@103 (Philophile): I don't know the Louis CK bit you're talking about, but in general, I would say that if two people are making out, they mutually decide whether things are going to go further. For instance, Pat can say "I really want to ________________." to which Chris replies either "Me, too," or "Yeah," or something along those lines, or "Not tonight," or "No," or "I don't think so."

Or Pat can simply make a further physical move which will either be welcomed and encouraged and reciprocated, or rebuffed. That is a dialogue, albeit a non-verbal one, and Pat should respect it.

@104 Statutory can technically be consensual.

And yeah, being turned off by clear signals is what reminded me of "I don't wanna ask first and ruin it so I'm just gonna take a shot and rape her, what the hell?"

I am sorry that you were raped. Not surprised, I don't think I know any women who were never sexually assaulted. Some were chilling/life threatening, but mostly the garden variety lack of consent at a moment little force was required & no charges. I didn't think it was a leap to connect this with guys who don't ask permission for fear of rejection.

I think that giving guys a hard time about asking permission is shooting yourself in the foot myself.

@106: No one in this conversation has brought up statutory rape.

For the last time I'M NOT TURNED OFF BY CLEAR SIGNALS; I'M TURNED OFF BY BEING ASKED PERMISSION TO BE KISSED.
Please read more carefully.

I also have never given anyone a "hard time" about "asking permission;" I just find that unsexy. Even so, if I had been flirting with someone and he asked, I would probably half-heartedly give permission à la the scenario EricaP outlined. But the man would be characterized in my mind as someone I wasn't terribly sexually attracted to.

Thank you for your concern vis-a-vis "shooting [myself] in the foot," but I'm doing just fine.

All of the signals you described were nonverbal, which I call unclear. You did mention the impossibility of consensual rape. Calling it unattractive is giving the behavior a hard time. I understand you. I disagree.

@108, pushing someone off me or pulling him close; kicking someone in the balls or dropping to my knees and unzipping his fly -- these are non-verbal but they're not unclear.

Saying "I might wanna, I dunno" -- that's verbal, but not clear.

What makes you think verbal is clear and nonverbal is unclear?

Here's the Louis CK bit:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4hNaFkb…

But note that she was nonverbally pushing him away.

:16 - "I put my hand up her shirt, and she stops me"
:21 - "I put my hand on her ass, and she stops me."
:23 - "after a while she went home; nothing happened"

:32 - [next day, she asks: what happened, why didn't we have sex?]

This isn't about verbal = clear and non-verbal = unclear. She was sending mixed, non-verbal messages, on purpose. She wanted him to be "rapey" -- ignoring the fact that in between kissing and humping him she was pushing his hands off her body.

Neither nocutename nor I are advocating for that shit. When we are enthusiastic, we are damn enthusiastic. No mixed signals, just a preference for very clear non-verbal signals.

@nocutename - I understand what you are talking about. It's just a tendency recently to view consent issues in black and white.

@99, sharp quick pain (as in a hard pinch) usually makes me collapse into happy giggles; steady, thuddy blows gets me to happy moans. Uncomfortably tight bondage combined with a sudden painful surprise has brought me to tears several times. (Not my favorite.)

Getting to safeword is a different kind of scene. Like many subs I try not to safeword, and so doms will sometimes demonstrate that it's not up to me to decide whether or not I'm going to safeword. The last time I safeworded was because of this nasty implement being used on my ass: http://www.bugspraycart.com/traps/electr…

But really, more useful than teaching subs that they can be forced to say their safeword, is encouraging them to say "yellow" whenever it seems relevant. Where "Red" is a standard safeword, "yellow" is a standard code that means, approximately, "don't stop the scene, but I'm having trouble taking what you're dishing out and would like you to ease off a little."

@EricaP: I'm intrigued: how bad was the zapper, as in, is it actually suitable for playing or was it rather an unfortunate experiment?

Also note that I'm not against verbal signals. I'm very linguistically and verbally attuned, so there's almost nothing sexier to me than to be told what someone wants to do/is planning to do.

Told, not asked.

And then, should I not be interested, I can say so; since the situation is a consensual one, my non-interest is respected.

This works better after we've already established a mutual sexual interest, but in a milder form it can also be a prelude to a first kiss.

As for mixed signals, they can come in both verbal and non-verbal forms and I hate them either way. I try to make sure I never send them, as I know how much they confuse and annoy me. I didn't click on the link to the Louis CK bit that EricaP provided, but I read her description and that's in no way whatsoever what I do or what I want to do or have done to me.

@115, I misspoke. I should have started the post @96 with: "When I bottom to an unfamiliar top..."

@113, some people like that kind of electrical play. It won't harm the bottom, generally -- it was just too intense for me. A violet wand delivers less pain and is more my speed. .

Asperger's person here. I find it startling how casual the commenters here are about unwanted kisses. I was under the impression that unwanted kisses are sexual assault. (Well, here in Canada kissing someone without consent legally is sexual assault, but in practice people ignore that.) Eh, learn something new every day.

I am happy to read that there are multiple women here who like to be asked verbally. I thought that was a once in a lifetime experience! I think it's sad that EricaP and Nocutename would be put off by being asked verbally, but then I'm put off when women I'm attracted to kiss me without asking verbally first. Anyway, realistically, I'd be completely oblivious if a woman attempted to get my attention with eye contact and smiles (well, it's not entirely impossible I'd notice it, but if I did notice it I wouldn't notice the smile and would interpret the staring as hostility), so things would never get anywhere near kissing.

Alison Cummins: "A man on the spectrum probably needs to accept that any woman he partners with is likely to be more NT than he is"
Now THERE'S an understatement! I find it really wonderful to know that women like you exist. :)

nocutename "I would categorize such a man as not assertive enough": "Not assertive" is doing nothing and hoping the other person will. Asking a woman whether she'd like it if I kissed her is assertive but not aggressive. Acting as if I can understand a unfamiliar woman's body language when I know I can't (i.e. kissing her without asking verbally first) would be stupid, not assertive. I appreciate that this turns you off, but it's not an issue of assertiveness. And that asking turns some women off, doesn't justify my kissing other women who don't want to be kissed by me and haven't given consent.

@115 EricaP's list seemed to me like it was for people who were playing for the first time. Establishing general preferences and what reactions mean is good practice, not Pillow Princessing like what you're describing.

Once you're established with a play partner, they're much more likely to know the pool of stuff you're always up for. And since doms and subs are people, they can talk before getting into a scene anyway, and establish what both of them are feeling like doing in particular that day.

And, of course, if a dom isn't sure what they want to do is something the sub will be okay with, they can phrase it way more domtastically than your reductio ad adsurbam example. "Do you deserve", "Can you take", "Will you beg me to" are all more likely to work with people's dynamics than "May I". Ha! Look at me, talking like I think you're in good faith.

Choices between two pleasures, challenges or evils are good dom practice, too.

