online dating service
REGISTER | MAIL/PROFILE | HELP | NOW ONLINE | SEARCH | RATING | FORUMS | SUCCESS STORIES

 

     
Posted In Forum:
Home   login   MyForums  
Show ALL Forums  
 
 Author Thread: question about interracial dating ...
 graywolfe81
Joined: 8/11/2007
Msg: 364 (view)
 
question about interracial dating ...
Posted: 5/27/2009 2:40:35 PM
Heard a guy talking about this on npr today. Was discussing the issues in regards to Jefferson, and sexual more's in the south in the antebellum period. Really interesting stuff, and one thing he mentioned which i suppose should have been thought of before is that it's much more common on the coats than it is in the middle of the country where in some places it's still rather taboo to date outside the supposed race.

I grew up in the bay area and it was quite normal. The standard was certainly date within your own ethnicity, but it was a 99-1 ratio in terms of whom didn't follow that trend. I'd say at least a third and maybe more of the people I grew up with had dated outside their own ethnicity/race by the time they were in college as a sophmore or junior or whatever. In the bay area, the ethnic make up includes substantial populations of latino's, asians, east indian's, south pacific islanders and african americans, and as a result, there is a big jambalaya of dating going on inbetween the ethnicities and "races". There are certainly groups which are exceedingly exclusive and frown upon outside dating but they are usually subgroups within a larger ethnic group (and usually 1st generation).

I think when I was younger, I simply preferred to date anyone who was different than me, as smart or smarter, and was interesting and attractive to me, someone who I could learn from and grow with, and since I already was quite familiar with my own culture, I tended to be fascinated with others which is probably why I had serious relationships with and/or dated women from any ethnic group around. I got to know amazing people, grow a great deal, and learn a lot from it. As an adult I've continued along a similar path but have also dated within my own ethnicity as well. I don't see any other way to really live at least these days. Getting to know people from any and all cultures when they are genuine and special people simply enriches your life. Why would anyone ever pass on the opportunity?
 graywolfe81
Joined: 8/11/2007
Msg: 56 (view)
 
What's your sex score?
Posted: 1/7/2009 2:02:26 PM
7 or a 2 (not sure about one of the -5 questions). Hmmm, hotlanta's kink test seems a bit more reasonable, but of course towards the end it gets a bit frightening, what w/all flaming (ock ring references, and bestality and the like. i scored a 515 or something like that on there. Interesting test.
 graywolfe81
Joined: 8/11/2007
Msg: 237 (view)
 
oral sex and swallowing cum and why they wont do it
Posted: 10/23/2008 12:52:23 PM

Maybe the best way for you to understand is for you to experience it. The next time your girlfriend grants oral sex have her feed some of it back to you... then you'll know why!


All men who give their lovers oral have experienced this plenty of times. Some seem to assume that if a guy gives oral it's a dry, tasteless experience. It is is anything but that, particularly if you're doing it well. Just like among men, the taste is often different, the degree of how wet you get giving is different, but there is little doubt that pleasing a woman with oral is going to get your face and chin plenty wet, and your mouth will at least end up a bit full. This "then you'll know why" stuff is ridiculous to me.
 graywolfe81
Joined: 8/11/2007
Msg: 236 (view)
 
oral sex and swallowing cum and why they wont do it
Posted: 10/23/2008 12:35:59 PM


That's very easy to say from a female perspective. But let's turn the tables and envision women being commonly denied something sexually that turned them on.

I would venture to say they would be widely perceived as victims who are being deprived, and simply need a "real man" who's willing to step up to the plate for them. (trust me, you'll see this point proven in these very forums)

For every woman who has a man who won't do a specific sexual act for her, there's hundreds of men with a super hero complex more than willing to do it.

And believe me, she will have it much sooner and easier than the man looking for a woman to perform taboo acts for him.

She can call her Superman and have his caped ass flying through her window before she even hangs up the phone.


Agreed Validar, I am perplexed by the responses here. The automatic qualifyer is that noone should ever do something they do not want to do. That's automatic, I would never ask that of anyone i was with, and to do so, is absolutely unacceptable. However, I will say this, I do not understand the responses here. Happy to get a bj at all? How many women would be as Validar puts it, hear "happy to get cunnilingus at all" and not immediately think a man saying such a thing would be a world class scumbag? Not many.

If you hate it, you hate it, and you shouldn't do it, but I've always found that when it comes to love and relationships, a lot of seemingly closed doors open through intimacy, communication, and the desire to see your partner/lover in the throes of an ecstasy that you provided. Reading threads like this reminds me of how lucky I've been over the years in having partners with far more open doors than closed one's when it comes to sex, and it's been completely reciprocated.
 graywolfe81
Joined: 8/11/2007
Msg: 52 (view)
 
Is there any justification for cheating on a partner ?
Posted: 6/19/2008 4:30:54 PM

I came back here to this thread, just to see if anyone actually "supported" cheating...and I have to say, as a 5 year "resident" of POF...it is refreshing as all heck, to see the posts made! ;O)



Do you really buy it though? I mean how many of us have been cheated on or have cheated in here? This forum can't be cheater-free, it's ludicrous to imagine that. I've been cheated on multiple times. Is everyone here, like me, only a victim of it, or is it more likely that there's a blend of victims, perpatrators, and people whove both been victims AND perpatrators on this site, and even reading and/or responding to this thread? Of course it could be that the cheaters just don't want to own having done so in a thread or supporting it, particularly in a thread at a website for potentially dating.

