Not Dead But Not So As You’d Notice

May 13, 2013 § 139 Comments

On the whole, I tend to steer clear of the subject of sex.  Well, here, anyway for fear of being bombarded by fucking weirdo trolls.  And even though I completely agree with James Salter – America’s neglected genius, according to the big profile of the writer in yesterday’s Observer – that the sexual life is “the real game of the grownup world”.  In Saturday’s Guardian review of his new novel, All That Is, it said that “the cycle of meeting, flirting and fucking forms the book’s basic dramatic unit.”

Well, certainly it forms MY basic dramatic unit, and everybody else’s, even if some don’t see it quite that way, or aren’t so quick to admit it.

Times in my life  there have been longish periods without sex, but of course during those periods it never occurs to one that anyone else on the planet is experiencing or has ever experienced a fallow period.  You see the world as a place where everyone else is at it like dogs.  Then it suddenly happens again, and you think, phew!  Back in the land of (grownup) living.  You feel part of the adult human race again, where you rightly belong.  Not in some throwback virginal space that infantilises you, somehow, so that whenever you go to a fucking movie or read a sex scene in a novel or see some couple eating each other’s faces on the pavement, you feel like a child again, cut off from the mysterious world of grown-ups.  And as for when one of your own offspring is having sex and you’re doing the laundry of a dreary Tuesday morning and the damp clothes spill out of the washing-machine with an avalanche of unopened Durex packets from the jeans’ pockets, you think, what’s the fucking point, why don’t I just head directly for Shady Oaks this minute, and not even pass Go?  Well and truly knocked off the perch of meeting, flirting and fucking.  Not even a substitute in “the real game of the grownup world” but resoundingly shown one’s red flag.

Thought I’d got to that point once SYT beat his retreat before Christmas.  We never stopped seeing each other, but the grown-up gaming had popped its clogs.  Of course, I didn’t stop nursing some daft hope, especially when my other beautiful young friend (whom I have called Dave and Tom in this blog, I think, to the confusion of all, just because I forgot my pseudonym for him – let’s kill off Dave and stick with Tom – and whom I am not sleeping with, but we like to flirt) bet me a tenner that SYT would come good again.

Well, Tom was right (always is).  Took longer than he predicted.  The wager stated that SYT would have come good by 8 April, and it wasn’t till a month or so later, so Tom was a bit out.  So he’ll have to make do with a fiver.

But that’s cheap at the price , I say, for being back in the land of the (grownup) living.

I’m walking around today, ten feet tall.

About these ads

§ 139 Responses to Not Dead But Not So As You’d Notice

  • Lydia says:

    Good luck with it.
    I do not agree that everyone has to be the same.
    Usually I am saying on here that plenty of women and men are happy single.

    My point today is against the comment that no one is a real grown up unless they are having sex and in a relationship. That is simply not so. There are more asexuals in the UK than gays for example. Then there are people very content without sex or content with masturbation. Then there are those who have found huge pleasure in God and eschewed sex. We are a diverse and liberal country in the UK and those of us who are not wanting a nation of clones where all m en and women are married with 2.4 children delight in these differences.

    Yet there are some people who want to box everyone up or produce from them factory production lines who are identical or who think gosh everyone must be like me otherwise they are wrong. That is not so and I write that despite what is probably my position as someone who does have sexual relationships.

    It is not the land of the dead to be born asexual or just not be interested in sex or not to have a partner or not to be exactly like others. In fact life can be wonderful and free if you can avoid being pushed into the boxes others and your parents might choose to push you into. Giving children the love and capacity to be themselves and be different is perhaps the best thing we can give our own children.

  • AnonW says:

    As a widower, without a steady companion, my sex life, is pretty virtual. I don’t mean anything to do with pornography or the Internet, but much more remembering good times, when someone says about say going to a place, where my late wife and I had a good time, in all senses of the word.

    I wonder if these memories are different between the widowed and the divorced. I suspect they are, as divorce is much more about mutual pain, whereas bereavement is very much worse for one partner. Strangely, I met someone over the weekend, whose health had deteriorated in a similar way to mine has after my bereavement, since their divorce. I mused about it in my blog and wonder if sometimes we forget that all the adjustments you make to single living have consequences you don’t expect. Not all will be negative! In our case, we’d both moved into new south-facing modern housing and the sun and consequent dry air had done terrible things to our nails and skin.

    Strange but true!

  • Geoffrey Simpson says:

    Wonderful News indeed.Enjoy!

  • tonedeafsinger says:

    lucky you I say… me, not a sausage (pun intended) :P

    • The Plankton says:

      I’m not under any illusions that this has legs; no illusions whatsoever!! So, of course lucky, but just grabbing the crumbs whilst they’re being thrown! Pxx

  • EmGee says:

    :-) So what’d I win?

    Seriously, I am glad your absence is partially (even if only slightly) explained by this wonderful turn of events.

    We know there are sexless marriages out there, we know there are people having mediocre (and worse) sex just to keep their partner happy, or having one nighters just to feel part of the ‘adult world’. Just heard a sad tale from a new acquaintance who hooked up with a guy who didn’t even take her out on their planned date, just coaxed her into bed, and didn’t even bother to get out of bed to see her to the door in the morning. She assumed we’d be shocked at her lewd behavior (what she hoped for, I am sure, because hey, she at least ‘got some’), instead we were simply horrified and saddened by her wretched neediness.

    Yet, as with so many things we feel are lacking in our lives, we convince ourselves that the rest of the world is better off.

    • The Plankton says:

      Well said, EmGee. I have in the past been very much in the same place as your new acquaintance. This time, for once, things are a few notches up, but not many though I was amazed and felt blessed when I was sent a sweet text a couple of hours after the event. Funny how a little thing like that can make ALL the difference. In the past, he never did, and it left me feeling strangely flat. Yesterday, a mere few witty and kind words really did make all the difference. Something like not even getting out of bed to see a woman to the door is pretty fucking lame at best, at worst downright rude and unkind. Pxx

    • EmGee says:

      Nice that you got the reassuring text from SYT this time. It’s just a considerate thing to do, really.

