Story Sent in by Eric:
Kitty was a fellow singer in my local chorale. When I first met her, she was dating someone else but when that ended we became closer. We hung out after practices and went out to dinner and even cooked each other dinner a couple of times. I thought that things were heading in a romantic direction and the second time we hung out to make each other dinner, she asked me point blank if I was interested in her beyond a friendship.
I told her I was. She seemed okay with it, but also didn't really address it anymore. Thereafter, when I reached out to her or attempted to make plans, she always found some sort of excuse until I took the hint that she didn't want to have anything to do with me anymore.
A few months later, she texted me, "Busy tonight?" I wasn't, and I looked forward to the chance of seeing her again.
She asked me to meet her at a Christmas tree farm, of all places. It was a strange choice but I wasn't about to look a gift horse in the mouth.
While there, we caught up as we walked amongst the trees, but she seemed pretty uncomfortable the whole time. She was very intent on picking out a Christmas tree, "For myself and my fiancé," she explained.
Finally, after she picked out a tree, she enlisted my help and the help of some farm attendants to carry it to her minivan. After it was loaded in and the attendants left, she told me, "I have to go. My charge is running low and I risk memory loss."
She gave me a quick hug goodnight and drove away, out of my life forever.
*
Women want sex? Who'd have thought it?! Here's a neat article all about it on Dr. Nerdlove. Thoughts?
No sympathy from me. You walked right into that one. Annoying.
ReplyDeleteI just want to fart Eric deep into the friendzone, what a chump.
ReplyDeleteI want to say something biting and cynical, but I'll be honest - we've all been there, even me. When you're young and inexperienced with relationships, there's always that one person who knows you're interested in them and instead of being direct about their lack of interest will string you along to feed their own ego and occasionally get your help with something.
ReplyDeleteThe important thing is simply to make sure you LEARN from the experience, and don't ever let it happen again. If this was the first time something like this happened to you, you have my sympathies. If things like this have happened to you on multiple occasions, go stick your sausage in a meatgrinder so that you can commit fully to your sad and lonely life.
Okay here is why I am bitter. Some guys will bend over backwards for a woman who is basically rude and mean to them but then ignore or dump a nice woman. Even if you did go out with this woman after months of her not contacting you, I don't understand why you stayed to help her with the tree after she mentioned a fiance. Why couldn't the fiance help her get a tree? And I would even be on board if you at least realized your own foolishness. But you don't. I don't know. Wolfdreams you are usually good at explaining this things to me. Thoughts?
ReplyDeleteLol. I don't know how I didn't see your post before. Thanks for the insight wolfie.
ReplyDeleteWow...$20 says Kitty is actually KatieGirl...
ReplyDeleteBest. Relationship. Evaaaaaar.
@ Steve - FOR THE WIN!!!!!!11!!!1!!!1
ReplyDeleteThis also happens to guys that drive a pick-up truck a lot.
Only 'cuz I love you, JMG, am I going to address that article. Largely I think most reporting on ladysex is falls into one of two binary states: women are being "pressured" and "corrupted" by the call for sex without shame, and woman have animalistic sexual needs that are just different than men's. This article examined the former on its way to being just another typical example of the latter. Dr. Nerdlove really cherrypicked through the history of female sexuality there; the main reason that historically females were believed to have a stronger sexual impulse and more pleasure was to provide "evidence" that they were less evolved/more animal than men, who get to experience cool reason and logic while we internally wrestle our uteri and howl like dogs for a good bone (which we may in fact do, but still). It was a way to elevate men and devalue women, and it only "worked" because lust was considered a base and animal state. Chicks want a little pink from time to time like anyone else, and while we might tell a researcher we aren't aroused when we are, I find it doubtful that we don't ourselves know it; I just don't think we're that divorced from ourselves.
ReplyDeleteHere's where I think the the article veers off track: the notion is that even if woman could talk openly and frankly without embarrassment or reprisal about their sexual desires that they would have much more sex, and by extension men not having sex now would get to. Both are, IMHO(tep), wrong. The former is wrong because sex is a powerful, powerful drive. A drive so very strong that even (or especially) "good" religious gals with every intent on not having sex still do. We make justifications to ourselves, we get "caught up in the moment", whatever you want to call it the outcome is the same: if we really want to have sex that sex totally happens. And since the majority of that sex is already happening, you can see why I don't believe the latter either.
What might change in this utopia is the willingness of women to act on much lower levels of sexual interest; to be willing to chase down the mere flicker of desire. It's possible, but the number of people we have vague twinkle for is a much larger group that the ones we get slick panties for, and just on an hours-in-the-day basis it won't add up to many extra participants, and the thing about vague twinkles is they are ephemeral and can evaporate on the way to the sheets (had it happen plenty of times). If anyone is hunting for advice I'll tell you the top reasons I quashed the casual sex I was totes willing to have 10 minutes before I bailed out:
-I discover the main reason the other person wants to have sex with me is to tell other people about it. (I could see that reading as "shame" to some people, but it's more about how unerotic that is)
-The other person is too fixated on the fact that sex is about to happen to care about my arousal. (So why am I here again?)
-The other person felt entitled to sex from me because I had sexual interest in someone they thought they were better than, or that they had obligated me to sex. (That's, like, so hot).
Jared, I disapprove of articles like the one you linked - namely because they are written with a biased agenda that is used to twist the actual facts. I see tons of stuff like this written by polyamorous and/or quasi-feminist people, promoting the idea that if men just stop repressing female sexuality we will have a sexual utopian where everybody can have sex free for the taking.
ReplyDeleteWhich is bullshit, of course. First of all, it operates under the assumption that the reason sub-standard guys don't have sex is because not enough women are interested in sex, and that if more women were interested in sex then the excess sexual drive would somehow "spill over" onto the less desirable men. That's nonsense - what would actually happen is that the desirable men would get even MORE sex, and the less desirable men would still get none. For evidence, we need to do nothing more than reverse the genders. Nobody could ever say that male sex drives are low, but does that excess sex drive "spill over" into more sex for less attractive women? Not at all - instead, we just fetishize the attractive women that much more and compete even harder for their attentions.
Second of all, the assumption is that "slut-shaming" is an inherently bad or irrational thing, that only prudish people would embrace. You've been to my parties and I think you know from my guest list (and I'm not sure if you saw Jason licking Janelle's shoe at one point) that I'm no sexual prude, but I still turn down women who had slept indiscriminately with too many guys because there is a perfectly rational supply and demand element. The more people have access to something, the less valuable it becomes - that's common-sense economics. When I'm involved with a woman who won't give most guys the time of day, I get not only the emotional satisfaction of the relationship but also the ego-trip of knowing that I'm special because I have access to something that few other people get. The problem with people who push the polyamorous agenda like this writer is that they often dismiss this element of sex - feeling an ego boost - as unimportant, whereas it seems common sense to me that in a healthy relationship, the needs of your ego SHOULD be met.
LOL@FIzziks&Wolfdream !!! You're both insane! Hilarious - *bows*
ReplyDeleteAll this time, I've been trying to find the words to express my thoughts on slut shaming and the reactions of people who start trying to guilt-trip everyone anytime any kind of label that equates to "woman who sleeps with anyone around" is used. wolfdreams01 - perfect. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteI have slick panties for you try ;)
ReplyDelete@Try - my motto, too!
ReplyDeleteYou're welcome Allison - just pay it forward!
ReplyDeleteTanette - sorry, I didn't notice your question until now. It's basically cause people are shallow and evil. ;-)