Should I assume she doesn't like me and just move on?

[Farm Boy]

That think that rawest, most honest, and vulnerable state is probably done from hospital rather than carnal beds.

 

[sophie]

since you asked ;D
precedent, or to "pre cede". You are ceding who pays, in advance, so preceding.

you are correct that precede = prae (before)+cedo. However while you're also correct that cedo can mean to withdraw, cedo also (and in fact primarily means) to fall or to happen, and praecedere means to happen before. So you get:

Precedent: what has happened before

 

[Hygro]

You should already be able to see how the hospital plays out. I recognize that all it takes is someone whose manipulation skills are geometrically one better than your ability to read someone, but come on, geometrically. What are the odds, if you can read most people pretty well, that when their body has to match their performance, an actor won't seem like acting and didn't pick someone who's a better vessel to the top?

Let me translate: if you're a sucker who is so motivated by having someone that you're blind to lies, well that sucks. But if you're not a sucker and you're taking everything how it is, then if you're paying attention to your partner she'll tell you how it really is when she's that exposed. She will tell you better than she's telling herself. And if she's that good at manipulating even not-suckers, she's a rare type playing a game of thrones and you're not so it doesn't matter.

 

[Farm Boy]

Sex is one thing. It's one thing man. It's a damned nice thing but it's not what makes a long term partner a long term partner. Sex is generally fun. It's easy to be both honest and endearing when you're having fun. Measuring your compatibility with somebody while doing what is very nearly literally the easiest human activity to find enjoyable is not a good measure. Measuring your compatibility with somebody while you're both terrified or bored or miserable or angry or all of those at the same time is a much more exacting standard. But it's a better one. Life is going to get you with those eventually, isn't part of the core reason of a long term partner so that you don't have to face those times alone?

 

[Daw]

Somewhere I read the thing that I liked: "Two people can go out together, have fun together, drink together, talk together, sleep together, live together, but all that means nothing but that they are good pals to each other. It is only when they can whist together, they are really meant for each other."

 

[Hygro]

@Owen nice

Sex is one thing. It's one thing man. It's a damned nice thing but it's not what makes a long term partner a long term partner. Sex is generally fun. It's easy to be both honest and endearing when you're having fun. Measuring your compatibility with somebody while doing what is very nearly literally the easiest human activity to find enjoyable is not a good measure. Measuring your compatibility with somebody while you're both terrified or bored or miserable or angry or all of those at the same time is a much more exacting standard. But it's a better one. Life is going to get you with those eventually, isn't part of the core reason of a long term partner so that you don't have to face those times alone?

Not "honest and endearing" like honesty is a state of being that you are seeking to elicit for your pleasure or connection. "Honest" like "someone is speaking the raw truth from which you can accurate extrapolate all you need to know about your actual lasting compatibility". Why make it hard for someone to be honest if you want to learn the secrets of the universe? Her secrets of her universe.

You want a long term partner because you want to give someone the most love. You want to give someone compounding love. You want someone who will love you back so you are energized to give even more more.

By you I mean me.

Ultimately I am speculating. My relationships have been measured in months, not years. Sometimes the sex came early, sometimes the sex came later.

 

[BvBPL]

I'm expecting it cause its fun. I know there's alot of social shame about sex so if the girl needs 1 or 2 dates to warm up I understand. If there's no sex by the 3rd or 4th date I assume either there's no attraction or maybe just a low sex drive & either way there's no point to continue (unless she's really cool, then we can chill as friends).

If there's no possibility of sex it's not dating, just hanging out.

I'm curious what your policy would be if she said around the third date, "hey, I really like you, but I need a little more time before we get intimate," with the implication that, assuming things proceed as they have, the relationship will become physical in the future.

 

[Narz]

I'm curious what your policy would be if she said around the third date, "hey, I really like you, but I need a little more time before we get intimate," with the implication that, assuming things proceed as they have, the relationship will become physical in the future.

