How to Deal with a Curve Ball I NEVER Saw Coming (death by puns)

[tiredofvampires]

I said that. And I also explained in a follow up post (which you may not have had time to read since you didn't respond/rebuttal in any way) what I meant by that in more detail, since you interpreted this expression differently than I intended.

 

I am sorry that you perceive me as an uncharitable poster, because my intentions came from a good place and I was under the impression that you wanted to be challenged in your thoughts and interpretations.

 

I did read your post(s), and have only been trying to give equal time to other posts that were coming in, so my apologies for not having been able to respond to that one.

 

I'm still going to try to get back to a few posts that I haven't been able to, and wanted to remark on (though I don't know how many people have lost interest at this point).

 

Admittedly, trying to untangle miscommunications within the posts feels more laborious and counter to the flow of the subject of this thread. But I appreciate your clarifications and following all this, as well as the points you've made. I am going to go back to re-read that post, and if there's anything in that I think should be rebutted, I'll post it.

 

What I meant by "uncharitable poster" was that in places, I felt that you were not giving me credit where credit was due. For example, if you say I should consider my audience when I write something, I would have hoped that you would have already imagined that I did that, given your overall understanding of me as a poster. Just as an example.

 

I do thank you for the clarifications, though.

[Honey Pumpkin]

Hey TOV, sorry I never replied - tough week at work! I understand your analysing what happened, I do the same. I do think your guy was poor in bed, and his behaviour was disrespectful. But I also understand that it was a significant event, and like I said, I have been there. Still there in fact, am off to see him tomorrow. I am a big believer that an experience that gets to you is significant, meaningful, regardless of others' POV. Even the other in that event, if that makes sense.

 

So, I guess what I want to know - how are you feeling about it all now? Do you regret it or not? I think it shook you up, made you realise that you want more in your life. I know that you know that he's not the answer, or even part of the answer. But do you regret it? I don't think you do. Would you rather have played 'safe' and walked away, or do you welcome the change in your life?

 

I'm struggling with whether I can make it work with my guy. I think I'm going to walk away after I see him this time. But I find other people's advice so difficult, because it doesn't quite fit with my own experience.

[tiredofvampires]

HP, no worries about the lag, I'm glad you could make some time to return!

 

To answer your question: resoundingly, NO, I don't regret it. I'm glad I let myself "go" to experience it, and even though I felt abraded about the way he dealt with the situation and me (and it was not just being a "crappy lay" -- I've had a couple of those, and this was more along the lines of an attitude towards me/it that cast a muckier film over it than had to be there, I believe) -- I'm glad I seized the day.

 

I actually did not expect this to be sexually gratifying to any great degree, just alone by the peculiar nature of my problems that I've described on this thread. Part of that has to do with me and my body (and knowing that an optimal experience would require someone more attuned to my body -- ergo, someone that either is naturally more "present" or someone who just gives a damn); I was particularly in a bad funk when he propositioned me, so this was like the prospect of running a marathon when you're dehydrated. Can't have been fireworks. But I wanted to take the ball and run with it (to continue the imperfect title pun), to resuscitate something that had all but ceased to be breathing. So I did that, and that impact has not yet receded. I actually still feel the energy in my body. As if still infused with electricity and the glow of his virility; which translates into a virility of my own as I grab back at life.

 

When I think of it -- the first night especially -- I still feel on top of the world and like I have something in my back pocket that wasn't there before. WIN. No, I would never take that back. I also feel that, should I start regressing back into the darkest places I've been lately, I can remind myself, "you see, that happened, and you didn't think that could have happened, right?" So it's one of those cognitive reference points for the tough times that will no doubt try me again.

 

Things feel just a little more possible because of him.

 

And I have even expressed gratitude on this thread FOR HIM, in that, in the mixed bag it all is. It's sad to me that I'd want to tell a person, "Thank you for doing this for me," and the only way that would be met would be with the greatest contempt and bemused condescension imaginable, and possibly the idea that I'm creepy. I can't imagine anyone comprehending a matter less than how he would if anyone attempted to present this to him. Goes without saying that had he any clue about this thread, he'd think I'm patently psycho.

 

I went in knowing this would not be about receiving the red carpet treatment in any way. I had other priorities and motives. But some of the things he did and the WAY he did them (it's like tone of voice, the WAY you say something can totally alter the meaning and intent), I'd have to be made out of stone not to feel unsettled by.

 

I'm not sure how I feel about having gone through the second night. I'm not sure what that ADDED, in terms of self-affirmation. My feeling is that that's when things started to feel like diminishing returns. Had we had condoms, I would have most likely gone through with sex to up the ante, despite some qualms (and the fear of pain, which I know I would have), because my desire to break free of fear was stronger than the fear.

 

This is probably the one thing that feels unfinished, though, that comes close to regret. But that was out of my control, since I would not have had unprotected sex, and nor did I think we would be in a position again to consider it (given how he fled like a bat out of hell the first time.) So that's all water under the bridge. But a part of me feels that if I had been more aggressive myself in some way, or more agreeable, I may have had a fuller experience to round it out.

 

I also wonder if we'd still have contact if it had gone that way, because if it was good for him, maybe we'd have more encounters that he'd seek out and I have no idea how this may have advanced me even further. Could have been to my detriment as well. I wonder how it would have changed the dynamic one way or the other, or my feelings of confidence. Now I'll never know. (See, this is the kind of thing that doesn't even enter into other tales of casual sex and Monday-morning quarterbacking. My concerns and considerations are way, way out there, even if I still deal with the standard fare. Not unusual though, for me to feel like an aberration.)

 

In other words...I kind of wish I'd had what you've had, HP. I was only barely entering in upon that gaining of more confidence that you've had some time to develop. So I think yours may be a more complete (for lack of better words) experience. CONSUMMATE. That says it all.

 

I just don't think I could have achieved that without putting my health at risk, being incredibly docile, or further chasing after him once it became awkward and the moment had passed. So, I wish I could feel a bit more resolved about this.

 

The only way I can reassure myself is to imagine that some day, someone will finish what he started. And maybe I'll be just damn glad it is them, and I won't need this "finale" anymore. For now, it feels like a story with an unfinished ending, if we are speaking in the language of my body.

 

I so appreciate your understanding and sharing the experience of finding it difficult to get feedback that "fits" with this. Years ago, I posted a thread about some of these problems I suffer with, in this very forum. This was before anyone really knew me on this site. And I got all of 4 posts, none of which said, "I've felt this way" or "I know what you mean" or "I have this problem too" or "I know someone with this problem." So, that being a measure of how in-good-company I am in a fairly good cross-section of the population, it's clear that many people will be advising (not just here, but anywhere) from their known experiences, which may only somewhat resemble what I'm dealing with. It's hard, isn't it, to feel that people can only have an approximate understanding, if that, of your workings. And given your POV can only be referenced through those approximations, those who offer their perspectives may miss by an inch. But as an Asian martial arts saying goes, "Miss by an inch -- miss by a mile."

 

It's a feeling of being remote. And I guess that's one of the things that also leaves a salty taste in my mouth about what happened: as I told another poster, somehow the freedom he has in his body reinforced my perception of the divide between us; and the prison I have been in, by that stark contrast. So in some ways, I was trying to cut myself free from something, and in the process, lacerating my flesh with the same knife that was trying to sever the knots.

 

What I found fascinating about this thread, HP, is that while many of the female posters were spot on -- I feel like NEARLY 100% of the MALE posters have "gotten me", where I was coming from. That was an amazing (and moving, for me) surprise, that the male contingent has demonstrated this versatility and emotional ability. I would almost call it ironic, but that sounds insulting somehow.

 

So it is sweet. And bitter. And sour. And salty. And astringent.

 

I don't think I've learned anything about human nature without going through the less-than examples. I don't think I've found anything that feels right without having learned "wrong." So if I wanted to take this back, I'd probably also have to take back nearly all of my life as well which has served me up with mixed curses and mixed blessings, to start at the beginning and make it all work out splendidly, and it's too late for that.

 

But you seem to be in a different place than I. Yours is no hit-and-run. It's an affair that has been ongoing. Are you trying to "make it work" as more than that? Do you see a romantic possibility here? That would make our situations quite different. Good luck tomorrow with him! (I hope to know what happens...) You sound pretty torn, and imagine I'd be feeling the same way.

 

But I'm soooo glad you've been here to know what this is like. And also for understanding needing to process it, however petty or overwrought others may judge it. I would call it obsessive at the point that I'm only going in circles, but I feel this is NOT just repeating things. It's gone over many angles and new ones that appear to me.

[tiredofvampires]

Oh, and HP...

 

You agree (with many others) that he was disrespectful.

 

What has been different in your experience?

 

Also, do you hang out as friends, too, or is this strictly bedroom-rendezvous material?

