|
On October 23 2009 23:39 fanatacist wrote:
Nevuk you never know until you try. If you have chemistry it's for a reason. That reason is usually not some divine irony where you both like each other but would have a terrible relationship. Mutual attraction can make even polar opposite personalities mesh well. My suggestion is to keep playing hard to get, then one night you stop caring and have the best sex you've had in a while, and then see where it goes from there. If it doesn't work out, at least you had good sex. If it does work out, you're going to have more sex later. Isn't that what we all instinctively desire?
Hmm, that makes sense. I guess I've just been resisting it because I knew it would never be anything more than a 1 week fling type deal, but there's nothing wrong with that.
|
|
|
On October 24 2009 05:35 fanatacist wrote:Good mentality.
Ash said it best with, "To catch them is our real test, but to train them is our cause."
Ever since I adopted the "Gotta Catch 'Em All" philosophy, my success to failure ratio has drastically increased.
|
On October 24 2009 00:06 fanatacist wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2009 23:56 Romance_us wrote:On October 23 2009 23:39 fanatacist wrote:
Nevuk you never know until you try. If you have chemistry it's for a reason. That reason is usually not some divine irony where you both like each other but would have a terrible relationship. Mutual attraction can make even polar opposite personalities mesh well. My suggestion is to keep playing hard to get, then one night you stop caring and have the best sex you've had in a while, and then see where it goes from there. If it doesn't work out, at least you had good sex. If it does work out, you're going to have more sex later. Isn't that what we all instinctively desire? We all instinctively desire it, but I don't think it is the "driving force" behind what pushes some men into relationships. Guys certainly get "butterflies" over things not sexually related when it comes to women I believe. edit: changed "most men" to "some men" in retrospect LOL What I'm trying to say is this is a win-win situation under a thin veil of disguise. Sex is still better than no sex, and in the long run a failed relationship can be harmless if you approach it with a level mind.
This is wrong on so many levels. Operational word in your post should be CAN. A failed relationship can be a bag of misery too. And I've met plenty of women who get pretty damn crazy when they have sex and then the relationship falls apart. My mind was level, but hers sure as hell wasn't! Sex is quite often not better, in fact many of them end up being big mistakes that leave both parties worse off. Maybe it's just a difference in ethics, but I'm not big on casual sex as I've seen the damage it causes one too many times.
|
On October 24 2009 11:02 StorkHwaiting wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2009 00:06 fanatacist wrote:On October 23 2009 23:56 Romance_us wrote:On October 23 2009 23:39 fanatacist wrote:
Nevuk you never know until you try. If you have chemistry it's for a reason. That reason is usually not some divine irony where you both like each other but would have a terrible relationship. Mutual attraction can make even polar opposite personalities mesh well. My suggestion is to keep playing hard to get, then one night you stop caring and have the best sex you've had in a while, and then see where it goes from there. If it doesn't work out, at least you had good sex. If it does work out, you're going to have more sex later. Isn't that what we all instinctively desire? We all instinctively desire it, but I don't think it is the "driving force" behind what pushes some men into relationships. Guys certainly get "butterflies" over things not sexually related when it comes to women I believe. edit: changed "most men" to "some men" in retrospect LOL What I'm trying to say is this is a win-win situation under a thin veil of disguise. Sex is still better than no sex, and in the long run a failed relationship can be harmless if you approach it with a level mind. This is wrong on so many levels. Operational word in your post should be CAN. A failed relationship can be a bag of misery too. And I've met plenty of women who get pretty damn crazy when they have sex and then the relationship falls apart. My mind was level, but hers sure as hell wasn't! Sex is quite often not better, in fact many of them end up being big mistakes that leave both parties worse off. Maybe it's just a difference in ethics, but I'm not big on casual sex as I've seen the damage it causes one too many times.
There is no right or wrong, you gotta get that feelings nonsense outta your heads. Life is hard, and relationships are the hardest portion of it. Would it be any better when a prolonged relationship gets ruined when partners find out they just cant do it for each other in bed? There is no way of not getting fucked over when it comes to women.
|
On October 24 2009 11:02 StorkHwaiting wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2009 00:06 fanatacist wrote:On October 23 2009 23:56 Romance_us wrote:On October 23 2009 23:39 fanatacist wrote:
Nevuk you never know until you try. If you have chemistry it's for a reason. That reason is usually not some divine irony where you both like each other but would have a terrible relationship. Mutual attraction can make even polar opposite personalities mesh well. My suggestion is to keep playing hard to get, then one night you stop caring and have the best sex you've had in a while, and then see where it goes from there. If it doesn't work out, at least you had good sex. If it does work out, you're going to have more sex later. Isn't that what we all instinctively desire? We all instinctively desire it, but I don't think it is the "driving force" behind what pushes some men into relationships. Guys certainly get "butterflies" over things not sexually related when it comes to women I believe. edit: changed "most men" to "some men" in retrospect LOL What I'm trying to say is this is a win-win situation under a thin veil of disguise. Sex is still better than no sex, and in the long run a failed relationship can be harmless if you approach it with a level mind. This is wrong on so many levels. Operational word in your post should be CAN. A failed relationship can be a bag of misery too. And I've met plenty of women who get pretty damn crazy when they have sex and then the relationship falls apart. My mind was level, but hers sure as hell wasn't! Sex is quite often not better, in fact many of them end up being big mistakes that leave both parties worse off. Maybe it's just a difference in ethics, but I'm not big on casual sex as I've seen the damage it causes one too many times.
Nah, in this case it would be fine as she has a history of doing it.
|
On October 24 2009 11:39 Sfydjklm wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2009 11:02 StorkHwaiting wrote:On October 24 2009 00:06 fanatacist wrote:On October 23 2009 23:56 Romance_us wrote:On October 23 2009 23:39 fanatacist wrote:
Nevuk you never know until you try. If you have chemistry it's for a reason. That reason is usually not some divine irony where you both like each other but would have a terrible relationship. Mutual attraction can make even polar opposite personalities mesh well. My suggestion is to keep playing hard to get, then one night you stop caring and have the best sex you've had in a while, and then see where it goes from there. If it doesn't work out, at least you had good sex. If it does work out, you're going to have more sex later. Isn't that what we all instinctively desire? We all instinctively desire it, but I don't think it is the "driving force" behind what pushes some men into relationships. Guys certainly get "butterflies" over things not sexually related when it comes to women I believe. edit: changed "most men" to "some men" in retrospect LOL What I'm trying to say is this is a win-win situation under a thin veil of disguise. Sex is still better than no sex, and in the long run a failed relationship can be harmless if you approach it with a level mind. This is wrong on so many levels. Operational word in your post should be CAN. A failed relationship can be a bag of misery too. And I've met plenty of women who get pretty damn crazy when they have sex and then the relationship falls apart. My mind was level, but hers sure as hell wasn't! Sex is quite often not better, in fact many of them end up being big mistakes that leave both parties worse off. Maybe it's just a difference in ethics, but I'm not big on casual sex as I've seen the damage it causes one too many times. There is no right or wrong, you gotta get that feelings nonsense outta your heads. Life is hard, and relationships are the hardest portion of it. Would it be any better when a prolonged relationship gets ruined when partners find out they just cant do it for each other in bed? There is no way of not getting fucked over when it comes to women.
That's really unusual unless the girl is just really sexually unresponsive (generally with hormone deficiencies) or one of them is terrible at sex, or one has a weird kink the other doesn't. Like the girls who try and chew on your ear until it's freaking bloody, that's just painful after a few minutes.
|
You don't understand what I meant - in his case a relationship can be harmless because he doesn't really care about her. If he does then it's a different problem, but it's not like he loves her or will any time soon if he has the presence of mind to not want to date her now.
|
On October 24 2009 15:19 fanatacist wrote:
Believe nothing. Do anything. Fuck everything.
Does that mean you fuck your parents?
|
On October 24 2009 22:51 ThunderGod wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2009 15:19 fanatacist wrote:
Believe nothing. Do anything. Fuck everything. Does that mean you fuck your parents?
Oedipus complex much? 
|
On October 24 2009 22:51 ThunderGod wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2009 15:19 fanatacist wrote:
Believe nothing. Do anything. Fuck everything. Does that mean you fuck your parents?
No but I applaud the openness with which you project your issues/desires onto me.
|
No fana, sex is not better than no sex. Hell, it's more fun to penetrate your own hand than alot of women out there. :D
Anyways, I advocate "weird" behavior but with confidence. Anything that gets you to talk to women is gold basically. And I'm not talking at parties now where people are supposed to talk to strangers but in the street, at the pharmacists, at a café etc.
