Avoiding using and getting used

Page 2 of 3 [ 34 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Ligea_Seroua
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jan 2009
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 555

04 Aug 2009, 5:34 pm

billsmithglendale wrote:
[ No offense to single mom's here, but they have a whole other set of priorities and goals in mind, primarily to find a father for their kids and an income source for their household. Their kid also comes first for everything -- which is as it should be. I don't have any problem with either of those factors, but for a single guy, it is often not a good match, especially for anyone not looking for something serious.


Prefacing this with "no offense" doesn't remove the offense. I'm not looking (and tbh, some of the views on here would frighten me off all men) but I have never, will never and find repugnant the idea that I would whore myself out for a "provider and role model". If I wasn't able to financially and emotionally support my child, I wouldn't have a child. I don't know of any women with differing views to mine, but I don't know ALL women, however I do find it an unpleasant generalisation.


_________________
Other people are people too.


MDD123
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2009
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,007

04 Aug 2009, 5:51 pm

Ligea_Seroua wrote:
Prefacing this with "no offense" doesn't remove the offense. I'm not looking (and tbh, some of the views on here would frighten me off all men) but I have never, will never and find repugnant the idea that I would whore myself out for a "provider and role model". If I wasn't able to financially and emotionally support my child, I wouldn't have a child. I don't know of any women with differing views to mine, but I don't know ALL women, however I do find it an unpleasant generalisation.


No one can fault you with taking care of your child, it's a real burden and it's normally the women who care deeply about the child, not so much the men. The problem guys have to overcome is the "sucker" status. I was in a relationship with a single mom who had kids back in 05' I visited her while on leave, I bought for her children, she showed that she needed the help and I did wha tI could to prove that I was capable. I go halfway around the world and I get dumped on christmas day, she had a guy closer to home. Guess who cared? Me! I'm the biggest sucker alive and I'm gonna walk around with a grudge my entire life.



Ligea_Seroua
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jan 2009
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 555

04 Aug 2009, 6:04 pm

MDD123, that's awful. I bet she would have that mentality whether she was a parent or not, it probably just gives her some false justification now. I'm sure there are other women like that, and they are repugnant to me as a woman and I hope they are a minority.

I just don't like overgeneralisations, is all.


_________________
Other people are people too.


Saguaro
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 5 Jun 2009
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 65

04 Aug 2009, 6:13 pm

Ligea_Seroua wrote:
billsmithglendale wrote:
[ No offense to single mom's here, but they have a whole other set of priorities and goals in mind, primarily to find a father for their kids and an income source for their household. Their kid also comes first for everything -- which is as it should be. I don't have any problem with either of those factors, but for a single guy, it is often not a good match, especially for anyone not looking for something serious.


Prefacing this with "no offense" doesn't remove the offense. I'm not looking (and tbh, some of the views on here would frighten me off all men) but I have never, will never and find repugnant the idea that I would whore myself out for a "provider and role model". If I wasn't able to financially and emotionally support my child, I wouldn't have a child. I don't know of any women with differing views to mine, but I don't know ALL women, however I do find it an unpleasant generalisation.


Hi, I am a married woman and I can tell you saddly yes that there are single moms out there just looking for a partner to help share the burdon and provide a sense of protection. Usually these mom's are not looking for a husband because they know if they get married they will loose there monthy government money. They perfer to "shack up" with the man, that way they have the best of both worlds. These single mom's know that they come with "extra baggage" so they are willing to go the extra mile and do what they need to do to score a man. I'm not condoning this behavior or justifing it, and in no way am I saying all single women behave this way I'm just saying it happens.



billsmithglendale
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2008
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,223

04 Aug 2009, 6:27 pm

Ligea_Seroua wrote:
billsmithglendale wrote:
[ No offense to single mom's here, but they have a whole other set of priorities and goals in mind, primarily to find a father for their kids and an income source for their household. Their kid also comes first for everything -- which is as it should be. I don't have any problem with either of those factors, but for a single guy, it is often not a good match, especially for anyone not looking for something serious.


Prefacing this with "no offense" doesn't remove the offense. I'm not looking (and tbh, some of the views on here would frighten me off all men) but I have never, will never and find repugnant the idea that I would whore myself out for a "provider and role model". If I wasn't able to financially and emotionally support my child, I wouldn't have a child. I don't know of any women with differing views to mine, but I don't know ALL women, however I do find it an unpleasant generalisation.


