"Joe Horowitz" <my_name@youblunder.co.youghey> wrote in message 
news:5m5Pj.42170$_h7.27036@newsfe05.ams2...

>> But... I feel like i should respect her wishes and be sympathetic to her 
>> issues, in an attempt to make things feel a little less like they might 
>> come falling down around me at any time.
>
> Well, I'd probably go along with that as well.  Respecting each other's 
> wishes and being sympathetic to issues'n'shit is a good way to go about 
> things.  Heaven knows she'll have to be sympathetic enough to yours if 
> this goes anywhere.


Maybe not as much as you think? I'm extremely non-pushy of my wishes when it 
comes to girls. Desperation'll do that to you.


>> Anyway, she is now OK with the froup knowing that I am going to visit her 
>> next weekend!!!111one111opportunityofalifetime1111
>
> Honestly, truly, and without any kind of irony or cuntiness, I hope that 
> goes well.  We've had our differences over the years, you and I, and I 
> hope to have many more differences with you over many more years, but I'd 
> be lying if I said I didn't give a fuck.  All the best.


Thanks. Really.

(Although I'm wondering if you only say that because she's 'physically not 
your type', and therefore no threat to YLE!111one11)


>> (Yes, I know how laughable that sounds,
>
> Not at all.  Even women sometimes can be insecure.


But insecurity without evidence.

I'm thinking 'what if she doesn't like me?!?' on the basis that pretty much 
/all/ women ever, have failed to like me, at least in any kind of romantic, 
relationshippy way.

She's thinking 'what if he doesn't like me?!?' despite having had previous 
relationships and indeed, like almost every woman on the planet, probably 
could have had more, maybe an almost unlimited number thereof.

So already it's off to an unequal start.

I'm trying hard not to think about the heartbreaking conversation that 
begins, 'well, see, it's not that i don't like you....' but if it was 
available in the SBL, I'd be putting AMY on it.


>> but I'm not sure she quite grasps the extent of my desperation and 
>> loneliness or the significance of her attraction to me).
>
> That might not be such a bad thing in the short term, although in the long 
> run I hope you both grasp all of each other's shit pretty firmly.  Good 
> relationships are only ever based on understanding, people are fucking 
> rubbish a great deal of the time but when you truly understand someone you 
> always know why they're being rubbish, and in the best cases you can 
> actually help to unrubbish them.  But it has to start with the 'knowing 
> why' part or it's very tricky.


That's a good philosophy. If more women had that level of tolerance, I might 
have lived a normal non-gay life.

BTN

"Sir Benjamin Nunn"  wrote in message 
news:675mt8F2nufnqU1@mid.individual.net...
> "Joe Horowitz" <my_name@youblunder.co.youghey> wrote in message 
> news:5m5Pj.42170$_h7.27036@newsfe05.ams2...
>> Well, I'd probably go along with that as well.  Respecting each other's 
>> wishes and being sympathetic to issues'n'shit is a good way to go about 
>> things.  Heaven knows she'll have to be sympathetic enough to yours if 
>> this goes anywhere.
>
>
> Maybe not as much as you think? I'm extremely non-pushy of my wishes when 
> it comes to girls. Desperation'll do that to you.

I was talking about your issues, not your wishes.  She'll have to be 
sympathetic to your issues.

> Thanks. Really.
>
> (Although I'm wondering if you only say that because she's 'physically not 
> your type', and therefore no threat to YLE!111one11)

How would I know what she looks like?  And even if I did, why would her 
being 'physically my type' be a threat to MLE?  I'm continually surprised by 
just how much of a cunt you seem to think I am.  Not to mention aroused.  I 
personally couldn't give a fuck if this girl looks like all my sexual 
fantasies roled into one, if she likes you and you like her then I'm all for 
it.

> But insecurity without evidence.

Most insecurity is.  This is one of the big 'secrets' about women that most 
of us men never seem to quite get, we find spectacularly attractive women 
hard to approach because we think we're not 'good enough' for them, yet 
pretty much all women, even the gorgeous ones, are hopelessly neurotic and 
insecure about their appearance.  Not surprising, really, given the society 
in which we live.

> I'm thinking 'what if she doesn't like me?!?' on the basis that pretty 
> much /all/ women ever, have failed to like me, at least in any kind of 
> romantic, relationshippy way.
>
> She's thinking 'what if he doesn't like me?!?' despite having had previous 
> relationships and indeed, like almost every woman on the planet, probably 
> could have had more, maybe an almost unlimited number thereof.
>
> So already it's off to an unequal start.

Only because you've found a way to make it so in your head.  And from my 
experiences of competing against you in various competitions and 
games'n'shit, I guess you always will. Ffs, the one time I ever beat you at 
Scrabulous you accused me of cheating because I know the name of ex-Mrs 
Joe's Mum's medical condition and you don't.  That's just weird, especially 
given that you've torn me a succession of new scrabulous arseholes in all 
preceding and subsequent games, in many cases using a series of long words 
I've never fucking heard of.

It's like you're determined to feel cheated no matter what.

> I'm trying hard not to think about the heartbreaking conversation that 
> begins, 'well, see, it's not that i don't like you....' but if it was 
> available in the SBL, I'd be putting AMY on it.

 Keep trying.  That line of thought's probably not much use to you at this 
stage.

> That's a good philosophy. If more women had that level of tolerance, I 
> might have lived a normal non-gay life.

You'd still have found a way to feel cheated, though.  I'm quite sure of 
that.


-- 
Joe

"I am the fat puddin', but a single puddingness" - Vicky Conlan

"Joe Horowitz" <my_name@youblunder.co.youghey> wrote in message 
news:KNiPj.39263>>
>>
>> Maybe not as much as you think? I'm extremely non-pushy of my wishes when 
>> it comes to girls. Desperation'll do that to you.
>
> I was talking about your issues, not your wishes.  She'll have to be 
> sympathetic to your issues.


Yes. Yes, she will. Even the fact that she might possibly like me will be an 
issue she'll have to contend with.


>> Thanks. Really.
>>
>> (Although I'm wondering if you only say that because she's 'physically 
>> not your type', and therefore no threat to YLE!111one11)
>
> How would I know what she looks like?  And even if I did, why would her 
> being 'physically my type' be a threat to MLE?  I'm continually surprised 
> by just how much of a cunt you seem to think I am.  Not to mention 
> aroused.  I personally couldn't give a fuck if this girl looks like all my 
> sexual fantasies roled into one, if she likes you and you like her then 
> I'm all for it.


I'm surprised that you continue to find it surprising, tbh.

There are very few people out there who aren't cunts.


>> But insecurity without evidence.
>
> Most insecurity is.


DWTWP. Maybe most female insecurity is. I think most male insecurity is 
different though.

Of the people I've known in the 'mental health community', there has 
generally been a fairly consistent gender divide, to which the only 
exceptions have been LGBT. Male paranoia is generally of the 'well, yes, 
you've got a point there, unlucky mate' sort, whereas female paranoia is of 
the 'what the fuck? that's crazy talk' kind.

I'm not saying one is more valid than the other, and they are both clearly 
human conditions. But while both kinds will affect the individual 
psychologically, only one will prove delightfully unfounded in day to day 
life. :-/


> This is one of the big 'secrets' about women that most of us men never 
> seem to quite get, we find spectacularly attractive women hard to approach 
> because we think we're not 'good enough' for them, yet pretty much all 
> women, even the gorgeous ones, are hopelessly neurotic and insecure about 
> their appearance.  Not surprising, really, given the society in which we 
> live.


They are indeed insecure. But blokes will still fuck them.

Unattractive men, OTOH don't have that luxury.

Look at the ratio of successful female to male prostitutes if you need any 
proof be need be.

If a woman doesn't like a man who likes her, she might tell him to fuck off, 
or she might to the 'let him down gently' thing, or the 'cruel to be kind' 
thing, but either way, it ain't likely to happen. If a man doesn't like a 
woman who likes him, there's a good chance he'll still exploit the 
opportunity anyway, for the sake of it.

Men are cunts.

Women are cunts.

For slightly different reasons, admittedly.


