BS: Dating Behaviour - am I out of touch ?

Subject: RE: BS: Dating Behaviour - am I out of touch ?
From: AllisonA(Animaterra)
Date: 12 Aug 04 - 07:58 AM

refresh

Subject: RE: BS: Dating Behaviour - am I out of touch ?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 01 Apr 04 - 03:41 AM

I showed dogs (pointers) for some years with some slight success. Never heard of a breeder offering a written guarantee that dogs were free of [whatever]. Some breeds it is customary to have hip scores, or to ask for confirmation that sire and dam have not had entropion, etc.

Condoms are not guaranteed. But they do substantially reduce all the stated health risks and the risk of pregnancy.

And these were not the thrust of B+B's dilemma, which was about the moral obligation to wait (or otherwise).

Subject: RE: BS: Dating Behaviour - am I out of touch ?
From: JennyO
Date: 31 Mar 04 - 10:33 AM

GUEST, quirky but true, you have looked at the link, haven't you?

Traditionally, the HAVES have been considered to be the ones with all the trappings of material success and wealth. I have met and worked for some of these people - I have seen what their lives are like, and I would not choose to live in their world. I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with having money, but in my opinion,these are not the things that bring true happiness.

I have very little money, but I am rich in friends and family, in my connection with the natural world, and my appreciation of the many things that give me pleasure, such as music, sunsets, the smell of a frangipani, and a million other small things.

I haven't always played it safe, but the risk-taking has been rewarding. My life has been, and continues to be, an interesting journey. I'm happy to be one of Leunigs "those who have a twinkle in their eye".

Subject: RE: BS: Dating Behaviour - am I out of touch ?
From: GUEST,Quirky but True
Date: 29 Mar 04 - 08:48 AM

Ah ! But might it not be that the people who the "Haves" think are the "Have-Nots" might be considering themselves to be the "Haves" and the *others* to be the "Have-Nots" (and vice versa !)
Have you "Haves" ever thought of THAT ????

Subject: RE: BS: Dating Behaviour - am I out of touch ?
From: freda underhill
Date: 29 Mar 04 - 08:28 AM

thanks, jen! this says it all....

Subject: RE: BS: Dating Behaviour - am I out of touch ?
From: JennyO
Date: 29 Mar 04 - 07:37 AM

Here is the Leunig link you wanted freda:

The Great Divide - The Haves and the Have Nots

Subject: RE: BS: Dating Behaviour - am I out of touch ?
From: GUEST,freda
Date: 28 Mar 04 - 11:27 PM

this is getting back to the inter species thread..

yes, we wouldn't want the camel to catch any diseases.

Subject: RE: BS: Dating Behaviour - am I out of touch ?
From: Amos
Date: 28 Mar 04 - 11:09 PM

... or he may come down with gonorrhea, enshallah!

Subject: RE: BS: Dating Behaviour - am I out of touch ?
From: kendall
Date: 28 Mar 04 - 10:40 PM

Old Arab proverb, "Trust everyone, but tie your camel"

Subject: RE: BS: Dating Behaviour - am I out of touch ?
From: GUEST,freda
Date: 28 Mar 04 - 09:05 PM

to quote the anthropomorphic god thread..

One cannot simply dismiss another human being as "evil" without missing part of what that person is.

projecting views of germs, gremlins, viruses, warts, death and rotten decay onto your view of "bad" people....   how healthy is that?

mentally, its moving between bigotry and paranoia.

ill will finds many reasons to express itself.

Subject: RE: BS: Dating Behaviour - am I out of touch ?
From: kendall
Date: 28 Mar 04 - 03:24 PM

Would anyone buy a dog without a written guarantee that it was free of disease?

Subject: RE: BS: Dating Behaviour - am I out of touch ?
From: freda underhill
Date: 27 Mar 04 - 06:00 PM

To me, thats like saying don't go outside or you'll be hit by a car, and listing the types of vehicles.

or like saying, don't eat at a restaurant, you may get salmonella poisoning.

or like saying, don't sit at a computer, you'll be affected by radiation.

I'm happy to cross the road, but I look each way before I do, and so far, I haven't been hit by a bus!

