     voigtkampff | Saturday, January 15, 2000 - 12:23 pm 
A common problem in relationships is that one person is not as interested as the other. It may ebb and flow like the tides, but one always likes the other more. In a situation where one is in it for convenience, and the other is in it for love, this can be bad.
I think that most people will lie, to keep the sex going. But even if they are truthful, and say that this is just fun, the other party says yes I know. But inside they say, "We'll see. I just need time to change him/her. I'll make him/her love me." So one of them is still lying.
The more experienced person knows that this is happening. If they allow the relationship to continue, knowing that the other will inevitable get hurt, did they do something wrong? Or is there safe harbor in being honest? Especially when honesty was difficult. Is the other person wrong for lying and saying that they felt the same way? |
| Sean | Monday, January 17, 2000 - 07:34 am
If you tell a person the truth and they proceed anyways you are exculpated. It is true that many times women will privately think that you'll change and continue with the intent of modifying you to meet their requirements.
I resist being changed like that. It's just too often that a girl marries a guy saying, "He'll change for me" and twenty years later she divorces him thinking, "He's not the same man I married."
Well, duh! You've been trying to modify him for 20 years. |
| voigtkampff | Monday, January 17, 2000 - 11:54 am
Sean, I want to accept your position. It would make me feel better. But for what it is worth, most people disagree with you. I don't know why it is my responsibility to look out for someone else's feelings. Why should I have to second guess someone? I am not my lover's keeper, so if they think that a relationship is good for them, and I know better, why should I be required to challenge their decision? Wouldn't that be arrogant of me? Or at least inappropriately patriarchal and avuncular?
The reasoning seems to be that they don't know better and I should look out for them. But they are not 12 years old. They're not children. As adults I feel that they should be allowed to decide about their relationships, and my only obligation was to be honest.
Yet I feel guilty. Without understanding why, something feels right about the majority view. And in recent years I find myself doing what is good for me, but also considering what is good for them, even if they don't.
As far as resisting change, I feel the urge to resist on principle. But what if the changes are objectively a good thing? And what if this person could be good for you, and all you have to do is compromise and change a little bit. Maybe the other person could change a little in return. I don't believe in fairy tales. Everyone needs to change at least a little to make the other person happier. |
| kristy | Tuesday, January 18, 2000 - 08:26 am
Actually, it seems to me if you are saying the same thing, and I agree with both of you. If you are upfront (which is the only way to be, in my opinion), then you have nothing to feel guilty about.
The only thing I would add is that you make sure your actions match your words, since sometimes people "listen" more to the amount of time you spend with them, the affection you lavish on them, etc. I'm not implying that you aren't careful in this regard, I've just seen some people feel that their words alone are enough to exonerate them, giving them an "out" if they get too close. In my book, actions are a form of communication, so lying isn't limited to words.
I've observed the tendency to "lie" with actions equally in both sexes. Thoughts? |
| voigtkampff | Tuesday, January 18, 2000 - 02:40 pm
Yeah, good point. But it's not fair.
Here is a "lying action". I like giving massages. Sometimes for hours. Often without any other intention. It can be sensual and not sexual. I'm enjoying myself, and so are they. I always hear women complain that all men want is one thing, so they should enjoy a male friend who doesn't, right? So I felt that as long as it was clear that it just felt nice, and we were just friends, that those clearly spoken words should rule the day.
In statutory construction (the interpretation of unclear statutes) there is a rule. I forget the latin. If the language of a statute is clear on its face, the court will not dig for hidden meanings. They will ignore legislative history, unless unfairness results.
People are so rarely honest. If we take the time to be honest. Completely, brutally honest. If we say the same thing ten different ways. Every month. How can someone read us differently just because of some subtle action? Just because we have some electricity. Or just because we are affectionate.
People can be affectionate with people that they are just friends with. It's not for me, but some people can even have sex with people that they are just friends with.
So I actually disagree with you. I think that the spoken word (if it is not spoken in emotion or without thought) is what matters. But I also know that you are right, and that the world is not that way. I have adapted. But I'm not happy about it. |
| kristy welsh | Wednesday, January 19, 2000 - 07:54 am
Yes, this is a difficult thing. I totally agree.
I'm mostly thinking of a girlfriend of mine who could be called a "prick tease". She flirts outrageously with men she's not even interested in and can spend 24x7 with guys with whom she's not the least bit serious about. Then she cries because they get so possessive and can't be "just friends". My response is always "what did you expect?".
And with myself, I can say that any man I date knows where I stand (OK, not always immediately, but within a day or two if I want to stop seeing them). Plus, I never flirt with men just for fun. Maybe I'm missing out. I could never do the "just friends" sex thing myself. But I have had family members and friends give me great massages, I'm not sure I would take that alone as a sign of interest.
I'm not sure what I'm trying to say here, but it's and interesting subject. |
| voigtkampff | Wednesday, January 19, 2000 - 01:29 pm
Do you think casual sex will be more accepted in the 24th century when Star Trek becomes a reality? Sorry. SOMEBODY started me on a trekkie thread!
I think that flirting should be allowed. This might be weird, but I flirt outrageously all over the place with women that I have no interest in. That is the only time that it is safe. When I am interested, I am shy and very conservative. I think that outrageous and ridiculous flirting is even a sign that it is not for real. Of course it is different for women to flirt. They have to watch out for the male ego, which manages to twist even the most innocent thing into a sign of interest. Try flirting with gay men.
There is a great scene in the movie "Hollowpoint" with Tia Carrere, Donald Sutherland and Ian Thomas Griffith. He finds a mustard container in her fridge and he says that he loves that mustard. She doesn't care because she hates mustard and only stocks it for guests. His reply is that it still shows that he is the type of person that she wanted to have over all along, since he is therefore her anticipated type of guest. I could never be that smooth. |