Hunter78, “autie” is what my autie friends and I use. (Or would you prefer me to say, ‘“autie” is what my friends with autism and I use’?) I don’t use “aspie” because Asperger syndrome has been dropped from the DSM.

I use it fondly. I wasn’t aware that it was pejorative, though I know that “NT” is often (not always) used pejoratively. Still, I use NT because it’s useful and I am one so I can.

If “autie” is perceived as pejorative, I will stop using it in public spaces.

@Old Crow: If you go back and read my earlier posts, especially the ones @ 61, 65, and 67, you'll see I was trying to address the need for someone with Asperger's to find ways to ascertain whether advances would be welcomed, given the fact that some women find asking for a kiss to be a turn off. I realize that not all women feel that way, but a significant number do.

You're right that "not assertive" is doing nothing and hoping the other person will, so maybe I should find a way to re-phrase that feeling I would get. The problem is that all the terms I can think of are couched in aggressiveness, and some people on this thread, Asperger's aside, seem to only be capable of seeing things in stark black-and-white contrast so that it will read to them like sexual assault when that's not at all what I mean. Aggressiveness doesn't always equal assault.

But think of a first kiss in the movies. I've rarely if ever heard the leading man ask the love interest if he may kiss her. Instead, they both realize the attraction is there and generally he initiates the kiss, which she willingly responds to. He's aggressive in that he actively goes for what he wants, yet within the context of the relationship that's been established, it's welcomed. It isn't considered sexual assault. She is clearly consenting by her physical reaction--i.e. she kisses back.

This doesn't mean that a welcomed and reciprocated kiss is consent to further sexual contact, of course. But at every stage of forward development there are lots of ways that one person can indicate that more sexual contact is okay with him/her or not okay. And there are respectful ways short of asking "may I touch you here" that the person who initiates it can employ. If it isn't respect that you're thinking of, but simply a way to avoid legal charges of sexual assault, I would think that in most cases the same conditions apply. If one is so worried that an unwelcome advance is likely to lead to a rape charge . . . well I don't know. I guess you ask permission at every moment and take your chances that the object of your desire won't be turned off by that. Or you start by saying something like "I'm going to assume consent is implied, so if you don't want me to do something, tell me so, and of course I'll stop." After the initial kissing, that is.

As for the non-verbal cues of "eye contact and smiles," those are preliminary cues. If I simply made eye contact with someone I didn't know and smiled at him, without exchanging a word, I wouldn't expect him to simply walk up to me and kiss me. Then again, if our interaction had been limited to silent eye contact and smiling, I would be equally put off if he walked up to me and asked me if it would be okay to kiss me.

In my experience, that first kiss comes after conversation.

Philophile @106: “Statutory can technically be consensual.”

No. No it can’t. You don’t understand the concept of consent.

*** *** ***
RE being asked: I don’t need it to be phrased as a request for permission, I just like it to be verbal. Since kissing is nice and I don’t mind kissing people I like, even just checking in verbally after a kiss can be ok.

The very most hottest for me is being asked for a kiss so I get to bestow it. See @37.

RE eye contact:

NT people who have gotten to the point of wanting to kiss will often sustain eye contact to the point of creating tension and then break the tension with a kiss. If one doesn’t want to kiss, one looks away before it get to that point. It’s the dance.

Autistics usually HATE eye contact. They can do some eye contact in low-stress, low cognitive load situations but they aren’t going to be gazing into anyone’s limpid pools looking for desire. Other cues are needed. Looking away and telling the other person what you want works well as a cue.

Alison Cummins: I hope I'm not too nosy, but I'm curious. You say you are neurotypical, but you seem to prefer to date people on the autism spectrum. Is there a particular reason for that preference or is it just coincidental?

Old Crow @118,
If you interpret my eye contact as hostility, then, as you say: "things would never get anywhere near kissing," since we're not compatible.

If you can't tell whether a stranger is into you, then don't kiss her until you do have confidence she's into you. Easy enough. If asking permission to kiss her gives you that confidence, that's great.

I have no problem with you asking me if you can kiss me, as long as you have no problem with me answering no. The right woman will say 'yes' -- I'm just not the right woman.

nocutename, curious is good, asking is good.

I’m analytical. I’m literal the way people on the spectrum are often literal. Analogy is useful because you can analyze where it works and where it breaks down. Metaphor is pointless: why not just say what you mean? Non-fiction is interesting, genre fiction is fine, poetry is torture. If you say something careless that is approximately what you mean but doesn’t make sense, I’m not going to put together the pieces and assume I understand you. I’m going to take apart what you said and ask you to justify it so I can be sure I get what you mean.

I have some autistic-style social skills that please me: I am unable to lie and I don’t make much distinction between people in terms of their value.

I have trouble with executive function the way autistics often do, seeing the details and seeing the goal but unable to see them both at the same time in a way that allows me to use the details to achieve the goal.

But I don’t test autistic. At all. Globally I function as an NT with certain autistic-type splinter skills and deficits. As I said upthread, I can do the dance — I just prefer not to always have to. Autistic-style direct communication is relaxing for me and I relate to it, but I have a broader NT-style grasp of social expectations.

For instance, our mildly autistic LW has to memorize social rules to get by. He has a lifetime’s experience of messing up and not knowing why, and having to memorize yet another rule. His default expectation is that if anything goes wrong it’s because he’s fucked up. He had a bad experience trying to hook up with someone who was too drunk and is now checking that experience against his rule-book to see what his mistake was. In his rule-book there’s a big one about not having sex with people who are too drunk because that’s sexual assault, so now he’s trying to figure out what he did wrong and whether he might be a rapist.

I don’t need to formally memorize those social rules and I’m not going to worry inappropriately about maybe having mistakes I haven’t made. Autistics have a reputation for being tactless, but in my experience they often find themselves apologizing when they don’t need to. They fear being tactless and overcompensate. I can tell this guy that he’s ok and I can explain why with simple rules (be in a place where you both have to leave to have sex, so you don’t end up having sex with someone who is too drunk to leave; don’t actively get someone drunk).

I can understand his problem and empathize but it’s not a problem I have so I can help. I like being helpful.

Does this make sense?

Also I don’t know that I *prefer* to date people on the spectrum. My type appears to be ‘artistic geek’ and they might be on the spectrum. That’s not a problem for me.

@Hunter78 (125): Aarrgghh (face palm)!
Perhaps I shouldn't have used the movie kiss as an example. But there are many other movie kisses that don't go quite that way.

I understand completely why someone who is on the autism spectrum and has a hard time reading social cues would want to get verbal confirmation and would ask the question; it seems only right and appropriate for such people to do so, both for their own peace of mind and to make sure that they aren't crossing over into sexual assault.

But I find it sort of sad that so many neurotypical people seem to have embraced the "mother may I?" model. And I find it downright distressing that to some of them, anything less constitutes sexual assault.

@Alison Cummins: That all makes sense and I thank you for taking the time and patience to explain it to me.

