For Those Without Kids...

[amber]

Well I do think he's pretty cool....and recently he got all into musical theater :laugh: My sister and her husband took him to see Guys and Dolls....his rendition of "Luck Be a Lady" is hilarious!!!!

So yeah...my sister and brother-in-law (conservative Republicans) are preparing themselves that their theater loving-animal loving son is going to be a raging liberal :blob1: I have done my job as an aunt ;)


OH - and yes - he can identify Stevie on the radio thanks to his aunt...and he LOVES "It's Late" lol....likes to listen to it with me over and over - ah...I need to plan a trip to NM to see him :(
Not only a raging liberal, but maybe gay too?? :) He obviously has great taste. Sesly, he sounds like an exceptionally smart, cool kid. My cousins, unfortunately, are not like that! (they're my nearest youngins, since I'm an only child I will never have neices and nephews...my cousins are really attractive, though... :p )

[SuzeQuze]

Well I do think he's pretty cool....and recently he got all into musical theater :laugh: My sister and her husband took him to see Guys and Dolls....his rendition of "Luck Be a Lady" is hilarious!!!!

So yeah...my sister and brother-in-law (conservative Republicans) are preparing themselves that their theater loving-animal loving son is going to be a raging liberal :blob1: I have done my job as an aunt ;)


OH - and yes - he can identify Stevie on the radio thanks to his aunt...and he LOVES "It's Late" lol....likes to listen to it with me over and over - ah...I need to plan a trip to NM to see him :(

I need a moment, I'm feeling verclemt (fans self). I love your nephew! My mom's cousin's son is way into animals too, they painted his room with a safari mural and he has animals all over the place in the form of stuffed animals or figurines. He is so obsessed and I thought it was the cutest thing!

And It's Late over and over? Honey, that kid will be at NOTS in 16 years. :laugh:

[DrummerDeanna]

shhhhh...my sister and her hubby are so paranoid that he will be gay :rolleyes:

But I could care less....he's just a great kid right now....:D

[amber]

shhhhh...my sister and her hubby are so paranoid that he will be gay :rolleyes:

But I could care less....he's just a great kid right now....:D
That's too bad, that they wouldn't like it. I suppose it's a natural reaction, though, they probably think it will make his life harder, more painful, etc... :(
I wouldn't mind if my kid was gay...especially if it was a girl, I'd probably be relieved! :laugh: I might be upset if it wasn't a good athlete, though... :p

[dissention]

Wellllllllll, since you asked that, I think I can see the selfish aspect, though I don't mean that in a bad way, obviously. The first two kids she had weren't planned, so she didn't really know why she was having them. But I was planned because she had had two boys and she told me that ever since she was young, she had dreamed that she could have a little girl. Hence the third try, and the third time's a charm, apparently. So, I understand your point.

:thumbsup:

See, it wasn't like I was calling them bad people. :laugh:

[skcin]

I've never had the desire to have children. I'm almost 29. Maybe when I hit my 30's, isn't that when the clock really starts ticking? Not a clue. Anyways, I don't have a maternal bone in my body. :laugh:

Of course, falling in love could spur something, but no clue, I've never been in love. :(


Well, I'm in love, have been for the last 10 years & I still have no desire to have a kid. :shrug: My best friend had a baby a year ago & I love her to pieces, but still - nothing.

As far as the selfishness goes, I agree to a point. I have friends that had the urge to get pregnant & have a baby. Period. OK, what about the rest? You wanted a baby sooooooo badly. Did you want to raise a child into a responsible adult? Lots of people don't think about that. Lots of people want to have kids cuz they think they're supposed to, not cuz they want to raise a child. Kind of like the people who want the perfect wedding but after it's over - OMG, now we have to work on a marriage? :rolleyes:

I know a girl who is separated from her husband (mainly cuz he doesn't want kids & she does. Apparently she couldn't change his mind after 12 years :rolleyes: Dumbass.) Anyway, she's not even divorced yet, living with her parents, no money - she meets some guy in a club, they date for about 2 months & she's pregnant. WTF is wrong with you? OH, and he's not an American citizen. :shocked: She is literally the stupidest person I've ever known. She said she had to have a baby now since she's getting older (she's 35.)

I know there are many people who are in love & want to have children with their partner & raise a family for the next 20 years (hi Theresa! :wavey: ) And that's fine. But if I were to have a baby right now, it would be for all the wrong reasons - the ones I've been given by other people who don't know how to mind their own f*cking business: My eggs are drying up, I don't want to be an old mom, my mom's getting older I should give her a grandchild so she can see it gorw up, I should want to have a baby by now, my friends' kids need playmates, etc, etc, etc. Not going to happen.

[WelshWitchPMD]

I remember I declined to go to one of my cousin's baby showers and my aunt calls to ask if I'm going. I say "No." and she goes "Well, when you have a baby, we won't come to your shower."



Eww Baby Showers! :eek: I stay as far away from them as possible. It seems that someone from my company is always having a baby and that there is always a baby shower someplace.

I think that I have gone to 2 of them in my tens years there.

I have to laugh at some of my co-workers, too. We just found out that one of the ladies at work is pregnant and another lady said to me " Well, that is nice you know she is getting up there in age". :confused:
I replyed "hey she is 5 years younger then me". Then I just walked away.

People say the strangest things when it comes to pregnacies and babies. Sorry, I am almost 40 and I really don't want to sit at someone's baby shower and act like I am so happy for them when I am NOT! I don't mean to sound cruel but half these people I don't even know. It's the samething with wedding showers. No thanks!

[sparky]

There are no absolute guarantees in life, Sparky.
If we spent our entire lives basing decisions on a guaranteed result, we'd never do anything.

Of course there aren't. There is common sense, however, and knowledge. It behooves us to take educated risks rather than flying by the seat of our pants on faith alone.

But I couldn't disagree with you more on the notion that the only situation in which the responsibility of raising a child should be taken on, is if it's by two opposite gender parents.

I don't believe that's the only situation. I've never said that. My point is that I think two same sex people who make a child, by hook or by crook or by whatever, are setting a kid up for some grief and to an extent, stacking the deck against the kid. Adoption ? Single ? Widowed ?
**** happens.
Those are reaction situations. Making a new kid is CREATING a situation, and frankly, under those circumstances, I don't feel it's necessarily fair to a kid. I think it's risky, and I don't think anyone has the right to make that choice for another person. Not just because of their own need to be a parent. Get a dog already. Or adopt.

You don't see how raising a child... providing for that child, nurturing that child, clothing, feeding, loving, and supporting that child... you don't see how that's less shallow than promiscuous sex and club-hopping (which I'd have to say is about the biggest dismissal of consequences and most profound embracement of need fulfillment there is in the gay community)?

There can be a whole lotta shallow in any decision a person makes. It's all in the details, and the intentions. On the face of it, that whole Hallmark child rearing picture looks fantastic. It just doesn't take much personality into account. And frankly, though there is a lot of b.s. associated with club hopping and multiple sex partners, that life can lead to meaningful relationships and a rich life as well. It's all about what people want.

You might be relieved to know that the American Psychological Association had this to say:

That doesn't offer me the slightest relief, though I am sure it is justfying a lot of people's decisions. I don't think that the current boom has been going on long enough to know much about the true story

I believe we are forming new ideas and breaking the mold.
We're forming the idea that same-sex couples can have a strong, committed relationship, and raise a healthy, happy, well-adjusted child, in that loving, nurturing environment. It has nothing to do with copying some fictional TV family, or with stealing what straight people have. It's about embracing our potential as mates, parents, and human-beings.

Breaking what mold ? The mold of how gay people lived in The Boys In The Band, maybe. I don't see how jumping into a hetero family paradigm is breaking any mold at all. It's just plugging a different gender parent into it and living a paint by number life with a different cast member. I find the whole idea pedestrian. It isn't what I would call an interesting life. Doesn't take a lot of imagination.

The gay marriage issue was handled in the wrong way, absolutely.
Progress was certainly made in many areas, and we'll learn from the mistakes that were made and move forward.

I think it was the wrong thing to push. In this country anyway. It isn't going to be the right issue to push for a long time.

[sparky]

The use of "husband" was meant in short-hand. I could have just as easily said "mate," "spouse," "longtime companion," "partner" (a term that I personally loathe because it makes your relationship sound like a business arrangement), etc.

Ironically, many gay men are so preoccupied with identifying each other in terms of whether we're a "top" or "bottom"... which in and of itself is a labelling process to determine one's dominance or submissiveness... that "husband" and "wife" doesn't seem any worse in terms of relationship dynamics. :shrug:

Husband and wife are WAY worse, in my opinion. Throwing the gender issue in there is loaded as all get out. Top and bottom ? Feh. The association of that with masculine and feminine and dominance and submission may be primal, but if people are caught up in the baggage of it, it's a therapy issue. It's all about nerve endings when you get down to it.

[sparky]

I see what you're saying now. But why is it a "rule" that children are better off with opposite sex parents? If it is only because of society's perceptions, then that rule can change over time, right?

Rule was a bad word to use. It's no secret that research shows that kids do the best in a two parent home. Less drugs, less school problems. I could go on.

It seems to me that if you're going to say that, then you should tell biracial couples that they shouldn't be having children, either, especially because down here in hell, a.k.a. The Bible Belt, there isn't much acceptance for biracial children. Their lives are difficult. Would you tell those people not to have children as well?

I would tell a biracial couple that if they want to live in BFE KKK land and have kids that they are idiots and their kids lives are going to suck. Isn't that tough to figure out. They can go ahead, but at what price ? Why bother ? To make a political point ?

Also, how else will society become more accepting of children of gays if there aren't any?

In other words, toss some to the wolves so that those who come later may suffer less ? Kids aren't cannon fodder.


I know that the children suffer inevitably, but how else do we change society?

My goal isn't to change that part of society. Society evolves. And kids shouldn't be the instrument to leverage the change in society's consciousness.

Children who are gay suffer, but should we tell them not to come out of the closet to avoid that suffering?

That's unrelated to this issue. But, to comment, it all depends. Coming out of the closet in the sticks at 13 can get your ass killed. Sometimes it might be smart to keep your mouth shut until you're in a safe envornment.

And, even if it's unnecessary or ridiculous to some, shouldn't they be able to get married and register at the Baby Gap if that's what they want, considering those are privileges others are allowed?

In some places they can. I'm not sure those are all that important battles to focus on, but hey, let 'em.

But this isn't about just you. Why is it that whenever I debate the issue of marriage with another gay person who isn't for it they always say, "I have no desire to be approved of by city, state, government, etc"? If that isn't what you want for yourself, then don't pursue it. But I can't understand why it's okay with you to deny others of it.

I'm not denying anyone anything. Contrary to popular belief, I am not a Supreme Court Judge.
I understand the benefits that come with marriage, and it is insulting that people have to work so hard to get them when they can't get married. But, it is possible to make most of it happen. It takes some fenagling and work, but it can be done. But being a homo isn't for wimps. It's no cake walk.
That being said, I think historically that this is a terrible time to be focusing on the issues of "Let us get married and have babies!! We want it, we need it don't deny us !" There are bigger fish to fry in this country. Politics is all about timing, and I believe history will resolve those things as time passes. I think the insistence and tone of these arguments turns people off and comes off as selfish, self righteous, and somewhat petty.

[sparky]

In terms of gay couples having children, I always look at it from the child's point of view. For example, how are they going to be treated by their peers and society growing up with two moms or two dads? Whereas one might grow up perfectly fine and not be hassled by it, others won't have that luxury. They might be teased about having "fags" for dads or "dykes" for moms, or have the notion that they're somehow less worthy because of their domestic situation pounded into their brains on a daily basis. How does it affect the kid? I think that's the most important thing that should be taken into consideration when the topic of same-sex couples is broached, the paternal or maternal instincts and wishes to have a child should not, in my opinion, because they are not what is important.

It certainly isn't fair that kids from same-sex homes are treated differently, just as it isn't fair that same-sex couples are treated differently than heterosexual couples. It isn't fair that, as Hillary pointed out, biracial children are treated differently than other children. I find it to be disgusting. But that's the society we live in, unfortunately. While it's nice to say that couples are working to change that by proving that they can be fit parents and can raise healthy children, the reality of the matter is that the general population is not going to adapt to that idea any more than George Bush is going to adapt to liberalism, and that means that the children will possibly be ostracized.

I'm all for same-sex couples adopting, just as I am for heterosexual couples adopting. But unlike heterosexual couples, there's an added element to same-sex couple adoptions that could make life harder on the child. As long as that is acknowledged and the parents are ready to deal with it, though, more power to them. Just make sure that the adoption is in the best interests of the child and not just to fulfill your paternal or maternal desires.

Further proof that I want to marry you. :lol:

Not that I want to get married, of course.

[sparky]

Agreed. And I agree with most everything Josh said because he acknowledged potential hardships but never actually said that gay people shouldn't be having children because of them. :shrug: That's not what I'm getting from sparky. Yeah, I could keep going, but you've explained my sentiments well, Tiff.

I don't think there should be a LAW against it. I just think it's risky, selfish, and
suspect. Dear old Dissention summed my viewpoint up better than I have.

[sparky]

About four years ago, I made the mistake of allowing my sister to stay with me for four of five days- her, her idiot Dubya loving husband (he referred to me as a "tree-hugger" while sitting on my couch, eating my food, and watching my tee-vee :rolleyes: ), her five-year old, her two-year old and her seven month old fetus.

At one point during her fabulous stay, she complained about the fact that she has actually been to restaurants, movie theaters and entertainment complexes that did not provide baby changing stations in their restrooms.

I didn't even have the desire to invest the energy to point anything out to her, I just wanted her out, out, OUT!!!

Some of the other enchanting things that happened during her stay:

1) Showing up at my house broke and not telling me (she spent all her money during the previous two weeks with other family members).

2) Her husband going to the grocery store with my partner to get dinner stuff and proceeding to load up the cart on all kinds of things such as diapers, etc. and not offering any money-knowing full well that my partner is a gentleman and wouldn't be crass enough to ask for money.

3) Asking me and my partner to babysit their two kids on a Saturday night so they could go visit their friends in Santa Monica- AND asking to borrow our car for no reason rather than drive their own car (they didn't want to use up any more of their gas than they had to).

4) Leaving to go back home during the day while we were at work, and not mentioning the fact that their two-year old had pulled all the strings of off my classical guitar. No mention, no money to fix it, no apology, no nothing.

Charming people, huh? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:


YOU HAVE MY SYMPATHIES. The word leaches comes to mind.

[sparky]

I guess I don't get it. Deanna's mom and mine were being selfish in wanting to have us? I can't say that about my Mom because she made a conscious decision to have me and give up a lot of things in her life that made her happy, for me. She knew, going into it, that her life was going to change dramatically and she was willing to sacrifice for me. How is that desire selfish? I just don't get it. :shrug:


When a theoretical discussion turns personal, it's hard to continue it. I'm sure we could, if we were well informed, have a psychological deconstruction of anyone's parents here. There are so many stories and exceptions. That's kind of beside the point.

[Lee]

I didn't read this whole thread as it's pretty long, so I don't know what everyone said.

About 10 years ago, when I really wanted a baby, but somehow it didn't work out & I also changed my mind, if it was a girl, she'd be named Bethany Nicole. (I have a sister named Nicole.) If it was a boy, his name would have been Christopher Michael.

Lee :)

[sodascouts]

I like the name "Rachel" - and no, not because of Friends.

I also like "J" names for guys. John, James, Jack, Jake, Justin, Jasper and yes Jason and Joshua too.

I don't like weirdly spelled names, though. My sister's friend named her daughter Maridythe [pronounced Meredith]. That just seems gratuitously difficult! But hey, to each his/her own.

[ThePenguin]

I don't like weirdly spelled names, though. My sister's friend named her daughter Maridythe [pronounced Meredith]. That just seems gratuitously difficult! But hey, to each his/her own.

That is hideous. That kid is going to spend her life spelling her name for people.

My nephew is Zacary, w/ no H after the C. I kind of like it that way but I'm sure it will be mispelled a lot in the future.

FWIW I love names that end w/ N-- Ethan, Aaron, Nathan, Weston...I wanted to name my son Ethan so badly but Marty said it reminded him of furniture (Ethan Allen. :shrug: ) So we went w/ Benjamin-- still got my N at the end. :rolleyes:

-Lis

[sodascouts]

I didn't read this whole thread as it's pretty long, so I don't know what everyone said.


lol me neither! Went back, though. And I think this thread should be entitled:

"For those without kids.... let's talk about the meaning of parenthood."

:rolleyes:

[amber]

I don't like weirdly spelled names, though. My sister's friend named her daughter Maridythe [pronounced Meredith]. That just seems gratuitously difficult! But hey, to each his/her own.
I think that's weird, too. My best friends cousin named one of her daughters Daisy Ambyr. Ambyr? hello? :rolleyes:

[dissention]

Further proof that I want to marry you. :lol:

I'm not surprised. I'm quite the catch. ;)

[dissention]

FWIW I love names that end w/ N-- Ethan, Aaron, Nathan, Weston...I wanted to name my son Ethan so badly but Marty said it reminded him of furniture (Ethan Allen. :shrug: ) So we went w/ Benjamin-- still got my N at the end. :rolleyes:

I *LOVE* Benjamin. That's one of my favorite names. It's perfect.

