        |
|
|
 The Geek Culture Forums
 All about Love!
 Geeks and Sex: A different approach and view (Page 1)
|
 UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! This topic is 3 pages long: 1 2 3 |
next newest topic | next oldest topic |
| Author | Topic: Geeks and Sex: A different approach and view |
|
The Chump Super Geek  
Posts: 135 |
posted June 26, 2002 05:10
   
Notice: Please remain mature and be respectful. Up until a few weeks ago, my wife and I were having trouble talking and getting along. So we sat back to try and figure out what the problem was. One thing had been suffering and was less frequent than ever. Sex. We thought we didn't have any time for it so we figured out our schedules and figured out when would be the best time's and lo and behold we found that we had more time than we thought. So we started having more sex and this, I believe has improved both our physical and mental well-beings as well as better for our relationship. I personally have been more flirtacious with her, more understanding and just generally get along better. Here's some of the rules that I think will help: Rule 2:Buy a toy and some lubrication, guys. I think we as a gender need to admit that maybe there are times when we have trouble meeting those needs by our big bad selves and need something to help us along when we're not pulling our weight. Rule 3:Masturbation. ESPECIALLY WOMEN. You can't let your partner know what you like if you haven't taken the time to figure out what you yourself like the most. Rule 4:Romance. Buy her something nice guys, and there is no rule that says women can't do the same. Nothing says love like a 100gig hard drive or a dual-monitor system. Believe me, if you buy it they won't spend all their time with it. Rule 5:Lingerie. Men too. Find the best G-string on the planet and flaunt it. Even if she's laughing at the little elephant on your package she'll be tickled even more to get to remove it. That's all I have for now, but if you find something else that works, let everyone know. ------------------ IP: Logged |
|
uilleann Highlie 
Posts: 508 |
posted June 26, 2002 13:19
*looks ponderous, and sighs* That's put a big dent in my presumably naïve belief that love and relationships aren't all about sex. On the other hand, it might be something just to do with the two of you, and not necessarily the case with other couples. As for all that sex advice, I'm worried... if I ever get to the marriage stage, will it come to that? I'd like to hope not, I really do. I guess its different for every couple, even if I have to travel off-world to find my future other half... - uilleann IP: Logged |
|
xobender Alpha Geek Posts: 300 |
posted June 26, 2002 16:03
I haven't dated in years and i felt that it wasn't all about sex at all either. Maybe thats why we went pur seperate ways. Could there be a difference in having sex with just one person or with whoever fits your schedule and by that i meant that last time she wanted everything to be a one night stand whenever i wanted come by and then have the warmth of a relationship also so that ended up confusing me even more about finding someone , anyone, who likes the creature i have grown to be ( i am abit proud of myself for not being some gimp with some sort of addiction or some sort of horible killing disease or even lizards coming outta my navel every full moon, no real accomplishments for me but i would give you the shirt off my back if you needed it and i wouldn't need to know who you were either..but thats something else intirely ), but i jumped the rainbow ship and swam, still swimming, away to another island again and hopefully building some sort of usable ( an beautiful ) ship to get me somewhere someone is and make some sort of other connection . A more honest connection that getting our fast food kicks in the "sack" to go. But it's a subjective topic.. what makes you tick with the one you spend your life with ? Things change.. like at one time we had steam power to fuel our transport and now we can have electricity and fossil fuel , someday even water will power us... so if someday i meet someone and it turns out to be sex that will get us going again after a lull i hope i can feel the mojo rising enough to be that creative..until then i am stuck waiting for something other than a good toss. IP: Logged |
|
snupy Highlie
Posts: 644 |
posted June 26, 2002 17:14
quote: I don't think the Chump was saying that..he said they hadn't been talking or getting along, and their sex life was one thing that was suffering. You have to understand that for women, sex is usually an emotional thing. For men, it's not-only in the sense that IP: Logged |
|
Steen SuperBlabberMouth!     