@122 I guess you don't understand. Consensual means giving personal permission. I do realize that children have limited legal sexual agency and I did not specify legally valid consent.

@Philophile: I guess I don't understand what point you were trying to make when you brought up statutory rape. Yes, it's consensual and yes, it's against the law. (perhaps there should be a different term for it that acknowledges the consent-but-underage aspect). So what? What does statutory rape have to do with the topic?

@Alison Cummins: Philophile @106: “Statutory can technically be consensual.”

No. No it can’t. You don’t understand the concept of consent.

The same sexual act involving the same person can be both statutory and consensual depending on the location. For example, a 15 year old could be having legally consensual sex at the southwestern corner of Colorado, yet if she adjust positions such that she and her partner cross the border to Arizona, suddenly that consensual sex act becomes rape. That's kind of weird, wouldn't you say?

Given how deeply you understand the concept of consent, explain why should it vary from state to state? What is the magic age at which someone can suddenly decide for themselves whether to have sex? Do you suppose that age varies across individuals? Do you see no distinction between consent as defined by a person's will and consent defined as an age some group of lawmakers pulled out of their ass?

If you’re specifically referring to technical language as opposed to common use, as Philophile is, then it’s not possible to say that something can be its opposite. The technical language of law is what defines statutory rape; the technical language of law also defines an age limit under which a person cannot legally consent.

If you’re thinking about common use, people use the word consent to mean all kinds of things. “He threatened to kill my children so I consented to let him run my business.” That’s not a particularly useful use, so people often specify “freely consented” as opposed to “consented.” But Philophile is not talking about common use. He’s talking about technical use. And no, if you have a law that says someone cannot consent to see under the age of twelve, and that having sex with someone under the age of twelve is therefore statutory rape, you can’t say that you can have both technical consent and technical rape simultaneously.

Perhaps what is meant is, “Sometimes people willingly do things they can’t legally consent to.”

132: What is the magic age at which someone can suddenly decide for themselves whether to have sex? Do you suppose that age varies across individuals?

Do you have a better method than setting a somewhat arbitrary age, over which we hope people are able to give meaningful consent? (Maximum legal adulthood, probably 2-3 years younger?) Subjectively, people will always claim to be banging unusually mature 11 year olds.

Lines in the sand are always imperfect at reflecting individual situations, but have the advantage of being easy to locate.

Presumably the actual unusually mature and enthusiastic 11 year olds with their compassionate, caring adult partners figure out how to do what they want without getting caught. Occasionally some of them (now older) post here to say it did them no harm.

In comment 97, JROC wrote: So it validated my already high suspicion that some people need to be drunk, high, or some kinda combination of, in order to have sex. It seems that a lot of people need help in doing the deed. Is it because of some kind of traumatic experience?

Yes. A series of traumatic experiences, also called being raised by sexually-repressed, religious lunatics. Children exposed to certain types of religious people are programmed to feel fear and shame about a variety of specific elements of sex. These programmed feelings can last a lifetime. Various drugs can shut down these negative emotions, allowing one to have sex, or more fully enjoy sex.

Talk about getting off topic.

@EricaP, nocutename: From a guy's point of view, the dance you describe sounds to me as sexy and interesting as a job interview. Same dynamic, too, assuming it's a job you want: someone holding all the cards is sitting there judging you by standards you aren't aware of.

Except that it's understood you never actually speak directly about the job you're applying for. Which might or might not be available, depending on how well you've interpreted the enigmatic job posting. It's hard to tell because there's plenty of others out there posting similarly, but only to see how many people are interested. In contrast to the ones who are on the lookout for an applicant, but haven't posted anything, and get grumpy when the vacancy is not intuitively recognized.

Me, I'll take Ms. Cummins' approach every time.

@LateBloomer: Of course you're free to prefer whatever style you like, and I can't speak for EricaP, but really? You're comparing my preference for not being explicitly asked for a first kiss and subsequent sexual activities to holding a job interview in which I refuse to tell the applicant anything about the job he's applying for and then getting grumpy when he isn't intuitively recognizing what the job entails?

Have you never heard of flirting? Have you never been able to discern whether or not a kiss might be welcomed or following that opening, whether or not more might be desired on the basis of other information? Like a positive physical response, or your partner's directly asking you for more or getting more aggressive him/herself?

All I'm saying is I would be somewhat turned off if someone I was flirting with asked me explicitly if he could kiss me. As in "may / can I kiss you?" or "is it alright / okay with you if I kiss you?" And following that kiss, if it's successful, the continuing requests for permission to achieve each new "milestone."

That's it; that's all I don't like. If I'm flirting, if I'm on a date, or I meet someone and we talk, the conversation deepens. We have a spark of connection. We continue to flirt, we smile, we hold eye contact, we may make some suggestive comments. We may or may not touch each other lightly and briefly, as in a hand on an arm for a moment. We start leaning in closer to each other than people having a conversation typically do.

You would find it traumatizing to wonder if I would welcome a kiss under those circumstances? And if you tried one and I didn't want it, and turned my head to the side, or met you with a tight peck, or said, "no," you'd be devastated?

I think the "yes means yes" and explicitly ask and get explicit permission began on college campuses (and was incorporated into some colleges' policies) because of alcohol-fueled encounters between horny young 19-year-old men and too-drunk-to-assume-that-no-objection-meant-consent 19-year-old women. It was established to prevent both sex that was regretted the morning after and rape. But it seems to have led to a sense that every single sexual encounter, no matter how mild or how clearly mutually desired, must be negotiated like a BDSM scene or a game of "Mother, May I?" It seems silly and frequently unnecessary to me, and for many women, deeply unsexy.

You can still ascertain whether the person you want to kiss wants to be kissed by you without asking permission. Unless you have great difficulty reading social cues, there are lots of ways to do this. And I maintain that you can state your desires verbally and get verbal confirmation effectively, without asking; it's called telling.

But if that--my not wanting to be asked if I can be kissed, after all the other cues that have been given and acknowledged by both parties--is too fraught with ambiguity, and makes me seem like an irrational interviewer, well, then, I guess you weren't a good candidate for the job and I wasn't providing a job you wanted anyway.

@140 - Both nocute and EP have stated that they prefer men to lead, that they enjoy being submissive. As a woman who is more dominant, I often will be the one to approach and express interest. I get my fair share of rejections; there are plenty of men who do prefer the little mating dance as opposed to clear communication. But those that do respond to me, if we strike up a conversation, and he later asks, "May I kiss you?", well, that just gets my engines revving, because he's asking permission, as he should. In my not-so-humble opinion, anyway... Really, everybody's different and if you fail to get off with someone, it's nobody's fault. You just didn't mesh.

@140, Actually, maybe we're describing a spectrum?

I'll ask someone if they want a hug (because I often can't tell from nonverbal cues). And I'll ask someone out for a drink. And I'll ask if they want to come to my hotel room. So there are many questions I find reasonable to ask, or be asked.

And if we've been making out a while, I'd find it reasonable to say: "I need to taste your cock" -- which isn't a question, but does give the other person a chance to respond, "actually, I need to go home soon."

And, presumably, on Team Asker, there comes a point where you start figuring out some of the answers without asking? After you've touched her pussy, and then her breast, and you're still kissing... presumably you can go back to an earlier body part without asking again? And maybe once you've gotten to know each other, you start knowing when a kiss will be welcome and when it won't, without having to ask each time?

I would add to the above that being a shy girl, I would not be more likely to refuse unwanted sexual advances if somebody explicitly asked me. In that situation it would be hard for me to say, no, you can't kiss me. It's kind of harder to say no to direct questions, especially if it takes you by surprise.

Religion damages the enjoyment of life of hundreds of millions of people for no good reason and you criticize me for being a wet blanket. You may want to re-evaluate your priorities with respect to levying criticism.

nocutename, LateBloomer may have heard of flirting but doesn’t see the point and gets no pleasure from it. That’s a personal thing. You and EricaP enjoy it. That’s personal too. Compare math: some people do math in their heads in the shower for pleasure, just because it’s intrinsically beautiful. Others can’t grasp it and want as little to do with it as possible. If a non-math-doer expressess a preference for hiring someone to do their taxes for them, the math-lover shouldn’t take offense.

I think flirting is fun for people with lots of self-confidence and great social skills who have little to lose. Not everyone fits into that category. The last person who flirted with me for fun was a Dom with a wife and a girlfriend. EricaP is a sub with a husband and multiple play partners. They are about as representative of the population at large as professors of complex analysis are.

I think Internet dating is the best invention ever. First of all you only meet with people who are posting a job, and you know what the job being posted is. When you meet you know that you are both thinking about sex; no guessing required. More people can enjoy the dance within these tightly defined parameters than in the wild. Broad grins, held glances, walking close together — we already know the context is sex so it’s much easier to look for and interpret these signs. If there’s any uncertainty, nobody’s going to embarass themselves by asking. Checking in with a “Do you want to have sex with me?” is fine on a date that’s explicitly to determine sexual compatibility. It might get you in serious trouble in another situation where you misjudged the other person’s motivation for smiling at you. The penalty for making a mistake is very small.

Allen Gilliam, I think LavaGirl is the wet blanket.

Alison Cummins, I understand that not everyone enjoys flirting and that not everyone has tons of self-confidence. I realize personal preferences. I can even appreciate that LateBloomer and others prefer to ask and get permission. But it was his description of the way I like to be approached as if I was being deliberately obfuscating and withholding key information about a job, then leaving someone completely in the dark as to what was expected of him and then sitting back in judgement waiting for him to misstep and getting angry when he only did what I had set him up to do that got to me.

I am only moderately confident, myself. Unlike your most recent flirt partner or EricaP, I'm not in the scene, and I don't have multiple partners. I don't go to clubs. I'm a single, 51-year-old woman, who would love to be in a relationship. I do use internet dating sites, but I would prefer to meet people more naturally; that just doesn't seem to happen in my social circle, my professional life, at my age. Once I get into the bedroom, I may be somewhat kinky, but in my approach to meeting men I am distinctly vanilla.

And yet I don't regard flirting as something that fills me with apprehension.

@nocutename--"Really? You're comparing my preference for not being asked for a first kiss and subsequent sexual activities to holding a job interview?"

No. I'm not. I'm comparing the whole flirting/hooking up process with a relative stranger (the "dance" you and EricaP describe) to holding a demented job interview. From the point of view of someone who does not enjoy the process and finds it tiresome. I like women who know me. And I like women who use their words. I find it sexy.

I was not commenting on your personal style, or EricaP's, both of which sound straightforward and enjoyable for those what like that kind of thing. I just thought it worth pointing out that what is straightforward and clear to you, may keep someone like me--due to the muddying caused by others who give mixed signals, or who use the same signal as you do to mean different things, or who flirt merely to gain interest, or who judge and dismiss, or whatever--on edge and wondering how much of an ass I'm making of myself.

I find previous posts from bisexual daters on this topic enlightening, the differences between picking up women and picking up men. It makes me think my dislike of the process is not entirely due to my own ineptness, which I'm not going to downplay.

Strangely, I do quite well in job interviews.

LateBloomer: I do quite well in job interviews, too, except for the part about negotiating a salary! In that situation, I hate doing the dance and fail at it. But in fairness, I don't think I would fare better if the person offering the job either asked what I wanted to make, or told me what the job paid. Bottom line is, whatever they say, I agree to. And then know I'm being underpaid . . .

LateBloomer @149, do you think men picking up men ask direct questions? How does that go?

Ah - FTWL in action in #149.

At least Ms Cute doesn't have to go back in time about three decades or so and do the collegiate experience all over again in an Explicit Consent atmosphere. (I shall stop now before I plot out yet another novel, this one about our intrepid heroine going back in age and attempting to free the world from... Big Sister's Oversight?)

@Nocutename: I know that I'm unlikely to get in trouble for a single unwanted kiss. My asking is an issue of respect and courtesy. I don't like unwanted or unexpected kisses, so I've resolved not to do that to other people in the future (unless specifically requested). It's just that when you described asking as "not assertive" I found that rather insulting, i.e. I'm wimpy, when I'm trying to be courteous. Anyway, no harm done.

Telling rather than asking isn't a solution because some people might not like being told the same way you don't like being asked.

@143: For what it's worth, I'm not talking about asking before every "milestone". But I do need to get verbal confirmation once as a check that my perception of mutual interest isn't just wishful thinking.

@153, I believe the old-fashioned way to get that verbal confirmation was to say "may I buy you a drink?" My proper response is "No, thanks," if I'm not interested in you in that way.

I'm not sure people today believe that saying yes to the offered drink is saying yes to at least the beginning of the flirtation dance (and agreeing not to be offended if the asker then goes in for a kiss) -- though of course it's not a commitment to follow through if you get a bad vibe or just decide it's a bad idea.

@109 I agree that assault is usually a clear signal of "I don't like you." and sexual initiation is usually a clear "I really like you". There are exceptions though (psychos or previous agreement). But this discussion involves nonverbally expressing consent, and there is no clear nonverbal signal besides initiation. Demanding initiation and receiving it, or asking permission work equally well at establishing consent. Sometimes expressing consent works as well: (I want to kiss you. Me too. =consent)

Women who initiate should also clear the consent of the guy. Personally I ask permission, or state what I want, or how far I'm comfortable going. If we're mute/nonverbal about the physical stuff, then I'm not comfortable going past kissing. Reason: Odds are much higher that we have different goals when there are no agreements (some men just want to get themselves off or have no basic understanding of clits or female O. This doesn't always work well with my goal of generally high arousal and O for both).

