I'm in complete agreement with you AT. I don't believe she deserves the respect either, anyone that is in such a relationship has no right to be upset. Especially when she says "I can understand if you are no longer interested. I can totally understand that. To be honest, I wasn't really interested either..." And obviously she was interested, especially since she was so upset by it. If it didn't matter she would have walked on and said "fuck it" I know I would have.

RESPECT MAH AUTHORATAH! sorry, that just sprung to mind as i was thinking about this.

Such a troll.

I, too abhor the travesty of so-called "post-feminism". It's come full circle. If they want to be treated as objects (which IS a lot of fun every once in a while, but gets old really fast), why not just put on a burqua and spare everyone the wannabe Paris Hilton act? I'm of the mind that a person who doesn't repect his or herself is usually not worthy of respect from others. I guess the only plus is that women are now encouraged to objectify men just as much...if you can call that a good thing. Just remember there are those of us who not only deserve respect, but will demand it from others.

And obviously she was interested, especially since she was so upset by it.

I know, right? It totally smacks of, "Why doesn't my fuck buddy treat me like his girlfriend - or, at least, someone he's dating." It makes no sense to me at all.

why not just put on a burqua and spare everyone the wannabe Paris Hilton act?

Well, the thing is omni, it's not even as full-blown as Paris. Yea, Paris is like, the extreme example of it. But women can fall far short of Paris Hilton and still be what I'm talking about here. I mean hell, go to any college campus (the closer to an ocean, the better) and throw a rock - you'll hit someone who fits the description of what I'm saying here.

It's like, women have become so desperate to distance themselves from the stereotypical "gender role" (for whatever reason, I still don't know) that they've transformed their entire identity as women. But then at the same time, they complain that people aren't respecting them AS women. Well, I'm sorry ladies - but you can't have it both ways. And I think women these days have to decide who and what they want to be. Do they want to be the equals of men and be treated as such, or do they want to be something different and be treated different accordingly?

Just remember there are those of us who not only deserve respect, but will demand it from others.

I won't lie kitten, it's getting harder and harder to keep that in mind with every passing day, with every act I see from women (be it as a gender in the social/political climate, or as an individual posting on her personal blog.)

Forgetting the sex part of things for just a second, isn't rude not to speak to someone you know who says hi to you? That is part of the treat other how you want to be treated golden rule...

Don't pull the mother card that makes you sound like a drama queen, so here's the same answer I would give to any of my friends, just because there are a few misguided individuals doesn't mean you give up on the whole lot, after all not every girl is out there spouting hypocritical nonsense and opening her legs up for every man around.

This girl's a bit naive, which everyone has pretty much already pointed out. From the sound of things she's forgetting to respect herself and let's face it, it's hard to respect someone who doesn't respect themselves.

Forgetting the sex part of things for just a second, isn't rude not to speak to someone you know who says hi to you?

No. If I had to engage in conversation with every schmuck that extended a greeting to me, I'd kill myself.

Plus (and yes, we're completely speculating now), maybe he's ashamed of her. If I were banging some chick just to get my nut off, and I didn't want my friends to know about it, I'd totally ignore her too. Does the fact that she's letting him bed her mean that he owes her something in public social circles?

Don't pull the mother card that makes you sound like a drama queen

Hahaha, I only even thought of it because my mom was talking to me about it a couple days ago. I think she's looking to my younger brother to produce grandchildren at this point. Which makes sense. That poor guy wants to be in love so badly. I'm genuinely concerned that he's going to get fucked over by some bitch in the near future.

just because there are a few misguided individuals doesn't mean you give up on the whole lot

Define "a few." Because they sure seem like the extreme majority from where I'm sitting. (And no, I'm not just talking about Vegas girls.)

i dunno, "respect" is being thrown around a lot in general.. i question how much the whole concept of respect even comes into play in these scenarios. or is it just another cliche used to avoid facing the more basic, animalistic explaination that the guy ignored her because he was busy chasing other poontang?

I'm sure he was chasing some other poon, but it's still very rude to ignore her hi. It's not like she is one of those 'haii i don respect any1 but you respek me' hoes. I don't think she is asking too much at all.

Well, I'm not just talking about respecting this girl in particular.

Women in general - seeing what they've become (at least in America). You think this new, gentrified, progressive, modern woman deserves respect?

I guess I missed the lesson where putting out equates any level of social obligation... the original girl would have done so much better for herself to ignore him, flirt with his friends and simply let her random fuck know it went both ways. Clearly she is weak.

i was watching 'Lords of Dogtown' a while back (story of skaters in the 70s.) there were a fair few scenes in which the guys were hanging out with these girls who did nothing but snort coke and suck cock. so i don't think the 'slut' trend has changed much actually.

in other words, i don't think this 'new, gentrified, progressive, modern woman' exists as a phenomenon specific to the 00s. perhaps it's become more common and the age group has widened, but it's certainly not NEW.

In that case you'd hate the South, most people speak down here... it's kind of warped at first but you get used to it.

This will probably sound like apples and oranges but here goes, it's the same as the news, you turn on the tv and all you hear is murder, violent crimes, scheming politicians, etc. Does this mean there's no good news, no. Bad news and scare tactics people make read papers and people watch TV. Good news gets very little if any press.

The same can be said about women as a whole or men as a whole. Yes there are some plastics, man haters, gold diggers, players, man whores, pigs...and they're the ones who get all the press. This site is a great example, most people get on here and talk about the bad, not the good.

Oh and your little brother will probably be fine, strangely enough he probably worries about you too for the opposite reason.

In that case you'd hate the South, most people speak down here...

Yea, I know how that goes (born in Tampa.) Can't stand that shit.

Does this mean there's no good news, no. Bad news and scare tactics people make read papers and people watch TV. Good news gets very little if any press.