[skcin]

That is hideous. That kid is going to spend her life spelling her name for people.

My nephew is Zacary, w/ no H after the C. I kind of like it that way but I'm sure it will be mispelled a lot in the future.

FWIW I love names that end w/ N-- Ethan, Aaron, Nathan, Weston...I wanted to name my son Ethan so badly but Marty said it reminded him of furniture (Ethan Allen. :shrug: ) So we went w/ Benjamin-- still got my N at the end. :rolleyes:

-Lis

My niece's name is spelled Krystle. She hates it, nobody spells is correctly AND she can't find anything with her name printed on it - you know, when you're 10 & you want pencils & note pads & key chains with your name on them? She's screwed!

I also love names ending with N, but our last name ends with N & it would sound weird, like I'm trying to rhyme or something.

I like the name "Rachel" - and no, not because of Friends.

I also like "J" names for guys. John, James, Jack, Jake, Justin, Jasper and yes Jason and Joshua too.

I don't like weirdly spelled names, though. My sister's friend named her daughter Maridythe [pronounced Meredith]. That just seems gratuitously difficult! But hey, to each his/her own.

Again, boo to creating new ways to spell a name. Oh, and to add to your J list, my cousin named his kid Jotham. Different, but not completely crazy, IMO. Apparently it's a biblical name (I haven't exactly read my bible lately :o )

[Johnny Stew]

I don't believe that's the only situation. I've never said that. My point is that I think two same sex people who make a child, by hook or by crook or by whatever, are setting a kid up for some grief and to an extent, stacking the deck against the kid. Adoption ? Single ? Widowed ?
**** happens.
Those are reaction situations. Making a new kid is CREATING a situation, and frankly, under those circumstances, I don't feel it's necessarily fair to a kid. I think it's risky, and I don't think anyone has the right to make that choice for another person. Not just because of their own need to be a parent. Get a dog already. Or adopt.I agree with the notion that adoption is the best option for gay couples... but I feel that way only because there are already so many children in this world who need a loving home. We really don't need to create new lives.

And frankly, though there is a lot of b.s. associated with club hopping and multiple sex partners, that life can lead to meaningful relationships and a rich life as well. It's all about what people want.I have more than a couple gay friends in their late 50s and 60s (one being a guy my mom and her sisters grew up with), and none of them are at all happy with the life choices they made, now that they look back at them. It seems that club-hopping and multiple sex partners lead to relationships built on the worst possible foundations, and, on average, those friends won't still be there later in life when you need them.

Breaking what mold ? The mold of how gay people lived in The Boys In The Band, maybe. I don't see how jumping into a hetero family paradigm is breaking any mold at all. It's just plugging a different gender parent into it and living a paint by number life with a different cast member. I find the whole idea pedestrian. It isn't what I would call an interesting life. Doesn't take a lot of imagination.Every lifestyle can seem paint-by-numbers and uninteresting to someone else.
In my opinion, it takes a lot more imagination to sustain a loving, monogamous relationship and to raise a happy family, than it does to be a gym bunny and to have sex-based "friendships," for example.
That kind of behaviour is so commonplace in the gay community (though most certainly not true of ALL gay men, and certainly not exclusive to the gay community), it definitely falls into the "pedestrian" and "no imagination" zone. :shrug:

[sparky]

I have more than a couple gay friends in their late 50s and 60s (one being a guy my mom and her sisters grew up with), and none of them are at all happy with the life choices they made, now that they look back at them. It seems that club-hopping and multiple sex partners lead to relationships built on the worst possible foundations, and, on average, those friends won't still be there later in life when you need them.

That is sad. Sometimes people don't know what they really want and don't make the right choices for themselves. I have many friends in their 50's who have large circles of friends mostly made in their club days of the 70's and 80's. They have holidays together and share birthdays. Lots of them used to be f-buddies. They have few regrets and love life. I aspire to such an attitude.

Every lifestyle can seem paint-by-numbers and uninteresting to someone else.

Uninteresting is everyday. Paint by numbers implies an "everyone does it" guide. Mating and breeding. Doesn't get more everyday and standard than that.
In my opinion, it takes a lot more imagination to sustain a loving, monogamous relationship and to raise a happy family, than it does to be a gym bunny and to have sex-based "friendships," for example.

The value judgement implied in the use of the phrase "gym bunny" and the quotes around the word friendship are fascinating. Make a commitment to someone, get a kid, you're bound. Perhaps legally, certainly ethically. Friendships, sex based or not, have no contracts. These are choices made every day. Much easier to walk away from. The fact that people don't implies a certain kind of character. There is a school of thought about marriage that believes it is simply a rule based structure to force men into monogamy and thus provide a stable place to raise kids. Hmmm..guilt and rules versus free will. Don't know which situation ends up implying more meaning when someone stays around.

That kind of behaviour is so commonplace in the gay community (though most certainly not true of ALL gay men, and certainly not exclusive to the gay community), it definitely falls into the "pedestrian" and "no imagination" zone. :shrug:

Really ? I don't know many people at all who are able to navigate the murky waters of "sex based friendships". There is no rulebook. There aren't tens of millions of people out there doing it and writing books, movies, and songs about it. I find it fairly rare. And I live in a gay mecca - well, close to one anyway.

Frankly, the idea that one can experience intimacy and bonding outside the traditional framework of a romantic relationship is completely unconventional and requires a spectacular amount of imagination and trust. Meaningless hook ups don't. Creating a connection that exists somewhere between casual and commited does. The romantic paradigm is not the only respectable way to experience intimacy and bonding. It's simply the default setting everyone has - gay and straight alike.

I can have a friggin boyfriend for years with one hand tied behind my back. It ain't that tough. I could go find one next week. Connecting with a guy minus the standard issue romance...minus all the rules...according to our own set of requirements and expectations...no ready made structure to fall back on ? That's a challenge. That's creative.

[skcin]

Boys:
-George
-Devin
-Nicholas
-Rupert

Girls:
-Sara (Loved the name long before I knew the song.)
-Veronica
-Kim
-Odette (Very different, but I love it.)

LOVE Devin, for a girl or boy.

There's a girl who comes into our office named Lindon. I like it a lot.

[strandinthewind]

LOVE Devin, for a girl or boy.

There's a girl who comes into our office named Lindon. I like it a lot.

I LOVE the name Pelham for a girls. I know it is odd or at least rare - but I like it. In fact, I may name my next scottie that!!!!

[ontheEdgeof17]

I LOVE the name Pelham for a girls. I know it is odd or at least rare - but I like it. In fact, I may name my next scottie that!!!!


I heard the names Braxton and Monroe on the TV yesterday. I love them....They sound worldly and uppity. To boot, they are counties in my state. :)

[strandinthewind]

I heard the names Braxton and Monroe on the TV yesterday. I love them....They sound worldly and uppity. To boot, they are counties in my state. :)

I had a really good friend named Braxton. I suppose it is a guy's name as he is a guy, but it could be a girl's name as well I guess. As for Monroe, all I can think about when I hear that name is Monroe ( J M J Bullock
) in "Too Close for Comfort" :eek:

[ontheEdgeof17]

I had a really good friend named Braxton. I suppose it is a guy's name as he is a guy, but it could be a girl's name as well I guess. As for Monroe, all I can think about when I hear that name is Monroe ( J M J Bullock
) in "Too Close for Comfort" :eek:


I like the name Gavin, too.

I guess I just like names you can't find on magnents at Walt Disney World. I'm still bitter I can never find my name. :mad: Thanks mom!

[skcin]

I like the name Gavin, too.

I guess I just like names you can't find on magnents at Walt Disney World. I'm still bitter I can never find my name. :mad: Thanks mom!

Don't feel bad - there weren't exactly 1000 Paula coffee mugs either. :p

Friend at work has son named Gavin. Husband is Brydon. I like both.

[ontheEdgeof17]

Don't feel bad - there weren't exactly 1000 Paula coffee mugs either. :p

Friend at work has son named Gavin. Husband is Brydon. I like both.


:sigh: I can't spell magnet.

[skcin]

:sigh: I can't spell magnet.


Awwwww. :xoxo:

[amber]

Sloan......

[skcin]

Sloan......

I like the name, but can't help thinking about Ferris Bueller's Day Off. :p

Plus there's a village called Sloan in my town. It's not really a bad neighborhood, but it's not where you'd aspire to live.

[amber]

I like the name, but can't help thinking about Ferris Bueller's Day Off. :p

Plus there's a village called Sloan in my town. It's not really a bad neighborhood, but it's not where you'd aspire to live.
well, that's where I got it, that chick was hot. :shrug:

[skcin]

well, that's where I got it, that chick was hot. :shrug:


Yeah, but that weird accent she had?

