Some Thoughts On Being Amazing

There’s a graphic floating around on the Internet right now that’s kind of bugging me.

It’s a pretty enough image, don’t get me wrong. It shows a beautiful woman standing in the falling snow, with words over it. The words are all spelled correctly, there’s no extraneous “Warning, the letter S is approaching!” apostrophe where there shouldn’t be one (the prevalence of which in common use is itself an ongoing source of annoyance to your humble scribe), and it uses a lovely script font. I’m not going to bother to re-post it here, but overall it’s not a badly done bit of Photoshop.

What bugs me is what the words say. They, read, in that lovely script font:

If She’s Amazing, She’s Not Easy.
If She’s Easy, She’s Not Amazing.

And it pisses me right the fuck off.

Now, I don’t know if they mean “easy” as in “sexually promiscuous” or “easy” as in “easy to get close to.” It doesn’t really matter; both readings are pretty odious.

On the surface, I can kinda see what the artist intended, sorta, maybe. He or she was probably driving at a point that, in all fairness, is reasonable; if you think a person is amazing, you should be willing to invest in her (or him), and not necessarily to expect that a relationship will come easily or without effort. To some extent, it’s a fair point; things worth having are worth working for.

But regardless of whether or not the unknown artist intended to make that point, I don’t think it’s the point that is actually being made.

If She’s Amazing, She’s Not Easy.
If She’s Easy, She’s Not Amazing.

Taken on its most superficial level–that is, with “easy” meaning “sexually promiscuous”–it’s simply old-fashioned, sex-negative slut-shaming of the most boring and tedious sort. I’ve met some folks who are sexually “easy,” at least for the right partners, who are pretty bloody amazing, thank you very much–smart, educated, driven, successful, literate, happy, fulfilled, insightful, incisive, and on at least one occasion even quite skilled at spinning fire. To suggest that a woman’s amazingness varies directly with how tightly she keeps her legs closed is misogynistic, sure, but it’s such a banal, humdrum sort of misogyny it’s scarcely even worth talking about. Either the essential stupidity of such an attitude is glaringly self-obvious to someone, or it’s entirely inaccessible to him. Either way, it’s so lacking in subtlety or depth that it’s not even interesting.

And it doesn’t even exaggerate misogyny to the point that it becomes social commentary, making misogyny a target of sarcastic ridicule the way this graphic does1.

But I am willing to give the person who created it the benefit of the doubt, and assume that such a blatant reading of sex-negative claptrap isn’t what was intended.

I think, though I could be wrong, that rather than trying to be patriarchal and sexist, the person who created the image was trying to say “An amazing woman won’t be easy to get close to, so one should be prepared to put in the work; a woman who is easy to get close to isn’t going to be nearly as amazing.”

And even that reading is pretty fucked up, if you ask me.

If She’s Amazing, She’s Not Easy.
If She’s Easy, She’s Not Amazing.

The first thing I thought when i read this was, “easy to who?” A person who is amazing might very well be easy to get to know and to become close to, if she finds you to be amazing as well. On the surface, there seems to be a very deeply buried, tacit subtext of “I’m not terribly amazing myself, so it sure would be hard for me to get the attention of someone who is.”

And hell, sometimes being a person who takes risks, who engages the world, who is open and transparent, who is willing to run the risk of living a life unencumbered by a fortress of walls and defenses, is part of what makes a person amazing. Even my pet kitten, who lives in a world that is filled with joy and for whom every new person is a friend, knows that.

The flip side, the idea that a person who is easy to get close to won’t be amazing, is not only absurd, it’s a slap in the face to those who are amazing and who choose to live their lives openly and without fear. Writing off a person as not being sufficiently “amazing” merely because that person is easy to engage seems to me to be profoundly short-sighted.

There’s a deeper, more sinister kind of yuck buried in the sentiment as well.

If She’s Amazing, She’s Not Easy.
If She’s Easy, She’s Not Amazing.

Tucked neatly beneath the surface of this sentiment is an underlying assumption: that it is her job, as an amazing woman, not to be easy, and it is your job, and the person who is attracted to amazing women, to work to pierce that wall.

Yep, it’s the same thing we see in Chanel ads and swing clubs and women’s magazines at the grocery checkout: women are the gatekeepers, men are the pursuers. She is amazing, and her role is to make pursuit of her hard; you are the schleb who wants her, and it is your role to pursue her until you wear down her resistance. Don’t settle for second-best! Don’t take the woman who’s easy to catch! She won’t be as amazing as the woman who is.

And that kind of gender-stereotypical rolecasting is, if anything, even more corrosive than the simpler, more boring kind of misogyny in the first reading. The fact that the elegantly-dressed woman in the photo, standing out in the snow in her expensive cocktail dress, was conventionally pretty in the bland sort of Vogue-esque kind of way, sort of underscores that point a bit.

At least I think so, anyway. But then, I seem to have a statistically disproportionate number of amazing people around me, so perhaps I’m just jaded.


1 At least, I assume the Cinderella image is intended to mock misogyny. It certainly feels like social-commentary-through-comedic-exaggeration to me.

68 thoughts on “Some Thoughts On Being Amazing

  1. I haven’t seen the graphic you’ve seen. I only found this, over and over again:

    If she’s amazing, she won’t be easy.
    If she’s easy, she wont be amazing.
    If she’s worth it, you won’t give up.
    If you give up, you’re not worthy.

    I can’t find the origin, but it’s repeated on the “thinspiration” pages of teen girls.

    What if we changed the gender? Apparently some people have, and also twisted the conclusion:

    If he’s amazing, he won’t be easy. If he’s easy, he still might be amazing. If you give up, you’re either ugly or a stupid bitch.

    Well then.

  2. I haven’t seen the graphic you’ve seen. I only found this, over and over again:

    If she’s amazing, she won’t be easy.
    If she’s easy, she wont be amazing.
    If she’s worth it, you won’t give up.
    If you give up, you’re not worthy.

    I can’t find the origin, but it’s repeated on the “thinspiration” pages of teen girls.

    What if we changed the gender? Apparently some people have, and also twisted the conclusion:

    If he’s amazing, he won’t be easy. If he’s easy, he still might be amazing. If you give up, you’re either ugly or a stupid bitch.

    Well then.

  3. I view ‘easy’ as a blend of attainable and familiar. At it’s best it is physiological sort of response that ‘familiarity breeds contempt’ so that you are less inclined to want to date within your small tribal sub-unit and therefore date any of your siblings or near siblings. You cannot see how good you have it with those who already love and support you – or view them as attractive options for relationships. Taken to it’s greater extreme this is an undercut of social networks where anyone who is familiar and attainable and available is part of a known and dismissed quantity. It removes you from your support structure, your ability to bounce off those you love and trust and forces you to balance all your decision making power on your amygdala response.

  4. I view ‘easy’ as a blend of attainable and familiar. At it’s best it is physiological sort of response that ‘familiarity breeds contempt’ so that you are less inclined to want to date within your small tribal sub-unit and therefore date any of your siblings or near siblings. You cannot see how good you have it with those who already love and support you – or view them as attractive options for relationships. Taken to it’s greater extreme this is an undercut of social networks where anyone who is familiar and attainable and available is part of a known and dismissed quantity. It removes you from your support structure, your ability to bounce off those you love and trust and forces you to balance all your decision making power on your amygdala response.

  5. It reminds me, tangentially, of the time I once complained to you that I was accused of being “high maintenance”. You replied “You’re not high maintenance! It’s easy not to piss you off – don’t be an asshole!”

    I had a similar conversation with . I have also been accused of being “easy” (i.e. sexually promiscuous) by coworkers (usually female), but when charged to name even a single sexual partner of mine, they cannot. Although why it’s important continues to escape me.

    I’ve had some men chasing after me for more than 2 decades, and I’ve had some men in my bed after knowing them a few days. I am both easy and amazing … if my partner is too. If he is not, then I am very hard and unyielding, which isn’t usually considered “amazing” in the positive sense.

    As far as I’m concerned, if I have to work *that* hard at getting to know someone, either there’s nothing worth knowing, or he’s trying to hide it for a reason.