If she said that I'd wait a lil longer. After 5 or 6 dates though I'd probably give up waiting. Holding out that long goes against nature.

Hygro, that's for the clarity.

 

[warpus]

Sex is one thing. It's one thing man. It's a damned nice thing but it's not what makes a long term partner a long term partner. Sex is generally fun. It's easy to be both honest and endearing when you're having fun. Measuring your compatibility with somebody while doing what is very nearly literally the easiest human activity to find enjoyable is not a good measure. Measuring your compatibility with somebody while you're both terrified or bored or miserable or angry or all of those at the same time is a much more exacting standard. But it's a better one. Life is going to get you with those eventually, isn't part of the core reason of a long term partner so that you don't have to face those times alone?

Sex is the ultimate male-female intimate bonding activity. As a species we not only partake in sex for procreation, but also for fun, bonding, and health purposes. (Okay, most people don't have sex for reasons of health, but that's one of the benefits and our subconscious "knows" that)

IMO there are two major aspects of a long/medium-term romantic relationship you need to be compatible enough in for that relationship to work. Your personalities must have chemistry and be compatible, and you must have chemistry in the sexual side of things and your sexual needs need to be compatible as well. IMO of those two conditions are met, a relationship is far more likely to flourish. There are a lot of other variables involved, but these are the two big ones. And I mean, "personality" includes a lot of stuff, such as religious beliefs, political beliefs, likes, dislikes, etc.

So you can say "it's just one thing", but it's a super important part of the human male-female romantic bonding experience! Usually anyway, there are of course always exceptions (couples can mutually decide to focus on other parts of the relationship and for example focus on their compatibility in religious beliefs instead, on purpose making sexual compatibility/incompatibility less of an issue)

Of course having said that I'm the last person you should ask about women, since women like me, and we get along, but I refuse to play their games, so I never get any. So what the hell do I know.

 

[Farm Boy]

Sex is the ultimate male-female intimate bonding activity. As a species we not only partake in sex for procreation, but also for fun, bonding, and health purposes. (Okay, most people don't have sex for reasons of health, but that's one of the benefits and our subconscious "knows" that)

IMO there are two major aspects of a long/medium-term romantic relationship you need to be compatible enough in for that relationship to work. Your personalities must have chemistry and be compatible, and you must have chemistry in the sexual side of things and your sexual needs need to be compatible as well. IMO of those two conditions are met, a relationship is far more likely to flourish. There are a lot of other variables involved, but these are the two big ones. And I mean, "personality" includes a lot of stuff, such as religious beliefs, political beliefs, likes, dislikes, etc.

So you can say "it's just one thing", but it's a super important part of the human male-female romantic bonding experience! Usually anyway, there are of course always exceptions (couples can mutually decide to focus on other parts of the relationship and for example focus on their compatibility in religious beliefs instead, on purpose making sexual compatibility/incompatibility less of an issue)

Of course having said that I'm the last person you should ask about women, since women like me, and we get along, but I refuse to play their games, so I never get any. So what the hell do I know.

I guess, and this is in response to Hygro as well, that it seems like "the games" actually are the relationship. Sex is super important, no question, but it's not a very hard thing to get right. It's a physical and emotional talent that's actually a hell of a lot of fun to practice. It's like dancing with the same partner more than once, you'll adapt to each other, the point is that you actually keep dancing. But that's just it, it's only one part. Even if it's fun and super important and cures cancer it's still not "the point" of the relationship. The relationship is the point of the relationship. You have to like playing "the game" of whoever it is you're playing with, and everybody's game is a little or a lot different.

 

[warpus]

Sex is easy but being sexually compatible with your partner can be a throw of the dice.

 

[Farm Boy]

I suppose it can be. It's pretty malleable though. Well, perhaps that's not right in every situation. I bet it's almost totally malleable when both parties haven't had a ton of it. I'd guess it becomes less malleable the more separate experience both parties come to the table with.

 

[Narz]

I suppose it can be. It's pretty malleable though. Well, perhaps that's not right in every situation. I bet it's almost totally malleable when both parties haven't had a ton of it. I'd guess it becomes less malleable the more separate experience both parties come to the table with.

I'd say the opposite, the more experience you have the more tricks of the trade you know, the more adaptable you are. If you've only been with one person you only know what they like.

 

[Borachio]

Sex is easy but being sexually compatible with your partner can be a throw of the dice.

Masturbation is easy, yes.

Sex is difficult to the point of impossibility.

I mean, just where does a person start?

Or where does one person start and another end?

Do I take pleasure in giving pleasure? Or do I give pleasure in taking it?

 

[Atticus]

^That must be the most British thing I've read this month.

The other top 10 spots are yours too, mr. Borachio.

 

[Borachio]

Oh.

That makes me feel almost proud.

(If only it wasn't for the appalling record on human rights so diligently achieved by the British down the ages.)

 

[Farm Boy]

I'd say the opposite, the more experience you have the more tricks of the trade you know, the more adaptable you are. If you've only been with one person you only know what they like.

Not malleable as in how much different stuff can you do. Malleable as in what do the two of you grow into liking together, as opposed to stuff one person brings to the table that they already like/dislike. That actually mostly makes sense in the light of that big bag of stats somebody dumped in a post a while back where people with few past partners gravitate more successfully towards people with few past partners and the same with those who have had many past partners.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Taking out all romantic context, would YOU ask a platonic acquaintance who you see only very infrequently talk to to do something together? Idk about you, but it would feel pretty odd for me to ask someone I wasn't friends with to one day walk up to him and ask him to hang out. If a girl got asked out for coffee by an acquaintance she sees quite infrequently and is awkward around, I'm fairly certain it's a pretty clear signal of romantic interest because most people would not ask a platonic acquaintance to do something together for fun.

Are you saying that platonic acquaintances can't be friends? Why wouldn't a platonic acquaintance be asked to do something for fun? Friendship isn't something that usually happens right away. It takes some interaction, even if it's just a casual conversation at a bus stop, for example.

But there are guys who interpret "she asked me if I'd like to do ____," as "she's interested in me romantically." It was damn awkward, for my 30-something self to have to tell a 17-year-old that just because I invited him to my Star Trek club's annual barbecue, that doesn't mean anything but casual friendship. He interpreted it as "she's interested in me romantically"... and he had no idea that I was biologically old enough to be his mother (people do tend to underestimate my age by 10 years or so, but even in the '90s I didn't think I could be mistaken for a teenager).

 

[Narz]

Masturbation is easy, yes.

Sex is difficult to the point of impossibility.

Sex is easier than masturbation. Look ma, no hands!

I mean, just where does a person start?

Their aura.

Or where does one person start and another end?

In a hospital room where a mother died in childbirth?

Do I take pleasure in giving pleasure? Or do I give pleasure in taking it?

Both ideally.

 

[Narz]

Not malleable as in how much different stuff can you do. Malleable as in what do the two of you grow into liking together, as opposed to stuff one person brings to the table that they already like/dislike. That actually mostly makes sense in the light of that big bag of stats somebody dumped in a post a while back where people with few past partners gravitate more successfully towards people with few past partners and the same with those who have had many past partners.

Makes sense. There is a certain innocence to being virginal or near virginal in that you'll appreciate your partner more even if they're not that great in bed, not that great looking, etc. in the same way I appreciated my collection of 9 or 10 cassette tapes in some ways more than I appreciated the whole Internet full of music today.

Only thing is if I still had that cassette tapes I'd be sick to death of them.

Obviously a person is not a cassette tape, they can change/grow but I do believe the idea that you attract who you are not what you want & I wouldn't want to be with something that my younger/dumber self attracted. I feel like people settle down way too early before they have much sense of themselves & their desires & repulsion. I suppose this is sadly necessary for women who want to have kids because of the limited shelf life of their fertility but men should not be rushed.