"Mr. Rooney. I'd like to thank you for yor wohmth ahnd compahhhshun..." Very annoying. :nod:

[amber]

Yeah, but that weird accent she had?

"Mr. Rooney. I'd like to thank you for yor wohmth ahnd compahhhshun..." Very annoying. :nod:
Whatev. :rolleyes: Luckily, you don't have to name your kid that.... :woohoo: It's allll mine...

[SuzeQuze]

well, that's where I got it, that chick was hot. :shrug:

She's also in Legend with Tom Cruise. I love her in that, Lily. :) I like that movie very much.

Edit: Her name is Mia Sara, interestingly enough.

Edit2: Jeez, I had no idea that was Tim Curry playing the devil in that film! I think I need to put this over in underrated films. :D

[DrummerDeanna]

Yeah, but that weird accent she had?

"Mr. Rooney. I'd like to thank you for yor wohmth ahnd compahhhshun..." Very annoying. :nod:


:laugh: :laugh: That's ALWAYS bugged me too :nod: I just always assumed she actually has an accent and was doing an "American accent"

One late night I was flipping through channels and I saw her in some weird weird weird movie with Lou Diamond Philips called "Undertow" or something....it's was odd...

[amber]

:laugh: :laugh: That's ALWAYS bugged me too :nod: I just always assumed she actually has an accent and was doing an "American accent"

One late night I was flipping through channels and I saw her in some weird weird weird movie with Lou Diamond Philips called "Undertow" or something....it's was odd...
Come to think of it, the name Mia kind of rocks, too.

[SuzeQuze]

Come to think of it, the name Mia kind of rocks, too.

I was thinking this very same thing earlier. :D

[DrummerDeanna]

Come to think of it, the name Mia kind of rocks, too.


Yeah - it's a nice name - I had a friends named Mia when I was younger...and I thought it was a great name :nod:

[Johnny Stew]

Uninteresting is everyday. Paint by numbers implies an "everyone does it" guide. Mating and breeding. Doesn't get more everyday and standard than that.

I don't know many people at all who are able to navigate the murky waters of "sex based friendships". There is no rulebook. There aren't tens of millions of people out there doing it and writing books, movies, and songs about it. I find it fairly rare. And I live in a gay mecca - well, close to one anyway.But if we're talking simply within the gay community, what's more "everyday" than the behaviour I described?
There might not be rulebooks, etc., which can make it all feel more "exciting" and fresh, but that certainly doesn't make it any less routine.

Maybe things are different where you are, I don't know. Around here, one-night stands and f*** buddies are certainly the norm within our gay community. It's woefully commonplace... whether there are rulebooks to follow or not.

The value judgement implied in the use of the phrase "gym bunny" and the quotes around the word friendship are fascinating. Make a commitment to someone, get a kid, you're bound. Perhaps legally, certainly ethically. Friendships, sex based or not, have no contracts. These are choices made every day. Much easier to walk away from. The fact that people don't implies a certain kind of character. There is a school of thought about marriage that believes it is simply a rule based structure to force men into monogamy and thus provide a stable place to raise kids. Hmmm..guilt and rules versus free will. Don't know which situation ends up implying more meaning when someone stays around.

Frankly, the idea that one can experience intimacy and bonding outside the traditional framework of a romantic relationship is completely unconventional and requires a spectacular amount of imagination and trust. Meaningless hook ups don't. Creating a connection that exists somewhere between casual and commited does. The romantic paradigm is not the only respectable way to experience intimacy and bonding. It's simply the default setting everyone has - gay and straight alike.

I can have a friggin boyfriend for years with one hand tied behind my back. It ain't that tough. I could go find one next week. Connecting with a guy minus the standard issue romance...minus all the rules...according to our own set of requirements and expectations...no ready made structure to fall back on ? That's a challenge. That's creative.Gay relationships are already outside of the rules, by their very nature.
And we either connect with other men because of our varying requirements and expectations, or we don't.

What's wrong with romance? It's only "standard issue" if you make it that way. There's a lot of creativity in being consistently fun, playful and romantic with one person. Anyone can f***... that's a base instinct that requires nothing but a libido. Sustaining a loving, committed relationship, built on something more than just mutual horniness, requires a lot more imagination and finesse.

Maybe monogamy seems like a claustrophobia-inducing rule to some, but I don't see it that way.
I have little interest in relationships based only on the fact that we both have hard-ons or that we happen to share the same sexual proclivities.
And I don't see much character in having a "no rules" relationship that you can walk away from at anytime, even if you choose not to.

It's not true in every case, of course, but it usually just sounds like people are desperately clinging to their little "out clause," and can only be happy so long as they feel they can high-tail it out of there whenever they're ready or in case they find someone better.

I decided years ago that I wasn't going to settle for anything less than everything I want out of a relationship... even if that meant never having it.
Perhaps that makes me the most stubborn and inflexible person out there, but so be it. I have no patience for men who always have one foot out the door, and I'm not about to waste my time on guys who only want to stay in a relationship so long as it's "fun" for them.
It's not my intention to corner anyone into monogamy, and I'm the last person to rush into a full-blown relationship... I simply feel that I'm either everything you want, or I'm not. As simple as that.
So if a guy isn't interested in getting to know me first, before we've had sex, then I'm not interested... no matter what else he may have to offer.

I'm not following any rules or guidebooks, and I'm not buying into anyone else's ideal of what a relationship should be... I simply want more out of a relationship than I find in "f*** buddies" who get together once or twice a week for pizza and a hummer.
If that leads to something more meaningful for other guys, that's awesome, and I'm happy for them... but that's not going to be the foundation my relationship is based on.

I should probably add that nothing I'm saying is meant to sound judgemental. We're all basically looking for the same things out of life, and we have to follow our own path to get there.
Yeah, it does upset me when I see some of my friends, who are all good-hearted guys, pursuing avenues that ultimately leave them frustrated, lonely and unfulfilled... but I guess that's all part of the journey, sadly.

I just think that, too often, we buy into the idea that we have to play the game in order to find what we're looking for. We try to make our own rules as we go, but, ultimately, it's someone else's game and therefore someone else's rules... and I'm not willing to play.

[Johnny Stew]

Another thing I should add (since this point got lost in the discussion) is the fact that I don't believe or feel that every couple HAS to get married or HAS to have some kind of ceremony to "prove" their commitment to each other.
Two people can share their lives happily and lovingly for decades without ever having taken some sort of vow. And two people can take those vows, and then divorce in rancor three weeks later.
A piece of paper or a pair of gold rings doesn't make a relationship any more significant than what's already in your heart.

I'm simply talking about monogamous relationships built on a foundation other than sexual compatibility, and commitment through deeds... not just through words.

[sparky]

But if we're talking simply within the gay community, what's more "everyday" than the behaviour I described?
There might not be rulebooks, etc., which can make it all feel more "exciting" and fresh, but that certainly doesn't make it any less routine.

Maybe things are different where you are, I don't know. Around here, one-night stands and f*** buddies are certainly the norm within our gay community. It's woefully commonplace... whether there are rulebooks to follow or not.

What I have seen, and granted I am not a barfly or a methfreak, is husband hunters. I think they about balance out the party boys, who are mostly youngsters going through a silly phase.

Gay relationships are already outside of the rules, by their very nature.

In terms of plumbing, yeah.


What's wrong with romance?

Nothing. It's not everything, but nothing wrong with it.


It's only "standard issue" if you make it that way. There's a lot of creativity in being consistently fun, playful and romantic with one person.
Yeah, I spent 13 of the last 16 years of my life doing just that. Standard issue, in my book, is the whole marriage and babies thing. Same relationship, different plumbing.


Anyone can f***... that's a base instinct that requires nothing but a libido.

I would beg to differ. A little skill(hopefully a LOT), self confidence, and the right attitude are required. In counter to the question "What is wrong with romance?" I must ask what is wrong with just getting off ?


Sustaining a loving, committed relationship, built on something more than just mutual horniness, requires a lot more imagination and finesse.

Well, yeah. Like most people have no idea. No idea at all.

Maybe monogamy seems like a claustrophobia-inducing rule to some, but I don't see it that way.

Words that have been said by myself, and many others who haven't hit the 3, 5, or 7 year mark. In a fantasy world, such idealism is kind of cute, but in reality, well, let's just say most everyone cheats eventually. Some people just actually tell the truth about it.


I have little interest in relationships based only on the fact that we both have hard-ons or that we happen to share the same sexual proclivities.


Such connections have resulted in decades long friendships and bf situations, last I heard.