    My ex once tried to date a girl he found attractive. She was very ambiguous about whether she liked him and gave him a lot of mixed signals. Eventually, he came right out and asked her if she was interested in him or not. She said “well, it’s all about the chase, isn’t it?” still not answering the question.

    He said “if I have to chase someone, it means she’s running away from me. What part of that am I supposed to find attractive?”

    He had his faults, but that was a pretty good line, IMO.

    • Oh, and the last time I checked, every guy I knew who had to coax sex out of a woman grew tired of the coaxing eventually & took a blow to the self-esteem. But the women who were enthusiastic and adventurous in bed remained among their most interesting and highly prized sex partners.

      • I think it really does boil down to not just the chase, but the capture. THIS is the part that he was missing.

        Obviously, this was not meant that the chase was so attractive, but the reward for the effort was. If the chase is so easy, then the reward (while nice) is not enjoyed as much. It’s the matter of throwing down the prey, blowing her mind, and then saying, “NOW you’ve been had.”

        This may be offensive to all you “slitches”, but I would like to mention that a woman who is too easy may not necessarily be a slut, but there’s not much to brag about when you successfully shoot a fish in a barrel. All you get is a fishy smelling wrecked piece of trash.

  6. It reminds me, tangentially, of the time I once complained to you that I was accused of being “high maintenance”. You replied “You’re not high maintenance! It’s easy not to piss you off – don’t be an asshole!”

    I had a similar conversation with . I have also been accused of being “easy” (i.e. sexually promiscuous) by coworkers (usually female), but when charged to name even a single sexual partner of mine, they cannot. Although why it’s important continues to escape me.

    I’ve had some men chasing after me for more than 2 decades, and I’ve had some men in my bed after knowing them a few days. I am both easy and amazing … if my partner is too. If he is not, then I am very hard and unyielding, which isn’t usually considered “amazing” in the positive sense.

    As far as I’m concerned, if I have to work *that* hard at getting to know someone, either there’s nothing worth knowing, or he’s trying to hide it for a reason.

    My ex once tried to date a girl he found attractive. She was very ambiguous about whether she liked him and gave him a lot of mixed signals. Eventually, he came right out and asked her if she was interested in him or not. She said “well, it’s all about the chase, isn’t it?” still not answering the question.

    He said “if I have to chase someone, it means she’s running away from me. What part of that am I supposed to find attractive?”

    He had his faults, but that was a pretty good line, IMO.

  7. Oh, and the last time I checked, every guy I knew who had to coax sex out of a woman grew tired of the coaxing eventually & took a blow to the self-esteem. But the women who were enthusiastic and adventurous in bed remained among their most interesting and highly prized sex partners.

  8. awesome you!
    It’s so true that you can be easily had *and* an amazing & astounding person! *hugsyou*
    I like how you think franklin- keep bewing you kay? ๐Ÿ˜‰

  9. awesome you!
    It’s so true that you can be easily had *and* an amazing & astounding person! *hugsyou*
    I like how you think franklin- keep bewing you kay? ๐Ÿ˜‰

  10. A more charitable reading might be “high maintenance is probably worth it”, from a guy overgeneralizing his own tastes.

    I really think it’s the first reading, though, because people are mostly dumb like that.

  11. A more charitable reading might be “high maintenance is probably worth it”, from a guy overgeneralizing his own tastes.

    I really think it’s the first reading, though, because people are mostly dumb like that.

  12. If It’s An Overgeneralization*, It’s Probably Not Meaningful.
    If It’s Meaningful, It’s Probably Not An Overgeneralization.

    *including this overgeneralization

  13. If It’s An Overgeneralization*, It’s Probably Not Meaningful.
    If It’s Meaningful, It’s Probably Not An Overgeneralization.

    *including this overgeneralization

  14. I think it really does boil down to not just the chase, but the capture. THIS is the part that he was missing.

    Obviously, this was not meant that the chase was so attractive, but the reward for the effort was. If the chase is so easy, then the reward (while nice) is not enjoyed as much. It’s the matter of throwing down the prey, blowing her mind, and then saying, “NOW you’ve been had.”

    This may be offensive to all you “slitches”, but I would like to mention that a woman who is too easy may not necessarily be a slut, but there’s not much to brag about when you successfully shoot a fish in a barrel. All you get is a fishy smelling wrecked piece of trash.

  15. There’s all sorts of unhealthy no matter how you read it.

    If you know that personality traits you find attractive go along with being high-maintenance (unfortunately true for me — I tend to like women who are way more emotional than I am), you can make the judgment for yourself whether it’s worth it. But if you admit to someone you’re making a judgment like that, you get into the stuff you said. Or if you don’t, you’re laying a foundation of dishonesty.

    Perhaps this is an argument for the unexamined life…
    ——————————————————-
    I think the original image really is virgin/whore bullshit, though.

  16. There’s all sorts of unhealthy no matter how you read it.

    If you know that personality traits you find attractive go along with being high-maintenance (unfortunately true for me — I tend to like women who are way more emotional than I am), you can make the judgment for yourself whether it’s worth it. But if you admit to someone you’re making a judgment like that, you get into the stuff you said. Or if you don’t, you’re laying a foundation of dishonesty.

    Perhaps this is an argument for the unexamined life…
    ——————————————————-
    I think the original image really is virgin/whore bullshit, though.

  17. Exactly what I wanted to say. It is a very old psychological principle, which ruthlessly works in virtually all domains of our life. That which is harder to get, we percieve as being better. Remember the experiment with wine tasters whose brains released more dopamine when they tasted the more expensive wine, causing them to rate it higher (even though it was the exact same wine)? That’s one example. Setting higher price to bait consumers is another. Unfortunately, as a manipulation, it just works. That’s how our brains work: if you make someone work for something, they value it more. (Obviously, when they are familiar with the manipulation, it backfires…)

  18. Exactly what I wanted to say. It is a very old psychological principle, which ruthlessly works in virtually all domains of our life. That which is harder to get, we percieve as being better. Remember the experiment with wine tasters whose brains released more dopamine when they tasted the more expensive wine, causing them to rate it higher (even though it was the exact same wine)? That’s one example. Setting higher price to bait consumers is another. Unfortunately, as a manipulation, it just works. That’s how our brains work: if you make someone work for something, they value it more. (Obviously, when they are familiar with the manipulation, it backfires…)

  19. God I hate that dance! I repeatedly have to remind partners that, if I walk away from an argument, it’s not because I want them to chase after me, it’s because I need a break before I say something we’ll both regret, and it is in their best interest to let me go.

    • Absolutely!

      I also have that with the “chase.” It seems that saying no means, to a lot of people, “chase me some more” and/or “I’m playing hard to get.” If I am moving away, it’s because I don’t want to be with you.

      When I walk away from a fight, I try to say in my most level tone “I need some time on my own. Please let me go away for a bit, so we can talk about this.” When I get chased, then, I really struggle to keep my cool.

  20. God I hate that dance! I repeatedly have to remind partners that, if I walk away from an argument, it’s not because I want them to chase after me, it’s because I need a break before I say something we’ll both regret, and it is in their best interest to let me go.

  21. Obviously, you’re no prize.

    J> Fuck you.

    Nice.

    J> The part he was missing was the idea that she is a fucking prize to be “had”, and that winning her was worth bragging rights to his buddies.

    Objectification. Really not what I was aiming at, but if one had personal issues, and had been made an object of such in the past, I can see where someone would make that assumption. I believe the OP (your ex?) indicated a lack of understanding as to what was attractive about chasing. Obviously, nothing. The chase is just a prelude…it’s groundwork, the same work you have to do before you achieve anything worthwhile. If you’ve ever cooked, you know that cooking is the fun part…shopping for groceries is the pain…but you have to do that, first. The fact that you did the entire thing makes what you eat more enjoyable. You did the work, you enjoy the fruits. You can feel satisfaction at how your efforts pay off.

    The PERSON is not the PRIZE. That you are able to BE with the person, after pursuing that relationship…THAT is the prize. If you work harder to get there, yes, it’s flattering, but it also represents effort you put forth to be there. It makes obtaining the end result (the PRIZE) that much better. Honestly, if you can’t understand what I’m getting at here, you must be a liberal who never worked and had everything granted to them on the basis of “equal results” instead of “equal opportunities”.

    Yes, it’s nice to be with someone, even in an “instant gratification” sort of way (especially for one who allows their baser instincts to dictate their habits). But if some effort were required, would it not “sweeten the pot”?

    J> Frankly, there’s a lot of reason why he and I are exes, but this is not one of them.

    The way you jumped to his defense–or was it jumping to your own defense?–it sounds as if you still have baggage attached to this “previous” relationship.

    J>I am not a fucking prize to be won.

    Yes, obviously. I already agreed with you.

    J> I am a goddamn human fucking being, and anyone who thinks the difficulty of the “chase” is indicative of my worth is a fucking asshat who deserves to be mocked for his lack of conquests.

    Again, your personal issues are none of my concern. My point was that the RESULT, not the PERSON, is the prize. I never said that the “difficulty of the ‘chase'” is indicative of your worth. I said that the reward was for the effort of the chase. And you’re right, anyone who thinks that a woman is a “prize” to be won IS a “fucking asshat” (an immature one at that), and no doubt will be ridiculed either for his lack of conquests or for his inability to play on a level, normal playing field due to his arrogant, pompous attitude toward women.

    I also said that if something was too easy, it wasn’t worth having. This is simple human nature, that if you are given something you will probably not care for it nearly as much as something you had to work for and earn. (Case in point: Public housing.)

    And yes, I realize I used the word “brag”, and that was an unfortunate choice of words which apparently touched an exposed nerve of yours. To mollify you, I will restate: “You don’t have much to be proud of, when your path was so easy.” It smacks of the “spoiled rich brat” who is so proud of the car that daddy bought him…the same “fucking asshat” referenced above.

    I also realize I expressed my satisfaction in terms of “Now I have been successful, and now I will possess you”, but again, not any more than if I hadn’t said it that way…the satisfaction is merely hieghtened by realizing the fruition of the effort. You can’t exactly say, “I have been successful in my efforts to be with you” if you hadn’t made much of an effort. In fact, you can’t even really say, “Now I will possess you”. You made no effort to possess–it was given to you.

    Now, if you’re saying that someone who will indiscriminately sleep with you right away has the same satisfaction as a person you will need to get to know and learn about first (“chase”), I disagree. I have a problem with it for two reasons: it’s unsafe, in a very big way, and it’s personally not very satisfying. If you’re just going to sleep with strangers, stick to toys. It’s more sanitary. “Easy” to me still has a bad connotation, just for those two reasons.

    • Re: Obviously, you’re no prize.

      Objectification. Really not what I was aiming at, but if one had personal issues, and had been made an object of such in the past, I can see where someone would make that assumption.

      Actually, if that’s not what you were aiming at, I suggest you don’t say things such as this:

      there’s not much to brag about when you successfully shoot a fish in a barrel. All you get is a fishy smelling wrecked piece of trash.

      It doesn’t take any “personal issues” or past experience to read what you typed there as pure ass-hattery that was offensive and dehumanizing to anyone. But then again, you’ve clearly shown through your consistent blaming others for mis-hearing you or for being “oversensitive” that you don’t have an ounces worth of understanding beyond what sits on the tip of your nose. Either way, you’re still wrong.

      I believe the OP (your ex?) indicated a lack of understanding as to what was attractive about chasing.

      I believe that your reading comprehension skills must be challenged. Either that or you tend to assume much into what you read. Actually, given the nature of your replies and how instead of arguing points, you like to point out that other people must have “personal issues” if they disagree with you, the evidence points to the latter. You assume much. The OP is not her ex, and there is nothing in what she wrote to indicate that beyond your assumptions.

      The PERSON is not the PRIZE. That you are able to BE with the person, after pursuing that relationship…THAT is the prize. If you work harder to get there, yes, it’s flattering, but it also represents effort you put forth to be there. It makes obtaining the end result (the PRIZE) that much better.

      I have often found that when I meet someone who is a good match for me, the sexual chemistry blossoms between us in a beautifully effortless way. By your “logic” (and by “logic” I mean some pretty conventional sex-negative views informed by Puritanical ideals of sex being dirty if it’s anything other than between a husband and wife- I’m sure you’ll have a field day thinking this is just tripe from liberals who have never worked at anything), that effortless chemistry should be held back and denied between me and my potential partner because somehow the relationship would be more valuable if I made he or she work for it?

      So basically, you’re saying that people should stifle any natural attraction and chemistry because clearly if it’s so natural and effortless, it must cheapen the relationship. Therefore, in order to add value, one must pretend that such chemistry and attraction isn’t as available. So being dishonest about yourself and your feelings makes a relationship more of a prize.

      Right.

      Hope that works out well for you.

      (and before you say “waah…that’s not what I’m saying!”, actually it IS what you’re saying and what happens when we take your “logic” to it’s natural conclusion. If that’s not what you mean, then find another way to say it)

      Unless you view relationships as commodities. Then maybe that all fits in. I view the love of another person as a gift they freely offer me and I do what I can to be worthy of that gift. I don’t make someone love me by earning it or somehow feel entitled to someone’s love because I “worked” for it. It’s their choice and their gift to give. The “work” I do is to be the kind of person worthy of such a gift. did a great post a while back about nice guys. You should look for it. It’s pretty relevant.

      Your reasoning of relationships starts to make it seem like the opposite. That doing the “work” somehow entitles you to the prize or relationship or whatever. You may not see this, but that smacks of possessiveness and ownership over another.

      The way you jumped to his defense–or was it jumping to your own defense?–it sounds as if you still have baggage attached to this “previous” relationship.

      Yet another example of bringing up irrelevant personal assumptions in lieu of actually addressing the points made. Nice one.

      (note: deleted and reposted to fix a bad mark up)

      • Re: Obviously, you’re no prize.

        JM> Objectification. Really not what I was aiming at, but if one had personal issues, and had been made an object of such in the past, I can see where someone would make that assumption.

        SC> Actually, if that’s not what you were aiming at, I suggest you don’t say things such as this:

        “JM>…there’s not much to brag about when you successfully shoot a fish in a barrel. All you get is a fishy smelling wrecked piece of trash.”

        SC> It doesn’t take any “personal issues” or past experience to read what you typed there as pure ass-hattery that was offensive and dehumanizing to anyone. But then again, you’ve clearly shown through your consistent blaming others for mis-hearing you or for being “oversensitive” that you don’t have an ounces worth of understanding beyond what sits on the tip of your nose. Either way, you’re still wrong.

        It doesn’t take “personal issues” or past experience to overreact or declare “ass-hattery”? Can I get a “fuck you”, again? Oh, sorry, in your world, I guess that’s not overreacting. Moreover, your own “I don’t hear you I don’t hear you…well, that wasn’t what you meant anyway, you don’t know what you’re talking about” attitude belies your own issues, those in which you have already decided you don’t want to hear anything except your own opinion, and anyone who isn’t like you must be ignorant and therefore is automatically wrong. Clearly, all you deserve on this one is a “Whatever, lady.” You picked the viewpoint of Objectification, all I said was that if you are willing to take whatever you can get, or take the easy road, if you’d be willing to settle for less…then what you get is going to be LESS. My analogy about shooting fish in the barrel combined with “getting less” equals fishy smelling piece of trash. You take offense? If you were the one who compared yourself (or her) with a smelly piece of trash, then that wasn’t me being insulting. That one is on you. Echo: “Whatever, lady.” I think you are the one who owes her the apology.

        JM> I believe the OP (your ex?) indicated a lack of understanding as to what was attractive about chasing.

        SC>I believe that your reading comprehension skills must be challenged. Either that or you tend to assume much into what you read. Actually, given the nature of your replies and how instead of arguing points, you like to point out that other people must have “personal issues” if they disagree with you, the evidence points to the latter. You assume much. The OP is not her ex, and there is nothing in what she wrote to indicate that beyond your assumptions.

        No? Hmm…let’s take a look at the original post:

        “My ex once tried to date a girl he found attractive.”

        “He said ‘if I have to chase someone, it means she’s running away from me. What part of that am I supposed to find attractive?'”

        I suppose that it might mean something else, but if I take from that sentence “her ex wanted to know what is attractive about chasing”, that’s hardly a reason to call my reading comprehension skills challenged…oh, unless you’re just looking to be vindictive and condescendingly snarky…which you were, so again, you get a “Whatever, Lady”. And let’s see…what else did you meow about here…oh, yes, a little bit of the kettle calling the pot black. If I’m not like you, obviously I don’t understand anything, and I must be “challenged”, right? “Whatever, lady.”

      • Re: Obviously, you’re no prize.

        JM> I believe the OP (your ex?) indicated a lack of understanding as to what was attractive about chasing.

        SC>I believe that your reading comprehension skills must be challenged. Either that or you tend to assume much into what you read. Actually, given the nature of your replies and how instead of arguing points, you like to point out that other people must have “personal issues” if they disagree with you, the evidence points to the latter. You assume much. The OP is not her ex, and there is nothing in what she wrote to indicate that beyond your assumptions.

        No? Hmm…let’s take a look at the original post:

        “My ex once tried to date a girl he found attractive.”

        “He said ‘if I have to chase someone, it means she’s running away from me. What part of that am I supposed to find attractive?'”

        I suppose that it might mean something else, but if I take from that sentence “her ex wanted to know what is attractive about chasing”, that’s hardly a reason to call my reading comprehension skills challenged…oh, unless you’re just looking to be vindictive and condescendingly snarky…which you were, so again, you get a “Whatever, Lady”. And let’s see…what else did you meow about here…oh, yes, a little bit of the kettle calling the pot black. If I’m not like you, obviously I don’t understand anything, and I must be “challenged”, right? “Whatever, lady.”

        JM> The PERSON is not the PRIZE. That you are able to BE with the person, after pursuing that relationship…THAT is the prize. If you work harder to get there, yes, it’s flattering, but it also represents effort you put forth to be there. It makes obtaining the end result (the PRIZE) that much better.

        SC> I have often found Paraphrase: …that I can meet someone and get wet for them easily.

        SC> By your “logic” Paraphrase: …I think you are a tight-ass conservative who doesn’t believe in letting his sexual desires run his life or override his better judgement. I am a “free thinker” and I don’t have a problem with letting my sexual desires run my life or override my better judgement, and I believe that it doesn’t matter how easy I am, because I don’t care if the rest of the world sees me as a slut…I’m getting laid. I see no reason to deny my baser sexual urges, nor do I believe that sex gets any better if you make some effort to pursue a relationship for a hookup every now and then. (And based on the turnover in your sex life, why would you bother?)

        SC> So basically, you’re saying that people should stifle any natural attraction and chemistry because clearly if it’s so natural and effortless, it must cheapen the relationship. Therefore, in order to add value, one must pretend that such chemistry and attraction isn’t as available. So being dishonest about yourself and your feelings makes a relationship more of a prize.

        Actually, you’re addressing a different thing. I was referring to the chase, which is different than when “sexual chemistry blossoms between us in a beautifully effortless way”, a laughably ridiculous way to say: “We are both horny enough that we get wet right away and we just go straight to bumping uglies”. I wasn’t even talking about that. (“blossom” LMAO! Yes, you are obviously better than just getting horny and finding/being an easy lay, right?) It’s not about finding someone random who is also horny…it’s about what happens when the other person isn’t horny yet. Maybe you’re not getting it because you’re not a guy, or it’s because whoever the original person was who was chasing wasn’t really a guy.

        SC> Right.

        No, seriously.

        SC> Hope that works out well for you.

        SC> (and before you say “waah…that’s not what I’m saying!”, actually it IS what you’re saying and what happens when we take your “logic” to it’s natural conclusion. If that’s not what you mean, then find another way to say it)

        Well, obviously, since I don’t know what I’m talking about and it’s actually ME who is “challenged” far be it from me to explain that “the chase” is different from “getting laid”. Echo: Whatever, lady.

      • Re: Obviously, you’re no prize.

        SC> Unless you view relationships as commodities. Then maybe that all fits in. I view the love of another person as a gift they freely offer me and I do what I can to be worthy of that gift. I don’t make someone love me by earning it or somehow feel entitled to someone’s love because I “worked” for it. It’s their choice and their gift to give. The “work” I do is to be the kind of person worthy of such a gift. [info]tacit did a great post a while back about nice guys. You should look for it. It’s pretty relevant.

        Holy crap, after a while all this butterflies and unicorns fluff you use gets tough to read. How to sum up…ok, everything you said above, I agree with. Oh, and I did read Turtle’s post on “nice guys”, and I agreed with everything there, too.

        But…BUT…just because you make getting laid sound all flowery and beautiful does not change that all you are doing is just plain indulging your baser desires. You do it to get laid, not because you are in some beautiful garden with waterfalls and rainbows glistening in the water mist…no. You are bumping uglies. You need to face that.

        If you find a guy who’s horny and you are horny too, it’s not “blossoming” whatever-whatever. You’re getting laid, and you’re doing it the easiest way you can.

        So stop trying to make it sound like it’s beautiful or whatever, it’s not. It’s getting fucked, it’s not all “goodness and light”, and especially not if you have to throw in some sort of perversions on top of it, like introducing pain, or humiliation (or whatever other things you do to add something…to something which should be special WITHOUT any of that). If you get laid whenever the urge strikes, then what’s special about it? THAT is the reason why you have to gussy it up with expressions like “blossoming”…when all you’re doing is getting laid, and it happens so often that there is nothing special about it.

        It is ironic that you call it a “gift”, while at the same time you insinuate that I view relationships as commodities” … well, if a “gift” isn’t a commodity which can be packaged and traded, and RE-GIFTED, then I don’t know what is. Oh, and one more thing…gifts can be AWARDED to someone who attempts to be worthy of that reward…like you said you do. Oh, are you innocent of influencing someone to give you that gift?

        SC> Your reasoning of relationships starts to make it seem like the opposite. That doing the “work” somehow entitles you to the prize or relationship or whatever.

        See above. I said that working to achieve the relationship is a reward of it’s own, not that the relationship was the reward. You insist on doing flawed math.

        SC> You may not see this, but that smacks of possessiveness and ownership over another.

        Guilty as charged. FWIW, she is just as possessive of me. Oh, no…are we not “enlightened” enough? Do we not sleep around enough to be enlightened? Do you pity me now, for my successful family? Save it, sister.

        You see, I’m in the majority, and as the informally self-appointed representative of the mundane, I’m here to tell you: if you think you’re not a horndog…if you think it’s “innocent and beautiful” that you get laid at the drop of a hat..if you’re that “easy”…you’re fooling yourself to believe that society at large doesn’t call you a slut.

        But that’s cool…obviously, I don’t know what I’m talking about, and if…how did you put it? …if you meet someone who is a good match for you, and the sexual chemistry blossoms between you in a beautifully effortless way…then that is ok, and it’s not being a slut, right? Because you added flowers, rainbows and unicorns, it’s different, right?

      • Re: Obviously, you’re no prize.

        JM>The way you jumped to his defense–or was it jumping to your own defense?–it sounds as if you still have baggage attached to this “previous” relationship.

        SC> Yet another example of bringing up irrelevant personal assumptions in lieu of actually addressing the points made. Nice one.

        So, because you overreacted and I called you out on it…because your overreaction colored everything you said after that…it’s irrelevant? Because immediately after that, you assumed that it wasn’t you who was wrong, it was me, and I didn’t know what I was talking about, and it was ME who was no longer addressing the point. Then you got vindictive and snarky (and confused) and tried to justify your own behavior by misinterpreting and picking apart my post.

