thenononsenseman

[brokenhead]

Dan wrote:

Laird: Why don't you take a stab in the dark?

I don't need to; I think you just euphemistically answered my question. The subsequent question would be, how do you view such behaviour ethically? By "such behaviour" I of course mean manipulating circumstances to get a leg over.

Is there any moment in time that Laird isn’t manipulating circumstances to get his leg over?

Anyone who holds love in high esteem has no room in their mind for anything else. All their thoughts and actions are bound by their attachment. Laird’s posts clearly show the level of his attachment.

You are like a broken record.

[Laird]

Is there any moment in time that Laird isn’t manipulating circumstances to get his leg over?

Oh, Sue, that's just priceless. Geez, it's hard to think what the answer might be. I mean, even my sleep is an act of seduction. I don't suppose I could possibly want to share ideas with people mostly because I find the ideas and the sharing thereof valuable - all that I'm really after is to jump in the sack with you. I don't suppose that I appreciate a warm conversation on its own merits - no, it's not good enough for me unless it leads to the bedroom. I don't suppose that there are some women whom I would prefer to have simply as friends.

But hey, I'll grant you this much: it is a goal for me and one would be naive to expect that one's goals will simply materialise without conscious effort.

[brokenhead]

Anyone who holds love in high esteem has no room in their mind for anything else. All their thoughts and actions are bound by their attachment. Laird’s posts clearly show the level of his attachment.

If I may speak for Laird for a moment, that's not what I get out of his posts at all. I don't believe it's a matter of esteem, but a simple recognition of the power of Love, and yes, with a capital L. There seems quite a variety to the content of Laird's posts.

Sue, it's quite evident that you do not hold love (small l) in high esteem, because there seems to be plenty of room in your mind. I'm sure that one idea you cling to is pretty lonely with all hat empty space around.

[brokenhead]

The link I gave above to the nononsense man web site does not really capture the activities of the site's owner, Marc Rudov. The site is a cheapie, and mostly an ad for his first book. He has at least one other, and his new topic is how men should protect themselves legally from women who use reproduction to levy men's finances in their favor. He observes how the laws are squarely set against men once conception has taken place, even if the woman has claimed she is on birth control and deliberately mislead the man and got pregnant against his expressed wishes. He is strident in his message, but he makes a lot of sense. He is vocal about legislative inequities that he perceives exist unfairly favoring women in child support litigations. His main complaint is about rulings mandating high child-support payments that maintain the woman in "a lifestyle to which she has grown accustomed," while clearly lowering the man's level of lifestyle, even if he was not more at fault in the break up of the marriage than she.

[Dan Rowden]

Dan: that's an... interesting... perspective that you've got there. Women like to get a leg over just as much as men like to, or close enough to it anyway. Is it really "manipulative" to show a woman through action that you're interested in that and let her decide whether she is too?

Not in principle, but in practice it definitely is. You think playing to a person's ego for the sake of your own personal enjoyment isn't manipulative?

How does one get the leg over "ethically"?

You don't know? Interesting.

And in any case, I'm not really all that fussed about whether I get the leg over or not in any particular case, I'm happy enough to have a mutually pleasant interaction. I'm interested in verbal/emotional intimacy as well as physical intimacy.

You're thinking far too crudely. A "warm conversation" is getting your leg over.

[Carl G]

Huh? Finding someone's body desirable is auctioning oneself for slavery? How does that work?

Enslaving oneself is becoming attached to pursuit of the physical/emotional fix, becoming a pig with a ring in his nose to her, to the idealism of romantic love, and to wallowing in the trough of one's worldy desire.

[Carl G]

where is Tomas's excuse, I mean he doesn't even know how to talk english good?

English well. He doesn't know how to speak English well.

[hsandman]

Great musical composition from Afroman.

Afroman - She won't let me fuck
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hh-k81CUVFM

[snow bunny]

where is Tomas's excuse, I mean he doesn't even know how to talk english good?

English well. He doesn't know how to speak English well.

Yeah, I know, sorry, but I just thought I should try to lower myself down to his level, you know, so that he could understand the basic gist of where I was going with my drivel.

[hsandman]

where is Tomas's excuse, I mean he doesn't even know how to talk english good?

English well. He doesn't know how to speak English well.

Don't do that. He is funny. :-(

[Carl G]

Who, the rabbit?

[hsandman]

Who, the rabbit?

Yes. I think it is a good thing that he is here. His comments are funny and he might learn something. It's a win - win.

[Shahrazad]

Except that most readers here do not care about humor.

[Tomas]

Except that most readers here do not care about humor.

Au contraire!

On Worldly, "most" readers do :-)

On Genius, nope :-(

Edit: Look at people's avatars for direction

Daybrowns has a humor side (the goofy hat whatever it is)

Sandman? yup

Laird ... oh yeah!

Shaz? Nope, steady as she goes (thru the canal) unless she's piloting the Exxon Valdez - then she is a happy drunk.

Edit # 2. Elizabeth's avatar is of a spider ... subtle humor :-]


Tomas

7

.

[Laird]

Laird: Dan: that's an... interesting... perspective that you've got there. Women like to get a leg over just as much as men like to, or close enough to it anyway. Is it really "manipulative" to show a woman through action that you're interested in that and let her decide whether she is too?

Dan: Not in principle, but in practice it definitely is. You think playing to a person's ego for the sake of your own personal enjoyment isn't manipulative?

No, I don't. The goal is mutual enjoyment. I wouldn't like to think that I was the only one getting something out of the deal. Working towards a goal of mutual enjoyment isn't what I'd describe as "manipulative" in the negative sense that you seem to be intending it. The goal is flexible - if both parties feel most comfortable at the level of plain conversation, then that's as far as it goes. If hugs are the order of the day, then well and good. It's not like I'm out to specifically bang every woman that I meet. Whatever happens, happens, but I'll make my interests known in the case that I have them.

Laird: How does one get the leg over "ethically"?

Dan: You don't know? Interesting.

It's a simple question, please provide a simple answer.

Laird: And in any case, I'm not really all that fussed about whether I get the leg over or not in any particular case, I'm happy enough to have a mutually pleasant interaction. I'm interested in verbal/emotional intimacy as well as physical intimacy.

Dan: You're thinking far too crudely. A "warm conversation" is getting your leg over.

Well then there's something in it for everybody. Where's the harm in that?

[Dan Rowden]

None. Knock yourself out.