      This woman I mentioned had 2 twinkles: Rude Boy who obviously saw a free in-home lay when he saw it, and Prove Himself, who she says she admits just a hook up with ‘might’ be in the cards, but no relationship.

      Worst of all, Rude Boy was the one who she would have liked to date, because he was good looking I gather, but she shot her wad, so to speak, all at once and prematurely on this loser. On the other hand, she wants Prove Himself to show that he has all of the qualifiers (undying attention, employment, etc) before she consents to even a one nighter.
      She’s doing it completely backwards!

      It’s women like this that make it no wonder some of the guys in the manosphere have such a jaundiced opinion of women in general. I realize though that she is emotionally troubled. I met her mother last week, and such a using, abusing, self centered, self absorbed little troll I hope to never see the likes of again.

      • Elle says:

        Emgee, don’t judge your acquaintance. Maybe she’s lonely, maybe she’s busy attending her self-absorbed mother. Maybe her self-absorbed mother drains her time and emotional energy and hook-ups are all your acquaintance can manage after that. That is the situation with a lot of people, more than you might imagine. We don’t all have the time to devote to finding “the one” or behaving in a way that befits how others think we should behave. As long as you don’t hurt anyone else it’s nobody else’s business what you do.

        I’m in a situation where my parents are draining my time and emotional energy when I’m not working. It’s so bad that I’d be glad of the time and opportunity for any sort of hookup. I’d be so grateful I’d even give the guy tea and toast in bed before I left. Fleeting encounters like this can make unbearable situations (ie draining parents) more bearable.

      • EmGee says:

        @Elle.
        No, I would not serve breakfast in bed to someone who asked me out on a dinner date, and never actually took me out, just took me.

        She let it happen because she desperately wanted him to like her, not because she wanted a one nighter.

        And if you don’t think his behavior was hurtful to her, I can see why you may have also overlooked the part where I wrote:
        “I realize though that she is emotionally troubled.”

      • Elle says:

        Emgee, I saw where you said your friend was emotionally troubled. If you are making such a statement I assume that your friend’s emotional problems have been confirmed professionally and I hope she is getting suitable treatment.

        I said before that not everyone has the time or inclination to adhere to convention and conduct relationships they way they’re supposed to. As long as people don’t hurt others there is no reason to judge them. Some people may have the time and inclination to adhere to conventional standards of behavior and forego spontaneity in the process. That’s their choice but it is unfair for them to judge others who do not or cannot do this due to circumstances or responsibilities outside their control.

        Life is short and my philosophy is that we should grab happiness whenever we can. Don’t turn it down for the sake of propriety or what others think as long as you’re not harming anyone. Perhaps this is also the philosphy of your allegedly emotionally damaged friend. It may make others uncomfortable but that’s their problem. We can’t all have the picket fence dream. We don’t all want to make a man jump through a set series of hoops to prove that he is worthy of us. This isn’t because of a lack of self-esteem, but because of taking life as we find it and taking people as we find them.

      • EmGee says:

        One more time, I am not judging my acquaintance, and it is Rude Boy’s behavior i am condemning, not hers. Although since what you are writing applies to men as well as women, I can only assume you are defending his right to lie to get what he wants and take advantage of a troubled person, because you haven’t said otherwise. Decent people just don’t do that.

        I wish she would get help because I doubt she is, many need it, but few realize they need it, and/or can afford it.

      • Elle says:

        I am not defending anyone’s right to lie! Rude Boys aren’t the worst, it is obvious to most what they are doing and it is sad that your friend can’t see this. I don’t like what Rude Boys do, but far worse are “Wolves in Sheeps Clothing”, guys who appear to be nice on the outside to the point of being nerdy but are far more deceptive than stereotypical “Rude Boys”.

        Perhaps I’m cynical because I’ve given up on committed relationships. I think that once men get past their 30s most of them don’t want to commit to women their own age. As far as I’m concerned all men I meet now are Rude Boys in one guise or another. The ones who are not ashamed to be obvious Rude Boys generally have more cojones than the Wolves in Sheeps Clothing.

        I am amazed at how women cling onto old myths and refuse to see the truth regardless of age and experience. Once you are a woman over 40 a man of any age is very unlikely to want a monogamous relationship with you and even less likely to want to commit to you.

        I hope your friend realises this one day and doesn’t get hurt in the process.

  • Aggie says:

    Oh, good for you, Planx. Very nice to hear, and gives hope to the rest of us. Thanks for writing. xx

  • I’m missing a cultural reference here- What’s Shady Oaks?

    There’s a Shady Oaks in New Jersey, and there’s also one in Rhode Island, but neither of those fit here….

    • The Plankton says:

      Shady Oaks is a generic name for an old people’s home, used by one of my wags, or kids, as in, “Play your cards right, or I might send you to Shady Oaks sooner rather than later.” I think it came from the film, Up.

  • Bamph says:

    So what does this say about the author that she places so much of her own personal worth in weather or not she is getting laid?
    Sounds like someone needs therapy instead of sex.

  • py says:

    Looks to me as though someone needs a dictionary.

  • Not that I’d know from personal experience, but this sounds as if it vastly beats the experience of finding a packet of condoms in the laundry which you’d know will have fallen from the pockets of an article of clothing that your parents were washing….

    At least you know that your kids are being careful ….

  • june says:

    Well good on you P. To be honest it has struck me sometimes i might be asexual, ive always been able to take it or leave it and have gone years without sex and never felt i missed it and i am not that repulsive, if id had wanted it that badly i think it could have happened. Keep us posted P how things go with your fling.

