Blue Spiral's Adventures in Solitude

[Silverbirch]

I think that movie "Dead Poets Society" with Robin Williams Touched on some aspects of it.

[IAmFCA]

I think that movie "Dead Poets Society" with Robin Williams Touched on some aspects of it.

 

Agree. When my exH valued his parenting time, his office made fun of it. Change is happening; being gay is no biggie at the patriarchal environment where my kids are at school.

[itsallgrand]

Sure, but Blues frustrations IMO are not related to patriarchy. He is frustrated at not having easy access to the objects of his sexual desire. Also known as women. But specifically, 'hot' women according to his taste.

 

He has stated clearly he isn't interested in women as people. At his age, can't blame patriarchy or feminism for that. It's his choice to focus on his own desires to the exclusion of others.

[IAmFCA]

Well, I don't have much in the way of either social skills or money, so I guess I'd better stick with cam models.

 

I find it awfully convenient that you view spending as an indicator of a person's kindness/morality. It's a built-in excuse to gravitate toward certain types of men. In fact, it's even as clever as the classic "ambition" codeword. "No, I don't care about money, I care about kindness/ambition! The money part is just a coincidence!"

 

 

 

In the interests of clarity, I've never even done that. I know I'm repeating myself, but, I don't date, and will never date.

 

 

 

I don't have friends--and don't want any.

 

This is getting sort of tiresome. I have enough negative crap to deal with in my life...ENA used to be a good outlet for me (my only one, really), but I'm starting to have my doubts, now.

 

Blue, Money is NOT the point. The spirit of the thing, that's the point. It has nothing to do with requiring men to have money. I have dated two men who didn't own a home or a car; one of my favorite dates ever was sitting outside eating sandwiches prepared by my then-bf in his mother's kitchen; he also gave me one of my favorite love notes, written on the back of a food label because he didn't have any paper.

 

My point is that your posts make assumptions about women as if they are universal, and your behavior makes assumptions about individuals as if you know their unseen lives and intentions. When people assume negative traits about me, I tend not to be attracted to them.

 

So then, no fair whining about women you won't ever get, as if they are unavailable due to their materialistic values. They are unavailable because you are not willing to try, and you are not willing to try because you assume, in a sense, that they aren't worth it. Which is fine, your life, your choice. Just don't make it because of someone else's value system when it is someone whom is unknown to you

 

And to the other post that my writing is trite, that may be true. I have tried to use concrete examples from my own life and emotional experiences from myself because I know myself. I have significant empathy for the plight of men who view their role as the provider and pursuer. I respect a man who provides for me only after he has decided I am worthwhile, or not at all. I respect a man who makes choices consistent with his own value system, whatever that is. I make sure my daughters are respectful in their dealings with boys, and my elder daughter is provided the resources to pay for herself when she and her guy go get a burger together. She also pays for him when she can, so that it goes both ways. Sometimes, they go on a walk etc which is free. Two people taking care of each other, that's all.

[IAmFCA]

Sure, but Blues frustrations IMO are not related to patriarchy. He is frustrated at not having easy access to the objects of his sexual desire. Also known as women. But specifically, 'hot' women according to his taste.

 

He has stated clearly he isn't interested in women as people. At his age, can't blame patriarchy or feminism for that. It's his choice to focus on his own desires to the exclusion of others.

 

Agree. As is his prerogative. The counterpart to that is, no wonder certain women stay away.

[itsallgrand]

Agree. As is his prerogative. The counterpart to that is, no wonder certain women stay away.

 

Exactly. They stay away because it IS in their best interests. I don't see what's wrong with that. In fact, it's good.

[IAmFCA]

Exactly. They stay away because it IS in their best interests. I don't see what's wrong with that. In fact, it's good.

 

Yup. I have previously applauded blue for doing what works for him and being cool with it. Everyone has a different balance of effort / reward, and a different idea of what a reward might look like.

 

When our threads stumble over generalizations, they almost always devolve into an unresolvable discussion, because generalities reflect an aspect of reality, but relationships happen between two individuals, and individuals are every which way.

[Blue Spiral]

I don't blame you, considering the trite that has been posted in this journal, in the past 24 hours.

 

Don't go away - I'm still listening Blue!

 

Thank you, I really appreciate that.

 

He has stated clearly he isn't interested in women as people. At his age, can't blame patriarchy or feminism for that. It's his choice to focus on his own desires to the exclusion of others.

 

I'm not interested in people in general. And, no, I don't blame patriarchy or feminism.

 

Hopefully, virtual reality or high-quality sex robots will soon appear. Once that happens, you'll never hear another peep from me.

 

Exactly. They stay away because it IS in their best interests. I don't see what's wrong with that. In fact, it's good.

 

Huh. For the first time in over a decade, I finally have a non-sexual reason to succeed with women: namely, to spite the women that are either rooting for me to fail or are glad that I'm being put in my place.

[Silverbirch]

Sure, but Blues frustrations IMO are not related to patriarchy. He is frustrated at not having easy access to the objects of his sexual desire. Also known as women. But specifically, 'hot' women according to his taste.

 

He has stated clearly he isn't interested in women as people. At his age, can't blame patriarchy or feminism for that. It's his choice to focus on his own desires to the exclusion of others.

 

But IAL, but underlying that is values of patriarchy which objectifies women as sexual objects. Women who do not meet Blues criteria for levels of hotness are insignificant in his mind and life. G

[Silverbirch]

Thank you, I really appreciate that.

 

 

 

I'm not interested in people in general. And, no, I don't blame patriarchy or feminism.

 

Hopefully, virtual reality or high-quality sex robots will soon appear. Once that happens, you'll never hear another peep from me.

 

 

 

Huh. For the first time in over a decade, I finally have a non-sexual reason to succeed with women: namely, to spite the women that are either rooting for me to fail or are glad that I'm being put in my place.

 

I personally don't feel malice towards you or wish you unhappiness. It is not you personally I dislike, but the values which aim still convinced come from patriarch that I wish didn't exist - which of course is unrealistic.

[JamesT2]

Maybe take a break from this forum and your journal. Seems you're done with the waitress. Deedee doesn't initiate much. As you said in the OP of this journal, focus on the things you seem to enjoy.

 

I don't wish you gone from the forum, either. Do come back with something new, ideally better news.

[Fudgie]

I am rooting for you, Blue. You do what makes you happy. I hope you can find fulfillment in a way that appeals to you.

[IAmFCA]

Huh. For the first time in over a decade, I finally have a non-sexual reason to succeed with women: namely, to spite the women that are either rooting for me to fail or are glad that I'm being put in my place.

 

Blue, it is important to me to say this,I hope I say it in a way that you can hear it.

 

I want you to get what you want. I have no resentment to your approach. I really deeply truly don't. I like that you are so clear about what you want and what you are willing to invest. I have no emotional content to my comments in terms of judging you or wishing you ill will. I am just unspooling logic.

 

In a sense, I think we all get the match we want, where want is expressed by the amount we are willing to invest. ENA has been teaching me to match my investment to my target more appropriately. I've done worse than you, in a sense,by investing too much in the wrong target, and so losing more than I might have. That's okay, it was my decision to do what I do - just as it is yours to do what you do.

 

How I behave filters out who I attract. The guy I took to dinner last week - I am not traditional enough for him, too outspoken, too much my own drummer. I deserve him to want me, but I don't want him so much that I change those parts of myself.

 

I reap what I sow, as do we all. That's just how it works. And that's okay.

 

So, what works for you is a function of you, and that is said entirely without judgment or ill will. I want you to have what you want, and I appreciate that you are honest with others when you intreact with them.

 

Honestly, I am not sure why you heard ill will in my words. Certainly, none was intended.

[IAmFCA]

On the topic of patriarchy and values, I don't think it's fair to saddle him as a representative of the patriarchy. There is a patriarchy, yes. But one person's values are his own, or her own, and are each person's prerogative.

 

We each filter friends and lovers with our value systems. It's ok. That is how we sort ourselves. If a man chooses to assume things about me that are inaccurate, it makes me laugh. What do I care what he thinks?

[Silverbirch]

On the topic of patriarchy and values, I don't think it's fair to saddle him as a representative of the patriarchy. There is a patriarchy, yes. But one person's values are his own, or her own, and are each person's prerogative.?

 

I believe we are all in some ways shaped by society, and as well, most of us, especially if our views are challenged, and we consider things we had always accepted as correct, will change our opinions on some matters. That's part of maturing and developing as a person.

[Ms Darcy]

Sorry to intrude on the thread. I just stopped by and I have to say ITIC's posts on her experiences and perceptions about society (notably from yesterday) have been some of the most intelligent, nuanced, elegant and erudite that I have seen on this forum ... heck anywhere.

 

You're a very deep and wise person. Wow.

[Blue Spiral]

But IAL, but underlying that is values of patriarchy which objectifies women as sexual objects. Women who do not meet Blues criteria for levels of hotness are insignificant in his mind and life. G

 

I have to admit, this is a new one. I've never been accused of being traditional, before. I'm quite possibly the least traditional man you'll ever meet.

 

I'm not patriarchal, I'm asocial.

 

Blue, it is important to me to say this,I hope I say it in a way that you can hear it.

 

I want you to get what you want.

 

And yet you said that it was "good" that I wasn't getting the type of women that I wanted. Which is it?

[IAmFCA]

I have to admit, this is a new one. I've never been accused of being traditional, before. I'm quite possibly the least traditional man you'll ever meet.

 

I'm not patriarchal, I'm asocial.

 

 

 

And yet you said that it was "good" that I wasn't getting the type of women that I wanted. Which is it?

 

Blue, I said you weren't getting the women represented by the women you saw in the store was logical, that there was "good reason" for that outcome. As I have said, we reap what we sow. If you choose not to sow very much, then you will not reap very much. By your own description, you choose not to sow much at all, therefore, your harvest is limited. What is good is that balance, and the intention AL way you approach it.

 

I went on to say, if you wanted a different outcome, if you wanted it enough, then that desire would cause you to change your behavior. It seems you've found a balance that works for you. So, that's good

[IAmFCA]

Sorry to intrude on the thread. I just stopped by and I have to say ITIC's posts on her experiences and perceptions about society (notably from yesterday) have been some of the most intelligent, nuanced, elegant and erudite that I have seen on this forum ... heck anywhere.

 

You're a very deep and wise person. Wow.

 

Wow! Thank you! !!

[Blue Spiral]

Blue, I said you weren't getting the women represented by the women you saw in the store was logical, that there was "good reason" for that outcome. As I have said, we reap what we sow. If you choose not to sow very much, then you will not reap very much. By your own description, you choose not to sow much at all, therefore, your harvest is limited. What is good is that balance, and the intention AL way you approach it.

 

I went on to say, if you wanted a different outcome, if you wanted it enough, then that desire would cause you to change your behavior. It seems you've found a balance that works for you. So, that's good

 

I am not buying that for a second. Here's what someone else said:

 

Exactly. They stay away because it IS in their best interests. I don't see what's wrong with that. In fact, it's good.

 

...and you said "Yup." to that. That does not sound like a "good reason" for an outcome, it sounds like you're saying it's a good (read: positive) thing in general.

 

If you didn't mean "good" in that way, why didn't you disagree with itsallgrand?

[IAmFCA]

I am not buying that for a second. Here's what someone else said:

 

 

 

...and you said "Yup." to that. That does not sound like a "good reason" for an outcome, it sounds like you're saying it's a good (read: positive) thing in general.

 

If you didn't mean "good" in that way, why didn't you disagree with itsallgrand?

 

Thank you Blue for staying engaged with me. I really appreciate that.

 

I agreed with IAG because it IS a good thing, even if not good for you. in the sense of fairness/balance/self-respect. I should add that i am making as assumption: that the women represented by the women you observed at the store are not intetested in NSA pseudo-anonymous sex. If my assumption is accurate, and maybe it isn't, then the women are choosing appropriately. And that's a good thing, it's fair and balanced.

 

So while I wish for you to get what you want, I also wouldn't you to have what you want at someone's else's expense, and neither would you - which is why I like you.

 

If I want my sexual partner to have some level of interest in me as an individual, which I do, then I would be making a poor choice by having sex with you, because I would end up dissatisfied. I am not nearly as good a sexual partner when I care nothing for my partner and when I sense he has no interest in me. In that environment, I don't feel emotionally safe, so I am not as vulnerable. That leads to me being less expressive and less adventurous, and less comfortable being out of control, which in turn leads to a less intense orgasm. So the whole thing, for me, becomes not worth the effort, speaking in a practical, sexual sense. I am speaking for myself, and using myself as an example, because I see that others are similar. Even men. I attribute the great sex in my life to the fact that men feel safe with me, and therefore allow themselves to have a more intense experience.

 

You make a good point that I hadn't seen - I wish for you to have what you want, but that doesn't mean I wish for everyone to be the same as you, nor the same as me. The tough thing for you is finding others who want to give themselves sexually without having other kinds of a human connection. The challenge for me is I want such a deep human connection that many men rightly recognize they can't deliver.

 

Those men that choose not to engage with me are right to leave me alone, even when I think I want them. They can't give me what I want. Similarly, women who choose not to engage with you are right to do so, because they can't give you what you want. I want to get what I want. I want you to get what you want. It ain't easy.

 

It's why I think of dating as finding the right fit, and not of getting rejected. It FEELS like rejection, and that stinks. Logically, though, it isn't rejection. Its simply the discovery that our wants and needs don't match up.

 

I get that you don't date. Whatever the process is of finding someone who can give me what I want, and who thinks I can give them what they want, in such a way that we choose to have sex together... fit is a beautiful thing when we find it. If I had my druthers, I'd have sex every day or near to it, yet I have had sex only several times in the past year. I'm not whining about it, but using myself as an example again... I figured out how hard it is for me to find my fit, and decided to have sex only when I find that fit. So I have an fwb who makes an excellent fit, and that's my only source, as rare as it is. Relationship - wise, which is what I want, is a much greater challenge for me. I'm tired of feeling hurt and hurting others, so I want to know before I start whether it will work out. That's kind of impossible. And it is making sex quite rare for me. I understand the struggle, at least I think I do.

[Blue Spiral]

I agreed with IAG because it IS a good thing, even if not good for you.

 

So I was right. Good to know.

 

I'm thinking about changing up my approach to FWBs. Maybe I've settled too much, and haven't been ambitious enough. Should I only go after women under thirty? Instead of pursuing women at my hotness level, maybe aim for the next level up? I'll have to give it some thought.

[IAmFCA]

So I was right. Good to know.

 

I'm thinking about changing up my approach to FWBs. Maybe I've settled too much, and haven't been ambitious enough. Should I only go after women under thirty? Instead of pursuing women at my hotness level, maybe aim for the next level up? I'll have to give it some thought.

 

Shrug? Since women are a commodity to you, I'd say go for the best produce on display at any given time, because you've nothing to lose. I think interest in NSA sex is entirely unrelated to looks. There is likely to be sexual interest at every tier level.

 

FWB might be a stretch, because I'm not sure you're friends, exactly, but that's splitting hairs.

 

Oh, adding... successful pursuits for NSA sex that I know of have been transactional. Not like prostitution, I don't mean that. More like an exchange of benefits - looks for looks, for example. Or, access to power or privilege, not always of the wealthy kind, but of whatever privilege is of interest to the prey. Band members let top product in to the show through the side door, for example. You know the drill. I am not sure what your stock in trade is, but whatever it is, that's the ticket to the hotter prey.

 

Adding again... men who always bring their partner to orgasm and well are known as a sure thing. Not much talked about from the female perspective. If your sexual prowess is part of your rep, that rep will help you score better product.

 

Math to describe this might be Looks + value-add = Appropriate tier level of target, as measured by looks alone.

[Blue Spiral]

Oh, adding... successful pursuits for NSA sex that I know of have been transactional. Not like prostitution, I don't mean that. More like an exchange of benefits - looks for looks, for example. Or, access to power or privilege, not always of the wealthy kind, but of whatever privilege is of interest to the prey. Band members let top product in to the show through the side door, for example. You know the drill. I am not sure what your stock in trade is, but whatever it is, that's the ticket to the hotter prey.

 

That's awfully insulting to women, isn't it? The PUA blogs would agree with you 100%, but I am not on that train, though I agree with some of their findings. To me, anything more than "just sex" is annoying to deal with, and that includes the transactional stuff you're talking about. If I wanted to bring status/prestige into things, I'd just date, because I don't see much of a difference between a no-strings woman saying "oooh you have social proof" and a date saying "oooh you have a good job".

[IAmFCA]

That's awfully insulting to women, isn't it? The PUA blogs would agree with you 100%, but I am not on that train, though I agree with some of their findings. To me, anything more than "just sex" is annoying to deal with, and that includes the transactional stuff you're talking about. If I wanted to bring status/prestige into things, I'd just date, because I don't see much of a difference between a no-strings woman saying "oooh you have social proof" and a date saying "oooh you have a good job".

 

I don't know about is insulting to women. I just know what is practical, like an engineer. So, what makes a woman want to have sex with you?