response 95 of 158:

Feb 20 21:53 UTC 2002

How is #93 the opposite of #92? It was exactly the same thing: "I'm not going
to sleep with you, because I want you as a friend."

Translation: You're nice enough, but sex? Yuck!

response 97 of 158:

Feb 20 22:22 UTC 2002

That and they have great hands.

Let's face it, most people feel that the 'nice' or 'good' ones of their 
gender (usually thinking of themselves as fitting that criteria) are 
ignored by the opposite (or perhaps same) gender who apparently prefers 
bitches/assholes who are fabulous looking.

response 99 of 158:

Feb 20 22:44 UTC 2002

#97> Not quite my thinking. There are Gingers and there are Mary Anns. Most
people seem to see me as a Mary Ann: Great marrying stock, wonderful with
kids, nice guy to be around (most of the time), but sex? Not without a ring,
or at least a serious commitment.
 
I know that if I weren't married, I could get lots of dates... with women who
are seeking someone to settle down with. Which are mostly the kinds of women
I'm attracted to, anyway. I just wish more of the Mary Anns of the world were
open to at least occasional play. The ones I meet don't seem to be, and since
a certain Ginger fucked with my brain for five years and then just
disappeared, I don't seem much inclined for that anymore.

response 101 of 158:

Feb 21 06:54 UTC 2002

i could add a lot to this discussion, but guess what. im not gonna.

response 103 of 158:

Feb 21 15:52 UTC 2002

Yikes. :)

I think there's a less cynical way of looking at it, too.  It's not so much
that people are attracted to losers, it's that we're reluctant to look a gift
horse in the mouth.  If you're giving someone unlimited friendly devotion,
endless emotional support, lots of favors, and seem to be thrilled just to
bask in their presence in return.... well, why should your "beloved" do
anything to change the status quo?  Hell, given the attitude that
relationships are difficult temporary arrangements and friendships are easy
and permanent, your beloved's got a pretty good incentive _not_ to change the
status quo.  

(Now, I'm not saying that the one getting all that attention is being
manipulative.  I've seen a few people who play the "just friends" game
deliberately, but I've seen a lot more who really just want to believe
that someone likes them and is being kind and generous, or who see what's
going on but don't know how to change it without losing a friend they've
come to depend on.)

The problem is, the easiest alternative is to make it clear that you _do_ have
an ulterior motive in being so nice, and that's something that a lot of people
have been conditioned not to do.  And especially when ... well, honestly, part
of your ulterior motive is to get in your friend's pants.  That looks
suspiciously like "expecting" or "demanding" sex in return for kindness, and
to me -- to a lot of people, I imagine -- that's more distasteful than just
letting yourself be unconsciously manipulated.

response 105 of 158:

Feb 21 18:13 UTC 2002

        Re #91 and #92:

        You may be running into another phenomenon that I've noticed - that
a lot of people, the majority of them, or so it seems, being women - have
difficulty telling someone that they're uninterested in a clear and
unambiguous manner.  Then again, maybe you aren't running into it, and you
really have found someone with who sees you as a sibling, or has more regard
for good friends than they do for lovers.

        Re #97:

        I don't think that's really the case, but I often am surprised at just
how much some people will put up with from the "right" person, and how some
people continuously seem to seek out the "right" person who winds up being
terribly wrong.  It doesn't really even seem to have that much to do with
attractiveness - I've seen people go out with ugly assholes, and been unable
to do more than simply scratch my head.

        Back to the topic:

        There's also the issue of playing the polarities.  If someone's
actively chasing you, then it's easy for a lot of people to start thinking
in terms of resistance.  If someone isn't, or is, but doesn't really seem to
be working all that hard at it, then it's easier to think in terms of
pursuing them.  

        I ran into that one hard and fast when getting back together with an
ex-girlfriend;  I hadn't been much of a flower-buyer, in the past, and had
become more of one in the time we'd spent apart.  When we got back together,
I made up for lost time.  And overdid it.  Bigtime.  Not just with flowers.
That really killed her interest in me, and when she became argumentative, it
killed my interest in her.

response 107 of 158:

Feb 22 02:03 UTC 2002

<chuckle> 
<rant>
know what i REALLY loathe? when i have a nice talk with a perfectly
attractive women who's expressed interest in the same sexual deviation
as i, who sits there and know 's the freind pain.
who expresses this greatly..and then....
follows it up with "wow greg, you're such a good freind"
GAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
</rant>

response 109 of 158:

Feb 22 05:22 UTC 2002

They don't?
Everybody I've had sex with has talked about it.

response 111 of 158:

Feb 22 14:44 UTC 2002

        I think I got into this before in a metadiscussion about discussing
what you do and don't like about sex with your partner.  I think it's Just
Me (tm), but it may be more widespread.  Talking about sex tends to ruin it
for me, make it too clinical.

response 113 of 158:

Feb 22 16:35 UTC 2002

Geometric profs suck.    I've never had adiscussion of "Touch me here, and
I'll touch you there", but a nice amusing discussion of ideas and such is
fun :).

response 115 of 158:

Feb 23 06:30 UTC 2002

'zactly!

response 117 of 158:

Feb 23 18:20 UTC 2002

        Oddly, a couple of those last responses contradict each other.

        I've noticed though, that talking about sex in general tends to be a
friend type of intimacy, and that talking about sex in a more specific context
of what you want at the moment, tends to be more of a partner type of
intimacy.

response 119 of 158:

Feb 24 17:17 UTC 2002

        But, as I said earlier in the item, it might be Just Me (tm).