[ProtestTheHero]

There are different types of friendship. Not every friend needs to be a confidant and not every friendship requires an in depth understanding of the other person. Some people are buddies that you call up and you just hang or go drinking, etc. etc. You don't generally sit these people down and have a heart-to-heart on how much the two of you care about one another. I don't know many people that have expectations of that type of depth with every friend, and I'm 100% sure that you have friends like that, so in my head that is all this fellow could be. He wouldn't be the type of friend that you'd unload your problems on and vice versa, even if that at times happened during the time you were under one roof. That doesn't translate as well when you live in separate places and a genuine effort is necessary to maintain that type of understanding.

 

I recognize that there are people out there under the belief that they can compliment emotional intimacy with physical intimacy and still maintain a very standard friendship. I personally find that to be much stranger than anything else we've discussed here. It's more or less like having a pseudo-partner where only an artificial (and at times arbitrary) demarcation sets the two apart. If I'm having sex with someone who I understand, who understands me, with trust, moral support, and history...well, I'm probably having sex with someone I've fallen for and I'm probably deluding myself by drawing that artificial line. The problems associated with drawing that artificial line permeate many parts of this forum. I think it's a bad idea and I don't believe I'm in a minority there.

 

Ok, so rapport in a FWB setting is just a very general thing. She knows I'm a generally nice/trustworthy guy, even if our particular arrangement doesn't require me to be, and she knows that I'm not going to do things she doesn't like or hurt her. Essentially, all the general worries you'd have about meeting someone new for purely sex...maybe physical insecurity, physical safety, establishing what you do or don't like, etc. are settled. That's a very basic framework and I don't know many women willing to entertain this sort of arrangement that want/require more.

 

So, with this definition, once you established whatever was hurtful/unpleasant he would have been a jerk if he had done those same things to you again. I don't think he's a jerk for choosing not to "play" at all if/once you establishing ground rules. He's allowed to take his ball and go home, and that's what he basically did. A guy in this situation should probably expect some sort of physically pleasurable payoff for her. If he doesn't, she's having sex with a guy who isn't pleasing her because she wants to please him, and that's a sign of a woman wanting more. That's when the woman should leave him and he realizes that sex for sex's sake needs to be enjoyable for her as well or else we're crossing the framework we've established and entering into undesirable territory.

 

Establishing a certain speed, certain things that you like, etc. are cool. I'm generally not looking to be super playful or have someone get super playful with me. Personally, I just don't think you are equipped to have the sort of sex this guy wanted or that I'm describing. I think that because you're not equipped to do this, it's probably not hard for you to think that this guy is flawed or being disrespectful in some way. The problem is that you're using your own preferences as a frame of reference, but as Lavender said (and I agree)...this guy basically delivered on the typical hit-it-and-quit-it experience and didn't do much wrong if you view it with hit-it-and-quit-it expectations (even though he didn't really hit it, lol).

 

Even though I know you didn't want something more with this guy, you are holding him to a standard that someone would employ if they did want something more.

 

As I said, I don't think any of what either of you did was wrong. If you had attempted to educate him in any way about any of what went on with a letter, that (IMO) would have been the strangest part of the whole endeavor. You didn't go that route, so that's a plus. I think most of this just has a lot to do with your temperament and personality and the way that contrasts with people who are more acquainted with this scenario. As I said before, there's nothing highbrow about being incapable of unattached sex and there's nothing lowbrow about being able to do it. We are all wired in different ways when it comes to what we expect from people in this area in terms of what's enjoyable. That's it.

[mines]

"1. On a scale of 1-10, 1 being the worst sex you've had and 10 being the best, how does such an F buddy arrangement like this (which is as you describe it) stack up against sex with a partner you love, are in love with, and have a deep emotional connection to?

 

2. On a scale of 1-10, 1 being "the worst experiences I've ever had in my life" and 10 being "the best experiences I've ever had in my life" (I know, HUGE gap there, so just don't overthink it) -- how does noncommittal sex with an F buddy stack up in the rating of life experiences?

 

The whole thing is so hard for me to imagine. Not really because I can't imagine wanting someone to have sex with that I don't want a relationship with, but because I can't imagine calling someone just to make a sex appointment. Like you make time in your schedule to see your doctor, you make time in your schedule to make sure your horniness gets fixed. Lol, I mean no disrespect, it's just...how does that work? Excuse me naivete on this whole thing.

 

I just can't imagine how I'd get turned on to someone without at least feeling we can talk with a lot of rapport on a number of subjects, and once that intellectual fire is there, what would make me not want to enjoy that outside the bedroom? How does that work for you?"

 

Thanks for your questions, (and thanks for the pm letting me know you responded, this is a huge thread indeed, haha)

 

Answer to your first question - my current F Buddy arrangement ranks a 9+ compared to a 10 (which was with my 2nd husband). Our sex life was amazing but he was a very bad person, treated me horribly. Obviously it took me awhile to see through the pink fog there.

 

Question 2, ok...ranked in life experience? Not a great way to rate, I've got 2 beautiful children, having them, raising them, top of my life experiences. I run marathons....every time I cross the finish line it's a top life experience. Sex....I've had mediocre sex in committed relationships kids dad) and mind-expanding sex with a FWB and currently awesome sex w/my F Buddy. Honestly I value my sex life a great deal. I'm very picky, I've gone through as much as 8 years completely celibate. If I"m not 'feelin it" I'd just rather abstain and masturbate. However I am in good shape and men seem to find me attractive. Since I'm single.....I have no reason to be celibate. BUT....I have to have a cerebral connection, not just a physical attraction, to enjoy sex. My current F-Buddy is a writer, and he makes me laugh, he's so smart, so articulate. Not the best looking man - but he certainly knows how to touch me, and kiss me, and make me feel (while I"m with him) like I'm the only woman in the world. Still if you really want a ranking in life experience....I put it as a 10. Overall. Because to me sex is one of those rare connections. We don't share it with friends, or family, it's a unique connection. To touch and kiss a lover and be touched/kissed by him, looking in each other's eyes, it's a priceless gift.

 

Cheesy sounding, maybe. But it's just my truth. I've had the meaningful 'in love' sex. It's great, for sure. But just because I'm not in love now....and likely may not ever be again, um should I not have a sex life? Ha! Forget that! I'm a distance runner, my sexual appetite is as huge as my appetite for beer and for food, haha. Or worse.

 

Thanks for your questions I really enjoy all your posts and threads. Please write a book and let us all know where we can buy it You seem like an amazing person and for sure you're a great writer! Thanks for welcoming me in your thread!

[tiredofvampires]

I have one of your posts before this I want to reply to, PTH, but I’m gonna beeline your last one first.

 

Agreed, on what kind of friend he'd likely be to me. Not the kind that I'd have deep heart-to-hearts with. And that would only be because he wouldn't go there, out of his own limitations of self-expression as well as a lack of interest in mine (probably a biggie, since he's quite self-absorbed in general, I observed). I'm the sort of person who is a bit like a spring-loaded bar -- I adjust to whatever width (or depth) the "space" calls for. So I can go deep with someone else who is inclined that way, but I can keep it on a different level with someone who is not. I can be comfortable anywhere along that range (though with an SO, I’d need the whole range).

 

I think where I had/have problems is when it seems inconsistent, and it did with him. I had a very difficult time getting a "read" on just how interested he was in me, in any sense. All along the way, I found myself expecting very little and being surprised by things he said or did that exhibited an unexpected level of interest or liking. Culminating in him seeing me as a sex partner, which was frankly a shock. I could never have seen that coming in a million years. So I guess it was this unpredictability that has left me with this open-ended questioning. The whole thing has just ended as a riddle for me. Because I don’t like someone…and then just not.

 

To the best of my reckoning, I'd imagine he doesn't feel we have enough to go on as friends, just to hang out as friends; and if the sex had been the full deal, without any rumples, maybe he'd consider booty calls. But as it stands, with the little jagged edges that existed and being a dead end ultimately, he sees the sex as not enough to go on either, just for itself. Nor do the pros of friendship plus the pros of sex combined (FWB) = enough total value. And, with time and distance, and out of sight…the convenience, impulsivity and alcohol-fueled "why the hell not"ness has been taken out of the equation, on both fronts. The potential he sees for me getting emotionally hooked in a way that could go the wrong way (which would be his mistaken impression -- not what would happen, knowing myself as I do) doesn't justify whatever fun we could have, which he can easily get with a plethora of people already more kindred and familiar to him, as he's a social animal and never lacking there. So, put bluntly, I don't have/offer anything he needs enough to pursue.

 

That's my take on it.

 

Thanks for your explanation of how “rapport” works with FWBs. I suppose that makes sense in the kind of minimalistic FWB interaction you’re talking about.

 

As for FWBs who have a history, trust, and the like, what happens, in my experience, is that it's not such an arbitrary line. There's something -- or things -- that are irreconcilable differences, in terms of making it as a couple. So you're not falling for the person even though they have a lot of traits you could fall for. The ones that stand in the way, that crop up regularly, remind you again and again that this is limited in scope. It could be some mannerisms, some critical values or personality traits. It could be anything. So you may have a heart connection with them which could be called love, but being in love, you're not. It may just so happen that you have a strong and good sexual chemistry, but again, that doesn't flip that switch either. So you're not exactly pseudo-partners, even though it may look like that at times. These relations can be confusing, thorny, and hurtful, so they do carry some risk. But I've had them more than once to know that they can "work" (in the limited sense that they don't have to blow up in your face, even though they’re naturally not built to last as such), so long as the friendship is rock-solid as the primary glue. You're mutually operating on an understanding/assumption that you could afford to lose eachother as lovers, but wouldn't want to as friends.