        Two issues here, one is that you think that because you’re living in the land of unicorns and butterflies, and you describe bumping uglies with random strangers (and the somewhat-known) with flowery expressions that you’re different from others who ARE easy and who ARE sluts. (But then, THEY are defined by the predators who prey upon them…and then discard them. Those who are the prey and the predators in that instance, understand what they are dealing with, and they don’t attempt to fool themselves with pretty adjectives and adverbs.)

        The other issue is that you can’t differentiate between the “Reward of the effort put in to the chase” with the “Focus of the effort put in to the chase”. The first is purely abstract, it is it’s own reward, and there is nothing wrong with being satisfied that your efforts came to fruition. The second is when you consider yourself DESERVING of something because you expended the effort. The first HEIGHTENS your experience when you DO get laid. The second detracts from it by turning it into a “I deserve this” instead of “I worked hard at this and I’m glad I didn’t give up”.

        What you describe is Objectification and accuse me of that crime when you don’t even understand the original point. You claim that it’s a “gift” and not a commodity, when a gift is EASILY turned into a commodity.

        If you STILL don’t understand, then really…don’t bother to respond, because I have explained it twice. If you don’t get it now, then YOU are the one who has “challenged” reading comprehension skills.

    • Re: Obviously, you’re no prize.

      I never said that the “difficulty of the ‘chase'” is indicative of your worth. I said that the reward was for the effort of the chase.

      Refer to the “fishy smelling wrecked piece of trash” comment if you really think you never said anything indicative of the worth of a person being pursued and it’s relative ease or not. You actually did say that. Whether you meant it or not is a whole other story, but the actual rules of the English language, not someone’s “oversensitivity” is what yields that interpretation. So either own up to what you said or brush up on your expressive writing skills.

      Now, if you’re saying that someone who will indiscriminately sleep with you right away has the same satisfaction as a person you will need to get to know and learn about first (“chase”), I disagree. I have a problem with it for two reasons: it’s unsafe, in a very big way, and it’s personally not very satisfying. If you’re just going to sleep with strangers, stick to toys. It’s more sanitary. “Easy” to me still has a bad connotation, just for those two reasons.

      You seem to be confusing ease with indiscriminate. You have created a false dichotomy. Simply because a person may choose to sleep with people quickly or even if they choose to sleep with a lot of people, this does not automatically make them “indiscriminate”. And what you’re describing has nothing to do with a relationship being easy. It’s just another conflated view of people who enjoy sex as being unsafe and unsanitary. Again, you assume much. I’m not sure if it’s worth arguing those assumptions since you seem pretty attached to them.

      Either way, a person who makes a strong connection with someone and that connection includes sex, and that connection builds and blossoms in a short period of time- well, that’s kind of beautiful. You are assuming that people can’t do such a thing and be safe and responsible at the same time. Maybe it’s just a kind of responsibility you can’t handle. I know many who can.

      • Re: Obviously, you’re no prize.

        “JM>I never said that the “difficulty of the ‘chase'” is indicative of your worth. I said that the reward was for the effort of the chase.”

        SC> Refer to the “fishy smelling wrecked piece of trash” comment if you really think you never said anything indicative of the worth of a person being pursued and it’s relative ease or not. You actually did say that. Whether you meant it or not is a whole other story, but the actual rules of the English language, not someone’s “oversensitivity” is what yields that interpretation. So either own up to what you said or brush up on your expressive writing skills.

        One thousand apologies, if not all of us got a useless “Liberal Arts” degree in Bayberry Candle-making or Macrame. My degree is in electronics, not creative writing…not even technical writing. Also, for the record, I was merely extending an analogy…if you got offended by assigning it to yourself, that’s on you. THAT would be a case of “oversensitivity”…but if you’re only interested in exhonorating yourself from the charge, I’ll let it slide. I don’t care anyway.

        “JM> Now, if you’re saying that someone who will indiscriminately sleep with you right away has the same satisfaction as a person you will need to get to know and learn about first (“chase”), I disagree. I have a problem with it for two reasons: it’s unsafe, in a very big way, and it’s personally not very satisfying. If you’re just going to sleep with strangers, stick to toys. It’s more sanitary. “Easy” to me still has a bad connotation, just for those two reasons.”

        SC> You seem to be confusing ease with indiscriminate. You have created a false dichotomy. Simply because a person may choose to sleep with people quickly or even if they choose to sleep with a lot of people, this does not automatically make them “indiscriminate”. And what you’re describing has nothing to do with a relationship being easy. It’s just another conflated view of people who enjoy sex as being unsafe and unsanitary. Again, you assume much. I’m not sure if it’s worth arguing those assumptions since you seem pretty attached to them.

        SC> Either way, a person who makes a strong connection with someone and that connection includes sex, and that connection builds and blossoms in a short period of time- well, that’s kind of beautiful. You are assuming that people can’t do such a thing and be safe and responsible at the same time. Maybe it’s just a kind of responsibility you can’t handle. I know many who can.

        Ok, if you want to use that liberal arts degree to hide behind, and dance around “easy”, that’s up to you. You’ve already proved to me that you hide behind flowery adverbs and adjectives to disguise the baser elements of what you do, so it’s no surprise that you would “pull a Clinton” and sidestep the description of what you’re really doing. (And even if proven, you’d probably do the thing that most liberals did when he was found guilty: “It doesn’t matter.”)

        I’m not the one who’s confused, believe me. If you choose to disregard what society at large has defined and classified, that’s up to you…it’s your right, obviously.

        On the other hand, if you choose to ignore the obvious, don’t go overreacting when someone points out that you’re fooling yourself. If you think it’s safe, and that you are being “responsible” when you sleep around, don’t get upset when someone points out that you are at risk, and you are sleeping around. Although…you seem to be pretty attached to your self-deception and insist on clinging to your flowery expressions because you think it makes you different, so I’m not sure it’s worth arguing with you about them.

        • Re: Obviously, you’re no prize.

          IN fact, I think most of the people who are posting here, are deceiving themselves…although, at least they do not consider it “beautiful and wonderful” every time they get laid.

  22. Obviously, you’re no prize.

    J> Fuck you.

    Nice.

    J> The part he was missing was the idea that she is a fucking prize to be “had”, and that winning her was worth bragging rights to his buddies.

    Objectification. Really not what I was aiming at, but if one had personal issues, and had been made an object of such in the past, I can see where someone would make that assumption. I believe the OP (your ex?) indicated a lack of understanding as to what was attractive about chasing. Obviously, nothing. The chase is just a prelude…it’s groundwork, the same work you have to do before you achieve anything worthwhile. If you’ve ever cooked, you know that cooking is the fun part…shopping for groceries is the pain…but you have to do that, first. The fact that you did the entire thing makes what you eat more enjoyable. You did the work, you enjoy the fruits. You can feel satisfaction at how your efforts pay off.

    The PERSON is not the PRIZE. That you are able to BE with the person, after pursuing that relationship…THAT is the prize. If you work harder to get there, yes, it’s flattering, but it also represents effort you put forth to be there. It makes obtaining the end result (the PRIZE) that much better. Honestly, if you can’t understand what I’m getting at here, you must be a liberal who never worked and had everything granted to them on the basis of “equal results” instead of “equal opportunities”.

    Yes, it’s nice to be with someone, even in an “instant gratification” sort of way (especially for one who allows their baser instincts to dictate their habits). But if some effort were required, would it not “sweeten the pot”?

    J> Frankly, there’s a lot of reason why he and I are exes, but this is not one of them.

    The way you jumped to his defense–or was it jumping to your own defense?–it sounds as if you still have baggage attached to this “previous” relationship.

    J>I am not a fucking prize to be won.

    Yes, obviously. I already agreed with you.

    J> I am a goddamn human fucking being, and anyone who thinks the difficulty of the “chase” is indicative of my worth is a fucking asshat who deserves to be mocked for his lack of conquests.

    Again, your personal issues are none of my concern. My point was that the RESULT, not the PERSON, is the prize. I never said that the “difficulty of the ‘chase'” is indicative of your worth. I said that the reward was for the effort of the chase. And you’re right, anyone who thinks that a woman is a “prize” to be won IS a “fucking asshat” (an immature one at that), and no doubt will be ridiculed either for his lack of conquests or for his inability to play on a level, normal playing field due to his arrogant, pompous attitude toward women.