Posts: 1322 |
posted June 26, 2002 18:06
uilleann wrote: That's put a big dent in my presumably na�ve belief that love and relationships aren't all about sex. Relationships really aren't all about sex, but it's also na�ve to believe that sexual needs aren't important either (unless you're dating a nun, that is). Ignoring the needs of your partner and/or yourself, particularly when you've made the commitments inherant in marriage, will lead to serious problems. The Chump is doing the right thing by addressing those needs rather than letting things continue to grow colder and more distant. IP: Logged |
|
Stickist Geek-in-Training  
Posts: 35 |
posted June 26, 2002 22:56
Sex? What's that?  Some of us don't have the luxury of having a partner. I'm glad it helped your situation, though!
IP: Logged |
|
uilleann Highlie
Posts: 508 |
posted June 27, 2002 02:28
Steen/snupy: So they're having problems getting along, and they can "cure" that by having sex? I would have though that a more fundamental look into the causes would be in order, and that the emotional energy and drive for sex would be too weak. "You have to understand that for women..." "Ignoring the needs of your partner and/or yourself, particularly when you've made the commitments inherant in marriage..." Let me say, though, that the above comments don't reflect knowledge and wisdom on my part, but just naïve ponderings and theories on my part; I don't know what I'm talking about - my ideas probably aren't realistic nor are they likely to relate to real-life relationships. Never mind. - uilleann IP: Logged |
|
snupy Highlie
Posts: 644 |
posted June 27, 2002 03:37
[QUOTE]Originally posted by uilleann: Steen/snupy: So they're having problems getting along, and they can "cure" that by having sex? I would have though that a more fundamental look into the causes would be in order, and that the emotional energy and drive for sex would be too weak. When exactly did I say that? You need to work on your listening skills. Here, I'll repeat for you: IP: Logged |
|
Steen SuperBlabberMouth!
Posts: 1322 |
posted June 27, 2002 06:55
I believe he misinterpreted my response as saying that sex will solve marital problems. What I actually meant was that in this one case, where the problem was that they weren't enjoying their sex lives, taking steps to regain that enjoyment solved the problem. If the problem had been, say, fighting over finances, improving their sex lives would not have been the solution. The fundamental cause was, however, the lack of affection which comes from not giving yourself time for intimacies like sex, so the solution was to make time for those things. IP: Logged |
|
maxomai Super Geek
Posts: 133 |
posted June 27, 2002 09:12
quote: Love and relationships are not all about sex. But let's get real here: what we're doing, even in a marriage and especially in a happy marriage, is engaging in an ancient courtship ritual. This ritual is far, far older than civilization, agriculture, or even human control of fire. So much of our bodies and our brains are wired for sex and everything that surrounds the sex drive that one could probably chalk up 90% of all human behavior, custom, and convention, to sex drive in one form or another. Art? Mating display. Same with music. Dance? Definitely a mating display, evolved over time into something of deeper value. Technology? Fitness as a mating partner. Money? Possessions? Flashy cars? Again, fitness as a mating partner. A boy can't get a girl in the big city (read: Chicago, New York, LA, London, etc) without them. Appearance? Physical health? Duh. At the same time, you can respect your girlfriend's or boyfriend's opinion, love them as a partner-in-crime, etc., and still want to screw each other's brains out four or five times a night. Those kind of relationships are the best (and I'm not willing to settle for less than that, frankly. I'd rather have no romance at all than romance that only functions on one level, or that doesn't function at all.)
quote: If it's chastity you want, I strongly recommend pursuing chastity. You can have non-sexual relations with people and form close bonds that way. Just don't expect the person you marry to be that way; persons with little or no libido are rare. Really. IP: Logged |
|
mephisto Highlie
Posts: 637 |
posted June 27, 2002 10:51
quote:
IP: Logged |
|
annie Alpha Geek Posts: 316 |
posted June 27, 2002 13:46
quote: I second that. Sometimes it's just that the chemitry's really good and the sex is great but the actual relationship ... IP: Logged |
|
Colonel Panic Geek
Posts: 73 |
posted June 27, 2002 14:30
Dear The Chump, I'm willing to bet that these rules you set up weren't the key to things getting hot again. I think the thing that really got things smokin' again is you and your sweetie sat down and did the sexiest thing in all of marriage, and that is you talked, and talked honestly. I personally believe any kind of foreplay that doesn't risk you showing up on COPS is good foreplay. After talking everything else falls into place. If it's a schedule, cool, g-strings and clarinets, why not? Latex, nipple-pinching Snoopy suit -- hey go for it. Most folks simply need to understand that relationships come in all stripes and colors and degrees of complication. From Kentucky-standard, get drunk, fight, get the rest of the trailer park to call the cops, then make hot and nasty after the kids throw bail, to the-wedding-is-over-if-we-need-more-kids-I-have-a-samples-on-ice stuff. Of course, those are the extremes. Your mileage may vary. Colonel Panic IP: Logged |
|
uilleann Highlie
Posts: 508 |
posted June 27, 2002 15:48
Quoting snupy: When exactly did I say that? You need to work on your listening skills. Here, I'll repeat for you... Considering that I was at work and distracted, after about 2 hours sleep, have no knowledge of facts on the matter (only theories, alas, I might find out for real one decade), and was referring back to both you and Steen together, getting bitchy does seem a little bit of an over-reaction. The reason for my disclaimer at the bottom of the post was precisely to avoid getting flamed for anything I said, although I could have made that clearer. Actually, Colonel Panic's post goes more along my lines of thinking. Basically, I'm just disappointed in what I perceive to be the idea that sex seems to solve everything. Yes, I can see how I misunderstood the original post (that the problems stemmed from the fact that their sex life was lacking), but even so, why would a lack of sex cause communication problems? Isn't there anything else to fall back on? What I'm thinking is this: what makes a romantic relationship different from a friendship? Why is it more special? I'm coming especially from the angle that interest has been shown in me by someone online, somewhere like 3700 miles away. Nothing physical is really possible, thus, personality is all that remains. I'm using past observations to assume that it is something to do with their actions, reactions, thoughts and feelings, that fit in so well with how you'd like someone to be, that you find it pleasing. Plus, shared interests, beliefs, etc. would provide plenty to talk about and, if together in real life, do together. I know I've felt that, but with this particular person online, that just wasn't really there. I'm not really certain, though, to be honest, whether, in the past, the energy behind such feelings was not in fact generated as my mind's reaction to a person's looks. Too complicated, alas, to really know. Anyhow, that is to say, if there is no sex, then it should be by far not the end of the world, as there is so much more to go on. Now, part of me still thinks I'll keep to the idea I was brought up to believe - sex comes after marriage, not before. If that is the case, then you can't base any part relationship on sex anyway. Even looks is not good - they certainly help when you are young, but as you get older, and looks and sex drive begin to pass away, you need everything that you built the relationship on in the first place to keep it going. I will re-state, for the record, that I can but theorise. And the above post is not particularly clear but I just can't be bothered to get it any clearer - it's not easy to talk about some of it, nor do I want to say anything to risk offending the person mentioned - there is no cause for it (no blame on her at all) but I can unfortunately come across in such a way that implies things I didn't mean, or otherwise sounds offensive. - uilleann IP: Logged |
|
snupy Highlie
Posts: 644 |
posted June 27, 2002 16:43
>>Money? Possessions? Flashy cars? Again, fitness as a mating partner. A boy can't get a girl in the big city (read: Chicago, New York, LA, London, etc) without them.
IP: Logged |
|
snupy Highlie
Posts: 644 |
posted June 27, 2002 16:54
quote: Amendment: I meant flourish as in "to grow, remain healthy, evolve", and sex in the context of love and respect, which is not possible in a dysfunctional relationship. I've been there, too, and yes, the sex can be great-but it's not worth the toll it eventually takes on your soul-IMHO. IP: Logged |
|
snupy Highlie
Posts: 644 |
posted June 27, 2002 17:14
Hmm..I've never been called a bitch before**sniff**. I'm sorry if you were offended, uilleann, but I was reacting to the insinuation that I would say something as shallow as the way you interpreted it. That wasn't very nice of you either.If you know me at all from these forums, you should know that it was not my intention to upset you. BTW, lack of sex leads to crankiness-it's a proven fact. IP: Logged |
|
snupy Highlie
Posts: 644 |
posted June 27, 2002 17:21
>>Latex, nipple-pinching Snoopy suit --
IP: Logged |
|
neotatsu Alpha Geek Posts: 269 |
posted June 27, 2002 19:43
quote: hmm...I don't know about most guys, being that I'm by no means in any way like most guys, but I feel similarly about it...I can't just have random meaningless sex, even if I wanted to...it just don' work that way for me...but then, that's the problem with generalizations..they don't always fit the situation...personnally I would much rather, and I'm sorry for how vulgar this sounds, I'd rather give the girl an orgasm, and not have one myself, than the other way around...but then, I dun exactly have that kind of opportunity at this point in my life....I dun have anyone at this point *sigh*.....another thing is your comment that the brain is the biggest sex organ, AYE, if I'm not intelectually stimulated when I'm with a girl theres absolutely no way I'd be attracted to her, which may explain why I used to have a similar problem to twinkies, tho I'lll leave it to you people to dig up what that is...sry If I got off topic or came off immature, I tried to be wary of that, but I dun know how you other people think, and, frankly, I'm tired of guessing what other people think ------------------ IP: Logged |
|
snupy Highlie
Posts: 644 |
posted June 27, 2002 20:51
>>I'd rather give the girl an orgasm, and not have one myself, than the other way around... Wow. Hard to believe you're still single. IP: Logged |
|
neotatsu Alpha Geek Posts: 269 |
posted June 28, 2002 01:44
quote: easy to say that when you know the way I think, but it's not like I'm gonna walk up to a girl and blurt that out heh..anywho, I doubt I would have a girlfriend either way... IP: Logged |
|
uilleann Highlie
Posts: 508 |
posted June 28, 2002 03:16
Quoting snupy: Hmm..I've never been called a bitch before**sniff**. In terms of an assessment of your life and personality in general, you still haven't. I was referring merely to that one reaction on your part, and nothing further. Besides which, from your other forum posts, I have only empirical evidence to your tendencies, from which I can make assumptions as to what further posts might be like, but just because something's not happened before, doesn't mean that it never will. That may have been an unforseeable one-off reaction. Yes, I could have chosen a better adjective in my reply, but I'm not good with vocabulary in that sense. Another limitation is that my cynical and paranoid nature has a tendency to assume that negative emotions are being conveyed even when they aren't - had that remark been intended to be humourous, a smiley would have been needed to convince me of that, although it would probably then only imply bitter or cruel humour. Now, who says you were trying to upset me? It just sounded like a harsh way of making your point. I wasn't even quoting what either of you or Steen said, anyhow. Had I implied you personally had said that, it would have been a little different. Now, I originally mis-understood The Chump's post, thinking that having sex sorted out their relationship even though their sex life wasn't the root cause (I still sense somewhat of a lack of clarity in that first paragraph), but after re-reading it, it seems much more like a neglected sex life was the root of all their problems. Now, you thought my original remark was ill-founded, and replied with "...because [sex] can only flourish when the other parts are working properly", but I think that your own reply doesn't follow, seeing as sex life problems did seem to be the root cause, and not that other problems were having a negative effect on their sex life. I guess it's just however you interpret the original post. Either way, it still worries me, both in terms of what I perceive relationships to be about, and of my own weaknesses in personally not being able to make that separation of lust from appreciation of a person for who they are, and thus my suitability? BTW, lack of sex leads to crankiness-it's a proven fact - uilleann IP: Logged |
|
The Chump Super Geek
Posts: 135 |
posted June 28, 2002 05:27
In reply to what most of you have said. I agree a relationships IS NOT all about sex. It is, however, about intimacy and sharing yourself in every way. Improving your sex life has a way of allowing different and better channels of communication to open up when you do become intimate in a physical. Does sex solve everything? No. But there are times when a relationship may seem to be heading for the toilet and the simple act of a shared sensation may help to remind you why you fell in love with that person in the first place. Guys aren't emotional about sex. True. But many feelings extend from a man's sex life, such as feeling a sense to protect your wife. I'm sure "pussy whipped" isn't a unfamiliar term either. It's more-or-less a feeling of shared ownership. I belong to you and you belong to me because that is what we have CHOSEN to do. I wish I could explain it so much better. ------------------ IP: Logged |
|
snupy Highlie
Posts: 644 |
posted June 28, 2002 07:04
quote: Actually that would be a great line.. IP: Logged |
|
snupy Highlie
Posts: 644 |
posted June 28, 2002 07:32
>>Now, you thought my original remark was ill-founded, and replied with "...because [sex] can only flourish when the other parts are working properly", but I think that your own reply doesn't follow, seeing as sex life problems did seem to be the root cause, and not that other problems were having a negative effect on their sex life I was commenting on your remarks about love and relationships being about more than sex, and trying to agree with you, actually. I was not referring to the situation in the original post. IP: Logged |
|
uilleann Highlie
Posts: 508 |
posted June 28, 2002 21:30
Quoting The Chump: ...the simple act of a shared sensation may help to remind you why you fell in love with that person in the first place... *mentally winces* I'm still having difficulty with that one - the separation of lust from love, and what is left. Looks aren't supposed to matter to geeks, but I can't realistically envision a situation where my feelings for someone are not based on and fuelled by physical attraction. And if that keeps up, thus will my preferences remain ever too high - intelligence, geekiness and beauty being an unrealistic target when it seems that geek girls don't exist around here in the first place. Snupy: You were agreeing with me? Oh, that makes more sense now. - uilleann IP: Logged |
|
neotatsu Alpha Geek Posts: 269 |
posted June 29, 2002 01:16
quote: I dun have a line, and I hope I never use a 'line' of anykind, especially not one like that, cuz I'm not looking for casual sex. IP: Logged |
|
misty Geek-in-Training
Posts: 30 |
posted June 29, 2002 05:17
hmmmm? ... well, there is sex and there is sex! ... may i point out (a point that some see already) that sex for partners that have been together for a long period of time is "different" than SEX ....  .... NO long-term MONOGAMUS relationship is based on sex .... commitment, trust in your partner, a mutual desire to be together, etc. is the basis .... BUT! the fact of those "things" does not subtract the desire for a satisfying sexual relationship .... i really think that this is where a lot of people get confused ... a lack does not mean a lack in the relationship, per say, but that a certain connection (for both parties) is missing .... when you have "been" with somebody for, let's say 4 years+, and you do not want to be with anybody else, BUT you are feeling a lack of connection .... hmmm, how do i explain this? .... o.k., let's see .... after a certain period of time (with someone) you have passed the point of "sharing" ... i mean that, yes, verbal comunication is still needed, but all secrets have been shared and disclosure is done and now you are working on another level ... i think that physical communication is one of the FIRST!!!! things that are lost in a long-term relationship ..... (note: i speak from my own experience) .... IT IS TRUE!!!! that making physical time for you and your LONG-TERM partner can remind you of the reality of who you are with .... not the blah-blah day to day things that so easily take over a long-term realtionship .... it is a complete sensory experience of your partner ... a pure enjoyment of your partner ..... sex is serious and when in a long-term realtionship is should be taken seriously .... somebody mentioned: *mentally winces* I'm still having difficulty with that one - the separation of lust from love, and what is left. Looks aren't supposed to matter to geeks, but I can't realistically envision a situation where my feelings for someone are not based on and fuelled by physical attraction. And if that keeps up, thus will my preferences remain ever too high - intelligence, geekiness and beauty being an unrealistic target when it seems that geek girls don't exist around here in the first place.* BY the time that sex become an issue that perhaps needs to be "looked" at and maybe "worked" on, your partner will have lost any physical looks .... what i mean by that ... hmmmm lust dies fast ... love drags on and on ... SOOOOOOOO .... The Chump and his chica, in my opinion, did a great job .. and thanks for sharing .... I took notes!! ... from a girl p.s. clothes are not that important ... (you always love the man in the pants) BUT! if you work on it gently and get him to quit wearing those tidy-whities it IS so much better IP: Logged |
|
platypus Alpha Geek Posts: 302 |
posted June 29, 2002 06:40
Just barely reading up on this forum. But I have an observation to make. You all saw the word "sex" and assumed that Chump's problems/solutions/thoughts were about sex. Having sex didn't make his marriage feel better except that it was a vehicle for he and his wife started taking the time to care for each other, to be with each other. Making the schedules and the effort to be together for sex (which I think many of you are under-rating, there are a lot of emotional aspects to non-casual sex -- it can be VERY effective as a method of expressing true love to a life-mate)... at any rate, before i digressed, this making the effort and spending time on EACH OTHER did a lot to help each member of the relationship recognize that the other was still in love, still cared. Maybe it'd work as well if they'd taken a class or something together, but I suspect the intimacy of sex, and the fact that it is very much a TOGETHER thing (presumably with no one else) also had a lot to do with it. I say kudos, Chump. Taking time to make sure we had sex has done a lot for my wife and I as well. ------------------ IP: Logged |
|
snupy Highlie
Posts: 644 |
posted June 29, 2002 06:40
quote: guess you didn't notice the wink at the end. ------------------ IP: Logged |
|
Xanthine Highlie
Posts: 747 |
posted June 29, 2002 07:08
quote: Are you sure you're just kidding? Honestly. I'm iin the midst of a very long dry spell and my mood has gone places it hasn't gone before. If it weren't for the fact karate is such a wonderful catharsis I probably would've killed someone by now. No, sex does not solve the problems in a relationship. However, if one or both parties are not getting their sexual needs met the repercussions can spread into other areas of a relationship (such as trust, communication, etc.). The Chump and his wife evidently decided that sex was the root of all their problems, and by fixing the sex issue everything alse fell into line. This may not be the case with everyone's relationship. So the moral of the story is not sex solves everything. The moral of the story is if you find the root of all your relationship problems and fix that, you'll solve everything. Or close to it. ------------------ IP: Logged |
|
SupportGoddess Highlie
Posts: 599 |
posted June 29, 2002 10:11
Maybe it really is making you cranky Xanthine, at least it might be according to this. IP: Logged |
|
snupy Highlie
Posts: 644 |
posted June 29, 2002 20:37
quote: Actually, no, I wasn't kidding. It's just that Uilleann seems to take offense lately to everything I say, so I didn't want him to think it was directed at him, although I do think the general crankiness levels of this board at times would go way down if everyone were having sex once in awhile. And I'm not excluding myself. Karate, huh?? ------------------ IP: Logged |
|
snupy Highlie
Posts: 644 |
posted June 29, 2002 20:59
quote:
------------------ IP: Logged |
|
neotatsu Alpha Geek Posts: 269 |
posted June 29, 2002 22:27
quote: I noticed, I just was makin a point, I find it hard to approach a girl I might want to ask out....I don't have any 'line' to use, and really don't want to, but, then, I've always wound up friends with the girls whom I originally had been considering asking out...I like the idea of being friends first, but at this rate that's gonna earn me alot of people to say "awww, how sad" to me when I'm 50, single, and behind the times in computer knowledge ------------------ IP: Logged |
|
neotatsu Alpha Geek Posts: 269 |
posted June 29, 2002 22:51
quote: I can't help ya then, because all I can envision is a situation where my feelings for someone are not based on and fuelled by physical attraction...for me physical attraction only occurs when I know about a girls intelligence and personality..maybe I'm just really really weird compared to even other geek guys...but that's the way I am, and the way I feel IP: Logged |
|
uilleann Highlie
Posts: 508 |
posted June 30, 2002 01:54
Quoting neotatsu: for me physical attraction only occurs when I know about a girls intelligence and personality... Interesting... I'd guess that a balance in between would be best, but I suppose we all just have whatever we have, unless we see a shrink or something... ;-) Quoting snupy: The discussions of sex in relationships are worrying - are us single folk supposed to write it all down and use it as a manual for later in life? Seems like married (or whatever) life is going to be troubled at best if we don't... No, don't answer that, no sense in dragging the topic down another pointless road... I should stay away from topics like this one. - uilleann IP: Logged |
|
annie Alpha Geek Posts: 316 |
posted July 03, 2002 14:42
quote: why do they have to be separated? Since you're so inexperienced in the matter I have to say this - there's nothing like the feeling of making love to someone you love and want to spend the rest of your life with - hence the term "making love" - it's about way more than just lust and sex and physical satisfaction. IP: Logged |
|
uilleann Highlie
Posts: 508 |
posted July 03, 2002 18:23
Quoting annie: why do they have to be separated? What I meant was, I am generally unable to identify the non-physical part of attraction towards someone. Physical attraction is all very well, but it is transient with age, and not necessarily even guaranteed (geeks (here at least) seem to have this view that they're all plain or unattractive, and don't deserve attractive mates), and if you love someone as a close friend, hopefully not even part of the equation. That is, were I attracted to someone mentally, what would that involve? What would I feel, and what would I like? I'd assume that, given I don't spend time with girls in real life, it's something that I'd experience if I ever met someone I really liked. Actually, I have felt that before, to an extent (and normally towards guys, which is frustrating) but I can't usually guarantee that it was separate from (that is, not powered by) physical attraction and not able to exist on its own, and thus wonder whether the feelings were deep, or just shallow and temporary. However, these days, conversations with people might be OK at the time, but there is never any magic, any deep appreciation for who someone is, what they are and where they stand, and thus a desire to spend more time with them. I'm not sure there ever was; the girl I've most felt a liking for in terms of personality must be version_lili. Our chats online (she's in the US) have long since come to an end, for reasons unknown, but I did really like her, I guess. How much could be attibuted to mental attraction and not physical attraction, I don't know, but there were certainly aspects of her personality I really liked. Seeing yesterday? (Tuesday?) that she's put a guestbook on her site recently, I found that its signing page has the submit button labelled "Become my minion" which I found so cute, and something I'd expect from her. We shared quite a few tastes in music (two of which were due to her introducing them to me) and she is no stranger to computing, but she's personal and private by nature, and both that and our limited ability to interact over ICQ/AIM did make communication hard. Whether the tendency for us to have little to say was due to my nature, hers, a combination, or simply an online limitation, I never knew, and that worried me, that we weren't really suited as if we were, we'd have more to talk about and could chat more freely. Something I did do is write Connect-4 OMA for her for us to play but, for a long time it refused to run on her PC (strange issues with Windows 98) and when she did get it to run after she re-installed Windows, she loved it but a) I could never concentrate and she won a lot, although that didn't disappoint her as much as the fact that b) it had ugly problems from bugs at the time which, while fixed, were fixed too late. Quite what our relationship was about, I never knew. I became obsessively open in an indirect way (though she did learn of my actual feelings, IIRC), offering her virtual cuddles etc. which she was happy to accept and return, but it was all one sided, it seemed, and also maybe a little strained. Yet, on one of the exceedingly rare occasions that I found her online this year, she said that she was going through a difficult time, and that I'd been a comfort to her (to paraphrase). The fact that she'll never be mine will linger on, although I think I'm closer to stopping caring about it, but that knowledge that what I'd said really had had a positive impact on her life was really nice to know, that I had been there for her. Now, she admitted several times to being too lazy to run ICQ these days (not that I can understand that, I mean, how hard is it?) and despite her semi-promise to come online more, she is never around online now these days, at least in ICQ and AIM, seems she might be limiting herself to Yahoo! Messenger from the little status icon she posted on her site. This might be something to do with her Yahoo! profile now listing her marital status as being in a long-term relationship, possibly with her new flatmate she's living with since having moved from Colorado to California (who has the same first name as me, funnily, on top of that girl at the bus stop being married to a guy with the same first name as me... spooky) Where was that all leading to, anyhow? 1. Don't bait me in here, you'll regret it ; ) 2. Well, only that I think, with her, I was using physical attraction to help fuel a desire for our mental relationship to be more, and maybe convince myself that it was more. Yet, there was always the shadow over it that it was decidedly lacking. Nevertheless, it does tell me some of what mental attraction is about. I just wonder whether I'll ever form a true attachment to anyone of either sex, or just remain indifferent to everyone for the most part - that is, maybe happy to be with them, but once they're gone, it as if they were never there. I also wish PhAtfiSh could find someone special, he seems such a nice guy. Given I've known him as long as I can remember, "seems" seems too weak a word, but despite being one of the only two or three people IRL that I could consider calling a friend, I should know him much more than I do. But yes, he is a nice guy, just lazy ;) And off to university this September, could be interesting to see what effect that has on him. there's nothing like the feeling of making love to someone you love and want to spend the rest of your life with... - uilleann IP: Logged |
|
Xanthine Highlie
Posts: 747 |
posted July 03, 2002 19:37
quote:
quote: Yep. Great for letting out aggression, great aerobic workout, but really not much for picking up men (they seem to scare very easily...). ------------------ IP: Logged |
This topic is 3 pages long: 1 2 3 All times are Pacific Time | next newest topic | next oldest topic |
  |
|
� 2002 Geek Culture� All Rights Reserved.
Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.47e
|
