You are absolutely right...I noticed it a lot more while I was out there. I cannot imagine thinking that ANY person would want ot listen to (almost) daily comments about how some other man/woman is REALLY hot (He's got a certain "celebrity" fixation)? I would hate it!

Now the sticky issue is to bring it up...I didn't want to say anything before I had time to really think about it.

I am on the lookout for opportunities to broach that subject with him...she tolerates and has never mentioned anything to me about it.

My thought is to ask him how he'd feel if SIL was regularly going on about "knockin' boots" with Mel Gibson?

He's made mention that things are not well in certain areas...we talked, but I didnt' want to start becoming an MC to them. I told him about MB and perhaps filling out the ENQ's may be a good start to talk.

THanks for the push...they are really good together, but I will call that spade a spade if/when it comes up again.

WNB

This one would trigger my moron alarm.

For one thing, it's way too crude for the scenario you're talking about. For another, the way it's phrased suggests that *your* sexual interest alone determines whether there would be sex in that scenario and assumes what the lady thinks has nothing to do with it.

I've run into enough morons who have trouble with the notion that interest on their part does not guarantee them interest on the lady's part that any hint of it makes me re-evaluate whether I want to be bothering with the speaker.

MOS,

I must admit, my first reaction to your post was to feel as if I had been called a "moron". (since, I, after all, originally posted thos words)

In reaction to that, I began to think of defensive things to say, such as : "Well, I did suggest that this was way over the top!"

My second thought was that I (accepting the moron label dispite my defensive protests) should just go hide in my garage and do woodworking until I'm too old to care. (which should take approximately zero minutes, LOL)

But, my third thought was that this is just an example of the delimma we face:
A) Say nothing, and get the same result I got for my first 38 years - nothing.
B) Say something and risk offending somebody.

My feeling now, is that option B is the correct choice. And if I had said such a thing (which I never have) and a fine lady such as MOS became offended and never spoke to me again, it would be a reasonable risk - considering that the alternative (given limited wit) might be to say nothing.

One can't help it if other's moron alarms are miscalibrated (perhaps due to being overused by real morons). <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

-AD

That's odd, I thought the question was what to say, not whether or not to say that particular line.

It sounds like you might be forgetting to take into account the fundamental socialization differences between men and women in our society.

It starts in adolescence when the hormone storms hit. While boys are spending a few years desperately hoping that they will someday achieve what their hormones are screaming is the ultimate nirvana of seeing and hopefully getting to touch a naked woman, girls are finding out that the great problem of their lives isn't getting to see a guy naked, it's getting the guys you don't want to see naked to keep their clothes on.

It doesn't get much better from there. If some guy makes he clear he wants to have sex with you, it's hard to think anything but "yeah, so what, so do 500 other guys". There's nothing special or unique about it. Emotional intimacy is special and unique, which is why the women on this thread have made suggestions that work towards that rather than just a bald announcement of "oh, and by the way, I want you".

The reason I used the phrase "moron alarm" is because of the above. If a guy is so completely out of touch with reality that he thinks one more guy announcing he wants to have sex with me is somehow special and unique, it's time to re-evaluate the situation.

AD, for what it's worth, I think the same way MOS does about that particular line. No that doesn't mean "you" are a moron though, just anyone who uses that line is acting moronic at the momment (and I have done many moronic things in my life, despite the fact I am certainly no moron).

Interesting analysis MOS, still at some point women DO want to be the object of sexual pursuit.... But I think it is safe to say healthy women (as opposed to sex addicts, or insecure women who seek sex for validation), are not flattered by such early innuendo, for the reasons you stated, means nothing really to them. However once they have been pursued (courted) emotionally and feel connected to a male...then the whole physical dance becomes more important, cause they don't seek a platonic friend/brother they also do seek a lover, and at that point verbal sexual play "works".

You got that AD? It is all about pacing, too fast suggests a male is only looking for more sex....too slow makes the woman feel she is undesireable (or her male suitor has some kind of problem cause he is not acting male) and she will look elsewhere...

IMO any innuendo relating to sexual behavior early in a developing relationship is incredibly stupid and reveals a male who is at the very least woefully ignorant of how women "feel" (regardless of the fact some women would like that, but such women are of dubious character IMO, so why pursue them?...unless you just seek a sex partner of course, so must "fish" for promiscuous women). So it may just be ignorant, and the woman may overlook an instance or two, giving you more time to reveal whether you have any actual potential, or truly are just another guy looking for sexual relationship... but your chances with her have definitely diminished, and hopefully the male has enough sense to realize the error, and correct it.

