Quite embarassed...

I just love that you said this Cyclo....because I think it's the absolute truth.

I don't care what decade you're in, the loose luvin' 70's, hippie 60's, the "we can be friends" 80's or whatever....a man is a man and a woman is a woman.

to be un-PC but direct, you'd have to be a retard to have a member of the opposite sex ask you to go anywhere with them and not give the fact he/she might be interested in you a thought or 2.

That's just naive.

As far as the girl saying "i have a boyfriend" and the guy responding "well, I was just talking about going somewhere with you as a friend".....all she'd have to respond with is the truth, which would be "well, I just needed to be clear upfront I'm involved with someone, so I'm glad you meant just as a friend as well." what's wrong with that?

Christ, if a person is so worried about anyone and everyone getting embarrassed over a simple question, no communication at all will take place.

Now we're talking about the girl sending text messages about a concert, not to go to with her, but as a kinda sorta maybe attempt to tell someone that it's all cool about the asking her out, and her having a boyfriend the first person didn't know about, which the girl didn't know she was being asked out on a date, and the guy didn't know she had a boyfriend, and the boyfriend was flirting with other girls which doesn't sound like much of a boyfriend to me. But we're really not sure about the reason she's sending the text message, could be now she's rethinking her feelings about the guy....or maybe not...I guess the guy will now have to guess which way it is, and risk further emabarrassment.

Jiminy Cricket, next time just ask the girl if she'd like to go on a date so everyone's clear about it.

I read recently that "Come up and see me sometime" was voted the most famous American expression. With all this nervous dancing around it looks like you have gone backwards at the game.

Actually, if somebody came up with an oil painting of Stendhal's model for Julien Sorel that looked like TK's picture of himself I don't think anybody would express surprise.

What's really embarrassing is not being able to spell embarrassed. I would be mortified at that. After that profile. Mortified.

You must be joking. Voted by whom?

It might be Chai who was confused, not the woman. We don't know enough.
Consider just talking with her.

I'm just getting in here cuz everyone but the kitchen sink seems to be involved. Whatever!

It was in Walter Lefeber's An American Age. But there's no index reference to it. It surprised me. That's why I remember it.

I read stuff like that so that I can run rings round these atheistic adversaries on the evolution threads who try to pretend they are experts using cut and paste jobs off Google.

It's a pity fellow conservatives don't lend a hand. No wonder we lost the election. We threw the towel in.

Another thing that struck me in the book was that the congressmen from Oregon in 1840 had to undertake a 25 week journey to vote in Washington and a 25 week journey back. And it would be some journey.

It is stuff like that that makes me wonder how a constitution from back then has any real meaning now.

Chai said:


Yeah - or he could say something like someone said to me once - 'I'd like to breed with you...'

Seriously - this guy I'd just met said that to me and I was like, 'um, what?!'
And at first I was really appalled - but then I asked him what exactly he meant by saying that to me- and he just really was straightforward and sincere (he said he liked the way my facial features meshed as if they all belonged together) and then I thought it was funny.
I told him I saw all sorts of harmoniously arranged female faces all around and he should probably keep looking because- I was too young to breed at that point (emotionally and intellectually, although not chronologically or physically) and I thought it all sounded a little too purpose driven to be enjoyable on my end at all.

Yeah - I advocate straight ahead communication too - but I also advocate believing what the person says back to you instead of inserting your own script from your own past experiences.

Because the point is people communicate the way they feel comfortable communicating. Just because some are able to handle the risk of rejection doesn't mean that others necessarily are.

Some women would have slapped the guy who said what he said to me across his face. But I figured - find out what he's talking about - and in the end I was flattered - he not only wanted to screw me - he wanted a permanent reminder of it.

I think Diest knows himself and the girl and so he should talk how he's comfortable talking and when he's talking to her - and he should talk to her as he thinks she's most comfortable being talked to.

What if you're not inserting your own script from your own past experience?

What if you are using the knowledge you've gained about the human condition in general, over the ages, and through direct observation among others in your own lifetime?

I suppose you might be thinking I'm going to one extreme, advocating direct upfront communication Always. I'm not saying that, each circumstance is different of course.