 

I don't know if it's that my temperament and personality have made the kind of "hit-it-and-quit-it" sex you talk about, un-doable (though my female doctor agrees with you on that theory). I think I may never have an answer to that question, and that's what haunts me, even torments me. Extremely strange, I know. This same doctor (who has known me for many, many years and btw has a nationally-recognized new book out, ALL ABOUT SEX, and she was even interviewed by Playboy, so this is no resource to scoff at) said to me that I am "fine china" and he's a bull in that shop. She was trying to get me to see the light. Sell me the idea that I was missing absolutely nothing but minus-pleasure and an empty feeling. Finally I said, somewhat taking the Devil's Advocate, "I guess I wouldn't want to chop my hand off with an axe just to see what that feels like, either." And she said, "EXACTLY!" lol It was a valiant try on both our parts to convince me.

 

But sexuality is a central and dominant element in most people's lives, and I'm no exception. So in this way, I feel I don't know myself...my limits, my true inclinations, what I'm capable of (in all senses of the word). I have such a scarred history in this matter (which goes even beyond the problems I've discussed in this thread) that by default, I have no choice but to look for signs of consideration and trustworthiness, at minimum, in an encounter. Physical pain has closed the doors of callous sex to me. So the jury's out on that one -- what I am equipped to do or not, by nature. I have my guesses about it, based on some circumstantial evidence. But they are just that.

 

There are some things that intrigue me about your particular brand of NSA sex, though, and your beliefs about it (which I know aren't just "yours" but somewhat common protocol out there) -- "The Rules" as you see it, and why they exist. It's almost like you've got this down to codified law. It starts with this, from a previous post:

 

However, I have brushed someone away who was kissing my chest. I have spent the majority of my sexual encounters drunk out of my mind. I have put forth minimal effort. I have been indifferent and inattentive. In these scenarios I don't want someone treating me like royalty or nuzzling up to me or doing anything that attempts to recreate what this is. This is the .99 cent menu of sex. This is the Drive-thru at Wendy's of sexual gratification. It is what it is. I don't want to pretend otherwise.

 

Who's pretending or creating something that doesn’t exist? You? Me? In a funny way, if you're assuming that I'm kissing, touching, nuzzling, being playful and adoring, or looking for those to be reciprocated because I'm "pretending" it's the real deal, THAT could be considered paternalistic. What if I just enjoy those kinds of physical gratification as much as you enjoy "hitting it"? What if I enjoy them more? What if that's MY way of getting my mojo out? You're telling me what I enjoy is a faux and dishonest experience, and yours is more real and honest, basically. This is something other posters said as well (female posters), and I found myself bristling, because I know that's not true for me. I'm not fooling anyone by enjoying those sensations and activities for themselves.

 

Ha, I made such a fool out of myself, I wanted to die, the first night. When we were standing in my room and he was pulling me towards the bed, kind of still in the persuasion mode, I blurted out with a sheepish laugh, "Can I just kiss you a bunch and then you can go?" LOLOL. Pretty crazy, huh? But for me, for ME, that's what I wanted, physically, to enjoy again, the way someone else just wants to get laid. Just purely for the way it makes me feel all melty and steamy and mouths can be so luscious (especially his, lol). I don't need to be any more invested than your "hit-it-and-quit-it" to enjoy a passionate kiss. I don't need to "lock eyes" (as you said) to enjoy passion that goes beyond the Happy Meal. I know this goes against the common wisdom that sex workers don't kiss for a reason. But see, just as penetration can be sacred or profane, so could any other act along the way. A kiss can be a sign of great intimacy, or it can just be a delightful sensory experience, nothing more, nothing less (and it’s certainly a primer for me that I almost need for the rest to start flowing).

 

And this is where a guy being in charge of making all these kinds of projections gets misplaced:

 

I don't think he's a jerk for choosing not to "play" at all if/once you establishing ground rules. He's allowed to take his ball and go home, and that's what he basically did. A guy in this situation should probably expect some sort of physically pleasurable payoff for her. If he doesn't, she's having sex with a guy who isn't pleasing her because she wants to please him, and that's a sign of a woman wanting more. That's when the woman should leave him and he realizes that sex for sex's sake needs to be enjoyable for her as well or else we're crossing the framework we've established and entering into undesirable territory.

 

That's simplistic.

 

Okay, first with those unbolded initial sentences, I never said he was a jerk for taking his ball(s, lol) and going home. That was certainly his prerogative, to end things when he wished, just as it was for me. The very next day, I was acting totally normal and like nothing'd happened, until he started to bring things up, jonesing for more. But as long as I'm in for the ride, after that, what you're describing is a no-win situation for me, as I am. I think you're speaking rather broadly, but take what you said and apply it to the situation I was in. Here are the possibilities of things we COULD have done, in theory:

 

1. Straight-up banging

2. A number of peripheral things that would be pleasurable directly for me

3. A number of peripheral things that would be pleasurable directly for him

 

And here’s how those played out:

 

#1. OUT, because we didn't have condoms (and why, why did he leave that up to me, if he was the one who wanted it to happen? Is it because after one night, he figured I'd be sprinting to the drugstore, my tongue wagging out of my mouth, because I'm going, oh my god, I HAVE to HAVE this guy now!!!...especially with the dramatic exit the first night??). So that was just an intelligent, practical limitation.

 

#2. Okay, this was the stuff he was not initiating at all (like touching me as I directed him to, or intuitively using any number of spots on a pretty wide surface area -- he had my ears all the way down to my ankles to choose lots of spots to satisfy my physical desires), and even kissing, which is basic, was not happening when I tried (I sensed those lips were probably reserved, so I left it alone)

 

#3. So yeah, this is gonna be where it's at. Not just by process of sheer elimination, but fortunately, because it's in a dead heat with #2 for me in terms of pleasure. There’s even a lot of overlap for me there. It's just the way I am, I dig all the ways I can enjoy someone's body and reactions, being more dominant. So I went for it. It's what I was left with, and also, it's what I enjoy, so it filled the bill (feeling sexual) well enough.

 

It would not be sustainable JUST doing this forever and ever, but we are talking "hit-it-and-quit-it, minus the hit-it," right? So that's what happened.

 

And now, you're telling me that in so doing, I'm giving the impression that this signals I don't want my own pleasure or care about it, and thus, it's about wanting more than just sex.

 

So, as I understand this, he calls the shots by not giving me direct physical stimulation to arouse or pleasure me, and when I pleasure him because that's the only alternative, and I willingly forfeit the rest because I'm flexible and hey, this rocks too, he concludes that I have unreasonable expectations for this type of arrangement? Especially when we have no prophylactics on hand?

 

FOUL!

 

Why is it writ in stone that if I'm pleasuring him more than vice versa, that can only mean I'm wanting something else from him? Are there no other explanations? What if he just proved he was so unsophisticated with his touch, I'd rather he just stop (since he's ineducable, owing to the fact that he cares so little) and I'll touch him instead? What if I just don't get off much from slamming away with no warm-ups (as is the case for 90%+ of women), so if he doesn't serve his burger with fries, I'd just as soon choose other menu items? What if I don't like a guy going down on me (not part of our situation, but could be possible)? So a guy who doesn't want any fondling, touching, caressing, kissing, etc. etc. because it’s “too meaningful”, and doesn’t care to please, is basically expecting that I get pleasure just the way HE DOES to prove I'm cool with this arrangement overall and am getting my own pleasure needs met.

 

Sounds like a raw deal, implicitly favoring him, even though on the surface of things, it’s touted as being equal. And if his mentality is as you’ve said, I'd be screwed to the wall, wouldn't I? Not literally, lol. I mean, he'd have set this up for me to have no other real recourse (as long as I still wanted to play) than to appear lopsidedly catering. Which would be interpreted as you say (wrongly), or become worthy of disrespect (which I did gather from his attitude – attitude projection [tone, body language, mannerisms, facial expression] being the one thing I can’t convey or replicate in this medium, though I’ve tried to be descriptive of it). In this language of values, “giving” to him seemed to equate with self-effacement, which earned his scorn, all of which he orchestrated. So that’s how your model plays out, even if I (the woman) went in ready to play by the “rules.”

 

I'm not sure how to deem someone disrespectful EXCEPT "from your own frame of reference.” I very honestly did not go in with any expectations, but what I found was a level of disregard (something you're saying is to be expected), veneered in the subtle indicators that someone may be seeing me as lower through a self-serving sleight-of-hand, which seems to inherently define this set-up. Point taken, that if you feel a game is not fair to start with, you have no business taking up the ball. But that doesn’t mean the Rules are fair, weighted evenly. As I spelled out above. You've argued well for their fairness, but the only fair part of it is having the right to refuse to play. All the intrinsic rules put me -- my pleasure, my ability to get it, and how I'm perceived -- at an incredible disadvantage.

