Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
is a proud member of the
network
network
All contents © Noisy Creek, Inc.
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
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?
Now BIATCH needs to take it. Which I doubt she will.
5280--yes, we're out there.
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.
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.
You're surrounded, @ 1.
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.
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.
(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.)
This is whorism not infantilism.
She clearly can't get enough and has to walk that bridge for satisfaction.
@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.
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.
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.
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!
Curious to hear what else are you and @14 are hoping a fella might do for you.
I can already hear this idiot talking like a very special episode of The Real World.
And, it is 100% okay to dismiss anyone less than 25. Maybe even 45?
Or maybe that expression should just evaporate forever.
Gross.
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.
@5 -- No, just young and stupid. Possibly lobotomized, I'd guess from that letter.
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.
(But he is also aware of the difference between indifferent and not jealous, so I can come by to play any ol' time ;)
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.
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.
If only I'd listened to myself.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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'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.
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.
You dirty slut.
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.
She certainly does.
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.
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.
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!"
He probably likes crazy ex's. They demonstrate how important he is to other people.
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.
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.
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.
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. :-)
But yeah, lots of invented-drama at that age.
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.
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.
Okay. She is too young to be in a relationship.
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.
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.
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.