Translate

Monday, 28 October 2013

I find a man I have never met intriguing and attractive because of his businesslike approach to marriage

There was this man a female friend of mine was dating.

Apparently, on the first date (the first time they met was not a date because they met through work) he was talking about marriage.  Actually, being a lawyer, he talked about a pre-nup rather than marriage.

Marriage would only take place she had gone on holiday with him to meet his friends, presumably on the condition that they returned from holiday after having had a lovely time.

What better way of testing out your intended than by going on holiday with him/her and introducing him/her to your friends?

However, she found his proposal rather too coldly businesslike and cancelled the second date.

I jokingly asked if I could have his number if she had finished with him, but I suspect this won't be forthcoming.

She said she hadn't quite finished with him, only that she didn't feel that she could cope with seeing him again that evening, because she was so confused.  Presumably she intended to see him again and was playing hard to get. I think she has lost her chance, to be honest.

If I were him I wouldn't put up with that crap and move on. Doing stuff like this is a good way of finding out how serious and adventurous a woman is about finding a partner.

Of course on the proposed holiday it was envisaged that sex would take place, but she told me she had insisted on separate rooms.

Talk of marriage would indicate that he was serious. If I found him attractive then I would be flattered that he was thinking in those terms. Most men just want a roll in the hay.

I rather admire his technique, if truth be told: no time-wasters and ditherers tolerated. I think she just couldn't cope with the idea of letting him being in charge, because she is used to being in charge.

Also, I would have sex with him here before going on holiday to see if I we had, er, anything in common. If it was awful, then I would have to move on, but if we had fun then I would be looking forward to the proposed holiday with slightly less trepidation.

I think his technique is a great way of hurrying things along and it is still a good deal for the woman. If you fancy the guy then why not fuck him for the hell of it? If he wants to offer you even more, why not consider it seriously instead of pretending you are still a virgin princess?

Another dinner in a nice restaurant and a nice holiday for a few rolls in the hay sounds all right to me.

I daren't even call her now because I have a feeling that little episode in her life is now over. I bet they never had another date.

14 comments:

snork maiden said...

'If you fancy the guy then why not fuck him for the hell of it?'

You'd have sex with a guy you weren't married to? Wouldn't that make you a slut? Where's that lash?

Claire Khaw said...

The difference between a slut and an SSM is the difference between a suspected criminal and a convicted criminal.

snork maiden said...

So, does that make you a slut then? Or merely a suspected slut?

If you seek to ban non marital sex you should practise what you preach. You certainly shouldn't be advocating in one post when condemning it in another.

Claire Khaw said...

The evil the prohibition against sluttery was intended to prevent was widespread illegitimacy. I am not an SSM ie the mother of illegitimate offspring.

I do hope you are not one of those tedious people who insist that no one may discuss morality and make proposals about how to instill morality unless they are themselves morally perfect.

snork maiden said...

I think it's a matter of degree.

A man who drinks moderately on occasion but disapproves of public drunkeness is not a hypocrite in my view, while a man who fanatically preaches against all alcohol consumption and accuses all drinkers of being degenerate while secretly drinking himself is a hypocrite.

Equally a woman who has had non marital sex but disapproves of rampant irresponsible promiscuity is not a hypocrite. A woman who rails continuously against fornicatresses, demanding such women be publicly beaten and non marital sex outlawed, yet is happy to fornicate herself if it suits her is definitely a hypocrite, and is proof that her own ideas are unworkable.

Claire Khaw said...

Most British women are fornicatresses these days anyway.

I only propose that SSMs be lashed 100 times per illegitimate offspring because of the evidential difficulties of convicting "mere" sluts.

snork maiden said...

So you're resigned to the fact you cannot prevent non marital sex, and only wish a sledge hammer punishment of unmarried mothers by way of a preventative measure, while not applying the rules to yourself, presumably because your fertile years are behind you?

You'd be better off trying to raise the standards of sex education and access to contraception. Teenage motherhood, low aspirations and poor education all tend to go hand in hand.

Claire Khaw said...

The best sex education is to say NO. What you suggest has been tried and failed. I am surprised you have not noticed after so many decades.

You probably do need a sledgehammer to stop sluts from becoming SSMs and SSMs to stop having more bastards at taxpayers' expense.

snork maiden said...

Well thank goodness you're unlikely to wield any actual power or influence in any society. Though if your mission in life is just to annoy people, you'll succeed until people get bored of reading your blog.

With regards to the effects of appropriate sex ed:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/09/sex-education-teens_n_1335319.html

Your beef clearly isn't with fornication, it's with state care for other people's children. Are you happy for your tax money to go towards caring for the children of married women?

Claire Khaw said...

I want to abolish the welfare state.

snork maiden said...

I know of a man who is married with two very young children who was diagnosed with a brain tumor a few months ago. He's worked all his life but is now in a wheelchair and won't be able to provide for his family for a long time, even in the unlikely event he pulls through. Do you think his family should be left to starve without social housing or state benefits? Or do you think it's his fault for getting a brain tumor?

Claire Khaw said...

A charity for just this purpose could be set up. Or they could rely on financial assistance from their respective families. Or he could kill himself and make it look like an accident if he had had the foresight and responsibility to take out life insurance. That is what I would do if I were him anyway.

snork maiden said...

That would be your advice to a dying man is it? To commit insurance fraud? As well as being facetious and heartless, that is also very bad advice, insurance companies aren't stupid, they do tend to investigate things like that. Chances are they would wriggle out of paying his family anything at all.

See, this is why people who have any aspirations toward public life don't want you around them. Many such people are equally venal, selfish and lacking in human compassion, the only difference is that most of them have the intelligence not to be so obvious about it.

Claire Khaw said...

If I could I would set up a charity for people who have these terminal diseases. I would make them comfortable, but not prolong their lives. I imagine that one cannot insure oneself against terminal illness, or such insurance is so expensive you might as well not bother. If you were very wealthy then you can just pay for it when it happens instead of setting money aside, because it would work out the same anyway.

I think many people will find my candor and practical solutions admirable and refreshing.