Sadly, not everyone is as thoughtful, forward-looking, or lucky as you (and I'm not being sarcastic here). Plenty of women, young women especially, rush off and have kids with idiots who leave them high and dry. Other women are widowed by circumstance and stuck with kids and no provider. Still others have kids in an attempt to lasso a man and keep him, or out of pure laziness, carelessness, and stupidity of not using birth control -- just look at the ghetto and all of the single mothers, and there's a reason behind every one of those kids without a dad. Watch Maury sometime, and witness the mass stupidity of people who have children they never planned for, never wanted, and whose children will be the next generation of criminals as a result of their neglect and poor thinking.... But I stray from my point.

The point is, once you have kids, and become single somehow and the sole provider, life has a whole new meaning. It's hard enough for two parents to raise kids, but for one, on a woman's salary (due to gender discrimination and other factors), it's nigh impossible. I've seen a lot of single women get into less-than-satisfactory or less-than-optimal relationships out of the reality of the situation. This may not be what you want to hear, but it's the truth. Sorry if you are offended, but there's a lot about real life that is offensive, and the desperation of many single mothers is just one of them.

At least the best of them are looking out for their children -- the worst of them sacrifice their children for the new man, and for women like that, I have nothing but contempt.



Ligea_Seroua
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jan 2009
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 555

04 Aug 2009, 7:27 pm

Well, we have a programme similar to Maury ~(Jeremy Kyle) It's like fiction to me, i don't understand these people at all. I thought it was exaggerated for tv purposes....but. :?

Yup, I was left high and dry by someone who was desperate to start a family (not desperate to stay once it was reality :? )...however I had a job and choices. And quite frankly, I still don't understand the idea of leeching off someone else (no, I'm not wealthy, but I don't actually want much that I can't afford, and have always worked, even if the jobs were hell) And how can you be putting your child first if it's a revolving door of "uncles"? Seems that women who do that neither think about their children nor their partners. Or have much self reliance.

IF, and it's a big IF, once my masters is done, I could be bothered with any of this dating business, I would compartmentalise my life the same way I do with my social life with friends. Unless I get a PhD place, in which case I'll be remaining single 8)


_________________
Other people are people too.


barbedlotus
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jul 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Female
Posts: 185

04 Aug 2009, 8:16 pm

ToadOfSteel wrote:
Why would you want a friend with benefits? If the other person is already a friend, just spring for an actual relationship...


Depends on the level of commitment you want from the relationship. As far as I'm concerned I've always considered friends with benefits to be a relationship, it just has different rules than that of the more standard sexual relationships. It also takes being open enough to acknowledge that FWB is not a meant to last relationship set up. It either ends or evolves into a more committed relationship.



ToadOfSteel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,157
Location: New Jersey

04 Aug 2009, 10:09 pm

barbedlotus wrote:
Depends on the level of commitment you want from the relationship. As far as I'm concerned I've always considered friends with benefits to be a relationship, it just has different rules than that of the more standard sexual relationships. It also takes being open enough to acknowledge that FWB is not a meant to last relationship set up. It either ends or evolves into a more committed relationship.


Well my point is (and this is me speaking, since my definition of "friend" is a lot deeper than most others), "friends with benefits" is almost synonymous with a full relationship (in fact, a relationship should ideally start with a friendship as a foundation to initiate the romantic connection...)



MDD123
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2009
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,007

04 Aug 2009, 11:46 pm

Ligea_Seroua wrote:
MDD123, that's awful. I bet she would have that mentality whether she was a parent or not, it probably just gives her some false justification now. I'm sure there are other women like that, and they are repugnant to me as a woman and I hope they are a minority.

I just don't like overgeneralisations, is all.


You're right about that. There's no need to go overgeneralizing this from a bad experience. I know I've hurt people too, and it was after the fact. That's putting things into perspective.



biostructure
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2006
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,444

05 Aug 2009, 1:22 am

ToadOfSteel wrote:
barbedlotus wrote:
Depends on the level of commitment you want from the relationship. As far as I'm concerned I've always considered friends with benefits to be a relationship, it just has different rules than that of the more standard sexual relationships. It also takes being open enough to acknowledge that FWB is not a meant to last relationship set up. It either ends or evolves into a more committed relationship.


