Fornits

General Interest => Open Free for All => Topic started by: Nihilanthic on February 19, 2007, 11:51:44 PM

Title: The pitfalls of being chronologically buffered.
Post by: Nihilanthic on February 19, 2007, 11:51:44 PM
By that, I mean I'm not that attractive to people who are within the age of 18 to 35... and I am 22.

I mean, its flattering and kinda cute when jailbait likes me, but obviously that is a no-go! Its really nice when I meet MILF-aged women, but the age difference, and sometimes (of all things) insecurity on the part of me or the woman I've met can ruin things.

Anyone know a way to uh... make myself known to the nice little slice of womanhood between the age of consent and their 30s?  :) That sure would be nice to know.

Also, does anyone know why there might be a REASON For that?  :roll:
Title: The pitfalls of being chronologically buffered.
Post by: try another castle on February 20, 2007, 03:33:48 AM
You're 22? Damn, boy, you just a whippersnapper.

Don't ask me how to get the ladies to notice. I never understood women, even when I was one.

And don't rule out the possibility of 35+ women. That's when it starts to get good, anyway. 40s are even better. Throw your insecurity to the wind. She'll school you.
Title: The pitfalls of being chronologically buffered.
Post by: Infinity on February 20, 2007, 05:53:57 AM
I think you ought to just be friends with girls in general, so you can learn to understand them better. Chances are you will fall in love with one of your female friends anyway.

In general, girls like guys who treat them with respect and kindness. But that's true for just about anyone liking anyone else. I do know girls aren't as big on physical appearance, unless you don't wash or something.
Title: The pitfalls of being chronologically buffered.
Post by: try another castle on February 20, 2007, 06:32:56 AM
Quote
I do know girls aren't as big on physical appearance


I don't buy that for a second.
Title: The pitfalls of being chronologically buffered.
Post by: Ursus on February 20, 2007, 06:58:51 AM
w e l l ....  not that you should necessarily read anything personal into this, but one of my alltime favorite movies is 'Harold and Maude'.

Just take a cue, and do a long think on what your priorities are...
Title: The pitfalls of being chronologically buffered.
Post by: Truth Searcher on February 20, 2007, 07:52:22 AM
Get yourself involved in an e-dating service.  Doesn't mean your desperate or lonely ... (or any of the other erroneous beliefs about dating services)  Just means you want to meet some ladies in your area.  

I know you work alot ... but where might you go socially to meet women?  What volunteer opportunities are there for you?  (Thats how I met my hubby).

It will happen when the time is right.  When you least expect it.  Enjoy your singleness as much as you can.  There are many benefits to single living ...  :lol:
Title: The pitfalls of being chronologically buffered.
Post by: AtomicAnt on February 20, 2007, 09:43:05 PM
22 is a between age for sure. Teens dig you because you're older and would piss off their father. Early 20s chick's are often still looking for the bad boy, or father image, but are also into their own independence and finding direction in life. They don't want to settle, yet.

Personally, I discovered I was hot property in my mid to late twenties when the girls had had their fun and were looking for the guy that would treat them with kindness and respect and just as importantly, the guy that would stay and provide for a family. All at once, boring, career oriented, property owning, nice-guy me, was being asked out by the girls. They saw I had a future. No sooner would one dump me, or me her, and the former girl's friends would begin show interest. From 25 to 29, I went through four girlfriends and had trysts with other women. I milked their biological clocks for everything I could get and made up for the lost time of my teens and early twenties. I 'sowed my wild oats' so to speak. Yeah, I was a dog.

Now I'm divorced and in my mid-forties and my female companions are women who have 'been there, done that' and don't want to repeat the experience. Their kids are older (some your age), their former husbands are boring, they have career and money and don't want a ball and chain guy, but still want sex and companionship. Life is good.

But hey, that is my life, yours may be different.
Title: The pitfalls of being chronologically buffered.
Post by: Nihilanthic on February 20, 2007, 11:59:46 PM
Quote from: ""try another castle""
You're 22? Damn, boy, you just a whippersnapper.

Don't ask me how to get the ladies to notice. I never understood women, even when I was one.

And don't rule out the possibility of 35+ women. That's when it starts to get good, anyway. 40s are even better. Throw your insecurity to the wind. She'll school you.



The insecurity on part of the MILF is what ruined my last attempt with one who was 36  :(
Title: The pitfalls of being chronologically buffered.
Post by: Ganja on February 21, 2007, 12:31:23 AM
Tomorrow is another day to meet female women of the girlular variety.
Title: The pitfalls of being chronologically buffered.
Post by: try another castle on February 21, 2007, 04:03:20 AM
Well, there's always craigslist. Besides, there you can meet girls who are into the same kinds of naughtiness you are.