BUT.....I'm not going to pass over or sugar coat the fact that man (men and women) are sexual beings.

The vast majority of the time, in let's say a social situation like this, when a male and a female are interacting, one, or the other, or both are going to, even if briefly, considering the physical attractiveness and sexual availability of the other. I don't know the exact amount of time, but I've read/heard that a person, when first meeting someone, sizes that person's sexual allure to them within a very few minutes. I know I sure do. It's instinctive. That doesn't mean your going to do anything about it. But it's human nature to put someone in one catagory or the other.

Your comfort zone in communication? Sure, it's nice to be in it...but most times stuff is accomplished when we step outside that zone.

Nothing's wrong with being temporarily out of your comfort zone. It means your stretching and growing. This isn't a new concept. Take the expression, "faint heart never won fair maiden"

whatever was said or not said at that party, or afterwards is water under the bridge.

could be an opportunity for the future to feel the fear, and do it anyway in the future.

One might say "I'm comfortable communicating my desires in this way", but, if you're seeing over various experiences that way isn't getting you the results you want, then your comfort is more important that what you're looking to gain.

It's all in the game. Me personally in the original situation? I would have tried to learn the lesson of making sure the woman knew it was a date I was seeking.

You know what - I think we're pretty much saying the same thing here in terms of what could have or should have been said to help alleviate the POSSIBLE miscommunication that occurred.

All I'm saying is that we can't automatically conclude the girl's reaction was disingenuous. Maybe she really DID think hanging out meant hanging out.
And I don't think she has to be a moron for that to be true.



I'm not denying men and women are sexual beings - hell no - and I think there's nothing more interesting or energy enthusing than a good old crush (especially when you're Diest's age). No one's denying that here- all I'm saying is that maybe this girl is getting her sexual needs met elsewhere so her first thought when someone asks her to hang out - is not necessarily gonna be in that direction.

And I think anyone who knows me would tell you I'm a very direct communicator. Sometimes too direct- in fact...
but no - I don't generalize. I may see something over and over and over again, but if someone tells me something - I try to believe first that since its their life and experience - despite everything I've seen in my life and my experience - they might actually be telling the truth and know what they're talking about - for them...
And I personally don't feel qualified ever - to know what someone whom I've never even met is thinking or feeling.

And I think it was two pages back now that Diest said next time he'd ask the girl if she was seeing anyone - risk the rejction to avoid the future embarrassment.

There's no doubt in my mind chai that the lady knew exactly what TK was after.

Is there a lady in the world who wouldn't have?

This thread ought to be under euphemisms.

The concept of "sexual allure" is mainly socially conditioned. When it's not you have animal magnetism which is fairly dangerous. Check out the Stockholm Syndrome. Fear is a factor. See Damsels in distress.

There are roughly 22 million Americans aged 17 to 22. Do you never wonder how they are shaken down into roughly 11 million compartments of domestic bliss? Once a person thinks of themselves as "special" they have lost their bearings.

As Joyce has Molly say- "It might as well be him as anybody."

I wouldn't recommend "up front communication" . Or at least in the sense I think you meant. That can easily become a case of talking about it being a substitute for doing it. The "scientifics" on the evolution debates talk about things such as "logical analysis" and "critical thinking" as if that means they are constant practitioners of those things. Which they never are. It's like pinning a badge on yourself.

Communication has ceased to exist in such cases. It's snow.

I would never dream of taking such a line. There is no embarrassment in letting a lady know that you have the hots for her. It's a compliment. Of the highest order. And all the moreso coming from a chap like TK.

There is a marked hierarchy of attractiveness. You can't treat this case as if these two are fruit flies. He looks like Byron and his prospects are promising to say the least assuming his profile is true.

I would imagine she would nail him down unless the boyfriend is pretty good or she's scared of being able to hold him.

spendius - diest never tried to hide the fact he was attracted to the girl - it's a given he liked what he knew of her from the party- Hello?! That's why he contacted her to spend more time with her.