Well my point is (and this is me speaking, since my definition of "friend" is a lot deeper than most others), "friends with benefits" is almost synonymous with a full relationship (in fact, a relationship should ideally start with a friendship as a foundation to initiate the romantic connection...)


I think ToadOfSteel kind of gets it. For me, the difference between "friends with benefits" and a relationship is really the level of commitment, and quite possibly the absence of romantic attraction. It does not mean that that friendship can't be intimate, in the sense of openness and trust.

In fact, the kind of people I could become good friends with are actually MORE people I could be truly intimate with than most of the people I have crushes on, even if I'm less intensely attracted.



biostructure
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2006
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,444

05 Aug 2009, 1:36 am

Janissy wrote:
Biostructure, your view of sex is stuck in the "7 year olds playing doctor" stage. It's a lot more serious and with serious consequences than you seem to think.


What do you mean here? If you're talking about pregnancy and diseases, well these issues can be avoided or at least minimized by open communication and making responsible choices.

If you're talking about the emotional significance assigned to it, that's exactly what I'm trying to avoid. I feel I need to experience the "7 year olds playing doctor" at least once. Right now I doubt I can reciprocate the kind of seriousness that many adults assign to the act. And even if I were in a relationship where I could, I would still have the need to experience intimacy of a purely playful nature every once in a while.

Maybe if I had agreed to commit to a partner, at least for the time being, she'd be OK with that. I don't know. But I figure there must exist women somewhere with my same needs and level of development. After all, I'm not a complete freak of nature--and to some extent we Aspies all develop somewhat differently from the norm.

MDD123 wrote:
Saguaro wrote:
biostructure wrote:
So then, quite early on, I let a girl know that I would expect that she be sexually open in a friendship. I feel this is especially important in my case, since I want sex to be playful and rather childlike



I'm sorry but this sounds disturbing. What do you mean "childlike"?


I think he means unassuming or less dirty than people view it today. At least that's what I'm assuming.


Yes, this is what I mean. Exploratory and open, rather than things following a set course with defined meanings. I was not trying to suggest that I have a "Daddy" fetish or something (which I do not). In fact, I have been a little disappointed or at least surprised that among people who have childlike sexual fantasies, this kind of stuff seems to account for upwards of 90%, and people who actually want to BE childlike are quite rare.



Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 53
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,450
Location: x

05 Aug 2009, 7:25 am

biostructure wrote:
Janissy wrote:
Biostructure, your view of sex is stuck in the "7 year olds playing doctor" stage. It's a lot more serious and with serious consequences than you seem to think.


What do you mean here? If you're talking about pregnancy and diseases, well these issues can be avoided or at least minimized by open communication and making responsible choices.

If you're talking about the emotional significance assigned to it, that's exactly what I'm trying to avoid. I feel I need to experience the "7 year olds playing doctor" at least once. Right now I doubt I can reciprocate the kind of seriousness that many adults assign to the act. And even if I were in a relationship where I could, I would still have the need to experience intimacy of a purely playful nature every once in a while.

Maybe if I had agreed to commit to a partner, at least for the time being, she'd be OK with that. I don't know. But I figure there must exist women somewhere with my same needs and level of development. After all, I'm not a complete freak of nature--and to some extent we Aspies all develop somewhat differently from the norm.

.


I am talking about the emotional significance assigned to it. If you were a gay man you might have some luck, but you will be hard-pressed to find a woman who attaches no emotional significance to sex, unless she's a prostitute. Even then, from what I've read, many prostitutes attach emotional significance to sex because that is biologically hard wired in women, but they supress it with johns by mentally dehumanizing them and holding them in utter contempt. You are looking for something impossible: sex with a woman who likes you enough to be a friend but is guarenteed not fall in love with you after sex just because you've told her she shouldn't. Men tell women this fairly often. "Baby, I don't want to get tied down" and the women nod agreeably and fall in love anyway. The only men who really get away with this are the ones who really have something major to offer a woman other than love, such as a brush with fame. This is how rock stars and professional athletes get groupies. Groupies expect neither love nor money in exchange for sex. Instead, they get a brush with fame. But if you were famous enough to get groupies you wouldn't be here. So if you aren't willing to offer love, you'd better be willing to offer money. Hire a prostitute. She won't fall in love with you.