Subject: RE: BS: Dating Behaviour - am I out of touch ?
From: kendall
Date: 27 Mar 04 - 02:14 PM

No one can argue with that.

Subject: RE: BS: Dating Behaviour - am I out of touch ?
From: Alice
Date: 27 Mar 04 - 02:06 PM

Some risk results that warrant responsible choices:

Bacterial Vaginosis

Chlamydia
(especially serious for women because it can lead to infertility, chronic pain, and death)

Genital Warts
(There is no cure. Both men and women can get genital warts, in women the HPV wart virus on the cervix can lead to cancer).

Gonorrhea
One million new cases reported each year in the US. Young men aged 20 to 24 have the highest rate. Children vaginally born to women with gonorrhea can get gonorrhea of the eyes while passing through the birth canal, causing blindness. In women it causes pain, fever, infection of the whole body, infertility and possibly death.

Hepatitis B
Causes swelling of the liver. In 10% of those infected, the disease becomes chronic and life threatening. In infants born to HBV infected mothers, 90% will have chronic hepatitis.

Hepatitis C
People infected can have no symptoms for 20 or more years. You should be specifically tested for HCV antibody if you have used IV drugs, received a blood transfusion before 1991, snorted cocaine, been tattooed, or had multiple sex partners. Those chronically infected have a high risk of developing liver cancer or liver failure.

Herpes
Herpes is spread by skin to skin contact. Most exposure occurs when the person has no symptoms of a rash. The virus is shed from the skin so that condoms do not protect against transmission. One in five in the general population have genital herpes. There is no cure at this time.

HIV & AIDS

Molluscum contagiosum
Viral infection of the skin.

Syphilis
Syphilis cases are increasing in the world, 20 out of every 100,000 are infected. After the first symptoms go away, syphilis can be latent for 15 years or so. It affects the brain and spinal cord often causing mental illness or paralysis. It can also cause inflammation of the aorta and rubbery lumps under the skin.

Trichomonas
Trichomonas is a protozoa. Men who have it rarely have symptoms, but when a woman is infected, they have symptoms that can include pain, swelling, and irritation.

These risks should be enough to make people judge very carefully with whom they choose to have sex.

Subject: RE: BS: Dating Behaviour - am I out of touch ?
From: Amos
Date: 27 Mar 04 - 11:14 AM

Alice,

I concur with all you say , but I would add that the emotional layer is a consequence as well, for many people, and needs tobe taken into account. It is also a responsibility, in its way. Like any responsibility, it can be made perverse and disabling, when it is distorted and abused; but it exists, I believe.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Dating Behaviour - am I out of touch ?
From: Alice
Date: 27 Mar 04 - 10:55 AM

judgmental: Inclined to make judgments, especially moral or personal ones.

ethics (used with a sing. verb) The study of the general nature of morals and of the specific moral choices to be made by a person; moral philosophy.

I see a split in two views in this thread, those who believe that sexual activity carries a responsiblity with it and those who think sexual activity is just for fun. Because sexual activity 1. can cause pregnancy if the couple is fertile and 2. can transmit serious diseases (and multiple partners increase the chance of cervical cancer for example) I think sexual activity carries a responsibility. People who have ethics must make value judgements, moral choices. It is only reasonable that many people make value judgements about sexual activity - how many partners, how well they know their partner, how committed their partner is to staying with them and not be promiscuous (promiscuity increasing the chance of std's), first of all, how compatible they are in character and other ways that increase the chance that they will stay together... these are reasonable things to consider BEFORE having sex with someone.

Subject: RE: BS: Dating Behaviour - am I out of touch ?
From: freda underhill
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 05:23 PM

harpgirl, aeriel upsidedown leaps aside, the flying trapeze of tumblebedown and toss, or the interpolitical jelly grapple & roll, or a wiggling waltzm & schmaltzm, all these and more - can be ruined by a ...








....snore
in the meantime, lets enjoy bantering about the whys and wherefores of the lead in, and its trials and passages, and our own stops and starts

without spiking anyone with our leopardskin stilettos....
we can get pantsy without gettin antsy!

Subject: RE: BS: Dating Behaviour - am I out of touch ?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 12:33 PM

I think it's better not to be judgmental on such a sensitive subject, but it seems (overall impression, not attached to a specific quote) that B+B feels that sex needs to be justified, and that there is something that is needed to justify a man's wish to have sex with her.