Fair comparison, I guess. But, if I may rebut - it's not just on the news. It's everywhere. It's the prevailing mindset in first world nations. Am I wrong? I'd love to hear that I am - but I never do. I see it everywhere. From OKC, to a random bar, to a party with friends, to a social/political blog, to a nightly newscast, to the Hillary Clinton campaign, to my professional life. It's everywhere. This is how the modern women is "supposed to be" and women across the board are following suit. Maybe not all of them, but enough of them to be called "the norm." Don't you think?

Oh and your little brother will probably be fine, strangely enough he probably worries about you too for the opposite reason.

He doesn't know community property and family law like I do. ;)

You need to head on out to the burbs somewhere wholesome (like what - Minnesota? I really have no clue) and watch people going about their daily lives, attending parent-teacher nights, going to yoga, buying the groceries, not whoring it up.

hmmm i think that might just put him off women, marriage and kids for life.

The prevailing notion amongst the adults I am around is to be happily married with young children.

Yea, uh huh. What is the population of Whatever, NZ again? You seem to think that your little middle-of-nowhere is representative of the entire world, when in reality, you apparently live in an isolated town ignorant of the world around you outside of what you read on CNN.com. Your same minimalist viewpoint creeps in on your absurd views about public transportation, crime, gun control, and disease. Yea, that might work for all 5000 people there. You know what? It doesn't work in CIVILIZED SOCIETY.

That you see it everywhere may be because that's what you're looking at.

That you fail to see it everywhere may be because of your limited viewpoint. And frankly, it's probably a hell of a lot more true for you, than your claim is on me.

hmmm i think that might just put him off women, marriage and kids for life.

She was serious? I assumed she was talking about some kind of horrific hell dimension.

I too think that failing to say hello (especially after you have been greeted first) to someone you in any way know is rude. Your trying to deny the existence of a social/personal tie with a person won't make that tie either cease to exist or negate it has existed at some point. Also in this specific case you are making another person feel bad for the regret and/or shame you feel for your choices. I don't think the girl in question is hurt for the lack of manners so much as the lack of regard. You say though she doesn't deserve it. But being as prone as you are to -let's say- encourage people to take responsibility for their actions why is his attempting to negate even knowing her acceptable to you?

These large western cities are really as horrific for some women (love wise) as they are to men. So your anger/frustration is misplaced. You think no such women exist. But they do. It's just you don't see them. As per explaining or understanding the reasons of this inability of yours I'm at a loss.

Your take on this particular female specimen may be justified. Other than that, too much generalising about women in this post.

Common human courtesy should not have to be earned. If person A says hi to person B, person B should at the very least give an abrupt greeting in response, unless there's a serious feud between the two. Ignoring a person is kinda pre-k.

Why is common courtesy being broken down into respect for this girl? So what, she nailed the guy without wanting a relationship. So frickin what? That means she has no self-respect or doesn't deserve any?

Where is the logic there? Say hi doesn't have to be about respect, unless you absolutely despise the other person, but given that she seemed confused and a bit put off by his complete ignorance of her, he comes off as a complete twat by acting the way he did. I'm thinking there had to be minimal conversation between them at least during some point of their acquaintance, otherwise they never would have fallen into bed, so extending that into a public acknowledgment that she even exists would be what? Fatal?

Christ on a cracker--sometimes AT, you pick the most profoundly stupid things to bitch about and over-generalize upon.

again, why does fucking have to lead to any level of communication?? I agree people should be polite, but I cannot fault someone for choosing to not say "hi". The OP has every right to think he is rude, but I do not feel she has a right to imply he is obligated to address her socially because they randomly fuck.

Right on AT.

How I have laughed at Britts when she went loopy and deranged and the kids got taken away and she got taken away and and and ...hahahahahahaYou twisted so many young girls minds playing the slut role....I have zero pity for you.

Says Trippy from Anus.

again, why does fucking have to lead to any level of communication?? I agree people should be polite, but I cannot fault someone for choosing to not say "hi". The OP has every right to think he is rude, but I do not feel she has a right to imply he is obligated to address her socially because they randomly fuck.

At what point does she say that he is obligated to her? She said that she was basically confused and then a bit bent. Who wouldn't have been? She didn't cause a scene, or call him out or get nasty or anything. He ignored her, so she tried to bridge it and say hi at which point he continued to act as if she didn't exist. His choice, yes, just as it is hers for feeling stung by his assholish behaviour. Common courtesy is expected by everyone from everyone on a daily basis, whether you're on friendly terms or fuck buddies or perfect strangers.

do you really think not saying "hi" to someone is worth all this? I guess when she said "I can understand if you are no longer interested. I can totally understand that. To be honest, I wasn't really interested either" she lost any right to bitch for me. By her own words, she understands him not being into it... she admits she is not either.. where is the harm?? not saying hi to someone you are not interested in, who is not interested in you just seems like strangers passing in the night. I don't say hi to everyone I walk past in the grocery store, even the ones I recognize. I am not obligated, nor was he.

Also in this specific case you are making another person feel bad for the regret and/or shame you feel for your choices.

You know, I talked in her thread about prostitutes a little bit. I'd like to hear your take on that. If a guy gets a hooker for the night (which is basically what this is, without the transfer of money), does he owe her any pleasantries the next day? No. He kicks her ass out of his hotel room and goes on about his business. She's nothing to him, by the merits of their agreed-upon arrangement. This is what it MEANS to be somebody's casual, meaningless fuck.

I don't think the girl in question is hurt for the lack of manners so much as the lack of regard.

Why should that hurt her, unless she was attempting to redefine the nature of their relationship? She's nothing to him, and he doesn't owe her anything - not a hi, not a smile, not even an acknowledging of her existence.

That's my whole point here jen? How can somebody who purposefully and intentionally set their relationship up this way cry about being hurt, or call it rude? THIS IS WHAT SHE WANTED. This is the relationship as she agreed to define it. If she wanted more, she should have demanded to BE something more to him than just a "causal fuck," don't you think?