>> I'm thinking 'what if she doesn't like me?!?' on the basis that pretty 
>> much /all/ women ever, have failed to like me, at least in any kind of 
>> romantic, relationshippy way.
>>
>> She's thinking 'what if he doesn't like me?!?' despite having had 
>> previous relationships and indeed, like almost every woman on the planet, 
>> probably could have had more, maybe an almost unlimited number thereof.
>>
>> So already it's off to an unequal start.
>
> Only because you've found a way to make it so in your head.  And from my 
> experiences of competing against you in various competitions and 
> games'n'shit, I guess you always will. Ffs, the one time I ever beat you 
> at Scrabulous you accused me of cheating because I know the name of ex-Mrs 
> Joe's Mum's medical condition and you don't.  That's just weird, 
> especially given that you've torn me a succession of new scrabulous 
> arseholes in all preceding and subsequent games, in many cases using a 
> series of long words I've never fucking heard of.
>
> It's like you're determined to feel cheated no matter what.


Heh. GPWM.

FWIW, though, I do sometimes feel more cheated than other times.


>> I'm trying hard not to think about the heartbreaking conversation that 
>> begins, 'well, see, it's not that i don't like you....' but if it was 
>> available in the SBL, I'd be putting AMY on it.
>
> Keep trying.  That line of thought's probably not much use to you at this 
> stage.


AWTWP.

What about the thought that 'if it all goes well and i commence a 
relationship, maybe my plane will crash on the flight home?'

BTN

"Sir Benjamin Nunn"  wrote in message 
news:675uqtF2mbb63U1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Joe Horowitz" <my_name@youblunder.co.youghey> wrote in message 
> news:KNiPj.39263>>
>> I was talking about your issues, not your wishes.  She'll have to be 
>> sympathetic to your issues.
>
>
> Yes. Yes, she will. Even the fact that she might possibly like me will be 
> an issue she'll have to contend with.

It's an issue we all have to deal with, Ben.  I've liked you for years. 
It's not easy being fond of you at the best of times, Ben, I can tell you 
that much.

> I'm surprised that you continue to find it surprising, tbh. There are very 
> few people out there who aren't cunts.

On the one hand, granted, but on the other you seem to have a bit of time 
for me, occasionally even engaging in non-froup activities with me and 
e-webmails and the suchlike, and you even came to visit me in Kingsdown.  So 
I can be forgiven for occasionally thinking I might not be lumped in with 
all the other cunts, even if I really am.

Otherwise you must just have a staggering amount of time on your hands or 
something.  Heh.  But then, you've never had a girlfriend.  Okay, disregard 
all of the above, I think I've answered my own web here.

> DWTWP. Maybe most female insecurity is. I think most male insecurity is 
> different though.
>
> Of the people I've known in the 'mental health community', there has 
> generally been a fairly consistent gender divide, to which the only 
> exceptions have been LGBT. Male paranoia is generally of the 'well, yes, 
> you've got a point there, unlucky mate' sort, whereas female paranoia is 
> of the 'what the fuck? that's crazy talk' kind.

Okay, granted, but I'm coming from the angle that most people aren't _in_ 
the mental health community, and yet pretty much ever single human on the 
planet seems to be very insecure when it comes down to it.  People with 
seemingly idyllic lives try, and sometimes succeed, to kill themselves. 
That says an awful lot.  That bloke out of INXS made a million quid, lived 
out a rockstar dream and had Kylie as his willing sex-puppet, and killed 
himself.  Mind you he was going out with Paula Yates by then, I'd have 
probably done the same.

'Strangle me to death while you shag me, please'.
'Oh, you kinky bastard!'
'No, I'm just fucking miserable.  Do it now'.

> I'm not saying one is more valid than the other, and they are both clearly 
> human conditions. But while both kinds will affect the individual 
> psychologically, only one will prove delightfully unfounded in day to day 
> life. :-/

Not sure about that.  Insecurities usually perpetuate themselves despite any 
available evidence, so while they might seem depressingly unfounded to the 
onlooker (that's you), those afflicted will never see themselves or their 
lives through your eyes and most often continue to feel as vulnerable and 
doubt-racked whatever happens.  I'd agree that this is especially true of 
women, particularly heavily-hormonal ones.  They're completely nutter.

> They are indeed insecure. But blokes will still fuck them.
>
> Unattractive men, OTOH don't have that luxury.

Yes, but therefore it's only a luxury to men in the first place.  Casual sex 
tends to have a good effect on the male psyche, it breeds confidence in most 
cases and makes us feel all manly and attractive'n'shit.  In women's cases, 
it's very often completely counter-productive, so might provide some 
short-term reassurance in the briefest of senses, but due to how easy it was 
to get in the first place it's rarely any kind of help in any long-term 
confidence building.  Just as taking candy from a baby won't help most men 
to feel more powerful and assertive, getting laid can't really help women to 
feel desirable and attractive.  They're not that stupid.  They know deep 
down it just means they were easy for a night, and that carries with it a 
whole new load of societally-enforced issues of it's own.

> Look at the ratio of successful female to male prostitutes if you need any 
> proof be need be.

See the above argument.  You're right, it's easy for women to get laid, but 
by it's very definition this removes pretty much all psychological benefit 
from the exercise.  Why would most woman pay money to feel worse about 
themselves?  Hence, the biggest market for male whoredom is probably more at 
the 'wine,dine and all the rest' kind of escort side of things, where a much 
more carefully crafted illusion is necessary to make someone feel lovely, if 
only for a night.

> If a woman doesn't like a man who likes her, she might tell him to fuck 
> off, or she might to the 'let him down gently' thing, or the 'cruel to be 
> kind' thing, but either way, it ain't likely to happen. If a man doesn't 
> like a woman who likes him, there's a good chance he'll still exploit the 
> opportunity anyway, for the sake of it.

Exactly.  And this will make most women feel worse, not better.

> Men are cunts. Women are cunts. For slightly different reasons, 
> admittedly.

Tell me, do you see yourself as a cunt?  Or is it 'pretty much everyone 
except you'?  I'm never quite sure on this one.

> Heh. GPWM.
>
> FWIW, though, I do sometimes feel more cheated than other times.

I'm guessing you'd have felt pretty cheated in SBL terms if Coventry had 
lost at the weekend.

> AWTWP.
>
> What about the thought that 'if it all goes well and i commence a 
> relationship, maybe my plane will crash on the flight home?'

Yeah, now you're talking much more my kind of language.  Chaos theory and 
all that.  Meeting this woman could be the worst thing that ever happened to 
you and you'll never know it, because really there's never any real way of 
knowing when we've been lucky or unlucky.  For every train that crashes and 
kills loads of people, there's probably some cunt who missed it through no 
fault of their own and felt pretty shitty about that for a few hours, until 
they found out that the rubbishcunt taxi driver who went to the wrong 
fucking house at first ended up inadvertently saving their life.  I think 
about things like that a lot.


-- 
Joe

"I am the fat puddin', but a single puddingness" - Vicky Conlan

"Joe Horowitz" <my_name@youblunder.co.youghey> wrote in message 
news:wpkPj.11537$Rr7.10271@newsfe29.ams2...
>

> Otherwise you must just have a staggering amount of time on your hands or 
> something.  Heh.  But then, you've never had a girlfriend.  Okay, 
> disregard all of the above, I think I've answered my own web here.


Yes. Yes, you have.


> That bloke out of INXS made a million quid, lived out a rockstar dream and 
> had Kylie as his willing sex-puppet, and killed himself.  Mind you he was 
> going out with Paula Yates by then, I'd have probably done the same.


I always found Yates more attractive than Kylie.

No, really.


>> I'm not saying one is more valid than the other, and they are both 
>> clearly human conditions. But while both kinds will affect the individual 
>> psychologically, only one will prove delightfully unfounded in day to day 
>> life. :-/
>
> Not sure about that.  Insecurities usually perpetuate themselves despite 
> any available evidence, so while they might seem depressingly unfounded to 
> the onlooker (that's you), those afflicted will never see themselves or 
> their lives through your eyes and most often continue to feel as 
> vulnerable and doubt-racked whatever happens.  I'd agree that this is 
> especially true of women, particularly heavily-hormonal ones.  They're 
> completely nutter.


I've long maintained that given just a couple of simple things, I would no 
longer be depressed, and I stand by that.

I haven't been posting to the froup much lately, but when I have, people 
might have noticed some change in my spirits, no?


>> They are indeed insecure. But blokes will still fuck them.
>>
>> Unattractive men, OTOH don't have that luxury.
>
> Yes, but therefore it's only a luxury to men in the first place.  Casual 
> sex tends to have a good effect on the male psyche, it breeds confidence 
> in most cases and makes us feel all manly and attractive'n'shit.  In 
> women's cases, it's very often completely counter-productive, so might 
> provide some short-term reassurance in the briefest of senses, but due to 
> how easy it was to get in the first place it's rarely any kind of help in 
> any long-term confidence building.  Just as taking candy from a baby won't 
> help most men to feel more powerful and assertive, getting laid can't 
> really help women to feel desirable and attractive.  They're not that 
> stupid.  They know deep down it just means they were easy for a night, and 
> that carries with it a whole new load of societally-enforced issues of 
> it's own.