So sitting and laughing about something to yourself at a cafe when a girl is sitting nearby, sets yourself up to tell her what you are laughing about when she looks at you like "?" You go "haha it's funny you know..." and then tell whatever. From there on talk about general stuff and don't ask questions ever in the beginning, state things. For example "I love this café, it's cousy and people are cool". That tells her that she is cool and cousy as well because she's there, which sets a positive frame about you two talking. After some little chit-chat ask some random stuff about her, but very playful and like you don't really care about her answers. Finally just go, "you know, you are actually very cute but you remind me too much of my little sister" which makes her go "what does he mean?" and when asks you what you mean you go "i have this crazy idea, how about taking a cup of coffee tonight?" And say it very casually. Basically, don't buy into her questions too much, you don't have to validate yourself to her just yet.
One thing the main character in "californication" is good at is to keep the momentum up and constantly mumble and talk, which is very relaxing for a woman.
Basically, keep it weird, playful and casual.
|
I thought it didn't need to be said that bad sex does not constitute as sex and is therefore not a part of the rule "sex is better than no sex." 
|
On October 25 2009 01:50 fanatacist wrote:I thought it didn't need to be said that bad sex does not constitute as sex and is therefore not a part of the rule "sex is better than no sex."
Alrighty then!
Maybe it's my age but casual sex for has gotten quite old
|
Yea I can understand that, old timer.
|
On October 25 2009 02:06 fanatacist wrote:
Yea I can understand that, old timer.
ok mr Yellow fever
|
On October 25 2009 01:50 fanatacist wrote:I thought it didn't need to be said that bad sex does not constitute as sex and is therefore not a part of the rule "sex is better than no sex."
lol love the back and forth here, but yeah, I didn't know you had that caveat. Guess I'm at that time where casual is more headache than fun too... 
|
On October 25 2009 02:37 StorkHwaiting wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2009 01:50 fanatacist wrote:I thought it didn't need to be said that bad sex does not constitute as sex and is therefore not a part of the rule "sex is better than no sex." lol love the back and forth here, but yeah, I didn't know you had that caveat. Guess I'm at that time where casual is more headache than fun too...
a-fuckin-men
unless casual is megan fox that is.
or coco
|
On October 25 2009 01:58 Foucault wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2009 01:50 fanatacist wrote:I thought it didn't need to be said that bad sex does not constitute as sex and is therefore not a part of the rule "sex is better than no sex." Alrighty then! Maybe it's my age but casual sex for has gotten quite old
I agree with your POV on casual sex, and im only 23, however i prefer to have sex based relationships and see how it goes from here. If there is anything other people's example has proven to me its that relationships that lack in the sack simply dont work. It's not even about not having bad sex, its about having great sex. And before any of the younger visitors of this site read this and panic about their inexperience and/or asian-sized penis, its not about that either. I mean sure u can be naturally gifted in the bed, but u can be not. Even in bed communication is the key and getting ur partner to open up his/her needs to you can get you farther than a 9 inch dick. Well, not really, but it can get u pretty damn far.
|
On October 25 2009 02:49 Sfydjklm wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2009 01:58 Foucault wrote:On October 25 2009 01:50 fanatacist wrote:I thought it didn't need to be said that bad sex does not constitute as sex and is therefore not a part of the rule "sex is better than no sex." Alrighty then! Maybe it's my age but casual sex for has gotten quite old I agree with your POV on casual sex, and im only 23, however i prefer to have sex based relationships and see how it goes from here. If there is anything other people's example has proven to me its that relationships that lack in the sack simply dont work. It's not even about not having bad sex, its about having great sex. And before any of the younger visitors of this site read this and panic about their inexperience and/or asian-sized penis, its not about that either. I mean sure u can be naturally gifted in the bed, but u can be not. Even in bed communication is the key and getting ur partner to open up his/her needs to you can get you farther than a 9 inch dick. Well, not really, but it can get u pretty damn far.
I can have casual sex with random girls but if there's someone I really like and am attracted to for real, like there could be love, I don't like to get in bed right away. I want her to be a bit hard and wait a month until we have sex. Why? Because tension and feelings build up which makes sex an even more intense emotional experience + it's with a girl you REALLY like which tenfolds the awesomeness.
communication is mad key . giving and taking is the gospel for good sex
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.sixprizes.com/blog/images/Ash-Ketchum.jpg)