Hence, it seems, she thinks less of the man for seeking sex as such.

I think that if that is a disappointment to her, it is likely to be a frequent one. Sexual disparity will be more likely to disrupt than to cement a relationship.

From what I learn from my daughter and her friends, about their generation, disapproval of the sexually active woman is still to be found - expressions such as "slutty" are still more frequently used of women than men. But I think that that tendency (of which I strongly disapprove) is now less found - but of course the norms may be different between different generations and also different societies. My daughter's degree thesis was (I am proud to say - a difficult subject for a young woman!) on the sex artist Annie Sprinkles, and 30 years ago that would have been very hard to envisage, as would the idea of Sprinkles' work as non-phallocentric.

My limited direct experience, since the death of my long-term partner nearly a year ago, and also my observations of social sexual matters in the middle aged would be that the current single older generation is likely to be pretty damned direct if it is bothered, and not to bother at all if it cannot be much bothered. I also suggest that in many cases older singles (of either gender) may very well not want to settle down again immediately. A relationship will last as long as it lasts. Those with an affliction of the Pauline ethic tend to yoyo between moving in and moving out. Others may rub along together but keep it low key. At least that is what I think I see.

On balance therefore I tend to think that yes, B+B is out of touch with contemporary norms of both the young and the older, at least as far as the UK perspective is concerned.

HOwever, if she is in the USA, that country seems (in parts) to suffer more from the shibboleths of organised religions, and it may be that her views are in accordance with needs of self preservation against "righteous" outrage, and so within the bounds of normality, at least in some communities, there.

B+B, it's your call and you have to decide what you want to do and what is more likely to make you content. Having spent some time telling you my views, I now have to say that my own views don't matter. The important thing to you has to be your own views, but try to understand them before you act on them or you may make yourself less rather than more content. Remember, if you want a car but cannot afford a Rolls Royce, a mini may have to suffice.

Subject: RE: BS: Dating Behaviour - am I out of touch ?
From: GUEST,Bill Clinton
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 12:06 PM

Brucie, I FEEL your pain! Let me know if there's any way I can help.

Subject: RE: BS: Dating Behaviour - am I out of touch ?
From: Ellenpoly
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 11:55 AM

Harpgirl, I have always thought that B&B was trying to be clear that she was only expressing her own feelings, and yet wanted to open up a discussion to others expressing theirs as well. I don't think she ever began this thread to give judgement, but only to admit quite openly that she still had her own questions and concerns about how she might now go about finding the kind of relationship that would work for her.

This thread is long enough, and varied enough to show we all have different views-some come closer in agreement to B&Bs and some absolutely are not.

If we did not feel safe to offer up our thoughts about what is, in the end, an intensely personal subject, and no one's business to decide how to proceed with their relationships, I doubt anyone would have bothered adding to the original posting..xx..e

Subject: RE: BS: Dating Behaviour - am I out of touch ?
From: Amos
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 11:09 AM

Harpgirl:

Unfortunately some folks aren't really adept at experiencing that kind of intimacy. And it doesn't work on a one-way path, does it??

A

Subject: RE: BS: Dating Behaviour - am I out of touch ?
From: harpgirl
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 11:03 AM

I don't know freda, B and B gave a pretty good public description of what she thought sex should be here:

I may be out of touch and old-fashioned, but I think sex with a partner is meant to go so far beyond the mere physical "relief of tension". We humans are body, mind and spirit. You say: "But sex can be recreational. Unless you view every prospective partner as a husband." Yes I do. Not in the sense of a 'legal piece of paper husband' but in the sense of someone with whom I share everything. For whom nothing about me is hidden. Where this Trust, Honesty and Love. That is a true husband and wife, "Married with God's blessing" without necessarily a church or a priest. You can have a good idea about the nature of a person within seconds of meeting them, but it takes time for trust, honesty and love to grow to fruition. Then, and only then, you are not "indulging in physical sex", you are Making Love.


I do get the impression from her posts that she doesn't entertain any other approach because she believes hers is the correct one. Perhaps I am wrong in my interpretation. Perhaps she is truly saying hers is only correct for herself.