He was embarrassed because he thought the feelings or attraction weren't reciprocated in the same way. All I'm saying is - maybe they were and maybe they weren't (at this point in time). She may have really, really liked him - but felt unable or unwilling to cheat on her boyfriend. It doesn't have to mean (as he interpreted it) that she got a more thorough view and came up with the boyfriend angle as an excuse because she wasn't interested.
It also doesn't have to mean that she was leading him on in any way.

And to my eye, Diest does not look like Byron.
What's it all about with you and looks anyway?

Spendius said:

yeah, and if that doesn't happen, maybe it's because she's secretly gay...or maybe she's been abused and that's why she's with someone who treats her like **** but she can't break away...you know...we could go on and on and on with it...especially if we continue to believe that we know what she's really thinking more than she does.
So yeah - you keep imagining, because that's all you'll ever be able to produce in terms of what she's really thinking or feeling..that's the whole point.

(I don't know why I'm getting so involved in this - I just hate to see assertions and assumptions made against what very well may be a very nice, considerate young lady that none of us even know).

uh...

I think the imaginations of A2K at large has gone a bit wild....

I think this is simply just a situation where two people weren't clear with each other and I ended up feeling embarrassed. I have no reason to suspect malicious intent or any sort of secret agenda from her.

T
K
O

Hooray! And if you like her - you should try to be friends with her. good luck (and happy new year!)

Lol! We DO go on, don't we?

Gets bigger than Ben Hur.

The problem was Rebecca that TK's original post would have been really embarrassing if it had brought forth no replies.

Your view, when decoded, means "who cares" doesn't it? Isn't it natural for us to speculate on love's tortured pathways?

TK knows what A2K is like. It is inconceivable with his CV that he wouldn't know we would use his post as a peg on which to put forth our views on the sex war.

Speaking of which, what do you mean by "cheat"? Is she a free agent or not? You have her on a halter with "cheat".

Isn't it cheating to dress up alluringly when you have a boyfriend. I'm only guessing she was mind you.

And I would guess she was leading him on.

And there's nothing with me about looks that most people don't embrace.

Okay- TK doesn't look like Byron. But he tried to. He posed that picture.

Spendius said:

No, not at all - in fact, I thought it was very interesting- the whole thing about men and women and friendships and assumptions of sexual interest and communication and underlying messages received (depending on the listener, certainly) that aren't always explicit or even implicit in the spoken text....yes-extremely interesting.

Spendius said:

Well that's a matter of individual interpretation.
No certainly I don't think she cheated by meeting with Diest - what I meant was if she liked him after meeting him, but she had some exclusive arrangement with her boyfriend - she may have felt that she'd have to deal with that before she could move any further forward (as in an actually specified 'date') or else it'd be cheating.
What was surprising to me was to hear that several people felt she was being dishonest (or cheating in one way or another) by even meeting him to hang out.
I found that scary - I would never be able to be in any relationship no matter how formal- in which someone was able to tell me who I could and/or couldn't be friends with.

Is this what you believe? Is that why you subconsciously forgot the question mark?
Maybe she was dressed alluringly at the party (if she was) because her boyfriend was there - maybe she did it for him. Don't guys like to be able to point proudly to their girlfriends and preen when other guys say stuff like, 'Nice little package you got there...wink...wink)
You don't know - maybe she was wearing overalls and hiking boots to her meeting when they had coffee.


Hmmm- universally embraceable huh? That's nice...what are you...cuddly like a teddybear or something?

That's the other thing I found interesting - women are supposed to be harder on other women in terms of that stereotypical crap and I saw it just the opposite.
I pictured her as honest and everything , but that's what I usually do in terms of people in general - especially with people I don't know....and that's what was REALLY the most interesting - to see how differently I'd interpret what someone said than a lot of other posters here would.

If a guy says, 'You're nice and I'd like to spend more time with you' to me, I don't automatically hear, 'I'd like to sleep with you.' I think it means he thinks I'm a nice person. But as per most of the replies here - that means I'm a moron.

But then I do believe in direct communication -so I consciously edit my assumptions when someone's talking to me - it's all too confusing otherwise.

What did you mean in your post on the last page when you said something about people as people and people as products of their upbringing and love transcending upbringing in relation to this topic?