 

I think this entire “hit-it-and-quit-it” model is really not suited to women, period. It’s like porn: very poorly representative of what a woman’s pleasure is about. Sure, it happens. And some women are pretty aggro about it, too. What’s really not as evident – especially since as you point out, neither party is concerned how the other feels much – is that this may not even be sexually gratifying to a woman. It may be filling another need. Loneliness, lack of self-esteem, desire to feel desired, insecurity, boredom with life, trying to look/feel cool, trying to numb out, re-enacting old messages, creating a facsimile of what is really desired, and on and on could account for a woman’s participation in the kind of sex you’re talking about. I believe that women are ALWAYS at a disadvantage in this format, because women’s sexuality – as I think you may gather from all the info about this, and readily available on this site – is simply not like a man’s. For a man, you can rub a single spot on his body and it’ll get him there. For most women, not only do you have to rub multiple spots for a cumulative effect (with no guarantee of a "finish", since the vagina for most women is not the primary source of orgasm, strictly physically speaking), but in a lot of cases, a woman isn’t even READY to enjoy anything without preliminaries. And to be aroused, most women have to feel in some way into the guy, something about him, that’s not physical, even if it’s not a serious emotional bond. So it's a complex process for a woman that, when deconstructed to pure in-out mechanics, doesn't lead to enjoyment in most cases.

 

So if you cut out these things for nearly all women, you’re cutting out essentials for pleasure. And you’re left with going through the motions. As I said, a lot of reasons exist for going through the motions, but as a guy, and a guy who is only looking for his own release, you’d be happily oblivious to this.

 

I think in a somewhat twisted way, I wanted to see for myself how "bad" the famed Wendy's Drive-Thru sex was. Since I like to learn things from experience, not through hearsay.

 

I have talked to so many women peers throughout my life, and also professionals whose clients are women having this kind of sex. And the reporting from women of all walks of life and levels of experience has been that's it's worse than a Wendy's burger. It's just a bun. You can try to dress it up as "different strokes for different folks," and even "it's neither right nor wrong, good nor bad" but in the end, I have never met a woman, or known a woman, who has had all of these elements in place at the same time: a. truly felt the sex by itself was worth it, and really enjoyed it, if it was just no-frills drunken, purely mechanical ins-and-outs b. had absolutely no hope that it could materialize into something more than this (with this being the "hook" for the man) c. didn't have some titanic baggage, emotionally. I would bet my bottom dollar that if I asked for a show of hands of women meeting all these criteria at once, I’d be looking out over a graveyard. Any guy who thinks otherwise has been sold a bill of goods (and we women are good at peddling those, until some breaking point.) Just look at the posts and theads of women on ENA who say they have this kind of sex and enjoy it. Then later, they’re posting that they’ve never had an orgasm. They’re posting in the suicide forum. They’re talking about abusive exes. I’ve just never seen this model paired with a healthy woman, who knows her own body, who treats herself well, with a good self-image, who isn’t in some way a slave to men or else resents and mistrusts them.

 

So maybe the question is not so much whether I’m equipped to have this kind of sex, as, is any woman? Whether they actually perform sufficiently or not and make it part of their MO.

 

Finally, there’s a factor here that can’t be overlooked: if you’re having sex (you or anyone, in general) when you’re drunk out of your mind, is that a good representation of what you’d do in your “right” mind? I’d don’t know how many of your own encounters involved an equally inebriated partner, but based on what normally happens, everyone’s fairly well sloshed by the time clothes come off, and women are prepared to go with that flow. Whether initiating it or acquiescing, I think women in this situation are being propelled in large part by having part of their brains shut down. And so that doesn’t speak well to true desires and choices about what one likes or enjoys doing.

 

It’s interesting, is it not, that right before you posted that description up top (that first quote) about what an F buddy situation requires to keep things real and emotionally non-attached, this poster weighed in about her arrangement with NSA sex:

 

I have a current F Buddy, (we don't hang out, so I don't consider it a FWB). Still he is very polite, gracious and is a very passionate lover. He's very discreet, sweet and kind to me, we laugh and have a good time when we are together. At no point was it ever a consideration that there would be anything other than the physical relationship. Part of the reason the sex is so good, is that we are both always touching, caressing and enjoying each other, even between 'sessions'. And we are both reciprocal and give each other equal attention. Things are varied each time (of course) but the affection and passion are always present.

 

So, this is what I mean: even someone who doesn’t want any more than you want out of a partner (i.e., it’s just sex), is operating on a model of affection, passion, reciprocity, and care. Yet this is no “pretense.” How do you figure?

 

Her posts are very much about what I’ve said about myself – enjoying sensuality as inseparable from my experience. And that being denied me for whatever reason has more to do with my partner’s limitations, lacks, and inabilities than my being deluded, I think.

 

So what is mines getting? Dominos? The Olive Garden of sex, lol?

[pl3asehelp]

After reading bits and pieces of this ongoing saga and seeing how intelligent you are TOV, I'm just stunned why you would even waste your time with a guy like this. Any guy with a brain would be lucky to have you and I don't see why you should ever have to settle for anything like a FWB.

[ProtestTheHero]

It's important that we don't get anything twisted. I'm not patting you on the head and saying "there, there little ToV, you little nuzzler, let's count the ways you have lied to yourself here." What I am saying is this: You are seeking some sort of physicality with a guy that you just flat out don't know very well in this scenario. I have the benefit of knowing you and anyone who did know you might be able to see that this playfulness could be restricted within the bounds of a FWB. However, this is not standard operating procedure. You're doing something that's way out in left field with a guy who doesn't know you well enough to give you the benefit of the doubt, and that's why these "rules" exist. They exist because this type of sex lacks a great deal of context.

 

It's simplistic because this type of sex is supposed to be simple. Your situation is unique and the standard operating procedures and expectations disservice you more than most people because these rules weren't written for the 1%. In situations where nothing is expected outside of sex, you generally don't want to start things off with a ridiculously imbalanced scenario of one person doing all the receiving and the other doing all the giving. That is not the way these things are supposed to go and I don't know anyone around me who'd be ok with it. It is a warning sign because this is supposed to be that laissez faire sex where we both satisfy each other by pursuing selfish desires.

 

All I can tell you is that I'm in grad school and the girls go out on weekends looking to get laid and to my eye they seem to be well-adjusted (compared to everyone else). I only get drunk to kill my insecurity. I'd probably be too anxious to do most of what I've done sober.

 

Mines gets to go to Olive Garden because she found/stumbled into a dude that's willing to behave that way. I don't know any guys from any walk of life that I've encountered that would do what she's describing, so I think she's fortunate.

 

If intelligence attracted quality partners on its own merit then I imagine this place would probably have a happier vibe to it.

[tiredofvampires]

It doesn't sound cheesy, mines. Minus the having someone available...and having health problems that present certain obstacles to the way sex normally flows for people, requiring more vigilance on my part and that of my partner...I feel the same way about sex that you do, and seek those kinds of experiences. I'm not a runner, but I used to swim (and hopefully will again at some point, if my health improves), and so feeling good and VITAL in my physical body is something that's always been a big part of my feeling tapped in to life. I also think that the creative urge in other aspects of life is an extension of our procreative urges -- they're facets of the same force. Which is to say, basic and primordial. So when I'm feeling good about myself sexually (rare, but as this experience brought some of that out), I notice that a lot of other energy is on tap -- energy for new ideas, projects, and even building connections of other kinds, with people. It all radiates from this center of "fertility" that has been ignited. And people can tell. I know they can tell by the way they look at me, and even the things they say. Maybe they think it's something new I did to my hair? Ah, must be the Love Shampoo.

 

I think this is true for nearly everyone, but it's a question of degree for different people, and right now, I'm feeling that this is working against me. I wish I was someone who really didn't identify so strongly with my physical capabilities/limitations, with a need to express myself physically as much as I do.

 

Since you say you're picky (I get that -- and amen to the cerebral connection [and even in this case for me, that was operative; I could not have just gone for it with someone like him, a studly stallion, without having known him for a few months as someone who had a somewhat versatile brain], but I also think without some element of that present, this kind of arrangement would not be sustainable beyond a couple of episodes for a lot of women, because that's just how we tick BY AND LARGE)...I'm wondering, was it always this way? With you being "picky"? When you were younger, in your 20's, did you enjoy lesser lovers, pared-down "wham-bam-thank-you-ma'ams" (aka "hit-it-and-quit-it"s in more updated lingo)? If you've had those, what was your experience like? And does it seem different now, looking back, than it did then?

 

Thank you so much for answering my questions to a T. Yeah, I know it's really not fair to try to compare "top life experiences" when they are all so different in their own ways. But, great answers anyway.

 

And hey, thank you for the ultra kind words! I promise when I figure out what my book is actually supposed to be about, lol, I'll do something about it and be sure to let you know.

[tiredofvampires]

After reading bits and pieces of this ongoing saga and seeing how intelligent you are TOV, I'm just stunned why you would even waste your time with a guy like this. Any guy with a brain would be lucky to have you and I don't see why you should ever have to settle for anything like a FWB.

