Originally posted by asromacalcioliving without sex gets easier as you get older.
Could, or do, you live without sex?
I have for a very long time, so long I won't even post it in the forum.
And does / did it bother you? Did your standards go down or did you get even fussier?
And have you lost the belief that anybody will ever want you again?
Just curious.
the secret is not to play with yourself. . .that just makes you as w****r. . .it takes away your natural urge too.
you will get your chance.
🙂
1 edit
Originally posted by mokkoI know all this, not least because I'm a spiritual healer and I have the ability to heal by channelling the energy of my own thoughts to the root of the patient's complaint.
This is just too sad.
First off you are only what you believe yourself to be. If you believe people aren't attracted to you they won't be. Love has no tolerance for self doubt.
People are attracted to confidence. Even if you have to fake it at first, it'll develop naturally over time and you will emit sexuality through your own self assurance.
But wo different things because love and sex seem to have nothing to do with each other anymore.
I manage it in every other area of life except this one. I have confidence for everything except sexual conquest.
Edit: One thing I will say though is, everybody I know has at least had partners, yet many of them are low on confidence themselves. It may be helpful but it's not an essential prerequisite.
Originally posted by NordlysThe word has flexible meaning, it's OK to use in this way without implying victory OVER somebody.
Hmmmmm, maybe that's where you went wrong? If I were into sex, I certainly wouldn't want to be "conquered". This isn't war, is it?
Curiously, in Italian 'conquistare' means both to conquer in a war sense and also to 'attain' somebody in a relationship sense. Advanced level Italians students often ask for clarification of this point. While their English is no match for a Norwegian's, especially not yours, non-native speakers can tend to get stuck on dictionary definitions ahead of functional use. I wouldn't include you in this sweeping statement, but please don't think I meant what the dictionary says I did.
Some of the lads I know who never struggle to meet girls use words more powerful and less respectful than this to describe their exploits, I can't see why my vocabulary (not least as I don't even recall using this word before) explains 32 years of near-permanent celibacy.
But then I'm in no position to be dismissive of the suggestions people make, so thank you for your insight.
Originally posted by asromacalcioIn German (which is my native language), "erobern" is used much like "conquer", so I don't think it's a language thing. I know it's a common expression and doesn't necessarily mean much, and you may have used it without meaning it, but it does have an underlying notion of the man being the active part, trying to win the woman, while the woman mostly gets a passive role. So if it fails to work, you are the loser. That puts you under a lot of pressure. If you think of it more as a mutual thing, with both parts having the same responsibility to make it work, that may take away some of the pressure (which sets you up for failure), besides being more respectful towards the woman.
The word has flexible meaning, it's OK to use in this way without implying victory OVER somebody.
Curiously, in Italian 'conquistare' means both to conquer in a war sense and also to 'attain' somebody in a relationship sense. Advanced level Italians students often ask for clarification of this point. While their English is no match for a Norwegian's, ...[text shortened]... ition to be dismissive of the suggestions people make, so thank you for your insight.
Oh well, I guess I better shut up now and stop talking about things I don't really know anything about. 🙂
Originally posted by NordlysThere are many times where one of the partners has a more active role in seducing the other.
If you think of it more as a mutual thing, with both parts having the same responsibility to make it work, that may take away some of the pressure (which sets you up for failure), besides being more respectful towards the woman.
This is not necessarily a manipulation of sorts because it may be important to actively show your qualities, especially if you are already interested and think that the other person is undecided or just didn't seem to notice. If you are just there, (s)he may never do.
The balance lies in that being active is not equivalent to being pushy or in-your-face. If so, there is nothing disrespectful about it.
1 edit
Originally posted by NordlysIt's conclusions like this I was trying to avoid people making by replying to your point.
being more respectful towards the woman.
I happen to think if I wasn't so respectful I may have had *more* luck... asking once and taking 'no' to mean 'no never' for example. Then learning that they were testing me out and were mighty annoyed I gave up so soon. Some blokes keep asking and asking. I try once and then leave them alone.
This is to my detriment in Italy more than anywhere else I have failed miserably to woo, because, as I'm told, Italian girls say no the first few times anyway even if they want to say yes, as they expect to be asked subsequently. It may not be true across the board but I have been told this is very common.
I don't think lack of respect enters into it with me, I think there's a far deeper cause, otherwise it'd have been solved long ago.
Originally posted by NordlysJust one other thing, when I have tried, it really does seem like a one-way thing, like it's my responsibility to be 'likeable' and my duty to like the girl and do everything right, and I'm always to blame when it fails. If she doesn't laugh it's because I'm boring but if I don't laugh it's because I have no sense of humour. It's like I'm being judged from the start.
If you think of it more as a mutual thing, with both parts having the same responsibility to make it work, that may take away some of the pressure (which sets you up for failure), besides being more respectful towards the woman.
Oh well, I guess I better shut up now and stop talking about things I don't really know anything about. 🙂
And being shy, OK, off-putting, but has any girl ever considered that if she looked beyond the social ideals of men etc she might be able to help me increase my confidence? Do I have to be perfect first?
Just because I stall the engine doesn't mean I can't drive the car.
Oh, and if this is how you are when you don't know anything what are you like when you are an expert?
Originally posted by PalynkaI didn't mean to say that both partners are, or should be, equally active all the time. But I think it should be an open situation where both partners can be active. And if the partnership fails, I wouldn't see it as the fault of the supposed-to-be-active person, but something which didn't work out between the two.
There are many times where one of the partners has a more active role in seducing the other.
This is not necessarily a manipulation of sorts because it may be important to actively show your qualities, especially if you are already interested and think that the other person is undecided or just didn't seem to notice. If you are just there, (s)he may never ...[text shortened]... not equivalent to being pushy or in-your-face. If so, there is nothing disrespectful about it.
Originally posted by NordlysI agree, sorry if it seemed otherwise.
I didn't mean to say that both partners are, or should be, equally active all the time. But I think it should be an open situation where both partners can be active. And if the partnership fails, I wouldn't see it as the fault of the supposed-to-be-active person, but something which didn't work out between the two.
What I did disagree with the idea that it is not his fault. If he is interested and thinks women don't like his type, I'd say he's probably doing something wrong. It can't be that ALL women just can't appreciate him, but that he is not doing the right thing to show his qualities and the man he is.
What I meant was: sometimes the best action is less action, but not inaction.