I'm terrible re: giving advice otherwise. I kind of have the Margaret Cho attitude about it. I just cover myself with leaves and hope someone falls in.
Title: The pitfalls of being chronologically buffered.
Post by: Nihilanthic on February 21, 2007, 03:13:25 PM
Just do asian mom imitations and the uh.... reading of "da ass mastuh" and you'll have people come running!
Title: The pitfalls of being chronologically buffered.
Post by: try another castle on February 21, 2007, 07:13:07 PM
"what ees da ass mastuh? issat duh mastuh of da ass?"
Title: The pitfalls of being chronologically buffered.
Post by: Oz girl on February 21, 2007, 08:22:44 PM
Get yourself plenty of female friends. This achieves 3 things
1) it just exposes you to more women
2) it gives you an insight into what women want and
3) You have a wing girl to take out. having a wing man is overrated because a bunch of guys is intimidating but the wing girl can introduce you to other girls. For instance when i guy says to another girl "i love those earrings etc" it looks like a line. When a girl says the same thing before long a conversation is struck and before long its all "this is my friend niles he is adorable...."
Your wing girl needs to bne able to make it clear to the other ladies that you 2 are NOT a couple. She also cant be the jealous type.

Remember women a big fans of the subtle social vetting system. if a friend thinks you are a nice guy then you cant be too much of a freak etc.
Good luck.
PS if you go toward the jail bait side of things you better be able to run fast. hell hath no fury like a pissed off overprotective dad!
Title: The pitfalls of being chronologically buffered.
Post by: try another castle on February 21, 2007, 09:17:14 PM
Except for the fact that many women prefer assholes over nice guys.
Title: The pitfalls of being chronologically buffered.
Post by: Nihilanthic on February 21, 2007, 10:29:29 PM
The best way to get a conversation with a woman, is to first piss her off, big time, then convince her she was wrong to be mad at you.

Then when shes on the defensive ask for her number :em:
Title: The pitfalls of being chronologically buffered.
Post by: Oz girl on February 21, 2007, 11:23:44 PM
Quote from: ""try another castle""
Except for the fact that many women prefer assholes over nice guys.


This is a common myth. in actual fact 16 year old girls like assholes because it pisses off their over protective fathers and the melodrama is exciting. Actual grown women prefer guys who are confident and charming. Wit goes a long way
Title: The pitfalls of being chronologically buffered.
Post by: Nihilanthic on February 21, 2007, 11:25:09 PM
Quote from: ""Oz girl""
Quote from: ""try another castle""
Except for the fact that many women prefer assholes over nice guys.

This is a common myth. in actual fact 16 year old girls like assholes because it pisses off their over protective fathers and the melodrama is exciting. Actual grown women prefer guys who are confident and charming. Wit goes a long way


No, most grown women try to convince themselves they do... so they end up with a friend-bitch while they fuck someone exciting but shitty at every other part of a relationship.

Basically, they graduate to ala-carte relationships.

Now, naturally a few people grow out of that, but those are hard to find.
Title: The pitfalls of being chronologically buffered.
Post by: try another castle on February 21, 2007, 11:33:28 PM
Have to agree with niles on that one. I've known several women, all older than myself, who were with real pricks. Doesn't mean they won't wise up.


Has anyone seen any of the victoria's secret commercials? One of them has someone asking the waif-like, twentysomething models what they look for in the perfect man, and the bimbos say "Oh, he has to be funny, and smart, and confident, and sensitive." And I'm saying to myself "You bitches are so full of shit. You want a six pack and at least 8 inches."
Title: The pitfalls of being chronologically buffered.
Post by: Oz girl on February 22, 2007, 01:15:20 AM
but the guy has to be likeable enough for us to get to the part where we see the six pack etc.
On the whole nice guy thing. there is noooo greater turnoff than a guy who will spend a whole evening whining about how girls only like bastards. This is kind of boorish because it does not show him to be especially nice just whiny. Besides it makes no sense. it is like saying women like pap smears or women like bee stings!!!!!
Title: The pitfalls of being chronologically buffered.
Post by: Nihilanthic on February 22, 2007, 01:16:34 AM
Women fuck who arouses them. Be honest already!

Its no different with us guys.
Title: The pitfalls of being chronologically buffered.
Post by: Oz girl on February 22, 2007, 01:24:41 AM
yes but it is what creates the arousal. its the whole package. If the guy is vharming and confident but secure enough that he likes women and gurninely wants to be with them this is HOT. Nobody wants to sleep with someone who makes them feel like crap.

Model yourself after George Clooney. His appeal is not only about his beautiful looks
Title: The pitfalls of being chronologically buffered.
Post by: Nihilanthic on February 22, 2007, 01:25:55 AM
Quote
Nobody wants to sleep with someone who makes them feel like crap.



LOL.
Title: The pitfalls of being chronologically buffered.
Post by: Ganja on February 22, 2007, 01:31:26 AM
Quote from: ""Nihilanthic""
The best way to get a conversation with a woman, is to first piss her off, big time, then convince her she was wrong to be mad at you.

Then when shes on the defensive ask for her number :em:

 :rofl:  :rofl:  :rofl:
Title: The pitfalls of being chronologically buffered.
Post by: Ganja on February 22, 2007, 01:35:39 AM
Quote from: ""Oz girl""
Model yourself after George Clooney. His appeal is not only about his beautiful looks

I seem to have modelled myself after Tom Waits.
Title: The pitfalls of being chronologically buffered.
Post by: Oz girl on February 22, 2007, 01:57:27 AM
well he is kinda cool too.

here is an article you may wanna read. Apparently the Gentleman is back
http://men.style.com/details/features/l ... ntent_5395 (http://men.style.com/details/features/landing?id=content_5395)
Title: The pitfalls of being chronologically buffered.
Post by: Carmel on February 22, 2007, 09:26:50 AM
My opinion is this...its all about chemistry.  A mans emotional maturity or physical appearance usually ends up being secondary, unless a woman is actually defying her own chemical reactions to a particular man in order to satisfy some other perceived desireable trait like money or power or influence etc, which usually ends up being a disaster anyway.

Ive never been attracted to beefcake or model-like men...in fact, they make me feel uncomfortable in a way.  I have very particular features that say to me intuitively, "this one has good DNA".  Even the smell of a man has to be right for me, all of his smells...his hair, his skin, his breath......not necessarily pleasing by popular standards, but pleasing to me.  I have a thing for good teeth and well shaped feet....these two have to be the first order of business or a six-pack and a Calvin Klein contract might as well take a dump out the window.  

Ive never been able to be with a man because of his status or socially percieved attractiveness, ie- I would not be able to date or sleep with Tom Cruise because he is Tom Cruise....in fact Tom makes the top of my list of people that I think "Look like they smell funny".  When it comes to men I am visually attracted to, say celebrities for instance...I tend more towards people like Iggy Pop, Steven Tyler or Adrian Brody.  They are all relatively unattractive men to the public hordes, but to me...the difference in their appearance speaks of strong breeding..breaking the mold so to speak.  They would still be subject to the feet and tooth tests, but you get my drift. Ive even tried being with men who were visually stunning only, and found myself kinda grossed out.

That all being said, I think a woman will be with any man who fits her chemical criteria....and unfortunately, some of those happen to be complete jackasses.
Title: The pitfalls of being chronologically buffered.
Post by: Oz girl on February 22, 2007, 09:36:54 AM
id forgotten about Adrian Brody. He is pretty sexy. prolly because of that charisma. If tom cruise were the last man on earth i would so be gay. You cant go for a guy with no dignity.

Niles try a social experiment. The next time you and a lady head out to trip the light fantastic, or just have a beer spend the evening talking/whinging about how we all like bastards. i would bet my house that there will not be a booty call at the end. or ever. Because it is about as sexy as rush limbaugh in a thong bikini!

I agree with carmel sometimes it is indefinable.But sophistication and charm go far. Failing that being an all round stand up guy is always a fall back. Women often go for far more than the eq of tits till wednesday and no sense of decorum.
Title: The pitfalls of being chronologically buffered.
Post by: Anonymous on February 22, 2007, 04:34:06 PM
Thank you, Carmel!

I actually find that men are much more one-dimensional when it comes to relationships. If she's attractive, she's in like Flynn. Women are more attracted to nuances. It's chemistry. And humor.  I have found myself insanely attracted to not so hot men (no, money wasn't it either) and not remotely attracted to the hottest.  In fact, one guy, who was hot, rich, and nice wanted to marry me. I just couldn't get it up for him. My friends thought I was nuts! But you can't fake it. Well, I can't.

So, it's not necessarily looks or money, honey.

I will say that I agree with Atomic's assertion that women will appreciate you more in a few years.   One of my best guys friends--who is the best guy I know--was not appreciated until his late mid twenties. (I was eight years older and his sister's best friend, so it was a "no fly zone" to his chagrin.  Not the age--he was always more mature than most.)  Now women are all over him, and he found someone equally deserving.  (Thank God! I put her through a hell of an interrogation!)

Those MILFs you mentioned? I can tell you from my own perspective, of having a really hot and nice younger guy attracted to me that it is great for the ego, but women usually value maturity.  it's hard to conjure up attraction to someone who is really unseasoned, even if you think he's great. (Having a job, understanding ups and downs of life, experiencing loss etc.)

The MILF who was insecure? It might be because a young man might not appeciate her body so much as you would the more "perfect" college figure.  Maybe that played a role. I don't know.  I do know that I have a greater appreciation for my body at 36 (it's still damn good!) then I did when I was a size 4 at 22.

incidentally, when you do recover from your drought? Remember this: If you ever want truly mindblowing sex, with whatever woman at any age or size, all you have to do is treat her like she is the hottest thing since Betty Page, and you will be amazed at its disinhibiting effect.  If we know that you appreciate, adore, salivate over, hunger for, and generally feel that the very touch/taste/and feel of our skin is the heighth of your pleasure, we are pretty much putty in your hands. If we see that in your face, we won't pull that lame, bullshit too inhibited and insecure with our bodies crap that we sometimes do that does nothing but ruin a unrestrained, good time for all.

Hope that helps! In any event, good times are ahead, Red!
Title: The pitfalls of being chronologically buffered.
Post by: Nihilanthic on February 22, 2007, 07:12:30 PM
Quote
The MILF who was insecure? It might be because a young man might not appeciate her body so much as you would the more "perfect" college figure. Maybe that played a role. I don't know. I do know that I have a greater appreciation for my body at 36 (it's still damn good!) then I did when I was a size 4 at 22.


I liked her body more than she did... lol.

Skinny waifs can be cute too but sometimes you actually want an ass to grab or slam into, yanno?  :roll:

But yeah, I appreciated HER a hell of a lot more than the average twit running around who rattle when you shake their head, but that can't change what someone thinks of their self.

Anyway, I find my real problem is its hard to find someone who does actually have some life experience or a brain in my age group... it kinda shows when people I get along with better usually end up being the kind that has gone through shit like I has.

Thanks for pointing that out... it should help me know who to go for a little better

 :D

BTW are you near Jacksonville?  :lol:
Title: The pitfalls of being chronologically buffered.
Post by: try another castle on February 22, 2007, 08:13:39 PM
Quote
I tend more towards people like Iggy Pop, Steven Tyler or Adrian Brody.


My friend coins that term as "ugly hot".  :D  

I think Steven Tyler is pretty foxy myself. He also strikes me as the type of guy who would be open to swinging both ways, but maybe that's wishful thinking on my part.

I know what you mean about "traditional good looks". For men, I do love the muscle boys, but they are quite often as dumb as a box of rocks. Only good for trade, if I can land one, which is rarely, because they only tend to like people who look like themselves.

For women, I cannot stand the type of sorority girls you see on "girls gone wild" and such. If a woman pronounces "what" like "whaeeeh?", she's immediately out in my book. I don't like super skinny chicks either. As my friend stated, it's like sleeping next to a bag of antlers. I want some junk in that trunk. Girls in porn do nothing for me as well.

I kind of have a celebrity crush right now, for what it's worth, and I never thought twice about her until she hit 45 and saw her in a documentary film. I read comments in forums such as "oh man, she's fat and old now" or "she doesn't look as good as she used to, but she's still hot." and it just confuses the hell out of me, because I think she looks hotter than she ever has. It's purely superficial, since I have no idea what she's like as a person, obviously. Interviews and documentary films don't show reality. That's all edited. She's not "ugly hot", though, she's "hot hot". Positively stunning woman. Looks better and better every year. Too bad I'll never meet her.
Title: The pitfalls of being chronologically buffered.
Post by: Ganja on February 22, 2007, 08:19:10 PM
Who is this celebrity of which you speak?
Title: The pitfalls of being chronologically buffered.
Post by: try another castle on February 22, 2007, 08:24:03 PM
Not telling.  :P
Title: The pitfalls of being chronologically buffered.
Post by: Anonymous on February 24, 2007, 04:29:17 PM
Castle: This is a trite but sincere question. Can gays be sexually attracted to opposite sex?  How does that work?  And, why do many lesbians hook up with women who look like the men they aren't attracted to? Do they really just want a man with a pussy?  Just a question.  I know you ain't a lesbo, but I am really curious about this and I don't want to offend my Aunt by asking her!
Title: The pitfalls of being chronologically buffered.
Post by: try another castle on February 24, 2007, 10:49:23 PM
Quote from: ""Guest""
Castle: This is a trite but sincere question. Can gays be sexually attracted to opposite sex?  How does that work?  And, why do many lesbians hook up with women who look like the men they aren't attracted to? Do they really just want a man with a pussy?  Just a question.  I know you ain't a lesbo, but I am really curious about this and I don't want to offend my Aunt by asking her!


Well, first of all, I'm bi, but I like to say fag because it is so much more of a fun word to say. Fag fag faggoty fag.

You're asking a question that is most likely going to launch me into one of my tirades about identity politics. What you ask touches upon a larger issue, so here I go.

I think that to a certain extent, identity politics were helpful in the past, in exposing the oppression that occurred against people who didn't sleep with the opposite sex. However, my whole beef is that it seems rather pointless and counterproductive at this time to base such a significant portion of one's identity off of who you fuck, you know? I mean, it's just who you fuck. For a lot of people, the minute they realize they are sexually interested in someone who counters their sexual identity, there is a personal crisis, which is ridiculous, causes way to much heartache, and wastes a whole lot of time that could have been spent fucking.

My point is this. We can't help who we are attracted to. You can't force yourself to like someone you don't, and it's a pretty bad idea to repress your feelings for someone you DO like. If a lesbian likes butch dykes but doesn't like men who may act like their lover, than that is the way it is. I also know people who identified as gay and fell in love with someone of the opposite sex, and not through coercion or anything like that, it just happened. I know others who lived most of their lives straight, but happened to have their head turned by someone of the same gender, and they fell for them. What about the person whose partner changes their sex? Do they stop loving them because they are a different gender? Does that change these people's sexuality, their identity? My vote: who the fuck cares? Let's just dump this shit already and fuck whoever we want without all of the hangups about what it makes us.

When I was a woman, I loved only women. Had no interest in men whatsoever. Then, when I changed my sex and became a man, I started finding myself intensely attracted to men. This was not a conscious political choice to "remain queer", it just fucking happened. I took it in stride, and joked about it. I didn't care. Then further down the line, a wonderful woman turned my head, and I fell for her hard. So obviously, if one were to ascribe an identity, it would be bi, however, I don't really give it much thought. I prefer the term "equal opportunity". I call myself bi just for linguistic ease, but I really don't base a huge portion of my identity off of it. Like I said, it's just who I fuck. It's not a lifestyle, it doesn't dictate who my friends are, it doesn't dictate what neighborhood I live in, it doesn't dictate what kind of job I want, and it certainly doesn't dictate whether or not I should be in a fucking parade.

I should reiterate that we wouldn't be at this point if it weren't for identity politics to begin with. I wouldn't have the luxury to fuck who I wanted without fear of persecution without  people fighting for queer rights. But as of now, it's obsolete, and dare I say, harmful. To everyone who fucks.

I think that when someone ascribes an identity to their sexuality, whether it be gay or straight, they are pigeonholing themselves and potentially limiting their fun factor. Because god forbid should they encounter someone who challenges their identity but gets them hot at the same time, they could miss a golden opportunity because they are so fucking worried about how this affects who they are and what label they have given themselves. Isn't that sad?


In short: Who you fuck is not who you are.


P.S. If a lesbian wants a man with a pussy, they know just where to find me.



Also.. if you're really interested, check out the book "The End of Gay (And the Death of Heterosexuality)" It's a pretty good read.
Title: New Here
Post by: Anonymous on February 24, 2007, 11:06:22 PM
What is this disscussion about I'm new here
Title: The pitfalls of being chronologically buffered.
Post by: Nihilanthic on February 25, 2007, 12:05:53 AM
F2M bi-fag?

:wave: hi fag!
:wave: bye fag!

 :rofl:  :rofl:  :rofl:  :rofl:  :rofl:  :rofl:

Btw, when was the reassignment?
Title: The pitfalls of being chronologically buffered.
Post by: try another castle on February 25, 2007, 12:44:47 AM
Quote from: ""Nihilanthic""
F2M bi-fag?

:wave: hi fag!
:wave: bye fag!

 :rofl:  :rofl:  :rofl:  :rofl:  :rofl:  :rofl:

Btw, when was the reassignment?


 :rofl:  :rofl:

Depends on what part of the reassignment you are talking about.

I transitioned in early 93, started hormones in late 93, and finally got enough money together for my chest surgery in 2001. No lower surgery, it all sucks. I keep my dick in my sock drawer.
Title: The pitfalls of being chronologically buffered.
Post by: Nihilanthic on February 25, 2007, 01:00:22 AM
Well I mean when were you in Cedu relative to all that.

Also, too bad you couldn't STAY in that skirt  ::bangin::
Title: The pitfalls of being chronologically buffered.
Post by: try another castle on February 25, 2007, 01:12:26 AM
Quote from: ""Nihilanthic""
Well I mean when were you in Cedu relative to all that.

Also, too bad you couldn't STAY in that skirt  ::bangin::


Trust me, you wouldn't want to see me in a skirt. Although I do have a very frightening picture of myself in a rubber dress, with orange synth-dreads in my goatee, while wearing 14 eye purple doc martens. (they matched the dress.)

I "graduated" CEDU in 89.

Worst two and a half years of forced drag in my life.
Title: The pitfalls of being chronologically buffered.
Post by: Nihilanthic on February 25, 2007, 01:15:05 AM
Reverse-inside out-upside down drag? I'm confused. Like seriously, not joking around or anything.

Anyway my point with my previous comment is... they just don't make women like you, except accidentally  :roll: and Im bitching.
Title: The pitfalls of being chronologically buffered.
Post by: try another castle on February 25, 2007, 01:35:56 AM
Quote from: ""Nihilanthic""
Reverse-inside out-upside down drag? I'm confused. Like seriously, not joking around or anything.

Anyway my point with my previous comment is... they just don't make women like you, except accidentally  :roll: and Im bitching.



You said a mouthful re: the accidental part. Good lord the screaming I'm going to give my bio-tailor in the netherworld. "You dropped the balls, bitch."

CEDU drag was forcing me to dress as a woman, before I transitioned or even realized that I was a guy. I call it forced drag because that's what it was. I was made to wear dresses and be feminine against my will. I was masculine before I went to CEDU. I acted and walked like a guy. I never once was harassed in high school as a dyke. It was always "are you a boy or a girl?" (They clued in before I did.) When I got to CEDU, all that changed. Being masculine was my "nightmare". It was my "direction" to be feminine. I had to wear girly clothes, except for at work. I had to (try) to make my hair look nice. Yet even with the prissiest dress, I always looked weird. You should see the graduation video of me trying to walk in heels.

Later, when I transitioned and was male, I wasn't beyond putting on some pervert garb just because it fucked with people's heads. I tend to enjoy that. "Yeah, I used to be a girl, but I'm a guy now, but guess what, I'll do fright drag, too, so FUCK YOU, FAGGOT."

I don't do shows or anything, my friend just found some old pervert rubber dresses in his chest that he gave me, and I put them on and took pictures, because I thought it was a laugh riot.

Although I do have a mu mu and a housefrock that I have absolutely no problems wearing around the abode, because they are so wrong.
Title: The pitfalls of being chronologically buffered.
Post by: Nihilanthic on February 25, 2007, 01:39:20 AM
Ah, I get it. Makes sense now.
Title: The pitfalls of being chronologically buffered.
Post by: Anonymous on February 25, 2007, 10:01:38 AM
Castle: I asked about the lesbo looking like men question.  And when I'm on my higher plane of humanity, I agee with you that none of it should matter.  Also, I would love to be an equal opportunity lover--more options! But I'm not. Damn! (My Aunt and some of her friends sometimes warn eachother about the pitfalls of falling for an "Anne Heche" and getting their heart broken--it's not all about sex!)

I will say you had me fooled. In all this time,I thought you were a gay guy.  You don't seem to have a female perspective. I never would have guessed you started out female!

Will you ever go for lower surgery? And can you get full erectile functioning from that?  Or is it just a cosmetic dick?
Title: The pitfalls of being chronologically buffered.
Post by: try another castle on February 26, 2007, 04:12:16 AM
Quote
You don't seem to have a female perspective.

Probably because I never had one.

Quote
Will you ever go for lower surgery? And can you get full erectile functioning from that?


Not if things stay the way they are now. It seems that whatever each type of surgery is supposed to "fix", has the potential of breaking something more crucial.

You can get hard, but I think there is some sort of insert that is placed inside. (for phalloplasty)
Title: The pitfalls of being chronologically buffered.
Post by: Anonymous on February 26, 2007, 08:26:56 AM
Well, Castle, thanks for indulging my idle curiosity.
Title: The pitfalls of being chronologically buffered.
Post by: Carmel on February 26, 2007, 08:39:29 AM
Id be telling less than the truth if I said I understood fully the whole "man in a womans body" thing, But heres my take on what Ive come to understand about myself....

I love men, and what I mean by that is this...I have chosen only men as partners in ongoing intimacy emotionally, because that feels very natural to me.  However I LOVE women, and what I mean by that is that I find all things female in form and function to be very beautiful and attractive and sacred.  I have pictures of nude females all around my home, sculptures and represtentations of my complete respect and desire of the female half of humanity.   I am not opposed to sleeping with other women and do so from time to time, although calling myself "bi-sexual" feels way too oversimplified, so I dont identify as that.  

I am married and have three children and I am very proud of the idea that I am capable of fullfilling my biological role as a female...it has brought me great joy and self appreciation to be what am, a woman.  I think that men and women should be comfortable with their roles biologically...I get angry when feminists go on about how women should be equal to men, blah blah....the fact is that women arent equal to men, nor are men equal to women....we are just different, totally different in our intristic functions....which to me is A-OKAY.  Why should I want to be like a man when I can be a woman?  And I would expect the same attitude from a man. Both are equally important to the universal stasis we find ourselves a part of.

Now, when it comes to emotion and sexuality...we couldnt be the evolved species that we are and and not encounter a whole range of differences and experiences that trancend our basic biological existence.  This is where I find that most people break off, and like was mentioned above....cant cope with their urges and attractions.  

My point I guess is that on a personal level, because I have accepted and loved my basic existence as a female, that I am able to accept and cherish things that go against my basic nature (ie, homosexuality, etc) without ill-contrived bias or fear of losing who I am.
Title: The pitfalls of being chronologically buffered.
Post by: Anonymous on February 26, 2007, 08:50:57 AM
Sorry I hijacked your post on the age-sex issue,N!  Just got curious and went where it led me.

Good post Carmel.

I feel the same re: male-female differeces--I don't why to try to equalized to sameness... I don't confuse enjoying femininity and masculinity with repression.  

I really love the female form and find it beautiful--I could stare for hours at a beautiful woman--I never felt the urge to sleep with one, unfortunately.   Unfortunately because I find men to be confounding, pains in the arses.  By and large.  And higher maintenance to boot.
Title: The pitfalls of being chronologically buffered.
Post by: try another castle on February 26, 2007, 09:22:16 AM
Quote
we are just different, totally different in our intristic functions

Agreed.


I hope my statement a few posts ago didn't come across that I was saying "people should be bisexual". Rather, I was saying that it would probably be healthier of people didn't view their sexual habits as an integral part of their identity.


Quote
Unfortunately because I find men to be confounding, pains in the arses. By and large. And higher maintenance to boot.


Women can be just as bad. In a different way, but just as bad. They have the market cornered on the whole passive aggressive thing. Don't get me wrong, lots of men can be like that too, but women seem to have mastered the art. It's one of my biggest buttons, ever.

Castle's two rules for a relationship are: 1. Say what you mean. 2. Ask for what you want.

You may not always get it,  but at least we'll be on the same page.
Title: The pitfalls of being chronologically buffered.
Post by: Froderik on February 26, 2007, 09:35:13 AM
Quote from: ""Guest""
Unfortunately because I find men to be confounding, pains in the arses.  By and large.  And higher maintenance to boot.

Sexist.
Title: The pitfalls of being chronologically buffered.
Post by: Anonymous on February 26, 2007, 10:15:11 AM
I hear ya on the pass-agg front. It would be a pain. I guess with men, it seems you always have to stroke their egos. And it seems that they are mre selfish.  Maybe it's the same with women,too.  I'm pretty easygoing, so for me, it's like, let's not invent bullshit and just enjoy eachother!

El Nino: I have a feeling that none of us, male or female, are entirely free of sexism.
Title: The pitfalls of being chronologically buffered.
Post by: Froderik on February 26, 2007, 10:17:23 AM
True, or we'd all be gay or something; I wanted to try to put things in perspective though.
Title: The pitfalls of being chronologically buffered.
Post by: try another castle on February 26, 2007, 05:15:55 PM
Trust me, there are plenty of fags and dykes out there who are sexist.
Title: The pitfalls of being chronologically buffered.
Post by: Oz girl on February 26, 2007, 05:25:41 PM
Quote from: ""try another castle""

I hope my statement a few posts ago didn't come across that I was saying "people should be bisexual". Rather, I was saying that it would probably be healthier of people didn't view their sexual habits as an integral part of their identity.
.


it might be healthier but is it possible? I could not imagine not defining myself as heterosexual. It is a part of who I am as much as culrure is a part of who people are.
Title: The pitfalls of being chronologically buffered.
Post by: Froderik on February 26, 2007, 10:23:00 PM
Quote from: ""try another castle""
Trust me, there are plenty of fags and dykes out there who are sexist.

I'm sure there are.. I guess I was going somewhere else with that remark.. like if we were 100% not sexist, then we would see no difference b/n sexes or something.. don't know if this makes sense to anyone but me..lol.
Title: The pitfalls of being chronologically buffered.
Post by: try another castle on February 26, 2007, 10:31:40 PM
Quote from: ""El NiƱo""
Quote from: ""try another castle""
Trust me, there are plenty of fags and dykes out there who are sexist.
I'm sure there are.. I guess I was going somewhere else with that remark.. like if we were 100% not sexist, then we would see no difference b/n sexes or something.. don't know if this makes sense to anyone but me..lol.


I personally don't see anything wrong with a little sexism, either. :P


Niles is going to kill us when he sees what we have done to his thread. Poor guy is just looking to get laid, and we end up talking about gender, sexuality and identity politics.
Title: The pitfalls of being chronologically buffered.
Post by: Nihilanthic on February 27, 2007, 10:49:05 PM
Nah, sawright.

I'm just sick of being cut off...  :cry2:
Title: The pitfalls of being chronologically buffered.
Post by: try another castle on February 28, 2007, 01:36:26 AM
Well if it makes you feel any better, I'm not getting any, either.
Title: The pitfalls of being chronologically buffered.
Post by: Nihilanthic on February 28, 2007, 02:57:57 AM
You can quite literally fuck yourself, though. I don't have that luxury.

But in all seriousness, this is an amusing thread nonetheless  :)
Title: The pitfalls of being chronologically buffered.
Post by: try another castle on February 28, 2007, 03:53:27 AM
Quote from: ""Nihilanthic""
You can quite literally fuck yourself, though. I don't have that luxury.



Since when? Is it that you can't, or that you won't?  :P

No worries, I'm not into anal, either.

But yes, it is nice to have an auxiliary entrance.
Title: The pitfalls of being chronologically buffered.
Post by: Anonymous on March 07, 2007, 03:59:51 AM
Your rant about backwork with pain pills coulda fooled me...
Title: The pitfalls of being chronologically buffered.
Post by: try another castle on March 07, 2007, 04:17:26 AM
The auxiliary entrance isn't the ass, silly. I'm talking about front-loading, here. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding your connection.
Title: The pitfalls of being chronologically buffered.
Post by: Nihilanthic on March 08, 2007, 12:51:41 AM
The not liking anal part.

Also, I just realized that you might be one of the few fagots (if not the only one) to have an actual period  :o
Title: The pitfalls of being chronologically buffered.
Post by: try another castle on March 08, 2007, 07:20:11 PM
Quote from: ""Nihilanthic""
The not liking anal part.

Also, I just realized that you might be one of the few fagots (if not the only one) to have an actual period  :o


 :rofl:  I haven't had one of those since 1993!

The miracles of testosterone.

Kind of interesting going through menopause and a second puberty at the same time.
Title: The pitfalls of being chronologically buffered.
Post by: Nihilanthic on March 08, 2007, 09:53:44 PM
Man-o-pause
Title: Curious
Post by: Anonymous on March 09, 2007, 06:24:54 PM
I'm curious Castle. As a person who benefits from loving both sexes, what does each sex do better in the sack? A m/f comparison.
Title: Re: Curious
Post by: try another castle on March 09, 2007, 10:16:37 PM
Quote from: ""Guest""
I'm curious Castle. As a person who benefits from loving both sexes, what does each sex do better in the sack? A m/f comparison.


Hard to say. It's been so long since I've been with a woman I barely remember enough to come up with a basis for comparison. I'm hoping to rectify that soon.

I really don't know if there is a certain thing that women would do better than men, or vice versa. I know that several straight and bi men I have had as tricks said that we are overall better at sucking cock, which is probably why these guys were on the down-low to begin with.
Title: The pitfalls of being chronologically buffered.
Post by: Anonymous on March 22, 2007, 10:40:15 PM
Yanno, I'm thinking I just suck with the youngin's period...

I'm gonna go for the MILF's, fuck it! Even if I cant keep one for a long tie, eventually I'll be 30... and well...  :lol: then I'll be great.

But honestly, someone comfortable with herself, gone with all the immature BULLSHIT a lot of young women/girls have regarding relationships and sex, plus sometimes eager for getting some real good treatment vs the same old boring shit or an inattentive asshole hubby/bf...

Eh, everything thats really worked for me was 30+, I guess I just don't know how to handle immature girls.
Title: The pitfalls of being chronologically buffered.
Post by: Nihilanthic on March 22, 2007, 10:42:14 PM
Whoops that was me
Title: The pitfalls of being chronologically buffered.
Post by: try another castle on March 22, 2007, 11:18:59 PM
As far as I'm concerned, women don't truly hit their stride and become smokin' hot until they are over 40.
Title: The pitfalls of being chronologically buffered.
Post by: Anonymous on March 22, 2007, 11:20:34 PM
Ok castle, how the fuck do I go find them? Im at work 1-9 or 5-9... or somewhere between 1-5 when I go to work!
Title: The pitfalls of being chronologically buffered.
Post by: try another castle on March 22, 2007, 11:29:10 PM
When I find out, I'll let you know.
Title: How do you find them?
Post by: Anonymous on March 28, 2007, 08:03:44 PM
N: post your pic and profile here. Radius willing to travel.

Or go to grocery store.  We all gotta eat!

Or--meet some Nice MILFs at the Gym.
Title: The pitfalls of being chronologically buffered.
Post by: flygirl on March 28, 2007, 10:32:51 PM
Quote from: ""try another castle""
As far as I'm concerned, women don't truly hit their stride and become smokin' hot until they are over 40.
Title: The pitfalls of being chronologically buffered.
Post by: Anonymous on July 15, 2007, 01:26:53 AM
Quote from: ""Nihilanthic""
The insecurity on part of the MILF is what ruined my last attempt with one who was 36  :(


Interesting in how you automatically blame the other, with total disregard of your part in the relationship's demise.

Actually, Niles, the "MILF" was tiring of your usage of "nigger" in every third sentence, your total disregard for any rational opinion that might challenge your own, and your overall narcissism.  It had little to do with the fact that she had noticed a few more facial lines.

You have to wonder how shallow you must be to be turned off by the common concerns of a woman approaching forty.
Title: The pitfalls of being chronologically buffered.
Post by: Froderik on July 15, 2007, 08:26:32 AM
It seems this guest has some inside scoop on Niles.
Title: The pitfalls of being chronologically buffered.
Post by: try another castle on July 15, 2007, 08:38:11 AM
Quote from: ""Froderik""
It seems this guest has some inside scoop on Niles.


My thoughts exactly. I want dish! Spill it!
Title: The pitfalls of being chronologically buffered.
Post by: nimdA on July 15, 2007, 11:02:49 AM
Quote from: ""Guest""
Quote from: ""Nihilanthic""
The insecurity on part of the MILF is what ruined my last attempt with one who was 36  :(

Interesting in how you automatically blame the other, with total disregard of your part in the relationship's demise.

Actually, Niles, the "MILF" was tiring of your usage of "nigger" in every third sentence, your total disregard for any rational opinion that might challenge your own, and your overall narcissism.  It had little to do with the fact that she had noticed a few more facial lines.

You have to wonder how shallow you must be to be turned off by the common concerns of a woman approaching forty.


Slinging the word "Nigger" around is considered fore play in some parts of the world.














































Like prison.


Niles is that MILF you are talking about or your daddy in prision?
Title: The pitfalls of being chronologically buffered.
Post by: Anonymous on July 15, 2007, 02:49:15 PM
Quote from: ""Guest""
Quote from: ""Nihilanthic""
The insecurity on part of the MILF is what ruined my last attempt with one who was 36  :(

Interesting in how you automatically blame the other, with total disregard of your part in the relationship's demise.

Actually, Niles, the "MILF" was tiring of your usage of "nigger" in every third sentence, your total disregard for any rational opinion that might challenge your own, and your overall narcissism.  It had little to do with the fact that she had noticed a few more facial lines.

You have to wonder how shallow you must be to be turned off by the common concerns of a woman approaching forty.


Yeah Niles, it's utterly ridiculous when someone blames the other person for a failed relationship. It takes two. Besides, it was all YOUR fault. ::roflmao::
Title: The pitfalls of being chronologically buffered.
Post by: Anonymous on July 16, 2007, 09:49:11 AM
:roll:  :roll:  :roll:
Title: The pitfalls of being chronologically buffered.
Post by: Froderik on July 16, 2007, 10:44:13 AM
Yeah I know.. but I'd say the sardonic, Groucho Marx-like humor was worth a chuckle or two.