Spent $60 on an in-person date. Fuck that
Re: Spent $60 on an in-person date. Fuck that
Non-conformity and socialization is indeed a large reason why more folks don't try polyamory nor openly identify as polyamorous. There is not only lots of shaming from parents and older generations, but also lots of misinformation. For example, poly/kink communities have a tendency to check/ask for STI status and ask about other partners because open communication is used more frequently. Also, simply because a lifestyle is misunderstood does not make it right or wrong. Just different. Find what works for you and learn from others is best advice. Admittedly, I do have difficulty understanding your writing style at times 7w5. It's a dark beer, a poem, and Dr. love all in one.
-
enigmaT120
- Posts: 1240
- Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2015 2:14 pm
- Location: Falls City, OR
Re: Spent $60 on an in-person date. Fuck that
"It is not in my self-aware self-interest to allow altruistic notions about how old men (over age 52)are like dogs that nobody ever takes for a run in the park anymore, and probably they are also so lonely they might end up in the equivalent of the Japanese Suicide Forest, tip the scale when I am making a decision about whether or not I want to do something that seems like it would be fun, but maybe not overall beneficial."
I suspect it is overall beneficial, considered or not. Seems like it would be more simple to find just one person who also wants daily sex though.
I suspect it is overall beneficial, considered or not. Seems like it would be more simple to find just one person who also wants daily sex though.
Re: Spent $60 on an in-person date. Fuck that
To each their own. I try my very best to mind my own business and realize there are all kinds of flavors out there that are nothing like mine.
Re: Spent $60 on an in-person date. Fuck that
Well, I think most men who still want to have sex every day at age 52, would also still like to have sex with more than one woman. Plus, it has been my experience that I have a difficult time maintaining boundaries around all the time, space, and resources I need for all my projects when I am attempting to share house space with the sort of man who still wants to have sex every day at the age of 52. So, once you get to the point where you are no longer wanting to share house space with a man, but you still would like to have sex every day with a man, it isn't that much more difficult to be polyamorous than monogamous in terms of transition costs. In theory.enigmaT120 wrote:I suspect it is overall beneficial, considered or not. Seems like it would be more simple to find just one person who also wants daily sex though.
However, I would note for the record that the transition costs still are high enough that I have not yet been able to attain a sex every day level of activity with polyamorous practice. I was able to attain/maintain this level of sexual activity with monogamous practice, sharing house space with a man, but only at the cost of having all my project space smushed into a tiny corner of my existence, literally and figuratively. The only reason I managed to stick it out for 3 years with him was he usually slept in until around noon, so I had the whole morning to myself.
My current BF is the same personality type as Major Houlihan (ESFJ)on the tv show M.A.S.H. and I am almost the same personality type as Hawkeye Pierce (ENTP)except more introverted (eNTP), so I kind of like to share house space with him. because he keeps the kitchen very orderly and he is a good cook and he buys all the groceries and he is a good, reliable person, but he yells too much and is generally not reasonable enough for me to live with him all the time. Also, he thinks I am cute and cuddly, but I am not really his type sexually, so we don't hit it very frequently. The problem with having him as my polyamorous primary is that he wants the rule to be that I can only have casual sex with younger men on the side which doesn't really work for me.
Anyways, if I was shopping for monogamous long-term house-share mate, the Type I am supposed to pick would be somebody in between BJ Hunnicutt M.A.S.H. character type and Leonard Hofstadter "Big Band Theory"character type.
Re: Spent $60 on an in-person date. Fuck that
@Jason: Well, he did get a little grouchy when I pointed out to him that he was the same Type as "Hot Lips", and the he got even grumpier because I went on to note that he is very conventionally status conscious in his sexual/romantic preferences, just like her character who goes goo-goo eyes for anyone with lots of stars on his uniform. But, then I decided to be nice and remind him that his character was a Major and Hawkeye* was only a Captain, because messy, non-conformist, slacker like me. OTOH, he doesn't mind too much when I tell him that he still has an extremely cute butt for a 55 year old man. Some things don't transfer when personality types cross genders.
*Benjamin Franklin "Hawkeye" Pierce is a very good name for an ENTP character, because the ENTP is sometimes referred to as the Inventor, and sometimes the Scout. P.S. - I didn't like it when you wrote that I was probably the little girl who constructed sundials by herself on the playground, because that is only how I behave when I am too depressed or sick (I had severe asthma as a child) to be extroverted, so my books are my friends. I was also sometimes the little girl who won at marbles, made a tidy profit in illegal sales of homemade cinnamon flavored toothpicks, and taunted the boys into chasing her on the playground.
*Benjamin Franklin "Hawkeye" Pierce is a very good name for an ENTP character, because the ENTP is sometimes referred to as the Inventor, and sometimes the Scout. P.S. - I didn't like it when you wrote that I was probably the little girl who constructed sundials by herself on the playground, because that is only how I behave when I am too depressed or sick (I had severe asthma as a child) to be extroverted, so my books are my friends. I was also sometimes the little girl who won at marbles, made a tidy profit in illegal sales of homemade cinnamon flavored toothpicks, and taunted the boys into chasing her on the playground.
-
Jason
Re: Spent $60 on an in-person date. Fuck that
I am assuming this MASH analogy is based on either the movie or the very early years of the television show, as with the latter, the departure of McLean Stephenson and then Wayne Rogers, there was a metamorphosis in the characters, specifically Major Houlihan, who moved from a sex-pot, comical/lascivious sort to a respected almost matronly figure (this was due to Alan Alda's undue influence his turning the show into a turgid morality tale against the horrors of war as opposed to its original incarnation as a comedy). My point being that the reference point for your BH is more Sally Kellerman/early Loretta Swit (1972-1975?) than older Loretta Swit. There was a change in theme song (from lyric to instrumental) that might represent the line of demarcation for the Loretta Swit television version. I don't know if this would have helped with your BH's acceptance of the analogy or not. From my recollection, with regard to the qualities that one usually associates with "extremely cute butt", I believe the 1972-1975 Loretta Swit would serve to be the most complimentary comparison.
I apologize for the inaccurate depiction of childhood 7W5. So, this whole poly thing started early, I see.
I apologize for the inaccurate depiction of childhood 7W5. So, this whole poly thing started early, I see.
Re: Spent $60 on an in-person date. Fuck that
@Jason:
Well, we were watching one of the early later episodes when the discussion came up, but we are both quite familiar with the complete arc of the show and characters. My BF does not resemble Loretta Swit in appearance; more like a taller version of Anthony LaPaglia, so just imagine what his butt might look like, then make it even cuter than you expected.
Your depiction of childhood version of me was exactly half accurate. I am mildly cyclothymic, so I swing a bit from I to E. I didn't like it only because it gave me cause to realize that I must really be in one of my low states if I am coming off like that. 2017 was a rough year for me, but things are looking up : ) As for the poly-thing starting early, I think of it as more of a choice than a trait, but it is the case that I made out with 2 boys at the same time when I was 15, because one reminded me of Mick Jagger and the other reminded me of John Travolta.
Well, we were watching one of the early later episodes when the discussion came up, but we are both quite familiar with the complete arc of the show and characters. My BF does not resemble Loretta Swit in appearance; more like a taller version of Anthony LaPaglia, so just imagine what his butt might look like, then make it even cuter than you expected.
Your depiction of childhood version of me was exactly half accurate. I am mildly cyclothymic, so I swing a bit from I to E. I didn't like it only because it gave me cause to realize that I must really be in one of my low states if I am coming off like that. 2017 was a rough year for me, but things are looking up : ) As for the poly-thing starting early, I think of it as more of a choice than a trait, but it is the case that I made out with 2 boys at the same time when I was 15, because one reminded me of Mick Jagger and the other reminded me of John Travolta.
Re: Spent $60 on an in-person date. Fuck that
I assume THF, being polyamorous himself, did not mind hi-jack in that direction, but bringing the thread back around to the original topic...
On another thread the phrase "sports-f*cking gene" was used. Based on many independent complaints I have heard from men in my acquaintance, I think there is now, due to facilities provided by internet, a growing trend towards females engaging in what I will call "sports-dating."
One of the first round problems of internet dating apps was a perception by users that there were too many participants who "just wanted to chat", but never really wanted to meet in person. Since there were also some initial difficulties with off-shore scams making use of fake pictures/profiles, this contributed to customer complaints that service/sites were purposefully luring or maintaining customers under false pretenses.
Therefore, reputable dating sites were motivated to come up with concepts that would serve to reassure users that other users were indeed real people, and also build in carrots towards real world dates occurring more quickly. So, one concept that was trialed involved requiring users to outline the particulars of a date, in addition to creating a profile. I briefly made use of a site with this design several years ago (can't recall name, might have folded.) When I logged in, I would see a list of possible dates on specific days linked to the profiles of the men who were making the offers. For instance, " June 6 3 PM-Tigers game and hot dogs with Bob8240." The site was theoretically gender neutral, but date offers from men far outnumbered the date offers from women. I never actually dated anybody on this site, because I was busy enough otherwise, but I thought it was interesting.
Anyways, flash forward a few years, and a male friend of mine who is engaged to a much younger woman who was a professional escort, told me that when they weren't together, she kept herself amused by using a site called "What's Your Price?" where users bid on first dates with other users, because she wanted to see some expensive theatrical performances without having to pay for tickets. Based on reports from the affluent older men I date, the expectation of this sort of thing has permeated into the more conventional dating sites. So, for instance, it is not uncommon for a woman to very clearly behave as though she has expectations on very scant acquaintance, that her date will perhaps buy her a present or offer to pay for travel. The reason why I see this behavior as analogous to "sports-f*cking" behavior in men is due to the lack of underlying desire or primary motivation for ongoing relationship.
IOW, some of what is going on due to the relative transparency and freedom offered my the internet market is that females are breaking away from some of the "try before you buy" relationship structures of recent history, and moving more towards a "pay as you go" model. This is not necessarily a bad thing for males in the market once they comprehend that the fact that most females these-a-days are core self-supporting actually opens up more opportunities for varying the "coin" offered. The woman who doesn't need you to pay her bills, and doesn't want you to throw down 50/50 on child-rearing project, might be inclined to just use you as an ATM for luxury item/experience purchases , but she might also be more motivated to make decision based on wide variety of factors not related to simple security. For instance, "good-looking", "interesting", "amusing" or even just "great in bed" can be given higher precedence to the ability to bankroll tickets for "Hamilton", when a female isn't shopping for forever-and/or-monogamous commitment.
On another thread the phrase "sports-f*cking gene" was used. Based on many independent complaints I have heard from men in my acquaintance, I think there is now, due to facilities provided by internet, a growing trend towards females engaging in what I will call "sports-dating."
One of the first round problems of internet dating apps was a perception by users that there were too many participants who "just wanted to chat", but never really wanted to meet in person. Since there were also some initial difficulties with off-shore scams making use of fake pictures/profiles, this contributed to customer complaints that service/sites were purposefully luring or maintaining customers under false pretenses.
Therefore, reputable dating sites were motivated to come up with concepts that would serve to reassure users that other users were indeed real people, and also build in carrots towards real world dates occurring more quickly. So, one concept that was trialed involved requiring users to outline the particulars of a date, in addition to creating a profile. I briefly made use of a site with this design several years ago (can't recall name, might have folded.) When I logged in, I would see a list of possible dates on specific days linked to the profiles of the men who were making the offers. For instance, " June 6 3 PM-Tigers game and hot dogs with Bob8240." The site was theoretically gender neutral, but date offers from men far outnumbered the date offers from women. I never actually dated anybody on this site, because I was busy enough otherwise, but I thought it was interesting.
Anyways, flash forward a few years, and a male friend of mine who is engaged to a much younger woman who was a professional escort, told me that when they weren't together, she kept herself amused by using a site called "What's Your Price?" where users bid on first dates with other users, because she wanted to see some expensive theatrical performances without having to pay for tickets. Based on reports from the affluent older men I date, the expectation of this sort of thing has permeated into the more conventional dating sites. So, for instance, it is not uncommon for a woman to very clearly behave as though she has expectations on very scant acquaintance, that her date will perhaps buy her a present or offer to pay for travel. The reason why I see this behavior as analogous to "sports-f*cking" behavior in men is due to the lack of underlying desire or primary motivation for ongoing relationship.
IOW, some of what is going on due to the relative transparency and freedom offered my the internet market is that females are breaking away from some of the "try before you buy" relationship structures of recent history, and moving more towards a "pay as you go" model. This is not necessarily a bad thing for males in the market once they comprehend that the fact that most females these-a-days are core self-supporting actually opens up more opportunities for varying the "coin" offered. The woman who doesn't need you to pay her bills, and doesn't want you to throw down 50/50 on child-rearing project, might be inclined to just use you as an ATM for luxury item/experience purchases , but she might also be more motivated to make decision based on wide variety of factors not related to simple security. For instance, "good-looking", "interesting", "amusing" or even just "great in bed" can be given higher precedence to the ability to bankroll tickets for "Hamilton", when a female isn't shopping for forever-and/or-monogamous commitment.