You think no such women exist. But they do. It's just you don't see them.

Take a look at this website jen (but don't look at the profiles. The profiles are bullshit. Look at the journals - the attitudes and ideologies espoused there. You'll learn way more about people by reading their journal than you will their profile.) I admit that I'm generalizing here, but go take a close look at the predominant female voices on this site and look at how they talk about and generally regard sex. (Desi does it later right here in this very journal.) Now, I understand that many females here are TRYING to look that way in some misguided attempt to attract a man (only so that he can treat her like shit and she can subsequently complain about how there are "no nice guys" out there) - so perhaps this site isn't particularly representative. But you can't help but notice the glaring irreverance and casual attitude these people have about sex. And then they have the audacity to complain about it when they're being treated poorly? Give me a break.

Now, I won't go so far as to say they don't exist - but the ones I'm describing... they're certainly the majority, I think. Or, at least, they're acting the part because they think that's what a "modern woman" is supposed to be or that "it's what guys want."

If person A says hi to person B, person B should at the very least give an abrupt greeting in response, unless there's a serious feud between the two.

Whoa whoa whoa stu - remember, we're not talking about people here. We're talking about an arrangement in which the entities have reduced each other to objects. They may have flesh and blood and feelings and whatnot, but the nature of a casual fuck is that you don't HAVE to care. You're not EXPECTED to care. They're not a person stu - they're just something you fuck.

If that's not what they wanted out of the relationship, they should have set it up different, don't you think?

So what, she nailed the guy without wanting a relationship. So frickin what?

See what I mean jen?

he comes off as a complete twat by acting the way he did.

Hardly. He comes off as a guy treating a chick the WAY SHE ASKED TO BE TREATED by the nature of the arranged they defined between each other. She can't cry foul when she specficially set up the relationship so that they wouldn't mean anything to each other.

I'm thinking there had to be minimal conversation between them at least during some point of their acquaintance, otherwise they never would have fallen into bed, so extending that into a public acknowledgment that she even exists would be what? Fatal?

No, not fatal. Just unnecessary. He doesn't owe her anything. Not an exchange of pleasantries, not an acknowledgement of her existence, not respect as a human being. Remember, THIS IS WHAT SHE WANTED out of their arrangement, and nothing more. If she wanted a boyfriend, a friend, or even just a known associate - she should have defined the relationship that way. She didn't.

She said that she was basically confused and then a bit bent. Who wouldn't have been?

I wouldn't have. If you sleep with a prostitute, are you going to cry about it when she doesn't talk to you the next time you run into her. What you're failing to realize desi, is THERE'S NOTHING BETWEEN THESE TWO PEOPLE. They regarded the physical intercourse to be meaningless, and so it was. What right does she have to be upset about it when she specifically agreeded to be meaningless to him?

His choice, yes, just as it is hers for feeling stung by his assholish behaviour.

It wasn't assholish behavior. He treated her exactly the way she wanted to be treated - like an object.

Common courtesy is expected by everyone from everyone on a daily basis

Aha, there's the real heart of your position here - your apparent belief that you're entitled to courtesy from everyone. Yea, you're not. Particularly when you mean nothing to the person you're expecting courtesy from.

If a guy doesn't tip his hat to you or hold a door open for you (which, I can't help but mention, so many women COMPLAIN about when men do so), he hasn't wronged you or been rude to you or mistreated you in any way. Courtesy is akin to a gift that you get from people who choose to be nice. They don't owe it to you. They don't owe you jack shit.

not saying hi to someone you are not interested in, who is not interested in you just seems like strangers passing in the night. I don't say hi to everyone I walk past in the grocery store, even the ones I recognize. I am not obligated, nor was he.

Exactly. And this is the point you're missing desi. She's nothing to him desi. The problem with your stance here is that you're failing to understand that.

You're trying to put meaning on their relationship of "casual fucking", when the very nature of the relationship is that it HAS NO meaning.

She can't have it both ways. She can't want to have meaningless sex, and then cry about it when she's subsequently treated as meaningless. It's that simple. If you want to be nothing to the guy, then you can't complain about it when he treats you as such.

It's not all women AT, just most. I completely agree with you on this. I think I agreed with you on the other post as well. In this day and age nearly everyone is a horny fuck with no morals. I never believed in having casual sex. I respect myself too much to lower myself to that kind of level.

I might as well go for dudes. They're about as feminine as most girls I meet. Cock can't be that bad. And no periods to worry about!

Like you don't already, 69% friend.

:\

You seem to think that your little middle-of-nowhere is representative of the entire world

No. I was just presenting anecdotal evidence for your assumption that what you have seen is the case "everywhere" is incorrect. If there is somewhere that it is not the case, then it can't be everywhere. Similarly, that your experience of something such as public transport has been entirely negative does not mean that it is impossible for it to be anything but.

That you fail to see it everywhere may be because of your limited viewpoint.

I see it plenty of places such as amongst the teens in the small town in which I live. I agree that it is enough to be called the norm, but not enough to claim that is is everywhere.

Your trying to deny the existence of a social/personal tie with a person

Trying to deny something isn't the same as failing to acknowledge something. I once got cold-shouldered for months by someone and all their cronies for apparently "snobbing" them at a party, when the reality was I had been so engaged in a conversation (mid-anecdote, back in my gregarious youth), I hadn't actually seen them come in or heard them say hello.

Stumbled across this just now I think is sort of relevant: http://xkcd.com/385/

I'm not quite understanding this post, are you mad because there's sluts in this world. sluts, whores whatever have always been around and serve their purpose. they complain a little, may be here on okc, but you don't need them or want them so what. go find something better. but I honestly think your in the same boat they are. little to offer but may be money and some witty charm which last about as long as a one night stand or longer depending on how long you can put up with an air head. may be you and thisgentleman should talk, he seems like the catcher.

one last thing, your fascinated by a womans utter inconsistency? are you serious, their emotional beings, logic comes in a distant second.

I agree with the sentiment of your post, but I think all she wanted was for him to acknowledge her presence. Just because someone says 'hi' to me doesn't mean they respect me, nor do I necessarily respect them if I say hi back. Now, maybe this chick DOES want him to respect her, but based on her post, she just wanted him to say 'hi' back.

I think the main thing is that you seem to equate being a casual fuck to someone as being NOTHING to someone. As far as I know, casually fucking someone is still a relationship, it's just on the bottom rung of the ladder. Most people who are fuck buddies were at least introduced before they fucked. If you meet someone at a club and screw them and never see them again, I think it's cool to ignore them the next time you see them. But if you're casually fucking someone, used in this instance to suggest more than one fuck, that doesn't negate any relationship (casual friends, acquaintances, etc) that you were prior to the fucking. Just because you have sex with someone without a relationship doesn't mean you should both pretend not to know each other. That seems pretty wack to me. Also, prositution?! That's not casually fucking someone, that's paying them to fuck you. That's a business transaction. So to equate fuck buddies to prostitutes is ridiculous.

Oh, and when I say it's 'still a relationship,' friends, acquaintances, and roommates are relationships, too. I wasn't referring to a romantic relationship.

No. I was just presenting anecdotal evidence for your assumption that what you have seen is the case "everywhere" is incorrect.

...I agree that it is enough to be called the norm, but not enough to claim that is is everywhere.

Semantic games, huh madoo? Is that all you have to contribute? Trying to ignore the obvious meaning and intent of the words to... what are you even doing here? You haven't made any actual points on the subject. What, are you just quibbling about the meaning of "everywhere" in an attempt to be contrary and obtuse?

Here's one. "I have comic books all over my apartment." Does "all over" mean that every square inch of carpet and wall is covered in comic books? Of course not. Such an interpretation would be flat out stupid. And of course, any reasonable, intelligent person would realize it's stupid. So, you're either unreasonable and unintelligent, or you're just trying to play games. Either way, knock it off. If you don't have anything meaningful you want to say, then kindly get out of my journal.

I'm not quite understanding this post, are you mad because there's sluts in this world.

No metis, I'm criticizing these people that seem to want to have it both ways when it comes to sex. They seem to think that they can reduce themselves to sex objects, and still be entitled to respect as human beings. As I said in the original post: How can women complain about being ignored or objectified or otherwise treated without respect when that's the image they're going for?

one last thing, your fascinated by a womans utter inconsistency? are you serious, their emotional beings, logic comes in a distant second.

I guess it's not so much a fascination with the fact that they're like that, but rather, how they don't seem to realize it. They just can't seem to fathom why they aren't respected, when they act and live in the way they do these days. It's like being surprised when your foot gets wet after you stick it into a pool of water. I mean, hello? What'd you THINK was going to happen?

What the fuck are you doing in here AIP? I thought you decided that I was an asshole that wasn't worth your time or effort, and that you had nothing to say to me. You made a whole big production of it, remember? And all those little sycophants came out of the woodwork to sympathize with you because the big mean atomicturtle made you feel bad. Now you want me to give you and your thoughts on the subject some consideration? What, is your new little clique not paying attention to you anymore? Give me one reason why I shouldn't delete your posts and ban your psychotic ass.

Surely Alice doesn't have a clique?

i feel like this topic has been done to death, AT.

where the hell is Anon?

That you fail to see it everywhere may be because of your limited viewpoint. And frankly, it's probably a hell of a lot more true for you, than your claim is on me.

How can we (the royal we, as in everyone) know whose viewpoint is more limited, from our own perspectives? Wouldn't all of our perspectives be limited by our own biases? Without some type of quantification of the phenomenon, isn't this just an exercise in finger-pointing?

Having said that, a lot of the behavior that I see described in these OKC journals is far different than any behavior I've seen or heard about in real life as a group. But of course, I'm not looking for that type of behavior. And that's just my own biased perspective.

i feel like this topic has been done to death, AT.

Yea, maybe. Starting to get a little repetitive.

where the hell is Anon?

Getting fat somewhere. :(

Casual sex is an exchange of favours between two people who want to fulfill a basic need not much different than eating or sleeping. It doesn't exclude self-respect or mutual respect, nor does this basic activity reduce people to objects. It is in fact about being nice and social towards each other, and with the premise of safety, it's perfectly healthy.

The prostitute comparison is ridiculous in itself because paying money for services doesn't mean that you own somebody or are allowed to treat them in a degrading way. I'm sure you wouldn't kick your doctor's ass or stop greeting him after he's treated your illness, just because you paid for being cured.

Your distorted and weird perception of something so natural indicates that you have severe issues with it.

And my mother wonders why she's never going to get grandchildren from me...

Natural selection ftw.

I agree about the dichotomy in post-modern feminine behaviour. Too much "Sex In The City"-like in their thinking.

I found that show extremely amusing in that the women were protagonists / modern strong women while the men who behaved like them sexually were jerks / arseholes / chauvinists.

It's just a rationalization process designed to elevate one's own self-worth for some of these women who still want to think of themselves pure as driven snow while being naughty. I empathize and applaud the naughtiness but not the laughable dichotomy.

I wonder why this reminds me of http://youtube.com/watch?v=SjxY9rZwNGU

Of course, rationalizations can go both ways. Can't they, Atomic?

Men are just as responsible for the "sexual revolution" as women. Which is why I applaud AT for not putting up with that crap. However the flip side is that he also mocks women who's only ambition is to be a wife and mom. You can't have it both ways AT. Women can be women, or they can try to be men.

WTF, AT, when did I say you weren't worth my time or effort? You insulted me, I was insulted, I don't pretend to have thick skin. As far as I know, I've never said you weren't worth my time or effort. But hey, if you want to delete my posts, go ahead, it won't ruin my life.

It doesn't exclude self-respect or mutual respect, nor does this basic activity reduce people to objects.

Please. If you don't want to be treated like a piece of meat that's only good for one thing, then why act like one?

The prostitute comparison is ridiculous in itself because paying money for services doesn't mean that you own somebody or are allowed to treat them in a degrading way.

I didn't say it does. I said that the nature of their arrangement entitles the person to one thing: sex.

Not respect, just sex. Not to be treated like a human being, just as an object.

Your distorted and weird perception of something so natural indicates that you have severe issues with it.

I DO have severe issues with it. And I DO have severe issues with the devolution of the modern female. I admit as much in previous posts. I can't take them at face value anymore. By their own choices and lifestyles, they've reduced themselves in value and desirability. They've sacrificed their femininity and their mystique in order to close that gender gap. The adage about buying the cow when the milk is free is totally appropriate in these modern times. Yea, I have a real problem with that. And I am nothing short of flabbergasted when I see some chick that purposefully acts like a whore, who then turns around and complains that she's not being respected as a woman.

They can't have it both ways.

Of course, rationalizations can go both ways. Can't they, Atomic?

Of course.

However the flip side is that he also mocks women who's only ambition is to be a wife and mom.

When have I ever mocked someone with that ambition? My OWN MOTHER is one of those women. What I criticize are the people (men OR women) whose only sense of purpose or accomplishment in their lives are that they bred and raise children - as if the physical act of reproduction and child raising (which any idiot can do) are things to take pride in. And I particularly criticize the ones who do so, but can't even manage maintain the relationship with their breeding partner. What I mock, are the people who think they're entitled to respect and admiration because they're doing something that's entirely expected of them.

WTF, AT, when did I say you weren't worth my time or effort?

Oh, I don't know. Maybe it was the time you pitched a little tantrum because I pointed out the fact that internet dating is pathetic and that anyone who does it is pathetic. Or maybe it was the time you ran off crying because I pointed out to everyone the obvious fact that you're fucked in the head and a relationship with you would likely end with you committing a murder/suicide. And as I recall, you had some pretty choice words to say to me about it and you sure didn't hesitate to talk shit in your own journal. And now you come here, expecting to be listened to, to have your viewpoint respected? Fuck off. Why don't you go whipmer in a corner somewhere about how nobody likes you.

The dispute that has arisen here is solely down to definition. Push has defined 'casual sex' as in her comment above and AT has defined it as incuding the ideas of 'no meaning' and NOT including the idea of a 'known associate'. Given those definitions, AT can hold logically to his view unproblematically, there cannot be an argument. But it is the very act of attempting to label behaviours that has caused the problem in the first place. How do you define 'casual sex'? Where does casual sex stop and 'a loose relationship' begin? Where does a 'loose relationship' end and 'a short-term affair' begin? Where does a 'short term affair' end and 'a committed relationship' start? There are no fixed categories for which the precise definitions are known and shared by everyone. There is a spectrum of behaviour beginning at one end with a gentleman inserting his penis into a lady's dirtbox and moving in and out until milky white love-piss spurts out of the end, with absolutely no associated 'meaning' to this interaction whatsoever (an unlikely state of affairs in my opinion, but peoples are weird). At the other end of the spectrum is a full-on committed relationship.

In the case of lilyiris, clearly her bottom end of the spectrum includes the idea of some, perhaps little, but some associated meaning and she has labelled this bottom end of the spectrum as 'casual sex'. Since the label 'casual sex' has certain definitions associated with it that differ between AT and her, this is why the problem has arisen. AT has imported his own definitions and applied them to her situation erroneously because of the label, 'casual sex' that she applied to her behaviour, which for her imports different definitions and therefore expected consequential behaviours.

In the case of the gent who ignored her at the party, if his definition of casual sex is the same as AT's then he was not an arsehole except perhaps by dint of the fact that he didn't recognise that lilyiris' definitions and expections differed to his.

In fact I suspect the explanation is different. I suspect that he ignored her because he wanted to find another girl at the party and he was frightened that she would interfere with this activity, an unfounded fear judging by what she said. Fear-driven behaviour annoys me. I call those people who engage in it arseholes.

You hold grudges. About internet arguments? Come on AT that's not very robot-like.

There are no fixed categories for which the precise definitions are known and shared by everyone.

I think she defined it pretty well, and made the nature of their arrangement obvious: "I can understand if you are no longer interested. I can totally understand that. To be honest, I wasn't really interested either"

As far as we can tell, these two weren't even friends. I'd bet 10 to 1 odds on the notion that she met this guy as a stranger at a party, they were both probably drunk and slept together, they decided to sleep together a few more times, and that was it. Her post doesn't suggest that this was some friend she knew, or some guy she'd hung out with before, where they had some kind of pre-existing relationship before the sex began. If it were, she'd have a whole different kind of outrage, don't you think?

You bring up an interesting point though, and one that is a worthy discussion topic. What exactly IS casual sex? I mean, I read it the way I did because of the way she described it and in its context - just "fucking." I mean, there really isn't a lot of wiggle room there for interpretation. It is pretty much what is says it is, don't you think?

I suspect that he ignored her because he wanted to find another girl at the party and he was frightened that she would interfere with this activity, an unfounded fear judging by what she said.

I was personally thinking it was shame. He slept with her and didn't want anyone to find out - so he ignored her, or otherwise acted like he didn't know her when he was in a public setting with all those witnesses. But who knows. That question is purely speculatory.

You hold grudges. About internet arguments? Come on AT that's not very robot-like.

Honestly taken, it's not so much of a grudge as it is... well, AIP is one of those many many two-faced bitches around here - and I don't much care for that, or welcome folks like that in my journal.

It's funny that she picks THIS subject to post in, actually, seeing as how it's about stupid chicks who choose to act in a certain way, but then turn around and expect to be treated with dignity and respect. As I said... they just don't get it.

"You bring up an interesting point though, and one that is a worthy discussion topic. What exactly IS casual sex? I mean"

To my mind "casual sex" is a deviation.A deviation from the full expression and involvement in the vitality of our cosmically aspired blueprint.You can not be truly yourself when you are engaging in casual sex.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=SjxY9rZwNGU is the best thing I have seen all week.

Well, I did watch Goldfinger the other night. So, second best thing I have seen all week. Still pretty good.

I think she defined it pretty well, and made the nature of their arrangement obvious: "I can understand if you are no longer interested. I can totally understand that. To be honest, I wasn't really interested either"

I was taking that to mean that she wasn't really interested in anything long-term or even anything short-term involving some sort of friendship developing, but I think from her reaction to his ignoring her, we must assume that she was expecting at least a certain level of mutual respect should exist between them, respect enough to warrant a 'hello'. For instance if you played table tennis with someone, say five or six times, you would probably at least say hello to them if you saw them on the street. I have played badminton with people that I don't particularly like and wouldn't socialise with but I wouldn't pretend to not know who they are if I saw them on the street. It is clear that her definition includes at least this minimum level of respect.

The question then becomes is this level of intimacy/lack of intimacy combined with sex something you feel is worthy of condemnation. I'm guessing in your case it probably is. In my case I wouldn't go so far as to condemn it. My minimum level entry requirements for a sexual relationship are probably more sparse than yours, I'm guessing, but I do want to fuck a human being and I want to feel a certain level of affection and liking for that person even if I can be pretty sure that they are not going to be the love of my life. And in fact the very act of fucking them increases my affection for them. So, if we are to take a definition of casual sex as something along the lines of "exchange of favours between two people who want to fulfill a basic need not much different than eating or sleeping" + a minimum level of respect, then I do not engage in casual sex, however it's possible some people would describe what I have engaged in at times as casual sex.

I asked a few people tonight in the real world how they define casual sex and in all cases except one it did include a level of respect that would entail a hello at a party, with the proviso that the casual sex had happened on at least a few occasions. I guess with people who go to clubs and fuck a different person every night then it is entirely possible that they might not actually recognise the person again at a party, but I'm assuming that that is not the situation we are addressing.

The one person who did not include a minimum level of respect in his definition tonight said he wanted to include 'hatred' as a prerequisite for casual sex. Obviously this amused me somewhat but I think he was not completely joking.

I was personally thinking it was shame. He slept with her and didn't want anyone to find out

Could be, but again for me that is a fear-driven reaction and worthy of my annoyance. If he did the thing and she is so ugly or something that he is ashamed, then brazen it out. I think it is unlikely that his friends would radically change their opinion of him, they'd probably just laugh and things would carry on much the same as before. If his friends are of a particularly pious or prudish nature then he should explain why he did what he did or maybe get rid of his friends.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=SjxY9rZwNGU is the best thing I have seen all week.

She's good at finding shit that girl.

I like her foodfight film as well -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-yldqNkGfo

I'd probably give her one too.

atomicturtle, here's an article that cites a study which somewhat disputes what you're saying but is an underlying agreement. The agreement part is that most women agree (90%)that casual sex is immoral. Given that, it's highly unlikely that the majority of women are engaging in it and approve of it as you seem to suggest.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4863770.stm

I think from her reaction to his ignoring her, we must assume that she was expecting at least a certain level of mutual respect should exist between them, respect enough to warrant a 'hello'.

You think so? Yea, we're both speculating here - but I'd be interested in hearing your breakdown of her post, that leads you to believe that she had some expectation benefit she was entitled to from the guy she was "just fucking."

For instance if you played table tennis with someone, say five or six times, you would probably at least say hello to them if you saw them on the street.

My friend John had a ping-pong table in his basement, when I was in law school (fyi, I SUCK at ping-pong.) Outside of the friends I still talk to (for reasons that have nothing to do with ping-pong), I can't even remember the NAMES of the people that I played on that table with.

Does that make me a bastard? Some kind of rude person, because I don't remember and wouldn't socialize with the people I played ping-pong with?

The question then becomes is this level of intimacy/lack of intimacy combined with sex something you feel is worthy of condemnation.

How is that the question? I haven't condemned anything there.

but I do want to fuck a human being and I want to feel a certain level of affection and liking for that person even if I can be pretty sure that they are not going to be the love of my life.

How would you define that then, in analytical terms? "Casual fucking?" Or something else?

I asked a few people tonight in the real world how they define casual sex and in all cases except one it did include a level of respect that would entail a hello at a party, with the proviso that the casual sex had happened on at least a few occasions.

Well shit, you could have gotten that same response from any of the clods on this website. Did you try asking them WHY? That's a hell of alot more difficult of a question (in any event, how much you want to bet that if you asked them, their reply would be some variation of "You just should.")

Could be, but again for me that is a fear-driven reaction and worthy of my annoyance.

Well, whatever. Far be it for me to state what your bases for character judgment should be. Passing judgment on the guy who snubbed her isn't really what's at issue here.

Given that, it's highly unlikely that the majority of women are engaging in it and approve of it as you seem to suggest.

You don't have to spread your legs to perpetuate the ideology of a post-modern feminist whore, and say that "just fucking" is entitled to respect by men.

I have read the lilyiris journal in question now and I believe I have a better understanding of what you are saying now, but let us see. We gain no better information about how lilyiris herself views the situation since she only adds one comment that doesn't really indicate much of use to this discussion. As for the comments by other people, there are some true statements there from various people but all of them seem to be missing the point. I will lay out the intferences I have made, correct me if I am wrong.