While it is refreshing like you say, I don't think it's indicative of much except the hopeful sense that the people responding are both honest, and deeply ethical, which is great to hear. It may sound weird coming from me, considering my own post which sought to at least partially explain why it sometimes happens in marriages, and the reasoning behind it, but as I said, I've never been a perpatrator ever. Something about my family background, and the values I was brought up with, no doubt combined w/the agony of being the betrayed one, more than once.
 graywolfe81
Joined: 8/11/2007
Msg: 100 (view)
 
why do most white guy, there open 2 race,but if your not white or latina then there not interested??
Posted: 6/18/2008 6:51:21 PM
Really strange subject title for the thread, couldn't understand it exactly. Reading the thread and the actual post it seems clear. I can say that it seems that a bunch of us, myself included, actually aren't like the subject heading. I didn't date anyone from my ethnicity (1/2 Irish, 1/4 Danish, 1/4 mixed all the hell up) until my late twenties. I consistently dated outside my ethnicity and race (and I agree w/some posters that race, as a scientific reality is basically b.s. beyond some ethnically specific diseases like Taysachs (spelling?) etc) essentially for the same reason nearly everyone I dated was as a rule, smarter than me. By and large I wanted to get to know people w/fresh perspectives from different cultures, I wanted to get to know people that had different experiences and outlooks. You can accomplish this by dating from your own ethnicity as well, but at the time I think it was basically a product of being attracted to anything that seemed different, or could hopefully allow me to see something new, learn something new, grow a little, get a little bit less stupid, as the Stupidia talk implies. I found all of that exxceedingly attractive, and it hasn't been until recently that I've dated people who share a WASP background, or even my own particular background.

In the end, as others have implied, all of it is really nonsense, it simply comes down to being open to people who you can love, share, and grow with. Whether they are white and European, or Southeast Asian, or East Indian, or of African heritage, it really doesn't matter, a lovely soul, in the end is a lovely soul and that's what has come to matter most, although I'd be lying if I said that I completely outgrew my attraction to people outside my ethnicity, I just think that today I'm far more inclusive w/my own ethnicity cultural/faux-racial background as well.
 graywolfe81
Joined: 8/11/2007
Msg: 103 (view)
 
When a woman tells you what you can and can't do...
Posted: 6/18/2008 5:17:27 PM
Go anyway and dump her. What an awful relationship to be in.
 graywolfe81
Joined: 8/11/2007
Msg: 89 (view)
 
Why do you need to swear?
Posted: 6/18/2008 5:06:40 PM
I have a notorious "drunken sailor mouth" to such an extent that my friends never thought I could be able to teach as I wouldn't be able to stop. I managed it, but it was pretty funny as initially, in my years as a sub, early on, I actually stuttered and it took me months to figure out that my stutter (which I hadn't had since I was little) was a product of self-editing my self and stumbling over the words as I did so. Within about 2 years I stopped stuttering entirely and don't swear as a teacher, ever. Unfortunately in non-teacher hours it definitely comes out.

I don't like nor enjoy hearing loads and loads of swearing, but I do think at times, swearing is a nice way of releasing stress and relaxing (that, or the take ten seconds and a few deep breaths and relax). I'm now working on cutting swearing by about half in my day to day life outside of teaching just to see if I can accomplish it for myself as there is a certain vulgar unpleasantness to anyone who swears all the time (I do not, but I still do too much for my own tastes).
 graywolfe81
Joined: 8/11/2007
Msg: 361 (view)
 
Women Who Smoke
Posted: 6/18/2008 4:56:42 PM
As an asthmatic I simply can't be around it. I still have horrible flashbacks of being in a car ride from D.C. to gettysburg w/my uncle when I was a kid. My uncle just smoking away for hours, the window down not improving the situation and I slowly developed an asthma attack. Its brutal and really a shame that some smokers still don't buy the second hand smoke talk. Quite simply being around smokers for any amount of time at all activates my allergies, for signigant time and I can have asthma attacks.

I sympathize to a degree, the darn things are designed to get you hooked permanently after all, but in the end, smoking is a choice, having asthma for me was genetic (asthmatics on both sides of family tree), no choice at all, so it is a deal breaker w/relationships. Dating itself? I could deal w/short term, but not long term.
 graywolfe81
Joined: 8/11/2007
Msg: 35 (view)
 
Is there any justification for cheating on a partner ?
Posted: 6/18/2008 4:39:54 PM

If your partner isn't doing it for you, so badly that you feel you have to cheat. Then you need to leave the relationship.

Why be in a relationship, if you, or both of you aren't happy?

Just move on and walk away from the pain...


I think for married men w/money, a good portion of the thinking is simply that it generally makes more fiscal sense to cheat than to divorce, if you can avoid getting caught.

However, I agree w/your basic thinking particularly in regards to dating rather than marriage and it's why I've never cheated, ever, and won't ever be cheating. When I've been cheated on I've just walked away, and my feeling has always been, if your unhappy and it can't be fixed, move on. That's it.

However when you see guys like McCartney and Abramovich taken to the cleaners for 8-9 digit settlements (neither were cheating as far as I know) you can see why divorce is a very, very, very expensive decision for a man (or in Spears case, a woman) with money.

While that doesn't justify cheating or excuse it, it certainly one way that explains why it can happen w/people w/plenty of cash to lose via a divorce.
 graywolfe81
Joined: 8/11/2007
Msg: 167 (view)
 
Men face jail for rape if women are 'too drunk' to consent in bed to boost convictions
Posted: 1/10/2008 9:36:05 AM
You're gonna hear crickets and for good reason Explosive Sheep. You've made an excellent point too, it's a massive slippery slope that you engage when you try to create and/or enforce laws like this. It's insane. It is interesting, though, how thoroughly different the responses are from each gender here (in an overall sense, not in a particular sense).
 graywolfe81
Joined: 8/11/2007
Msg: 71 (view)
 
Why don't you like to provide oral sex?
Posted: 12/13/2007 10:38:08 AM
It's a serious issue, so I totaly understand with frozen. I had TMJ when I was in highschool for about a year and it was torture. Had a girlfriend and it was litterally painful to kiss. From what I remember its called Temporal Mandibular Joint Disorder. My jaw would basically pop out of place or lock constantly. It was related to me grinding my teeth constantly when I slept and also ridiculous amounts of gum chewing that probably exacerbated the problem when I was a kid. By the time I reached college I was one of the lucky few that saw the problem completely go away. To put it plainly, those with TMJ almost certainly "can't". It's not about "won't" it's about not even being able to get the jaw/mouth open wide enough to even consider that, and worse yet, if you are successful opening it, you can have problems with it shutting, popping out of place etc, and you definitely don't want to be doing something w/your mouth when that occurs.