Several years ago, movie star Charlie Sheen got caught up in a scandal about using prostitutes via the Hollywood Madam. In several interviews after this, reporters asked him why he went to prostitutes when he could get countless women for free, alpha male that he is (they didn't say "alpha male" but they sure implied it). He rather bluntly said that he wanted sex without any emotional strings attached and prostitutes were the only reliable, guarenteed way to get it. I guess even groupies fall in love. So if alpha male Charlie Sheen can't set up a no-strings-attached friends-with-benefits arrangement without having the women fall in love with him even though he asked them not to, you really won't be able to either.



makuranososhi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 May 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,805
Location: Banned by Alex

05 Aug 2009, 10:54 am

Quote:
If you're talking about the emotional significance assigned to it, that's exactly what I'm trying to avoid. I feel I need to experience the "7 year olds playing doctor" at least once. Right now I doubt I can reciprocate the kind of seriousness that many adults assign to the act. And even if I were in a relationship where I could, I would still have the need to experience intimacy of a purely playful nature every once in a while.


There are times of innocence and discovery in physical intimacy - but you are NOT seven years old, and you cannot regain that time or replace that experience. Your focus should be on finding a playful sort of partner, not some grand structuring to find a non-committed and inequitable sexual relationship. This feels very much like a missing the forest for being fixated on one tree moment.


M.


_________________
My thanks to all the wonderful members here; I will miss the opportunity to continue to learn and work with you.

For those who seek an alternative, it is coming.

So long, and thanks for all the fish!


biostructure
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2006
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,444

05 Aug 2009, 1:57 pm

makuranososhi wrote:
Quote:
If you're talking about the emotional significance assigned to it, that's exactly what I'm trying to avoid. I feel I need to experience the "7 year olds playing doctor" at least once. Right now I doubt I can reciprocate the kind of seriousness that many adults assign to the act. And even if I were in a relationship where I could, I would still have the need to experience intimacy of a purely playful nature every once in a while.


There are times of innocence and discovery in physical intimacy - but you are NOT seven years old, and you cannot regain that time or replace that experience.


Who says I can't? I'm sorry, this is one of the kinds of comments that angers me the most. People of all ages do all kinds of things that some other say they are "too old" for, yet those people ignore them and just keep on doing it. With me it just has to do with sexuality. And I know there are others who role-play children sexually in certain communities.

makuranososhi wrote:
Your focus should be on finding a playful sort of partner, not some grand structuring to find a non-committed and inequitable sexual relationship.


Well I DO want a playful sort of partner, and in my case that also means uncommitted. It doesn't mean anonymous, I'd still like someone I can hopefully trust deeply, and (in some cases) be just regular friends with, just not someone who wants to get married and have kids, and not necessarily someone I feel romantic love for. It's not that I want NO emotional involvement, I want the emotional involvement to be on a similar rather childlike, unassuming level, both for the experience and to allow me to develop. In fact, the only condition is that she be open to me physically. If you call this a relationship, then so be it.

And it's not inequitable if the girl wants the same sort of thing. I've read on other sites that there really are quite some women looking for JUST sex (just none happen to be in my area), so I'd figure that if there is a real personal connection in addition to the sex (even if not a romantic one, at least by adult standards) then there would be even more "takers". And like I said, there must be some girls who are missing experience from their younger lives as well. Though unfortunately fewer because it's so easy for them to get experience.

I suppose I could see a prostitute and ask her to roleplay the kind of exploration I want. However, I'd need one who would let me touch her whole body and be affectionate (which not all of them do), and I couldn't truly get to know her either.



makuranososhi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 May 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,805
Location: Banned by Alex

05 Aug 2009, 2:27 pm

You can't because you aren't seven - you can have experiences, but you cannot go back and you cannot replace or re-experience those times. It is a form of holding onto the past and not moving forward, in my opinion.


M.


_________________
My thanks to all the wonderful members here; I will miss the opportunity to continue to learn and work with you.

For those who seek an alternative, it is coming.

So long, and thanks for all the fish!


biostructure
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2006
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,444

05 Aug 2009, 2:40 pm

OK, so I can't experience them in a seven-year-old body, with a girl in a seven-year-old body, but I can still perform really any physical action that I could at the time (and more). So all that remains is the mindset, and particularly finding a girl with that mindset--because I can take care of my own mindset myself.