And I don't see much character in having a "no rules" relationship that you can walk away from at anytime, even if you choose not to.

Takes remarkable stamina, honesty, and hard work. Like not breaking the law, even a little, when there is no punishment, and no law. The focus required, and the miracle of longevity is, in my book, awe inspiring.

It's not true in every case, of course, but it usually just sounds like people are desperately clinging to their little "out clause," and can only be happy so long as they feel they can high-tail it out of there whenever they're ready or in case they find someone better.

This has happened to you or people you know ? I don't even see how the theory of this flies. This idea reeks of fear. It doesn't compute with me.

I decided years ago that I wasn't going to settle for anything less than everything I want out of a relationship... even if that meant never having it.

Wow. EVERYTHING ? You even sure what that means ? Day in and day out ?


Perhaps that makes me the most stubborn and inflexible person out there, but so be it.

Might make you alone is what it might make you.


I have no patience for men who always have one foot out the door, and I'm not about to waste my time on guys who only want to stay in a relationship so long as it's "fun" for them.

Fun is under rated. Life is short.

I simply feel that I'm either everything you want, or I'm not. As simple as that.

Again with the "everything". Dude, what planet are you on ? The set up for failure in that statement is absolute and as solid as the concrete in my driveway.


So if a guy isn't interested in getting to know me first, before we've had sex, then I'm not interested... no matter what else he may have to offer.

Well, God Bless Ya. Hope you don't later find a two incher, clumsy sex skills, and a guy who's into diapers or something else creepy. Sexual chemistry and compatability is an enormous factor. If you haven't got that....god help you in 18 months. Physical bonding and a real chemical connection (obviously not solely) have a remarkable power to carry your ass over some treacherous waters.

I'm not following any rules or guidebooks, and I'm not buying into anyone else's ideal of what a relationship should be.

Hm.

I simply want more out of a relationship than I find in "f*** buddies" who get together once or twice a week for pizza and a hummer.

What, exactly, has been the great disappointment in these situations ?
F-buds can be pretty profound, in my experience.

If that leads to something more meaningful for other guys, that's awesome, and I'm happy for them... but that's not going to be the foundation my relationship is based on.

This is all semnatics, certainly, but in my book f-buds come with interest, friendship, and often a great sense of trust and comraderie. That's a hell of a foundation for any relationship, in my book.

I should probably add that nothing I'm saying is meant to sound judgemental.

Oh, it certainly sounds judgemental. As Dr. Laura. But that's cool.


Yeah, it does upset me when I see some of my friends, who are all good-hearted guys, pursuing avenues that ultimately leave them frustrated, lonely and unfulfilled... but I guess that's all part of the journey, sadly.

Nothing that a good therapist couldn't solve. It's really all about evolving, exploring, and being honest with yourself. Gotta do in order to learn.

I just think that, too often, we buy into the idea that we have to play the game in order to find what we're looking for.

Dude, the game you describe sounds like something out of a 50's harlequin romance. I wish it sounded original, but it just doesn't. While it may feel authentic, and it may indeed be to you, it sounds like you're spitting up a fairy tale written by a cloistered 16th century gothic writer. As Don Henley says, "We've been poisoned by these fairy tales." To hell with the genders, the concepts are the same.

We try to make our own rules as we go, but, ultimately, it's someone else's game and therefore someone else's rules... and I'm not willing to play.

Hm. Well, I am making my own rules, in conjunction with the guys I am into, and everybody's happy.
Can't even place in the stats if you don't play, buddy. :cool:

[sara1998]

And I'm interested to hear from someone who has children. I feel like that person is better qualified to answer that question, no? :shrug:

Being that I'm a mom, I haven't had the chance to read through all of this, (I'm always busy) so I may be way off topic here. My daughter was not planned. Obviously, I didn't have her for selfish reasons, (OK, maybe the unprotected sex thing, but that's another thread.) I felt selfish because life as I knew it was about to end, because of "the baby." Then, when "the baby" came, it was all about her. She suddenly became the center of my universe. Not that I didn't feel that maternal instinct while I was pregnant, but it was real when she was first born. That's when the selflessness begins, or when it should begin. Ethically, you have to be a parent to that child, like the screaming mimi's mother in the library. Or, the assholes who have children to abuse or kill them. These are the people who are obviously burdened by having to be a parent to their children, and haven't given up being selfish (on top of being sick individuals...) But lovingly you want to be a parent. You want to teach that child what's right and wrong. You want to show your child to love and be loved. You want to move to the best neighborhood with the highest taxes for the best schools. You want to read bedtime stories instead of watching TV, so your child will benefit in the long run. There are lots of things you sacrifice for yourself, so that your child can have. I'm not complaining in the least, and I know some will say it's my own fault having to sacrifice my wants for the best interest of the child, but that's selflessness. I don't view some selfishness as a bad thing. I'm an only child, and I know all about being selfish. It's good to want for yourself. You wouldn't be human if you didn't. But, being a mom is the farthest definition of being selfish I know. I've given that kid my all.

And, she is an angel in the restaruant. ;)

[GateandGarden]

Thanks for sharing, Maria. :)

[sparky]

Being that I'm a mom, I haven't had the chance to read through all of this, (I'm always busy) so I may be way off topic here. My daughter was not planned. Obviously, I didn't have her for selfish reasons, (OK, maybe the unprotected sex thing, but that's another thread.) I felt selfish because life as I knew it was about to end, because of "the baby." Then, when "the baby" came, it was all about her. She suddenly became the center of my universe. Not that I didn't feel that maternal instinct while I was pregnant, but it was real when she was first born. That's when the selflessness begins, or when it should begin. Ethically, you have to be a parent to that child, like the screaming mimi's mother in the library. Or, the assholes who have children to abuse or kill them. These are the people who are obviously burdened by having to be a parent to their children, and haven't given up being selfish (on top of being sick individuals...) But lovingly you want to be a parent. You want to teach that child what's right and wrong. You want to show your child to love and be loved. You want to move to the best neighborhood with the highest taxes for the best schools. You want to read bedtime stories instead of watching TV, so your child will benefit in the long run. There are lots of things you sacrifice for yourself, so that your child can have. I'm not complaining in the least, and I know some will say it's my own fault having to sacrifice my wants for the best interest of the child, but that's selflessness. I don't view some selfishness as a bad thing. I'm an only child, and I know all about being selfish. It's good to want for yourself. You wouldn't be human if you didn't. But, being a mom is the farthest definition of being selfish I know. I've given that kid my all.

And, she is an angel in the restaruant. ;)

Thanks for an interesting and authentic perspective.
You sound like a great Mom.

[WildInTheWind]

But, being a mom is the farthest definition of being selfish I know. I've given that kid my all.

And, she is an angel in the restaruant. ;)
I don't see how anyone could put "selfish" and "mother" in the same sentence. I had my daughter when I was 20.....and have given up everything. I look back on myself before I had her, and I see selfish. Now...far from her. She is everything, and I give myself to her 24/7.

[Johnny Stew]

What I have seen, and granted I am not a barfly or a methfreak, is husband hunters. I think they about balance out the party boys, who are mostly youngsters going through a silly phase.I've met plenty of the husband hunters, too. They definitely exist. And in droves.
But I've never been interested in those guys either. Everyone's in such a rush... no one wants to wait for anything. We have to have it yesterday, or we're not happy.

Me? I've always preferred to bide my time.

In counter to the question "What is wrong with romance?" I must ask what is wrong with just getting off ?I don't know about you, but I'm perfectly capable of curling my own toes and making my own eyelids flutter when I just want to get off. :laugh:

I'm not a prude... not by a longshot. And I have witnesses who can attest to that. :shocked: But when it comes to a relationship, I expect a little more than just someone with whom I can get off. Though I most definitely love that part, too!

Wow. EVERYTHING ? You even sure what that means ? Day in and day out ?Yeah, I am sure actually.
I know what I want, and I know what I don't want.

What else do I need to know?

Might make you alone is what it might make you.I've always been fully aware of that.
I'm an all or nothing guy when it comes to what I look for in a mate. I make compromises on every other thing in my life, but I'm not willing to make a compromise on what I want out of a relationship.
Though don't take that to mean I'm not willing to make compromises WITHIN the relationship. I'm just not willing to settle for second-best.

I've encountered more than a few guys who were very interested in being f*** buddies with me, and while it's not necessarily the easiest thing in the world to turn down an outlet for no-strings sexual gratification, it's not what I'm looking for. I want more than that, and I deserve more than that.

I should add that towards the end of last year, I did come *thisclose* to saying, "ah, the hell with it," and just going after something with no-strings. It would have been easier and it would have been instant gratification.

Then I came to my senses and realized that if it didn't make me happy before, it wasn't going to make me happy now.