There's a distinct difference between cateyes, who has her own particular issues with it, and frozen, who if she has TMJ like i did, couldn't whether she wanted too or not.
 graywolfe81
Joined: 8/11/2007
Msg: 47 (view)
 
can a guy like a bj better than sex?
Posted: 12/8/2007 3:03:14 PM
Everyone's a bit different. I'm the same as him. I love everything, but #1 amongst my interests are giving and receiving in that area. There's no greater feeling for me to do both ends of that. For others the opposite is true. It's no big deal so long as he doesn't become exclusively obsessed with that and/or fails to deliver for you as well.
 graywolfe81
Joined: 8/11/2007
Msg: 38 (view)
 
Your damned if you do and damned if you don't have sex.....
Posted: 10/25/2007 3:36:34 PM
Cunning Linguist and Esad covered it pretty well from my own perspective. In High School, and maybe early on in college these patterns may be true of some but I really am unaware of anyone out of school that thinks that way in my circle and while some may, they certainly aren't the majority and it is no where near being a rule w/only rare exceptions. Cunning Linguists break down is pretty spot on. I've had long relationships where my partner and I waited for a long time, and I've had some where we had sex on the first date and both resulted in long healthy relationships. The same is true of many people I know. Have sex if you want too, or not on the first date. It's your choice in the end, and quit worrying about whether a man will lower his view of you based on this choice. It's utter nonsense. Sex can be special, but it's not sacrosanct, the age old game of men holding their wallets at arms length and women holding their sexual interest at bay is so very old that I would hope we're beyond it at this point.
 graywolfe81
Joined: 8/11/2007
Msg: 378 (view)
 
Bitch take this dick.................
Posted: 10/11/2007 10:28:03 AM

I'm glad to see those from the lifestyle stand up. On collarme, the rules are known by all and respected...here, in the vanilla world, those in the lifestyle are frowned upon. This is a good place to educate the vanillas that ours isn't a lifestyle of degredation and depravity...it is built on the most solid foundation of trust and respect. Sure, there are bad apples in any bunch, but I prefer the lifestyle bunch where there are standards of conduct and no ambiguities.


I so admire your tenacity, but you are wasting your time. The funniest part of the entire thing here in these particular threads ~ people are all up in arms about it being OK for the man in my life to call me his "filthy cum slut" (or any other name yet unmentioned here) with my permission, no less ~ YET these posters are offended by that. They don't know a thing about me personally ~ but feel it's perfectly acceptable to refer to me as "damaged" "abuse victim" "sick or twisted" "molestation victim" "misogymist lover" etc. Hummm, maybe I'm missing something but name calling is name calling and I'm not even intimately involved with any of these folks. Isn't that just a little double-standardish? I mean what if I found being called "damaged" a turn on ~ some of you here would be playing sexual games with me right here in a public forum ~ ewwwwww ~ wouldn't want that now.

The truth is ~ to each their own. The most telling portion of any thread of this nature is this: Those with knowledge of the lifestyle, BDSM in general or those who truly are open-minded, have enough respect to state: "It wouldn't be for me, but then again, that's just my opinion." Those of us in the lifestyle, whether today, in the past or in our future ~ don't walk around calling non-lifestylers "A bunch of old out-dated stuffed shirts/skirts who have no sense of adventure." Why is this? Because we have a code of ethics that is universal and it is valuable. The wannabes, I don't know if they follow that code or not, nor do I care. I do ~ I respect the choice of any person who is safe, sane, consensual and of the age of majority. What someone else does with their private life is NONE of my business unless it affects/effects me personally.


Bravo! I'd only add as an addendum, that it can be your business if an innocent child is involved, or a non-consenting partner, but that's obvious.

I have no idea why so many find it so hard to understand that in relationships, boundaries can be different in private than in public. What may seem bizarre or stupid, or offensive simply typed in a forum, or spoken in the workplace may be very very different in the privacy of one's own home.
 graywolfe81
Joined: 8/11/2007
Msg: 58 (view)
 
To love and lose
Posted: 10/11/2007 9:35:46 AM
I hear you. I feel a great deal of sadness that my 7 year ex and I stopped talking two months after we split years and years ago. The relationship ended in a truly agonizing situation for me and I was terribly hurt and lashed out because of it in e's at the time and phone convo's. It was out of hurt and the pain of how 7 years ended up being flushed in that instance, and I just needed time to come to terms with the loss but by the time I was no longer raw it was too late to do what you seem to try to, to hold onto things following the transition out of the relationship. It may never have been able to play out that way, considering how things ended, but there are few things worse to me than building what my partner and I did all those years ago for nearly a decade, and then end up being nothing whatsoever to eachother afterwards. One of my greatest regrets in life was and is not communicating to her the idea that I just needed time to heal and that I hoped in time we could hold onto something. I wish I could have done that, but in some breakups, things are so awful that it's impossible at the time to be that gracious (or it was for me anyway). Wish I had your strength back then, and I hope I have what you seem too now.

Btw, absolutely awesome photo/avatar :).
 graywolfe81
Joined: 8/11/2007
Msg: 51 (view)
 
To love and lose
Posted: 10/9/2007 9:07:29 AM
At the darkest time of my life a decade ago, this work from Kahlil Gibran in many ways saved me, I think it speaks to the concept with greater beauty and understanding than the "Loved and Lost" line even if his stuff can appear a bit over-wrought to those not experiencing the emotion (or concept) or not experiencing it so viscerally:

"Then said Almitra, "Speak to us of Love."

And he raised his head and looked upon the people, and there fell a stillness upon them. And with a great voice he said:

When love beckons to you follow him,

Though his ways are hard and steep.

And when his wings enfold you yield to him,

Though the sword hidden among his pinions may wound you.

And when he speaks to you believe in him,

Though his voice may shatter your dreams as the north wind lays waste the garden.

For even as love crowns you so shall he crucify you. Even as he is for your growth so is he for your pruning.

Even as he ascends to your height and caresses your tenderest branches that quiver in the sun,

So shall he descend to your roots and shake them in their clinging to the earth.

Like sheaves of corn he gathers you unto himself.

He threshes you to make you naked.

He sifts you to free you from your husks.

He grinds you to whiteness.

He kneads you until you are pliant;

And then he assigns you to his sacred fire, that you may become sacred bread for God's sacred feast.

All these things shall love do unto you that you may know the secrets of your heart, and in that knowledge become a fragment of Life's heart.

But if in your fear you would seek only love's peace and love's pleasure,

Then it is better for you that you cover your nakedness and pass out of love's threshing-floor,

Into the seasonless world where you shall laugh, but not all of your laughter, and weep, but not all of your tears.