It is clear that lilyiris was hurt or angry or annoyed. This arose because she had an expectation of a certain kind of behaviour (I'll call it polite behaviour) from the man involved. Not receiving polite behaviour when it is expected conforms with the definition of 'rude'. I think we can both agree that given the general view on that journal and probably in the US and Britain in general the man's behaviour was 'rude'. However I don't think that is your point is it? I think the question you raise is a layer deeper than that - it is something like, why are the boundaries between polite and impolite behaviour set where they are? Should they be? Is there any use to them? In this particular case, if no 'meaning' has arisen between these two people due to their interaction then why bother with an acknowledgement of existence at a party. This is an unusual view but I don't see a major problem with it. Even if this is not the question you are raising, it is a very important one. Personally I think some polite practices are abhorrent. Politeness often dehumanises. It can present barriers to productive intercourse (ahehehe, I don't mean sex). At worst it can inform behaviour and grotesquely distort human interactions to such an extent that people are incapable of making any real connection with another human being.

The question must be asked is there such a thing as a human interaction with no meaning at all? At this point probably we should define what 'meaning' means in this context, but I will press on for now. In a scenario where two drunk people have fucked each other for one night only and never meet each other again, I think we can safely say that the 'meaning' in that situation tends towards zero. In the lilyiris case, my view would be that indeed SOME meaning did arise due to their 'casual sex'. If you are defining 'casual sex' as sex with zero meaning then this is merely a dispute over the meaning of the term, like I said before. It seems to me then that the dispute is really about what level of 'meaning' in a human interaction gives rise to what levels of 'politeness'. The level of politeness YOU would expect in the lilyiris situation is zero, and I am further assuming that if YOU were the one who had engaged in casual sex with the man in question, or equivalent woman, mutatis mutandis, that you would not expect a hello from him/her at the party. Note that I am not saying that you would consider doing so. This is a position that it is difficult to argue against, personally I don't intend to do so, but I imagine others might want to, certainly it would make you quite an abrasive person in their company, but this is the only direction that they could attack you from.

I'll deal with some of those questions you posed in your comment above now for the sake of completeness but they are rendered less relevant now that I believe I have a greater understanding of your standpoint.

My friend John had a ping-pong table in his basement, when I was in law school (fyi, I SUCK at ping-pong.) Outside of the friends I still talk to (for reasons that have nothing to do with ping-pong), I can't even remember the NAMES of the people that I played on that table with.

From a 'politeness' point of view, time is a factor here. A few years on, no, I wouldn't expect you necessarily to say hello to those people, but four days afterwards, I might.

The question then becomes is this level of intimacy/lack of intimacy combined with sex something you feel is worthy of condemnation.

I should have used better phrasing here. Replace 'becomes' with 'arises'. It is a question that may be of some interest in pursuing. Perhaps your answer is simply 'no'.

"but I do want to fuck a human being and I want to feel a certain level of affection and liking for that person even if I can be pretty sure that they are not going to be the love of my life." How would you define that then, in analytical terms? "Casual fucking?" Or something else?

I assume you mean, how would I 'label' it rather than 'define' it - the definition is inherent in the statement. I would be loathe to apply a label to it for the reasons I gave before, it leads to misapprehensions in other people. If someone asked me about the situation then I might describe it to them. If I have to refer to the girl then I would use her name. If I am asked, "who is <name>", then again I can describe the situation. If there is some situation where I absolutely must apply a label, for shorthand purposes then I might say something like 'the girl I was doing stuff with', since this can cover a wide area of the spectrum of romantic/sexual beahviour. The problem is that we don't really have a sufficient or well-defined range of terms to apply to this spectrum. This leads to the problem of many people referring to EITHER a 'boyfriend/girlfriend' situation or 'casual fucking'. It is still my contention that lilyiris definition of casual fucking imports ideas of 'meaning' (albeit minimal) having arisen due to their interaction.

Well, whatever. Far be it for me to state what your bases for character judgment should be. Passing judgment on the guy who snubbed her isn't really what's at issue here.

It could be relevant though. One reason for lilyiris annoyance is her perceived level of expected politeness not being met. Another could be that she doesn't like to see 'arsehole' behaviour, not with respect to her, but she doesn't like to see it at all. Fear-driven behaviour annoys me even if I am not personally affected by it because I know that that behaviour is widespread and that I will be on the receiving end of it at some point.

Would you get mad if a guy you were friends with suddenly started ignoring you?

I think the question you raise is a layer deeper than that - it is something like, why are the boundaries between polite and impolite behaviour set where they are?

I think the question I raise is pretty clear. It's not about boundaries, or what is or isn't polite, or how people should act in a social setting. The question I raise is: how can someone who doesn't want to be anything more to a guy except a sex partner, complain about it when she IS nothing more to him than a sex partner?

I mean, we're talking about a casual sexual relationship here. There's no attachment, no commitment, no emotional connection - they're "just fucking." It's an empty, mechanical act for purposes of nothing more than physical gratification.

You see what I'm saying? You can't call it "casual fucking" and then try and ascribe anything more to it. Because when you do, it stops being just a empty act, and starts being something more.

And that's something I don't understand about our sexualized culture. People want to try and pretend like the sex is meaningless - but then they get upset about it when their partner treats it as such. They want to act like it's "just something fun," but then they complain about objectification. They can't have it both ways. I mean, it's like someone being promiscuous, and then wondering how oh how did they end up pregnant or with an STD. Well duh, how do you THINK it happened? Don't imply anything religious from it, but if I can borrow the saying from the Christians - you can't knock on the devil's door and then be surprised when he answers.

In this particular case, if no 'meaning' has arisen between these two people due to their interaction then why bother with an acknowledgement of existence at a party.

That's a good question. And I think the answer is, despite SAYING all she wanted was to be casually fucked, the reality is that she wanted something MORE from this guy. But, for whatever reason (and I have my suspicions), she didn't define the parameters of their relationship that way. And now she's trying to change the rules in the middle of the game.