Good thing, too... because just a few short months later, my relationship with Joshua became something deeper than it had been. And that couldn't have happened if I was off getting my kicks with someone else.

Fun is under rated. Life is short.Ah, the battle-cry of hedonists everywhere. ;)

There are some of us who know how to be serious AND have fun at the same time. :)

Again with the "everything". Dude, what planet are you on ? The set up for failure in that statement is absolute and as solid as the concrete in my driveway.If you have ideals, why compromise them just to have someone? If I fail, so be it. But at least I didn't settle.

Well, God Bless Ya. Hope you don't later find a two incher, clumsy sex skills, and a guy who's into diapers or something else creepy. Sexual chemistry and compatability is an enormous factor. If you haven't got that....god help you in 18 months. Physical bonding and a real chemical connection (obviously not solely) have a remarkable power to carry your ass over some treacherous waters.Size doesn't matter to me, skills can be learned as you go, and if you take the time to get to know someone, there's a pretty good chance you'll figure out if they're into something creepy before you find yourself in a deep relationship.
Look at it this way... if you just start sleeping with a guy because of a chemical and physical attraction, you could very easily be schtupping someone who's secretly into something freaky, because you didn't take the time to get to know each other first.

Besides, I'm not saying that physical attraction and sexual compatiblity shouldn't be a factor in a relationship AT ALL. They are very important aspects.
I'm simply saying that I don't want it to be the foundation on which my relationship is built.

What, exactly, has been the great disappointment in these situations ?
F-buds can be pretty profound, in my experience.If "friends with benefits" (an arrangement many straight people have, too, by the way -- so, you know, "same concept, different genders") is fulfilling for you, then more power to you. And I don't mean that sarcastically.

All I'm saying is that it's not fulfulling to me. I slept with an ex-boyfriend again a year after we had broken up, because we were both there and horny. I've also had a one-night stand.
Both were fun for those few hours, and easily could have become a pattern... but I want something more substantial than that. I'm a fast learner, and I quickly figured out that I wasn't going to find happiness in those setups.

Oh, it certainly sounds judgemental. As Dr. Laura. But that's cool.I'm unapologetic when it comes to my own choices, and for the reasons I see things the way I do. But I've never said "my" way is right for everyone.

Yeah, I do believe there's more happiness and fulfillment to be found than just being f*** buddies can offer... but if someone doesn't want more than that, then they're doing just fine, no?. :nod:

And if my comments sounded judgemental, I imagine they weren't any moreso than your nose-sniffing towards guys who want a mate and children. You know... the poor, deluded fools with the mediocre minds, who are just trying to ape a hetero relationship they saw on a 1950s TV sitcom. ;)

Dude, the game you describe sounds like something out of a 50's harlequin romance. I wish it sounded original, but it just doesn't. While it may feel authentic, and it may indeed be to you, it sounds like you're spitting up a fairy tale written by a cloistered 16th century gothic writer. As Don Henley says, "We've been poisoned by these fairy tales." To hell with the genders, the concepts are the same.When it all comes down to it, I'm really not the least bit concerned with sounding original.
I'd rather come across as unoriginal than self-consciously non-conformist. :shrug:

I'd only be chasing a fairy-tale if I believed solid relationships just fall in your lap, and that they can be long-lasting with no level of commitment involved.

Hm. Well, I am making my own rules, in conjunction with the guys I am into, and everybody's happy.
Can't even place in the stats if you don't play, buddy. :cool:If it makes you happy.... :nod:

As for stats... well, I'm not a baseball player. ;)

[strandinthewind]

Being that I'm a mom, I haven't had the chance to read through all of this, (I'm always busy) so I may be way off topic here. My daughter was not planned. Obviously, I didn't have her for selfish reasons, (OK, maybe the unprotected sex thing, but that's another thread.) I felt selfish because life as I knew it was about to end, because of "the baby." Then, when "the baby" came, it was all about her. She suddenly became the center of my universe. Not that I didn't feel that maternal instinct while I was pregnant, but it was real when she was first born. That's when the selflessness begins, or when it should begin. Ethically, you have to be a parent to that child, like the screaming mimi's mother in the library. Or, the assholes who have children to abuse or kill them. These are the people who are obviously burdened by having to be a parent to their children, and haven't given up being selfish (on top of being sick individuals...) But lovingly you want to be a parent. You want to teach that child what's right and wrong. You want to show your child to love and be loved. You want to move to the best neighborhood with the highest taxes for the best schools. You want to read bedtime stories instead of watching TV, so your child will benefit in the long run. There are lots of things you sacrifice for yourself, so that your child can have. I'm not complaining in the least, and I know some will say it's my own fault having to sacrifice my wants for the best interest of the child, but that's selflessness. I don't view some selfishness as a bad thing. I'm an only child, and I know all about being selfish. It's good to want for yourself. You wouldn't be human if you didn't. But, being a mom is the farthest definition of being selfish I know. I've given that kid my all.

And, she is an angel in the restaruant. ;)

I can attest to that my darlin' - your road has not been easy and I shudder to think of what your daughter may have had to go through had she not had such a strong parent during the tragedy!!!!!!!!!!!! :wavey:

[sara1998]

Thanks for sharing, Maria. :)

Thanks for an interesting and authentic perspective.
You sound like a great Mom.

You're very welcome.

I can attest to that my darlin' - your road has not been easy and I shudder to think of what your daughter may have had to go through had she not had such a strong parent during the tragedy!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thank you dahlin! Nothing like having to pull yourself up by your bra straps. It'll be 2 years in May, and I think we've made great strides despite what we've been through together. Hopefully, this will make us close when she's older.

[sparky]

Me? I've always preferred to bide my time.

For...?

I don't know about you, but I'm perfectly capable of curling my own toes and making my own eyelids flutter when I just want to get off.

Leaves a lot to be desired, but it IS half the mess.


Yeah, I am sure actually.
I know what I want, and I know what I don't want.

What else do I need to know?

A ton.


I'm an all or nothing guy when it comes to what I look for in a mate.

ALL or NOTHING ??? Have you ever spoken to anyone who was with someone
for longer than say, 6 months, about this ?


I'm just not willing to settle for second-best.

That's good. I never have either.



Good thing, too... because just a few short months later, my relationship with Joshua became something deeper than it had been. And that couldn't have happened if I was off getting my kicks with someone else.

Interesting. Spending 2 or 3 nights a week together, are ya ? Like sleeping on
the correct side of the bed ? Getting up at the same time ? Compatible career goals and ambitions ? Workable financial compatability ? Friends all get along together ? Similar approach to problem solving ? Mind blowing sexual chemistry and proclivity ? Similar desires about where to live ? China patterns and neighborhoods picked out ? Do tell.

Ah, the battle-cry of hedonists everywhere.

Not a shred of judgement in that !

If you have ideals, why compromise them just to have someone? If I fail, so be it. But at least I didn't settle.

Stop the presses. We agree. Never settled once, myself.

Size doesn't matter to me

Oh please. Could you be more politically correct without pulling a muscle ?
You know exactly what I mean.

skills can be learned as you go

I'd love to hear evidence of this.


Besides, I'm not saying that physical attraction and sexual compatiblity shouldn't be a factor in a relationship AT ALL. They are very important aspects.
I'm simply saying that I don't want it to be the foundation on which my relationship is built.

Built, no. It is clear to me that like many people I have communicated with, you have NO idea what I am talking about. Stevie does. It's "the wind and the rain and the water". There is no comparison.

If "friends with benefits" (an arrangement many straight people have, too, by the way -- so, you know, "same concept, different genders") is fulfilling for you, then more power to you.

Lord Have Mercy. The implication of fast food here is overwhelming. The lack of conception of any depth of feeling or the possiblility of meaning here is mind boggling. Our worlds couldn't be more different.

I've also had a one-night stand.

A ? ? A ?

As in ONE ? Surely you jest. About the frequency, and about the assessment of what one experience could mean.


Yeah, I do believe there's more happiness and fulfillment to be found than just being f*** buddies can offer... but if someone doesn't want more than that, then they're doing just fine, no?. :nod:

The word JUST here says all that you need to say.

And if my comments sounded judgemental, I imagine they weren't any moreso than your nose-sniffing towards guys who want a mate and children. You know... the poor, deluded fools with the mediocre minds, who are just trying to ape a hetero relationship they saw on a 1950s TV sitcom.

Am I judgemental about that ? You bet I am. Dragging kids into that **** ? You bet I am. I always will be. Taking away people's choices and handicapping them ? Get me my gavel.



When it all comes down to it, I'm really not the least bit concerned with sounding original.
Clearly.

