</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by LostHusband:
<strong>And scary.... </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Alas, yes.

CJ:

Posted by CJ-
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Several times during the night he made comments about wanting to get into the bedroom, wanting to touch (edited physical areas), or other sexual comments. It made me uncomfortable! I wasn't uncomfortable because I'm a sexual prude, but it was like these constant little comments about sex, sex, sex--and I just thought it was INAPPROPRIATE!!!
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Maybe this thread did not go in the direction you were hoping for because there are others (like me) that do not interpret "uncomfortable" and "inappropriate" to mean "sexual assault" which is what you are calling the incident on page 4. Your complaint on page 1 was not about a sexual assault but "comments about sex, sex, sex."

Just a thought!

Hummmmmm

Just a thought here then I'll duck, drop and roll (cause I'm sure CJ will light my butt on fire)


The whole point in dating is getting to know someone. Learning to understand each other and what they're saying. Until that happens (sometimes it never does) people work on signals and assumptions.

Now don't get me wrong Cindy, I'm NOT saying what this guy did was excusable in any way AND pushing it was way bad, BUT!!!! (getting ready to run)

maybe the initial expectation was brought on by mixed signals.

I think (I do really) that dating should be kept in public (at safe places) until the two people involved have some understanding and trust of each other. I don't feel home alone is a good second date. Maybe a 6th or 7th date, but no way a second.

As for introductions to the kids.... No way until you either get busted by them or your committed to exclusively seeing him (yucky L stuff)


I'm done... (quickly wrapping 3 layers of Reynolds Wrap around my whole body and running for the river)

Well, HarryS, CJ has stated that she is no longer going to post to this thread, so I hope you will permit me to light your butt on fire in her stead. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Razz]" src="images/icons/tongue.gif" />

What "mixed signals" could have led Mr. Wrong to believe his behavior was acceptable? I can think of only two. First was the fact that CJ invited him over to her house, and at most that might "legitimately" have led him to believe that there was a possibility of "something" happening. In no way could it justify more than a polite query or overture in that direction, and an equally polite rebuff should have put an end to that line of speculation. The other possible "signal" was the fact that CJ did not throw him out of her house the moment he demonstrated that he did not understand the meaning of the word "no." That, however, would not be a signal that what he was doing was justifiable, but rather that he might be able to get away with behaving like the despicable cad he is.

As for not bringing a date home (leaving aside the introduction-to-the-kids issue which we apparently disagree on), there are two possible reasons for that "rule." The first is to avoid temptation, if there is reason to believe that such temptation might arise. The second is to protect oneself against assault and scandal. Some people are more oblivious or careless of the risks than others, and in the end I think it is a judgment call. I imagine that CJ will take a more prudent tack in the future.

Just jumping in here to give my point of view.

When I was dating before I got married, I assumed each man I dated was a crazed sex offender. So I went to public places with them - I even met them there in my car.

Over time, you can figure out who can be trusted and who can't. But it takes time. To the ones who aren't willing to put in the time, I said "See Ya".

By the way, I never did go out with any crazy ones, because they are not willing to put in the effort and time required.

I agree 100%. Never invite a man into your home until he has passed the test to very serious dating material. I'ld say for atleast a couple of months, only go to public places. Only inside to pick you up, and say goodbye at the door with a kiss if you want.

Men only respect what they have to work for. This dating time will set the theme for your entire relationship.

I've been reading tons of dating books and now I know all the mistakes I have made in the past...and believe me I made a lot. The biggest one was not demanding respect. And not waiting long enough before sex to go through all the necessary stages of courtship. If only I knew then what I know now.

When you get to the stage of petting, make sure he knows how far you are willing to go i.e. first base, etc., so there are no mixed signals. Men get angry if they think they are being teased and led on. Always be honest about what is going on sexually.

I agree Weaver. And dating is just like trying to sell a house. They say you have to show your house to an average of 14 people before someone puts in an offer.

Same with men, you will probably have to go through 14 to find a keeper.

Hopefully you won't sleep with all 14 on the second date <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="images/icons/shocked.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="images/icons/shocked.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="images/icons/shocked.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="images/icons/shocked.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="images/icons/shocked.gif" />

WoW! I thought I was clear....

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by HarryS:
<strong>
Now don't get me wrong Cindy, I'm NOT saying what this guy did was excusable in any way AND pushing it was way bad, BUT!!!! (getting ready to run)

maybe the initial expectation was brought on by mixed signals.
</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">This guy's pushing it was over the line and in NO way Cindy's fault in anyway (unless she's leaving out the part where she changed into black latex and spiked heels and tossed condoms at him)....

I dunno...wasn't there. I was at home, in bed with a hat on.

After the first 'no' he should have relaxed it. After the second 'no', she should have asked him to leave.

After three or more 'no's' the guy may have thought it was a game... but then of course his behavior on the phone proved he was just a plain ole everyday jerk.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by weaver:
<strong>Men only respect what they have to work for.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">This bothers me. If I could have sex with a woman by "working for" it - by, say, showering her with gifts, and spending time with her, and saying sweet things in her ear - then I'm afraid I wouldn't have much respect for...myself.

I treat women with respect because I want to be the kind of man who treats women with respect.

If I have a romantic interest in a woman (as in fact I do), that interest does not involve me fantasizing about having sex with her, and thinking about what I might do to achieve that "goal." Rather, I am thinking about how we might enrich each other's lives, and what sorts of things I might be able to do to support her in her journey. I am praying about God showing each of us whether it is His plan to join our roads together.

I desire to show my love for her because I love her, not because I hope to "win her heart." In fact, I do not want to "win her heart," because I want her heart to be guided by God's will for her and not by my manipulations (however well-intentioned).

Gnome -

Exactly! But men get lazy when everything comes too easy. They stop thinking about the courting part of the dance. The relationship is stunted because sexual intimacy came too soon.

From what I have learned about men and women, now that I am older is that dating is a dance. It is a courtship, and you can't jump right into bed because men do want to have to work at the relationship, at wooing a women he desires and respects. I'm not saying men have to work at it to get sex, but so much of a womens mystery is lost once this happens.

I used to think that sex brought on closer intimacy, but now I know that it stunts true intimacy, the intimacy that only comes from slowly getting to know someone, step by step. From holding hands all the way up to the expression of love through sex, which takes a long time.

This is what I didn't know as a young girl, and I think I damaged a lot of potentially great relationships by sleeping with the guy too soon.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by becontent:
<strong> CJ:

Maybe this thread did not go in the direction you were hoping for because there are others (like me) that do not interpret "uncomfortable" and "inappropriate" to mean "sexual assault" which is what you are calling the incident on page 4. Your complaint on page 1 was not about a sexual assault but "comments about sex, sex, sex."

Just a thought! </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I certainly agree with this!

Your reactions seem out of proportion to the comments that were posted in response to your original question. One guess why would be that you didn't give all the information in your original post, yet expected responses based on this missing information.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> I will not accept blame for inviting someone to my home. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I didn't see anyone "blame" you for anything. What I saw was quite a few people that are concerned for your safety pointing out some dangers of inviting someone into your home.

Gnome,
This bothers me. If I could have sex with a woman by "working for" it - by, say, showering her with gifts, and spending time with her, and saying sweet things in her ear - then I'm afraid I wouldn't have much respect for...myself.
So you should not have to do anything (like show this person that you care or love her) in order to have sex? She should simply give it to you because?

I desire to show my love for her because I love her, not because I hope to "win her heart."
In the big picture of the relationship, you show your love for her only BECAUSE you get something in return.
If you were to get nothing, you would very soon lose interest.
Yes, you don't think outright, "in order fo rher to give me a hug, I will say she looks nice".

All (okay most, unless you are a stalker <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="images/icons/shocked.gif" /> )relationships are give & take (hey, that would be a good name for a book!)


Rather, I am thinking about how we might enrich each other's lives, and what sorts of things I might be able to do to support her in her journey.
This is what I mean. You support her because she supports you in some way. She is giving you SOMEHTHING in return, else you would not do it much longer.

<small>[ September 01, 2004, 05:09 PM: Message edited by: Chris -CA123 ]</small>

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by weaver:
<strong>But men get lazy when everything comes too easy. They stop thinking about the courting part of the dance. The relationship is stunted because sexual intimacy came too soon.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I agree that the journey through intimacy is an important one, and that an element of delayed gratification enhances a man's appreciation of a woman and her mystery, but...

I hope and trust and pray that I never stop thinking about "the courting part of the dance," even if/after marriage and sexual intimacy happens. It is to me a very great loss that, for some time before my wife left me and then since she left me, and yet again with my lady friend, I am not permitted that dance. I understand about the pressures of everyday life, but why would anyone want to end the dance?

Well Gnome -

I don't know if it's where I live or the types of guys I know, but have not had too much experience with men like you.

I am more to the opinion of Chris, that you give something because you get something out of it. A hug, a pretty, warm smile, a genuine thank you, etc.

I do agree that the dance should never end, and that is why we have the Harley MB concepts, so we can always have that "dance" in our relationship.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Chris -CA123:
<strong>So you should not have to do anything (like show this person that you care or love her) in order to have sex? She should simply give it to you because?</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">She would choose to engage in sex if that were consistent with her values and desires. Ordinarily, her desires would be affected by my demonstrations of love and care. However, those demonstrations would not be conducted for the purpose of receiving sex in return.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"><strong>In the big picture of the relationship, you show your love for her only BECAUSE you get something in return.
If you were to get nothing, you would very soon lose interest.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">True to a degree, but here's where I believe that the Harleys' principles are overly simplistic. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="images/icons/shocked.gif" />

If the Harleys' Love Bank concepts were completely correct, I should have fallen out of love with my ex-wife long before she left me. Why didn't I?

I received joy from watching her be herself. Sometimes I received an expression of her appreciation, but whether you choose to believe it or not, the windows and entrances she provided to her world were enough to keep me "interested."

And what about those situations where a spouse becomes mentally incapacitated? What keeps that person's husband or wife showing love?

In the end, it still comes down to being a choice.

She would choose to engage in sex if that were consistent with her values and desires. Ordinarily, her desires would be affected by my demonstrations of love and care. However, those demonstrations would not be conducted for the purpose of receiving sex in return.
That is why I put the statement about the big picture. One is not out to specifically look for sex or dinner, but it is implied (as in situations such as marriage).

If the Harleys' Love Bank concepts were completely correct, I should have fallen out of love with my ex-wife long before she left me.
I don't understand this. What is the time-frame for falling out of love with someone who is not meeting your needs?

Why didn't I?
Because she was filling SOME of your needs. She did not leave.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the big picture of the relationship, you show your love for her only BECAUSE you get something in return.
If you were to get nothing, you would very soon lose interest.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

True to a degree, but here's where I believe that the Harleys' principles are overly simplistic.
Then why didn't you simply choose to not love your wife anymore?

When you start dating/courting/whatever with someone, you do it for a reason. They cook good, have similar interests, a good sense of humor, etc. You don't randomly pick someone off the street. And if you do (as in a blind date), you do it with the hopes that they have something which will pique your interest.

If after a while, they don't give you something back (companionship, doing things together, sex, laughter, whatever) you will lose interest. (Hey, in MB it's kinda like Plan B. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" /> )

<small>[ September 01, 2004, 06:03 PM: Message edited by: Chris -CA123 ]</small>

"Holy Smoke, CJ what happened to you was seriously not alright. Yes, there are some men out there that may act like that, but you sure didn't ask to be assaulted."

I would just like to say: "What a clumsy doofus!" <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Chris -CA123:
If the Harleys' Love Bank concepts were completely correct, I should have fallen out of love with my ex-wife long before she left me.
I don't understand this. What is the time-frame for falling out of love with someone who is not meeting your needs?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I'm assuming that that time-frame is on the order of years.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Why didn't I?
Because she was filling SOME of your needs. She did not leave.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">My objection, such as it is, to the Love Bank concept is that Harley focuses closely on several specific emotional needs, whereas in reality there are others he ignores which may be at least as important. Note that some ENs require active effort, whereas others (such as Attractive Spouse, at least in youth) may be fairly passive. I agree that my ex-wife was in fact meeting enough of my ENs, which she did just by giving me the opportunity to share in her world. This was relatively passive on her part, but it went a long way redressing the active imbalance.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Chris -CA123:
<strong>why didn't you simply choose to not love your wife anymore?</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I could have made that choice, but that would have required me to alter my character in a direction I did not want to go. The price was too high.

My ex-wife obviously made a different calculation, although in hindsight it is fairly apparent that her initial estimation of the cost was grossly inadequate. She did not understand the domino effect that occurs once you begin to betray your own values.

... wow... what a turn...

...and what pearls I found here in the ocean of surface souls nowadays...

<small>[ September 02, 2004, 06:16 AM: Message edited by: Belonging to Nowhere ]</small>