    . I just had a bloke on POF this week who announced in first sentance to me “i fancy you, should we meet and i want a physical relationship” i said at least he was honest, and he said too many mature women want companionship and hes 2 dogs and 2 teenage kids who live with him for that, and was i up for it! i said i thought it should come maybe not straight away and anyway with 2 kids, 2 dogs and the fact he lives bout 20 miles away from me i didnt know how a physical relationship could be managed, i wanted someone with a bit more freedom! . When telling my friend today bout this she said knowing im not too forthcoming in that direction, well do you want a sexual relationship then, cause you wont get a man without., Do i though,its been so long im out of practice and honestly companionship is much higher on my list, but suppose if i hate being alone that much id have to accept it. its just i want it to happen gradually, not just wham bang etc,is that wrong of me,today whatever age men are they, seem to expect it straight away, a few weeks ago when i was out doing the garden,one of my neighbours came down to “chat” an d made it pretty obvious that was what he was after and hes older than me and i definitely do not fancy him. Instant gratification seems to be the order of the day nowadays.

  • MissBates says:

    I’m not in a relationship (although I’d like to be). I don’t have sex (although wish that were not the case). So I’m not a “grown-up”? I beg to differ. I’m “grown-up” enough to vote, pay taxes, carry a mortgage, counsel people professionally, have employees, run a business, work 70 hours a week, write a book, support my elderly parents, serve on the boards of charitable organizations, etc., etc. I have to say I FEEL very grown-up. Quite wearyingly adult, in fact, and not made better by being reminded of the social stigma attached to my relationship status.

  • Elle says:

    Welcome back Plankton, I’m glad you’re having some fun again. Enjoy it while it lasts and sod the begrudgers!

  • Steve says:

    I’m jealous. I’d love a crumb right now. Even a stale one would do…..

  • Steve H says:

    “Walking ten feet tall “….but with slightly bandy legs?

    Sorry… that was uncouth of me ;)

    I meant to say “Congratulations P on getting some”!

  • Just Saying says:

    Of course SYT is coming back for more – I always keep past women available, if for nothing else there is the variety thing.

    I try to get back to an open “port” every couple of months – just to keep the invitation available. It doesn’t take a lot to keep things alive – at least compared to the amount of time it can take to open things up in the first place – although you mileage may vary. And every woman is different, just like every meal has a different flavor. Why would anyone limit their selection? I never understood that – I like to keep my options open.

    • Elle says:

      Just Saying, some women do this too. It’s good to have open ports when seas are stormy and life is unpredictable.

    • The Plankton says:

      Well, how very reassuring. Pxx

    • Muriel says:

      Just saying,
      Why? Because long term, stable relationships have their own benefits, and are not usually compatible with keeping your options open. You pays your money, and you takes your choice. Also, living your life as a penis with a life support system gets increasingly tiring and unrewarding as you age.

      • Lou Smorrals says:

        “Also, living your life as a penis ….etc etc ”

        Is that why you had the sex change Muriel or are you guessing? :)

      • Muriel says:

        No Lou, thinking more about the statistics for men over 50 with ED. I don’t think either men or women are cut out for a lifetime of shagging around, but if you can be bothered go for it.

      • fi says:

        Muriel, I think you’re right. I wonder about these (few) blokes who just go on about wanting to work their way through as many women as possible because I’ve never met them. Well not for about 25 years anyway. The men and young men (and I include my son and his friends in that) I know all seem to be in relationships, or looking for one and my feeling is that that is a more healthy way of relating to the opposite sex than to simply want nothing more than a shag. I even met one guy who regretted spending his most attractive years shagging around as now he’s missed the boat. I think being in a rewarding relationship allows a person to develop as a person in a way that simply having sex with a number of people doesn’t, which is why I question the ‘healthiness’ (so to speak) of men (or women) who don’t actually want to engage with someone beyond the sex itself.

      • lou smorrals says:

        Ah Muriel, I think you have hit the nail on the head. So many celibate women ( or at least the ones I know are celibate ) have given up bothering. Effort is required – not being sexist , it applies to men as well. I don’t mean just grooming but attitude.

      • lou smorrals says:

        Fi – What would be your definition of shagging around?

      • fi says:

        Shagging around to me is someone who doesn’t want any more of a relationship than the superficial one required to engage in the sexual act, and if they are lucky/attractive (if a man)/ or desperate enough (if a woman), with as many people as possible. Or lonely people do it too. To use an analogy – someone who didn’t want friends, but only acquaintances would ring similar alarm bells to me.

      • Lou Smorrals says:

        OK, so how would you describe someone who enjoys the company of a number of woman and is equally happy to have lunch with them or make love with them?

      • fi says:

        Lou the short answer is really that how I would describe it or view it is irrelevant. If you were my husband and trying to justify it I’d have a view :) but otherwise what does it matter what anyone else thinks?
        I would say though that for me the issue is not one of the amount of time you spend with someone, it’s the quality of the relationship and the intention that counts.
        If you want to and can get through loads of women and you think that’s great because it must mean you’re very attractive, or a player, then that is your choice and I’m not being disaproving. I’m just saying that I don’t think anyone emerges unscathed at the other end from a series of endlessly superficial encounters. But maybe you are happy with that for now and plan to have fun while waiting to meet someone to bond with. Or maybe you can’t bond. We all make choices and live with the consequences. So your question really isn’t one for me to answer, but for you. :)

      • Lou Smorrals says:

        But Fi, that would apply to virtually any question posed here , so really is a bit of a cop out. I’m interested in your thoughts as I visit here from time to time ( it does get repetitive ) and am always impressed with your well balanced attitude.
        I dont think of myself as promiscuous because these are friends who have built up over years, and while the term polyamourous gets closer its probably a bit ambitious. I just like the company of women and it seems natural to take that to a physical level with those friends who are happy to do so knowing my personal situation.
        You talk about “getting through” women as if they are used and discarded . I wouldn’t regard any of my friendships as superficial but I would suggest that its the superficial ones that both parties are likely to come through unscathed. My problem is I bond too easily and with too many . Nice problem to have though :)

      • Fi says:

        why thank you kind sir ;)
        no, i don’t think the relationships you have are the superficial ones i was referring to. The people i think are a bit odd are the ones who just surf from person to person requiring nothing more than sex then discard them and look for another – you are friends with them too so you obviously have more of a relationship with them.

      • Muriel says:

        Lou
        Those words “..who know my situation..” Is that something you tell them if they ever suggest moving beyond FWB? What is your situation- married?

      • lou smorrals says:

        Muriel

        No one has ever suggested moving beyond FWB so I’ve never needed to tell them. Perhaps thats why we are attracted to each other. The friends I have who I suspect might suggest that, I’m careful to keep as friends without benefits. The only time I didn’t it was me who got the broken heart and that hurts whatever your age and no matter how experienced you are. No doubt the psychologists among you will read much into that but sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Thinking about it you’re probably right in your initial comment to Just Right in that age will catch up with all of us eventually, but I just feel that I should make hay while the sun shines, as long as I dont hurt anybody. At least I’ll have some memories to comfort me. After all our biggest sexual organ is between our ears isnt it? The other point is that , as a society we are constantly putting that age back – 50 is the new forty etc etc. It’ll be interesting to see at exactly what age I loose interest. Nor do I think Just Right is that wrong but he probably could have phrased it a bit more subtly.

  • amouette says:

    If I remember rightly, for much of his time Superman didn’t have much of a sex life. Mind you, he would probably have thought of it in terms of the L word.

  • malcolm says:

    “The real “game” of the grownup world”. Exactly.

    I would posit that those grownups who are through with games have learned not to measure their self worth by how much sex they are getting. It sounds far too much like teenage angst to be healthy for mature people.

  • rosie says:

    Too right, P. I live the life (and have lived the life while watching my best years disappear) of a fucking nun. But I’m not sure I feel infantilised so much as disconnected. May as well be an alien sent down to earth to report on the strange ‘grown up’ rituals of earthlings for all those same rituals have to do with me anymore.

    There’s only one reason any of us are here and it’s because two people have made a physical connection with each other. Sometimes, gasp, even physical *and* emotional. Doesn’t really take a shrink to work out that if those things are denied us while we’re still in the prime of life we’re not going to be very happy bunnies. Does it?

    Glad to hear SYT is back on the scene. Fill your boots while you can!

  • rosie says:

    OK, so how would you describe someone who enjoys the company of a number of woman and is equally happy to have lunch with them or make love with them?

    A lothario. And if he’s over 45, an aging lothario.

    • HappyFeet says:

      Hilarious!

      Do these women who being ‘serviced’ know about each other? I do hope they are practicising safe sex. STDs are apparently rife amongst the older generation.

      • Fi says:

        I think this is a common response amongst women who often conclude that the women in this sort of situation are being taken advantage of, and also that the man is obligated to tell them in advance that he isn’t having a monogamous relationship with them. I don’t agree as I don’t think any one party is responsible for laying out the nature of the relationship, although from what Lou says it sounds like he does anyway.
        I think the responsibility to ascertain the nature of a relationship that anyone is contemplating getting into lies with both the people getting into it and each party is responsible for ensuring what is on offer is what they want. In other words if a monogamous relationship is what one person wants then it is their responsibility to ascertain whether that’s what is being offered and then decide whether they want it or not. It would be important to me, and I’d check to see if that was what was on offer, like I’d also check he didn’t have a drink problem.

      • lou smorrals says:

        Hilarious – well I hope it is HappyFeet because that’s what sex should be about – having fun. But again the term ” being serviced” suggests that the women are passive rather than proactive. Not the case – I would hope my friends regard us as equals. Yes safe sex is an issue but thats the nice thing about being friends , it can be discussed without embarrassment. From your name I cant tell if you are male or female but less of “the older generation” please you cheeky tart :) – you’ll find that in the 21st century there’s a much greater incidence of age disparity anyway.

      • lou smorrals says:

        Ah Fi, the voice of reason as always. But just for the sake of devilment lets suggest that this blog is all about sex anyway and that if the women on here were getting a good seeing to :) none of them would even be reading it let alone writing to it. As evidenced by Ms P’s absence.

        I’ll just sit back and await the explosion if that’s OK.

      • fi (The Voice Of Reason) says:

        Thanks Lou. As you can see I’ve changed my name and much prefer this one :lol:

      • maria says:

        Fi – the voice of reason. Spot on.

      • fi (The Voice Of Reason) says:

        Gee Maria thanks. But all this flattery is going to go to my head and I’ll become unbearable :)

    • lou smorrals says:

      Ageing at over 45 ! Crikey Rosie – in that case I’m a corpse with just a bit of rigor mortis ( thankfully ) :) But why would anyone under 45 be reading this blog? A Lothario is a seducer of women – how do you know it was me doing the seducing? You’ve made me look back and I’ve actually been seduced more than have seduced. Even the one 20 years my junior. Mind you I might have put myself ” in harms way” :)

  • Lou Smorrals says:

    Scott – Interesting post because you could either be being knowingly witty recognizing that “bonking” and “bonkers” are homonyms or you could be being super sensitive because of the cultural divide as in “two countries separated by a common language”

  • Lou Smorrals says:

    amouette – picking up tips :):)

    • Muriel says:

      Tips on what, exactly – celibacy?
      Married men, FWB, arrangements, polyamoury etc., are not really my cup of tea, so can’t offer any tips for harem recruitment. Anyway from what you’re saying you don’t need any, as you have plenty of friends who know your (cough) “situation” and won’t rock the boat. :)

      • had to look that one up- “friends with benefits”….

        FWB is also a computer programming code, it refers to the “&3B” and the “&3C” floating variables, but that made notably little sense in this context….

      • Lou Smorrals says:

        Nasty cough you have there Muriel, you should take something for it. My situation isn’t unique but nor is it usual, so I dont intend to comment on it. As for tips , I had anticipated the question and had intended to answer light heartedly that they were to avoid women called Lydia and travel in Scotland where I might meet Fi. It would have been appropriate to answer you as it would have brought things nicely full circle as it was your comment about ” living life as a penis” that tempted me on here in the first place . However since you seem to be taking this awfully seriously I’ll save my comments for Amouette below as she’s taking this a a bit more tongue in cheek. Anyway I wouldn’t have called four friends gathered over twenty years on two different continents a harem exactly, perhaps your imagination is running a little wild.

      • Muriel says:

        I have to correct you, Mr Smorals, I do not take you at all seriously.
        However I will say this. FWB isn’t a situation that suits many women and can cause terrible damage and hurt. (and, not so often, men get hurt this way too)The men (or women) in your situation tend to keep these things going with dishonest, manipulative and shady behaviour, for example by suggesting or implying that they might some day be available for a relationship, when they are fully aware that that will never happen. And whilst it is true that all of us have a duty to protect our own emotional welfare, to lock the door, and set the burglar alarm (so to speak), it doesn’t excuse the person who walks through the open door and steals your telly.
        Your sudden reticence regarding the thing that precludes you from being in a committed relationship, when you are so eager to collect approval and ego strokes for your sexual high jinks, speaks for itself.
        So no, you don’t get any high fives from me.

      • Lou Smorrals says:

        You really shouldn’t make it up as you go along Muriel. My reticence isn’t sudden its been consistent in the face of your prurience. You brought up the question of FWB not me. To me they are just friends. Sounds to me like you have been the victim of the behavior you describe and are understandably bitter, but being bitter isnt going to endear you to anyone. Nor was I aware that I was seeking approval, least of all from you, for my or my friends behavior, again you’re making it up. Your remarks border on “flaming” . Sorry I wont play.

      • Muriel says:

        Prurient; defined as “having, inclined to have, or characterised by lascivious or lustful thoughts, desires etc”. Look in the mirror, smorals.
        Anyhow, keep your wig on, don’t take yourself so seriously! Its not attractive.

      • WELL ??? Aren’t some of you ladies impressed with my extensive knowledge of ASCII programming codes?

    • amouette says:

      Well at least you have humour and a sense of fun LS – always a good thing.

  • nick says:

    has anyone read the red pill room ?- excellent article on where have all the good men gone —

    http://theredpillroom.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/if-women-dont-need-man-these-days-how.html?showComment=1369070484436#c8144121623320627308

    “Where have all the good men gone?”

    “Feminism chased them away. And now they don’t want to have anything to do with you anymore.”

    “Where have all the good men gone?”

    “They got tired of getting divorced every time you thought you could do better.”

    “Where have all the good men gone?”

    “Feminism taught them that ‘good’ and ‘man’ were mutually exclusive, so they bugged out.”

    “Where have all the good men gone?”

    “They’re marrying girls from the Ukraine and Korea and Argentina and Poland now, because those women don’t get divorced because they’re ‘not haaaaaaapy’. In fact, some are just happy — and grateful — because they have a husband and a chance to raise kids here. Aren’t you happy for your international sisters for fleeing their repressive cultures?”

    “Where have all the good men gone?”

    “They see what a desperate, self-delusional red hot mess you are a mile away, and they throw their loser drinking buddies at you in an act of supreme sacrifice while they spirit themselves away.”

    “Where have all the good men gone?”

    “They want to start their own families, not inherit someone else’s mess. They certainly don’t want to be step-dad to a brood who has never had a father present before, nor do they want their fatherhood constantly over-ruled by your motherhood.”

    “Where have all the good men gone?”

    “They’re all around you, you’re just too convinced of your own value to accept anything other than perfection, and any man so equipped would be smart enough to avoid the tar pit that is your life.”

    • Muriel says:

      I can’t think of anyone I know who has married a Korean, Ukrainian or polish woman. The scottish town i live in is famous for its thriftiness so i expect that the men here would be a) not prepared to part with huge sums of money to meet said foreign lady and bring her back and b) thereafter support her and her and contribute to her relations. Added to which she probably wouldnt know how to use a deep fat fryer or be able to understand the local dialect. (after several years i can understand, mostly, but not speak it). Still,
      you read it on a blog, so it must be true.
      As for the other comments, they seem rooted in emotion and resentment rather than facts and rational facts. I expect there are blogs saying men are all arseholes but I don’t bother to read them either.

    • amouette says:

      Don’t want to rub salt in the wound Nick, but LS here seems to have no trouble at all bonding with women – seduced rather more than seducing- they’re all over, it seems. Perhaps he has some tips he can share on grooming and attitude?

      • Lou Smorrals says:

        I find the concept of giving tips a bit distasteful and arrogant, Amouette, so perhaps just some general observations.

        As far as grooming is concerned. Other than one thing I really wouldn’t dream of commenting as we all find different things attractive/unattractive e.g. bed hair, jewelry, tattoos. With men they need to loose the belly, keep their clothes smart and shave each day every day. With women, the only thing I notice is if they can’t be bothered with the warpaint. Some can get away with it but very few of whatever age, and if I know that sometimes they do and sometimes they dont I then wonder if they can be bothered to shower each day as well.

        Attitude ? Well the one thing that screams out in headlines here is for Christ’s sake stop looking. Put yourself in a position where the men come to you. Make the effort to do things that put you in a social situation. I met my friends – at an OU course – at a voluntary organization ( make it something physical like RNLI or Mountain Rescue whatever your age or fitness – if you are not fit enough make the effort to get fit – Boot camps have plenty of men) – at work – and a friends widow. Added to which you will probably have fun in the meantime. Stop looking for the man and accept a man( as a friend) – he may well have friends that are perfect for you. Men can pick up on a woman who is searching and it shouts “needy” and puts them off. Don’t become embittered – it shows through very quickly. People like happy people.

        Look all this sounds very glib and is easy to say when you are not in that situation. Rosie’s comment above about living the life of a nun was so passionate and poignant that I both wanted to cry and cuddle her ( sorry if that sounds condescending Rosie, its not meant to be). From your description of anyone over 45 being ageing you must be quite young which makes another point for everyone. Dont limit yourself with preconceived parameters whether its on age, wealth, jobs or whatever – e.g. the big advantage with older guys Rosie is you will always be young and beautiful to them. Get in with a crowd of people and you’ll meet more people. Muriel lists the things she’s not into ….picky picky – hey broaden your horizons , give it ago. I reckon once you break the dry spell the water starts to flow from many different sources.

        Never give up – I never forget that there but for the grace of God go I.

        Here endeth the lesson – I’m off for a shag ( just kidding).

      • Muriel says:

        Yeah I’m *really picky*, what with the not wanting to eff other peoples husbands.

    • Jo says:

      Ah yes Nick. Nothing like sweeping generalisation is there?
      Backed up with……bitterness, hatred and insult.
      ‘Where have all the good men gone.?’ Not where you and your ilk are. That’s for sure.
      Thank god.

  • zoe says:

    @Nick. Ah, yes. The delightfully named Mr Ironwood. He hasn’t dropped by recently to liven up the blog. Taking lessons from him are you? I see “anonymous” replied: “I’m taking the Red Pill now and have run into a divorcee, no kids, sweedish hottie…yes, gammed her ass, and applying lessons learned post beta..” Is this ill-spelt vision of human fulfilment really, truly the best you wish for in life and love, Nick?

    • Fi says:

      oh is that who it is? sorry i just think they are the ultimate in loserdom. The more they demonstrate negativity towards women, the more it illustrates how little they like us, and consequently their lack of success in forming relationships with us.

      • Lou Smorrals says:

        Hey girls ( is it ok/pc to call you that?) Why are you bothering to comment on Nick’s rant. You’ll wind him up far more if you just ignore him and that’s what he self evidently deserves.

  • zoe says:

    Yes, Fi. Actually, I didn’t do Anonymous justice in my quotations. He goes on to say: “So, I find myself in an interesting position, post-beta, that is. I have plates spinning, have 2 pump and dumps constantly texting my ass (although recently nuked 1 hamster to smithereens); gamed the ex back in to desire and attraction (albeit slowly) and HB 8 (I guess) sweedish gal who as mentioned above provided a nice window into biomecanics this evening, to quote…” I feel safe and secure…”

    • Jo says:

      Just sad really….
      And rather pathetic.
      What a life. Not..

    • fi says:

      Oh god. Well if true then at least they’re off the market and we’re safe from them. And bearing in mind that they view women as no more than a receptacle for their sperm, and they aren’t looking for any qualities in a woman other than looks, low self esteem and the ability to shag like a rabbit, I don’t see how they can end up with quality women. However they reap what they sow.
      But for men who seem to be getting so much of what they want you’d think they would be a bit happier as a result and less bitter and angry towards women, and instead of making the effort of coming here to post about how much they hate feminists and divorcees you’d think they’d be in a good mood and too busy having sex to care. But they’re not are they? It’s astonishing that they come here and tell us how attractive they are and how successful they are with women. Why? I can’t believe they think we would want one of them. Or maybe they DO think we wish we could have one of them, if only we weren’t so old, ugly and haggard. :D They don’t seem to be able to grasp that no sane, well-balanced, non-masochistic woman would want them. Either they are deluded, or else it’s all a big pretence and they can’t get a woman at all and THAT’S why they’re angry and bitter. They aren’t the same type of men who, like Lou, like women. Maybe a bit too much for some women right enough, but he likes them and they’re all consenting adults.

  • Chris says:

    Thing is round and round and round we go……but the thing is there are roughly equal numbers of men and women…….if you can’t find someone you are operating out of your relationship metric…..how many times do I have to say this. This ain’t rocket science…..its basic biology !!

    • fi says:

      My theory is that when people are young they are at their most attractive simply because youth, with its glowing skin, faster metabolism, plenty of collagen and taut muscles, is attractive. And this is when you start evaluating your attractiveness and work out where you rank so to speak. So if you’re an 8 when you’re in your late teens/early twenties, you still think you’re an 8 when you’re older, even if you’ve peaked and you’re maybe only a 4. So the world is full of older 4s thinking they’re 8s, looking for 8s but surrounded by other 4s, and turning them down. Is that a rational way of looking at it?

      • Chris says:

        fi, I think you might be on the money there. One thing I would add is that as some people age they become more demanding in what they seek in a partner. So you get guys past the physical best who decide they ‘deserve’ a much younger model. Or you get women at a similar stage of life who decide they ‘deserve’ a good looking guy with loads of dosh and a big house. Quite funny really. As for all that 8 4 score stuff…well, look around you at all the people of both sexes in this country who pile on the pounds and just do not take care of themselves. How can they possibly think they are still an 8 ?? Then you get all this garbage about ‘being beautiful inside’ Thing is, if you cannot be bothered to make yourself physically attractive that is a reflection of your character and personality…..it screams out ‘ I can’t be bothered to make the effort’….and that is not an attractive kind of personality I think and would probably extend into other areas of their lives.

      • fi says:

        “Keep young and beautiful if you want to be loved” :lol:

      • Muriel says:

        Fi
        I don’t quite understand the system of “scoring” people 1 to 10. What factors are relevant for evaluation? Is it purely looks and /or age? If so, does anyone choose a partner on that basis.
        If you were comparing a chubby teenager with Kirsty Wark, who would get the higher score? If you were a teenage boy, the former, perhaps, but a fifty something man might choose differently. Can you meaningfully compare them at all?
        Likewise a 20 yr old beautiful male model as compared to Jon Snow. I’d prefer the latter, I think – but then again who is to say the model might not be intelligent, perceptive and well informed? Assigning a number doesn’t help at all. It is insulting. Who you find appealing says as much about you, as the object of
        your desire.
        I was in therapy for a while, and one of the best things the therapist said was that is the “whole package” that we do or don’t find appealing.
        I don’t score people, but I would like ultimately to find someone I am compatible with and find attractive. That may or may not happen, if it doesn’t then so be it. (I am kinda optimistic though!)

