but you need to come up with a better name than 'new guy.' I mean, heck, even 'Hank' would be better... though on second thought, I suppose that name really doesn't 'fit.' Dirk, maybe. So he can 'stab' you with his 'love muscle...' (peels of glorious girl giggles with a high five slap)
Lol- Hmmm... I think "Dirk" has a connotation of short brutality, I think he's more of a "Lance" as in "Lance-A-Lot" because I shall be dwelling in the mythical kingdom of "Come-a-Lot" as long as he's my lover.
Quote:
I am now off for my first ballroom dance competition, and will be sporting long red nails and a leopard latin dress. Gulp. Jesus, I hope I have the balls to pull it off...
Heck, I just hope your BF is frame enough to hold a woman with gonads so big. Good Luck!!
"Tell me, what is it you plan to do with your one wild and precious life?" - Mary Oliver
Lord have mercy, lol. You two together could be a dangerous combination
You are probably right. Pretty much all we need is a leggy red head to join our trio and we could take on any bar full of men over 40 (WTF- let's make it 35).
"Tell me, what is it you plan to do with your one wild and precious life?" - Mary Oliver
Here's another thought I had about being a HD woman dating as opposed to being a woman in a committed relationship. All the men I have dated have treated me very well. Even the guy with whom I shared an instant and mutual lack of attraction made pleasant chit-chat with me for 20 minutes and insisted on paying for coffee. Since I have a high supply of men who want to date me as long as I am "live" on the internet, whether or not I have a date any given Saturday night is simply a matter of how high I set my standards. Now that I have "fixed" my broken sexual persona and therefore am able to be straight-forwardly sexually responsive, whether or not I have sex on any given Saturday night is pretty much a matter of how high I set my standards also.
Given these "market" realities, I am thinking that I quite possibly will never have to put up with cr*p from a man ever again. Surprisingly, I am also finding that it's not like I'm experiencing a lack of intimacy. I have long, pleasant, intelligent, thoughtful conversations with the men I date on a variety of topics, some very personal. The men I date have validated me in numerous ways, everything from saying that I'm beautiful to praising my writing style to laughing and telling me that I am cool. My sexual interactions have actually, for the most part, surprisingly, transcended the level of "just sex" also. The men with whom I have been at all sexual have all been much more romantic and affectionate both in and out of bed than my 2bx.
So, here's my question. What really is the value of committing to a relationship for the long haul, beyond the point where you are both equally committed to treating each other very well, even if that means that a "relationship" only lasts the course of a pleasant shared meal or maybe through a few months of mind-blowing sex? I guess I'm kind of asking a big question which is "What is it within human beings that makes us cling to relationships beyond the point of comfort?" Is there some little pump in the brain that sends out a chemical that tells us to fear the end or lack of a pair-bond? If this is so, why is it any different than the kind of chemicals that send us into a whirl of magnetic sexual attraction? Is it simply that we see the manifestation of the pair-bonding chemicals as being more socio-culturally acceptable, more acceptable to "others" and the maintenance of generally held mores, than the chemicals that promote sexuality? Is it all about the children or the child within who needs protection and comfort?
"Tell me, what is it you plan to do with your one wild and precious life?" - Mary Oliver
So, here's my question. What really is the value of committing to a relationship for the long haul, beyond the point where you are both equally committed to treating each other very well, even if that means that a "relationship" only lasts the course of a pleasant shared meal or maybe through a few months of mind-blowing sex? I guess I'm kind of asking a big question which is "What is it within human beings that makes us cling to relationships beyond the point of comfort?" Is there some little pump in the brain that sends out a chemical that tells us to fear the end or lack of a pair-bond? If this is so, why is it any different than the kind of chemicals that send us into a whirl of magnetic sexual attraction? Is it simply that we see the manifestation of the pair-bonding chemicals as being more socio-culturally acceptable, more acceptable to "others" and the maintenance of generally held mores, than the chemicals that promote sexuality? Is it all about the children or the child within who needs protection and comfort?
Good questions Mojo. I always said to myself when separated (even though I was probably full of sh*t) that I would enjoy just having short-term but very intense R's with men who I was attracted to, and when the R became more work than it needed to be , I'd just move on to the next guy. This is fantasy world to a degree I guess. It sounds like it would be great but I'm not so sure that way of life would be fulfilling long term. I think people do want to pair-bond for the long haul because it takes time to get to know someone and the longer you spend with someone, the closer you naturally become (unless the R is all f-ed up to begin with). I'm sure you are taking this point of view now because it is all still very new (being free from the M) but maybe in a few years you will see things differently. Want someone to grow old with maybe. Who knows.
"What is it within human beings that makes us cling to relationships beyond the point of comfort?" Is there some little pump in the brain that sends out a chemical that tells us to fear the end or lack of a pair-bond?
nah. its totally "cultural". Its the rules with which we were raised. other cultures have different rules. (polygamy, etc). Our rules were also setup in a time where people didn't live very long as mature adults, so "the long haul" was way shorter than it is today. But the rules did serve their purpose of limiting the spread of disease, the proliferation of destitute women and children, inheritance/property rights, etc...we have other ways of dealing with all of those things, today, but we still seem to cling to the traditions.
Picking" one another is the ultimate validation. Dontcha think?
Good point. However,it kind of makes me think of the "happy ending" myth. Is marriage the ultimate "pick"? Frankly, I'd rather have a guy pick me to have the mutually hottest sex of our lives with than pick me to participate in a low sex marriage. Actually, I'd rather have a guy pick me to hit over the head with a brick than pick me to participate in a low sex marriage. Not to single you out, but when you chose to fool around with OM you were clearly having an interlude of "not picking" your H. I think we all would like to have the feeling that there is somebody out there who will always be on our team or choose us for their team if life is like an elementary school game of dodge ball but it is clear to me that getting married isn't what makes that happen. This BB and the majority of real life marriages I know of are rife with episodes of betrayal, injury due to foul play, sulking on the sidelines and general poor sportsmanship. Maybe it's easier to play fair and have fun if the game doesn't last too long. - lol
"Tell me, what is it you plan to do with your one wild and precious life?" - Mary Oliver
