is they are looking for exists. I wonder, Swingrich notwithstanding, if the batshit right would want to decrease the possibility of divorce after they get rid of contraception. Maybe they feel that if they've got to suffer, everybody's got to suffer.
Peace.
Just out of curiosity, while you didn't see reconciliation in those cases, what about in others (in the general case)?
It seems counterintuitive that relations end because one party held the other in too high a regard, but we are talking about humans here. At least nowadays the freedom to try again to find whatever it is they are looking for exists. I wonder, Swingrich notwithstanding, if the batshit right would want to decrease the possibility of divorce after they get rid of contraception. Maybe they feel that if they've got to suffer, everybody's got to suffer.
Peace.
130
@undead ayn rand, who wrote:
Indeed, and there is where her young age becomes clear. She made me think of my 9-year-old daughter who keeps coming up with scripts that have to be literally played out without any deviations for fun to be had. As if people started out paying more attention to roles than to other people, and only with time learned that people are the important thing, not the roles they play.
She doesn't want a stable relationship, she wants something a little more scripted.
Indeed, and there is where her young age becomes clear. She made me think of my 9-year-old daughter who keeps coming up with scripts that have to be literally played out without any deviations for fun to be had. As if people started out paying more attention to roles than to other people, and only with time learned that people are the important thing, not the roles they play.
131
@128, it is indeed a fact that people tend to use the "that's not data" argument more often when they disagree. Another human frailty isn't it? We like the things that support our viewpoint and dislike those that don't.
I'm a little curious about another aspect of your experience: what was it like to be a divorce lawyer? The impression that movies give is that it must be either very sad -- the lawyer deals with lots of little human tragedies, often evitable ones, and then becomes disillusioned with relationships, or then somewhat 'evil-like' -- the 'bad divorce lawyer' preys on people who let their doubts or insecurities instead of their love make the decision. Do any of those seem familiar, or are movies (as they often do) just exaggerating?
I'm a little curious about another aspect of your experience: what was it like to be a divorce lawyer? The impression that movies give is that it must be either very sad -- the lawyer deals with lots of little human tragedies, often evitable ones, and then becomes disillusioned with relationships, or then somewhat 'evil-like' -- the 'bad divorce lawyer' preys on people who let their doubts or insecurities instead of their love make the decision. Do any of those seem familiar, or are movies (as they often do) just exaggerating?
132
I hope that BIATCH's twisted world view is something she can grow out of.
I was curious about this: "a few jealous (or vindictive) ex flings who would go out of their way to fuck us up."
By calling them "flings" she's saying those women were never important to her beloved long-distance boyfriend - they never meant anything to him, certainly not nearly as much as SHE means to him. Because she's the real deal. They were just "flings".
If he never felt love for any woman before her, maybe that's a warning that he's just not a loving guy, and she's not going to get the adoration from him that she craves. Though that's something I'd worry about more with a 40-something man than a college kid.
Also, just wondering what she means by the "ex flings" going out of their way to "fuck them up". Canceling their dinner reservations? Putting extra garbage in their bins so the garbage company hits them with a surcharge? Kidnapping their pets? Breaking their windows? Stabbing them with knives?
Haven't slogged through the whole comments section - has the LW chimed in?
I was curious about this: "a few jealous (or vindictive) ex flings who would go out of their way to fuck us up."
By calling them "flings" she's saying those women were never important to her beloved long-distance boyfriend - they never meant anything to him, certainly not nearly as much as SHE means to him. Because she's the real deal. They were just "flings".
If he never felt love for any woman before her, maybe that's a warning that he's just not a loving guy, and she's not going to get the adoration from him that she craves. Though that's something I'd worry about more with a 40-something man than a college kid.
Also, just wondering what she means by the "ex flings" going out of their way to "fuck them up". Canceling their dinner reservations? Putting extra garbage in their bins so the garbage company hits them with a surcharge? Kidnapping their pets? Breaking their windows? Stabbing them with knives?
Haven't slogged through the whole comments section - has the LW chimed in?
133
LiveAndLet @132.
No, the LW hasn't chipped in.
Also, you said
No, the LW hasn't chipped in.
Also, you said
If he never felt love for any woman before her, maybe that's a warning that he's just not a loving guy, and she's not going to get the adoration from him that she craves.. I'm glad you said "maybe" simply because I've seen very nice people in their 30s, 40s and 50s find their first real love. It's lovely when it happens, and didn't reflect an inability to feel love before, just that they never found anybody who made them feel that way before.
134
I'm under 35 and tend to use 'hook up' to mean meet up with someone who's schedules tend to clash with mine making meeting up tricky.. never occurred to me I was propositioning my mates! I am in the UK tho so maybe it's different..
Otherwise, I thought I was a kinky girl and in a pretty kinky relationship until I started reading Dan Savage, now the fact we indulge in spanking (my kink) and a little watersports (his) and fantasise about alot more and are GGG enough to indulge each other seems quite vanilla by comparision..
Otherwise, I thought I was a kinky girl and in a pretty kinky relationship until I started reading Dan Savage, now the fact we indulge in spanking (my kink) and a little watersports (his) and fantasise about alot more and are GGG enough to indulge each other seems quite vanilla by comparision..
135
Whoops.. should have read 'seems quite vanilla by comparison to some of Dan's letters!' I got distracted midway though commenting..
136
seeker6079, @133
You're right! I saw that happen at least once, come to think of it. Good to remember.
When I wrote that, I was thinking of a dear friend whose heart was broken by a man in his early 50's whose dating resume was full of 4-month-or-so relationships (guess how long theirs lasted).
I'd like to avoid heartbreak, so I try to find patterns and red flags, something that will keep me and people I care about safe from experiencing that kind of pain. But overgeneralizing is not a good thing - I know that I don't like to be judged that way.
You're right! I saw that happen at least once, come to think of it. Good to remember.
When I wrote that, I was thinking of a dear friend whose heart was broken by a man in his early 50's whose dating resume was full of 4-month-or-so relationships (guess how long theirs lasted).
I'd like to avoid heartbreak, so I try to find patterns and red flags, something that will keep me and people I care about safe from experiencing that kind of pain. But overgeneralizing is not a good thing - I know that I don't like to be judged that way.
137
Maybe he's not particularly concerned about your going away because he can't WAIT TO GET BE FREE OF YOU FOR A SUBSTANTIAL STRETCH OF TIME! Is this guy even your b/f or have you deluded yourself into thinking this? Long-term relationships usually have the added plus that boundaries aren't as clearly drawn as day-in and day-out interaction. Maybe the lack of jealousy is because he's more into dating/being with stable WOMEN as opposed to someone who is still in passing "he's so dreamy" notes in high school.
You may be a few mind-games away from that very awkward conversation when you (pathological need for attention) get gently sat down, hands taken in hands and politely told by a wonderful, independent, easy-going and 'whatever' attitude guy who has been nothing but compassionate, level-headed and kind that, "you're not exactly what I'm looking for in a long-term relationship...."
You may be a few mind-games away from that very awkward conversation when you (pathological need for attention) get gently sat down, hands taken in hands and politely told by a wonderful, independent, easy-going and 'whatever' attitude guy who has been nothing but compassionate, level-headed and kind that, "you're not exactly what I'm looking for in a long-term relationship...."
139
@121
And I'm still not sure what "make out" precisely means.
(Not a native English speaker, not living in an English-speaking country.)
oh, I always have to edit myself so I don't say "hook up" meaning to meet up when talking to anyone under 35 or so!
And I'm still not sure what "make out" precisely means.
(Not a native English speaker, not living in an English-speaking country.)
141
@140 Married --
Thanks! When I asked this question previously (not here) I couldn't get an answer. Presumably people did not believe that it was a real question and not some kind joke.
"To make out" means to cuddle and to kiss, usually clothed.
Thanks! When I asked this question previously (not here) I couldn't get an answer. Presumably people did not believe that it was a real question and not some kind joke.
143
@141: In my experience, it usually implies kissing with tongue- you wouldn't call it making out if it were just a series of closed-mouth kisses.
144
@139 etc: "Making out" may also include some amount of manual bodily exploration of a sort that pushes the boundaries of the word "cuddling."
Basically, more than a hug and a kiss, and more than a cuddle. but less than overtly sexual activities.
Basically, more than a hug and a kiss, and more than a cuddle. but less than overtly sexual activities.
145
@139 etc -- if you came during a make out session, that would be quite a surprise. But not unheard of ;-)
146
@144,
I was trying to include the "groping" aspect in a simple definition, but couldn't come up with one without using the baseball analogy.
@140 Euro,
1st base is kissing.
2nd base is touching her breasts.
3rd base is touching below his/her waist (and I suppose oral).
Home is intercourse.
(Listen to "Paradise by the Dashboard Light" for a comedic example)
Making out is cuddling, kissing, and perhaps going as far as 3rd base (again usually while clothed).
Peace.
I was trying to include the "groping" aspect in a simple definition, but couldn't come up with one without using the baseball analogy.
@140 Euro,
1st base is kissing.
2nd base is touching her breasts.
3rd base is touching below his/her waist (and I suppose oral).
Home is intercourse.
(Listen to "Paradise by the Dashboard Light" for a comedic example)
Making out is cuddling, kissing, and perhaps going as far as 3rd base (again usually while clothed).
Peace.
147
Interesting expression, "making out". I always found it a bit puzzling: why this choice of words for this meaning? The only other meanings for 'make out' I knew of where 'perceive with effort, decipher, discern' ("because of the fog, I couldn't make out the details of the landscape") and 'make out a check'. By what metaphor did this verb + particle combination come to mean "sexy kiss-and-cuddle"? All etymonline tells me is that the sexual meaning is first recorded from the end of the 1930s; how it appeared, by what metaphor or comparison, is, as far as I can tell, still a mystery. Do you guys have any ideas?
148
@147, I don't own this book, I looked at it online through GoogleBooks. So I don't really understand why the title is about "Shakespearean and Stuart literature," but it gives at least some definitions from the 20th century. Still, for what it's worth, this seems plausible to me:
>> 'make out', in early use to indicate the making of the score that concludes a game, which is recorded from 1939 with the meaning 'to have sexual intercourse.'... 'make' [as] seduce is recorded from 1918. (p. 846)>>
From Gordon Williams, A dictionary of sexual language and imagery in Shakespearean and Stuart literature (1994)
Granted, none of that explains why it came to mean less than full sexual intercourse. Maybe someone else has a clue.
>> 'make out', in early use to indicate the making of the score that concludes a game, which is recorded from 1939 with the meaning 'to have sexual intercourse.'... 'make' [as] seduce is recorded from 1918. (p. 846)>>
From Gordon Williams, A dictionary of sexual language and imagery in Shakespearean and Stuart literature (1994)
Granted, none of that explains why it came to mean less than full sexual intercourse. Maybe someone else has a clue.
Comments (149) RSS