      • Fi says:

        Hi Muriel. Well i partly agree with what you say – it is subjective. I mean Tommy Lee Jones rates higher to me i.e. is more attractive to me, than say George Clooney although a lot of women would rate it the other way round. So it is also shorthand for indicating how attractive you find someone, it is subjective, and for me it is the whole package. However the point I was trying to make was that people rate themselves as more attractive than they are considered by other people based on how they viewed themselves when they were younger even if they no longer are. You get the same with fat kids who always view the world through that filter even when grown up and slim. And by attractive I don’t mean just looks, but the mind, the personality, the way they move, their intelligence, their job, their status etc are what makes someone attractive to me.
        But i have read studies though that show people consciously or otherwise end up with other people who are about the same level of physical attractiveness and where they don’t eg old ugly wizened rich man with young lovely girl, it’s because his money increases his score. It’s why when for example one person loses weight their relationship can break down, because the rationale is that the balance shifts and one person is more attractive than the other. or when one person puts lots of weight on the same thing can happen. Not in all cases obviously but it is recognised that it happens. But people do rate each other on looks as part of the package and you only have to read on these pages the women who say they don’t want x in someone one. It isn’t just personality we look for otherwise we would all be partnered up with our friends. And although there is a subjective element, there is still consensus that Brad Pitt is more attractive say than Ed Balls or Elle Macpherson more attractive than Susan Boyle. So although there is room for some variation and subjectivity, there is much less than we think.

      • Fi says:

        And ps Muriel – you do score people that’s why you reject some people or don’t encourage them if they make an approach to you. You just don’t call it ‘scoring’

      • Muriel says:

        Fi
        I can assure I do not “score” people. What I am thinking about is how *I* feel about them and whether I want to be around them or get involved. Also I would think about how they would fit with my life. Eg I like doing outdoor stuff and healthy eating, so a pub and club person wouldn’t work for me, however sexy and wealthy they were. And if someone isn’t interested in me I don’t take it as a judgement on me either, i will never know what their reasons were and they may have been nothing to do with me (eg in love with someone else, gay, I look like their Mum, I don’t look like their Mum, etc etc).

      • fi says:

        You are still scoring them against your criteria. And in addition to the ones you have mentioned there will be a looks category. although it is possible I suppose that you are sexually attracted to every man you encounter?

      • malcolm says:

        Everybody “scores” potential mates. That’s how we choose them, we compare them to others. It just sounds a little crass to admit to it, but it’s human nature. There might be some variables in the criteria we use, but generally they are similar. 100% of all men would rather date a Playboy playmate than a bag lady.
        The obvious truth is that men tend to put more of a premium on physical features than women do. Not a big surprise there.

        http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090626153511.htm

      • EmGee says:

        I don’t agree with you Malcolm, and that isn’t what the article was about, either, so I am not sure why you linked to it.

        It didn’t say men put more of a premium on looks than women do, but that men are more consistent with what they find physically attractive in women, than women are when it comes to men.

      • Muriel says:

        Malcolm
        The choice is never between playboy bunny and bag lady, though, is it?
        They’re two extremes. And when it comes to choosing a partner I think most men & women realise that looks have little to do with being good relationship material. Case study; tiger Woods. Gorgeous, rich & famous; but a compulsive cheat and liar. Also, beautiful women and men also get cheated upon, lied to and
        dumped. Character & values are everything and if you let your penis or vagina do the choosing it won’t choose well.
        My two best relationships were with men I was close friends with for a long time beforehand and hadn’t fancied to begin with. People can grow on you if theres a compatibility. And no I did not score them or compare them to others, they were unique human beings, friends, not washing machines.
        The ones where the eyes met accross a crowded room – disasters.
        The most important things about people take a long time to find out, checklists and scoring tell you nothing but superficial things.

      • Fi says:

        EmGee – I’m confused by what you’ve said. The conclusion said “Women who are trying to impress men are likely to be found much more attractive if they meet certain physical standards, and much less if they don’t.” To me this says that a man’s attraction to a woman is directly linked to her appearance. And ” Although men are rated as more attractive by women when they meet these physical appearance standards too, their overall judged attractiveness isn’t as tightly linked to their physical features.” To me this says that physical attractiveness isn’t as important to women as they can consider men attractive for other reasons even if they don’t meet the physical standards. Why doesn’t those statements support what Malcolm is saying? I agree with him by the way, and as a man I think he is probably in a good position to be able to say what men think is attractive. I think we can say what women think is attractive. The bit we don’t know is how the two compare but I’m assuming that you aren’t challenging Malcolm’s view that looks matter a lot to men, but arguing that looks matter as much to women? have i got it wrong?

      • Fi says:

        But Muriel, with respect, I think you’re missing the point. Scoring isn’t about suitability for a relationship. It IS purely superficial and it’s about what you find physically attractive. Assessing someone’s suitability for a relationship happens with the people you haven’t weeded out at the earlier stage as scoring too low for you to find them attractive.

      • Muriel says:

        Fi
        No I didn’t, as I explained I initially did NOT find 2 of my partners attractive! But they were so nice, so funny and interesting that I did after a long time fall in love and come to fancy them. I was never comparing or scoring.
        I very, very, rarely fancy anyone right away, and if I did, I’d take it as a big red danger sign that my libido and imagination was in the driving seat probably driving down a one way street to Hell.

      • fi says:

        Well maybe you wouldn’t have filtered them out if they weighed 32 stone and had to get about on a disability scooter, or had waist length greasy grey hair but most people do take looks into account :)

      • EmGee says:

        Well, Drat, my browser crashed mid reply. >:(

        The study subjects’ judgments were gleaned from photos, which is judging purely from looks, isn’t it?

        Men appear to have a narrower and more general consensus on what they find attractive.

        Women appear to have a broader range of preferences, but to say that means that looks don’t matter as much to us, isn’t as accurate perhaps, as that looks matter *differently*.

        Inherently, men and women are looking for somewhat different things in each other. As culture shifts, these things get blurred, and the weight of what’s important constantly alters as society grows and develops.

        Living in a patriarchal society as we do, we are well versed and inculcated with what men’s needs are, particularly via media of all sorts, but women’s not so much, I think.

        Outwardly, it appears that many of our ‘needs’ seem to be wrapped up in what men want, and I think that is a false assumption that leads to many of issues mentioned in the article: low self worth, eating disorders, etc.