Correct. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

Oh how to respond?

I feel like I stepped in something I should have stayed out of.

First, I never said anything like this. (Nevertheless, I'm defending myself.) This "line" was lifted out of a discussion on another thread in which a different context was already established. The people in question knew each other well.

Second, "moron" is a classification based on intellegence. While it might be reasonable to object to this "line" on the basis of it being in poor taste or out of comformance with social norms, I don't think it would be appropriate to infer that the speaker is of low intellegence.

While I would in no way be offended if someone said that the comment was crude, I draw the line at namecalling. If a woman in whom I was interested used the word "moron" about anybody, I wouldn't be interested anymore.

I've been called names by my wife often enough that I would run away at the first instance of namecalling from a woman. Although "Moron" was not in her standard lexicon, "Idiot" was often her word-weapon of choice. Too close for comfort. I now have zero tolerance for that.

Here I am, a poor broken betrayed man, who never said a provocative word to a woman in my life, now trying to find a way forward - a way which works better than my old perfect gentleman routine - and MOS calls me a "moron". It hurts, and I don't think it was appropriate.

-AD

Yes, we all know that. It was clear in the first post on this thread. You're the only one who seems confused on that point.


Sure it is -- subpar social intelligence, which is far more necessary to a successful relationship than academic intelligence. I realize my phrasing startled you, but I work in an environment where blunt speech is regarded as a helpful favor I do my coworkers, and enough posters have said the same here that I use the same style on MB. Here's a question worth considering --would my choice of words have startled you as much if they came from a male speaker?


That's nice, but it's a non-sequitur, since no one here has been name-calling anyone else here.


Again, that's nice, but I thought the topic on this thread was what one might hypothetically say to a woman, not how one picks the hypothetical woman to whom one would hypothetically speak.


Again, nice for you to know about yourself, but a non-sequitur.


And a self pity party is *really* off topic.


ROFL. Oh, that was a good one. I never called you a moron, as is perfectly clear if you read my posts. And if accusing someone of something they didn't do is part of your "old perfect gentleman routine", I think you're wise to update it to something that is more actually gentlemanlike.

AD,

An issue I think you need to address within yourself here--

MOS did NOT call YOU a Moron, she said if someone said that to a her it would trigger a "moron alert" in her brain. Not that YOU are a moron for asking the question, as that is how you phrased the comment, as in asking "How would this go over?"

So you need to figure out why you took her comment as a personal attack against you. When clearly it wasn't.

What about her comment made you feel the need to defend yourself, based on a question you asked?

Is it wrong for you to ask a question for clarification? (which is how I think most of us understood your question) No, it's not..Nor does it make you a moron. So again, why do you feel you were being personally attacked?

Oh, I'm not confused. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />


I encounter rudeness often enough that it certaly does not startle me. I was offended. There is a difference.



"Moron" is a name.


Please forgive me for drifting off topic.


Well, actually it followed quite nicely from my objection the the namecalling.


One sentence does not a party make.

-AD

TR,

I think I explained my low threashold. Sure, it's something to work on, but still, if I heard a woman call anybody a moron, I'd be out of there.

Honestly, you can go back and read my "Project Man" thread. I know I'm overly sensitive - broken. I'm literally shaking right now.

-AD

Then by all means feel free to start by apologizing for spreading false accusations.

shaking is just adrenaline response AD, it will pass, go run a couple laps, then come back and fight through this, if you ever want to overcome unhealthy responses. Acknowledging you were off base (owning your behavior) would be good start. I read this again, and for the SECOND time must note the comment was about "behavior" not your person. But it is good for you to find out these things, and I doubt anyone thinks less of you, that's what this sort of place is for...so do the work AD, and maybe next time be easier not to off the deep end..practice makes perfect.

AD,

"I think I explained my low threashold. Sure, it's something to work on, but still, if I heard a woman call anybody a moron, I'd be out of there."

The point being she didn't call you a moron. And why would you be out of there? Why not call her on her comments? Why not confront her about the name calling, telling her it's wrong to do that? WHY RUN??

**Honestly, you can go back and read my "Project Man" thread. I know I'm overly sensitive - broken. I'm literally shaking right now.**

It sounds like you need to really get a hold of YOUR emotions.

I understand your wife has put you down, but is her view of you so important to you that it destroys YOU? I mean, the woman is NOT GOD!! Stop treating her opinion of you as if she is. Stop making her the idol you worship. Trust me, I've been there and done that, and you know I feel much better knowing it doesn't matter what "others" think about me, other than God as long as I am pleasing Him, what anyone else things is less important.

TR and All,

It's clear that I've disturbed (probably irreparablly) the light tone and casual nature of this thread. Sorry.

MOS,

I think we are running a mutual defensiveness cycle. I'll break out of it now.

------------WE now return to our regularly scheduled programming-----

-AD

ROFL. Nice copout. Too bad it's another false accusation, just more of the same bad behavior. There's nothing like refusing to deal with your own behavior by insisting falsely that others are just as bad.

Wow, MOS, you just won't let go, will you? I'm afraid I have to agree with AD that something like a "mutual defensiveness cycle" is going on, with your means of defense being an unrelenting attack.

Sure, AD over-reacted. But it is neither nice nor productive to kick him when he's down, and that's what you are doing. You could have simply corrected his misapprehension, or you could have dug into the reasons why (like ThornedRose tried to do), but instead you chose to take a snide approach:

As you yourself pointed out, it isn't likely that anyone other than AD misunderstood where you were coming from, so in my view the way you pounced on him was an over-reaction of your own.

Hmmm.... <Considers gnome's statements...>

Nope, I disagree. If you read the thread you'll see that the first time he started in on this I let it slide, because as you said, it's just too obviously silly for it to be an issue of anyone else believing it.

But then he decided to post more of the same, only getting much more dramatic about it. If he was uncomfortable, he had the option to deal with the situation honestly, but he chose to lie. As AD himself pointed out, there are people who come to this board who are in an emotionally fragile state. They might not be able to deal with AD's lies but be so shattered they cut themselves off from a good source of help, so it's far better that someone like me who's not freaked out by it confront him when he lies so he gets the idea that's not ok here, before he does it to someone it'll really hurt.

MOS, I agree in principle. However, I do not believe that AD chose to lie. Rather, I believe he misinterpreted, and that your response was harsher than it needed to be to satisfy the principle.

AD,

I have a question for you, why do you think your avoiding the issue of trying to find out why you feel this is acceptable behavior for your wife to bad mouth you?

What is your fear of conflict?

Do you think conflict is a bad thing in marriage? in any relationship?

Conflict in and of itself is not a bad thing, conflict happens because people are different, and each have their own expecations. When there is conflicting thoughts, it's GOOD to talk it out, and try and work through things, even if it's only to come to the acceptance of "we agree to disagree" on this topic and the relationship is still intact and emotionally reconnected.

When your working through conflicts, you verbally address (attack) the 'problem' not the person with whom you have a conflict with.

It appears from reading many of your posts, your wife attacks you, and not the problems. And if your wanting things to change, you need to learn how to get her (or someone else in the future) to focus on the problems and not the person they have the conflict with.

Let's look at the orginal quote:


Now, that is what was said and the context in which it was said is one of a question seeking an answer, what cues? basically, a "Would that work for you or maybe other women?"
a "if someone came up and said this to you, would it work?"

You have already stated you wouldn't and haven't used this line, and all of us here understand that.

Okay, lets look at what MOS said in reference to that comment, not in reference to YOU, but the comment....


I can see here, why *you* took it personally, the *YOUR* as opposed to saying *if some one said this to me, it would trigger my moron alarm*

because: the way it's phrased suggests that *the mans* sexual interest alone determines whether there would be sex in that scenario and assumes what the lady thinks has nothing to do with it.

However, I think most of us read the *your* as a general to any man who would say this to her, she would think it's crude the man is a moron and *he* was only thinking about himself and totally disregarding the womens thoughts or opinions on if it's what she wanted too.

Again, I can see why you took it personally based on the wording, but it really wasn't meant that way.

Maybe consider, do you do this often? When someone says "you or your" in a general context is it really YOU personally they are talking about? Or could it be said from the perspective of the general "if anyone" said or did this and still make sense?

There are some things that when said can be taken as a blanket statement meant to address anyone, which was the case here, and there are things when said that can be directed specifically to the person they are speaking to.

Think about that when you read things, and even others say things, Is it directed to me specifically? or are they just using the word "you/Your" *because* they are talking to me based on something I said/did? If it is the latter it's not a personal attack and there is no reason to be offended.

Does that make sense?