I think that the chance of hurt feelings is smaller when the stakes are small, like with kissing. So it's good practice for the actions that people feel strongly about, that frequently involve orgasm.

I dated a guy last year who came and left and got nasty when I wouldn't see him again. He told me that many women don't mind a guy who ends the action when he's satisfied. I do. I'm not cool with ending the action until both have given a GGG effort to satisfy. For me, that's 20-30 min of effort after I'm done or vice versa. Since it's important to me that I am satisfied with sex, I am explicit about what I expect. My primary partner got the speech almost 2 decades ago when we deflowered each other; no O's for me, no more O's for you.

Despite the stereotype that men will do anything for sex, I've met a few supposedly straight guys who aren't into pussy enough to agree to my rule. They seem to want some skilled attention, or at minimum a woman who will stay still long enough to let them jack off with a pussy, but reciprocation is too high a price. Apparently there are enough women who accept this to make the strategy viable. Thus keeping a closed mouth is risking sex with a guy like this. For me, it's not worth it, I'd rather spend a bit of effort verbalizing and get some awesome.

The point: If you're a woman who likes to get off, use your words. Even then some guys are confused by "I only have sex with people who get me off." I guess the guy last year thought it applied the first time only? I'm thinking about a 'she comes first' rule with newish guys after that. I suppose keeping silent and pushing him away until he gets you off works too. But it sounds like a recipe for frustration or date rape to me.

/end novel

@156 "got nasty when I wouldn't see him again."

So, he's a dick. No amount of verbal or non-verbal communication was going to make that guy anything but a dick.

My experience is that many guys are indeed not very desperate for sex right after they come, and cannot picture ever being desperate again, until they are. I used to be amazed by the radio silence after a first night of sex. Nothing. Till a month later, when they would text me out of the blue to ask if I wanted to "hang out." Not really thinking ahead there guys.

So, yes, I think asking to come first is a good approach if coming during sex is important to you. But moving to sit on his face and staying there is a pretty good nonverbal way to communicate the same idea.

@157 "moving to sit on his face and staying there is a pretty good nonverbal way to communicate the same idea"

Didn't think of that... If I were drinking chocolate milk it would be shooting out of my nose.

@156 "there is no clear nonverbal [way to express consent] besides initiation."

Pushing someone away, or moving their hand off (as in the Louis CK bit) is a clear way to deny consent. In order to give consent non-verbally, you participate actively in what's going on. You kiss, you touch similar body parts on your partner (arm for arm, chest for chest, ass for ass, etc.)

@158 lol

@151 EricaP--I believe Ophian has mentioned in the past, and a couple other bi posters as well (both male and female), that they find women play their cards a lot closer to their chest, are more cagey and reserved in their reactions. Generally speaking. Guys are easier to read and a lot freer with the compliments and flirting.

One woman even said she doesn't bother hitting on women because it's too much of a crapshoot, and waits for them to hit on her instead, which shows you not only that it's easier to hit on guys but also how much less effort it is to be the approached than it is to be the approacher. I think Ophian and AlanMT's standard advice to guys who are getting weary of the constantly changing expectations and the rejection is to find that shred of heteroflexibility inside and nurture it. Better for the ego.

From what you've said of yourself I imagine that you're more forthcoming and encouraging, and more polite and clear in your refusals, than the majority of women out there dating, or the majority of women period. But even so, the signals you give, clear as they may be to you, are still not universally used or understood, which is why I prefer frank, sexy discussion. For example, your drink-as-social-indicator comment reminded me of a friend living in a port town long ago who used to go from bar to bar looking for sailors so she could drink for free all night. Sit there looking fetching, have a couple expensive drinks on the boys on shore leave, and then walk out again. Their fault for being so gullible, she said. (And yes, I did give her shit for it.) So, so much for that standard.

I didn’t read LateBloomer’s description of their subjective experience of flirting as being an accusation of maliciousness on anyone’s part. I could be wrong.

@161 "Sit there looking fetching, have a couple expensive drinks on the boys on shore leave, and then walk out again"

That's a dangerous game to play unless you're friendly with all the bouncers. Glad you warned her off. Though I still think buying that drink doesn't actually entitle the guy to sex.

@162--Yes, no accusations. We have no accusations today. Sorry nocute if that's how it came across. Your and EricaP's posts were informative and gave me a bit more insight into why people might enjoy a process I don't. I thought I'd counter with not just the fact that some of us don't enjoy picking up/hooking up, but also why.

Apparently I wasn't very clear. @140, second paragraph, was an effort to explain the unhelpful context--a bar, say--in which a first encounter might take place, where everyone has different motives for being there which are entirely opaque. Some are just there for a good time with friends, some want lots of attention and will flirt to get it but aren't interested in anything else, some want attention but think that simply being there indicates availability, some would be outraged if you made that assumption, some don't really know why they're there... Picking through all that just to get to the flirty conversation in the first place takes more patience and good humour than I can muster.

Bars and parties full of women looking for a good time fill me with mild dread. Give me a slow building, smouldering romance with someone I've known for awhile. That's when I can flirt shamelessly.

''Give me a slow building, smouldering romance with someone I've known for awhile. That's when I can flirt shamelessly."

Hot.

How is it being a wet blanket/ for just pointing out/ that this thread had gone way off topic? Three people asked for help/ and you guys took it somewhere else. And yes, it may also be true( and my children would probably concur), that sometimes, I am a wet blanket/

@164, agree/ think the most remembered erotic relationship of my life, was with a man, with whom the attraction built over time.The sexual expression came after some real fire built up.
Maybe LW, the young man with mild autism- could, trust in the value of time . Allow an initial attraction to build, develop a relationship.

@164 (LateBloomer): I agree that I prefer a slowly building, smoldering romance with someone I already know to a bar flirtation.

Hunter 78: I think so. And after all, romances, whether smoldering or spontaneously combusting, need to start somewhere.

Basically, I like a good fire no matter how it starts.

@ nocute:
Somewhere above, you mentioned that you find it sad that people nowadays want to be asked before the first kiss, and consider it otherwise sexual assault.
In my opinion, being asked (or asking myself) is hot. Nothing to be sad about.
Considering every unwanted kiss an assault is silly. As long as it is stopped as soon as I communicate a clear "no!", it's unpleasant but nothing else.

@ migrationist: @ 118 Old Crow said I find it startling how casual the commenters here are about unwanted kisses. I was under the impression that unwanted kisses are sexual assault.
I consider unwanted kisses to be nuisances, but apparently others feel more strongly about them. Old Crow went on to say that although the law was generally not enforced, in Canada, an unwanted kiss meets the legal definition of sexual assault.

LateBloomer @161: "Guys are easier to read and a lot freer with the compliments and flirting."

But that doesn't mean they will ask "May I kiss you." It means they send clear signals of interest, through flirting.

Do people generally agree with my assessment @143 that it's a spectrum, from Team Flirtation (those who emphasize reading signals) to Team Asker (those who emphasize clear questions)?

I'm on Team Flirtation, but I'm happy to hear "May I sit here?" And if I say yes, and then move a little closer to you, and start touching your arm, am I not being quite clear that I won't take offense if you rest your hand on my thigh in return? Conversely, if I don't answer that question, or say yes but then back away, and if I seem to startle and brush your hand away if it rests on me -- am I not being quite clear that I'm not flirting with you?

Stick with your "May I kiss you" if it gives you comfort, but realize that a "yes" doesn't guarantee the other person is into you. Some people have a hard time saying no to direct questions.

And realize that flirtation does not require a high level of social intelligence. It just requires moving slowly and being willing to back off if the other person isn't meeting your slow moves with similar ones.

I think the polarizing of "frank discussion" and "flirting" is creating not only a false dichotomy, but is shifting the focus somewhat. Direct questions have a place in flirtation, as EricaP has pointed out: "May I sit here?" "Is this seat taken?" "Can I buy you a drink?" "Would you like to dance?" "Do you want to get some air/go outside/come back to my place?" "What are you doing later?"

Positive responses to those questions moves the flirtation along, and if you get enough of them ("sure," "thanks," "I'd love to," etc.) it's not such a giant risk to go for a kiss.

EricaP, when you put it like that it sounds simple. I’ve found it less simple, though because the context is not always clear.

I’m always happy to see people, have a big smile and because I know myself to be pushy and argumentative, in addition to toning it down when I catch myself I also overdetermine my femininity a bit in the workplace to show deference. (I work mostly with men.) So I’m happily buzzing along, visit a manager at work in a new office I haven’t visited before and sit down to casually chat and put him at ease before starting to question him about his management approach. And all of a sudden he announces, I Love My Wife Very Much. Or I’m on an out-of-town project with a team from a different town and we’re all staying at the same hotel. I want to get to know one of my team members better because he seems like a depressive and I’m one too. I suggest dinner, he accepts and then shows up with a female chaperone. Or a team member calls me up, says he’s about to drive into my city and would I like to have dinner? I accept and over dinner it turns out that he is firmly convinced that we are going up to his hotel room afterwards to have wild sex all night. It’s very difficult to disabuse him of this idea and finally I say that I can’t because our boss wouldn’t like it and I’d be fired. Or the metro is down so I rush out to take a taxi downtown, and invite the person next to me also trying to flag a taxi to get in and share the ride. He accepts and then sits there with his right hand hiding his left ring finger.

All the other situations I could attribute to bad signal-sending on my part, but really? Sharing a taxi when the metro is down during morning rush hour is an invitation to have sex? The metro has a new computer system and is going down a lot these days. When I share a taxi or hitch a ride with a woman, I *never* get the feeling she thinks I’m flirting with her.

If I were at a play party and someone approached me all friendly and wanted to go somewhere private, I’d figure they were flirting. At work I wouldn’t. Of course people flirt at work but it’s usually very light and doesn’t involve going somewhere private; and people go to lunch with colleagues all the time but rarely to flirt.

But clearly, my sensitivity to context is not shared by everyone. I understand that they are communicating non-verbally that they think I’m flirting and either do or do not wish to take it further, and I know how to tell them I’m not, or that I’m not available, but it’s very annoying to have to. And clearly it’s annoying to at least some of my colleagues to think I am.

Perhaps the guys are used to having to look carefully for small hints that a woman might be interested in them sexually because women are usually a little more opaque, and they end up making lots of false positives and interpreting any overture at all as sexual?

I use my words. If I think the interaction is being interpreted in a sexual way, I will say it’s not. A guy I just started working with IMed me, which is normal, establishing rapport with new colleagues is a good thing. But then there was lots of stuff about his ex, and how much he liked my city, and I played along for a little bit but pretty quickly said, “Flirting is fun, but you should know that I have a husband and also a boyfriend. My dance card is full.” He was welcome to continue flirting for fun, but he should know it wasn’t going anywhere. The flirting stopped immediately.

Apparently people aren’t really that good at sending and interpreting the right signals.

@174 It's probably hard to prosecute anywhere, but I believe a kiss can be sexual assault, or at least battery, in most U.S. states as well. A little googling seems to back this up.

Of course, this is more likely to make gut sense if you think about someone grabbing a person first, like the end of that Audi Superbowl commercial. If the kisser isn't treating the kiss as a touchdown, they're more likely to be approaching it in a way a simple head movement can deflect. Grab-and-dips are coded as romantic but if they're unwanted it's more or less a wrestling hold.

Alison @177, apparently some men interpret your normal way of being in the world as flirtation. I'm afraid nothing you or I do will prevent that sort of wishful delusion. To deflect, I recommend "Excuse me?" (as if you didn't hear correctly). And then quickly changing the topic.

So with "I Love My Wife Very Much," you say "Excuse me? Oh yes, we were going to talk about your management approach."

Depressive showing up with a female chaperone is not an issue that I can see. Taxi guy, I also don’t see the problem. Just get out your phone or look out the window.

When Team Member indicates that sex is on the agenda, you say "Thanks, but no thanks." You can also talk about how much fun you had last weekend with your husband. Instead of blaming circumstances (boss wouldn't like it), it's far better to indicate your own disinterest in him. If he won't take no as an answer, leave the table. If he won't let you walk away, call for help.

>> I know how to tell them...I’m not available, but it's very annoying to have to. >>

Sorry, even if everyone on SL agreed Team Asker was right, it wouldn't stop other people in the world from misinterpreting your friendliness as flirtation. The good news is that it usually ends when you hit fifty (or earlier, as in my case).

Stunned the nation, Wow/ what power.
And excuse me if I point out the bleeding obvious/
Have noticed quite a lot of critisisim goes down on these posts.. And not just from the trolls. And I do think I copped the occasional wet blanket tag.

Anyway. Please register my deepest apology, for stunning the nation/ but still a bit confused how reading about someone sitting on some persons face to force an orgasm to be given, was really pertinent to helping any of the LWs.

EricaP, I’m going to be fifty in July. The guys in the dating scene seem even more interested than they were fifteen years ago.

I was perfectly satisfied with the ways I was handling these situations. I wasn’t complaining about being assaulted. Just... the way you presented flirting vs not wanting to flirt sounded simple, but in my life I totally get LateBloomer. How do you know what’s going on? How do you know if you’re being invited to flirt? How do you tell the difference between a self-confident woman whose gates don’t go up immediately, and a woman who wants to jump your bones? How do you know which of your behaviours are being interpreted as flirtation? How do you know whether this is flirtation for its own sake or a serious effort to get into your pants?

Yes, there might be ways to determine all these things but unless you enjoy the process of determining all these things for its own sake it can seem overwhelming. Many guys out there don’t seem to bother even trying. They just go on the assumption that everything’s a go until you hit the brakes hard. Flirting with these guys is not so much a dance as a hard gallop.