Subject: RE: BS: Dating Behaviour - am I out of touch ?
From: Amos
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 10:29 AM

Well, it's because no matter how different we get we cleave to some very universal similarities -- innies and outies -- so we can always find something to do.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Dating Behaviour - am I out of touch ?
From: kendall
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 09:42 AM

We are all so different, it's remarkable that we get on at all. However, we must try, and I guess we do pretty well, otherwise the planet wouldn't be over populated.

Subject: RE: BS: Dating Behaviour - am I out of touch ?
From: jacqui.c
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 07:31 AM

Freda and Kendall

Well said.

Sharing is a major part of any relationship and if one person feels pressured into doing anything by another that is NOT sharing - it's control.

Subject: RE: BS: Dating Behaviour - am I out of touch ?
From: kendall
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 07:22 AM

Throw a rock into a pack of dogs, only the one it hits will yelp.

Subject: RE: BS: Dating Behaviour - am I out of touch ?
From: GUEST,freda
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 10:08 PM

harpgirl.."I've always thought sexual expression can and should be as widely expressive of human emotion, thought, and behavior as we have variations in humans. Sex is a pasttime, an adventure, a sporting event, an athletic encounter, a power struggle, an expression of deep love and affection, a stress reliever, an anxiety reliever, a creative event, an exploration, and so on. I do think it should be mutually agreed upon as to what's up, however...."

with respect you have no idea what B & B's approach to sex is, because for her its a private thing.

a person may be reserved, cautious, or considered about getting involved with another person. this doesn't mean that they are judgemental of others' practises in anyway, it also doesn't mean that they aren't creative in private. its just about being cautious before establishing trust with a potential sexual partner.

i had some friends, two sisters, who worked as prostitutes for some years. They both dismissed other women as limited idiots who were ineffectual in the bedroom. Over the years i observed they both had major problems in establishing intimacy with men, on any levels. their views of other women were based on their own need for one upmanship. as well, the sort of men they chose to be involved with were ultimately selfish and exploitative.

personally, once negotiations come into it, to me the spontaneity is over. it turns into industrial relations, just like any workplace does when power relationships break down. consideration and sharing are more appealing words.

intimacy, the desire to be close to a particular someone because they are admirable, to express affection to that person, and yes to love, leads to powerful enjoyable moments that are no one else's business. and no one else's to judge.


freda

Subject: RE: BS: Dating Behaviour - am I out of touch ?
From: GUEST,let liver
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 03:26 PM

some they will and some they won't and some its just as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Dating Behaviour - am I out of touch ?
From: GUEST,Bothered and Bewildered
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 03:01 PM

Harpgirl and Guest: Read the sentence again:

"This is all just helping me (and maybe hopefully others) to think around this subject."

I repeat: I am not moralizing or judging what is right and wrong. There is NO moralizing or judging in the above statement. "Helping others to think around this subject" means just that. It became apparent from the number of people who posted to this thread, just how many people did want to think around the subject: tell of their experiences, express their views, exchange their views, look at things from another person's perspective. From such an exchange (on whatever subject), an individual may or may not change their viewpoint. Such an exchange of views can serve to clarify and confirm their existing view. All of this is a good thing and at the end of the day we can agree to differ.

Harpgirl, you missed out the word "apparently" when you quoted me. I did not say "learned nothing" I said "apparently learned nothing." The addition of that word makes a world of difference to the meaning. "Apparently" means "as it appears to me." It is not a dictatorial statement or judgment. It is my viewpoint, which is no more or less valid than anybody else's.

As I just said, at the end of the day we can agree to differ.

Subject: RE: BS: Dating Behaviour - am I out of touch ?
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 01:41 PM

Maybe he just didn't want to be with you forever? Why not try a marriage bureau, at least you are sure to meet a man who has the same long term goal as you.

Maybe he DID just want to give you his idea of a good time. When he realised you have a different idea of a good time he left. Neither of you are wrong, just different.

