(March 8, 2018 at 7:04 pm)wallym Wrote: What I wonder, regarding the OP, is if he could Weird Science himself a ladyfriend, would he do that, or just prefer being alone.  You can answer as well there if you want.  

Maybe one day in the future I would, but at the moment, no. I am quite content with what I have and who I know at the moment.

---

(March 8, 2018 at 7:04 pm)wallym Wrote: If hot loving spouse with lots of sex was on the table, would as many people still prefer to photograph scenery or jerkoff by themselves?  But that's not really the option being rejected.  He's rejecting an offer to be setup on a blind double date which is probably going to lead nowhere worthwhile at the cost of having to go through with the anxiety of going on the date to begin with.  

I'd take casual sex any day. But a spouse? No thanks. Not just any spouse anyway. It would have to be the love of my life...

Well this should be a self-centered topic. It doesn't matter how we live our lifes.
What i think that the OP should take in considerations is this:
Am I an asexual( no sexual attraction)?
Than , if this is not the case , it is not normal if he wants a relationship or any kind of intimate interaction with the oposite sex or same sex, if the answer is positive for the second that he has a problem if not, there is no problem.
I valuea a lot interpersonal relationships so it will not be normal for me.

(March 8, 2018 at 6:39 pm)rskovride Wrote:

(March 8, 2018 at 6:10 pm)wallym Wrote: Is it really a stretch?  How do the ladies fair in Hollywood?  They certainly become much better actors as they get older.  But they're for the most part shuffled off, and the only hope is to get enough plastic surgery to pass themselves off as younger.

I didn't think this was a contested idea.  

And older women are competing with younger women when it comes to desirable older men.  So who's that leaving in the prospect pool?

It is still condescending, and still speculation, yes.

Lets breakdown your argument.

You are using women actors in Hollywood as a representative sample for half of the human race.  That's a great idea. [/sarcasm]
Women in Hollywood have a 'shelf date'.
'Shelf dates' are bad for polyamory.
Therefore all women are going to have a problem with polyamory?

This is not a valid or sound argument.  I don't know how to make it any more plain.

It definitely sounds condescending. But that's just because we treat women like shit. Reality is pretty condescending to women, so if I describe reality, and it seems condescending, I think I'm in the ballpark.

You have to flesh it out a little.  Why does Hollywood prefer younger women even though older women tend to be better actresses?  Hollywood is in the money making business.  Who they pick is a reflection of the populace.

But you can see it anywhere really.  Ever see an athletes wife?  Or a billionaire?  Basically, almost any time a guy can pick whoever he wants, chubby 50 year old ladies are not in the picture.
----


Shelf dates are bad for any person in any competition.  

----
I didn't say polyamory is bad for all women.  I said there's a lot not to like for older women, particularly if they aren't willing to settle for what they can get.

---

(March 8, 2018 at 7:24 pm)Hammy Wrote:

(March 8, 2018 at 7:04 pm)wallym Wrote: What I wonder, regarding the OP, is if he could Weird Science himself a ladyfriend, would he do that, or just prefer being alone.  You can answer as well there if you want.  

Maybe one day in the future I would, but at the moment, no. I am quite content with what I have and who I know at the moment.

---

(March 8, 2018 at 7:04 pm)wallym Wrote: If hot loving spouse with lots of sex was on the table, would as many people still prefer to photograph scenery or jerkoff by themselves?  But that's not really the option being rejected.  He's rejecting an offer to be setup on a blind double date which is probably going to lead nowhere worthwhile at the cost of having to go through with the anxiety of going on the date to begin with.  

I'd take casual sex any day. But a spouse? No thanks. Not just any spouse anyway. It would have to be the love of my life...

Would you not Weird Science yourself the love of your life? I think by design, a spouse is supposed to be the love of your life.

(March 8, 2018 at 7:52 pm)wallym Wrote: Would you not Weird Science yourself the love of your life? I think by design, a spouse is supposed to be the love of your life.

I don't think I could weird science myself the love of my life... if they already exist.