I do see this webpipe... but... if that's the case, then why are men who 
just want casual sex still regularly afforded the opportunity for it, while 
men who want committed relationships are overlooked by the women who 
allegedly want them?

Are people really *that* stupid that they'll keep making the same mistakes 
over and over again? (And, yes, they probably are, I know).


>> Look at the ratio of successful female to male prostitutes if you need 
>> any proof be need be.
>
> See the above argument.  You're right, it's easy for women to get laid, 
> but by it's very definition this removes pretty much all psychological 
> benefit from the exercise.  Why would most woman pay money to feel worse 
> about themselves?  Hence, the biggest market for male whoredom is probably 
> more at the 'wine,dine and all the rest' kind of escort side of things, 
> where a much more carefully crafted illusion is necessary to make someone 
> feel lovely, if only for a night.


Which, ironically, is what I get from female whoredom, which makes me very 
different from a lot of men, and probably freaks them out too.


>> Men are cunts. Women are cunts. For slightly different reasons, 
>> admittedly.
>
> Tell me, do you see yourself as a cunt?  Or is it 'pretty much everyone 
> except you'?  I'm never quite sure on this one.


I think I'm below average cuntiness in most ways, but very cunty in others.

I try to become cuntier, if that's any help. For instance, I know that if my 
relationship here works out, I will suddenly become a spectacular cunt to 
everyone who is still the way i used to be. I might even become 
sanctimoniously cunty about it and say shit like 'hey, if it happened for 
me, it can happen for you too!!1one1' which i currently don't believe.

However, I still think, given the balance of my life and the hardships 
therein, I'll never be a long-term relationship cunt in the way that some 
people are. It's unlikely I'll ever be a very cunty powerful or high-income 
cunt either.

My best hope of uber cuntiness would be as a famous cunt.


>> Heh. GPWM.
>>
>> FWIW, though, I do sometimes feel more cheated than other times.
>
> I'm guessing you'd have felt pretty cheated in SBL terms if Coventry had 
> lost at the weekend.


No. That would be results oriented wankery, which has no place in my SBL 
approach.

I do feel cheated that I wasn't able to place an anti-Coventry bet last 
week - that holds true regardless of the result, however.


>> AWTWP.
>>
>> What about the thought that 'if it all goes well and i commence a 
>> relationship, maybe my plane will crash on the flight home?'
>
> Yeah, now you're talking much more my kind of language.  Chaos theory and 
> all that.  Meeting this woman could be the worst thing that ever happened 
> to you and you'll never know it, because really there's never any real way 
> of knowing when we've been lucky or unlucky.  For every train that crashes 
> and kills loads of people, there's probably some cunt who missed it 
> through no fault of their own and felt pretty shitty about that for a few 
> hours, until they found out that the rubbishcunt taxi driver who went to 
> the wrong fucking house at first ended up inadvertently saving their life. 
> I think about things like that a lot.


That is also results-oriented wankery. The trouble is, results do matter, in 
retrospect. The infinite number of parallel universes are scant consolation.

BTN

"Sir Benjamin Nunn"  wrote in message 
news:676375F2n6i72U1@mid.individual.net...
> I always found Yates more attractive than Kylie.
>
> No, really.

I'd have put money on you saying that.  I've always found her a bit awful 
though.

> I've long maintained that given just a couple of simple things, I would no 
> longer be depressed, and I stand by that.
>
> I haven't been posting to the froup much lately, but when I have, people 
> might have noticed some change in my spirits, no?

Err...  maybe I'm not the best person to ask, given that you've (wrongly, 
and rather unfairly) accused me of deliberately cheating you in one way or 
another three times in the space of a week. I've actually found you worse 
than usual of late.  But hey, that's just me, right?  I'm sure everyone else 
has found you delightfully positive and sunny, and free from overbearing 
cynicism.  YPS.

> I do see this webpipe... but... if that's the case, then why are men who 
> just want casual sex still regularly afforded the opportunity for it, 
> while men who want committed relationships are overlooked by the women who 
> allegedly want them?

I'm not sure I agree that they are.  I think some find it hard to find 
either, and others are a bit more Oscar G and can get whichever they want 
fairly easily.  I do, however, think through most potential scenarios in my 
own life to a degree probably rare amongst most men, and therefore 'rule 
out' sex with pretty much every girl I ever meet on the grounds that it's 
very unlikely, in the long run, to be the kind of hassle-free thing I'm 
after.  Especially at this exact point in my life, where mission one, 
primary objective if you like, is to keep my life simple and carefree for a 
bit.  I've enough life to digest for the time being.

> Are people really *that* stupid that they'll keep making the same mistakes 
> over and over again? (And, yes, they probably are, I know).

Quite.

 > Which, ironically, is what I get from female whoredom, which makes me 
very
> different from a lot of men, and probably freaks them out too.

Granted.  But, it's probably the case for more men that you think.  A lot of 
men probably use whores merely as a stop-gap, temporary sex receptacle, two 
or three open holes to exploit for short-term gratification, granted.  But I 
do imagine that for a lot of lonely, depressed men like yourself, it's a bit 
more complex than that and serves to create an illusion of being 
'attractive' in subtle and complex ways other than merely sexual.

I might be wrong, of course.  I've never visited or talked to a whore.

> I think I'm below average cuntiness in most ways, but very cunty in 
> others.
>
> I try to become cuntier, if that's any help. For instance, I know that if 
> my relationship here works out, I will suddenly become a spectacular cunt 
> to everyone who is still the way i used to be. I might even become 
> sanctimoniously cunty about it and say shit like 'hey, if it happened for 
> me, it can happen for you too!!1one1' which i currently don't believe.

Ah, right, I should actually know this one by now.  Our perceptions of 
'cuntiness' are so utterly at odds with one another as to render any 
conversation about what is and isn't cunty utterly futile.  My bad.  I was 
still quite tired when I asked that question.  I'm on my second coffee now, 
everything's going to be okay.

> My best hope of uber cuntiness would be as a famous cunt.

Case in point.  In my eyes, your best hope of uber cuntiness is as a 
cynical, jaded self-obsessed supercillious cunt who goes round accusing 
innocent cunts of cheating him.  Probably the very same things that you feel 
make you uncunty.

We should probably avoid this particular road in future, I'm fairly sure it 
only leads to conflict and mutual resentment.  Do you like brown bread 
flavour ice cream?  I tried some once, it was surprisingly lovely.  Very 
subtle and mellow, yet somehow warm, like old wooden furniture.

> No. That would be results oriented wankery, which has no place in my SBL 
> approach.
>
> I do feel cheated that I wasn't able to place an anti-Coventry bet last 
> week - that holds true regardless of the result, however.

Of course.  And tell me, why exactly do you feel 'cheated', when there's 
nothing in either the rules or previously-established SBL precedent to 
suggest that Coventry fixtures will be listed every week?  And when, even 
despite that, they are in fact listed more than anyone else's 
non-Premiership club?  And when you assert to Chopsy that you don't gain any 
advantage from their listing?  It still doesn't all add up for me, except 
when it adds up to convince me that somehow, you will _always_ find a way to 
feel cheated.  Otherwise I'd be taking all this shit rather personally.

I have many faults, but dishonesty and a poor sense of fair play when it 
comes to games'n'shit really aren't them.

> That is also results-oriented wankery. The trouble is, results do matter, 
> in retrospect. The infinite number of parallel universes are scant 
> consolation.

I wasn't offering them as consolation, though.  I appreciate that you are, 
by default, inconsolable when it comes to shit that makes you feel cheated. 
You just feel cheated whatever.  I merely talked from a philosophical 
perspective about something I find interesting for my brains.


-- 
Joe

"I am the fat puddin', but a single puddingness" - Vicky Conlan

"Joe Horowitz" <my_name@youblunder.co.youghey> wrote in message 
news:AilPj.42894$t05.4238@newsfe09.ams2...
>
> "Sir Benjamin Nunn"  wrote in message 
> news:676375F2n6i72U1@mid.individual.net...
>> I always found Yates more attractive than Kylie.
>>
>> No, really.
>
> I'd have put money on you saying that.  I've always found her a bit awful 
> though.


I think she might have been a bit like me in a lot of ways; certainly seemed 
a naturalistic contrarian, with an arousingly eccentric edge.

Kylie, OTOH, or 'Charlene from Neighbours' as she is more properly known, I 
consider to be one of the most overrated human beings ever. I honestly 
cannot understand the fuss.

Also, I've never forgiven her for not going back to roots for Madge's 
funeral. That struck me as the worst kind of 'I'm better than you now' 
cuntwankery.


>> I've long maintained that given just a couple of simple things, I would 
>> no longer be depressed, and I stand by that.
>>
>> I haven't been posting to the froup much lately, but when I have, people 
>> might have noticed some change in my spirits, no?
>
> Err...  maybe I'm not the best person to ask, given that you've (wrongly, 
> and rather unfairly) accused me of deliberately cheating you in one way or 
> another three times in the space of a week. I've actually found you worse 
> than usual of late.  But hey, that's just me, right?  I'm sure everyone 
> else has found you delightfully positive and sunny, and free from 
> overbearing cynicism.  YPS.


Ah, then maybe this validates my theory that the happier people are, and the 
closer to relationshiphood they are, the cuntier they seem to others?

I'm still cynical, mind, and I'll be cynical /until/ it works out. Right now 
it's just a hope and a dream - the kind of hope and dreams that have been 
shattered many times in the past and never before come to fulfillment. It's 
a big ask.


>> I do see this webpipe... but... if that's the case, then why are men who 
>> just want casual sex still regularly afforded the opportunity for it, 
>> while men who want committed relationships are overlooked by the women 
>> who allegedly want them?
>
> I'm not sure I agree that they are.  I think some find it hard to find 
> either, and others are a bit more Oscar G and can get whichever they want 
> fairly easily.  I do, however, think through most potential scenarios in 
> my own life to a degree probably rare amongst most men, and therefore 
> 'rule out' sex with pretty much every girl I ever meet on the grounds that 
> it's very unlikely, in the long run, to be the kind of hassle-free thing 
> I'm after.  Especially at this exact point in my life, where mission one, 
> primary objective if you like, is to keep my life simple and carefree for 
> a bit.  I've enough life to digest for the time being.


OK. Case in point.

I think I'm right in thinking that Mrs. Joe would like to settle down and 
cohabit, and have children, right?

Without having met Mrs. Joe, i would nonetheless harbour a suspicion that 
she probably would not find me attractive.

Fairly obviously she finds you attractive.

And yet, which one of us is the one who also wants to settle down and 
cohabit and have children, and which of us is the one who craves 
independence?

It's just an example, but do you see what I'm driving at?

And what are the psychological forces behind it? Are women destined to 
always be attracted to something they don't have, so they can spend forever 
trying to change it?


>> Are people really *that* stupid that they'll keep making the same 
>> mistakes over and over again? (And, yes, they probably are, I know).
>
> Quite.


Shirt.


> > Which, ironically, is what I get from female whoredom, which makes me
> very
>> different from a lot of men, and probably freaks them out too.
>
> Granted.  But, it's probably the case for more men that you think.  A lot 
> of men probably use whores merely as a stop-gap, temporary sex receptacle, 
> two or three open holes to exploit for short-term gratification, granted. 
> But I do imagine that for a lot of lonely, depressed men like yourself, 
> it's a bit more complex than that and serves to create an illusion of 
> being 'attractive' in subtle and complex ways other than merely sexual.


AWTWP.


> I might be wrong, of course.  I've never visited or talked to a whore.


It's something I think everyone should do. Even people who have 
relationships'n'shit.

It pisses me off when people dismiss the prostitution profession because 
'it's wrong' or 'i have no need to' - such attitudes lead to the huge 
misunderstandings and misconceptions that a lot of people have about the 
various different kinds of whores out there.

Most people with such misconceptions seem to be in Ipswich lately.


>> I think I'm below average cuntiness in most ways, but very cunty in 
>> others.
>>
>> I try to become cuntier, if that's any help. For instance, I know that if 
>> my relationship here works out, I will suddenly become a spectacular cunt 
>> to everyone who is still the way i used to be. I might even become 
>> sanctimoniously cunty about it and say shit like 'hey, if it happened for 
>> me, it can happen for you too!!1one1' which i currently don't believe.
>
> Ah, right, I should actually know this one by now.  Our perceptions of 
> 'cuntiness' are so utterly at odds with one another as to render any 
> conversation about what is and isn't cunty utterly futile.  My bad.  I was 
> still quite tired when I asked that question.  I'm on my second coffee 
> now, everything's going to be okay.


Yep. Perceptions. Definitions. Semantics. Lovemaking.


>> My best hope of uber cuntiness would be as a famous cunt.
>
> Case in point.  In my eyes, your best hope of uber cuntiness is as a 
> cynical, jaded self-obsessed supercillious cunt who goes round accusing 
> innocent cunts of cheating him.  Probably the very same things that you 
> feel make you uncunty.


Heh. Cunt.


> We should probably avoid this particular road in future, I'm fairly sure 
> it only leads to conflict and mutual resentment.  Do you like brown bread 
> flavour ice cream?  I tried some once, it was surprisingly lovely.  Very 
> subtle and mellow, yet somehow warm, like old wooden furniture.


I also quite liked it, and I don't particularly like ice cream generally.


>> No. That would be results oriented wankery, which has no place in my SBL 
>> approach.
>>
>> I do feel cheated that I wasn't able to place an anti-Coventry bet last 
>> week - that holds true regardless of the result, however.
>
> Of course.  And tell me, why exactly do you feel 'cheated', when there's 
> nothing in either the rules or previously-established SBL precedent to 
> suggest that Coventry fixtures will be listed every week?  And when, even 
> despite that, they are in fact listed more than anyone else's 
> non-Premiership club?


See, the fact that you are calling Coventry City FC a 'non-Premiership' club 
just demonstrates cuntiness and cuntformity, right there, in my eyes.


> And when you assert to Chopsy that you don't gain any advantage from their 
> listing?


I gain an advantage in the SBL solely by offsetting against a disadvantage 
in life. Ironically, a disadvantage in life based almost entirely on being 
cheated.

It's not something I'd take pleasure in, nor would be the hundreds of pounds 
I'd stand to 'win', in the event that CCFC were relegated.


> I have many faults, but dishonesty and a poor sense of fair play when it 
> comes to games'n'shit really aren't them.


Dishonesty, AWTWP. Fair play, I'm less convinced.

The time I passed my turn in Scrabulous because i believed your convincing 
explanation that you didn't merely mean to stick one letter on the end, is 
something i consider to be 'fair play'.

The time when Os had the chance to decide who won when it was completely out 
of our control, and i was ahead, is the sort of thing i consider to be 
dubious play at best.

The successive times when I conceded most 'goals against' in the Fantasy 
CL - a statistic over which the player has absolutely no control - I 
consider to be blatantly unfair.


>> That is also results-oriented wankery. The trouble is, results do matter, 
>> in retrospect. The infinite number of parallel universes are scant 
>> consolation.
>
> I wasn't offering them as consolation, though.  I appreciate that you are, 
> by default, inconsolable when it comes to shit that makes you feel 
> cheated. You just feel cheated whatever.  I merely talked from a 
> philosophical perspective about something I find interesting for my 
> brains.


I think you are oversimplifying with the idea that I will feel cheated come 
what may. After all, it's the easiest explanation.

When I was a child, my family used to say I was a 'bad loser'. They just 
didn't get the point.

I don't mind losing because I'm outplayed, or losing because i make donkey 
mistakes, or losing because i'm not concentrating, or angry or anything 
else.

I do mind losing by random chance and things over which i have no control, 
when i played well, or even optimally, and this is when I will feel cheated.

BTN

Sir Benjamin Nunn wrote:

> "Joe Horowitz" <my_name@youblunder.co.youghey> wrote in message 
> news:wpkPj.11537$Rr7.10271@newsfe29.ams2...
> 
>> That bloke out of INXS made a million quid, lived out a rockstar dream 
>> and had Kylie as his willing sex-puppet, and killed himself.  Mind you 
>> he was going out with Paula Yates by then, I'd have probably done the 
>> same.
> 
> I always found Yates more attractive than Kylie.
> 
> No, really.
> 

You might be right.

When I went out with Kylie, I found her very uptight - no bonking for 
the first month, and then only in the missionary position and definitely 
no oral. Then as soon as we'd done it the first time, she got all clingy 
and started talking about getting married and having kids. I had to dump 
her.

Still, I'll always be grateful to her for introducing me to her sister, 
Dannii. She was up for anything - you should have seen her dungeon and 
bondage collection! Unfortunately I was a bit too sedate for her and she 
ended up dumping me.