 

Thanks much for your vote of confidence, and all the encouraging words, pl3ase. As I've said, the guys who came out on this thread with an optimistic take and encouraging stance, despite knowing what I've described here that I consider almost preclusive for partnering, has been one of the biggest boons of the thread.

 

I think it's just...this represents something more to me than just this guy.

 

This guy was a catalyst. I think I was looking for something like that, in what the opportunity presented. DylanN here got it right, about him being sort of a "test drive" -- haha, sounds terrible, I know, but it's this version of the "egalitarianism" of selfish agendas that others are talking about here. Not the typical matching set of agendas.

 

I think I was actually getting more out of it than he in a weird light, because for me, it was significant as an experience. And for him, it was insignificant.

 

("More bang for the bang." heehee..)

 

It's just not translating well into all things sugar and spice, though. Some good has come out of it. And some magnification of the things I worry about, about finding someone "worthy" has also come out of it.

 

I do wish that the things working for me could carry the day. I'd like to think that. I'm not sure in the accounting of things, I'm seeing evidence that that's the case. So here I am, feeling that something is and will always be missing in me. FOR me.

 

So I will either have to become okay with what's missing. Or someone will have to come along where it no longer feels like I'm missing anything. And that's a tough call, because no one can fill in your own missing pieces.

[tiredofvampires]

So now that this Energizer Bunny thread is done with its Thanksgiving break...(ack! it seemed so done)....

 

All I can tell you is that I'm in grad school and the girls go out on weekends looking to get laid and to my eye they seem to be well-adjusted (compared to everyone else). I only get drunk to kill my insecurity. I'd probably be too anxious to do most of what I've done sober.

 

So you're saying you're the only drunk one in these situations? The girls don't drink when they go out?

 

 

I'm not patting you on the head and saying "there, there little ToV, you little nuzzler, let's count the ways you have lied to yourself here."

Well, praise the lord. I'm no little nuzzler!

 

You know...while it's true that this type of sex lacks a lot of context, and he certainly doesn’t know me well (or vice versa) -- and not at all in terms of relationship and sexual expectations -- I think that after several months of hanging around with me, he would probably feel comfortable betting on one thing: that I'm not the sort of person to sleep around casually. So that would be the first clue that normal operating procedures may not entirely translate. Overall, I believe I usually project myself as someone who is easy-going, light-hearted and non-judgmental, but with a backdrop of straight-lacedness. If there is one word to describe me IRL, it would be “sober”, haha. (see definition: “marked by circumspection and self-restraint”.) And during our discussions, I'd drop aspects of my nature -- streaks of romantic and idealistic leanings. He could tell some things about me, I think. I'm not the one who left stilettos at the door; no tats; no makeup on regular days; no thank you, to the wine; I got most of my food from the healthfood store and was particular about things that affected my health. Mostly, I was a homebody, while there. I was a nerdy, blushy, brainy goofball, from all appearances, the kind of girl you tell things to, and she'll give it some thought. I flirted a bit, but in the most subdued and unassuming of ways. I went out of my way to consider him as a roomie, in our common areas, and not take more than was mine. I’m not exactly some wholesome good girl, with my sailor mouth, nothing-is-sacred (or off the table) conversation and black humor. But this is not really the picture of someone who's going to be fitting lock-and-key with the lifestyle that he leads, or is fluent with the sex roulette that erases all traces of one’s personality and checks awareness of everything outside of one’s own genitals at the door – is it? In fact, in some ways, I wonder if I appealed to him because I was something "different." In age, but also orientation, with the convenience just being a bonus (which then turned into a negative of awkwardness.)

 

When we were standing on my balcony pressed up against eachother, I actually said (mind you, I didn't have the benefit of alcohol to smooth out my jangled nerves, lol, so all these nutty things I said ought to be cut some slack), "I'm not sure I'm like the other girls you go for. I'm not sure I'm the type..." and believe it or not, none of this daunted him. His response to this was to register a facial expression of disdain over the stereotype he knew he was being pegged into, and didn't enjoy having (if I could have put that look and body gesture into words, it would be, "Despite the fact that I radiate hots.t player, I'm not always like that, you know. I mean, I’m not always that guy, like you think.")

 

I'm not saying that the "rules" you're talking about weren't en force nonetheless or that he didn't fall right into lock-step as he would with nearly anyone...I'm just saying that in some ways, I believe he knew I was not his usual fare, and an unlikely candidate. It was pretty evident, despite my efforts to look cool-headed, that I was stepping into a role that was not really me. And that utterly devoid sex arrangements where I was barely acknowledged for being naked would be pretty incongruous with all the rest of me, there having been nothing callous, indifferent, and inattentive about me that ever showed up to match his in our entire acquaintance. Something tells me he was enjoying that contrast a bit…until the part where he pushed the button and I was supposed to turn into a bot.

 

Your situation is unique and the standard operating procedures and expectations disservice you more than most people because these rules weren't written for the 1%.

 

Yeah...like I said. Aberration. ANOMALY.

 

That may be so. What you’re saying. But I’m not just talking about the 1%. I have an extraordinary situation, which was extraordinarily misconstrued by these rules, but my point was, much of what I said has a broader application, based on other things I’ve known and witnessed. In my opinion, these rules run a high risk of disservicing more than 1% of situations, and women, in particular. I’m saying that where they work, they may not be working for both parties equally, or as intended, even if that’s not glaringly apparent. If people’s expectations are very low to begin with, many things can deliver disappointing results and become acceptable and normative. (Which is an especially good tactic if you want to fireproof yourself against disappointment.) There’s no reason to raise the bar if mediocrity and disappointment become your acceptable setpoint and default function.

 

I don’t know that this is a matter of my making simple sex too complex. If we can’t proceed with sex without a condom (a commonplace predicament), he opts to refuse to even the scales of who’s pleasuring whom, and then draws a fanciful conclusion from that about who and what I am, how is that not just a matter of him being obtuse? If you’re going to stick to a formula even when you see plainly that a situation doesn’t fit it, that seems more about a basic cognitive deficiency. I would hope a guy with decent mental faculties still has this degree of interpretive ability and flexibility in place, however opportunistic of a horndog he’s being and how little he knows me.

 

Furthermore, there was nothing in my demeanor before or between these episodes that indicated I was "falling" for him, trying to ignite something, or remotely pursuing him for more of anything. So that doesn't seem to fit with the concern that I am looking to ensnare him by pleasing him in bed.

 

I do sense he wanted to discourage my physical affectionateness. But then that would be a projection of his own, perhaps a line he was drawing for himself, projected onto me. Which kind of pisses me off to think about.

 

I guess I’m just saying the way all this gets figured and factored, then played out, just doesn’t smack of the even-handedness and leveled playing field you’re billing this as. The deck was loaded against me in a variety of ways. And I’m saying, despite the idiosyncratic part of this and me that would escape him, there was stuff going on that was evident as well, for him to take into account.

 

I don't know what would explain the discrepancy between my observation of women and yours (well, other than a lifetime of different exposures and a gender divide, lol). I don’t think either of us is seeing phenomena that don’t exist. I believe, since we live in the same world (and I don’t think our ages are terribly relevant to our factual observations), we are interpreting these phenomena through different lenses, rather than the content being so radically different.

 

I certainly can't judge these women that are in your midst, as I don't know them. I can't speak to anything about their personalities, problems, or emotional life without knowing them. I don't know how many of these women are your friends whom you know well, but I imagine many are casual acquaintances. You’ve said the women you’ve had sexual encounters with are acquaintances, so these are ones you don’t know well. So overall, you’re assessing women you don’t know well, and also talking about them as if they represent the entire contingent of female grad students in your neck of the woods. That's a lot of women you’re evaluating. I wouldn't say that even in my circles, I know the inner workings of those I consider semi-casual, to know whether or not they are well-adjusted. As tempting as it is (since I compare myself to others a lot), it’s a leap to guess at what they see each morning when they look in their own mirrors.

 

Setting aside the obviously troubled amongst us, most people are equipped to present a pretty put-together front. I, myself, would say I come off as well-adjusted, and I believe in some respects, I am. Relatively speaking. It's only when you get really up close and personal that you see my life is not just sprinkled with the odd issue here or there that everyone's life has, but that it's riddled and contorted with catastrophic loss and pain. If I can over-ride that to look sane, together, balanced and even sanguine to 99% of the world, a lot of people can fake it ‘til they make it (or, to the shock and disbelief of others when they pull the trigger, don’t make it).

