ProtestTheHero

I will add my meager two cents to this thread and say I stand in solidarity with you, Lolita. I am fairly young (27) and work in accounting/financial services. I make good money for my age, but I would not miss the grind of work if the means to fund my lifestyle could be supplied in another way. We are aligned politically. We are aligned in believing that life, more often than not, is a product of our own decisions more than it is a product of our own circumstances. Obviously, people are born closer to the finish line than others, but that doesn't change how I feel. Anyone can do what I do and make what I make, and I am weary of arguments to the contrary when nothing other than 40+ hours of hard work every week stands in between them and me. I am not uniquely gifted. Just wanted to show you some love.

That happens to me with some frequency in one specific area -- fashion. I know a ton about men's classic fashion, especially business, business casual, and anything to do with shoes. I can tell you the difference between Enzo Bonafe, Gaziano and Girling, Carmina, etc. I went to a decent store around here with my girlfriend and it was amusing to see how the salesperson directed all their commentary to her, as if I was being dragged along to something I didn't personally enjoy and she was responsible for outfitting me. When I'm out without her, I'm often accused of being gay in bars or casinos. All it takes is pomade in your hair, a pair of well fitting chinos, a nice double monk shoe, and a button-down and boom, lol.

My question is why do loners even want one another? I'm not afraid of being alone. It's not an impetus to hitch up with someone that's bad for me. However, when you remove fear from the equation you have the luxury of looking at it from a "value-added" perspective. I'm not afraid of intimacy or love -- I just don't value either thing. Would I enjoy my life any more at the present if a compatible romantic interest loved me? No. I'd be in the same position feeling the same things with the added complexity of having to consider the interests of someone else. I'm not advocating that we all, having conquered this fear, should become monks. If you want to have sex then have sex. If you want to spend time with a witty conversationalist then do so. You don't need intimacy, commitment, or love to enjoy almost every aspect of a typical exclusive relationship. You can have your cake and eat it, too. And then you can leave -- no explanation necessary. Why sacrifice that freedom for someone who pays lip service to the freedom that you value? I say "lip service" because people always say how much they value their alone time until they are alone. Your partner is good with your desire to carve out your alone time until he or she isn't, and they can't know that until they experience it. Why conquer the fear of being alone only to ultimately pair off with someone indefinitely? It seems like a waste of an advantageous mindset. Does that make sense to anyone but me?

The Rabbit Angstrom tetralogy by John Updike.

Don't care. There are too many other more important things I'm factoring in. As long as you're not going to give me something or commit it to memory for life, we're good.

Machiavelli - The Prince

I don't think they will see this post. This thread is like 5 years old.

Obviously a take on Seuss with the structure, although the first thing I thought when I saw the title was the MASH song.

I'd get out of this situation, man. This is obviously something that won't change. You are who you are. If she can't accept that, let her sleep around and play dress up with someone dumb enough to let her. You are worth more than that and deserve more respect than that. I'd bail.

Idk, I kinda like the ambiguity. Leaves room for individual interpretation.

It was on the front page, so it's not like I dug into the archives to make a random point. I'm not saying anyone got ganged up on, I just think it's utterly hilarious that anyone would be offended by the question. I myself have NO sexual history, and among people my age that's something to be embarrased about. I guess I find it funny that people take it so seriously? I don't know.

Life isn't fair. If it's REALLY serious to the OP, go ahead and ask and make a decision based on it. If this causes a big schism because it's important to you and not to her, than maybe you two aren't as suited for each other as you though. My god, the need to be politically correct is hideously burdensome. If a girl was asking this question, I'm sure it would be entirely justified. I'm entirely amused that so many people rushed to defend someone they don't know. Nothing like being enlightened by such tolerant free thinkers. Everyone is pushing their own brand of intolerance in one way or another, and the agenda pushing gets old.

You'll be looking for a while. I'd say nice guys are made up of the overly sensitive, the overly shy, the overly predictable, and the jaded. Anyone who calls themselves a nice guy and isn't any of the aforementioned things is few and far between. Once you find one, you actually have to be attracted to him. All in all, it's not looking good from a probability standpoint.

Well, K-dog, I think I'd go with A too. I don't think A is possible in this world though. Looks are only useful for initial attraction, but when it comes down to it Father Time can stain even the most beautiful. Those who cling to looks are those who have NOTHING else to cling to. Kevin, your posts scare me sometimes because you think exactly like me.