    I also said that if something was too easy, it wasn’t worth having. This is simple human nature, that if you are given something you will probably not care for it nearly as much as something you had to work for and earn. (Case in point: Public housing.)

    And yes, I realize I used the word “brag”, and that was an unfortunate choice of words which apparently touched an exposed nerve of yours. To mollify you, I will restate: “You don’t have much to be proud of, when your path was so easy.” It smacks of the “spoiled rich brat” who is so proud of the car that daddy bought him…the same “fucking asshat” referenced above.

    I also realize I expressed my satisfaction in terms of “Now I have been successful, and now I will possess you”, but again, not any more than if I hadn’t said it that way…the satisfaction is merely hieghtened by realizing the fruition of the effort. You can’t exactly say, “I have been successful in my efforts to be with you” if you hadn’t made much of an effort. In fact, you can’t even really say, “Now I will possess you”. You made no effort to possess–it was given to you.

    Now, if you’re saying that someone who will indiscriminately sleep with you right away has the same satisfaction as a person you will need to get to know and learn about first (“chase”), I disagree. I have a problem with it for two reasons: it’s unsafe, in a very big way, and it’s personally not very satisfying. If you’re just going to sleep with strangers, stick to toys. It’s more sanitary. “Easy” to me still has a bad connotation, just for those two reasons.

  23. Re: Obviously, you’re no prize.

    Objectification. Really not what I was aiming at, but if one had personal issues, and had been made an object of such in the past, I can see where someone would make that assumption.

    Actually, if that’s not what you were aiming at, I suggest you don’t say things such as this:

    there’s not much to brag about when you successfully shoot a fish in a barrel. All you get is a fishy smelling wrecked piece of trash.

    It doesn’t take any “personal issues” or past experience to read what you typed there as pure ass-hattery that was offensive and dehumanizing to anyone. But then again, you’ve clearly shown through your consistent blaming others for mis-hearing you or for being “oversensitive” that you don’t have an ounces worth of understanding beyond what sits on the tip of your nose. Either way, you’re still wrong.

    I believe the OP (your ex?) indicated a lack of understanding as to what was attractive about chasing.

    I believe that your reading comprehension skills must be challenged. Either that or you tend to assume much into what you read. Actually, given the nature of your replies and how instead of arguing points, you like to point out that other people must have “personal issues” if they disagree with you, the evidence points to the latter. You assume much. The OP is not her ex, and there is nothing in what she wrote to indicate that beyond your assumptions.

    The PERSON is not the PRIZE. That you are able to BE with the person, after pursuing that relationship…THAT is the prize. If you work harder to get there, yes, it’s flattering, but it also represents effort you put forth to be there. It makes obtaining the end result (the PRIZE) that much better.

    I have often found that when I meet someone who is a good match for me, the sexual chemistry blossoms between us in a beautifully effortless way. By your “logic” (and by “logic” I mean some pretty conventional sex-negative views informed by Puritanical ideals of sex being dirty if it’s anything other than between a husband and wife- I’m sure you’ll have a field day thinking this is just tripe from liberals who have never worked at anything), that effortless chemistry should be held back and denied between me and my potential partner because somehow the relationship would be more valuable if I made he or she work for it?

    So basically, you’re saying that people should stifle any natural attraction and chemistry because clearly if it’s so natural and effortless, it must cheapen the relationship. Therefore, in order to add value, one must pretend that such chemistry and attraction isn’t as available. So being dishonest about yourself and your feelings makes a relationship more of a prize.

    Right.

    Hope that works out well for you.

    (and before you say “waah…that’s not what I’m saying!”, actually it IS what you’re saying and what happens when we take your “logic” to it’s natural conclusion. If that’s not what you mean, then find another way to say it)

    Unless you view relationships as commodities. Then maybe that all fits in. I view the love of another person as a gift they freely offer me and I do what I can to be worthy of that gift. I don’t make someone love me by earning it or somehow feel entitled to someone’s love because I “worked” for it. It’s their choice and their gift to give. The “work” I do is to be the kind of person worthy of such a gift. did a great post a while back about nice guys. You should look for it. It’s pretty relevant.

    Your reasoning of relationships starts to make it seem like the opposite. That doing the “work” somehow entitles you to the prize or relationship or whatever. You may not see this, but that smacks of possessiveness and ownership over another.

    The way you jumped to his defense–or was it jumping to your own defense?–it sounds as if you still have baggage attached to this “previous” relationship.

    Yet another example of bringing up irrelevant personal assumptions in lieu of actually addressing the points made. Nice one.

    (note: deleted and reposted to fix a bad mark up)

  24. Re: Obviously, you’re no prize.

    I never said that the “difficulty of the ‘chase'” is indicative of your worth. I said that the reward was for the effort of the chase.

    Refer to the “fishy smelling wrecked piece of trash” comment if you really think you never said anything indicative of the worth of a person being pursued and it’s relative ease or not. You actually did say that. Whether you meant it or not is a whole other story, but the actual rules of the English language, not someone’s “oversensitivity” is what yields that interpretation. So either own up to what you said or brush up on your expressive writing skills.

    Now, if you’re saying that someone who will indiscriminately sleep with you right away has the same satisfaction as a person you will need to get to know and learn about first (“chase”), I disagree. I have a problem with it for two reasons: it’s unsafe, in a very big way, and it’s personally not very satisfying. If you’re just going to sleep with strangers, stick to toys. It’s more sanitary. “Easy” to me still has a bad connotation, just for those two reasons.

    You seem to be confusing ease with indiscriminate. You have created a false dichotomy. Simply because a person may choose to sleep with people quickly or even if they choose to sleep with a lot of people, this does not automatically make them “indiscriminate”. And what you’re describing has nothing to do with a relationship being easy. It’s just another conflated view of people who enjoy sex as being unsafe and unsanitary. Again, you assume much. I’m not sure if it’s worth arguing those assumptions since you seem pretty attached to them.

    Either way, a person who makes a strong connection with someone and that connection includes sex, and that connection builds and blossoms in a short period of time- well, that’s kind of beautiful. You are assuming that people can’t do such a thing and be safe and responsible at the same time. Maybe it’s just a kind of responsibility you can’t handle. I know many who can.

  25. Actually, it has nothing to do with me or others being sensitive or “oversensitive”. I take your remarks for what they are- wrong. Wrong on many levels. Feel free to read what I wrote about it, but rest assured, that wasn’t for your benefit as I don’t think you’re really capable of understanding just how wrong you actually are.

  26. Actually, it has nothing to do with me or others being sensitive or “oversensitive”. I take your remarks for what they are- wrong. Wrong on many levels. Feel free to read what I wrote about it, but rest assured, that wasn’t for your benefit as I don’t think you’re really capable of understanding just how wrong you actually are.

  27. Exactly what points are you arguing there? Oh- none. You’re just making desperate personal digs that have no basis in reality and have nothing to do with any of the points or arguments that were made around the topic at all. Who’s the oversensitive one here?

    Here’s a hint: You’ll get your points across a lot better if you actually stick to arguing your points. But then again, if what you need to do in order to feel like you’ve won a debate is to make a bunch of personal assumptions then declare everyone else to have issues rather than actually address the points that were made, you’re only making yourself look like a fool. And you succeeded at that in spades.

    • Oh, fret! She thinks I’m making a fool of myself! Oh, fret, oh, worry!

      …pffft.

      To paraphrase you, judging by your arrogant reaction to the fact that you said something delusional and were called out for it, I wouldn’t be too inclined to put much weight into whether you think I’m making a fool of myself or not.

      Or to put it another way, you are the one who’s delusional, lady…not me. You think that I’m wrong, and you basically try to seize the high ground on just that premise, and anything else, no matter how correct, is discarded on that basis.

      When I say, “Hey, that’s cool, hope you get by with your delusion”, then you want to get titchy because I didn’t debate? Too late! You already dispensed with any attempt at reason.

