42 new of 73 responses total.
cock teases otherwise known as "scary bitches", "fifteen year old girls" and "dancers and actresses" oh, "vamps", "courtisans" etc. the idea is to seduce someone, and then give da old "what? with you? hah. that's a laugh"
Greg put it more succinctly than I did. =}
<bow> i have names if you need examples. i went to a school filled with these people. such bets as "who can get the most money out of a guy before doing anything" "who looses thier virginity last but has the most boys trailing them" yha
I've seen 'em on Jenny Jones, too. Girls who play guys for all sorts of expensive gifts, and then don't put it.* *That's not to say that the only reason for giving a woman a gift is so that she'll give you sex. Not harldy. But when a guy gives you a Mercedes because you bounce on his lap and squeeze his crotch, I think the implication is pretty strong WHY he gave you the Mercedes, and if you don't want to put out, give the Mercedes back.
I didn't mean for #30 to be taken very nasty. just as you didnt think your behavior in party should be taken nasty i guess. your posts are fairly well written and you seem mature and witty in bbs. so i was taken aback by how you behaved. in any case, i agree it's quite rude to act sexually interested in someone and then make them feel dumb for reciprocating the interest. do you think there are people that encourage this behavior? seems there are a lot of people, who, once they *know* they can sleep with someone whenever they want, they are no longer interested. (this is the part where things go back to the original header "sex and ownership".)
And i refuse to acknowledge the guests of jenny jones (or anyone suitable to *be* a guest on that show) as people to use as an example of anything besides stupidity.
ok, i went to school with these people
High School?
#36> I'll admit that, depending on my mood, I can come off as a blazing jerk in party. Depending on who's there (and this doesn't apply to the case in question), it can even be deliberate (there was a time years ago when Greg and I didn't exactly get along like troopers in Party, f'rinstance). Sure, people of both genders use sex as a tool for power. When men do so, it's an acquisition technique: How many fawning women can I get? When women do so, it's a seduction technique: How much can I get from each man? (Those are gross generalizations, too.)
some of the jerks i went to school with were suitable guests for jenny jones.
yha, high school. my collage carrier, so far as it exists to this point, has not exactly been a social extraviganza
yes there are jenny jones candidates in college too. in fact, they're everywhere. they seem to have terrible tempers. i can hear them outside screaming at each other when i'm trying to sleep. i think i do a pretty good job at avoiding them, but some of them are just goddamn loud.
There's more than one kind of cock-tease. There are the malicious ones, who get a power rush out of deliberately manipulating men, and there are the ones who flirt for attention and just don't know how to tell when they're crossing the line. Innocent, but obnoxious.
i never considered a man a c*** tease. i have lots of male friends who are very affectionate with me. we kiss and hug and flirt, but there's no issue of sex. if i proposition a man who's touchy and flirty and he's not intersted, does that make him a c*** tease?
only if he's created the unrealistic expectation of nookie
that answer doesn't satisfy me
Then how 'bout "only if he used that expectation to manipulate you."? If someone is flirty and physical with me, I make a proposition, and I get turned down, then there's not necessarily any harm done. But if that proposition is used to guilt-trip or blackmail me, or if the promise of getting laid is being held out like a carrot to get favors out of me, then I start to get pissed.
then he's just a manipulative c***.
if you proposition a man who's touchy and flirty and he's not interested then he's either scared or wants you to TAKE him, by hook or by crook.
Once again, there's a difference between touchy and flirty, and creating an expectation of sexual readiness. Also, if I'm fliting with someone and I'm not serious, and they proposition me as if I'd been serious, I'll tell them that I could see where there had been a misunderstanding, but I'm really not interested in anything beyond flirting, sorry. I don't laugh and say, "Sex? With you? You must be crazy. Where'd you get that silly idea?" And then I re-examine my own flirtation to see if the confusion was justified by my actions, or if the person just misread signals.
okay so then whats exactly the difference between touchy and flirting and creating an expectation of sexual readiness?
As Paul mentioned, it sometimes depends on the perceptions of the person trying to make that determination. OTOH, the more legitimate question would be "how would a *reasonable* person define the distinction between 'touchy and flirty' and 'creating an expectation of sexual readiness'?"
well i'm hoping a *reasonable* person is willing to provide an answer.