I'd rather come across as unoriginal than self-consciously non-conformist. :shrug:

Spare me the passive aggressive shrug. Having had a number of significant long term relationships, my goals and attitudes are neither self conscious nor are they based in a fantasy world.


As for stats... well, I'm not a baseball player. ;)

Cute wordplay. Get back to me, at like, oh, I don't know, a third anniversary or some such milestone.

[Johnny Stew]

For...?For the things I was looking for.

A ton.Of course I have a ton to learn. I never said I know everything there is to know. I only said I know everything I want and everything I don't want out of a relationship.

Not sure why that's such a hard concept for someone to grasp.

ALL or NOTHING ??? Have you ever spoken to anyone who was with someone for longer than say, 6 months, about this ?Plenty of people. And my parents have been happily married for almost 34 years (and dated each other for about four or five years before that).

I know from observing their relationship, and others, that there are always ups and downs. I also know it from past experience.
And I wouldn't expect there to not be ups and downs in my own relationship.

I don't see why you think it's impossible to find exactly what you're looking for in a mate, and then sticking with that man if and when things get tough.
"All or nothing" doesn't mean that I think relationships don't require work, care, and commitment.

That's good. I never have either.So you were born this cynical about love and relationships? ;) :laugh:

Interesting. Spending 2 or 3 nights a week together, are ya ? Like sleeping on the correct side of the bed ? Getting up at the same time ? Compatible career goals and ambitions ? Workable financial compatability ? Friends all get along together ? Similar approach to problem solving ? Mind blowing sexual chemistry and proclivity ? Similar desires about where to live ? China patterns and neighborhoods picked out ? Do tell.Oh, I have no career goals. I plan to spend every waking minute catering to my hubby's needs! Barefoot!
Oh, if only I could be pregnant, too.

Seriously though, and for what it's worth... yes, we have similar sleeping habits, and, yes, we have compatible career goals and ambitions, and, yes, we have mind-blowing sexual chemistry (and then some :shocked: ) as well as being into the same things in bed, and, yes, we have similar and complimentary approaches to problem solving, and, yes, we have similar desires as to where we'll live, and, yes, we even have similar decorating tastes.

Not a shred of judgement in that !It was meant to be a joke... but I couldn't get my post to go through without toning down some of the emoticons.

Oh please. Could you be more politically correct without pulling a muscle ?
You know exactly what I mean.No, actually I don't know what you mean, because the average adult male wouldn't have a 2-inch penis... unless, of course, he had a birth defect which caused him to have a microphallus.

But that still wouldn't affect how I feel about him, because if I care enough about a guy to sleep with him, you can bet the farm that the size of his penis won't matter to me. There's a lot more to a man than what's dangling (or not dangling) between his legs.

I'd love to hear evidence of this.You'd love to hear evidence of men gaining sexual skills as they go along?
Man, I sure hope your own sexual skills have improved with practice since you were, say, 18, or that's pretty sad. ;)

It is clear to me that like many people I have communicated with, you have NO idea what I am talking about. Stevie does. It's "the wind and the rain and the water". There is no comparison.Sometimes when nobody understands what you're talking about, it's their fault. Other times, it's not. :laugh:

Great use of a Stevie quote there. :thumbsup:

The lack of conception of any depth of feeling or the possiblility of meaning here is mind boggling. Our worlds couldn't be more different.Oh, I grasp the concept behind what you're saying... but, you're absolutely right, our worlds definitely couldn't be more different.

A ? ? A ?

As in ONE ? Surely you jest. About the frequency, and about the assessment of what one experience could mean. Yep, just the one. And I know the first and last names of the guys I've slept with, including the one-night stand.
Unless I have some "Lost Weekends" somewhere, and miscounted.

As for the meaning... well, it was fun for those few hours, but that was that. I guess I just don't see anything of value in getting my balls drained by someone I have no feelings for, or vice versa.

Again, if it works for other guys, more power to them. All I know is what works and doesn't work for me. We have to follow our own instincts, right?

The word JUST here says all that you need to say.Damn, I could have saved myself the energy of typing all the words around it then. ;)

Am I judgemental about that ? You bet I am. Dragging kids into that **** ? You bet I am. I always will be. Taking away people's choices and handicapping them ? Get me my gavel.Were you circumcised when you were born? If so, do you have contempt for your parents for having altered a part of your body without your consent?
How about where you grew up? Are you angry with them because you didn't get a say in regards to which town and which state you were raised in?

Circumcision is akin to physical mutilation, and growing up in certain areas can severely limit a child's chances for the best possible education or stifle their natural talents (or even cause them additional pain and trauma if they're gay).

We're "handicapped" by many of our parents choices. That doesn't mean they didn't deserve to have children in the first place, or that they were selfish for bringing us into a world where we couldn't possibly have a problem-free life.

Having had a number of significant long term relationships, my goals and attitudes are neither self conscious nor are they based in a fantasy world.Your comments about resisting anything that is "unoriginal" or "unimaginative," or that seems like it's "same concept, different genders," sounded self-conscious to me.

Get back to me, at like, oh, I don't know, a third anniversary or some such milestone.As long as you let me know how your thing is working out for you in three years. :)

[GypsySorcerer]

Oh, I have no career goals. I plan to spend every waking minute catering to my hubby's needs! Barefoot!
Oh, if only I could be pregnant, too.




:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[dissention]

and, yes, we even have similar decorating tastes.


If it's old maple and chintz, I might take your case pro bono.

[sparky]

Of course I have a ton to learn. I never said I know everything there is to know. I only said I know everything I want and everything I don't want out of a relationship.

It's the everything part. It's really impopssible to know that. Unless, say you've been married three times and can see the future.

I don't see why you think it's impossible to find exactly what you're looking for in a mate, and then sticking with that man if and when things get tough.
"All or nothing" doesn't mean that I think relationships don't require work, care, and commitment.

"Exactly. Exactly." There is such extremity here. And all or nothing implies you get everything you want or you're not interested. This sounds like the voice of someone who has never even experienced a long term meaningful relationship. It's great to talk about and hear about. You haven't done it, it's all theory. And 3 months ain't long term.

Seriously though, and for what it's worth... yes, we have similar sleeping habits, and, yes, we have compatible career goals and ambitions, and, yes, we have mind-blowing sexual chemistry (and then some :shocked: ) as well as being into the same things in bed, and, yes, we have similar and complimentary approaches to problem solving, and, yes, we have similar desires as to where we'll live, and, yes, we even have similar decorating tastes.

Excellent. I'm curious how much time you spend together.

But that still wouldn't affect how I feel about him, because if I care enough about a guy to sleep with him, you can bet the farm that the size of his penis won't matter to me. There's a lot more to a man than what's dangling (or not dangling) between his legs.

Shall it be me who crowns you the king of selflessness ?

You'd love to hear evidence of men gaining sexual skills as they go along?
Man, I sure hope your own sexual skills have improved with practice since you were, say, 18, or that's pretty sad. ;)

You know what, yeah. I'd love to hear about people who had no sexual chemistry, no skills, and no conception of if they did or did not click, and then magically had world class sex. I submit if they say they did, they don't know what world class sex is.

Sometimes when nobody understands what you're talking about, it's their fault. Other times, it's not.

Oh, believe me, some people get it. Most just shake their heads and I might as well be speaking Swahili. For them, I can only say that they are missing out.


Oh, I grasp the concept behind what you're saying... but, you're absolutely right, our worlds definitely couldn't be more different.

They couldn't be. The difference is, I was in a very simliar world to yours at about 22. You have no idea where I am.

Yep, just the one. And I know the first and last names of the guys I've slept with, including the one-night stand

Shall I get out a medal to add to the crown ?


As for the meaning... well, it was fun for those few hours, but that was that. I guess I just don't see anything of value in getting my balls drained by someone I have no feelings for, or vice versa.

This assumes sex means nothing, ever, unless you are "in love". And the only feelings allowed when involved in sex are those "love" feelings. I beg to differ.
The human heart is more complicated than that.

Were you circumcised when you were born? If so, do you have contempt for your parents for having altered a part of your body without your consent?
How about where you grew up? Are you angry with them because you didn't get a say in regards to which town and which state you were raised in?

Circumcision is akin to physical mutilation, and growing up in certain areas can severely limit a child's chances for the best possible education or stifle their natural talents (or even cause them additional pain and trauma if they're gay).

We're "handicapped" by many of our parents choices. That doesn't mean they didn't deserve to have children in the first place, or that they were selfish for bringing us into a world where we couldn't possibly have a problem-free life.

Your circular logic to justify making babies is never gonna fly with me. Extreme situations, political correctness...None of it works. Circumstance is one thing, doing a deliberate act to guarantee an obstacle in a kid's life is never going to be anything but exactly that, in my eyes. Talk all you want.