      • Muriel says:

        I posted a reply but it seems to have dropped down the back of the internet..
        Anyway playboy bunnies, bag ladies, 32stone scooter riders…these are absurd caricatures and I don’t know anyone like that. Most of us are various shades of ordinary, neither strikingly beautiful or horribly disfigured. You could maybe lose a little weight, get a haircut, dress a little better but it won’t make a massive difference. People who know you well will barely notice. What does make a difference is how you are, how you treat other people, how you handle adversity and conflict, your kindness, humour, empathy, etc.
        Anyway, the sermon endeth here!

  • rosie says:

    P, has the Times column been dropped?

  • nick says:

    i didnt read the comments on there, and i wouldnt bother. but there was an article on the site “girl game why its not hopeless” – and it re-iterated much of what chris and Lou Smorrals are saying.

    i guess i am hearing lots of men say when it comes to relationships and certainly marridge “whats in it for them?” – i can see why many dont bother….the cards are too stacked the wrong way. divorce laws for one.

    The sōshoku danshi have withdrawn their participation in greater Japanese society, because they see no incentive to pursue the traditional marriage and family. Their distant, overworked fathers provided no guidance or impetus for having a family. Their economy and the spoiled, entitled nature of Japanese girls have given the sōshoku danshi no incentive whatsoever to procreate. None.

    if the sōshoku danshi ways are picked up by the western batchelors, ladies in thier 40’s today have it so-so – its your daughters and grandaughters that will truly have little chance of hooking a husband.

  • amouette says:

    @Lou Smorrals

    My question about ‘grooming and attitude’ harked back to your comment of 16 May to Muriel when you said that some celibate women had given up bothering and needed to put in more effort not just on grooming but attitude too. Quite frankly, my question was meant ironically, but thank you for taking it seriously and setting out your tips on the subject. I don’t find them glib, just a tad superficial maybe, and in that very charming way of yours maybe a little patriarchal in the assumption that an older woman needs a bloke to feel validated. Please don’t under-estimate the attractions of an unfettered life for a a woman who is comfortable with herself, leads a full and active life and relishes her independence. Of course, in a perfect world, we’d all prefer emotional fulfilment. But sometimes, the better option is not to compromise too much with one’s emotions and one’s freedom.

    • Lou Smorrals says:

      Sorry about that , amouette. Its very difficult to pick up irony in text, perhaps there should be an emoticon for it. I suspect “charmingly patriarchal” could be a polite way of saying “unpleasantly patronising” so another apology and recognition it’s time to go.

      I only commented on here because of Muriel’s “living life as a penis” comment . It was foolish of me.

      I was originally drawn to this site because, as you picked up , I genuinely like the company of women and it was like being admitted to your locker room. Unfortunately , with the exception of people like Fi and yourself, I’ve seen too few beautiful bodies and too many arseholes.

      I’ll close the door behind me.

      • Chris says:

        ‘admitted to you locker room’…..wtf is that ? Are, I get it, you must be ‘merican………GO TO OPRAH !!!

      • Fi says:

        Lou – there are a number of women who post on this site and don’t think that we all agree with each other or share the same viewpoint on anything simply because we are all women. As far as I can see your only crime is admitting you didn’t want to be in a monogamous relationship. Admittedly that isn’t a good thing to say to a bunch of older women on a blog where the point of it is to moan about how unhappy you are because you can’t get a man, because he’s possibly off seeking non monogamous relationships with other women! However, and this is something I often forget myself, the one or two people that are engaging directly with you don’t represent the views of everybody who reads or posts here and to be honest I don’t read anything offensive in anything you’ve written. You like women, you have women friends. For what it’s worth, I think you’re ok. :D

  • zoe says:

    “I’ve seen too few beautiful bodies and too many arseholes.” . Are you sure you like women, Smorrals? Or just ones which gratify you in particular ways?

  • amouette says:

    Old tiger, I shall make myself so unpopular driving you away that I have no option but to proffer a warm handshake and close the door behind me too.

    • Fi says:

      Oh no. Not you too!!! Don’t you dare. I’ve caused so much trouble I’m going to have to go next and close the door behind me! :lol:
      Can’t we all agree to disagree?

  • can’t even meet Miss Wrong, Ms. Very Wrong or even Ms. Very Very Very Very Wrong For Me anymore….

    perhaps it’s time to start researching moving into The Shady Oaks….

  • “On the whole, I tend to steer clear of the subject of sex….”

    Sadly, I think the subject tends to steer clear of us…..

  • @ Ms. Plankton- I had a thought- If there are any causes that you support, you might want to think about attending a fundraiser event sometime-

    I’ll be attending a charity fundraiser event in New York City on this upcoming Thurs. 05/30 evening (or 30/05 in your version of the language)- It is a cause that I do contribute to, and that is the real reason that I’m attending this, but- I’m assuming that most of the people who will be there will likely be either married or dating someone, but it only takes one woman who is single….

    I’m well aware that charity fundraisers are not usually considered to be traditional pick- up venues, and that’s not really why I’ve signed up to attend this upcoming event, but you never know- never hurts for us to keep our eyes open these days….

  • Minnow says:

    You never know what might happen, Scott! Let us know how it goes.

    • I can predict the likeliest scenario- 98% probability that I’ll end up meeting 2 or 3 women, we’ll converse and then we’ll exchange our contact information- They’ll each give me their landline #’s, their cell phone #’s, their work email addresses as well as their personal email addresses- We’ll write to each other a few times, we’ll set up a time and location to try to do something fun together sometime within the next couple of weeks, and then on the morning of the day that we’re planning on meeting each other for a second time (meaning our first social meeting together with just the two of us, sometimes referred to as a “date” in the American version of the language), I’ll receive a brief “txt mssge,” which will read something to the effect of “2 busy these days, sorry- can’t meet w/ u 2 day, no free time until January of 2017, u undrstnd so sor-EE….”

      2% chance, something better will happen- and then I’ll no longer be a plankton- I believe that once I get some, by definition, I’ll automatically be forfeiting my p’tonhood status …. : )

  • I am regular visitor, how are you everybody? This paragraph posted at this
    website is really nice.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

What’s this?

You are currently reading Not Dead But Not So As You’d Notice at The Plankton.

meta

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 739 other followers

%d bloggers like this: