LW, if you haven't yet gotten him stoned out of his gourd, suggest you try that (if he's willing of course) -- but do so with some pr0n on that you've previewed to ensure that it will be both fraught with the type of sex that you crave AND that he'll find it totally hot regardless of whether the scenes fit his current repertoire or not. Maybe sooner maybe later, but eventually he'll learn, if only by association.

(No, this is not just hypothetical. I know that this can work for at least some people from experience on both sides. I've been taught to respond to things that I never woulda expected to be part of my turn-ons, simply because they so pleased my partner; and I've found previously shy partners can become radically wild given the right supportive -- and caring, patient, and undemanding -- persuasion over time.)

Or maybe not.

If it doesn't work, as prior posters have said, you'll have some very serious and painful long-term thinking to do. It's one of the most ludicrous of social expectations that we are brought up to believe that THE ONE for us can and will fulfill ALL the different roles -- best friend, confidant, pal, housemate, playmate, soulmate, AND ideal lover -- that we require of them. Ain't no such animal; something always has to give. (And even sillier, though of course usually unavoidable -- unless you meet thru a sex-oriented dating site or some such -- that the sexual compatibility is generally the LAST thing to get checked -- often AFTER you've already fallen in love. But that's a whole 'nother rant.)

But it is ingrained in us to expect all this, so when reality almost inevitably falls short, it can be devastating.

Tough as it may be to accept, it might possibly be better in the long run to be friends with this guy and lovers with someone else.

The facts that he's not only not even willing to give it a try but refers to your predilections (which are of course totally normal and well within the mainstream, if it helps to hear that) in uncomplimentary terms does not bode well.

and also suggest that you watch "Secretary," either with him or alone. Unlikely to hurt; might help.

Wahlberg already (more or less) played this role -- in "Rock Star" -- and we already saw this story -- under the title "The Replacements," with Keanu Reeves in the only role since Bill&Ted and River's Edge for which he was actually fully suited. Not that faithfully following genre conventions is a bad thing. But it woulda been nice to see some comparative mentions, or at least a nod of recognition.

for your dealer? You're clearly getting way better drugs than any I've ever found

As almost always happens, the Salon community brings a lot of wisdom (and a few outliers, of course). The takeaway here is pretty clear: LW clearly didn't do the appropriate research first. Ignorance can be fixed -- but stupidity often can't be. Not thoroughly researching a procedure that is going to affect what many people would count as the sense that they'd least like to give up, if forced to choose -- yeah, that would count as maybe just a bit on the stupid side in my book. Not that I don't have a lot of sympathy for LW; we all make mistakes, sometimes very big ones, no matter how "smart" we consider ourselves.

But c'mon now. Here's what I found when I Googled...

"Lasik complications:" 450K sites

"Lasik side effects:" 600K sites

"Lasik problems:" 1.42 MILLION sites

"Lasik results:" 1.71M sites

Of course, due diligence is required there, too; many sites are set up by LASIK providers, or by vendors of LASIK equipment, who also stand to gain from a patient's choice to undergo LASIK surgery. But many are not.

This one came up on the first page of that last search, in position #4:

http://www.lasikfraud.com/news/archives/000138.html

Headline: "1/3 of LASIK Patients Unhappy With Results"

s sen: "But to claim that Muhammad 'invented' Islam as an excuse for his military and political activities is asinine. Successful religions don't work that way."

Really? It's well known that the erstwhile schlock sci-fi writer L. Ron Hubbard observed, long before inventing "Dianetics" and "Scientology," that the way to get rich is to invent a religion. And then, by golly...

So: is Scientology a "successful" religion? If not, why not? What about Christian Science and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (aka the Mormons) -- are they "successful"? If so, and if Scientology is not, what are the dispositive differences, and where are the borderlines? And who gets to decide?

Just asking...

is this qualifier

"Indeed, the experience of both Gaza and Lebanon, in many Israelis' eyes, is proof that disengagement and a retreat to internationally recognized borders do not bring peace to the Jewish state"

doing in this sentence? In whose eyes is there any disputing the facts that unilateral Israeli withdrawal from previously occupied territory brought neither peace nor security, but only murderous rocket attacks, armed invasions, and kidnappings?

In what possible acts therefore can Israel find peace and security from a government sworn to Israel's destruction, and that, even with an international boycott that threatens total economic ruin, will not alter that intent? But this wall, which has provably reduced "suicide" bombings and other terrorist acts, is a violent assault on Palestinians.

There is no arguing with logic like that.