Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
TinaS1
Published Letters: 780 Editor's Choice: 21
You're welcome.
I'm not in the room with the blouse guy, but I would guess everything up to the "no" is fine.
"No" of course stops the train.
I think a friend of mine got into your situation. The girl said "NO" and he stopped. After that she started following him around while he got dressed, saying "But I didn't want you to stop! I know I said 'no' but I really wanted you to go on!"
And he said, "Baby, if you're that messed up, you need to get your shit together before you start having sex with somebody".
And he left.
He figured that whatever she meant, it wasn't going to be worth the headache later. And he was right.
If you can't get clear and even enthusiastic consent, don't do it. This goes for both men and women.
I'm not saying there are no weird, flaky, vulnerable, or psycho women out there. I'm saying it's really, really easy for men to avoid them, to not take advantage of them, and it is certainly easy to not rape them!
"No" means "no" solves all problems.
I mean granted, my friend didn't get to bang a woman that night. But who cares? His priority was respecting himself and the other person. He'll get plenty of sex on other nights from mentally stable people. And that's as it should be.
so you want to have lots of sex because of your evolutionary drive to pass on your genes?
If that is the case, then every sexual encounter with a woman is an attempt to pass on your genes, meaning you want a child from that encounter?
If that is so, in what way are you different from a Catholic?
I'm so confused.
Um, what purpose would that be?
boy, the evolutionary psychobabble people have empty lives.
that's really sad.
Actually, what's bugging me about the whole ev-psych thing is that it is a sophisticated blue balls argument.
Amerigo originally started this particular rant in response to a poster who said he is not entitled to sex.
He isolated this statement, then heatedly insisted that men ARE entitled to sex, because their evolutionary drive to reproduce is so omnipotent that it cannot be controlled or denied.
So we're back at square one with the blue balls.
And the blue balls argument is a fallacy.
Some people are turned on by the thought of semi-anonymous sex and desire it regularly. Hook-ups are their preferred sexual behavior.
It's not my style, and I really don't think it's terribly common, but whatever. Just thought I'd throw that in there.
But yes, for most of us it is a passion killer if we know, so people who just want a "fling" have a habit of refusing to tell you that or even lying about it. A girl's gotta be careful out there these days, if that's not what she wants as well.
Now if all the hook-up folks would just find each other, life for socially awkward people, esp. men trying to make an approach would be a lot easier. 90% of the time I turn a guy down it's because I assess his approach and think, "he just wants sex; he isn't in the market to find someone for the long term". Naturally I then do not care to even begin.
Now if I had not had to develop over the years a defensive reaction of assuming all men are lying until proven otherwise, I wouldn't have to turn down practically every guy who makes a pass at me. I'm sure I've poured the cold water over some nice guys. How do I know? I don't. But it's not worth the risk, in my book. So if I get a sense of them "putting the moves on me", I bail. I am not promiscuous and my number of partners overmy lifetime is in the single digits. That's neither good nor bad; it's just me. So I don't really do the thing of screwing someone as a test drive to find out if he can get to boyfriend status. He has to get there first, not after. However that has meant avoiding a lot of men.
In this I think I am pretty average; I heard somewhere that a woman has an average of six or seven consummated relationships before she marries. It also concluded that most women have fewer than a dozen partners in their lifetimes. I think, also, the numbers were only slightly higher for men. That surprised me(no diss intended to any readers who have had more). But then, I thought, well it matches up to the experiences of most people I know who aren't basket cases (I've known a few of those, too).
That's why I think "seduction techniques" won't work; women will pick up on artifical, forced "lines" and judge the men delivering such lines negatively as being among the "playa" basket cases. I know I would.
In the end my boyfriends have always been guys who were good at just being themselves and who, above all, were willing to socialize with me without being pushy. Who were willing to invest a little time in the platonic getting-to-know-you stage, something that seems laughably old-fashioned to most guys I meet today.
Not sure why that is. Maybe it's because I'm older (40) and therefore they think I should be desperate and won't be too picky?
Thanks Kahomono.
How will we celebrate next Tuesday?
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
Salon headlines in your mailbox