Love gives naught but itself and takes naught but from itself.

Love possesses not nor would it be possessed;

For love is sufficient unto love.

When you love you should not say, "God is in my heart," but rather, I am in the heart of God."

And think not you can direct the course of love, for love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.

Love has no other desire but to fulfil itself.

But if you love and must needs have desires, let these be your desires:

To melt and be like a running brook that sings its melody to the night.

To know the pain of too much tenderness.

To be wounded by your own understanding of love;

And to bleed willingly and joyfully.

To wake at dawn with a winged heart and give thanks for another day of loving;

To rest at the noon hour and meditate love's ecstasy;

To return home at eventide with gratitude;

And then to sleep with a prayer for the beloved in your heart and a song of praise upon your lips."

Kahlil Gibran "The Prophet"
 graywolfe81
Joined: 8/11/2007
Msg: 19 (view)
 
do you think glasses are sexy or not ?
Posted: 10/5/2007 2:51:03 PM
Love them. Or rather I love today's styles and previous styles. I think glasses got a bad wrap because there were some truly hideous styles in the late fifties, and then again in the eighties (the eighties appeared to be wall to wall horror show frames, just giant, silly, horrific coke bottle sized frames that looked brutal. When you look back at the movies and see the glasses that people were sporting it was brutal) which was truly an awful time to need spectacles (sort of the opposite end of Costanza's Bald Man's Paradise (1900-1950 America when class hats were de riguere). Anyway, I'm rambling, but suffice it to say, I love the frames that most women sport today :).

Oh and btw Dharma above me, and Crazycurls who also posts have nice examples of the sort of frames I just love. :)
 graywolfe81
Joined: 8/11/2007
Msg: 15 (view)
 
Why do women AGREE to a Friends with Benefits situation?
Posted: 10/5/2007 2:44:02 PM
Greeneyes,

I'm right with you for the most part (the gross generalization about guys is a little annoying but then again we all generalize and categorize, it's the Aristotle in us). I don't see the problem. Consenting adults=fair play. We all know what we're getting into and that there may be an emotional toll to pay if you get too emotionally attached but I still don't see the problem beyond getting hurt (which is your own individual responsibility anyway in a relationship and something we all have to deal with whether its FWB or serious or anything inbetween). A woman or man who enjoys that sort of thing, or just enjoys it at a particular moment in time should have every right to it. I don't understand the judging thing and never really have on the issue for either gender.
 graywolfe81
Joined: 8/11/2007
Msg: 192 (view)
 
Do women really get abused as much as they say or do they make it seem worse then it actually is?
Posted: 10/5/2007 2:33:51 PM
Dented Ghost,

I think the 9 out of 10 stat is absurd to be honest but I do think that the #'s of false reports and percentage of false reports is almost certainly higher today than in the past. The pay off is just too good, particularly in regards to disputes during divorces and basic disputes when relationships end or kids are involved. Though not directly related, I think one of the biggest problems around is that there is very little consequence for those who lie. The Durham Carolina issue with the woman who destroyed the lives of the lacrosses players, and the coach (and incited a faculty made up of yahoos and morons to a great extent-since rewarded in their actions in many instances if you hear the latest news on the situation) resulted in zero consequences for the woman who lied. Patently absurd. Nifong was thrown under a bus, and good for that, but what of the woman who manufactured a collection of lies as almost certainly a means to form a civil suit (till things got out of hand with that old pesky "truth" problem) or some such thing has no consequences for actions. When I worked in the Oakland School District in California, I saw instances, and even conversed with students who freely admitted to manufacturing stories of physical abuse to get rid of teachers they didn't like, or teachers who made them work too hard as the school would much prefer to brush it under the rug and limit liability, then actually research the veracity of the claim. The kids were shameless in using these tactics and why not? The pay off was huge for them (annoying teacher requiring effort from them is gone) and zero consequences of note if they were found out to be lying.

So yes, absolutely Dented Ghost I can see your point, but I also think you're quite a bit off in the stats. I have little doubt that the total #'s of true cases are higher than believed, and that the #'s of false claims are exponentially greater than in prior decades when issues like this were believed by insane nuts to be "matters of private rather than public concern".

Stamping out the bs claims, and supporting those who truly do suffer from it should be the objective.
 graywolfe81
Joined: 8/11/2007
Msg: 189 (view)
 
Do women really get abused as much as they say or do they make it seem worse then it actually is?
Posted: 10/5/2007 2:22:15 PM
To be honest, I think it's more common than people let on. My neighbors as a child beat eachother and the kid, we called the police countless times but nothing ever changed. Additionally two my most recent relationships involved women whod previously been involved in violent relationships. I wondered sometimes what attracted them to me (I won't lay a hand on a woman period and I'm not fond of yelling or screaming either and avoid it like the plague) as the pattern can be hard to break, but break it they did. I also know of a very, very close male friend who was abused in a relationship for years, but the statistics there are darn near non-existant as men are afraid to report it due to the gender connotations, and police don't tend to actively pursue it for that reason and also because it's simply not seen as a serious problem (though it quite clearly is, men and women who grow up in violent homes often become violent themselves, not just the males alone).

It's a terrible thing when people falsely report it and I don't doubt for a second that that happens, but at the same I give the benefit of the doubt to people, particularly when there's loads of evidence, and as a teacher I'm bound to report any suspected instances anyway in regards to children.
 graywolfe81
Joined: 8/11/2007
Msg: 253 (view)
 
Her sexual past.....ur business?
Posted: 10/5/2007 1:55:27 PM
Not really, although as others have mentioned, the virulent diseases around these days like AIDS make it a more complex issue than it was when diseases were by and large more treatable (in most cases) and not life threatening (in most as well). Today this isn't exactly the case and hence it gets more complicated. I don't really dig for that sort of thing, but if it comes up in conversation I don't see how it's a particularly big issue beyond the health side of things. I understand why it concerns some but it doesn't with me. Whether a man or woman has had loads of experience or not, it's immaterial, whatever floats your boat in terms of how to live your life and whom your attracted too is your business (other than the aforementioned health angle, how to handle that delicately and with tact w/o being nosy is a difficult question).
 graywolfe81
Joined: 8/11/2007
Msg: 130 (view)
 
How Do You Rate The Importance of Sex In A Relationship
Posted: 10/4/2007 3:43:55 PM

Why can't we all just be open and honest about it? This way our significant other can be prepared to seriously deal with it, and "issues" (at least in this area) will be squashed!


