spendius wrote:vid wrote-
Going back to your earlier post you wrote-
he was just plain lazy and preferred to be a wanker in order to avoid any unnecessary physical exertion.
I didn't write that. You wrote that. All I said was that it is the likliest explnation of the ones you gave. Mr Larkin had 3 educated women on the go at the same time. There is an explanation based upon experience and knowledge of the world which you unfortunately overlooked.
I have read Mr Motion's Larkin biography and Mr Larkin's Collected Letters. I think that you ought to engage your mind on those before you start pumping out your own assumptions about him based on nothing but what is in your own head.
Yet, in your opinion, this assumption was probably correct, according to your earlier reply. So I'm a good guesser, and you're a good reader of Larkin, so what? You tended to agree with me and now you're getting all uppity about it now you've had time to reflect down at your pub, I suspect. Sidenote: It would appear that you're either misquoting me, or you couldn't figure out how to use the quote option properly. The result is that it now appears out of context. To avoid me doing the same, I've put what I've previously said (in context) in red on this reply, OK? I never said that you were the one who wrote that Larkin preferred to be a wanker. I said it and you seemed to agree.
spendius wrote:I also did not say that Mr Larkin likened the sexual act with a woman to "squelching" (sorry about the mis-spelling). Mr Waugh did that and he was quoting another source.
Yet you seemed to offer it as a view that should be considered, or even supported. You certainly didn't make your views known that you
disagreed with this view. If you disagreed with it, why offer it at all in your post? Either you were just showing off about how bookish you were, or you admired the guy for saying it. Don't go backtracking now, spendius, as it won't help your credibility regarding this matter. Like I said before, if you attempt to blow smoke up people's asses by using these obtuse references and quotes, you can end up causing major confusion over what you actually mean. Or was/is that your intention all along? Use plain english in future, spendius, that's what I would recommend.
spendius wrote:The comparison using heroin was merely in the service of showing that "satisfaction" can be looked at in the round. I could have used "Crack" but thought it a trifle blatant. Do you know the story of Ulysses and the Sirens?
There ya go again.
Don't try and sidetrack this with Ulysses, which would no doubt lead on to another one of the classics and then god knows where, as it will only derail from the subject and give you another opportunity to show us how clever you are.
Your example re. heroin and satisfaction was good, but then you went on to show your true intent by giving your view on how men have fallen into the abyss and how they've greatly suffered etc etc.
You know what you were trying to do. Don't go all chicken on it now, just because someone is challenging you.
spendius wrote:Quote:Are you trying to tell me that you were not trying to denigrate the whole "benefit of partner/relationship" topic that had developed through the course of the thread?
Not in the least. It is your idea not mine.
And I don't know what you mean by "developed through the course of the thread". This thread is still in nappies.
At that moment in time, you were trying to say that you were just purely responding to the original post, and no others. I call bulls*it. If you disagree with me on that, then fine. People can read the thread for themselves and judge whether you're right or not.
spendius wrote:Quote:he was unlucky and just happened to pick the type of English ladies who chose to lay there like a sack of potatoes,
There is a school of thought here which would have them eating a crispy apple as well.
What? With
their teeth?
spendius wrote:Quote:I was merely reacting to your post which indicated that you either had a dislike for relationships, or that you were in fear of getting into one, probably because you had been bitten by a big, bad nasty woman in the past. You then tried to denigrate the idea of relationships here on this thread. I simply wasn't having it. It doesn't bother me whether you "run around after women" or not. In fact, it's quite a comfort to me, knowing that no english women are having to put up with your cynical state of mind on a permanent basis. They have enough to put up with regarding their teeth and the rain, and you would probably be the final straw.
Try to have a better outlook on life, spendius. You may be missing out on something.
Your view of what I indicated is preposterous. Your subjectivity, which is patently self-serving, does not belong in a science forum. In all the successful long term relationships I know, and I know a good few, both parties bring a healthy degree of cynicism into the matter. Anything else seems to be the road to perdition.
Truth hurts sometimes, eh? :wink:
spendius wrote:I only miss out on what I choose to miss out on.
Good for you, and good for english women, I say.
spendius wrote:Have you read The Romantic Agony by Mario Praz? The "luvvie-duvvies" either quickly go bust or quite barmy.
Another book enquiry? You weren't Larkin's little library assistant in your youth, were you?
Oh, and here's a GB website that may come in
handy, for anyone who may find it of use, of course. :wink:
Have a nice day over there!
Goodnight.
