From: Conor Daly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Mon, Apr 09, 2001 at 01:19:31AM -0500 or so it is rumoured hereabouts,
> Julie thought:
> > I think his thing only makes "fairly reasonable points" if you view
> > women as sex objects to be conned into going to bed with you ...
>
> I'd have to disagree there. My reading of the article is that it's about
> "being successful at casual sex". I don't think a woman who is not
> planning for casual sex is going to be "conned" into it just because I
> happen to have made the effort to be "sexy" but, if she *is* looking for
> sex, it might make the difference between her choosing _me_ rather than
> the other guy over there.
I don't think there are very many women who are out cruising for
casual sex. For one thing, it just doesn't work. It's extremely
frustrating when you try to top (and this is in the sexual sense)
your boyfriend and he rebuffs you. How much of "Women don't
pursue casual sex" is biological and how much is sociological, I
don't know. But if you polled the women with the question "How
many of you cruise men for casual sex" I think the answer is going
to be pretty close to zero. Or at least, significantly lower than the
answer given by men.
> > I mean, if you have to change who you are to get a date, I think
> > the basic issue of trust has already flown straight out the window.
>
> We all wear different faces for different events. I don't think anyone
> goes out either on a date or looking for one without wearing a suitable
> facade. It's for later for mutual trust to develop. You may be soft and
> vulnerable with your partner while being hard and progressive in your
> career. This isn't "cheating" your partner, it may be that both you and
> your partner know that this is a loving game or it may be that you both
> feel secure enough in each other to let down the facade that you need to
> wear at work. Likewise, you don't indulge in your habitual nose-picking
> while out looking for a date. This isn't a trust issue, it may be that
> you plan to eliminate this habit. I may (actually, I *do*) appear
> confident in public but I have someone whom I trust in whom to confide my
> uncertainties and fears. (Interesting how I said "I" in relation to being
> confident and "you" in relation to nose-picking! It isn't personal! :-) )
> Similarly, someone who exercises to achieve a fitter/sexier body isn't
> changing who they are so much as making the effort to improve themselves.
> Again, it's not "breaking trust".
Well, my perspective is that if my partner is twisting herself into
knots to get me to date her, I'm just not interested.
Real personality change is glacial -- it can't be had by changing
from wearing USENIX '94 t-shirts to wearing polo shirts with small
animals stitched on them.
On the other paw, yes, deciding to exercise for fitter body isn't
doing it just for casual sex -- which is how I'm interpretting Eric's
paper.
> OTOH, the alcoholic who pretends is definitely breaking trust.
And not the football-oholic or slob-oholic or geek-oholic?
> ESR isn't recommending any sort of cheating though. Even the bit about
> listening (which is traditionally where you can get in trouble "Hmmm?"
> "yes dear") talks about "paying attention". It's not explicitly said,
> but listening properly will often lead to interest in the conversation
> while appearing to listen won't. Saying "listening works" is not in
> itself a cheat since it will get you in deeper to mutual awareness, while
> dropping tabs in her drink might also work but is definitely wrong. He
> says later
>
> " Being a decent human being and treating her like a human being is not a
> distraction or a sacrifice"
>
> I think this encapsulates the whole thing. Mutuality and respect are the
> keys to the whole mating thing. If you alter who you are and how you
> behave in order to achieve such mutuality, you're not cheating.
In my experience, anything a man does to obtain casual sex is
anything =but= "treating her like a human being". It just gets
very tiring. It also just gets very tiring try to get men to understand
this.
-- Julie.
_______________________________________________
issues mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/issues
