posted
Unfortunately I've never suffered a blackout so I'm stuck remembering all those painful retched times.
Posts: 2022 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Am I the only one who thinks that what the guy did wasn't that bad? I don't know, I see people imputing a predatory motive to him that I don't think is necessarily the case.
From my perspective, guy's at a party with a girl. Everyone's drinking. They fool around, but she puts a stop to it. However, she doesn't say "No". She says "Not yet". They continue hanging out and drinking and they go to fool around again. The girl agrees, and though she later describes it as being "too drunk to stop what was tried earlier so it happens", it sounds like she goes along without raising any form of protest. Not the smoothest or noblest course of action, but hardly demonstrative of an incredibly low character.
Doesn't sound anything like as big a deal as people are making it out to be. My first impression, on reading the opening post was "Sounds like the guy didn't call her afterwards." That's just my first impression and I'm not tied to it, but I do wonder, heart, when this interpretation of the night's events became the one you held. Was it the next day or was it after being rejected by the guy later?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
I found the following aspects of the guy's behavior truly horrid:
1) In part 1, he assured her they wouldn't go further than she wanted to, and knew her reasons for stopping (she expressed interest in him as a potential relationship and didn't want mess things up with sex). He appeared to accept this, only to take advantage of her drunken state later in the evening to get what he wanted. 2) Knowing that she wanted a relationship, he proceded to have sex with her even though he did not want a relationship. He took advantage of her heart in this decision and didn't care if he hurt her. 3) He had sex with a person who he knew to be drunk. IMHO, this is a situation to be avoided for a variety of reasons, but mainly because you can't be sure the person really WANTED sex, and the implications for the other person, for oneself, and the involvement of legal and health entanglements is just too high in such situations. At the very least, he displayed extremely poor judgement (perhaps due in part to his own alcohol-induced disinhibition). At worst, he is a rapist and deliberately waited until he judged the moment to approach/attack her.
Ultimately, the question I have to ask is would you want to be this guy? Is sex with a drunk girl something to aspire to? Especially the FIRST TIME the two of you are intimate? Would you walk away from such an encounter thinking "hey, that was fun, I can't wait for the next drunken female to come along."
Would YOU feel that, knowing the woman didn't really want casual sex that evening, taking her after she was drunk was a good and honorable act?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I said Bob, I don't see the predatory motives that you're ascribing as necessarily there. I don't think framing it as "He appeared to accept this, only to take advantage of her drunken state later in the evening to get what he wanted." accurately caputres the situation. heartbeat didn't say no, she said not now. When they were messing around later (after they both had more to drink) she apparently either said yes or at least didn't say either no or not now. I don't see that this guy necessarily looks to prey on drunk girls. It's more likely to me that he benefited from heartbeat's somewhat (and how much neither we nor he can know) clouded decision making, but I think this being unintentional is at least as likely as it being intentional.
It also doesn't seem to me that the guy is closed to a relationship. He did call her up later. I can see how it's possible, in his mind, he's completely open to a relationship.
heartbeat feels rejected because guy isn't going straight into an exclusive relationship with her, which is what she wanted. I get that and I sympathize. However while, as I said, I don't think guy acted in the smartest of most honorable way, I don't see how he was some sort of predatory scum bag.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
MrS. I think you should re-read the first post. You are revising her statements in a direction that is just not warranted by the stuff she posted. I suppose we could ask.
ultimately, though, I don't think it even matters what the words were, if you think about what he really did.
So, I'll ask again, if you were in his situation and knew that this woman was "interested in you" and was drunk, would you have your first (and probably only) sexual experience with her that night? Knowing also that you didn't share her desire to explore a deeper relationship?
That IS all there in the post. He TOLD HER he didn't want a relationship.
Again, I don't know what posts you read. Maybe you could provide quotations of the pieces you think make him "open" to a relationship. Or the parts where she said "not now" instead of "no?"
Even if it was "not now" do you really get the sense that not now meant "ask me later tonight when I'm plastered?"
Seriously... you are baffling me.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob, (Keep in mind, I'm only presenting a possible interpretation of what happened. As I know very little about it, I can't say anything with much certainty. I'm offering this because I think it could quite possibly describe what happened and it seems to not have been brought up.)
I don't think I am revising her statements. heartbeat was obviously hoping for an exclusive relationship with this guy. He decided at some point that he didn't want this right now.
It doesn't have to be exclusive to be a relationship. Guy seems like he wasn't just looking for a one night stand. He called her up to go do something again.
If you assume that his thinking was "Well, I'll just wait until you get drunk and then I can take advantage of you." then yeah, he looks pretty bad, but I don't think that this is necessarily what happened. In that situation, if heartbeat stayed with the guy at that party, they were going to hook up again. It was well-neigh inevitible and he knew it, she knew it, and the rest of the people at the party knew it. They were both also drinking during this time, leading to impaired judgement.
When they left to go hook up again, I can completely see guy holding to the "We won't do anything you don't want me to do." standard. But heartbeat seemed to want to do everything that they did and she had already said a sort of yes by staying with the guy and continuing to drink. However, if she had said no during the hook up, I think the guy would have backed off (but I obviously don't know as know nothing more about the situation than was said by one of the parties).
Again, not the smartest of most honorable thing to do, but I think you need to assume that he was planning it out beforehand to csat him as the villian you seem to want to. I can easily see this whole situation developing without malicious scheming on the guy's part.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, saying yes to sex = saying yes to sex, which she apparently did.
However, she either knew or should have known that if she stayed at the party with this guy, they were going to fool around again and he was very likely to try to take things where he did before, when she told him "Not now." Knowing that this was going to happen and doing nothing to stop it and instead remaining with the guy and drinking is a kind of a yes. You can say that she was drunk at the time when they were fooling around and thus had impaired judgement, but there was a point when her judgement wasn't impaired and she chose at that point to remain in that situation and embrace alcoholic impairment. If she really didn't want to go any further, she had plenty of options she could have chosen at this point but did not. That she didn't makes her partly responsible for what did occured and also could, from a certain point of view, signal her acquiensence to what was very likely to occur
As I said, I'm only offering an alternative. I know almost nothing. I don't know how drunk she was, how drunk he was, what she actually said, how they interacted, and whatever. It's possible that he plied her with alcohol specifically to get himself a one night stand. It's also possible that she was somewhat inebriated but chose to go along with very slight impairment and only recast the situation when the guy rejected the idea of a committed relationship. I think the truth of the situation is likely not close to either of these and I was offering up one possible alternative that hadn't been raised.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't get why you keep saying she "stayed with the guy" at the party. Near as I can tell, after the first hook up they seperated and each continued to socialize at the party, but not necessarily "together." Also, you said he called her later to go do something. He didn't. She contacted him on line and asked what was going on, and he said he wasn't interested in a relationship. Not "I'm not interested in a serious relationship but we can still date." It sounded to me like he completely blew her off.
Anyway, you are still presenting a possible alternative view, but you're adding those two facts that make him look much more sympathetic that I don't think are actually in the account anywhere.
(Note to heart. . . I don't think you need to clarify or anything, I don't care how it actually happened, and I think you've got a pretty good hanfle on it now and are going to be okay. I just needed to point out that Squicky was adding those things that I didn't see you saying.)
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
LJ, I don't think heartbeat said one way or the other that she stayed with the guy or not. I'm assuming they did beecause they went and hooked up later, so I'm guessing they were interacting a lot in between hookups. I could be wrong.
As for the "relationship" thing, in her second post, heartbeat said:
quote:Also after the initial relationship conversation we didn't talk for about a week. Then he calls and is like "so you wanna hang out?" and he didn't understand why i was confused.
From a certain way of looking at things, this is being open to a relationship, just not the exclusive relationship hb was looking for and likely asked for when the guy told her he wasn't looking to get into a relationship. I can see how he didn't want to get into a serious, exclusive relationship right then but was willing to date her.
I'm relying a lot on interpretation, but I don't think I'm adding or contradicting facts.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that if one knowingly gets innebriated or otherwise incapacitated by drugs, they should be held completely responsible for what they did under the influence. They made the decision to surrender their self-control.
But that's me. I know that's not what the law says.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
The party was only 10 - 12 people, I think she said, so I'm sure she did interact with him to some extent in between. I just didn't get the feel that she was there "with" him, since they came seperately, and she said he wasn't getting her drinks and she didn't know how much he was drinking.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Except you're begging the question. Only if you assume that the guy is opportunistic going in does the situation parse as him being opportunistic. If you don't start out assum that he was scheming to take advantage of her once she got drunk, he doesn't look so bad.
Guy's persepctive (greatly condensed) could be, he hangs out with girl, they go hook up but she says she doesn't want to go so far right now, they hang out some more, they go hook up and this time she says yes. He has to be actively thinking (at a time where his judgement isn't impaired) about doing something he's pretty sure heartbeat at an important level doesn't want to do but will do if she gets drunk enough to be a scumbag.
We don't even know if guy was aware that heartbeat was in a state where her judgement was severely compromised (or in fact if she was in a state like this). For all we know, he took her assent at face value. I don't see that we're compelled to assume he had sinister motives.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:We don't even know if guy was aware that heartbeat was in a state where her judgement was severely compromised (or in fact if she was in a state like this). For all we know, he took her assent at face value. I don't see that we're compelled to assume he had sinister motives.
How many guys do you know who cannot tell when a woman they're sexually interested in is drunk, Mr. Squicky? Especially when they tried to act on their sexual interest just a little while previously?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't particularly think he was being opportunistic, but I do think he is a jerk. I don't think he thought very much about it at all. And that's the problem. If he was a "nice guy" as opposed to a "jerk" the first time they were hooking up, when she said she didn't want to have sex with him because she really liked him and was looking for more than a one-night stand, that's when he should have told her he wasn't looking for a relationship right now, so she could make her choice then to keep fooling around with him or not with that knowledge. Instead, he just said we won't go any further than you want, impying that he was also open to a relationship.
I try to be honest with the people I'm involved with, and I expecct the same from them. Now, I know he had been drinking, and maybe hadn't thought about it yet, or didn't know she was interested in him in that way. In which case, he should have figured it out before going to hook up with her again, and if he couldn't then waited. Not because I don't think you should have sex unless you're in a relationship, but because I think it's important for both parties to be on the same page. If he knew she wanted more than just sex and he didn't, and didn't tell her that, and had sex with her anyway, then he's a jerk. Not a rapist, since she didn't say no. But a cad.
Obviously, alcohol makes the communication and thoughtfulness and being on the same page much more difficult, which is one of the reasons I don't think you should hook up with someone for the first time when you're drunk. She was somewhat foolish. He isn't someone I would want to have as a friend.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:We know he was opportunistic before because of the way he treated her later.
I don't see that. Where is the evidence of his opportunistic nature?
quote:How many guys do you know who cannot tell when a woman they're sexually interested in is drunk, Mr. Squicky? Especially when they tried to act on their sexual interest just a little while previously?
I know plenty of people, myself included, who aren't conspicuously drunk until they get really drunk. It depends on the guy and the girl and also how impaired guy's perception and judgement were. I don't know what heartbeat's like when she's drunk, nor do I know how drunk she was. Was her speech slurred or was she really clumsy? I don't know. Quite possibly not.
And when guy tried to act on his sexual interest previously, heartbeat didn't say no. What she said (as I'm reading it) could be seen as "I'm open to that at some point, but not right now."
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
LJ, But I don't know that he's not open to a relationship. To me, there's a big difference between not wanting to get into an exclusive relationship with a girl right away (and what did she say during that conversation? There are plenty of things that she could have said that would have soured his interest in being in a relationship with her very quickly and/or brought out the "I'm not looking to be in relationship now." without him previously not been interested in a relationship with her) and not wanting a relationship. Based on his later actions, it sounds to me like he's willing and trying to date heartbeat, but that he's not willing to right now be as serious as she would like.
I'm not saying guy was a knight in shining armor here, but I just don't think he's necessarily as bad as people are making him out to be. My interpretation rests on, as you said, that he just didn't think.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I know plenty of people, myself included, who aren't conspicuously drunk until they get really drunk.
Really? So a friend of yours wouldn't be able to tell, after say four drinks or so, that you were drunk or at least inebrieted? Just because it's not conspicuous doesn't mean it can't be noticed.
Of course in this situation we weren't there, so we can't say for sure. Granted he's not a rapist, but I think you're skewing to the other end of the spectrum.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Really? So a friend of yours wouldn't be able to tell, after say four drinks or so, that you were drunk or at least inebrieted?
Yes. Of course, after 4 drinks, I wouldn't be inebriated, despite only drinking during special occasions the last few years. Damn my high tolerance!
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Only one or two of my closest friends can tell the difference between me at 2 drinks and me at 9 drinks.
I don't get flushed, I don't slur, I don't laugh or touch too much. At least not till I get to falling-down-drunk, a state that I pretty much avoid whenever possible.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hrm. Well, it's possible that I'm wrong-I admit my experience is anecdotal, and I do know that people can be drunk without showing the usual signs you mentioned, JT.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Noemon, I'm saying in that situation, I can easily see how what he took away from that was essentially, "Not right now."
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
We don't know for sure what she exactly said in that situation. But let's say she did make it clear that by "not right now" she wasn't saying, "I think it's too early in the night to have sex with you."
Would your impressions change?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If she had said clearly "I don't want to go any farther than this with you tonight." or some variation thereof and especially if she added a "even if I get drunk and seem to be okay with it." piece on the end, yeah, I don't think the interpretation I'm offering would fit.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, if what she actually said conveys, as she said that it did, that she didn't want to have sex with him specifically because she was interested in him, and didn't want to mess things up, I don't see how he could understand that to mean "not right now" in any way that would make it something she might be open to later that evening. Can you explain to me how he could have?
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
To say who's fault it is can only serve one purpose, to free up the other person from taking responsibility for their actions.
She should not have gotten that drunk.
That doesn't give Mr. Stud-Wanabe the right to bed any girl who can mumble an agreement.
He should not have taken advantage of her.
That doesn't give the young woman the right to get blitzed every Saturday night.
It seems luckily that in this situation the only thing harmed was her heart. And that was more harmed by his callowness afterword.
However more than one child, possibly more than one child on this board, were born from the fruits of an over horny boy and a soon to be hung-over girl.
Diseases, from Herpe's to HIV get passed around that way.
Robbery, rape--of a more brutal variety, death and disfigurement all could result.
You let your guard down long enough for him to break your heart. That means next time something else might get broken, something else not so easy to fix.
posted
Thing is, with this situation, it doesn't matter who is more at fault, really. What matters is whether or not she wants to have another similar experience. Unlike rape where a girl gets attacked in broad daylight by a perfect stranger (not much you can do about that, really), this situation, whether you call it rape or not, is easily avoidable. It does mean giving up some liberties in drinking, physical affection and flirting. It doesn't mean you can't go to parties and have fun. It does mean recognizing risky situations and avoiding them.
I'd call these risky situations: - Drinking to excess in mixed company. Yes, even when you know the people very well.
- Being alone, in the dark, in a bedroom, with a guy you're attracted to but don't want to have sex with. Even when totally sober.
This doesn't mean I think that women who engage in "risky" behavior *deserve* for bad things to happen to them, but it does mean that they shouldn't feel entirely victimized either. The only way to make sure something doesn't happen again is to try not to set up situations where the odds are decent that that something could happen. In other words, instead of looking on it as "I should be safe because he's going to behave properly.", viewing it as "I should be safe because I'm not going to put myself at unnecessary risk." empowers the woman to be in control. That doesn't mean view every guy as a potential rapist. It just means taking care of yourself.
I call it the difference between flaunting a big wad of cash, flashing it about and keeping that same wad discreetly held in a purse or wallet, only pulling out what you need when you need it. If the flaunter gets robbed, who would be surprised? Do they deserve to get robbed? No, but engaging in risky behavior does increase the odds of bad things happening. The right question is: is it worth the risk? The wrong question is: why did he do this to me? There is no good answer for that, and it's pointless anyway. It's a victim's question, not someone interested in protecting themselves. Ultimately, the one most interested in your personal safety should be you. It would be nice if it was everyone else too, but in reality, that's just not how it ends up being.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Probably not. My assesment rests on knowledge of neuro-linguistic programming and an understanding of the psyche of many guys in the current college environment.
I can't find a good link for the NLP stuff, but the Langer copy machine experiment illustrates the basic point, although awkwardly and from a bad angle. People don't listen to what follows a "because". It doesn't register unless it is specifically made to stand out. In this case, the because sounded very much like temporizing rather than a clearly and forcefully articulated reason. Throw in the situation where we have a young and horny guy and yeah, I can easily see him taking away what I said.
Also (and here's where I go all non-PC and everyone is given full permission to hate me) a lot of guys don't take girls of a certain type seriously when they talk about "relationships" especially in situations where they are obviously feeling ambilivently about sex. I've had a girl say pretty much that exact thing, which I had no problem with, and then turn around and basically jump me two days later. Likewise, a certain type of girl (or guy for that matter) uses alcohol as an excuse to do the things that they want to do.
Again, I don't know the situation, but I can easily see it as I described it.
edit: And, again, I'm not trying to justify what this guy did as right or honorable. I'm just trying to give a possible perspective into his state of mind that differs greatly from the "He's a predatory scum bag." that seems to be the majority consensus.
I don't think people were calling the guy a predatory scumbag as much they weren't very willing to make excuses for his behavior. Way back on the 1st page people were pointing out that if alcohol is an excuse for the woman, it's an excuse for the guy.
We're just not making many excuses.
I do think that there's a level of nastiness in his behavior that transcends hers, however.
And while I wouldn't care to play the blame game either, unless it were to spread it around nice and thick so everyone feels a bit more responsible than they did going into the situation.
My consistent point has been, and will continue to be that the guy is not what I would call a gentleman.
And you, MrSquicky, haven't answered the question I'll now ask for a 3rd time.
In the same situation, would you behave as he did? Or, having found yourself having behaved that way, would you feel that you had behaved in an honorable fashion and have no regrets or remorse?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again, I would like to point out that I think it's much less the fact that he slept with her when she was drunk as it is the fact that he didn't want a relationship with her afterwards.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Perhaps you've changed your view, but this seemed to me to be just about the uniform opinion before I posted.
---
Would I behave as he did? Not now, no, of course not. When I was his age, I don't know. Possibly. I don't actually have a problem with casual sex as long as both partners are physically and emotionally protected. I wouldn't have intentionally done this, but I might have done it in innocence, if the girl was throwing mixed signals. Certainly I've had girls get upset at me because I wasn't willing to go along with their plans of us having a serious relationship. I've also been told that in a few cases, my forceful personality has influenced girls to do things they were perhaps not completely comfortable with.
I do know relatively nice but clueless guys who I'm friends with that I'm pretty sure would do this now without any predatory inclinations. From the perspective that I've been offering (which is merely one possible perspective that I'm not actually tied to) the guy's main failing was that he didn't think. From this view, what happened, happened naturally as an expected consequence of events, not because of opportunitic scheming on his part.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Storm, And I'll point out again that he seems to have tried to have a relationship with her afterwards, just not the serious, exclusive relationship that she wanted.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: That doesn't give the young woman the right to get blitzed every Saturday night.
woah woah..hey now...who said anything about every saturday night. When I said I def wasn't unfamilar with the party scene ..I didn't mean to say i go drinking every weekend.
