Are you romantic?

[repiV]

Then why do you have to have sex with them to figure out if they're worth spending a significant amount of time with?

You don't, but you certainly have to spend time with them, in a way that ensures that you're compatible as more than just friends. You can't just walk into a meaningful relationship.
I mean, what, are you gonna make the guy sign a piece of paper affirming that he considers the relationship meaningful and that he plans to spend at least five years with you before you jump into bed with him?
You can't define these things, and in any case, sexual compatibility certainly is an important part of any long-term relationship. You wouldn't invest in anything else that involved such a huge commitment without first testing it out properly, would you? What if you get married and then discover he likes to dress up as Lilly Savage and whip you?

 

[Cheomesh]

Actually RepiV, I get what you're getting at now. Misread it earlier, sorry if I ragged on you.

Now, I am by no means a "wait till marriage" person (should start a thread where we rip apart the need for marriage...); however, I think our idea of "casual" is different.

The type of "casual sex" I dislike is where sex is a part of the relationship, but you have no idea if you could be arsed to stick around with this person through any given difficulty.

I only make sex a part of a relationship when I think that I would be willing to stay with this person for a long time, even if there is some difficulty interrupting our lives.

This is probably a factor of upbringing.

 

[repiV]

Again, I'm pretty sure you can spend time with someone without sex being part of the equation. I'm not exactly saying that you need to go get married before you do anything - quite the contrary, in fact. I'm neither proposing that you just walk up to somebody and say "hay wanna be my [gender]friend lol;" human interaction is not such an alien thing to me. I'm no puritan; I simply don't think that one should base their relationship around sex. Is that so hard to understand? It's not sex itself that I'm against, but sex for the sake of sex with one or multiple partners.

It doesn't have to be based around sex, but sex is still a very important part of the process of finding out if the other person is right for you.
Clearly traditional thought wouldn't hold sex to be so sacred if it didn't have some kind of intrinsic value beyond feeling good - it allows you to discover things much deeper about that person, and it makes people feel closer together.
If you don't take that learning opportunity, you're entrusting a large part of this so-called meaningful relationship to luck. The question is, ultimately, whether the relationship is meaningful because you want to have a meaningful relationship and this person is good enough, or because you're really into that person based on the natural flow of events - and you haven't ignored any underlying issues in order to make them into the right person in your mind.
A lot of people seem to fall into the trap of trying to fit a square peg into a round hole, and abstinence is part and parcel of that.

 

[repiV]

Actually RepiV, I get what you're getting at now. Misread it earlier, sorry if I ragged on you.

I think you must be mistaking me for somebody else, this is the first time you've spoken to me in this thread.

Now, I am by no means a "wait till marriage" person (should start a thread where we rip apart the need for marriage...); however, I think our idea of "casual" is different.

The type of "casual sex" I dislike is where sex is a part of the relationship, but you have no idea if you could be arsed to stick around with this person through any given difficulty.

I only make sex a part of a relationship when I think that I would be willing to stay with this person for a long time, even if there is some difficulty interrupting our lives.

This is probably a factor of upbringing.

That's fair enough.
I'm rather cautious in how I deal with people, I've been burned too many times in the past to be a "nice guy" anymore. I give people the treatment they have earned - a woman has to prove to me that she really is an amazing person that would stick by me through thick and thin before I would make any kind of commitment like that. Chances are, most of them wouldn't - and until they've proven they're different from the rest, I'll take the sex while it's on offer please.
People are bastards, you know. Not usually out of malice, but just because they can't be bothered to do the same things for you that you would be willing to do for them. I don't like to get played for a fool.

 

[AiM]

Actually RepiV, I get what you're getting at now. Misread it earlier, sorry if I ragged on you.

Now, I am by no means a "wait till marriage" person (should start a thread where we rip apart the need for marriage...); however, I think our idea of "casual" is different.

The type of "casual sex" I dislike is where sex is a part of the relationship, but you have no idea if you could be arsed to stick around with this person through any given difficulty.

I only make sex a part of a relationship when I think that I would be willing to stay with this person for a long time, even if there is some difficulty interrupting our lives.

This is probably a factor of upbringing.

Part of the draw for casual relationships is the freedom (no strings attached) you have while still being able to satisfy the basic need for sex. Just because you're in a casual relationship doesn't mean you need to haul ass at the first sign 'difficulty'. Whether you stick around or leave it's up to you, there's no obligation that forces you to choose one over the other.

More often than not, one of the casual partners will find a boy/girlfriend and end the casual one. But instead of hightailing it out of there and cutting all contact, you can still remain friends and there's no hard feelings.

Sea: When I meant cutting out all the bullshit, I mean when you get used / played by a girl. I've done the whole 'good guy' thing but I can honestly say none has gone on to the 'meaningful' stage. Don't get me wrong, I had some good experiences in some, but at the same time, I've had more shitty experiences than good ones. Until one can show me she's actually worth it, I'll gladly take the casual relationships to satisfy my needs.

 

[Phobie]

We're not all heartless idiots.

Don't get me wrong, most of us are. But not all.

 

[ericms]

I think our definitions are different. By casual relationship, I simply mean a relationship where one uses the other for "carnal pleasures" and little else; the thing serves only as an excuse to have sex. By meaningful relationship, I mean one in which love is a mutual feeling between both parties and there are intentions of continuing the relationship for a significant period of time (i.e. years). Under those definitions, I really don't think it's necessary in the least to knock somebody up before you start caring for them. I've seen it happen plenty of times.

The only worthwhile "relationship" is the one that appeals only to your selfishness. It is, otherwise, something sacred and as vulnerable as religion is (in fact it belongs with the rest of the threads sharing that name). Love isn't there to be appealing to anyone except you and the moment it becomes some mutual absolute ("the one") to you is the moment you're someone of virtue and thus one of "faith." You're only hurt in a failed "relationship" when you hold the "relationship" as above you and you're only benefited from it when it's yours.

 

[Pesmerga]

Why does everyone seem to think casual relationships are only for sex.

PEOPLE CAN HAVE FUN OTHERWISE.

 

[Angry Lawyer]

I don't know about you guys, but I just really like sex.

-Angry Lawyer

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

What, again? I've barely recovered from last time...

 

[Angry Lawyer]

You know I can't resist that pirate charm.

-Angry Lawyer

 

[fido139]

In my heart

I am a romantic in my heart, but out here, I don't have a f*cking clue. I think it takes a couple hearts and brains on nearly the same track to accomplish that, at least to any degree of honesty. Too much of it is just trumped up and faked, like Hollywood. I really dislike intensely the fakes out there. If they ever come up with a game called "Destroy Hollywood" I'll be the first to buy it. I hope you can choose your opponents, I have a few high on the list......but I ramble...

 

[Skaadi]

Lordy lord... I started a thread like this ages ago. :O

I'm a romantic at heart. Doesn't always mean I will be thinking of romantic things to do though. May never do any!

I guess much the same applies to me, the last part even more so since I'm not really a relationships person.

 

[Druckles]

Can't really answer. You'd have to ask an ex.

 

[SimonomiS]

Is it weird that the closest thing I've had to a romantic experience in the last six months is a 40-minute walk with a woman eight years older than me?

Depends, was it a meaningful walk?

 

[Druckles]

Depends, was it a meaningful walk?

Did she have her clothes off?

 

[Cheomesh]

No, not really. It just sucks that the female I'm closest to right now, who is potentially a very awesome person, is pretty much just too far out of my age range. I think I pretty much have resigned myself to perpetual friendship with everyone I know, anyways.

Become a douche bag! They're never single.

jk jk.

 

[Cheomesh]

Agreed :|

 

[Druckles]

http://www.unclemelon.com/iraqi_brides.html

 

[ericms]

I'd rather shoot myself in the head, I think.

Because you aren't one (or are not all the time) or you feel you shouldn't be one? "Too far" out of your age range? There is no such thing.

 

[Druckles]

"Too far" out of your age range? There is no such thing.

Yes there is.

It's called dead.

 

[Pesmerga]

I'm very attracted to a coworker of mine who is 10 years older than me. She's married and has kids, but we have lots of fun at work.

As for being a douchebag to get into relationships... you're a ****ing retard if you think that's what you need to be. How about not being a total pussy, grow a pair, and, I don't know, ask a girl out? "I can't get into a relationship because I'm a good guy! Not because I'm a total pussy and pretending I'm "nice" is just a cover for how much I hate myself." Please, get over yourselves.

This whole self fulfilling prophecy, "Are you ok? How does that make you feel? Can I help?" thing pussies like you do for women just turn them off even more. You're not their knight in shining armor, and unless you literally save them from a burning building, don't expect much in return. Guys like you are actually hoping for them to feel bad so you can "rescue them", but you're actually just implying that women are weak creatures to be carried along.

Being like that just screams insecurity, and women smell it a mile away. You don't have to be an asshole to find a girl, you just have to be confident and courageous.

 

[SimonomiS]

Yes there is.

It's called dead.

Some people would disagree with that...

 

[Druckles]

Some people would disagree that molesting babies is wrong. That's not to say it isn't.

 

[Tollbooth Willie]

And take it from me, it really isn't. Dead babies are a whole other story...

 

[Cheomesh]

Pesh, you do know I posted "just kidding" at the end of my post, right?

 

[Pesmerga]

What's funny about this is that you're making broad, sweeping assumptions that that is what I'm like. Without getting into details, I'll just say that you have everything completely backwards.

Become a douche bag! They're never single.

jk jk.

I'd rather shoot myself in the head, I think.

Agreed

I'll die before I become a douchebag

Oh please, all your posts just SCREAM the kind of characteristics that I just discussed. And if what I described is so contradictory to your true personality, why get defensive? And making judgments on your character by what you post? Holy shit, Captain Duh!

You implied that people with girlfriends (or those who've had many) are douchebags. This (loosely) includes me, so here I am telling you that you're a pussy.

 

[Druckles]

No, I think he implied that douchebags have girlfriends... not the other way around.

 

[Pesmerga]

I do not offer my help at any given opportunity; in fact, I will usually only help with things when asked

Who's the douchebag now?

flock to me out of pity

Eh, wat?


You're really not helping with the image you're conjuring up in my head. "I don't care what you think! *sob* I'm my own person! *sniff*" Want a Kleenex?

 

[Cheomesh]

Pesh, I was kidding. Chill out. LAUGH FOR ONCE GOD DAMN IT.

 

[Druckles]

<insert laugh here>

 

[Cheomesh]

So, chocolate on the first date: a faux pas?

 

[Phobie]

Wait, what? Chocolate?

Did I miss something?

 

[Stigmata]

I would say yes, it is.

But I'd also say that you should really do whatever you think should be done, and if the girl doesn't appreciate it, then she's not the girl for you.

 

[Phobie]

Oh like on a first date? Giving a box of chocolate? I get it now.

Hey I wouldn't mind, but I think it's a bit cliche. Flowers are cute though.

Also yeah, what Dave said.

 

[evil^milk]

I hope you don't mean that for the chocolate thing

 

[Cheomesh]

Flowers are cute though.

Would have thought this to be the cliche, tbh.

Next "first date" I go on I'll get some really unusual flower...if she digs it, I have a winner. Otherwise, meh.

 

[Pesmerga]

Pesh, I was kidding. Chill out. LAUGH FOR ONCE GOD DAMN IT.

It wasn't funny, why should I laugh at it. Although my previous post was more directed at sea.

 

[repiV]

I would advise anyone to stay way the hell away from giving gifts on a first date, or spending money on her. By doing so, you're basically telling her that you don't think you're worthy of her company and you're trying to even things up a bit by buying her stuff.
Sure, buy a cup of coffee or something, but don't make a big deal out of it. She's the wrong girl for you if she thinks she's entitled to fancy things just for agreeing to go on a date with you, and she soon will be the wrong girl if you do that kind of thing because it screams weakness. The message you want to communicate is that you have higher value and status than her, and she's the privileged one to be spending time with you - to communicate the opposite is a mortal sin.

 

[Druckles]

Tbh, flowers and chocolate are cliche. But that's what makes it so romantic. The fact it's cliched. Girls generally appreciate little things like that, from my experience, I fail to understand why, but they dig it, especially if they like cheesy/cliched things.

Flowers always worked with me. Extra sex!! Woot!

But no, gifts on a first date, wtf??