Subject: RE: BS: Dating Behaviour - am I out of touch ?
From: harpgirl
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 11:49 AM

Okay, Bothered and Bewildered, you did say that, and added just a tiny bit of moralizing to it to water it down (and hopefully , others) but I was reacting to what you then said in these last two posts:


"This is why I am surprised that people who have gone through all this when younger, and have lived with the repercussions, are still behaving the same way second or more time around later in life, having apparently learned nothing"

This remark is definitely sanctimonious, in my view. His behavior only says he is going elsewhere, not that he "has learned nothing". Did you ask him why he quit you?



"His reaction tells me that he is NOT interested in me as a person, he is interested in what he can get from me. (Either just sex itself, or using sex to gain from me in some other way). "

This is also an assumption based on your moral view of what sex should be, I think. Maybe he just wanted to show you a good time and he thinks that's his only asset. Did you ever think of that?

Subject: RE: BS: Dating Behaviour - am I out of touch ?
From: GUEST,Bothered and Bewildered
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 08:58 AM

Dear Harpgirl,
If you look again at my post of 8th March 08.18 PM you will see that I wrote:
"I am certainly not judging or criticizing anybody else's views here. This is all just helping me (and maybe hopefully others) to think around this subject."

I think that stated clearly enough where I am coming from.

Subject: RE: BS: Dating Behaviour - am I out of touch ?
From: harpgirl
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 08:13 AM

Bothered and Bewildered, with all due respect you sound rather sanctimonious and self-righteous about the whole matter of sexuality and sexual attraction. You also sound like you have been influenced by a load of religious crap about sexuality.

While, I agree with Alice on the fact that along with unprotected sex, we can expect STD's and HIV/AIDS, we don't encounter these things because we are BAD for being sexually liberal.

I've always thought sexual expression can and should be as widely expressive of human emotion, thought, and behavior as we have variations in humans. Sex is a pasttime, an adventure, a sporting event, an athletic encounter, a power struggle, an expression of deep love and affection, a stress reliever, an anxiety reliever, a creative event, an exploration, and so on. I do think it should be mutually agreed upon as to what's up, however....

The man who walked away from you because you didn't want to have sex was rejecting your notion of what sex was and going to look for someone whose ideas about it more matched his own. Don't make him not-okay because he didn't want to place sex within the context you have decried to be the only acceptable one....it reaks of sanctimoniousness. You don't sound like much fun.....love, harpgirl

Subject: RE: BS: Dating Behaviour - am I out of touch ?
From: kendall
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 07:10 AM

It's always a choice. You don't have to do a damn thing that you don't want to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Dating Behaviour - am I out of touch ?
From: GUEST,shycat
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 02:42 AM

well, the problem is that some people have stronger drives than others. some are keen to hit the sack, some are ready to sock the one who hits.

and in the meantime, a few shellshocked people are looking about and feeling nervous at the thought of getting back into all that again.

Subject: RE: BS: Dating Behaviour - am I out of touch ?
From: kendall
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 07:30 AM

In the first place, the emotional side is more important than the sex, but this only applies if you are BOTH looking for a long term relationship. Now, generally, men believe that it is important to get the sex thing out of the way and see what's left after the passion has cooled, because that's what you deal with on a day to day basis. As I said, that woman didn't find out until too late that her new hubby was impotent, and she didn't want to spend the rest of her life watching him drink beer and watch football.
I've had quite a few experiences where the woman I met was attractive to me, but it wasn't on her agenda to have sex, so, we agreed that wouldn't happen, and we became good friends. In most cases we still are. The thing is, you have to deal with that sexual tension one way or another.
No Jacqui, it's not a control thing, it's advocating for what you need just as he is doing when he wants to bed you. If he gets upset because you wont "put out" the hell with him! more than likely all he really wants is your body anyway.
Find a guy who wants a long term relationship, and avoid the ones who are not serious, (unless you also just want to enjoy a bit of horizontal entertainment) more and more women are opting for that these days since women's lib came into the picture.

Subject: RE: BS: Dating Behaviour - am I out of touch ?
From: jacqui.c
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 06:25 AM

Basic question - why is the sexual side of the relationship seemingly so much more important than the emotional/friendship side? What's the mad rush to get the other person into bed? Why does any attempt to slow things down cause such a problem - is that a control thing?