      Female logic…ya gotta love it. Well, it’s your prerogative, I suppose.

  28. Exactly what points are you arguing there? Oh- none. You’re just making desperate personal digs that have no basis in reality and have nothing to do with any of the points or arguments that were made around the topic at all. Who’s the oversensitive one here?

    Here’s a hint: You’ll get your points across a lot better if you actually stick to arguing your points. But then again, if what you need to do in order to feel like you’ve won a debate is to make a bunch of personal assumptions then declare everyone else to have issues rather than actually address the points that were made, you’re only making yourself look like a fool. And you succeeded at that in spades.

  29. Re: Obviously, you’re no prize.

    JM> Objectification. Really not what I was aiming at, but if one had personal issues, and had been made an object of such in the past, I can see where someone would make that assumption.

    SC> Actually, if that’s not what you were aiming at, I suggest you don’t say things such as this:

    “JM>…there’s not much to brag about when you successfully shoot a fish in a barrel. All you get is a fishy smelling wrecked piece of trash.”

    SC> It doesn’t take any “personal issues” or past experience to read what you typed there as pure ass-hattery that was offensive and dehumanizing to anyone. But then again, you’ve clearly shown through your consistent blaming others for mis-hearing you or for being “oversensitive” that you don’t have an ounces worth of understanding beyond what sits on the tip of your nose. Either way, you’re still wrong.

    It doesn’t take “personal issues” or past experience to overreact or declare “ass-hattery”? Can I get a “fuck you”, again? Oh, sorry, in your world, I guess that’s not overreacting. Moreover, your own “I don’t hear you I don’t hear you…well, that wasn’t what you meant anyway, you don’t know what you’re talking about” attitude belies your own issues, those in which you have already decided you don’t want to hear anything except your own opinion, and anyone who isn’t like you must be ignorant and therefore is automatically wrong. Clearly, all you deserve on this one is a “Whatever, lady.” You picked the viewpoint of Objectification, all I said was that if you are willing to take whatever you can get, or take the easy road, if you’d be willing to settle for less…then what you get is going to be LESS. My analogy about shooting fish in the barrel combined with “getting less” equals fishy smelling piece of trash. You take offense? If you were the one who compared yourself (or her) with a smelly piece of trash, then that wasn’t me being insulting. That one is on you. Echo: “Whatever, lady.” I think you are the one who owes her the apology.

    JM> I believe the OP (your ex?) indicated a lack of understanding as to what was attractive about chasing.

    SC>I believe that your reading comprehension skills must be challenged. Either that or you tend to assume much into what you read. Actually, given the nature of your replies and how instead of arguing points, you like to point out that other people must have “personal issues” if they disagree with you, the evidence points to the latter. You assume much. The OP is not her ex, and there is nothing in what she wrote to indicate that beyond your assumptions.

    No? Hmm…let’s take a look at the original post:

    “My ex once tried to date a girl he found attractive.”

    “He said ‘if I have to chase someone, it means she’s running away from me. What part of that am I supposed to find attractive?'”

    I suppose that it might mean something else, but if I take from that sentence “her ex wanted to know what is attractive about chasing”, that’s hardly a reason to call my reading comprehension skills challenged…oh, unless you’re just looking to be vindictive and condescendingly snarky…which you were, so again, you get a “Whatever, Lady”. And let’s see…what else did you meow about here…oh, yes, a little bit of the kettle calling the pot black. If I’m not like you, obviously I don’t understand anything, and I must be “challenged”, right? “Whatever, lady.”

  30. Re: Obviously, you’re no prize.

    JM> I believe the OP (your ex?) indicated a lack of understanding as to what was attractive about chasing.

    SC>I believe that your reading comprehension skills must be challenged. Either that or you tend to assume much into what you read. Actually, given the nature of your replies and how instead of arguing points, you like to point out that other people must have “personal issues” if they disagree with you, the evidence points to the latter. You assume much. The OP is not her ex, and there is nothing in what she wrote to indicate that beyond your assumptions.

    No? Hmm…let’s take a look at the original post:

    “My ex once tried to date a girl he found attractive.”

    “He said ‘if I have to chase someone, it means she’s running away from me. What part of that am I supposed to find attractive?'”

    I suppose that it might mean something else, but if I take from that sentence “her ex wanted to know what is attractive about chasing”, that’s hardly a reason to call my reading comprehension skills challenged…oh, unless you’re just looking to be vindictive and condescendingly snarky…which you were, so again, you get a “Whatever, Lady”. And let’s see…what else did you meow about here…oh, yes, a little bit of the kettle calling the pot black. If I’m not like you, obviously I don’t understand anything, and I must be “challenged”, right? “Whatever, lady.”

    JM> The PERSON is not the PRIZE. That you are able to BE with the person, after pursuing that relationship…THAT is the prize. If you work harder to get there, yes, it’s flattering, but it also represents effort you put forth to be there. It makes obtaining the end result (the PRIZE) that much better.

    SC> I have often found Paraphrase: …that I can meet someone and get wet for them easily.

    SC> By your “logic” Paraphrase: …I think you are a tight-ass conservative who doesn’t believe in letting his sexual desires run his life or override his better judgement. I am a “free thinker” and I don’t have a problem with letting my sexual desires run my life or override my better judgement, and I believe that it doesn’t matter how easy I am, because I don’t care if the rest of the world sees me as a slut…I’m getting laid. I see no reason to deny my baser sexual urges, nor do I believe that sex gets any better if you make some effort to pursue a relationship for a hookup every now and then. (And based on the turnover in your sex life, why would you bother?)

    SC> So basically, you’re saying that people should stifle any natural attraction and chemistry because clearly if it’s so natural and effortless, it must cheapen the relationship. Therefore, in order to add value, one must pretend that such chemistry and attraction isn’t as available. So being dishonest about yourself and your feelings makes a relationship more of a prize.

    Actually, you’re addressing a different thing. I was referring to the chase, which is different than when “sexual chemistry blossoms between us in a beautifully effortless way”, a laughably ridiculous way to say: “We are both horny enough that we get wet right away and we just go straight to bumping uglies”. I wasn’t even talking about that. (“blossom” LMAO! Yes, you are obviously better than just getting horny and finding/being an easy lay, right?) It’s not about finding someone random who is also horny…it’s about what happens when the other person isn’t horny yet. Maybe you’re not getting it because you’re not a guy, or it’s because whoever the original person was who was chasing wasn’t really a guy.

    SC> Right.

    No, seriously.

    SC> Hope that works out well for you.

    SC> (and before you say “waah…that’s not what I’m saying!”, actually it IS what you’re saying and what happens when we take your “logic” to it’s natural conclusion. If that’s not what you mean, then find another way to say it)

    Well, obviously, since I don’t know what I’m talking about and it’s actually ME who is “challenged” far be it from me to explain that “the chase” is different from “getting laid”. Echo: Whatever, lady.

  31. Re: Obviously, you’re no prize.

    SC> Unless you view relationships as commodities. Then maybe that all fits in. I view the love of another person as a gift they freely offer me and I do what I can to be worthy of that gift. I don’t make someone love me by earning it or somehow feel entitled to someone’s love because I “worked” for it. It’s their choice and their gift to give. The “work” I do is to be the kind of person worthy of such a gift. [info]tacit did a great post a while back about nice guys. You should look for it. It’s pretty relevant.

    Holy crap, after a while all this butterflies and unicorns fluff you use gets tough to read. How to sum up…ok, everything you said above, I agree with. Oh, and I did read Turtle’s post on “nice guys”, and I agreed with everything there, too.

    But…BUT…just because you make getting laid sound all flowery and beautiful does not change that all you are doing is just plain indulging your baser desires. You do it to get laid, not because you are in some beautiful garden with waterfalls and rainbows glistening in the water mist…no. You are bumping uglies. You need to face that.

    If you find a guy who’s horny and you are horny too, it’s not “blossoming” whatever-whatever. You’re getting laid, and you’re doing it the easiest way you can.

    So stop trying to make it sound like it’s beautiful or whatever, it’s not. It’s getting fucked, it’s not all “goodness and light”, and especially not if you have to throw in some sort of perversions on top of it, like introducing pain, or humiliation (or whatever other things you do to add something…to something which should be special WITHOUT any of that). If you get laid whenever the urge strikes, then what’s special about it? THAT is the reason why you have to gussy it up with expressions like “blossoming”…when all you’re doing is getting laid, and it happens so often that there is nothing special about it.

    It is ironic that you call it a “gift”, while at the same time you insinuate that I view relationships as commodities” … well, if a “gift” isn’t a commodity which can be packaged and traded, and RE-GIFTED, then I don’t know what is. Oh, and one more thing…gifts can be AWARDED to someone who attempts to be worthy of that reward…like you said you do. Oh, are you innocent of influencing someone to give you that gift?

    SC> Your reasoning of relationships starts to make it seem like the opposite. That doing the “work” somehow entitles you to the prize or relationship or whatever.

    See above. I said that working to achieve the relationship is a reward of it’s own, not that the relationship was the reward. You insist on doing flawed math.

    SC> You may not see this, but that smacks of possessiveness and ownership over another.

    Guilty as charged. FWIW, she is just as possessive of me. Oh, no…are we not “enlightened” enough? Do we not sleep around enough to be enlightened? Do you pity me now, for my successful family? Save it, sister.

    You see, I’m in the majority, and as the informally self-appointed representative of the mundane, I’m here to tell you: if you think you’re not a horndog…if you think it’s “innocent and beautiful” that you get laid at the drop of a hat..if you’re that “easy”…you’re fooling yourself to believe that society at large doesn’t call you a slut.

    But that’s cool…obviously, I don’t know what I’m talking about, and if…how did you put it? …if you meet someone who is a good match for you, and the sexual chemistry blossoms between you in a beautifully effortless way…then that is ok, and it’s not being a slut, right? Because you added flowers, rainbows and unicorns, it’s different, right?

  32. Re: Obviously, you’re no prize.

    JM>The way you jumped to his defense–or was it jumping to your own defense?–it sounds as if you still have baggage attached to this “previous” relationship.

    SC> Yet another example of bringing up irrelevant personal assumptions in lieu of actually addressing the points made. Nice one.

    So, because you overreacted and I called you out on it…because your overreaction colored everything you said after that…it’s irrelevant? Because immediately after that, you assumed that it wasn’t you who was wrong, it was me, and I didn’t know what I was talking about, and it was ME who was no longer addressing the point. Then you got vindictive and snarky (and confused) and tried to justify your own behavior by misinterpreting and picking apart my post.

    Two issues here, one is that you think that because you’re living in the land of unicorns and butterflies, and you describe bumping uglies with random strangers (and the somewhat-known) with flowery expressions that you’re different from others who ARE easy and who ARE sluts. (But then, THEY are defined by the predators who prey upon them…and then discard them. Those who are the prey and the predators in that instance, understand what they are dealing with, and they don’t attempt to fool themselves with pretty adjectives and adverbs.)

    The other issue is that you can’t differentiate between the “Reward of the effort put in to the chase” with the “Focus of the effort put in to the chase”. The first is purely abstract, it is it’s own reward, and there is nothing wrong with being satisfied that your efforts came to fruition. The second is when you consider yourself DESERVING of something because you expended the effort. The first HEIGHTENS your experience when you DO get laid. The second detracts from it by turning it into a “I deserve this” instead of “I worked hard at this and I’m glad I didn’t give up”.

    What you describe is Objectification and accuse me of that crime when you don’t even understand the original point. You claim that it’s a “gift” and not a commodity, when a gift is EASILY turned into a commodity.

    If you STILL don’t understand, then really…don’t bother to respond, because I have explained it twice. If you don’t get it now, then YOU are the one who has “challenged” reading comprehension skills.

  33. Re: Obviously, you’re no prize.

    “JM>I never said that the “difficulty of the ‘chase'” is indicative of your worth. I said that the reward was for the effort of the chase.”

    SC> Refer to the “fishy smelling wrecked piece of trash” comment if you really think you never said anything indicative of the worth of a person being pursued and it’s relative ease or not. You actually did say that. Whether you meant it or not is a whole other story, but the actual rules of the English language, not someone’s “oversensitivity” is what yields that interpretation. So either own up to what you said or brush up on your expressive writing skills.

    One thousand apologies, if not all of us got a useless “Liberal Arts” degree in Bayberry Candle-making or Macrame. My degree is in electronics, not creative writing…not even technical writing. Also, for the record, I was merely extending an analogy…if you got offended by assigning it to yourself, that’s on you. THAT would be a case of “oversensitivity”…but if you’re only interested in exhonorating yourself from the charge, I’ll let it slide. I don’t care anyway.

    “JM> Now, if you’re saying that someone who will indiscriminately sleep with you right away has the same satisfaction as a person you will need to get to know and learn about first (“chase”), I disagree. I have a problem with it for two reasons: it’s unsafe, in a very big way, and it’s personally not very satisfying. If you’re just going to sleep with strangers, stick to toys. It’s more sanitary. “Easy” to me still has a bad connotation, just for those two reasons.”

    SC> You seem to be confusing ease with indiscriminate. You have created a false dichotomy. Simply because a person may choose to sleep with people quickly or even if they choose to sleep with a lot of people, this does not automatically make them “indiscriminate”. And what you’re describing has nothing to do with a relationship being easy. It’s just another conflated view of people who enjoy sex as being unsafe and unsanitary. Again, you assume much. I’m not sure if it’s worth arguing those assumptions since you seem pretty attached to them.

    SC> Either way, a person who makes a strong connection with someone and that connection includes sex, and that connection builds and blossoms in a short period of time- well, that’s kind of beautiful. You are assuming that people can’t do such a thing and be safe and responsible at the same time. Maybe it’s just a kind of responsibility you can’t handle. I know many who can.

    Ok, if you want to use that liberal arts degree to hide behind, and dance around “easy”, that’s up to you. You’ve already proved to me that you hide behind flowery adverbs and adjectives to disguise the baser elements of what you do, so it’s no surprise that you would “pull a Clinton” and sidestep the description of what you’re really doing. (And even if proven, you’d probably do the thing that most liberals did when he was found guilty: “It doesn’t matter.”)

    I’m not the one who’s confused, believe me. If you choose to disregard what society at large has defined and classified, that’s up to you…it’s your right, obviously.

    On the other hand, if you choose to ignore the obvious, don’t go overreacting when someone points out that you’re fooling yourself. If you think it’s safe, and that you are being “responsible” when you sleep around, don’t get upset when someone points out that you are at risk, and you are sleeping around. Although…you seem to be pretty attached to your self-deception and insist on clinging to your flowery expressions because you think it makes you different, so I’m not sure it’s worth arguing with you about them.

  34. Re: Obviously, you’re no prize.

    IN fact, I think most of the people who are posting here, are deceiving themselves…although, at least they do not consider it “beautiful and wonderful” every time they get laid.

  35. Oh, fret! She thinks I’m making a fool of myself! Oh, fret, oh, worry!

    …pffft.

    To paraphrase you, judging by your arrogant reaction to the fact that you said something delusional and were called out for it, I wouldn’t be too inclined to put much weight into whether you think I’m making a fool of myself or not.

    Or to put it another way, you are the one who’s delusional, lady…not me. You think that I’m wrong, and you basically try to seize the high ground on just that premise, and anything else, no matter how correct, is discarded on that basis.

    When I say, “Hey, that’s cool, hope you get by with your delusion”, then you want to get titchy because I didn’t debate? Too late! You already dispensed with any attempt at reason.

    Female logic…ya gotta love it. Well, it’s your prerogative, I suppose.

  36. Absolutely!

    I also have that with the “chase.” It seems that saying no means, to a lot of people, “chase me some more” and/or “I’m playing hard to get.” If I am moving away, it’s because I don’t want to be with you.

    When I walk away from a fight, I try to say in my most level tone “I need some time on my own. Please let me go away for a bit, so we can talk about this.” When I get chased, then, I really struggle to keep my cool.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.