Personally I agree, but I also think there's a very reasonable collection of reasons as to why this doesn't happen. #1 Most women are turned off by men talking about sex, or sexual peccadillos early in a relationship. Gross Generalization I know, but it is a turn off and you see as much on profiles and in the forums. Men who do this straight out are usually put in the junk mail/ignore list arena immediately. Even if a man is relatively specific in it, just trying to flesh out where his interests are so compatibility questions are asked and answered real early would still likely get tossed into the junk mail/ignore list option immediately. I think it's a reasonable response by women who want to filter out IE oriented males, though it can also filter out decent options.

Secondly, the next problem is "when". How soon is soon enough to address these. Broaches this sort of topic is delicate business as it can turn a partner off immediately, and make said partner believe you're only after one thing even if the question is delayed and only asked after you've talked for quite a bit. How and when? And by the time any reasonable person decides that it's fine to talk about, the emotions are usually engaged anyway, and incompatibility then becomes a true issue. Now there is emotional intimacy, but "Oh no, he or she only likes it a couple times a month and I do 4 times a week" issues as well and the problems escalate.

How do we deal with this lyrical? I've got know idea. Two friends or acquaintences can talk about it with no problem, but two people getting to know eachother and developing a sense of intimacy are then dealing with the constant conflict between being up front and worrying about being off putting in doing so, or being reticent and/or prudent and not getting across the genuine compatibility and chemistry issues early so one doesn't waste their time.

I loved the thread we had about this issue because so many people were straight forward about it. Unfortunately people are never so simple as they may come across in a thread, particularly when emotions, and hormones are engaged and heavily involved.

All this being said, i get your perspective and I think your right, but as people, we can never seem to make things so simple for ourselves because genuine honesty and an open attitude are often a struggle for us, particularly in the dating scene. Too many ways to get hosed and hurt, too many ways to attract the wrong ones for us, and not attract those that match us best (whether the opposite and so like a puzzle piece, or similar enough to be like hand in glove). Oh and presumptions and assumptions inevitably arise as well, for instance at the begining I addressed how women deal with men who are far too up front too early about sex (generalizing), but men also do the same with women, attaching conceptions that are at best, wrongheaded (classifying as sluts any women who fit into a particular man's conception of such) and at worst completely wrong and erroneous, or worst of all, men can be longwinded like me.
 graywolfe81
Joined: 8/11/2007
Msg: 129 (view)
 
How Do You Rate The Importance of Sex In A Relationship
Posted: 10/4/2007 3:10:56 PM
I once heard someone relay this point of view, "When sex is great, it's 10% of a relationship, when it is bad, it's everything." While not everyone seems to agree with that, I think there is some validity to it. Sexual compatibility, and the genuine pleasure of looking forward to that part of a relationship, and not being able to keep your hands off eachother (when time and circumstances are permitting) is always a good sign. If the situation is more along "meh" lines, I think there's rot in the foundation of the relationship or basic compatibility issues which lead to inevitable problems that tend to short circuit relationships.
 graywolfe81
Joined: 8/11/2007
Msg: 201 (view)
 
Church Denies Gay Veteran Funeral Service
Posted: 8/18/2007 12:47:42 AM
Amoured Knight,

I'm not of the position that the had to provide the service. My position has always been that if they really were a church that based it's foundation on the teachings of Jesus, there wouldn't be a question about providing the service. They would do so. The problem is most churches place a much higher premium on church doctrine, than the actual philosophy of Jesus and stray from his true message. But C'est la vie, it's not like that's a surprise, it's just disappointing.
 graywolfe81
Joined: 8/11/2007
Msg: 87 (view)
 
Dirty girl
Posted: 8/17/2007 6:59:56 PM
I've always thought rape fantasies are confused with ravishing fantasies about 99% of the time women talk about rape fantasies. Rape is an ugly business, no choice in the rapist, no knowledge of what will happen to you during or afterwards, and a part of you is stolen and quite possibly destroyed for life within one's soul. Ravishing involves similar action, but adds in the "choice" element, the man or ravish you are approved of to some degree or other, there is an element of choice and its a very, very different experience than rape, but is confused with it when many women talk about this fantasy.

Maybe I'm wrong about you, but I think it's just as likely that you actually have a fantasy of being ravished by men that you wouldn't particularly mind being ravished by. I have known a lot of women over the years that share the fantasy in the singular or the plural sense. It's not that unusual and I don't think you should feel bad about it. Fantasies are fantasies, our minds at play with ideas that intrigue us...

Forgive me for trying to say what is going on in your head, or tell you how you and other women think, but over the years I've met a lot of women whove had a similar fantasy and when it was broken down, what they really were fantasizing about was ravishing just about every time.
 graywolfe81
Joined: 8/11/2007
Msg: 164 (view)
 
If your lover/girlfriend says she'll never give you BJ's...EVER, would you stay with her?
Posted: 8/17/2007 6:37:55 PM
In the past I would have said yes, but now I'd say no. I'll do nearly anything for a woman I love or am falling for, just about anything, and I do not expect the same, everyone has their own standards. That being said, I think there comes a time when you discover what you can live with and without, and while sex isn't and never should be anything, sacrificing one of your most treasured activities simply isn't worth it. Perhaps I change my mind if she won't and im helplessly head over heels anyway, but to be honest I think relationships start or stop based on compatibility questions and sex is certainly one of those compatibility concerns. That being said, I know two people who ignored the issue, and are still in their relationships, but neither are satisfied, and it could pose a problem in the future. It's hard to be up front with this, because its a bit ridiculous to talk about all your interests right off in such a private aspect of life, it can and probably should come off as quite tacky at the very least, that being said, if it doesn't get talked about sooner rather than later, problems will come when a partner isn't happy w/whats going on behind closed doors.
 graywolfe81
Joined: 8/11/2007
Msg: 22 (view)
 
Foreplay.....rough or soft?
Posted: 8/17/2007 6:15:33 PM
To be honest, more often than not I've been too soft, most of the women I've met have preferred more aggressive, rather than slower, langurous sex. It was a problem early on because I thought the opposite, basically I was more towards your inclination. The truth is, women don't lean one way or the other on a general basis, they lean one way, or the other, or blend interest in both ways depending upon the particular individual and their given tastes. What makes it even more difficult is when your forced to intuit the preference because of communication issues, and you're wrong, I have erred on the side of gentler just because I'd rather be seen as a little bit twee, rather than a violent lunatic.
 graywolfe81
Joined: 8/11/2007
Msg: 33 (view)
 
Men - would you consider dating a woman who's ex turned out to be gay?
Posted: 8/16/2007 11:49:09 PM
I've had a best friend, and another individual very close to me raised by fathers who later came out so it's not entirely foreign territory.

As to your questions. Is it a way that they're born? Yes, I think there's a very strong genetic component. There are environmental factors too, men, and women in prison engage in gay sexual acts in statistical #'s that are vastly superior to the #'s believed to exist outside of prison. Additionally certain familial situations can influence the development of sexuality a great deal in youngsters, and there have also been recent studies that suggest a correlation between siblings, there gender and the likilhood of men or women growing up to be gay adults. So there's obviously a blend at work of genetic as well as environmental factors, but free choice in the sense of choosing to wear your hair long or short, be a social drinker or not etc? No, I don't see that at all beyond prison situations in which the choice is basically no sex, self-pleasuring, or gay sex. Other than that, I don't really buy the idea of a great deal of choice in the matter.

Do i think any given women whose husband/boyfriend later comes out did something to make said man gay (or vice verca?)? No, I do not, in the strongest possible sense. To come out, despite being married is a trying, often horrible experience for gay men and women, but it's an experience that becomes necessary due to the guilt many feel for sexual dishonesty towards their spouses, and elements of emotional dishonesty as well as the chaos that will happen if children are involved and for the extended family who may not be nearly as accepting as others. Top that off with the simple difficulty with coming out that caused a man or woman to keep the secret so deeply even into marriage amplifies it. Nothing a woman or man can do or say makes their partner come out. It's simply the boiling kettle effect. The people I really and truly feel sorry about are those of the past when the world was even more stiffling, and gay men and women in cultures that are even less welcoming than the US or western culture (which encompasses most of the cultures of the world), for these people, coming out often simply isn't an option at all.

Anyway assuming this was your own experience (I've only read your initial post and nothing else of the thread), I want to reinforce that you did absolutely nothing to make this happen (if it is indeed you you're talking about), and its better that it happened now rather than even later.

Additionally i don't know of anyone, anywhere who would have this impact their decision making on dating you or not. to be honest that sounds like lunacy to me. If you're a lovely person, than people finding their way to you is inevitable. Sussing out whose quality from those in need of some character adjustment (or a full scale rebuild) will be your challenge. Good Luck :).
 graywolfe81
Joined: 8/11/2007
Msg: 184 (view)
 
Church Denies Gay Veteran Funeral Service
Posted: 8/16/2007 8:45:25 PM
If there was a darn quote feature I could have avoided posting entirely and simply quoted Montreal Guy another 10x . He's right on the mark on this in my view and quite eloquent and erudite as well.
 graywolfe81
Joined: 8/11/2007
Msg: 171 (view)
 
Church Denies Gay Veteran Funeral Service
Posted: 8/16/2007 5:58:32 PM
Oh and one other thing, homosexuality was more than common amongst cultures that oppressed the hell out of the Jewish people, so it shouldn't be surprising that it gets condemned here and there.
 graywolfe81
Joined: 8/11/2007
Msg: 170 (view)
 
Church Denies Gay Veteran Funeral Service
Posted: 8/16/2007 5:52:01 PM
DeusXmachina,

Check out the Japanese Unit that chose to serve during WWII rather than be interred in essentially pseudo- p.o.w. camps, one of the most decorated units to serve in the Pacific Theatre. Check out the Tuskegee Airmen, who became the most famous squadron in the European Theatre in WWII protecting B-17's, check out that navajo units featured in that Woo picture who became an essential player in the US victory in the Pacific Theatre, even a film like Glory captures it. This country has a rich history of deeply discriminated against, and violated minorities marching out to defend the red, white and blue regardless as to there treatment at home. These men and women are beyond reproach and truly extraordinary specimen's of selfless humanity with a sense of honor and dignity that should shame the bloody hell out of that church and some of the attitudes displayed in this thread.

Leviticus and Paul did not and do not have 1/1,000,000,000 of the knowledge that we have about sexuality today and to claim these ancient letters, and a truly vile piece of work in Leviticus somehow trumps science is patently absurd and science moves closer and closer to understanding homosexuality, represented all over the place in the lower and highest levels of the animal kingdom as well as among humanity, as a phenomena that is anything but sinful, and simply a trait, like any other trait that can be expressed in a minority of individuals based on biological means, and in some cases environmental means (prisons, and in particular home environments). It isn't, by any stretch of the imagination analgous to criminality and it's sickening to repeatedly here people parrot the views of individuals from 10,000 years ago who had zero science and very, very pertinent social reasons for their views (homosexuality was often expressed via rape in war in those times, and it wasn't exactly helpful in small, unstable, Jewish tribal communities for men to not be contributing children to society). If it was a huge concern I imagine Jesus would have mentioned it, but even the men who later told his story, and wrote and rewrote and provided interpolations by the tonnage into the gospels don't seem to ever put the words in the mouth of Jesus. I wonder why?
 graywolfe81
Joined: 8/11/2007
Msg: 352 (view)
 
yet another yank fished in thread
Posted: 8/16/2007 10:38:55 AM
Quite depressed to see United put to sleep like that. Happy for Beckham but what a bummer that you could only catch it on Telefutura. I caught it, but few others did. You could tell he wasn't comfortable w/the physicality of the league needless to say, a ton of ugly, ugly two footed tackles by both sides. Unfortunately the refs let guys get away with murder in the MLS.
 graywolfe81
Joined: 8/11/2007
Msg: 112 (view)
 
Church Denies Gay Veteran Funeral Service
Posted: 8/16/2007 10:19:43 AM
Render under Caeser huh? Lovely that you take that message, but apparently not other points in the Synoptic Gospel's and John seriously. Somehow, somewhere, Compassion, love, tenderness, forgiveness, healing, and generosity pale in comparison to render under Caesar, which is particularly disturbing consider the Caesar's of that time didn't try to dress themselves as disciples of his teachings.
 graywolfe81
Joined: 8/11/2007
Msg: 109 (view)
 
Church Denies Gay Veteran Funeral Service
Posted: 8/16/2007 9:35:49 AM
Crack, coke, crank and other drugs can be acquired or bought on the street to address a mood, or addiction, being gay, or straight involves one's sexual identity, not one's random choices in the drug marketplace any given night. As such it cannot be compared to the moneylenders and the Pharisees managing the pull out the righteous anger of Jesus. Suggesting an analogy is akin to saying that left handed people are dirty, and untrustworthy and unworthy of Jesus' love, but instead should be forgiven for there lefthanded crimes. It's ludicrous.

As for the Gay Agenda, give me a freaking break. The gay men and women of this country want equality of opportunity, and equality of treatment under the law, something that any fair minded individual could support, a better question should be why the far right and it's political churches obsess on sexuality, stem cells, and abortion, and walk hand in hand with a political party almost wholly devoid of any connection to the teachings of Jesus in their own political planks, and actions. The environment raped, the poor and destitute ignored or imprisoned, those suffering, and truly in need, forgotten, corrupt to it's eyeballs, and corporations riding fat off the hog 24/7 instead. For people who are in favor of that? So be it. But one can't with a straight face say they follow the teachings of Jesus and are truly and deeply Christian, and then allign themselves with Bush, and the far right of the Republican party.
 graywolfe81
Joined: 8/11/2007
Msg: 34 (view)
 
Am I the only girl in the world who hasn't had a broken heart?
Posted: 8/16/2007 12:43:27 AM
The Kahlil Gibran poem captures it quite well. The truth is, in my view, you're safe, but you're also in a black and white life. Love in all its beauty and potential agony brings life vividly into a whole new realm of conciousness, it is almost a madness, and when you give yourself wholly, and share yourself completely and all your faith and all your love and heart is full, and that love is betrayed and lost, or simply lost, it's one of the most crushing experiences imaginable. I had it ten years ago and it took me years, plural, to recover. For others it takes a few days, weeks, or months.

Suffice it to say, you've managed to avoid a certain special kind of agony, but you've also managed to avoid a part of life, that cannot be touched or experienced without that great leap of faith, and w/o that, life is only half-fulfilled at best.

I hope you find at least the love part, and if you need the agony part to grow a bit more, then that too, though I hope you recover from it a helluvalot faster and more easily than I did.
 graywolfe81
Joined: 8/11/2007
Msg: 166 (view)
 
Anger question for the guys
Posted: 8/16/2007 12:19:09 AM
I just read the thread starter so I'm going to keep it simple rather than be good and read the whole thread . RUN!

No second chances (it sounds like you already gave him plenty anyway). He can prove that he is over the anger w/someone new, don't put your life, or sanity at risk for someone who was likely on the precipice of getting physical. It tends to progress and you definitely pulled eject wisely. Don't climb back in to that relationship under any circumstances.
 graywolfe81
Joined: 8/11/2007
Msg: 88 (view)
 
Church Denies Gay Veteran Funeral Service
Posted: 8/15/2007 11:39:30 PM
Montreal Guy hit the nail on the head, at least in my view. And yes Jesus did break the law, he tore down Mosaic Law and introduced his own, one of the many reasons only some of the Jewish people chose to follow him. There's a reason the Synoptic Gospels, John, the likely ergot-inspired ramblings in Revelations (also supposedly authored by the same writer who gave us John), Paul's letters, and other New Testament tracts don't pair so well with the Old Testament. They are completely different books, written in vastly different times, to distinctly different societies/audiences, and the message contained within makes it patently obvious. Why people think Levitacus or any of Paul's letters trump the Gospel's is beyond me. But this is a core problem today. Wondering why on earth the far right and its churches have chosen to focus on abortion, gay men and women and stem cell research, three topics that Jesus didn't appear to be acquainted with, or didn't appear particularly interested in while ignoring what Jesus actually did provide teachings about. It just boggles the mind.

All this being said, I just think the church should be embarrassed, and the man's family should have sniffed out the rampant hypocracy of the church and never attended it in the first place. Why grace them with his presence? To all intents and purposes he appeared to be pure class, he's too good for the church.

As to the homophobia that occasionally sprouted on here, it's disappointing to read, but in the end some people just don't get it. I've never met a gay man or woman in my life that freely chose anything about their sexuality. I didn't choose to be straight. I just am. I have no idea why. My gay friends sure as hell did not choose to be gay, and the lifestyle nonsense needs to be dropped, as if being gay is like being a shopaholic, or a hoops fan, or a foodie. It's absurd, and people have to realize that it's attitudes like this, that ensure that the Brandon Teena's, and Mathew Shepards of the world get murdered, and families end up destroyed because men and women can't face their sexuality, or live on the DL until caught by their spouse. We need to let go of this nonsense and move on. Who someone loves or is attracted too is something to be celebrated as long as it doesn't harm anyone (I'm thinking Child abuse and that sorta thing), it isn't something to be condemned. When I see a gay or straight couple truly in love, who treat eachother beautifully, I am let inside of the heart of God. People who can't see that, are simply missing the message of Jesus.
 graywolfe81
Joined: 8/11/2007
Msg: 163 (view)
 
Name the artist you feel was the most infulential in RockNRoll
Posted: 8/15/2007 5:47:36 PM
Btw, as I said earlier I think where people are at loggerheads is basically w/the occasional posts suggesting artists who were around far, far after the birth, as well the question of birth and influence. I think you've got it right about detailing the foundation, and the influencing of the fifties icons, but I think I and a few others have it right about the art form actually becoming viable, instead of a fad. Like I said before, there is no Rock and Roll without the men and women you mentioned, but likewise rock and roll likely would never have become a major art form if the fifties icons I talked about didnt basically explode on the scene and get the whole of the country to turn on their radios and change the stations, buy the records, and of course later the Beatles converted the whole world to it, after the fifties icons converted them and swaths of Europe to it. Otherwise, it would just be obscure offshoots of the blues, selling to die hard afficionado's, nowhere near what it ended up becoming after Elvis, Little Richard and Chuck Berry started blasting across radios and televisions across the country and in record shops across the Atlantic.
 graywolfe81
Joined: 8/11/2007
Msg: 162 (view)
 
Name the artist you feel was the most infulential in RockNRoll
Posted: 8/15/2007 5:26:49 PM
You seem interested in the origins, the topic title refers to who was the most influential and obscure, and not so obscure blues artists were not nearly as influential as Elvis, Little Richard or the Beatles. If you're talking about the origins, the original birthplace, the men and women who created the art form, you've got a point, slowly it spread out from these guys and women until it exploded with Elvis. How else do you explain the charts, and record sales? Radio+Television+Elvis equaled Rock and Roll having the possibility of becoming permanent, The Beatles insured that it would be. I've read how you go on and on about these brilliant, highly original and highly copied artists made the art form and should get the credit they deserve and yet rarely receive. I'm fine with that. What I'm not fine with is denigrating the idea that Elvis, Little Richard, and to a slighly lesser extent guys like Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly and later the Beatles redefined the artform and influenced everybody.

I don't really think it's debateable, I think the problem is that we've gone in divergent directs about what influential actually means. Elvis got kids across the world to pick up guitars and start bands, same deal with Chuck Berry, Little Richard and Buddy Holly got bands like the Beatles to start writing. I've read just about every Beatle book ever beaten, and the Beatles are certainly the most influential band since Elvis, and John, Paul, and George were fundamentally inspired by Elvis, Buddy Holly, Chuck Berry, Little Richard (who the band actually worked with before they broke in America) as well as Motown, and Phil Spector produced bands. The Stones were obviously highly inspired by the Blues originals, the Beatles by and large were not, and if one is going to argue that these great blues musicians were more influential in rock and roll than the Beatles, than one will be engaging in intellectual dishonesty. The Beatles picked up where the greats of the fifties left off, the greats of the fifties picked up where the artists you and a few others mention from the 20's, 30's, 40's and early fifties left off. No one doubts there is a chain that goes far, far back, but it's also important to note that Elvis converted America, and Europe to Rock and Roll, and the Beatles converted the world to it, just as it was at risk of dying, the blues musicians you mentioned clearly were influential, but I don't even think it's even close here.

There's obviously a lot of undisguised distaste for Elvis and I get it. Didn't write jack, borrowed/stole depending upon your attitude heavily from black music and artists, and became a caricature of himself in the seventies after surrendering his career to a witless Parker. Fair enough. I like Little Richard, and Buddy Holly more to be honest, Little Richard rocked harder, and so did Jerry Lee Louis, and Buddy Holly wrote material that mostly holds up better, although like Elvis, he had those god awful backing vocalists ruining a few of his works. That being said, even with my preferences I can't deny what happened after Elvis released his first material at Sun, and after he got his first tv gigs. The music charts were never, ever the same. Up till then all the great blues musicians in the world hadn't completely rewritten what was played on radio, bought in record stores or what were the top 20 records around. After Elvis, Little Richard, Chuck Berry and a few others blew the top off the music industry, the great bands of the British Invasion picked up guitars and played at their schools, the great american bands of the sixties started to pick up guitars, and the world of music changed for good.

I have no doubt that there is no rock and roll without the men and women you talk about it. There's no denying it. That being said, the rock and roll we all know and love today, and in yesterday's albums was most heavily influenced by those fifties icons, and the Beatles who picked up the pieces after just about all of their careers ended due to deaths, career screw ups, and other accidents of fate, or choice. I think I understand where you're coming from, but still nothing seems sillier than attacking the idea that these men in the fifties and sixties were some how less influential. It's patently obvious they were infinitely more influential by the direction music took, the direction radio took, the change in what was played on television, and what sold, and sold like mad in those years. This doesn't diminish those hugely talented artists, I just think it puts in perspective what they did, which was create the foundation of the most popular music in the world, but certainly not influence on anywhere near the scale of Elvis, Little Richard, Chuck Berry, The Beatles, and to a lesser extent Buddy Holly.
 graywolfe81
Joined: 8/11/2007
Msg: 160 (view)
 
Name the artist you feel was the most infulential in RockNRoll
Posted: 8/15/2007 1:17:17 AM
Can't believe I forgot Bo Diddley. Darn near unforgivable.
 graywolfe81
Joined: 8/11/2007
Msg: 159 (view)
 
Name the artist you feel was the most infulential in RockNRoll
Posted: 8/15/2007 1:14:54 AM
I think there are four that stand pretty tall, Elvis, because Rock essentially metastasized after his first records and television performances came out. I think people can't forget Bill Haley either. Granted he wasn't pure rock and he never got much else going after that, but Rock around the Clock was a seminal record. Alongside Elvis has to be Little Richard and Buddy Holly. Little Richard rocked much harder than Elvis, and he could also actually right, while Buddy Holly was probably the second most influential band in the most influential of bands of the sixties and beyond, The Beatles. Elvis got John, Paul, and George into the scene, Buddy Holly's exploits helped get them to actually writer their material.

Regardless I don't think there are any single right answers. As some have said, Carl Perkins was huge, and indeed he was, and the great blues musicians and singers of the thirties, forties, and fifties are essential as well, but I also think it's telling that the art form exploded after Elvis, Little Richard, and later the Beatles, in truth, the Beatles may have actually saved it, considering the tottering position of Rock and Roll after Elvis joined the Army, Eddie Cochran died and "something (forgot the name) Vincent were killed in an accident in England, Buddy Holly and Richie (3 massive hits in about a year) Valens died, Little Richard decided to preach instead, and Chuck Berry got in trouble and Jerry Lee Lewis lost his mind. Right there, in the span of about two years rock and roll lost probably 8 of the top 10 or so artists to car accidents, plane crashes, the church, the army, jail, and horrendously poor judgement. People forget that while the music of the sixties was amazing in many ways, particularly Motown, Do-Wop, and girl group music, and the Beach Boys, the music scene by and large was driven by labels and the choices they made for their artists, rather than unique artists influencing the choices labels made. The Beatles brought back the rock group after a nearly four year slumber in many ways.

There is no rock and roll without the great bluesmen and women, without Bill Haley, Elvis, Buddy Holly, and Little Richard, but there might not have been a rock and roll that was recognizable after 1959 if it wasn't for The Beatles and the British Invasion that followed them.
 
Show ALL Forums