Mr.S- I never said i was looking for a exclusive relationship with this guy..right away...or at all. Prospective yes. But he never indicated to me he didn't have me as a perspective during the few times we saw each other. In fact, quite the contrary.
posted
heartbeat, errr...Am I reading you wrong that he asked you out on a date, then? Because what you said sounded like that to me.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: Again, I would like to point out that I think it's much less the fact that he slept with her when she was drunk as it is the fact that he didn't want a relationship with her afterwards.
---> "I am actually mostly upset over the fact that people exist like this. Of course i'm upset that I had sex with him, but I'm not sitting here beating myself up over it."
Posts: 82 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: "I am actually mostly upset over the fact that people exist like this. Of course i'm upset that I had sex with him, but I'm not sitting here beating myself up over it."
I have no idea what this means specifically. Sorry. Could mean anything. I had thought you said when you liked him a lot and you didn't want to have sex with him for that reason that you meant it. Are you saying that what I said was false, or no?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: I have no idea what this means specifically. Sorry. Could mean anything. I had thought you said when you liked him a lot and you didn't want to have sex with him for that reason that you meant it. Are you saying that what I said was false, or no?
I think she's saying she's over him.
Also, I agree that waiting a week or more is an indication of non-date type things. But I'm also very attention-needy, so it could just be me.
Most of the focus of the discussion in this thread has been over the sex bit. My point was that I didn't think it was the sex so much as the not wanting to ahve a relationship with her afterward part.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
I felt that way, yes (the opportunistic part), and I still do, but I also don't think I was dogpiling the guy either, eh? I mean, it's not as if I advocated calling him a rapist, which there is some precedent for, apparently, given the kinds of slogans being taught to kids these days (see prior discussion as well).
I think the problem is that you have focussed on a portion of what I and others have been saying about him, and, really, I'm not in a mood to see much of a "good" side to this person.
Even if we make all the excuses you would like us to consider, I would still consider him opportunistic.
In my day, if a woman said "no" or even "not right now" the waiting period after that before you tried again was measured not in minutes, but in effort to get to know the person and let her get to know you.
But then, even in my days of believing in non-committal sex (as an option for me personally -- I have no issue with what other adults do in this regard), I didn't think sex with total strangers (or even casual acquaintances) was a good idea.
So, at any rate, I don't think there's much of a way to call the guy anything but opportunistic. I added the expletive because I get angry with people who do that without considering the feelings of their partner.
Ultimately, I guess I wouldn't mind agreeing to disagree on this, but I have to say that far from thinking this is normal behavior, I think it is inherently wrong and risky behavior, and not the sort of thing I would tolerate in a friend of mine.
Even with alcohol as a lubricant.
Sorry. I know I've just placed myself on the far side of fuddy-duddy in saying this, but there is no way on this Earth that I would simply call this man's behavior acceptable or excusable.
I can understand it, but that doesn't make it right.
I could forgive it, but it doesn't make it right.
And I think he forfeited the right to consider himself a gentleman.
For the sake of a sexual conquest with someone he didn't care about, ultimately, I think he forfeited his honor quite cheaply.
And that DOES qualify him for epithets I have yet begun to use (even in replacement &$^# code).
Sorry, I'm not going to change my mind on this one.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I forgot to mention the one rule that is inviolate for me.
Unless he is 100% sure that someone WANTS to have sex with him, a gentleman waits.
Period.
Subsumed under this rule is that first time sexual intimacy with a person cannot happen under conditions when the person is inebriated. (in my "rulebook" even a little drunk is too much, for the first time together).
And there is absolutely NO POSSIBLE WAY that this man could KNOW that the woman in question truly WANTED to have sex with him.
Thus, having done the deed, he forfeits a bit of his humanity in the bargain.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: My point was that I didn't think it was the sex so much as the not wanting to ahve a relationship with her afterward part.
And that is accurate. Sorry i was misunderstanding what you meant by that.
I'm not over what he did. But I'm obviously not spending another minute wasteing my time on him. Learned my lesson there Posts: 82 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