 

So, while I can't render any sort of judgment or evaluate the women you're around, and I can't tell you that your eyes are wrong...I can report from the front lines of BEING a woman, and speaking woman-to-woman in many walks, over a lifetime. And I can tell you there is something that's inherently part of being a woman which goes beyond temperament, personality, and even interpretation. Having sex as a woman is an incredibly vulnerable experience. You're universally hard-wired that way, whether you are consciously and conspicuously aware of that or not, whether having never had an overt problem leaves you taking it for granted. When someone is inserting a part of their body into yours, you are at risk. You're at risk for disease more than the other. You're at risk for being impregnated. You're at risk for being hurt, or pushed beyond what your body can take. You're at risk for being outright coerced and overwhelmed. You're the receiver, the more passive half of the duality. The onus is still on you to make sure that you protect yourself from all these things (and then to deal with the consequences or negative perceptions/reactions, one way or another) – as was so apparent in my situation. As a fact of life, women have to see doctors for their reproductive parts throughout their lives on a routine basis, whereas generally, men only go later in life if something unusual crops up as they're aging (assuming they don't get STDs or rare disorders.)

 

So if we are talking about the physical body parts that a woman is engaging when she's engaging with a sexual partner, she is really never going to be able to have sex like a man, because she’s handing over something he isn’t. Period. It’s a given. Even if she has the same libido and an assertive personality. I believe this is a psychic overlay that exists for women whether they are tuned into their bodies or not, and many, many, MANY of them are NOT (that’s why so many women try not to get emotionally attached and do anyway; or do things they don’t really want to or are iffy about, sexually, with some unknown person). The younger, the less likely to be tuned in.

 

But the psyche is such a powerful thing, that if its priorities are in any sort of misalignment, the most dominant ones will diminish everything else, at whatever “price.”

 

Add to that, all the complexities with female sexuality/anatomy I wrote about, which are not just about ME. About the way women ENJOY sex, not just HAVE it. This is famously discussed for a reason. You say these women go out looking to get laid. Right, but I'm not sure how many of them go out looking to get laid sans being touched or touching, being pushed away for kissing someone, with no attention to getting their bodies warmed up and well-lubed. I don't know how many of these women are going out expressly looking for a guy who doesn't even make the effort to try. You can create all the rules you want and have every party abide, but I don't buy the notion that any woman, being rejected in her physical expression, and having someone behave negligently, will have a bounce in her step after that sex and start a countdown during the week until more of that’s on tap. "Looking to get laid" for women could mean a lot of things, but I don't know of any woman that would be looking for a situation where the guy is actively disinterested in how she feels and treating her purely as a penile receptacle.

 

As I see it, that goes against basic human nature, if it's well-adjusted. I don’t know of anyone who welcomes, or is perfectly fine with callousness in any realm, except as a response to other psychological barriers and associations. From where I’m standing, this seems a no-brainer that’s getting a heavy duty layer of gloss varnish here for the purpose of propping up the status quo, while being cast as a function of personal propensities.

 

And I doubt that most women you know would get with a guy like the one I got with and spend 20+ pages determining if he was a jerk. They'd summarily total up arrogance, haughty vibes of "yeah, you know you can't resist me," a sense of entitlement, lack of reciprocity, rudeness, lack of discretion, and stamp that "jerk" as simply as they'd move on. Maybe they'd be out the next weekend looking again, but I can't imagine they'd be thrilled to find one like that again. Unless the pure vision of male beauty is enough to bring them to orgasm alone, and that’s rare enough not to count.

 

Read this forum and see how hard it is for many women to reach climax even under the best of circumstances. That’s more the norm than a woman going out every week just so someone’ll stick a penis in her (scuze the bluntness).

 

Whether Mines is just lucky or not (and I do believe there are more guys like that then you might imagine), what I'm saying is that you can reconstruct the rules of the game, or change around the playing field as a cultural shift, but you can't change the way women are put together. This is not a social mores thing, it's not a women's lib thing or PC thing, it's not a generational thing. I'm not saying that women have to be psychologically unsound to want to have NSA sex. I'm saying that what women want and need, on whole, is in conflict with the version and delivery of it that we have been talking about on this thread (and which I believe serves men far better, whatever dotted lines are signed upon). Actively choosing to “tolerate” terms doesn’t tell you the whole story.

 

I have not been to grad school, but when I was an undergrad in the most categorically left-leaning, socially liberal, mainstream-deviant major around, most of my really good friends were graduate students. I had more male than female friends (that's usually been the case), but the women around me weren't going out every weekend to prowl for a new sexual partner. I actually didn’t know ANY women like this, even women that were nothing like me, personality-wise. Now and again, people would wind up drunk and partnering with those they were fraternizing with in our ranks, but I never saw my women cohorts go out to randomly get some. I'm not saying that this means the women I knew were necessarily more well-adjusted than the ones you know, just because of that. However, I don’t believe that behavior [of your cohorts] indicates or accompanies “well-adjusted” for what it is, either. (And btw, I’m not sure, in a vacuum of truly knowing these women as more than acquaintances, how you can judge those you hang around with even less, and therefore know even less, as less well-adjusted by comparison…?) And I don't think, as I said, generationally, there's a whole lot of difference between the attitudes of the 90's and now.

 

So the most impartial conclusion I can draw from this is that there are some women who do that, and some women who don't. You're hanging around the ones who do, so it looks pretty normative; I hung around the ones who didn't. I'm sure that there are quite a lot of women in your school who don't do that, either, and if you asked them if they would, they'd say, "Hell no! Why would I want to screw a different stranger/near-stranger every weekend, possibly get diseases, maybe he'd try to force me...yikes, scary, and eew!" And it wouldn't have to be a moralistic judgment, it'd just be a wish to place certain more long-term and cautionary considerations over getting a Wendy's fix.

 

As I've said on this thread, I don't know what my life choices or I would have looked like over the years had I not had these obstacles to contend with. They've been life-altering. Doing an inventory of all the chances I had over the years (and now recalling my history, there were a few other “out of my physical league and social circle” opportunities like this one, before), I’m pretty sure I would have tried and done things I have not. What I would have concluded and how I would have felt, is, as I’ve said, up for grabs, though I have hunches. I don't condemn anyone for the things they try.

 

But I also believe that when you're in your 20's and just experimenting with life and sex, this is not a barometer of what it is you're enjoying, necessarily, or what you really want out of things. A good parallel is drinking -- nearly everyone I hung around with drank, and yet I know no one who actually LIKED/LIKES getting drunk. Tipsy, maybe. But being reeling drunk...that was just the price you paid for whatever else it brought you at the time. Drinking was fun, and it was seen as cool. It always has been, and always will be, so long as people don't see you lying in a gutter, jaundiced and pissing your life away. So people can and do enjoy things that are fun, cool, popular activities, get you into certain crowds as "one of us", and yet...how great is the actual FEELING of it? Having not been a regular drinker, I was never inducted into certain circles that bring you instant popularity status. And I think sex is a bit like that, too, especially as a tandem activity to drinking.

 

If women are really enjoying their sexuality this way, and we could somehow prove this objectively, outside of our separate vantage points (though it beats me how we’d objectify something so subjective), I'd concede all. I can't fully knock what I haven't tried in its unadulterated form, as a person I am not, with difficulties I possess taken out of the equation, and nor can I walk in any woman’s shoes but my own -- but count me as HIGHLY skeptical, for all the reasons I've stated. (And I know I'm barking into the wind on this one, but as I said about STDs, most people are ignorant about them, and what you're saying proves that. Because if healthy women go out there courting danger -- which even protected sex is by all stats, when you're talking about frequent, multiple casual sex partners [don't shoot the messenger] -- just for a crappy Wendy's lay, and they are more at-risk than men in this game, the FACT is, they don't have a clue; OR, if they know and simply don't care, as you say, I'll say they're not well-adjusted and are at very least being pathologically foolish, because that's self-destructive.) These rules are not created by me or anyone else.

 

If they're truly enjoying it...don't take this the wrong way, but you know how little kids take great pleasure in packing sand into their buckets at the beach, and turning them over to create molds? They'll be truly into doing that and getting a kick of of that, and can spend hours doing it. That doesn't mean it's not enjoyable. It's just that as they grow older and find other more challenging, interesting and fulfilling ways to stimulate themselves, making sand patties from buckets becomes so boring, dull, and monotonous, they wouldn't want to do that again. If you, as a grown person, are still taking pleasure in this kind of fun, I'd be a little surprised. Maybe it's good for what it is, when you're at a stage of life when that seems novel and satisfying. But that's a stage of life thing.

 

I think going out looking for sex that is 95% unstimulating and unrewarding because that 5% physical pleasure is worth repeating again and again, would probably be somewhat analogous to the making of simple mud pies; except that it’s probably a more pure pleasure, just for itself with no other motivating conditions, making the mud pies.

 

Again, I’m talking about the vast majority of women, not the small minority I grant you, which seems over-represented by your generalized statement about all these grad colleagues.

 

 

If intelligence attracted quality partners on its own merit then I imagine this place would probably have a happier vibe to it.

 

Wouldn't you know it.

 

Intelligence will earn you respect. Not necessarily love.

[tiredofvampires]

Pretty good article.

 

On the nose, really.

 

link removed

[90_hour_sleep]

If they're truly enjoying it...don't take this the wrong way, but you know how little kids take great pleasure in packing sand into their buckets at the beach, and turning them over to create molds? They'll be truly into doing that and getting a kick of of that, and can spend hours doing it. That doesn't mean it's not enjoyable. It's just that as they grow older and find other more challenging, interesting and fulfilling ways to stimulate themselves, making sand patties from buckets becomes so boring, dull, and monotonous, they wouldn't want to do that again. If you, as a grown person, are still taking pleasure in this kind of fun, I'd be a little surprised. Maybe it's good for what it is, when you're at a stage of life when that seems novel and satisfying. But that's a stage of life thing.

 

about a month ago...i encountered the ocean again for the first time in several years. nothing cerebral here. pure...unadulterated joy. half naked and running...jumping...walking on my hands. building sand castles with moats and then watching the tide lay siege. two hours. a happier moment in my recent past does not exist.

 

of course...we're not really talking about sand castles...but the comparison intrigues me. it's a bit ironic...but i'm a bit surprised that you -- as the person i've known here -- could be surprised by the actions of anyone. are people really that mysterious? if anything...people are always entirely congruent with who they are (how could they not be?). only the filters by which we view them leave us susceptible to this process of mystification.

 

I think going out looking for sex that is 95% unstimulating and unrewarding because that 5% physical pleasure is worth repeating again and again, would probably be somewhat analogous to the making of simple mud pies; except that it’s probably a more pure pleasure, just for itself with no other motivating conditions, making the mud pies.

 

but then...i guess you get that. i mean...that's what this seems to be saying. there will always be those who enjoy making mud pies...just for the sake or making mud pies. there's no reason...no agenda...nothing to read in between any imaginary lines. simple. i suspect it's very nearly impossible to determine what's more pure in terms of pleasure. you like orgasms...i like waves and sand castles. we're both beautiful creatures capable of creating our experience.

[tiredofvampires]

Howdy, sleepy!

 

Welcome to my waning thread. I've wondered a few times during this ruminative bloggish investigation (and advice fishing trip) of sorts what your take might be, if you were to happen by.

 

And what's kind of cool/weird/funny is that I did so actually right when I was writing up that analogy about mud pies. Yes indeedy! So I was ready for ya, guess you could say.

 

Like I said. ENA's finest have been here.

 

But first this:

 

it's a bit ironic...but i'm a bit surprised that you -- as the person i've known here -- could be surprised by the actions of anyone. are people really that mysterious? if anything...people are always entirely congruent with who they are (how could they not be?).

 

Heh heh! So then, I alone surprise you? Because people are not all that mysterious -- except for me? Am I that inscrutable that you are surprised that I can be surprised?

 

Given that people are entirely congruent with who they are, are you surprised at yourself that you're surprised that I'm surprised?

 

Just teasin'.

 

you like orgasms...i like waves and sand castles.

 

So...so wait. You don't like orgasms??

 

If there was one thing I was trying to express in this thread (well, not more than other things, but one thing anyway), it's that I was not looking for an orgasm so much as an EXPERIENCE. I wanted to experience feeling sexual, and sexy, again. I wanted to feel the way you're describing about the non-cerebral sensuality of being caught up in the ocean and waves. I wanted to kiss him. I wanted to soak in that radiant heat and breath, enjoy his luxuriant, pillowy lips on mine, as a contrast to his rock-solid breast against mine. There were many other things, through more than one sense vehicle, that could have given me an equal or near equal pleasure (one of which, I did do more than once [as the active party], and it has been criticized by some here as sending the wrong message for being almost sufficient in my books). So nothing outside of a straight-ahead vaginal orgasm was "allowed" me, because of whatever limited interest, repertoire, notions, framework he was working from. That is certainly not what my idea of "things I was looking to get" was. (even though it's conceivable that could have been a welcome, even if unlikely, occurrence; but we were not outfitted for that, as a purely technical difficulty.)

 

Okay, the analogy with the sandcastles. I might have had to say "touche" on that, since I not only enjoy playing in sand, but I also walk in rainstorms, even when I'm dressed up, just to get wet. And I also love Bubble Stuff, still -- those soapy filmy globes you blow through the rainbow-colored plastic wands. My inner child is ever wild.

 

But I was careful with my analogy, you see -- and this may sound like a technicality, but it's more serious, so hear me out. A sandcastle is not what I described in my analogy. I was talking about packing sand into a tiny bucket and turning it over on its head, as a mold. And just doing that again and again. Is that what you were doing? You were making moats. You were building towers. Maybe introducing tunnels. I have seen sandcastle contests on the beach where for miles, grown-up architects and artists made the most magnificent sandcastles and sand sculptures, and no one would call that simple child's play. So we big people can love the beach and the sand. Of course. Even if we're not proficient like that.

 

What would surprise me is if I saw you doing just what I said: packing sand into pre-fab shapes, turning them over, and spending 2 hours doing that. And just that. I wouldn't even judge you for it, but I'd say, "Wow, how is that not boring you?" You don't strike me as someone who would enjoy that, but I could be wrong. (on a side note, one of my dearest friends has a grown daughter with profound autism, who takes a lot of pleasure in even less complex games, and doesn't tire of them for days, months, or years -- so more power to her!)

 

So in that vein: pre-fab sex, in-and-out, wham-bam-slam-damn. Bye. That's what we're talking here, and it wouldn't even be engrossing enough to last 2 hours. You couldn't stretch that out if you tried. Adding a bent stick to your mud pie as a minaret would have been more imaginative than what happened in this sex equivalent.

 

The only reason it's an iffy analogy is because when I'm with small kids, and they're making those simple molded mud pies, I step into their world to enjoy it as they are. So then it's fun and interesting. It's a contact high. But there, it's different because it's about the learning process, the interaction. The INTERACTION. If it was me just alone on the beach, doing the same activity, it wouldn't be the same, as an adult. Same as I would not read Dr. Seuss just for my own reading pleasure, and would be surprised if you said you took Green Eggs and Ham to Starbucks to read while sipping your latte. Even though you might love reading it with a nephew or niece. Wait, wait. This is an even worse analogy. I'm in the field of children's books.

 

But maybe you know what I'm saying anyway.

 

No? You're not with me here?

 

I don't know if people are mysterious. Some people do things I have a hard time comprehending. (And in the case of the subject of this thread, I'm talking about a kind of experience that I wish I knew, and could personally have to understand better -- so that I could either embrace it gleefully like other people who take their bodies for granted, or reject it as something just not for me. Until that happens, it is a feeling/experience I don't relate to. But it's not likely to happen because of the lifelong impediments I'm dealing with. Which as I've expressed...pains me.)

 

And sometimes, people do surprise me. I'm not beyond being surprised. I surprise myself sometimes. You don't surprise yourself? I'm still somewhat unknown to myself. Even though I know a hell of a lot...there's still a terra incognita, and this thread's been part of that.

 

I'd say nothing surprises me in the sense that I think humans are capable of just about anything; but I am not above feeling shock, dismay, disappointment, confusion, and befuddlement about the things people do sometimes and the things that divide us in our experience.

 

 

 

 

sandcastles > mud pies

[tiredofvampires]

Why do I have the sneaking suspicion that sometime very soon, 90 will be spotted at a coffee house reading Green Eggs and Ham...

[tiredofvampires]

i suspect it's very nearly impossible to determine what's more pure in terms of pleasure. you like orgasms...i like waves and sand castles. we're both beautiful creatures capable of creating our experience.

 

I just re-read this and just wanted to say that I may have not quite gotten your meaning the first time. When you say "you like...I like..." for some reason I was thinking you meant me, personally, and you, personally. I guess you meant "you" as any abstract person, and "I" as any abstract person.

 

Just to clarify: I was not saying that one thing is inherently more pleasurable than another thing. Or more a "pure" pleasure, inherently. Of course enjoying an orgasm for orgasm's sake can be as pure as making mud pies for mud pies' sake. I was saying that the way people go about sexual encounters in the most base, disconnected of scenarios we are describing along the "casual sex" continuum seems a little less purely about the pleasure of what's going on in some (or a lot) of cases (that hunch being the subject of my last long post, above). That may be more true for women than men, as a caveat, since as I've said in other posts, women generally need more to reach that orgasm, and even just enjoy themselves, sexually.

 

Basically, I'm questioning the motivation for doing something as "pure" -- not the activity enjoyed, itself.

 

Distinctions must be made.

 

Threads must be wrung out.

[truman2017]

men are like a microwave

women are like a crockpot?

[tiredofvampires]

men are like a microwave

women are like a crockpot?

 

Heyyy...I like that! I can't find anything wrong with that analogy. PERFECT.

 

 

How 'bout this one?

 

Men are like a kazoo

Women are like a piano

 

Hmm...I'm pretty sure a certain comedian did a routine along these lines (comparisons), and I can't remember who...

 

ETA: Ahhh, at least one...Carlos Mencia. I'd post it here, but ha, better be careful. Youtube -- "Differentiate between male and female orgasm." LOL

[tiredofvampires]

And the evolutionary psych in me likes this one, too.

 

The opening paragraph:

 

When it comes to one-night stands, men and women are poles apart. Guys just want, well, you know, while gals go to bed with the false impression of flattery and a craving for feeling desirable.

 

Ding ding ding ding!!

 

Oof, though. Uh.....what does that say about me, here....guilty as charged, I spose.