Your comments about resisting anything that is "unoriginal" or "unimaginative," or that seems like it's "same concept, different genders," sounded self-conscious to me.

Derisive, sure. Self conscious ? Not in a decade or more.

As long as you let me know how your thing is working out for you in three years. :)

I could give you detailed reports of many of my 'things' that have gone on many more years than three. I can't say there are happy endings to all them...most of them haven't ever ended.

[Johnny Stew]

It's the everything part. It's really impopssible to know that. Unless, say you've been married three times and can see the future.

"Exactly. Exactly." There is such extremity here. And all or nothing implies you get everything you want or you're not interested. This sounds like the voice of someone who has never even experienced a long term meaningful relationship. It's great to talk about and hear about. You haven't done it, it's all theory. And 3 months ain't long term.My "all or nothing" allots for human imperfections, and obstacles, etc.
I haven't been looking for a Stepford Mate... just the guy who's the right fit for me.

Again, I don't understand why you think it's so implausable that I can know what I want and don't want in a relationship.

Shall it be me who crowns you the king of selflessness ?Only if the crown is purdy, Sparkelah. :D

The funniest thing is that you say it as if I should be sorry for not being shallow.

The difference is, I was in a very simliar world to yours at about 22. You have no idea where I am.Ah-ha! So you weren't always this jaded. ;)

And, you're wrong, I do have an idea of where you are. But... and with no judgements being made... I'm not interested in going there.
As I've said, I have my hopes and my dreams. And while I've also had my heart broken many times, I've always resisted letting bad experiences turn me into a cynic when it comes to love. **** happens and relationships often don't work out, but I'd rather keep fighting the good fight, then let it change me in what I would consider to be a negative way (for me).

Shall I get out a medal to add to the crown ?Just watch where ya pin it, bub.

This assumes sex means nothing, ever, unless you are "in love". And the only feelings allowed when involved in sex are those "love" feelings. I beg to differ.
The human heart is more complicated than that.Of course the human heart is more complicated than that, and I never said sex means nothing unless you're in love.
All I said is that I need to have feelings for the guy, or it's not "world class" for me.

Derisive, sure. Self conscious ? Not in a decade or more.Then why the derision in the first place?
If you're truly happy with where life has brought you, then let me... and others... do our own thing and pursue the mating thing.

By your estimation, I should be where you are in another 10 or 15 years anyway, so then you can just say "I told you so."


I could give you detailed reports of many of my 'things' that have gone on many more years than three. I can't say there are happy endings to all them...most of them haven't ever ended.That's a very good thing then, right?

You feel gay men getting married and having children is basically a mindless parroting of straight couples, and I think that in many cases the "f*** buddies-only" thing is just a way to avoid actually committing to something bigger than oneself.

But, again, I'm not sure where I ever said that MY path and MY choices are right for everyone.
We all have to follow the path that's right for us. :)

[Johnny Stew]

If it's old maple and chintz, I might take your case pro bono.:laugh:

No worries there, trust me!

But I wouldn't be opposed to hearing some of your ideas anyway. :xoxo:

[strandinthewind]

If it's old maple and chintz, I might take your case pro bono.

as opposed to an insane asylum white room with an ersatz red dot in the middle :laugh: :xoxo: :D

[sparky]

My "all or nothing" allots for human imperfections, and obstacles, etc.

Sure doesn't sound like it !


Again, I don't understand why you think it's so implausable that I can know what I want and don't want in a relationship.

Experience is all.



The funniest thing is that you say it as if I should be sorry for not being shallow.

Oh, I didn't say you weren't shallow. I just think you're disingenuous.

Ah-ha! So you weren't always this jaded. ;)

As always, your passive-aggressiveness, and it's emdodiment through the use of emoticons, is amusing.

And, you're wrong, I do have an idea of where you are. But... and with no judgements being made... I'm not interested in going there.

I am so tempted to use an emoticon myself. Again, the word disingenuous blinks in neon. You wouldn't know where I am with a map and a video.


As I've said, I have my hopes and my dreams. And while I've also had my heart broken many times, I've always resisted letting bad experiences turn me into a cynic when it comes to love.

Clearly you think you're alone there.

Then why the derision in the first place?

Oh, just for fun, I guess. PROBABLY BECAUSE I THINK IT IS SHALLOW AND THOUGHTLESS. That's why.

If you're truly happy with where life has brought you

Happy is my f-ing middle name.


then let me... and others... do our own thing and pursue the mating thing.

I'm stopping someone ?

By your estimation, I should be where you are in another 10 or 15 years anyway, so then you can just say "I told you so."

I suspect it'll take 20, but oh to be a fly on the wall.


That's a very good thing then, right?

Beyond my wildest expectations.

You feel gay men getting married and having children is basically a mindless parroting of straight couples

YUP.

I think that in many cases the "f*** buddies-only" thing is just a way to avoid actually committing to something bigger than oneself.

For some, maybe. Having done both, I know the value in both. And quantitatively, feh. Toss up. Don't find there is more nobility in one or the other.

We all have to follow the path that's right for us. :)

Just seems to me, yours is in your imagination. Which is a fine place, for some.

[Johnny Stew]

Oh, I didn't say you weren't shallow. I just think you're disingenuous.

As always, your passive-aggressiveness, and it's emdodiment through the use of emoticons, is amusing.

I am so tempted to use an emoticon myself. Again, the word disingenuous blinks in neon. You wouldn't know where I am with a map and a video.Sometimes I'm shallow. Sometimes I'm disingenuous. Sometimes I'm passive, sometimes aggressive, and, yep, sometimes passive-aggressive.

I'm a human being. But I'm trying to be the best one I can be.

I'm just glad I can amuse you in the process. :D (<--- Passive-aggressive use of emoticon.)

I suspect it'll take 20, but oh to be a fly on the wall.The Germans have a word for that... it's called "schadenfreude."

[estranged4life]

thought, I knew I would never name a child after myself, So there will never be a Brian jr.

I do like the following names:

Stevie Lynn (Only for a girl)
Lindsey Allen (Only for a boy)
Lindsay (Only for a girl)
Rachelle (My late cousin Wendy's middle name)
Bev (Short for Beverly, My late Mother's name)
Lesa (My older sister's name...Love the different spelling :nod: )

[sparky]

I'm a human being.



Thanks for the clarification. I was starting to think you were a character in an ABC afterschool special.

The Germans have a word for that... it's called "schadenfreude."

A vocabulary lesson ? Yeehaw. Thanks.
Actually, it wouldn't be experiencing joy at your misfortune. I'd probably feel like the weatherman who called the hailstorm.

[The Tower]

I don't see how anyone could put "selfish" and "mother" in the same sentence.
I can. I love my mother to death, but I know for a fact that my birth was a selfish act. My oldest brother was born in 1959. My other brothers came in 1961, 1963- then their were two miscarriages and then me in 1969. All five of those pregnancies were conceived with the idea of having a girl. Never happened. My mother finally adopted a girl and then realized she made a mistake, because her daughter wasn't her "daughter". My sister and my mother's relationship has been horrible- they don't even speak to each other anymore.

It would be really lovely to be able to live in a fantasy/utopia where the process of becoming a mother automatically erased the concept of selfishness. But, alas, it does not.

[strandinthewind]

I can. I love my mother to death, but I know for a fact that my birth was a selfish act. My oldest brother was born in 1959. My other brothers came in 1961, 1963- then their were two miscarriages and then me in 1969. All five of those pregnancies were conceived with the idea of having a girl. Never happened. My mother finally adopted a girl and then realized she made a mistake, because her daughter wasn't her "daughter". My sister and my mother's relationship has been horrible- they don't even speak to each other anymore.

It would be really lovely to be able to live in a fantasy/utopia where the process of becoming a mother automatically erased the concept of selfishness. But, alas, it does not.

Read "The Angel of Darkness" buy Caleb Carr, which was almost as good as "The Alienist," was was to me perfection.

[GateandGarden]

Bev (Short for Beverly, My late Mother's name)Her name is beautiful! :nod:

[estranged4life]

Her name is beautiful! :nod:


I started to cry...Man, I am an emotional wreck, But I am still trying to take baby steps, Life will never be the same ever for me or my family...All I can do is go forward :(

[sara1998]

thought, I knew I would never name a child after myself, So there will never be a Brian jr.

I do like the following names:

Stevie Lynn (Only for a girl)
Lindsey Allen (Only for a boy)
Lindsay (Only for a girl)
Rachelle (My late cousin Wendy's middle name)
Bev (Short for Beverly, My late Mother's name)
Lesa (My older sister's name...Love the different spelling :nod: )

My mother's name is Beverly, too. It's not a very common name now days.