LavaGirl,

Many of the commenters here are internet "journalists", a different breed of journalism with an increased disregard for truth and accuracy, yet for some reason revel in the erudite pass time of claiming to be The Authority on grammar.

They cannot ever be wrong and never apologize, it easier to throw up some bogus internet "facts" that back up their claim.

They are a tight nit, tech saavy bunch of want to be anarchists who come from very wealthy families.

The believe in mob rule, not traditional anarchistic view points of ethics, they only problem is they manipulate the mob, they desire to control the mob, and like typical egotistical males they take great pleasure in their ability to overpower people, it's just that the latest rape-mentality that these weak men (and a few women who have adopted their mentality) the inferiority they are compensating for leads to them "getting off" at invading your intellect.

they may have tech knowledge, but they certainly don't give a fuck about truth, nor science, they are all about getting their slice of the national treasure which they believe they are entitled to

pay no attention to them erudite idiots, people who make their living with speech, and abuse the very rights they claim to hold so dearly aren't worth jack shit, if you are lacking in areas such as having your privacy invaded, they might be just what your looking for, otherwise they are just your average tabloid, journoterrorist sell outs with bad attitudes

Dirtclustit, your mean I don't have the power to Stun a nation? Gez, they were just playing with me?
All good/ but guessed as much/ that some people, have grown to believe they "own" this site/ and I have come in late to the party( oh, that's right/ I popped on the party/ or was that someone's face I pooped on- just can't keep up)..

@Hunter78, I'd tell you to go fuck yourself, but then we'd probably get a three hundred word description of how you would go about that..

For most people, building relationships is hard, especially since any two people are usually looking to each other for different things. A wants to network professionally with B, but B is just looking to get laid; C wants to be friends with D, but D just wants C as a bridge partner; E wants to date F, but F wants friends-with-benefits... etc. etc.

I don't think there are many short cuts to figuring out how two people might be compatible. And I don't think that putting your wishes into words makes them more likely to come true. Maybe it doesn't make it any less likely. That's where most of us are stuck: what we want is just not very likely to happen, not the way we want it to.

@182: "unless you enjoy the process of determining all these things for its own sake it can seem overwhelming"

Fair enough. I do enjoy the process, even when it doesn't lead where I hope it will. I can totally see why people who don't enjoy flirting seek other ways to try to figure out compatibility.

And to bring this back to the LW, who wrote:
"My approach to hooking up is how I imagine most other people's must be: find someone who I can have a flowing conversation with, attempt to flirt with them, and then awkwardly make a move."

I think the LW has been doing just fine. It sounds like flirting works well for him (as well as it ever works for anyone), so I don't think advising the LW to stop flirting is likely to improve his life.

EricaP: I don't often say this, but I agree with everything you've said on this whole comment thread.

EricaP, I get the impression from your posts that you are thinking of "the dance" entirely from the point of view of someone who has been approached by an interested party. I think the psychology there is totally different (and has its own hazards which have been covered extensively on other days): you are feeling secure and self-confident because someone has sought you out. It is fun to see where things go, and if they don't go anywhere in particular, oh well. The process was entertaining and kind of flattering (assuming the guy is not a prick).

Now as a guy doing the approaching, the psychology is more about achieving a goal, not throwing something out there and seeing how you do. In choosing someone to talk to, you have already set a goal, which is to convince this cute woman that you are worth spending time with. Now the pressure's on. Aside from those with bulletproof egos or a long history of success, disengaging from that goal requires accepting failure. Furthermore, the failure implies some personal shortcoming on your part. So I think as the one who does the approaching, "Well this is kind of fun, let's see where it goes" is not a common mindset, and the process, unless it yields success, is not very enjoyable. Now throw in the mixed signals, unreadable motives and uncertainty Ms. Cummins summarized so very well @182, and you've got the demented job interview I referred to earlier.

All my comments are written from the point of view of the approacher. That's what I meant about the difference between approaching men vs. approaching women. I suck at approaching women, but I was heartened to learn from bi posters that this may not be due entirel to my shortcomings, because others more proficient than I am, with both genders to choose from, prefer playing the game with men, because as responders they are clearer in their body language and in their encouragement and, I assume, their refusals. If interest was more clearly indicated, by and large, and intentions more clearly communicated, and if flirting and picking up weren't such a crapshoot, I wouldn't be on Team Ask. But they are, and I am--or rather, I'm on Team Fuck It, I've Got Better Things To Do With My Time.

LateBloomer: I have nothing but respect for those that approach. No doubt it can be fraught with pitfalls to one's sense of self-worth.
I don't know about EricaP, but I've been in the position of being alone in a bar, looking my cutest, and no one talks to me all night. There's this standard attitude that women hold all the cards, or that it's the easiest thing in the world for a woman to be picked up or to get laid. So if and when that doesn't happen, it can be just as much a blow to the old self-esteem.

As far as mixed signals go, women don't have a monopoly on them. As a matter of of fact, many of the scenarios Alison Cummins described were about men sending signals she had a hard time reading.
And I've had more than my share of much more insidious mixed signals being sent my way.

If I recall your situation correctly, you are married (and perhaps monogamous), in which case this whole discussion is a moot one for you and you can thank your lucky stars that you are out of the game permanently.

Lavagirl, one of the pleasures of reading Slog for me is the wide-ranging discussions you sometimes get in the comments section. This week, for example, I learned why casual hook-ups can actually be fun, which I've never understood, and that notwithstanding social norms, some women prefer men with my approach (!). I got a revealing insight into BDSM which is not at all my thing but still worth understanding, more debate on what constitutes consent, opinions from the other side of the fence on how offensive an unwanted kiss can be, etc, etc. I think it would be too bad if people confined themselves strictly to what would be helpful to the letter writers.

nocutename @188, thanks for the kind words.

LateBloomer, I don't wait to be approached. And I don't suggest that guys approach women who haven't already started the flirtation. If you don't see anyone making eyes at you, then probably no one is interested in you.

Flirtation is not a way to "convince this cute woman that you are worth spending time with." Flirtation is a way to find out whether this woman, who has already expressed interest in you by checking you out, wants to go further than smiles across a room.

I do send out smiles & long glances to people I find interesting. That's not a commitment to have sex, but I won't be offended if they approach and continue the dance. But I'm the one starting the dance. With my smiles & repeated glances.

Myself, @192 "If you don't see anyone making eyes at you, then probably no one is interested in you."

That was too harsh. I mean -- If you don't see anyone making eyes at you, then no one is flirting with you, and you don't have to worry about whether to flirt back.

tldr: flirtation is not persuasion; flirtation is communication of mutual interest.

And most of the time, my repeated glances and smiles are not met with anything much. It's the nature of the beast: usually, the person who interests you isn't interested in what you want. That's life.

Aw shucks nocute, I'd buy you a drink in a heartbeat if I came across you looking cute in a bar. :)

Married I am, but we opened the marriage for awhile a couple years back. A small part of my motivation was to have a crack at this whole dating business and figure out why I was so dismal at it back in the day. I'm pleased to say that, after a very rough start, I started figuring out just a little bit how to play the game, and got some insight into why I may not have done so well in the past. But more importantly, I also understood why I will never bother putting a lot of effort into it in the future. It's just not my bag, baby. I excel romantically in other ways.

EricaP, it only seems so complicated and impossible because so few people understand that it is nearly impossible odds if a person goes about their life engaging in unhealthy relationships.

When people are even casual friends with others whom the feel the need to lie, as opposed to finding the courage to instead inform them that

"Our friendship is not to the point where I feel comfortable divulging private aspects of my life"

Too many people fail to realize that even someone you consider your best friend; someone you believe you could not live without them in your life, can actually be an unhealthy relationship. Any relationship can be emotional, physical and spiritual poison, and it begins with succumbing to the convenience of lying instead of believing in yourself and knowing who you are so that you can find the courage to truly benefit from the rewards of healthy relationships.

If you have people in your life whom you genuinely care for their well being, and that genuine concern is reciprocated, finding The One person who is right for you or One of The One(s) happens with a miraculous ease that's as if it cannot be avoided

I personally believe that people do not recognize nor can fathom the negative effect of accepting bad influences in their life, often due to a lack of patience. People seem unwilling to be patient enough to develop healthy friendships, let alone romantic friendships.

Not recognizing the subtleties that define the difference between healthy and unhealthy relationships can really fuck up a person's mind

I think sometimes we forget that starting with first things first, wee need to voluntarily treat others with the respect ans courtesy that are mandatory. You can't have a true friend unless you are willing to be one

Too few people realize that what I am speaking of is not just the bullshit belief in Utopias, the fall for the whole "perfection isn't possible" without ever realizing that it's not about being the perfect friend, or perfect boyfriend or perfect spouse, it's a person's ability to do the right thing after mistakes are made

because the facts are that unhealthy relationships/friendships do not, not work out because of the wrongs the do towards a friend, it's the behavior after the fact that is what matters.

The exact same mistakes and even twice the number of same mistakes being double the nature of severity, can be the most rewarding and healthy friendship/relationship and completely change your entire life, and it happens by understanding the importance being responsible once you realize your actions were not the behavior a close or caring friend exhibits

Thanks, LB! I'll have a glass of red wine.

"Excel." That's a bit self-congratulatory. I mean my strengths lie elsewhere.

EricaP @192, that's a good way to put it. I only realized just recently that flirtation is not so much persuasion as communication (it's both, really). Realizing that was kind of the turning point for me, actually. Until you accept that, it's impossible to relax and just have fun.

But that said, I would be surprised if the majority of het men would agree with you, especially younger ones. I had to take that point of view in order to relax, but it's certainly not the message I absorbed growing up, about what is expected of men. But that's my personal story so who knows how representative I am.

EricaP @186 Internet dating is a shortcut for determining compatibility!

Traditional flirting is a method for sorting through the set of all the people you encounter in your ordinary life who seem nice, to find the subset who are available for what you are looking for and who might want it with you.

Internet dating presents you with the set of people who are available for what you are looking for, which is where the mixed/ misread/ crossed/ unintended/ unsent signals cause so much difficulty in traditional flirting. Now all you have to do is the easy part, which is to find the subset who seem nice and who want what you are looking for with you.

Internet dating isn’t magic and it isn’t for everyone (isn’t for most people?) but for those who can work it, it is *totally* a shortcut.

Alison Cummins: Ah that only works until you meet the person in real life. And then all those "mixed/ misread/ crossed/ unintended/ unsent signals" are right there!

I've been internet dating for years now, and I find it just as frustrating as any other kind of dating. The only shortcut I see is that everyone on the site is "available," which means different things to different people. For example, some are already married or in other open relationships, and yet are available, some are married and their spouses think they're in monogamous relationships, some are only interested in monogamous relationships, so that the "available" married person isn't really available for dating as far as the one who wants monogamy is concerned. So even with the baseline common denominator that everyone is available, it's not much clearer.

And then there's the dehumanizing aspect of it.

I think that true human connection is a rare thing.

Griz is back, late in the game. After catching sunshine, practicing, and playing music, I'm catching up on comments, too, before going back to composing.

@16 puddles, and @49 aeros66: I agree.
@46: nocutename: I haven't seen anything posted by lolorhone, either. I hope he's okay.
@50 vennominon: I really do hope lolorhone is okay (maybe just sitting this week's Savage Love Slog column out?), and agree with sissoucat @52 in hoping that your instinct is wrong.

@200 Alison Cummins & @201 nocutename: I know internet dating is pretty much mainstream these days, but--*sigh*.
You're both obviously much braver, socially, than I am.

nocutename @201: "I think that true human connection is a rare thing."...
That's so true, isn't it? I believe that could very well be the main reason that so many of us--myself included---often feel so disconnected.

Just another Griz Update:

I cannot believe I actually braved and succeeded wearing soft baby pink biker shorts today! No more REDRUM! Doctor, doctor, I can walk!
And I did, actually, walk 4 miles round trip to and from Win's Drive-in to buy a Sunday edition of The Seattle Times. Gotta get my fill of the funnies and horoscopes.

All the best, Dan and everyone! Catch you next column.
XO,
griz

Team Ask, Team Touch,
Team It's All a Bit Much.
Sex immediate, or late,
Or I'll sit back and wait.
For some it's a look, for others a word,
Yet others a tone, some few it's a turd.
Some people get what they want without trying
Some sit in a corner, head bent down with crying.
S/He may be oral, in more than one way,
S/He may want visual before s/he can play.
For me, if you start with your lips on my hands,
I'm likely to yield, and yet make demands.

Sorry, not as literary as Mr. Ven, but this is what came up for me this evening.

@204--An elegant summary, and very well said.
But I've had enough, and I'm going to bed.

@204 Still Thinking & @205 LateBloomer: LOL!
I love it!

While I applaud the brilliance of the two of you,
It's late, and I've got to call it a night for me, too.
XO,
griz

@191, thank you- I do think my words were just a bit of a throw away line/ didn't mean to stun a nation/ and of course have realized, even after my very short time here/ that you guys bring in all sorts of personal slants/ perspectives. And of course, don't need to wade thru if I don't want to.

Ms Grizelda - I'm glad you're walking.

Ms Lava - Well done on the Vitameatavegamin reference in #184.

@207. What you doing up so early/ late?
Only 10.30pm here/ Monday. Hope you're going ok/ daren't ask you what that word means..I'm guessing it ain't one Virginia or Jane came across..

Yes, true human connection is indeed a great thing. We all want it, so how can it be so rare and difficult? Something I still don’t understand.

We need more information on the "10 years without sex" couple. Do they sleep in the same bed? Same room, different beds? different rooms?

Same bed makes it a lot easier to reach out for a back rub which might lead to something else. That might be a first step.