Subject: RE: BS: Dating Behaviour - am I out of touch ?
From: Terry K
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 01:27 AM

Richard, I think you really nailed it. At the end of the day it comes down to being a power thing - manipulation and trade-offs.
I see a lot of comment about how you should weigh up the other person to see if they are that perfect match, but surely the reality is that all relationships are about compromise, about growing together over time and tolerating differences. The time a relationship goes wrong is when one or both are no longer prepared to compromise and tolerate, leading to a growing apart and eventual polarisation. In other words, one or both have given up on each other. That may happen sooner rather than later, but surely to put tight rules on a relationship from outset is a good way of ensuring it fails sooner.

Subject: RE: BS: Dating Behaviour - am I out of touch ?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 21 Mar 04 - 07:02 PM

I don't think I have anything to add. I think I have covered all points that respond to mine. But I also think that I ought to that extent to re-emphasise what I said - which was fairly carefully non-gender-specific.

Subject: RE: BS: Dating Behaviour - am I out of touch ?
From: kendall
Date: 21 Mar 04 - 01:00 PM

Open Mike, sure go ahead and use it. Sounds better than the original, eh?

I have a friend who will not use the expression "There's a nigger in the woodpile" He will say, "There's an aborigine in the biomass heap."

My general philosophy is simple..if it is mutual, do it. Otherwise find another way to enjoy each other.

Subject: RE: BS: Dating Behaviour - am I out of touch ?
From: freda underhill
Date: 21 Mar 04 - 12:25 PM

Hi Alice

I am grateful for the '60's revolution. It has given people the power to get out of incompatable or destructive relationships and not have to put up with crap. For some children, it has been better to be able to grow up away from a parent who has a violence or addictions problem than to stay for the sake of some veneer of respectability.

STDiseases that kill or cause infertility were developing before the 60s, and one of the major problems to preventing their spread is religious mores that proscribe the use of codoms..

In a previous generation, people waited (often for a couple of years) before marriage, it didn't make the marriages any better when they got into them. one of the best peices of legaislation that came into Australian in the mid 70s was the fault free divorce. People didn't have to snoop, accuse, recrimate or attach blame to get a divorce, they could just renegotiate property and cutody and move on with dignity.

I am glad that I have been sexually active, and not passive. I would not have learnt how to enjoy sex if I'd stayed with my first relationship.

I feel lucky that i was born into a time and culture that has given me the freedom to express myself and to choose. My children are better off and have grown up healthy and happy. they have good relationships and happy marriages. The sky hasn't fallen in.

peace

freda

Subject: RE: BS: Dating Behaviour - am I out of touch ?
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Mar 04 - 11:49 AM

Relationships that end are not automatically failures. Sometimes they are just relationships that end. Longevity has never been an indication of success.

Subject: RE: BS: Dating Behaviour - am I out of touch ?
From: GUEST,Bothered and Bewildered
Date: 21 Mar 04 - 11:38 AM

I agree with you, Alice. This is why I am surprised that people who have gone through all this when younger, and have lived with the repercussions, are still behaving the same way second or more time around later in life, having apparently learned nothing. It is this surprise that prompted me to start this thread in the first place.

Subject: RE: BS: Dating Behaviour - am I out of touch ?
From: Alice
Date: 21 Mar 04 - 10:44 AM

It is sad that people have become so accustomed to jumping into a sexual relationship before they know whether they are compatible, committed, and safe with each other. The '60's revolution that changed how we used to more carefully choose partners has been a disaster, leaving shattered lives in its wake, children without fathers, abortions that create emotional scars, STDiseases that kill or cause infertility. Wait and judge a dating partner's character before you become too closely involved. When you are using common sense, dating is for finding character compatability. My life and many of my friends would have been less scarred if we had not gone along with our baby-boomer peer pressure to be sexually active. Play it smarter.

Subject: RE: BS: Dating Behaviour - am I out of touch ?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Mar 04 - 08:39 AM

There are always differences between people. In the differences lie the opportunities for growth. Just depends whether people are willing to grow or not.

Subject: RE: BS: Dating Behaviour - am I out of touch ?
From: Ellenpoly
Date: 21 Mar 04 - 06:29 AM

B&B, if the man disappeared after this conversation, then I agree that you presented him with something he wasn't willing to wait for-a relationship based on more than just sex. In a way, it was good that he left with such immediacy, leaving you with little doubt as to his priorites. Sad that they didn't coincide with your own, but better a short sharp shock then a protracted connection to someone with entirely different ideas of what's important in a relationship of the kind you are looking for.

Kendall you keep saying what I agree with..communication is primary.

Get onto the same page first and formost..then hope for good timing... and then...fingers crossed?

Subject: RE: BS: Dating Behaviour - am I out of touch ?
From: GUEST,Bothered and Bewildered
Date: 21 Mar 04 - 06:12 AM

Richard: I agree with you when you say that "fourteen days is plenty long enough to decide if you are sexually attracted to someone." The attraction occurs a lot sooner than that. In my experience, it is pretty much instantaneous. You don't seem to understand: I was (and am) sexually attracted to this man, and he to me. I explained to him that I wanted to get to know him longer before going to bed with him. In this instance, that meant he went away and has not contacted me again. This is fine by me: His reaction tells me that he is NOT interested in me as a person, he is interested in what he can get from me. (Either just sex itself, or using sex to gain from me in some other way). If I had gone to bed with him right away (as some people have advised on this thread), how long would it have taken for me to learn this about him ?

Subject: RE: BS: Dating Behaviour - am I out of touch ?
From: jacqui.c
Date: 21 Mar 04 - 05:52 AM

Sexual attraction is not always a good marker for a relationship. In my time I've met a number of guys who, on first showing, would be the type I would like to spend my life with. I even married one of them. Unfortunately a longer period of time showed up the differences between us.

In common with a lot of other people I find that the emotional switch is turned on by the closeness of sex. If, then, a relationship breaks down due to other factors it hurts badly and takes a lot of time to get over. So, for my part, I'll go into relationships slowly and hope to get to know the other person more as a friend before going that further step. If that is not accepted or respected then so be it.

Subject: RE: BS: Dating Behaviour - am I out of touch ?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 21 Mar 04 - 05:19 AM

If one of two people uses sex as a barter item, witholding it until some collateral criterion is satisfied, the other in question can be pretty sure any long term relationship will be a battleground of manipulativeness.

If one of two people wants sex more or more frequently than the other, or in a different manner or style than the other, the first proposition above is likely to become true.

Two people may retain a long term relationship despite the above, even if the two people exchange their respective roles as set out in the immediately preceding paragraph. But it does not make it easier in either case.

If a person wants sex with another (not necessarily any particular other), but is not getting it, it is a lot more difficult to deal with when and if that person is one of two people in a relationship than if that person is not in a relationship. Try being hungry in a sweetshop.

Accordingly bothered and bewildered risks preventing the development, and indeed precipitating the end of a relationship.

Disregard convention. Make up your own mind about what you really want and be honest with yourself. If you have sex, do not feel guilty about it. The right thing to do is not a matter of whether you are "in touch" or "out of touch". But of course the relevant other party may very well be aware, consciously or not, of the first four paragraphs above, and decide accordingly. If there is a fundamental issue between the parties about how and how often to have sex, while the relationship may not necessarily be doomed, difficulties are likely to follow.

Nonetheless, if you say : -

"I reserve the right to hop into the sack right away if I want.
I reserve the right not to."

the other person may think the same way, but you cannot reserve the right to hop into the sack unless there is another person who will do the same.

Personally, I cannot understand why people form "relationships" unless they are sexually attracted to each other. In most cases that is mostly a matter of appearance, but the evaluation of that matter of appearance is only partly dependent on dress. Other factors of course may tend to vary the impression gained from appearance, but you have to start somewhere.

Fourteen days is, I suggest, plenty long enough to decide if you are sexually attracted to someone. Equally, because of societal norms (wheter as to "right and wrong" or aesthetics) you may feel inhibited in expressing your own sexuality.   A lifetime may not be long enough to decide whether you will still be bound by the social conventions you were exposed to in your formative periods.   If they conflict with your decision as per the first sentence of this paragraph then the second third and fourth paragraphs at the very beginning of this post are more likely to become relevant if unwelcome.

Subject: RE: BS: Dating Behaviour - am I out of touch ?
From: open mike
Date: 21 Mar 04 - 03:18 AM

i love this expression:
"when the excrement contacts the oscillator"
thanks, kendall! can i quote you on that?