 

But we knew that.

 

Funny thing is...as little as *my* guy needed that, since his supply is ever-ready, if it stopped...he'd be none too pleased.

 

link removed

 

So based on this, women's ONS partners should feel flattered, because women are more choosey. While men's ONS partners should feel like...well, kinda how it feels. "I could be anyone." Not flattering in the least.

 

But the guy this thread has revolved around...I'd like to think he didn't need to do his roomate (who he still had to live with for a while yet) THAT badly, and I don't believe he was even THAT drunk. He could still count how many fingers, I'm sure. Haha.

 

Of course, one of the premises in this article would fit in with why women will sleep with a guy who's intelligent and socially adept with it, not just physically attractive. Why those traits are such a turn-on. Because those are genes you're drawn to want to choose for your offspring.

 

All modern prophylactic devices aside.

[90_hour_sleep]

microwaves SUCK...

[buddha55]

Omg... I'm only halfway through this thread but I've been reading it forever and although this is already said and done I just wanted to say...

 

"Like, maybe if he showed zero care and didn't attempt to please me at all...it'd resemble a relationship so little, it "wouldn't count," in his mind. "

 

THIS. this right here. Like others have said, his heart is with his HS sweetheart. an ex bf of mine cheated on me... he knew the girl was interested- WALKED TO HER ROOM (shared housing) hopped into bed with her, made out with her, she proceeded to give him head.... he came, got up, and left.

Sure, he appreciated her intellect, but he never had romantic feelings for her.

 

also, FWB, FB, and casual sex... I didn't like to kiss when I had any of these relationships (all the same to me) because kissing is intimate. some people complained about this... but hey, it was my preference. you sound capable of casual sex, but with someone who also likes having a romantic aspect.

 

And yes, I probably would have said nothing to him (and i'm very confrontational) just because silence can sometimes say more.... he knows how he treated you was wrong and maybe he will think about it... maybe he won't.... but he is too immature at this point and probably isn't even considering it.

[buddha55]

wow. thread finished. what did I win?

[tiredofvampires]

Hey, thanks for the input, buddha! So I have a coupla questions, as first-hand accounts go...

 

wow. thread finished. what did I win?

 

Well dang, girl! I'm honored. The idea of sitting down and reading this tome cover-to-cover in a stretch makes my OWN head reel! I donno, how do you feel about The Heavyweight Championship 3-year supply of aspirin, or your pain-relieving medication of choice? We could go the natural route, too, with an inexhaustible supply of lavender aromatherapy pillows. Somehow, that feels woefully insufficient...and I think a few others might need some of those pillows, too...

 

As it turns out...I've wanted to get back to a few posts, but because I've had to deal with some adjustments where I'm staying, and plus just with life being busy and stressful, I've drifted a bit from it. And then I started to think, it's probably just as well, since it feels healthy to be moving on. Closing the door on this fleeting-in-the-scheme-of-things-interlude.

 

But since I usually don't feel satisfied until I've crossed every t and dotted every i, it's likely I still have a couple of posts left in me here. Though this guy is clearly now just an image in my head (though a very distinct one), and the story itself might as well be something that happened 20 years ago...the impact still lingers in some ways that are motivating (in a good way), and some that have unearthed extremely unpleasant (to put it mildly) emotional rehearsals that were blessedly dormant for...a long time.

 

I can't believe it's not even 1 whole month that I've been out of there. Seems like an eternity has passed in my head. And this is something most people would have shaken off in the morning shower. Heh, I'm a nut.

 

also, FWB, FB, and casual sex... I didn't like to kiss when I had any of these relationships (all the same to me) because kissing is intimate. some people complained about this... but hey, it was my preference. you sound capable of casual sex, but with someone who also likes having a romantic aspect.

 

Interesting. See, what's strange about this to me is that I've always felt kissing is the most intimate part of things, as well. And honestly, I've kissed and made out with guys on a casual basis before (as a prelude to endings similar to this one, but not necessarily going as far as the head), and with a couple of rare exceptions, I found it rather "empty." Its essence of intimacy not being there made it totally BLAH. Maybe even technique-wise, it wasn't half bad, but since there was no connection whatsoever, it was like going through motions. It's odd to me that I had ZERO expectations of this going anywhere, I was completely aware of the nature of this sex as far as emotional distance...and yet, I had an overwhelming urge to kiss him. Not just on his mouth. Everywhere, everywhere. I guess it's like a kid jumping into a bouncy castle and loving the feeling of pouncing (wink wink, sleepy.) I wanted to pounce all over him with my lips, lol. I'm not sure it was even "romantic", per se...it was passion-driven. Normally I associate passion with something I feel on a deeper level...like, passion comes from a fire in the heart for something or someone. But in this case...it was a passion for...passion. And feeling that again. I had passion for his form and his essence, as a creation, and it was irrepressible. I don’t know how else to describe it.

 

And you know, I’ve seen more “romance” (if that's what we're calling sensual kissing) in pro porn. Which baffles me a bit why that's asking too much. More kissing and foreplay in the most mercenary of porn, which is usually next to nill in those flicks. So that tells you where this was on the scale.

 

This is the first time I've been unclothed with a man and I felt as if I were invisible. It was such a weird feeling, like I was there to him but yet not at all. I don't think I have that unsightly of a body (I've had compliments on it, but it's not first-rate in-shape and I think of it as average), but he barely looked at me, and that cooled my magma bigtime. I just sucked it up, but looking back...I would not repeat that feeling. Partly because I didn't know how to interpret that. And that's probably just as well, too, I'm thinking. In retrospect, the fact that he initiated this at all may have only been the most provisional of compliments.

 

He also uttered something very enigmatic after lying still, with eyes closed the second night, after he'd had his moment. I was lying on his chest. (Because his chest was too nice to be wasted.) He looked like he was sleeping for a while, and then roused and said, “I just went to a another place.” At first I thought this was a sort of…good thing. That he was saying he’d kind of been transported. But the more I thought about it, the more I wondered if he meant, he was thinking about his girl. I wonder how much he was thinking about her the entire time, montaging her over me, in his mind’s eye. I almost would have preferred a completely blank slate over that.

 

But since you've shared your take and experience, buddha, can I ask you something? Did your FWB's and FBs and casual sex arrangements involve no kissing in the lead-in? I mean, did you not make out at first, at all? Because that's typically the way things start, and if so, why would you STOP kissing once the sex gets heavier, if you've already kissed? That's like taking back the prelude after the fact, when you're actually doing more intense things. Not to dissect it, but it's just kind of odd to me.

 

And I mean, not just kissing your mouth -- I mean, kissing your neck (my kryptonite), your breasts, your stomach? Are you fine not being kissed anywhere, touched anywhere other than between your legs, and have you had what I’ll call “non-intimate sex” (since casual sex can mean different things to different people), devoid of all foreplay? I'm talking about: proposition-->take off clothes--->stick it in. If so..how was that, for you?

 

I just find that incredibly...STERILE. And I don't know how, unless there is something so intoxicating about the guy himself (a rare thing for me, if I have no strong emotional connection), that I can be THAT physically aroused by this activity.

 

So I’m curious about your experience of it, what you get out of that. It kind of seems like, if we’re just going to do that, why not just masturbate? If it’s not about any sort of physical interchange/interaction where the other person’s whole body is part of the deal, and their personal attributes and pleasure don’t matter, nor their mind, nor do you care much for eachother outside of basic decency you hope for on the street, what is to be gained here other than a risk of STDs, which you don’t get with a sex toy/blow-up doll/fleshlight/hand?

 

Also, buddha…knowing your BF didn’t have any romantic feelings for this woman (the situation sounds incredibly similar to what happened with me), how did you feel about knowing he just got head from this woman and it was meaningless, and he felt nothing for her?

 

The screwed up thing is that in my head, I can be a lot less "romantic" than what I believe I require, physically (like I said, I need some basic consideration, attentiveness and awareness, from my partner.) So, I don't know if I've just adapted to my limitations by making the mind/heart connection mandatory, or whether this is truly who I just am in the end.

 

And yes, I probably would have said nothing to him (and i'm very confrontational) just because silence can sometimes say more...

 

You could be right about that. I hope you are. I don't like confrontation, but once I'm sufficiently triggered, I see it through with conviction. And I was at that point when this thread started (though not while I was actually in the acts themselves). So this felt like letting go of something that I'd normally need to do, to walk away with any degree of resolution.

 

By the way, anyone else who could write a book called, "The Joy of Casual Sex -- A Guide to Loveless Lovemaking," feel free to weigh in here about the drug I've not tapped. Open sesame.

[tiredofvampires]

I also have to say, for those people who use "FWB" and "FB" interchangeably, I guess there has never been a true experience of a FriendsWithBenefits.

 

A friend is someone who cares about you. And has your back.

 

It's not impossible for someone like this to also have your backside.

 

But that's patently different from two people who just get together to f, and call it a friendship because you see eachother more than once.

 

In fact, "benefits," if we are talking in employment lingo, means additional perks to the main gain you get by being so employed. Friendship being the main gain.