(March 8, 2018 at 7:04 pm)wallym Wrote:

(March 8, 2018 at 3:56 pm)Hammy Wrote: Yes it's far more normal and common to have no relationship experience by than people let on. There's lots of people like you and me, OP, who don't get out much, and even if there isn't, I don't care. We're fine as we are.

Me?  I've been happily married for quite a while.  Made a kid and everything. 

What I wonder, regarding the OP, is if he could Weird Science himself a ladyfriend, would he do that, or just prefer being alone.  You can answer as well there if you want.  

My guess is that people aren't choosing aloneness over what CL has.  If hot loving spouse with lots of sex was on the table, would as many people still prefer to photograph scenery or jerkoff by themselves?  But that's not really the option being rejected.  He's rejecting an offer to be setup on a blind double date which is probably going to lead nowhere worthwhile at the cost of having to go through with the anxiety of going on the date to begin with.  

If I'm right, what CL is doing is normal, and what he's doing is also normal.  But I'm not sure his conclusion, which is "no interest in a relationship" is accurately representing himself.  Hopefully, they return, and we can get some clarification, because it's interesting.

Yeah, I agree with this. I don't think being single is abnormal. I think legitimately not being interested in having sex and/or not being interested in that type of companionship at all, is abnormal. Not saying it's wrong. Just saying it certainly is not normal.

I could say that it is a variation but to say it is abnormal is a stretch for me.

wallym Wrote: It definitely sounds condescending. But that's just because we treat women like shit. Reality is pretty condescending to women, so if I describe reality, and it seems condescending, I think I'm in the ballpark.

You are not describing reality by making a broad generalization like "Reality is pretty condescending to women" and you aren't going to back pedal out of being condescending after writing "the future of polyamory is frequently going to be gross random old guys or cats".  Admit it and move on. I'm not here to judge, I'm condescending sometimes to but if called on it I would admit it. 

wallym Wrote:You have to flesh it out a little.  Why does Hollywood prefer younger women even though older women tend to be better actresses?  Hollywood is in the money making business.  Who they pick is a reflection of the populace.

But you can see it anywhere really.  Ever see an athletes wife?  Or a billionaire?  Basically, almost any time a guy can pick whoever he wants, chubby 50 year old ladies are not in the picture.

I don't accept that picks made by Hollywood, athletes, or billionaires is a reflection of the populace because the vast majority of the populace is not in any of these situations.  This is yet another baseless claim and this one in particular is non-sense.

wallym Wrote: Shelf dates are bad for any person in any competition.

 

Now the real issue finally presents itself.  Polyamory is not a competition and should not be viewed as such.  Of course some women don't want extra competition but that is not what we are talking about. 

wallym Wrote:I didn't say polyamory is bad for all women.  I said there's a lot not to like for older women, particularly if they aren't willing to settle for what they can get.

You did, in fact,reference all women. I'm assuming 'ladyfolk' means women. 

wallym Wrote: And if you're one of the ladyfolk, and you've got a bit of a shelf date on your desirability, and the future of polyamory is frequently going to be gross random old guys or cats, it's probably not as appealing to skip the permanent partner search.

I am making broad generalizations. Which is also a delightful pun. I'm also using a lot of qualifiers when I speak. Probably, might, etc... But more important, for my point to make sense, it just has to be the common position, not a universal law. I'm sure polyamory is great for some people in some situations. But you and Aegon were talking about it being much more normalized.

But we clearly have very different views on how older women are viewed, the competitiveness of relationships, the nature of relationships in general, hollywood being a capitalist reflection of the populaces interests, and on and on.

Which is fine. But you're responses so far have been 'nuh-uh.'
--
One thing I'll say, and this is true about most things...I don't care. I don't care if polyamory is good or bad. I have no dog in the fight. It's just an intuitive reaction. But I think your notion that the only thing holding people back is the religious conditioning misses out on a lot of aspects of polyamory that are unattractive, and a lot of aspects of monogamy that are attractive. Especially as you age.

If you have no desire then it's normal. What's normal for you doesn't apply to me, or anyone else. Just you. As long as nothing is keeping you from pursuing something you want, I'd say you're just fine and keep on truckin'

We don't know whether he likes sex or not. And even if he does like sex maybe he prefers lube, porn and a little elbow grease.