Music Banter
Page 6 of 11 « First 45 6 78 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Music Banter (https://www.musicbanter.com/)
-   The Lounge (https://www.musicbanter.com/lounge/)
-   -   Internet hookups (https://www.musicbanter.com/lounge/68831-internet-hookups.html)

Engine 04-02-2013 03:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZiggyStardust (Post 1303052)
Misogynistic? Which is more anti-women, respecting their bodies or just using them for sex?
The idea that those two things are mutually exclusive is Lawrence's brand of misogyny. I'll gladly talk more about this but not on this thread, because it's a total derailment.

The Batlord 04-02-2013 09:04 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Engine (Post 1303036)
Far be it from me to give give dating advice but in the case of internet "hookups", an emotional affair is what's being had.

However, I think the OP made a point (more than once) to say that his current physical relationship is established as casual, uncommitted, and not monogamous. So.. why would his "internet hookup" be any worse than him dating multiple people in real life? That's pretty normal for humans.

I'm confused about why people presume that the real-life girl expects monogamy. OP said expressly that she does not. If she does then, yeah, I agree with the "you're a sleazy douche" comments but he claims that she does not. If in doubt, he should talk to real-life girl about it and accept the consequences, as has already been said.

I agree that OP shouldn't lie by omission to the real-life hookup if, as everybody presumes, the real-life one would be concerned/alarmed. But I think it's kind of offensive to the real-life hookup for people to assume that she even wants to have that conversation. OP said they're not committed. Maybe she would also like to retain her own privacy.
That's pretty much my take. I don't see how he's being a douche to either of them. At most I think he should deal with the situation simply because it seems to be bothering him. I don't even think that he has to necessarily talk to either of them, just pick one to put his mind at ease.

WWWP 04-02-2013 11:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZiggyStardust (Post 1303047)
Are you sitting comfortably, children? Then I'll begin.

I'm probably going to take a disliking of the OP due to his ''fuckbuddy'' approach. For me to fuck someone, I have to be in love with someone, have an emotional connection. I probably read too much D.H Lawrence, but oh well.
People with ''fuckbuddy'' approaches are no better than prostitutes. Their lives revolve around the physical sex, the carnal hunger, the animal instinct, rather than the beautiful human love. Love is beautiful. Sex is noisy and messy, just the expression of love. Painting is beautiful, paintings are just the expression.
Can you have love and sex at the same time? Of course. But they've got to be in a balance. Too much of one will upset the relationship. Too much of a relationship that's solely based on the sex and it will undoubtedly fail. You will no grow to love her. You will just love her vajayjay. You've got to love her being, not her sexual organs.

That wasn't too bad, was it? That was probably I in my most philosophical.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha **** you. If this is you in your "most philosophical" you should maybe not do philosophy.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Engine (Post 1303055)
The idea that those two things are mutually exclusive is Lawrence's brand of misogyny. I'll gladly talk more about this but not on this thread, because it's a total derailment.
Exactly this. You're implying that having sex with a woman you're not in love with automatically qualifies as being disrespectful of her body but you're not even taking the woman's opinion into account. If the two of you aren't in love but she wants to **** you does that mean she's disrespecting her own body?

I've loved way more dicks than I have hearts. Get off your prudish high horse, *******.

Trollheart 04-02-2013 11:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Engine (Post 1303036)
Far be it from me to give give dating advice but in the case of internet "hookups", an emotional affair is what's being had.

However, I think the OP made a point (more than once) to say that his current physical relationship is established as casual, uncommitted, and not monogamous. So.. why would his "internet hookup" be any worse than him dating multiple people in real life? That's pretty normal for humans.

I'm confused about why people presume that the real-life girl expects monogamy. OP said expressly that she does not. If she does then, yeah, I agree with the "you're a sleazy douche" comments but he claims that she does not. If in doubt, he should talk to real-life girl about it and accept the consequences, as has already been said.

I agree that OP shouldn't lie by omission to the real-life hookup if, as everybody presumes, the real-life one would be concerned/alarmed. But I think it's kind of offensive to the real-life hookup for people to assume that she even wants to have that conversation. OP said they're not committed. Maybe she would also like to retain her own privacy.
I think what he said was it's an unspoken agreement, but he didn't say she had agreed to be non-monogamous. HE's assuming she is, but he doesn't know. AFAICS none of this has been discussed, so he doesn't in reality know what she thinks. It's his ONLINE girl that understands the arrangement between them, but then, it's a lot easier to accept that when you're miles apart and unlikely to meet much, if at all.

TMK the "real" girl does not know about this relationship and has not been asked or given a choice in it.

From what I read....

djchameleon 04-02-2013 01:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trollheart (Post 1303153)

TMK the "real" girl does not know about this relationship and has not been asked or given a choice in it.

From what I read....
Monogamy is for the birds

The girl that he works with doesn't even want a relationship more than just sex at the moment if dynamics of that situation changes then of course he should communicate what's going on with his other girl

The Batlord 04-03-2013 09:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trollheart (Post 1303153)
I think what he said was it's an unspoken agreement, but he didn't say she had agreed to be non-monogamous. HE's assuming she is, but he doesn't know. AFAICS none of this has been discussed, so he doesn't in reality know what she thinks.
He said that he tried to stroke her face in public and she backed away. Maybe she just doesn't like public affection, but it still sounds to me like he perhaps wanted more and she shot him down without actually saying it. And since they've never had any conversation about being monogamous it's sounds to me like she wouldn't have any business expecting him to be monogamous even if that's what she wanted. It's none of her business. If he wanted to **** dogs it still wouldn't be any of her business.

Paedantic Basterd 04-03-2013 09:22 AM
You guys are putting an awful lot of words into the mouth of a woman who hasn't been given an opportunity to speak, based on hearsay from a guy who desperately wants to believe he's not behaving like a creep.

All we have ever argued is that she has a right to know, because she is in the relationship too. If she's fine not being exclusive, which nobody can confirm or deny at this point since she's never been spoken to on the matter, then who gives a crap?

If you're participating in a relationship with someone, physical or otherwise, that is an automatic ticket to knowing where your partner stands on the matter. If you don't agree with that basic show of decency, then I'm afraid you're a yeasty ****, and I'm calling you on it.

It is absolutely my business where my partner is putting his dick, or his future. Eat **** if you think it's not. :)

The Batlord 04-03-2013 09:25 AM
I agree that it makes sense to have a conversation about the status of the relationship, but so long as they're not committed it's still none of her business what he gets up to.

And of course we can't be sure how self serving Black Francis is being. I'm just going on the assumption that he's being at least moderately truthful because...what else can you do?

Paedantic Basterd 04-03-2013 09:30 AM
That leaves a grey area though. If you've got multiple partners, it's an automatic necessity that they are all aware of that situation, or they'll rightfully want to pickle your balls for giving them VD or worse. I realize that doesn't apply at the moment in this situation, but, he having crossed that road in the first place, who is to say where he'll draw the line, now or in the future?

The Batlord 04-03-2013 09:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedestrian (Post 1303434)
That leaves a grey area though. If you've got multiple partners, it's an automatic necessity that they are all aware of that situation, or they'll rightfully want to pickle your balls for giving them VD or worse. I realize that doesn't apply at the moment in this situation, but, he having crossed that road in the first place, who is to say where he'll draw the line, now or in the future?
Maybe I'm off base, but saying that someone has a right to know about one partner's other partners sounds sort of like saying that the man has the right to know that the woman is going to get an abortion. Sure they might have a dog in the fight, but to expect someone to have to divulge such personal business as a matter of course sounds wrong to me.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:02 AM.
Page 6 of 11 « First 45 6 78 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page


© 2003-2025 Advameg, Inc.