View Single Post
  #66  
Old 12-08-2012, 08:30 AM
PolyLinguist's Avatar
PolyLinguist PolyLinguist is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 49
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nycindie View Post
This is, again, all pre-conceived notions you have about what "most" people, and especially women, want.
And where exactly did I say that this is what I think most people want? I never said that - I said that in this particular case, which I used as an example, talking about it would not have had any beneficial effects. Beneficial for whom? For me? No, I didn't feel the need to talk, I can be quite talkative if I choose to be. For her? I doubt it. But if she did, what stopped her from doing so? Who has the preconceived ideas about gender roles here? She initiated the sexual episode, if she wanted to talk about it, or our relationship, she could easily have started such a conversation. We have been good friends ever since, and I have never detected the least amount of resentment on her part.

More generally, I am not a tongue-tied person, and neither is this lady. If I want to talk about building a better (or more lasting) relationship, I will do so. I had no such intention in this case.

It is a myth, in my opinion, that everything that happens between people must be discussed. Sex is its own reward (for both participants, I hope), and if neither party wants particularly to repeat it, it's best to just go on as if nothing has happened.


Quote:
Originally Posted by nycindie View Post
How can honest direct communication be a bad thing, if said compassionately?
It is not a bad thing, if you have something positive to communicate. And why the need for being compassionate? Two healthy people have a joyful roll in the hay (my favourite word for it), then go their separate ways. What is there to be compassionate about?

Quote:
Originally Posted by nycindie View Post
And about "baubles" - your arguing that women like jewelry missed the point and doesn't address the fact that you obviously have this idea that all women want gifts or jewelry when in a relationship with someone.
I am getting a bit sick of this harping on baubles and stuff. I wish I never added it to the story. The only reason I did was to emphasize the fact that the relationship is based on complete equality, which may be hard to achieve if the partners are in significantly different income brackets.

The writer Jerzy Kosinski, in his novel "Blind Date", describes a story, based on events in his own life, where a poor man, a recent immigrant to the US, meets a very rich woman, a billionaire, whom he mistakes for a secretary when he falls in love with her. She is obviously a poor communicator, by the standards of the "let's communicate at all costs" movement, for at first she neglects to inform the hero of her enormous wealth. Anyway, she also falls for him, and - in order to keep the relationship as one of equals - they keep their finances separate, and refrain from giving each other gifts of significant value, where she could obviously outspend him greatly. It's not a matter of people wanting jewelry or whatever, it is a question of equality.

I am sorry I don't have the eloquence of Jerzy Kosinski, but all I wanted was to make the same point.

Last edited by PolyLinguist; 12-08-2012 at 08:44 AM.
Reply With Quote