Think of it like this: you go to a fast food joint and order a hamburger. They make you it, but when you sit down to eat, you're wondering why it's not a chicken sandwich. Well, the reason is simple: because that's not what you asked for. You can be pissed that you don't have one, but then to blame the store for not giving you a chicken sandwich? That's unjustified.

In the lilyiris case, my view would be that indeed SOME meaning did arise due to their 'casual sex'.

How can casual sex, which by definition has no meaning, have meaning? Or, are these people kidding themselves when they talk about their so-called "meaningless sex" or say something like, "it's just sex."

I mean, the rest of your statement kind of hinges on that - and it's the problem everyone else has been having in this thread and in the original. They're trying to say that something that's supposedly meaningless, has meaning. Does it?

I mean, we could talk about what I would do, or what my expectations would be. Or, we could talk about what people in general would do, or what general societial expectations are - but it's both pretty irrelevant. And that's why everyone in the other thread are failing to say anything meaningful. They want to blather on about what is or isn't polite, what is or isn't expected from a sex partner, while blatently ignoring the definition of the relationship as she's provided it.

For all their ranting, all they're pretty much saying is, "It's not nice to ignore the girl you fucked when she says hello." Well OK, maybe it's not - but who cares. That's just some emotive blathering that's based on popular opinion. And it's not the issue. The issue is, does a person have a right to cry foul, when she gets treated exactly the way she ASKED to be treated. Does someone who reduces themselves to a sexual object have a right to complain when they are treated like one?

I say no. If she wanted to be treated like a human being, she would have acted in a way other than as a piece of meat.

From a 'politeness' point of view, time is a factor here. A few years on, no, I wouldn't expect you necessarily to say hello to those people, but four days afterwards, I might.

Even four days afterwards. I didn't like those people. They were nothing to me. I just played ping-pong with them once. So what?

I should have used better phrasing here. Replace 'becomes' with 'arises'. It is a question that may be of some interest in pursuing. Perhaps your answer is simply 'no'.

For sake of intellectual honesty I'll answer that, but I'd like to not go off on that tangent because this isn't a "What kind of respect or reverence should we have for sex" issue (we already kind of covered that in my post I linked to in the entry) and because I don't want people thinking I'm imputing my own personal biases here.

But, so I'm not accused of dodging your question or point, yes, I do think it's worthy of condemnation. But as I said, that's neither here nor there for purposes of this discussion.

The problem is that we don't really have a sufficient or well-defined range of terms to apply to this spectrum. This leads to the problem of many people referring to EITHER a 'boyfriend/girlfriend' situation or 'casual fucking'.

Why would one refer to their relationship in as vulgar a term (both in its actual meaning AND its implications) as "casual fucking" if it was something more than exactly that? It's like introducing your wife as "your whore."

One reason for lilyiris annoyance is her perceived level of expected politeness not being met. Another could be that she doesn't like to see 'arsehole' behaviour, not with respect to her, but she doesn't like to see it at all.

I think it's pretty obvious that it's tied to the sex. Her outrage was predicated on the fact that they had this sexual arrangement, and she even outright said that "I can understand if you're no longer interested" - implying that her presumption was that his conduct was tied to them having been "fucking."

Would you get mad if a guy you were friends with suddenly started ignoring you?

Yea maybe, but what does that have to do with anything?

So did they not phone each other in the four days since the last rutting session?......

Even like..."Well,*exhales joint smoke and spits out (at high velocity) bits of marijuana that came back through the roach*.....have you stopped dripping and dried out enough for another scuttling?....huh?...beeeatch?..."

^hahah.

i think AT needs to subpoena the witness (plaintiff?) and extract more information.

People want to try and pretend like the sex is meaningless

How can casual sex, which by definition has no meaning

how can someone who doesn't want to be anything more to a guy except a sex partner, complain about it when she IS nothing more to him than a sex partner?

From these statements then, I see the dispute as still being one of differing definitions, clearly those people on the other journal are not using 'casual sex' to refer to an act which has zero meaning. When they talk about 'fucking' as well, rightly or wrongly, included in their definition of 'fucking' is the idea of some 'meaning' existing.

What label would you apply to a situation where sexual intercourse is occuring between two people on a fairly regular basis, they don't really indulge in many other activities together, they probably at least talk a bit about other stuff before and after and there is a certain degree of respect between the two people, they both know the thing probably isn't going anywhere and in fact it lasts about a couple of weeks? To call each other boyfriend and girlfriend or to refer to it as a 'relationship' would imply too many things that it isn't.

I genuinely believe that this, or a close variant thereof is the situation that was in play between lilyiris and the man.

Why would one refer to their relationship in as vulgar a term (both in its actual meaning AND its implications) as "casual fucking" if it was something more than exactly that? It's like introducing your wife as "your whore."

This is the thing, it is not a 'vulgar' term for these other people who are arguing with you on the other journal, so for them it is not at all like introducing your wife as 'your whore', which probably is still a vulgar term for most of those people.

How can casual sex, which by definition has no meaning, have meaning? Or, are these people kidding themselves when they talk about their so-called "meaningless sex"

At no point did lilyiris actually use the term 'meaningless sex', but yes in a way I think people generally are not being very precise when they use the term 'meaningless sex'. Often the thing they are referring to has some meaning - enough in their opinion to warrant respect and at least a hello at a party. Also I think they are more likely to refer to the activity as 'fucking', or 'just fucking' these days. More often it is people who would like to attack such behaviour who refer to it as 'meaningless sex', I think.

"What label would you apply to a situation where sexual intercourse is occuring between two people on a fairly regular basis, they don't really indulge in many other activities together, they probably at least talk a bit about other stuff before and after and there is a certain degree of respect between the two people"

Marriage???