I'm not sure a reasonable person would post on grex ;)
In party I gave one example. I had invited a friend from Maine for a weekend, and it was clear that that weekend would involve sex. A mutual friend from Saginaw also wanted to visit. Both me and the woman from Maine asked the third person repeatedly if she was interested in a threesome. Her words, repeatedly, were, "We'll see" and "Maybe." We told her repeatedly that it was cool if she didn't want to have sex, no problem, just tell us so we didn't get our expectations up. Nope, "we'll see" and "maybe." Weekendcomes and goes, no threesome, which was cool, but she admits later that she never had any intention of having sex with us, and that she wasn't that sort of girl, etc. So one "reasonable expectation" is, if I ask you if you're interested in sex, and you say, "Maybe," then the reasonable expectation is that you haven't yet ruled out the possibility. The direct approach, but most people are too shy for the direct approach. Another example: If you ever see me in party with mooncat, there's a better-than-even odds that I'll hit on her, or make some other sexual innuendo. She and I have an undestanding: She's not interested, I'm interested but realize she isn't and don't really mind, and she doesn't care how much I flirt with her as long s I keep my hands to myself and not sabotage any serious relationships she might have. Groovy. I have no expectation of sexual readiness on her part, so if she flirts back with me (which she does), I don't consider that cockteasing. Another example: A week or two back, oval, you asked me here, in this conference, if I would have sex with you. I answered honestly, because I don't know you well enough to know whether you were joking, flirting, or serious (I assumed you were either joking or flirting). Since the question was not part of a string of flirtations, I didn't consider it to be a profound indication of sexual readiness, but if you'd followed my answer up with, "Cool, wanna meet in party and see where it goes?" I would have taken THAT as a proposition. If you want a clear set of rules that handles every scenario, I can't give you one. There ARE clear examples of creating an expectation (or not), but there are likewise many scenarios where the only way of determining expectations is by asking. Another example: I was flirting online with a guy who, as far as I knew, was heterosexual and in a monogamous marriage. As far as I was concerned, those two details meant that any flirting I did would be taken as "just playing." He surprised me when he telled me with: "Sorry I'm not flirting as much with you today. I'm trying to figure out how to tell my wife about this." [paraphrase, it's been a long time] My initial reaction was to laugh at him (remember, I admitted to being a cocktease myself, in the past), then realized that, while I was fully aware of what my intentions were, someone else could have made other, similarly reasonable conclusions. So I try not to flirt with people I'm not interested in, now (at least willing to consider the potential for sex). But I also keep in mind that many people DO flirt with no intention, and that's ok.
I'm honest enough to admit that I am the worst kind of flirt at times....mostly with guys (although I do have my moments with women), and while it's sometimes mild flirting, it's not always. But the people that I do massive flirting with are people that I'm comfortable with, and that know me well enough to flirt massively back, while knowing that it's all in fun and we'll never end up in bed. This does include having my hands on people, although usually in the manner of a back rub, or hugs, or laying my head on their shoulder or something. The reality is, I'm a very tactile person. I *LIKE* having my hands on people/things. But if I'm not comfortable around you, then my hands aren't on you. And I'm usually not comfortable around people that I'd like to get into bed....too nervous. :) (for those of you who have dealt with me in the touchyfeelyflirt mode, you can agree or disagree with me as you see fit....I'm just seeing it from my angle. :)
it could be my turn to say something. or not. i feel like maybe it is. although i can't figure out what to say. <shrugs>
Tag, Youre it! :)
crap.
heh. i wanna tag oval:)
I don't have an issue with jealousy. I think its what you and your partner are comfortable with. I am ok with monogamy. Polygamy seems way too complicated to be fun. Managing emotions between two people is enough for a lifetime, i guess.
well i am new to this bbs, but if you want my opinion ,i think manogamy is better because then you can have that one person and you dont have to worry about pleasing so many people, but non-manogamous relationships you dont have to worry about just one person, if you piss one person off, there's allways someone else, just a thought Goten Sayain email me at: ssjgoten@cyberspace.org
Huh?
Manogamy. You know, the cultural practice of marrying one's hand. It keeps you from having to worry about pleasing so many people.
If you're ambidextrous, is it considered polygamy?
Is the masturbation scene in American Pie considered "missockany"?
oodfayohile
no comment
resp:62 Actually, polyamory (to be successful) requires that people communicate very openly and honestly regarding feelings, expectations, limitations, and a thousand other things. Open communication makes emotional issues infinitely more "manageable", no matter how many people are involved. When there are just two, it becomes far too easy to let communication lapse in favor of assumption. *That's* where I've seen relationships get into serious trouble.
I have yet to see any polyamorous relationship work out happily for everyone involved.
I have seen one do it. Not without some apparent rough spots, but they've weathered them so far as far as I can tell.
The key word, I guess, being "everyone". I've seen stable polygamous
relationships work out, but never completely open polyamory without a stable
couple or triad at the centre.
You have several choices: