One of the subtleties I would have missed in that scenario is the fact that sleeping in my bed doesn't mean she wants to hook up.
Sleeping with someone is pretty comfortable, why would you want to ruin it with disgusting sex?
One of the subtleties I would have missed in that scenario is the fact that sleeping in my bed doesn't mean she wants to hook up.
Yeah, that's her and if you read the thread, you'd see that I already stated that she's a model (she was anyway - she works in NYC now). Take down her name - have some damn respect.
I am sorry, but this is a funny thing to say considering you put forth a story about her wanting to bone you out in the public and even put forth a photo of her for everyone to see so they can identify who she is very easily. I am sure she will appreciate the fact that you tell everyone here that story while of course basically revealing her identity, I mean, who wouldn't, right?
Have some damn respect? Hahaha.
It's still courtesy.
Girl and I were making out in her bedroom when we were seventeen or so, think she may have been a year younger. I was in the midst of a dry spell and had a raging hard-on. In the middle of it she stops to catch her breath, then takes off her shirt and bra to "make [her]self more comfortable." I give my approval and we resume. After thirty seconds of macking, I move my hand from her tummy up to her tit, and she grabs my hand and pushes it down all "No no no, look don't touch." I was like "Girl, you serious? Can't just whip out dem tittays without a man wanting at least a grope!" She told me she wasn't ready for that just yet, which definitely meant I wasn't getting any that night. Bluest balls ever.
I later hooked up with a friend of hers I met at a Christmas party shortly afterwards, so all was well in the end.
Girl and I were making out in her bedroom when we were seventeen or so, think she may have been a year younger. I was in the midst of a dry spell and had a raging hard-on. In the middle of it she stops to catch her breath, then takes off her shirt and bra to "make [her]self more comfortable." I give my approval and we resume. After thirty seconds of macking, I move my hand from her tummy up to her tit, and she grabs my hand and pushes it down all "No no no, look don't touch." I was like "Girl, you serious? Can't just whip out dem tittays without a man wanting at least a grope!" She told me she wasn't ready for that just yet, which definitely meant I wasn't getting any that night. Bluest balls ever.
I later hooked up with a friend of hers I met at a Christmas party shortly afterwards, so all was well in the end.
I have no words for what that girl did to you, that's just depressing.
And as stayed before you make your move you are denied, game over. At least you didn't sleep alone that night.
Or is it to you that being nice enough to share your bed means a trade for sex no matter what?
Yeah, its not a bad idea. lol. I don't mind being friends with girls but turned out I had no idea just what an emotional crutch they were using me to be. I didn't have ideas of romance, but I do expect friends to act like...you know friends. So anytime they got with a guy, I would stop hearing from them unless they were fighting or had broken up (and with young folk, they break up and get back together all the time). So I said fuck it, I'll just stop talking to them.
Welcome to my world. This happens to me all the time. Sigh. What can I do![]()
Am I the only one to get that or similar more than once in his life and to think it wasn't that brutal?
Anyhow, if the girl has some sense of guilt because of it she should just do something else maybe?
Stop making new woman friends. If it's not good for you psychologically, just stop it.
I kept my closest friends but said "I don't want another relationship like this anymore, it's not doing me any good". And so I did.
What's up with all the people in this thread trying to shame JasonMCG?
What was he supposed to do, rape her? She denied him three times, pretty sure she wasn't into him. That doesn't mean he needs to hand in his "man card". Though poking her with his dick afterwards was a disgusting creep move. Don't you have a couch?
I'm sorry, but half your posts in this thread seem to come from some bizarro-world. Who on earth goes to a club, meets a stranger and then returns to their house, takes off their clothes and gets into their bed for the sole purpose of sleeping? I racked my brain and came up with a jewel thief wanting to case the bedroom. If you just want to crash somewhere sleep on the couch. If the bed is the only option make your intentions clear beforehand. If I was in that situation I'd leave some of my clothes on as well. Even if you know the person going over to their house late at night and climbing into their bed in a state of undress is pretty damn different to the usual platonic reasons for sharing a bed. "At least you didn't sleep alone that night." Yes, because having someone you don't know and don't want to touch for fear of being misinterpreted taking up half of your bed is one of life's better pleasures. At least the confusion is offset by the protection their shared body-heat gives from glacial winds.
I had a friend that had a girlfriend invite him to her house, they were naked on the bed with each other and she was on top of him ready to go then she just said " Na " or something like that, she got up and kicked him out of the house.
After he told me and my friends we all came to the realization that some people are just messed up, my friend still talks about it to this day since that night was hell for him.
What's up with all the people in this thread trying to shame JasonMCG?
What was he supposed to do, rape her? She denied him three times, pretty sure she wasn't into him. That doesn't mean he needs to hand in his "man card". Though poking her with his dick afterwards was a disgusting creep move. Don't you have a couch?
I don't see how this contradicts anything I've said. It's a lot less stressful when going out with a person you are attracted to, if they say yes for a date it means they are willing to give you a chance at least.
No one is saying it isn't misleading, what is being said is that you make your move you get denied game is over. Go ahead kick them out of your house, but beyond that one denial, you start getting in to the rapey-er side of things.
My age probably limits my understanding of situations like this. When I go out, girls know what they want, almost to the point that they're forward. They, as much I, don't have time for silly games. Maybe its just a new generation.I was once a friend zone guy. I hit a huge dry spell and decided that I wouldn't have any friends who were girls. Best decision I ever made. I got laid a lot and never had to deal with a girl's drama with another dude.
Just as men have a responsibility to listen and obey when a woman is clear, so do women have the responsibility to be consistent about what they feel, and to make sure they are understood.
Sleeping with someone is pretty comfortable, why would you want to ruin it with disgusting sex?
I agree with much of what you said, but this is projecting a level of confidence on to women that is unreasonable. We are insecure of our own feelings most of the time, and yet we assume others are sure of themselves because we don't see their internal strife. Just like many guys are unsure of how to interpret advances, women do the same. Humans tend to over-emphasise their perspective, and it's just as likely that a forum with a prominently female membership has the mirror of this thread. It's not about who was right or wrong, but what we take away from our experiences.
I'd like to add my approval here as well. vikki did nothing wrong and has nothing to feel bad about.Man, there's nothing wrong with this. She had a boyfriend, so what? Doesn't make this a clueless advance; you made the right move and she thought you were sweet regardless.
I posted this story in the "Clueless" advances thread.
I worked at Dunkin Donuts when I was 18. A lot of chicks would come through Dunks, but there was 1 regular in particular that I liked who worked at the gym across the street. She would come in I would make eyes at her and flirt a little. My boss knew I liked her and was a member at the gym the girl worked at. One day my boss was at the gym and let slip, on purpose, that I thought she was hot. Apparently it made the girl blush and her co-worker told my boss that that made her day.
My boss came to the store immediately to tell me that the girl obviously liked me too. My boss convinced me that I should go ask the girl out. One day, shortly after my boss had me feeling like I could get her, I marched my ass over to that gym, nervous as fuck, and asked her out in front of her co-workers. She was like "I have a boyfriend." FUCK!!! I was embarrassed. I think I was like "Alright, see ya." I had to march my ass all the way across their long ass parking lot and across the street back to work. They have some big windows at that gym, so I know they could see me the whole way back. I must have been such a joke, walking back to work all alone, feeling super shitty. I'm still a little embarrassed thinking about it now, but at least I had the balls to try.
Am I the only one to get that or similar more than once in his life and to think it wasn't that brutal?
Anyhow, if the girl has some sense of guilt because of it she should just do something else maybe?
How can both sexes take away something meaningful from the experience and learn from it if they can't even agree on what the experience was?
That is the part I have trouble with...
Regarding an over emphasis on one's own perspective, the way to deal with this is to increase interaction and exposure to one another from as early an age as possible, so that each of us can learn first hand how our behavior is perceived by others and how it affects them.
I'd love to understand more about why women feel as if they are less sure of themselves than others around them, because I definitely agree with you that there is a difference in how we perceive ourselves and the world at the bottom of this. Men, I feel, are the opposite and tend to err on the side of confidence more often. To date, the best explanation I could find for this difference is based on evolutionary concepts that are very difficult to prove.
This thread is like a terrifying dip into the male psyche. My eyes are bleeding.
I'd love to understand more about why women feel as if they are less sure of themselves than others around them, because I definitely agree with you that there is a difference in how we perceive ourselves and the world at the bottom of this. Men, I feel, are the opposite and tend to err on the side of confidence more often. To date, the best explanation I could find for this difference is based on evolutionary concepts that are very difficult to prove.
Evolutionary concepts?
:lol
It's much more simple than that. Women have been up until very recently struggling in a society (both Western and Eastern) that tries to ensure they have as little confidence or self-assurance as possible.
The person initiating the relationship, man or woman, knows their desired outcome but can sometimes find difficulty expressing these desires due to fear of rejection. It becomes a matter of a theoretical relationship providing more comfort ('what could be') than having to face a real relationship with all its ups and downs. Projected relationships are incredibly selfish because it's one person thinking only about their wants and needs rather than considering the feelings of the person they have convinced themselves they care about. Meanwhile the person not initiating the relationship might have never considered it a possibility due to either a lack of attraction to the person in question or insecurity (how many people in this thread stated they had no idea they were being hit on because they considered themselves out of that person's league?)I'd love to understand more about why women feel as if they are less sure of themselves than others around them, because I definitely agree with you that there is a difference in how we perceive ourselves and the world at the bottom of this. Men, I feel, are the opposite and tend to err on the side of confidence more often. To date, the best explanation I could find for this difference is based on evolutionary concepts that are very difficult to prove.
The person initiating the relationship, man or woman, knows their desired outcome but can sometimes find difficulty expressing these desires due to fear of rejection. It becomes a matter of a theoretical relationship providing more comfort ('what could be') than having to face a real relationship with all its ups and downs. Projected relationships are incredibly selfish because it's one person thinking only about their wants and needs rather than considering the feelings of the person they have convinced themselves they care about. Meanwhile the person not initiating the relationship might have never considered it a possibility due to either a lack of attraction to the person in question or insecurity (how many people in this thread stated they had no idea they were being hit on because they considered themselves out of that person's league?)
I don't think it's as much a male/female thing as you make it out to be, but a human thing. Relationships are now about happiness rather than survival/status/business. We often have no idea what will make us happy, which leads to awkward situations.
My age probably limits my understanding of situations like this. When I go out, girls know what they want, almost to the point that they're forward. They, as much I, don't have time for silly games. Maybe its just a new generation.
Because we've been conditioned to be less sure of ourselves. You say you don't buy that explanation, but no offense, it sounds like you're discrediting it because you haven't had the experience yourself (as someone who is not a woman).I'd love to understand more about why women feel as if they are less sure of themselves than others around them, because I definitely agree with you that there is a difference in how we perceive ourselves and the world at the bottom of this. Men, I feel, are the opposite and tend to err on the side of confidence more often. To date, the best explanation I could find for this difference is based on evolutionary concepts that are very difficult to prove.
I really don't like how you're making me nitpick this to death in order to get my point across. The problem here stems from poor communication, and instead of acknowledging that fact the girl is essentially shifting all the responsibility to the guy, which is wrong.
If she perceived it as a completely non-romantic or non-sexual get together with no possibility to develop into anything else, then what was she doing implying he may have a shot at seeing her bedroom?
And if, as you suggest, she was considering a one night stand, then it's up to her to be much more clear that this is what she has in mind, because for him to assume a casual innuendo like that implies such a thing is much more risky than to assume she's just somewhat interested in him.
So either way you look at it, she's the one that wasn't being clear. He interpreted her signals in a manner that was completely reasonable and acted upon them correctly and respectfully.
Had she then said "No, thank you" or "I've changed my mind" or something to that effect, it would have been fine, because she would have acknowledged there was a legitimate basis for him to ask her out. But by saying "you got the wrong idea" she was essentially denying his interpretation of the situation, which is just misleading and dishonest.
And this other case is just one of many examples in this thread of why it's important for both sides to work on their communication at an early age, starting from the little things. It shows how misunderstandings that lead to potential sexual or emotional harm later in life stem from the exact same ones that occur over the small things like "was it an "actual date" or just a "hangout"?"
Just as men have a responsibility to listen and obey when a woman is clear, so do women have the responsibility to be consistent about what they feel, and to make sure they are understood.
Because we've been conditioned to be less sure of ourselves. You say you don't buy that explanation, but no offense, it sounds like you're discrediting it because you haven't had the experience yourself (as someone who is not a woman).
Because we've been conditioned to be less sure of ourselves. You say you don't buy that explanation, but no offense, it sounds like you're discrediting it because you haven't had the experience yourself (as someone who is not a woman).
The conflict is happening now. And no, it's not more demeaning. I think it's more demeaning to assume that evolution has designated our roles to be more passive and somehow naturally subservient to the wills of men.I'm not entirely discounting that possibility, but sometimes when I think about it, it almost seems to be more demeaning to women to assume that as a whole they could be manipulated like that by men, all else being equal. History has records of class struggles, cultural clashes, religious wars, and if this were primarily a social issue I'd expect to see some records of a conflict between the sexes. The alternative is that this conflict occurred in pre history, and that we've been living with the status quo for as long as civilization has existed.
I wouldn't call that being an achievement when you are literally the property of someone else. Sounds very much like the paternalistic arguments for the advantages of being a slave.It's also easy to look back only on recent centuries and paint a picture of an oppressive patriarchal society when you could just as easily turn the picture on its head and look at some of the things accomplished by women as major victories. Is it not a major achievement that women have almost never had to risk and sacrifice their lives for land and natural resources even though they've always enjoyed the benefits when belonging to the winning or otherwise successful side?
Is it not a major achievement that women have almost never had to risk and sacrifice their lives for land and natural resources even though they've always enjoyed the benefits when belonging to the winning or otherwise successful side?
The behaviour of that girl sounds like something I'd do. Yeah, I can be pretty oblivious about things like that. For instance, my current girlfriend had to make a move on me when I invited her over for tea. I didn't even see it as a date back then, I just wanted some company.Met a cute girl in a club and got her into my place. After 5 minutes of talking she asks if she could sleep at my place for the night because she's too tired to walk to her place. I'm like "Yeah sure but I only have one bed"p) and I'm thinking I'm gonna bang her right? Wrong.
We go to my bed and straight to a spoon position with underwear on and I start kissing her neck. She turns around and says I got the wrong idea, she just wants to sleep. I was like "Haha good one..." and continue. She stops again and says no really she didn't come to my place and to my fucking bed for sex. I'm confused as fuck but then just say "Okay then, let's just sleep". Of course I couldn't sleep for like 40 minutes because my boner didn't come down and I even poked her every now and then so she couldn't sleep either.
Next morning when we wake up my first thought is that maybe she really was sleepy so I make my move again. Rejected for the third time. I gave up at that point and just made us breakfast and then she left.
Holy dear god. I don't even know what you are arguing anymore, but I assure you that history as a whole is worse off for not treating women as equals, and none of that has anything to do with why women won't touch your dick.
The conflict is happening now. And no, it's not more demeaning. I think it's more demeaning to assume that evolution has designated our roles to be more passive and somehow naturally subservient to the wills of men.
I wouldn't call that being an achievement when you are literally the property of someone else. Sounds very much like the paternalistic arguments for the advantages of being a slave.
I'll say this: Going to war is not the opposite of being passive. Being able to make your own decisions and not be the property of others (as women have been for most of history) is. If you think that not being drafted into wars is more beneficial to women than having those rights in times outside of war, then I don't know what to tell you.Please explain to me how the world would be a better place if during World War I and II an entire generation of both men and women were lost in the west, instead of just a generation of men?
And please explain to me why getting yourself killed is actually more respectable than being passive? If anything I'd say the smart/lucky ones are those that could avoid it.
We live with this very strange notion that we're an advanced society, that humans in general have achieved a generally superior form of culture, when the truth is probably closer to the opposite. We still haven't figured out the most fundamental stuff. Look at LGBT rights, hell look at rights of African Americans just fifty years ago. We suck! We're self important monkeys, with much work ahead of us if we ever want to live up to our ideals. Life is still exceptionally hard. People are still treated cruelly all around the world, ignorance and malice are widespread, and extreme sacrifices are still made just to keep the world turning. What I'm trying to say is we're much slower to adapt than we like to think, and a lot of the harsh realities of the world we want to believe we've conquered still very much influence us every day.
Consider my example of the "lost generation" above as evidence that these things still affect us to a great extent, and that there may also be some benefits to being a women.
But I am derailing this thread, and for that I apologize. We can continue this in a new thread if there is enough interest.
I am trying to figure out how you got from a woman saying she did not want to date someone to saying that the historical hostility and oppression of women is somehow a win for women since they weren't allowed to fight in a war whether they wanted to or not. It's like saying slaves should have been thankful to their owners since they didn't have to pay taxes. It's irrelevant to both the larger context of the issue and the thread itself.Please explain to me how the world would be a better place if during World War I and II an entire generation of both men and women were lost in the west, instead of just a generation of men?
And please explain to me why getting yourself killed is actually more respectable than being passive? If anything I'd say the smart/lucky ones are those that could avoid it.
(To be clear, I don't associate this with subservience, nor do I think women should be subservient to the wills of men).
We live with this very strange notion that we're an advanced society, that humans in general have achieved a generally superior form of culture, when the truth is probably closer to the opposite. We still haven't figured out the most fundamental stuff. Look at LGBT rights, hell look at rights of African Americans just fifty years ago. We suck! We're self important monkeys, with much work ahead of us if we ever want to live up to our ideals. Life is still exceptionally hard. People are still treated cruelly all around the world, ignorance and malice are widespread, and extreme sacrifices are still made just to keep the world turning. What I'm trying to say is we're much slower to adapt than we like to think, and a lot of the harsh realities of the world we want to believe we've conquered still very much influence us every day.
Consider my example of the "lost generation" above as evidence that these things still affect us to a great extent, and that there may also be some benefits to being a women.
But I am derailing this thread, and for that I apologize. We can continue this in a new thread if there is enough interest.
Please explain to me how the world would be a better place if during World War I and II an entire generation of both men and women were lost in the west, instead of just a generation of men?
And please explain to me why getting yourself killed is actually more respectable than being passive? If anything I'd say the smart/lucky ones are those that could avoid it.
(To be clear, I don't associate this with subservience, nor do I think women should be subservient to the wills of men).
We live with this very strange notion that we're an advanced society, that humans in general have achieved a generally superior form of culture, when the truth is probably closer to the opposite. We still haven't figured out the most fundamental stuff. Look at LGBT rights, hell look at rights of African Americans just fifty years ago. We suck! We're self important monkeys, with much work ahead of us if we ever want to live up to our ideals. Life is still exceptionally hard. People are still treated cruelly all around the world, ignorance and malice are widespread, and extreme sacrifices are still made just to keep the world turning. What I'm trying to say is we're much slower to adapt than we like to think, and a lot of the harsh realities of the world we want to believe we've conquered still very much influence us every day.
Consider my example of the "lost generation" above as evidence that these things still affect us to a great extent, and that there may also be some benefits to being a women.
But I am derailing this thread, and for that I apologize. We can continue this in a new thread if there is enough interest.
Girls have evolved to be less passive and that can be a good thing for them (?). It also means they are less likely to ask me out because evolution has given them lower self esteem.What are you talking about? What do the world wars have to do with asking girls out on dates?
It means girls have had all this privilege to hang back while guys fight for land and property and pink slips and street cred and console supremacy. They should feel lucky to enjoy such a passive role, and keep their fortunes in mind when we ask for a little favor.