Turqy, If I thought for a moment that you'd "debate fairly" and "be truthful" about your bar-agendas and the strategies you use when you interact with "much younger women," I'd have another go with you, but you always fall into smarm and snark instead of intimacy when I put your feet to the fire.
But, hey, I'll try again, and you'll smarm and snark again, and we'll see what that does. I have many projections founded upon delusions, and I have trotted them out here, and I've been corrected many a time; I bow to my teachers -- you, for instance have opened my eyes about the nuances of a lot of issues, but I have yet to think you've made a case that your bar-ethics would pass muster with many here. I mean, would you ever post a video of you having a conversation with women about whom you'd freely admit "I'd hit that?" Would you let us see your old man ways and give us the snickers when we saw that the girls got it that you were targeting the inside of their pants instead of, say, the nurturing of their souls? I don't think you'd post that video. Or, hey, if you WERE pulling off being worldly and suave, and the girls actually started buying into it, would you show us THAT video of them seemingly thinking they might "get lucky and have a roll in the hay with an expat, brainy, well dressed, master of French and Spanish, an author, an exponent of the good, sexually liberated life?" No, you wouldn't post that video either, because the greater the disparity in your ages, the more we'd see the girls being hopelessly naive or damaged goods in some way if they thought so little of themselves that they'd have a sexual experience with you so haphazardly and be so clueless about the power of sexual bonding and clueless that they'd have "you" in their past to one day have to explain to themselves. If they ever were lucky enough to gain the love of a man who wouldn't be caught dead in a bar hitting on or wanting to hit on much younger women, with what regret would they think of a tryst with you then? Give us your write-up of a typical session of "meet a much younger sexy girl and put the moves on her." You're certain to not attempt such a writing project here, because you know that even with your great rationalization skills, you'd be a predator in the eyes of most here if you actually tried to flesh out your "everyone's an adult and a free thinker here" concept. The younger the girl, the more ludicrous the scenario would become. Not that magic couldn't happen, not that a May-December pairing couldn't work, but that the rarity of such an event precludes anyone easily thinking, "Hey, I'll just keep hitting on the young ones until I find one willing to do me, and this will validate that the age difference isn't a concern and mitigate any suggestions that I'm marauding another's life when I know with certainty that I'll all-too-soon be at the end of my sexuality while that person still has decades of mojo left, and that virtually every aspect of life will be impacted relentlessly by the age difference in ways that I can see but she cannot yet see." I get it. I can grok the delight of peering into the minds of modern day youth, I can be happy to observe first hand that someone is discovering their powers as a sexually radiant person who has raw shakti to spend and likes wiggling her ass to see the droolers drool, I can get off being a mentor of some sort by showing all the tee shirts life-experience has gained for me, I can get off buying a drink for those who cannot as easily afford to do so, I know the allure of having a session of erudite repartee -- I get it -- I see your Utopian vision of what cafe-society could be -- as an ideal. But your phrase "I'd hit it" sullies any such idealism. If you, with all the wisdom life's given you by now, cannot see the gulf that that attitude creates, then I cannot educate you about it. I know not "today's woman's" ability to spot a clown, or failing that, be unaffected by a casual one-nighter with one. I don't know how easily they can be manipulated by the dangling of money. I don't know how rare "a decent man" is these days. I don't know why a woman would risk her time with anyone who wasn't in her age bracket and obviously was presenting inherent incompatibilities that only the wisest of couples could hope to successfully address. But I do know women. Yes, I do. They want depth, commitment, intimacy, honesty, clarity about their partners and all the decisions they've made "so-far." They want family, they want Hallmark Card memories, they want snap shots to show to all their friends. To the extent that you can "get around" these innate qualities of women, it is a tell about the woman's lack of clarity about her own best interests, and, your willingness to exploit it. You've written dialog here many times. Give us a script. Let us read the play: "Turq gets laid by the co-ed." Try to make that understandable to us. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > nablusoss1008 wrote: > > > > Egd, relax. The Rick fellow is the one that indicated > > > > that he had information that M and N had a sexual > > > > relationship; lying is his obsession and dearest hobby, > > > > quite like the Turq and the Vaj; it becomes a call in > > > > life they so thoroughly identify with. . . . Lies upon > > > > lies as usual from Rick, the king of Rumour-Monging - > > > > a deranged and deeply perverted soul. What then would > > > > be more natural than to ask his wife if she thinks, > > > > perhaps, her husband is rather, Gay, or sexually > > > > disoriented ? > > > > > > lurkernomore20002000" wrote: > > > I'm with you on that Nab. Edg went immediately to Defcon > > > 4 or 5. I'm staying a Defcon 2, which is about the normal > > > setting. > > > > Lurk-nomo, > > > > I admit to going to that energy level in my word usage, > > but in real life over here behind the keyboard, not so much. > > > > Where do we draw a line, Lurk? > > > > Nab's poor brain is not creative enough to do any real > > damage here, and his past posts surely have convinced all > > but a few FFLers that he's in deep psychological trouble, > > so his opinion about Rick's wife has zero merit, but > > though he crossed a line due to his brokenness and deserves > > our pity for being so public with his dysfunctions, I wanted > > to underline that a slippery slope exists and that he was > > eagerly dancing upon it. > > > > Think now about my creativity and my past writings that > > have used such graphic and raw terms -- isn't it true that > > "the likes of me," could really take Nab's kind of attack > > up several notches and really strike out with a cruel > > targeting of those who are in the periphery of the lives > > of the posters here? > > Edg, I was going to let this slide as just > another example of YOU lashing out, but t'would > seem that you need a reminder of how you do so. > > Nabby's a twit. We all know that. There was no > call to ask for him to be banned. THAT was over > the top. > > Besides, what Lurk may be hinting at is that you > are not exactly in a position to call anyone here > on going over the top. Here's an example you might > resonate with, one that *includes* slurs against > other people. > > Did you happen to read the link posted by Bob B. > in the "A poet with hate mail" post, about poet > Frederick Seidel? Here's the link again, if you > did not: > http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/magazine/12Seidel-t.html > > In the article, the 73-year-old poet tells the > story of getting a hate message on his answering > machine from a reader who seemed not to like what > someone his age said about younger women and his > fondness for them. > > Now remember back to when I posted an innocent > tale of meeting two young women in a bar here in > Sitges and my delight at finding them both 1) > English speakers, 2) charming, 3) intelligent, > 4) knowledgeable about music, and 5) fun to be > with. *Literally* everyone on this forum -- > including my own long-time stalker -- saw it > as an innocent appreciation of a neat conver- > sation and two neat women. Everyone except you. > > You launched into a weeks-long harangue against > me as a "predator," "stalking" these young women > and trying to seduce them with my "wiser, older > man ways." You basically lost it and became a > stalker yourself. In the process you heavily > insulted not only me but the young women, neither > of whom I ever had the least sexual interest in, > one of whom who has become one of my best friends > here in Sitges, and has *still* endured the least > sexual or romantic interest from me. > > Basically, as I saw it then, because of your own > guilt feelings about a family situation, the situ- > ation of an older man *appreciating the company of > younger women* pushed your buttons almost as much > as Frederick Seidel's poems pushed his stalker's > buttons. She reacted by basically threatening his > life. You contented yourself with calling me a > predator, and persisting in doing so to this day. > > So the next time you feel like getting up on a > soapbox and declaring someone here persona non > grata, please remember this and many other inci- > dents in which you did far worse. > > You have a very selective memory when your > righteous anger button gets pushed, one that > allows you to forget that you ain't exactly > righteous. > > I'm not looking to reopen the "predator" scenario, > just to remind you that of all the people here, > you are the LEAST competent to blast anyone for > lashing out in anger, and in unjustified, com- > pletely invented and projected anger. > > 'Nuff said, I hope... >
