|
Register | Blogging | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
04-01-2013, 08:34 PM | #42 (permalink) |
Blue Pill Oww
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Luimneach, Eire
Posts: 1,107
|
Never internet dated before, the population density per square mile isn't large enough in the west of Ireland for it to be realistic in my opinion.
And Black Francis, sort your **** out and stop cheating on that girl. Pick one.
__________________
https://www.instagram.com/hennas.lullaby/ |
04-01-2013, 10:58 PM | #45 (permalink) |
All day jazz and biscuits
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: NJ
Posts: 7,354
|
I went to a wedding where my girlfriend and I were the only ones out of a 300 person wedding including the families that knew the bride and groom met on myspace. I made sure not to get too drunk so I wouldn't spill the beans.
|
04-02-2013, 02:11 AM | #47 (permalink) | ||
air quote
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: pollen & mold
Posts: 3,108
|
Quote:
Quote:
However, I think the OP made a point (more than once) to say that his current physical relationship is established as casual, uncommitted, and not monogamous. So.. why would his "internet hookup" be any worse than him dating multiple people in real life? That's pretty normal for humans. I'm confused about why people presume that the real-life girl expects monogamy. OP said expressly that she does not. If she does then, yeah, I agree with the "you're a sleazy douche" comments but he claims that she does not. If in doubt, he should talk to real-life girl about it and accept the consequences, as has already been said. I agree that OP shouldn't lie by omission to the real-life hookup if, as everybody presumes, the real-life one would be concerned/alarmed. But I think it's kind of offensive to the real-life hookup for people to assume that she even wants to have that conversation. OP said they're not committed. Maybe she would also like to retain her own privacy.
__________________
Like an arrow,
I was only passing through. |
||
04-02-2013, 03:31 AM | #48 (permalink) |
Music Addict
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Mars
Posts: 108
|
Are you sitting comfortably, children? Then I'll begin.
I'm probably going to take a disliking of the OP due to his ''fuckbuddy'' approach. For me to fuck someone, I have to be in love with someone, have an emotional connection. I probably read too much D.H Lawrence, but oh well. People with ''fuckbuddy'' approaches are no better than prostitutes. Their lives revolve around the physical sex, the carnal hunger, the animal instinct, rather than the beautiful human love. Love is beautiful. Sex is noisy and messy, just the expression of love. Painting is beautiful, paintings are just the expression. Can you have love and sex at the same time? Of course. But they've got to be in a balance. Too much of one will upset the relationship. Too much of a relationship that's solely based on the sex and it will undoubtedly fail. You will no grow to love her. You will just love her vajayjay. You've got to love her being, not her sexual organs. That wasn't too bad, was it? That was probably I in my most philosophical.
__________________
Welcome to the internet, where opinions are like toilets; everyone thinks theirs are perfect but the public ones stink. |
04-02-2013, 04:24 AM | #49 (permalink) | |
air quote
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: pollen & mold
Posts: 3,108
|
Quote:
__________________
Like an arrow,
I was only passing through. |
|
04-02-2013, 04:29 AM | #50 (permalink) |
Music Addict
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Mars
Posts: 108
|
Misogynistic? Which is more anti-women, respecting their bodies or just using them for sex?
__________________
Welcome to the internet, where opinions are like toilets; everyone thinks theirs are perfect but the public ones stink. |
|