Divorcebusting.com Forums Open Forums THE SEX-STARVED MARRIAGE Why I am the Way I Am

Well, now that I am no longer attracted to men with personalities like House ( I read sarcasm as a sign of inner infirmity these days), I think I am trending more strongly towards being attracted to men who just look more masculine to me. All other things being equal, I've always preferred tall, dark and handsome. Jimmy Smits was definitely my ideal when I was 22. I did "date" a black guy in college if you would consider a massive make out session after a party with a housemate as a "date" -lol. I thought the 34 year old Italian guy who contacted me recently was hot but he was shorter than me and 34.

Of course, it would actually be the case that I would be being discriminatory if I didn't date a lot of black men because lots of black men hit on me. I don't know how to say this and remain PC but the fact of the matter is that I am a white girl with close to black girl booty which is like being an Asian girl with pretty big boobs. Both NG and GP were constantly compulsively squeezing my thigh muscle and placing their hands on my waist just above my hips. Of course, there are white guys who are strongly attracted to my body type too but not as many and a lot of them are in the closet and I live near Metro Detroit so it just works out that almost 40% of the guys who e-mailed me recently are black.

So date whomever you find attractive and who finds you attractive. If they're black, white or striped ... who cares?

Flaccid length does not mean equal increase in erect length.

I personally prefer to think of it as an art form.

Okay, this post is meant for Corri and it might be one of my best posts ever if I can communicate clearly.

I grew up in an all female household with a nice guy upper-middle class gentleman dear-old-Dad father. Therefore, in many ways I was a complete dodo when it comes to boys/men until I joined this BB and started observing a large group of them close-up and learned some stuff about how they behave in the wild and captivity. One thing I have observed to be true is that men are less inclined towards serial monogamy than women. Therefore, IMO, it is "wrong" or at least counter-productive to spend too much energy tending fence with a guy until/unless he asks you to marry him. In fact, the reason why men have bachelor parties is to have a sort of funeral for the rat/wolf so, really, you need to make a fence-tending exception for the last lap-dance too. If you attempt to hold a guy to monogamy if you aren't willing to marry him then you are, as BF said, attempting to render him p*ssy-whipped and he quite possibly will react with monkey like behavior. If you choose to have sex with him if he hasn't asked you to marry him then you are operating in violation of the whole cow/milk sexual economic structure for reasons of your own about which you should be self-aware.

Anyways, I think you and BF are more alike than different. BF won't fall in love at all and you are afraid to fall in love until all sorts of safety structures are intact. I'm still kind of self-protecting but the skill I've gained through participating on this BB is that I now know how to fall out of love and land safely. It's like when you are the "pursuer" or the one more "in love" you are the one who is running/attacking in a martial arts exercise. The better you have developed the skill of taking a fall well, the less you have to worry about whether the other person is going to catch you or throw you or drop you or deflect/control/use your energy. I've always been pretty brave/stupid about just going ahead and running/jumping but I didn't know how to land right so I was a big crybaby and I blamed the object of my lust/affection "Why didn't you catch me? Don't you love me? Waaaah." Idiotic really. My point is that in order to properly tend fence in a relationship you need to be able to be both the strong attacker who knows how to take a fall and the strong defender who knows how to deflect an attack in a manner that is not seriously injurious to the other. If two people remain in a relationship it is clear that the person locked into the defender/avoider role is just as weak as the person locked into the attacker/pursuer role because it is a reflection of their inability to take a fall gracefully.

Who are you referring to here?

Which observations cause you to draw that conclusion?

Corri, I assume.

Are you going to make me defend my new grand theory-lol? Well, I was trying to figure out why BF implied that a monogamy-without-commitment relationship would render a guy p*ssy-whipped and if you think about it, it makes sense because there is no "good" reason why a guy would agree to such an arrangement rather than a monogamy with commitment relationship (marriage or equivalent) because men are supposed to take the lead and ask the woman to commit to a relationship. I hope that made some kind of sense. My observations are just of the "nothing I've seen invalidates this theory" variety.