I never had the pleasure of Paula, but I'm always supsicious of people 
who need to use chemicals to get their kicks.

Evil Nigel

"Sir Benjamin Nunn"  wrote in message 
news:6767n1F2nn58vU1@mid.individual.net...
> I think she might have been a bit like me in a lot of ways; certainly 
> seemed a naturalistic contrarian, with an arousingly eccentric edge.
>
> Kylie, OTOH, or 'Charlene from Neighbours' as she is more properly known, 
> I consider to be one of the most overrated human beings ever. I honestly 
> cannot understand the fuss.

I liked her shape and the way she moved.  I can't confess to being impressed 
with her in any other way than that, I'm not a fan or even an admirer, but 
I'd have relished the chance to bang that tiny bitch senseless.  You can put 
that down to cuntformist sexual preferences if you like, but in an age of 
'the campaign for real women', where finding skinny girls attractive is 
increasingly frowned upon, it's less and less relevant.  My tastes are 
increasingly unfashionable and unworthy, and partifularly despicable amongst 
most women.  If you say you like curvy girls they're all like 'yeah man, how 
refreshing, you're so much cooler than other men'.  If you say you prefer 
skinny girls they're all like 'you utter otter cunt, it's your fault we've 
all got issues'n'shit'.

Tactically speaking, the most advantageous position to be in is of one who 
likes 'average' sized women, because there's the most of them.  But I 
genuinely can't help or change what makes me sexually aroused or I wouldn't 
even care about appearances.  I'd go for 'loneliness', because preferring 
lonely girls would surely be the safest bet for getting laid.

> Ah, then maybe this validates my theory that the happier people are, and 
> the closer to relationshiphood they are, the cuntier they seem to others?

To you, maybe.  I'm not sure everyone shares your definition of cuntiness. 
It's not always about 'who has what you want', not for everyone.  I've a 
friend at work who is a little like you in some ways, always with the 'he's 
got this, I don't have that', but they're the exception rather than the 
rule.  I think more people are like me, they have an idea of what they think 
is 'good' and 'bad' behaviour, good ethics, unselfishness, consideration, 
all that bollocks, and define 'cuntiness' in those terms.  Therefore someone 
can seemingly have everything, even the things I want but don't have, and 
that won't make them the least bit cunty in my eyes.

> OK. Case in point.
>
> I think I'm right in thinking that Mrs. Joe would like to settle down and 
> cohabit, and have children, right?

With me, yes.

> Without having met Mrs. Joe, i would nonetheless harbour a suspicion that 
> she probably would not find me attractive.

You're not me.

> Fairly obviously she finds you attractive.

You reckon?

> And yet, which one of us is the one who also wants to settle down and 
> cohabit and have children, and which of us is the one who craves 
> independence?
>
> It's just an example, but do you see what I'm driving at?

No, not at all.  I just don't.  We're coming at this from differing 
perspectives, granted, but you've failed to change my viewpoint on this 
stuff at this juncture.

> And what are the psychological forces behind it? Are women destined to 
> always be attracted to something they don't have, so they can spend 
> forever trying to change it?

Partly, yes, I think they are.  Mostly I think they just fixate on whichever 
man has been lucky enough to make them come lots of times.  It sends their 
brains screwy.  In ex-Mrs Joe's case, I don't think she was any less 
attracted to me when we really were heading down the whole house'n'kids 
road, she was just happy to be on the way to what she felt she wanted in the 
long run.  In other words, I don't think her attraction to me has anything 
to do with 'wanting what she can't have'.  It's seemingly unaffected by such 
things.

> It's something I think everyone should do. Even people who have 
> relationships'n'shit.
>
> It pisses me off when people dismiss the prostitution profession because 
> 'it's wrong' or 'i have no need to' - such attitudes lead to the huge 
> misunderstandings and misconceptions that a lot of people have about the 
> various different kinds of whores out there.

For what it's worth, I recently got into a very big argument about this with 
an intelligent acquaintance who I like to argue with, needless to say I was 
coming from your side of the fence despite my own lack of direct experience. 
I think you'd have been vaguely proud of me.  Especially when he tried to 
throw the kind of 'oh, so you'd be happy for your future son or daughter to 
be a whore' argument at me, only to find out that, under the right 
conditions and in the right environment, I truly would.

Then he tried to come from an angle of making me visualise some fat sweaty 
cunt coming over my future daughter's pretty little face, which I just found 
hilarious.  I think it was his acting.

> Yep. Perceptions. Definitions. Semantics. Lovemaking.

*wanks*

> See, the fact that you are calling Coventry City FC a 'non-Premiership' 
> club just demonstrates cuntiness and cuntformity, right there, in my eyes.

I was speaking in literal terms.  They're haven't played in the Premiership 
this year, and might not play in it next year.  This doesn't mean it's not 
they're 'rightful' position, it just means it's not where they are now.  In 
very much the same way, I would describe you as 'single'.  And 'lonely'.  It 
might be a harsh and impossibly unjust reality, but it's still reality. 
Quite where cuntformity comes into it I'm not sure, but I'm fairly sure 
you'd describe yourself as single as well.  And lonely.

>> And when you assert to Chopsy that you don't gain any advantage from 
>> their listing?
>
> I gain an advantage in the SBL solely by offsetting against a disadvantage 
> in life. Ironically, a disadvantage in life based almost entirely on being 
> cheated.

That really doesn't answer the question.  If anything, I think you're 
avoiding the question.

> It's not something I'd take pleasure in, nor would be the hundreds of 
> pounds I'd stand to 'win', in the event that CCFC were relegated.

How were you cheated by Coventry not being listed in the SBL, despite all 
the stuff I said in the original question?  It's a simple question, either 
answer it or snip the fucker and we can move on and agree unspokenly that 
you weren't really cheated, you just decided to feel cheated as you always 
do.

>> I have many faults, but dishonesty and a poor sense of fair play when it 
>> comes to games'n'shit really aren't them.
>
>
> Dishonesty, AWTWP. Fair play, I'm less convinced.

That's your prerogative.

> The time I passed my turn in Scrabulous because i believed your convincing 
> explanation that you didn't merely mean to stick one letter on the end, is 
> something i consider to be 'fair play'.

Me too.  And the fact that I conceded that game, despite being in a position 
to win it, because you were having problems making your scrabulous work, is 
also an example of 'fair play', is it not?  I never ever want to win any 
kind of tainted victory in anything, I nearly resigned from last year's 
Superheores on the back of accusations from Mikey for this exact reason, it 
was only by convincing me he was joking that I regained any incentive to 
keep trying.  Fruitlessly, mind, but I'm just not obsessed enough with 
'winning' to take the least satisfaction from any kind of dubious triumph. 
I'd far rather lose and know I did my best.

At my weekly football game, I regularly get kudos for putting my hand up and 
volunteering such things as that I did get the faintest of touches and so it 
should be a corner, not a goal kick as everyone thought, because we don't 
have a referee so the only hope of a fair game is if everyone displays such 
honesty.  If the ball hits my hand, and no-one notices, I'll stop playing 
anyway and announce that the ball just hit may hand and should be a free 
kick, rather than thiniking 'oops, got away with that' and trying to score a 
cunty tainted goal.

That's a sense of fair play, is it not?

> The time when Os had the chance to decide who won when it was completely 
> out of our control, and i was ahead, is the sort of thing i consider to be 
> dubious play at best.

I don't think Osbourne is good enough at Scrabulous to make that decision. 
And yes, I was surprised to see that qiS left open, but I only spotted it 
myself after quite a lot of hard looking, and probably afford the game a lot 
more of my time and attention than Osbourne does.  Had he been playing an 
absolute blinder up to that point, you'd probably have a case, but he was 
rubbish from the start and his endgame was consistent with the rest of it. 
That's not being cheated, really, because your own high score was afforded 
partly by everyone else's rubbish play throughout, just as mine was.

However, and regardless, it still doesn't really qualify as an example of me 
not excercising or preferring 'fair play'.

> The successive times when I conceded most 'goals against' in the Fantasy 
> CL - a statistic over which the player has absolutely no control - I 
> consider to be blatantly unfair.

Yet another non-example.  You're supposed to be backing up your assertion 
that my sense of 'fair play' doesn't match my sense of honesty.  You've not 
done this yet.  You just keep giving examples of others not being fair 
playish enough.  Find one of me.

> I think you are oversimplifying with the idea that I will feel cheated 
> come what may. After all, it's the easiest explanation.
>
> When I was a child, my family used to say I was a 'bad loser'. They just 
> didn't get the point.

No, you really, really, really are a bad loser,  Possibly the worst I've 
ever encountered.  I've never seen you lose anything, _anything_, with any 
sense of grace.  It's _always_ because you were cheated.

> I don't mind losing because I'm outplayed, or losing because i make donkey 
> mistakes, or losing because i'm not concentrating, or angry or anything 
> else.

Entasia.  Another word for Tinnitis'n'shit.  I rest my case.  Admittely, the 
word might have been reasonably fresh in my mind as I'd been reading about 
Scrabble on Wikipedia a few weeks beforehand, and revisiting that page as I 
have just now, I can see that this very word is mentioned specifically in 
the 'tactics' section as being an example of one that's easy to make with a 
common selection of letters.  But there was no cheating, and unless Martin 
and Osbourne say differently and reveal that they really did secretly 
conspire by e-mail behind our backs to make me win for some reason, I remain 
entirely unconvinced that there was an 'collusion' in our kinky four-way. 
That you were so quick to assume, and in fact assert, that there was 
cheating involved in both these cases, coincidentally (or otherwise) the 
exact same only two games you haven't beaten me, well, it's telling really. 
I actually feel I learned a little more about Teh Nunn over that week, 
enough not to play you at any more games anyway.  The only two possible 
outcomes seem to be 'lose' or 'be regarded as a cheat', and I actually 
marginally prefer losing.

> I do mind losing by random chance and things over which i have no control, 
> when i played well, or even optimally, and this is when I will feel 
> cheated.

And this is where we get stuck.  We've played something like eight games of 
Scrabulous now, and you've thrashed me in seven of them.  In at least five 
of those, it's probably because you played better, in some cases despite 
getting shitter letters.  In one or two, though, it's possible I did really 
play well but didn't get any kind of breaks.  I'm not entirely convinced 
this bothers you in the way it would the other way around.

The phrase 'only sing when you're losing' springs to mind.


-- 
Joe

"I am the fat puddin', but a single puddingness" - Vicky Conlan

"Joe Horowitz" <my_name@youblunder.co.youghey> wrote in message 
news:U_mPj.44261$Ka7.37128@newsfe30.ams2...

>
> The phrase 'only sing when you're losing' springs to mind.


Cheat.

BTN

"Sir Benjamin Nunn"  wrote in message 
news:676d1aF2nei00U1@mid.individual.net...
>
>
> "Joe Horowitz" <my_name@youblunder.co.youghey> wrote in message 
> news:U_mPj.44261$Ka7.37128@newsfe30.ams2...
>
>>
>> The phrase 'only sing when you're losing' springs to mind.
>
>
> Cheat.

Bad Loser.


-- 
Joe

"I am the fat puddin', but a single puddingness" - Vicky Conlan

"Joe Horowitz" <my_name@youblunder.co.youghey> wrote in message 
news:XbnPj.44263$Ka7.37599@newsfe30.ams2...

>>>
>>> The phrase 'only sing when you're losing' springs to mind.
>>
>>
>> Cheat.
>
> Bad Loser.


Sos your momma.

BTN

"Sir Benjamin Nunn"  wrote in message 
news:676djmF2lhg8nU1@mid.individual.net...
> "Joe Horowitz" <my_name@youblunder.co.youghey> wrote in message 
> news:XbnPj.44263$Ka7.37599@newsfe30.ams2...
>>> Cheat.
>>
>> Bad Loser.
>
> Sos your momma.

Your Mum is Kylie Minogue.


-- 
Joe

"I am the fat puddin', but a single puddingness" - Vicky Conlan

"Joe Horowitz" <my_name@youblunder.co.youghey> wrote in message 
news:KNiPj.39263$2b2.16169@newsfe12.ams2...
> How would I know what she looks like?  And even if I did, why would her being 'physically 
> my type' be a threat to MLE?  I'm continually surprised by just how much of a cunt you 
> seem to think I am.

To be fair, Joe, it's not just you.  Ben thinks most Youksefers are cunts
on one level or another.  Why, on one occasion, he even suggested that
_I_ might be a cunt.  _Me_.  A cunt.  Hard to believe, I know, but it
really did happen.

> Most insecurity is.  This is one of the big 'secrets' about women that most of us men 
> never seem to quite get, we find spectacularly attractive women hard to approach because 
> we think we're not 'good enough' for them, yet pretty much all women, even the gorgeous 
> ones, are hopelessly neurotic and insecure about their appearance.  Not surprising, 
> really, given the society in which we live.

AVSWTWP.  I think this is one of the most beautifully accurate and well
made points Youksef has ever seen.  I've yet to meet a woman -- no matter
how beautiful -- who wasn't a bundle of insecurity underneath the very lovely
exterior.  Not necessarily in bad ways but to think attractive women don't
suffer from self-doubt the same way everyone else does is just very, very
wrong.  They're just people'n'shit.


-- 
Mike

"Sir Benjamin Nunn"  wrote in message 
news:675uqtF2mbb63U1@mid.individual.net...
> I'm surprised that you continue to find it surprising, tbh.
>
> There are very few people out there who aren't cunts.

Except me, per chance?


-- 
Mike

"Joe Horowitz" <my_name@youblunder.co.youghey> wrote in message 
news:wpkPj.11537$Rr7.10271@newsfe29.ams2...
> It's an issue we all have to deal with, Ben.  I've liked you for years. It's not easy 
> being fond of you at the best of times, Ben, I can tell you that much.

AWTWP.  I've known Ben for almost ten years now (it would have
been longer but he showed up 13 days late) and I like him an awful lot.
He's funny, clever and endlessly fascinating.  But fucking hell does he
make it difficult sometimes.

Sometimes it's like he doesn't even like being liked.


-- 
Mike

Joe Horowitz wrote:

>>It pisses me off when people dismiss the prostitution profession because 
>>'it's wrong' or 'i have no need to' - such attitudes lead to the huge 
>>misunderstandings and misconceptions that a lot of people have about the 
>>various different kinds of whores out there.
> 

A prostitute uses his/her body to earn a living leaving his/her mind 
available for more noble things. I spent many years in IT and my brain 
is now full of useless crap about operating systems, programming 
languages and applications. Which of us is the winner? It doesn't feel 
like me.

> 
> For what it's worth, I recently got into a very big argument about this with 
> an intelligent acquaintance who I like to argue with, needless to say I was 
> coming from your side of the fence despite my own lack of direct experience. 
> I think you'd have been vaguely proud of me.  Especially when he tried to 
> throw the kind of 'oh, so you'd be happy for your future son or daughter to 
> be a whore' argument at me, only to find out that, under the right 
> conditions and in the right environment, I truly would.

Sex is like most sporting activities in that the more you train and 
practise, the better you get. I suppose some people have a romantic 
notion of 'learning together', but what's wrong with shacking up with an 
expert and having the time of your life from day one.

Joe Horowitz wrote:

> "Sir Benjamin Nunn"  wrote in message 
> news:676djmF2lhg8nU1@mid.individual.net...
> 
>>"Joe Horowitz" <my_name@youblunder.co.youghey> wrote in message 
>>news:XbnPj.44263$Ka7.37599@newsfe30.ams2...
>>
>>>>Cheat.
>>>
>>>Bad Loser.
>>
>>Sos your momma.
> 
> 
> Your Mum is Kylie Minogue.
> 
> 

Minogue is an Irish name, isn't it? So that sort of fits.

But personally I would have thought "Your Mum is Paula Yates" has more 
bite.

"nigel"  wrote in message 
news:GrydneS22uymhZPVnZ2dnUVZ8rCdnZ2d@plusnet...
> Sex is like most sporting activities in that the more you train and 
> practise, the better you get. I suppose some people have a romantic notion 
> of 'learning together', but what's wrong with shacking up with an expert 
> and having the time of your life from day one.

I know what you're driving at here, Nigel, and I'm flattered, maybe even a 
little curious, but the answer is no.

Besides which, I'm unsure I agree that you can be an 'expert' at sex in such 
a general sense.  Confidence and experience count a fair amount, but when it 
comes down to it, everyone is different sexually speaking, in many cases 
completely different or even opposite, so the key to great sex is in fact 
learning _each other_ rather than simply learning sex itself.  It's far more 
about communication, open-mindedness, goodwill and hard work, and a certain 
degree of psychology, than it is about technique and experience, IMHO.

In short, it's about finding out what people want, and then giving them what 
they want.  And them doing the same for you.  It's quite simple really.

It's all the other bullshit around the periphery of that which makes it 
complicated.

-- 
Joe

"I am the fat puddin', but a single puddingness" - Vicky Conlan

"Michael Cunningham"  wrote in message 
news:ful453$tom$3@aioe.org...
> "Joe Horowitz" <my_name@youblunder.co.youghey> wrote in message 
> news:wpkPj.11537$Rr7.10271@newsfe29.ams2...
>> It's an issue we all have to deal with, Ben.  I've liked you for years. 
>> It's not easy being fond of you at the best of times, Ben, I can tell you 
>> that much.
>
> AWTWP.  I've known Ben for almost ten years now (it would have
> been longer but he showed up 13 days late) and I like him an awful lot.
> He's funny, clever and endlessly fascinating.  But fucking hell does he
> make it difficult sometimes.
>
> Sometimes it's like he doesn't even like being liked.

Yeah, AWTWP.  I think being liked makes Ben feel cheated in some way, I'm 
not sure how but that's definitely what happens.  It reinforces his feelings 
of isolation and injustice in much the same way being disliked or viewed 
with indifference does.

If we could all just stop doing any of those three things, he'd be happy.


-- 
Joe

"I am the fat puddin', but a single puddingness" - Vicky Conlan

Joe Horowitz wrote:

> "nigel"  wrote in message 
> news:GrydneS22uymhZPVnZ2dnUVZ8rCdnZ2d@plusnet...
> 
>>Sex is like most sporting activities in that the more you train and 
>>practise, the better you get. I suppose some people have a romantic notion 
>>of 'learning together', but what's wrong with shacking up with an expert 
>>and having the time of your life from day one.
> 
> 
> I know what you're driving at here, Nigel, and I'm flattered, maybe even a 
> little curious, but the answer is no.
> 
> Besides which, I'm unsure I agree that you can be an 'expert' at sex in such 
> a general sense.

Perhaps not your manky crack-whore, but high-class hookers like Heather 
Mills, Fiona Wright and Diana Spencer haven't had many unsatisfied 
customers.

> Confidence and experience count a fair amount, but when it 
> comes down to it, everyone is different sexually speaking, in many cases 
> completely different or even opposite, so the key to great sex is in fact 
> learning _each other_ rather than simply learning sex itself.  It's far more 
> about communication, open-mindedness, goodwill and hard work, and a certain 
> degree of psychology, than it is about technique and experience, IMHO.

Sex is a team sport, and I believe it's helpful to have an experienced 
team-mate.

> In short, it's about finding out what people want, and then giving them what 
> they want.  And them doing the same for you.  It's quite simple really.
> 
> It's all the other bullshit around the periphery of that which makes it 
> complicated.

Well it's probably better for our evolution than say the size and 
redness of our buttocks (not that I'm suggesting Ben is unusually 
rubicund in that area).

"nigel"  wrote in message 
news:nsidnfwBE5VmxpPVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@plusnet...
> Joe Horowitz wrote:
>> Besides which, I'm unsure I agree that you can be an 'expert' at sex in 
>> such a general sense.
>
> Perhaps not your manky crack-whore, but high-class hookers like Heather 
> Mills, Fiona Wright and Diana Spencer haven't had many unsatisfied 
> customers.

Maybe you're right.  But I confess, I haven't spoken to many of their 
customers so I can't be sure.  Paul McCartney wasn't all that satisfied, 
though, was he.  He wanted a divorce, and even refused to give her half of 
all his money on the grounds of 'why in the shitting fuck should he?', which 
was a fair point.  Stood up in court anyway.

>> Confidence and experience count a fair amount, but when it comes down to 
>> it, everyone is different sexually speaking, in many cases completely 
>> different or even opposite, so the key to great sex is in fact learning 
>> _each other_ rather than simply learning sex itself.  It's far more about 
>> communication, open-mindedness, goodwill and hard work, and a certain 
>> degree of psychology, than it is about technique and experience, IMHO.
>
> Sex is a team sport, and I believe it's helpful to have an experienced 
> team-mate.

Helpful, yes, but not at all necessary IMHO.  I'd take enthusiasm, 
open-mindedness and some degree of compatibility with me over any level of 
experience, every single time.  Takes a bit more work to get things right in 
the short-term, but if it's ever going to be mindblowingly brilliant it has 
to start there.  For instance, I really don't think there's a 'right' way 
for a girl (or man, if that's your thing) to perform oral sex on a man, or 
that someone can give, by default, 'the perfect blowjob'.  But with the 
right attitude and a willingness to listen and to adapt, someone can easily 
give someone the best one they've ever had, regardless of their own level of 
experience, simply by learning what works best for that person.

It's the same with any area of sex, one girl you meet might long to be used, 
abused, chucked about like a ragdoll and generally overpowered and the 
suchlike, but assume the next girl wants that and you could get yourself in 
some trouble.  At the very best, you might never hope to see or hear from 
that girl again.  A girl is just as likely to think 'that was horrible, I 
feel totally violated and abused' as think 'that was wonderful, I feel 
totally violated and abused'.  Sex is a very personal and individual thing, 
the very idea that one can do it 'right' or 'wrong' offends me a little.

I do, however, think that most people are very repressed, and extremely 
unlikely to volunteer freely to their partner what really makes them tick or 
what they secretly long for but are too afraid to ask for fear of causing 
offence or appearing wrong or 'perverted'.  The whole concept of sexual 
perversion is irritating, because it implies that there's a right thing and 
a wrong thing to desire, when really we all have very little control over 
that.  But if two people can feel comfortable enough in each other's 
presence as to be totally open and forthcoming about such matters, and 
willing to make the necessary effort on each other's behalf, then the 
chances are they're going to be having a pretty fucking amazing time of it 
before too long, be their desires pedestrian and mainstream or totally 
pierced.jpg.

For all the things I worry Ben might struggle with in a relationship, not 
least of which the whole 'being overly critical' thing, which will be a hard 
thing for any girl to learn to live with, I do at least think that he would 
do very well in this department.  I'm pretty sure he'd be a perfect sexual 
partner for some girl or other, regardless of the fact that they'd be, 
effectively, his first in any real sense.  His lack of similar experience 
won't make any difference, and he'll probably do a better job than men 
who've shagged a whole fuckload of women in succession because he'll be 
genuinely interested in their shit and willing to make the effort, and open 
as to his own shit.  Also, his ability to explore more or less every fantasy 
he's ever had over the years _except_ the whole 'making a girl who loves me 
happy' one, will probably lead him to devote an uncommon amount of energy to 
that particular pursuit with giving being quite genuinely it's own reward, 
which I really can't imagine any girl complaining about.

The best that experience can do for you, I think, is to temporarily paper 
over any gulfs in compaitibility.  But only temporarily.

Hence, a skilled and experienced prostitute is probably able to satisfy many 
a man in the short term, but that's simply because it is, by it's very 
natue, her job to make you feel comfortable in describing what you really 
want, and then making the effort to make that happen.  And there's probably 
many a man who only goes because they feel empowered to tell the prostitute, 
but not their wife, what they want.   And many a wife who masturbates while 
he's there, and thinks about unspeakable acts she'll never have the guts to 
ask him to perform, or the trust in him to even let him perform them to her. 
And that's a pretty sad thing, really.

> Well it's probably better for our evolution than say the size and redness 
> of our buttocks (not that I'm suggesting Ben is unusually rubicund in that 
> area).

I hope Ben does breed, regardless.  There should definitely be come more of 
his genes in the futurepool, it's some crazy shit but infinitely preferable 
to most in evolutionary terms.  For all his faults, and for his general 
perception of me as being someone who's very comfortable and at home in this 
society, I'm sure I'd feel a lot more comfortable and at home in one which 
was slightly more like him.

I'm not sure I can give a much higher compliment than that, although on my 
Facebook webpipe it says that Mikey is much more Hot Or Not than most and 
way moreso that Ben, and I think that's a fair point as well.  I'd hate to 
have to choose between them.

Except I'd choose Mikey, obviously.

-- 
Joe

"I am the fat puddin', but a single puddingness" - Vicky Conlan

Joe Horowitz wrote:

> "nigel"  wrote in message 
> news:nsidnfwBE5VmxpPVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@plusnet...
> 
>>Joe Horowitz wrote:
>>
>>>Besides which, I'm unsure I agree that you can be an 'expert' at sex in 
>>>such a general sense.
>>
>>Perhaps not your manky crack-whore, but high-class hookers like Heather 
>>Mills, Fiona Wright and Diana Spencer haven't had many unsatisfied 
>>customers.
> 
> 
> Maybe you're right.  But I confess, I haven't spoken to many of their 
> customers so I can't be sure.  Paul McCartney wasn't all that satisfied, 
> though, was he.

I didn't hear him complaining about the sex!

 > He wanted a divorce, and even refused to give her half of
> all his money on the grounds of 'why in the shitting fuck should he?', which 
> was a fair point.  Stood up in court anyway.

But Heather's a saint - she didn't want the money for herself, but for 
her daughter. (Yeah, right)

> 
>>>Confidence and experience count a fair amount, but when it comes down to 
>>>it, everyone is different sexually speaking, in many cases completely 
>>>different or even opposite, so the key to great sex is in fact learning 
>>>_each other_ rather than simply learning sex itself.  It's far more about 
>>>communication, open-mindedness, goodwill and hard work, and a certain 
>>>degree of psychology, than it is about technique and experience, IMHO.
>>
>>Sex is a team sport, and I believe it's helpful to have an experienced 
>>team-mate.
> 
> 
> Helpful, yes, but not at all necessary IMHO.  I'd take enthusiasm, 
> open-mindedness and some degree of compatibility with me over any level of 
> experience, every single time.  Takes a bit more work to get things right in 
> the short-term, but if it's ever going to be mindblowingly brilliant it has 
> to start there.  For instance, I really don't think there's a 'right' way 
> for a girl (or man, if that's your thing) to perform oral sex on a man, or 
> that someone can give, by default, 'the perfect blowjob'.  But with the 
> right attitude and a willingness to listen and to adapt, someone can easily 
> give someone the best one they've ever had, regardless of their own level of 
> experience, simply by learning what works best for that person.

I'd pigeonhole what you're talking about more under the heading of love. 
Sex can be 'bad' and yet mind-blowingly brilliant if it's actually 
making love with the person who you wouldn't want to live without.

> It's the same with any area of sex, one girl you meet might long to be used, 
> abused, chucked about like a ragdoll and generally overpowered and the 
> suchlike, but assume the next girl wants that and you could get yourself in 
> some trouble.  At the very best, you might never hope to see or hear from 
> that girl again.  A girl is just as likely to think 'that was horrible, I 
> feel totally violated and abused' as think 'that was wonderful, I feel 
> totally violated and abused'.  Sex is a very personal and individual thing, 
> the very idea that one can do it 'right' or 'wrong' offends me a little.

I agree that everybody is different, but a high-class prossie has to be 
able to satisfy all types - a bit like a midfielder being able to 
tackle, hold, and pass long and short. Oddly enough, I saw Mascherano 
hit a couple of decent long balls last night.

<snip>

> 
> I hope Ben does breed, regardless.  There should definitely be come more of 
> his genes in the futurepool, it's some crazy shit but infinitely preferable 
> to most in evolutionary terms.  For all his faults, and for his general 
> perception of me as being someone who's very comfortable and at home in this 
> society, I'm sure I'd feel a lot more comfortable and at home in one which 
> was slightly more like him.

There are many people on this planet who should never have been allowed 
to breed - Tory BLiar's parents, John Prescott's parents, David 
Cameron's parents, Ken Livingstone's parents etc. Ben's parents are 
definitely not on my list.

I don't agree with all (perhaps even most) of Ben's opinions, but in a 
time when freedom of speech and thought is being eroded faster than 
confidence in the integrity of politicians, his willingness to think for 
himself and hold contrarian opinions are like a beacon of light.

> 
> I'm not sure I can give a much higher compliment than that, although on my 
> Facebook webpipe it says that Mikey is much more Hot Or Not than most and 
> way moreso that Ben, and I think that's a fair point as well.  I'd hate to 
> have to choose between them.
> 
> Except I'd choose Mikey, obviously.

Well Mikey hasn't been gheyfisting me as much as he used to recently, so 
I'm going to say publicly that I'd choose Ben in order to make him 
jealous, even though privately I'd choose Mikey too.

"Michael Cunningham"  wrote in message 
news:ful453$tom$3@aioe.org...
> "Joe Horowitz" <my_name@youblunder.co.youghey> wrote in message 
> news:wpkPj.11537$Rr7.10271@newsfe29.ams2...
>> It's an issue we all have to deal with, Ben.  I've liked you for years. 
>> It's not easy being fond of you at the best of times, Ben, I can tell you 
>> that much.
>
> AWTWP.  I've known Ben for almost ten years now (it would have
> been longer but he showed up 13 days late) and I like him an awful lot.
> He's funny, clever and endlessly fascinating.  But fucking hell does he
> make it difficult sometimes.
>
> Sometimes it's like he doesn't even like being liked.


See, I just don't 'get' why I'm hard to like. I've struggled with this for a 
long time now.

I *like* people like me - e.g. people who I see as the downtrodden, the 
unlucky, the cuntspired-against, the unpopular etc. And I actively dislike 
people who are generally successful, fortunate, over-privileged, and all the 
things I deem cunty.

I know I'm different from most in this regard, but the question remains: 
Why? Why the eagerness to back a winning horse that everyone else is backing 
to the point where the odds are zero? It's like the globalisation of Man Utd 
support, or the way that certain Newspapers would rather support a winning 
political party than one that represents their readership.

Personally, I've got a lot of time for the supporters of Rochdale FC, given 
that 90 of the other 91 clubs in the league have had a 
championship/promotion more recently than they have.

I've even got some respect for Bob Spink for defecting to UKIP just at a 
time when the bandwagonism is swinging back in the Tories favour. I don't 
agree with his move, but at least it seems to be heartfelt and 
non-opportunistic.

Am I really so fucked up in having this underdog sympathy? And indeed in 
expecting it from others?

BTN

"Sir Benjamin Nunn"  wrote in message 
news:678mjoF2o6v24U1@mid.individual.net...
> "Michael Cunningham"  wrote in message 
> news:ful453$tom$3@aioe.org...
>> AWTWP.  I've known Ben for almost ten years now (it would have
>> been longer but he showed up 13 days late) and I like him an awful lot.
>> He's funny, clever and endlessly fascinating.  But fucking hell does he
>> make it difficult sometimes.
>>
>> Sometimes it's like he doesn't even like being liked.
>
>
> See, I just don't 'get' why I'm hard to like. I've struggled with this for 
> a long time now.
>
> I *like* people like me - e.g. people who I see as the downtrodden, the 
> unlucky, the cuntspired-against, the unpopular etc.

I think you're getting your wires crossed a little here.  It's not that 
you're hard to like, you're easy to like, and impossible to ignore.  It's 
just that being fond of you is quite hard going at times, you're like the 
boyfriend who knocks us all about a bit but we still keep coming back for 
more.

> And I actively dislike people who are generally successful, fortunate, 
> over-privileged, and all the things I deem cunty.

Hey, that's me!

> I know I'm different from most in this regard, but the question remains: 
> Why? Why the eagerness to back a winning horse that everyone else is 
> backing to the point where the odds are zero? It's like the globalisation 
> of Man Utd support, or the way that certain Newspapers would rather 
> support a winning political party than one that represents their 
> readership.

It's nothing like that.  It's more like expressing a preference for the 
ice-cream which tastes good.

> Am I really so fucked up in having this underdog sympathy? And indeed in 
> expecting it from others?

No, you're definitely not fucked up.  Whoever told you such a thing?


-- 
Joe

"I am the fat puddin', but a single puddingness" - Vicky Conlan

"Joe Horowitz" <my_name@youblunder.co.youghey> wrote in message
news:MxvPj.73416$fx2.67727@newsfe08.ams2...
> I'm not sure I can give a much higher compliment than that, although on my Facebook
> webpipe it says that Mikey is much more Hot Or Not than most and way moreso that Ben, and
> I think that's a fair point as well.  I'd hate to have to choose between them.

Indeed.  Facebook knows what it's talking about.  According to one Facebook
application, I'm more deteable than 97% of the world's population or something.
Which, of course, is quite nice, I suppose.  Ironically, though -- and perhaps
"cuntily", in Ben's view -- I don't really like dating.

I bet the great man sometimes chuckles at the humourous irony of it all.

> Except I'd choose Mikey, obviously.

I'd choose you, too.  Love you.  Miss you.  xx


-- 
Mike

"nigel"  wrote in message 
news:csOdnQ4W7ekdj5LVnZ2dnUVZ8uadnZ2d@plusnet...
> Well Mikey hasn't been gheyfisting me as much as he used to recently, so I'm going to say 
> publicly that I'd choose Ben in order to make him jealous, even though privately I'd 
> choose Mikey too.

Have you considered joining Facebook and clicking on my flirtpipe?
It's a tried and tested technique, you know.


-- 
Mike