2005-08-07

Crude Dude is a dead ender

A refreshing roll in the mud and a nap in the cattails has allowed the scene to play out. I'm glad she's come to the conclusion she has. It's not quite axiomatic that guys figure that seduction is all about technique, but it's close. And it's almost axiomatic, too, how many guys figure that plodding down the well-worn rut (described in such *%@?!#&$!! vehement detail by Siren) of 'misunderstood by my real girlfriend but we're gettin' drunk here and, oh, by the way I give great head' is the key to Nirvana. I digress. Yet again.

Point is, while our Muse may be blinkered about the subtler emotional and psychological side-effects of a year-long interlude in dysfunction, Crude Dude's proposal was easy to read.

After the gin, tequila and the reactive neurotoxins of the inevitable fuzzy-headed aftermath (Wasn't that a party...?) wore off, she started thinking again. Often, I think she thinks waaaaay too much. But full credit here: she reached the necessary conclusion. And it didn't take no damn year, either. Good girl.

I'd say her head's screwed on straight here, but given recent days' posts, that could lead to all kinds of unfortunate misinterpretation.

While sex may be a longed-for divertissement, she has correctly concluded that sex under just any ol' circumstance isn't healthy for her spirit. Dude is a deadender. She's got a good goal, and for her -- and most other people -- it's the long term emotional support that becomes the most important part of a relationship. But, as she just lately discovered with M, it's not the only part. Whatever the asexual network thinks.

She's seen the two extremes. Now she needs to find a satisfactory middle path. At the risk of stepping outside of my usual metaphysical oeuvre, I'm gonna get all Zen, and suggest that many of us find what we desire most when we relax and stop looking for it.

20 comments:

Agatha said...

Nice analysis, Coyote. A welcome sobering up, indeed. And she generated a nice little list of turn-offs which incorporated some of my negative feelings about the Dude. I'm sure the Dude would be delightful with a couple dozen beers, a guitar, and his 6 children roasting marshmallows around the campfire. But the thought of this fellow talking trash to the 5M in the House of Crabs is just too much...
Let's look at a couple of the 5M's turn-offs:
1) "-a man talking about how other men view women" - Does the 5M mean that she hates when men make generalizations about women? (For example, "Men don't like women who smoke") That kind of thing? For a PhD candidate, these kind of unqualified generalizations would be offensive. I mean, where's the research to back this up??
2) "a man telling me what he thinks I want to hear, but not what he really feels in a genuine and loving way" - M certainly wasn't guilty of this turn-off. I'm not convinced this would really be "turn-off" for the 5M. Personally, I love it when a man tells me what I want to hear.
Perhaps she needs to turn to her turn ons a little bit now, and not the obvious ones. I think she would enjoy reading this little series of stories about turn offs that are turn ons.

Anonymous said...

Despite her denials of interest, today she ventures out into canoeland with this man. Why go out with such a person, even if just in a canoe, if he's such a "turn-off?" How can he be worthy of friendship if so unworthy of love interest?

5m wants to look pure. And she tries to talk pure. But she's not acting it...

Agatha said...

Anonymous, I don't think she's getting into a canoe with the Dude. If that were the case, I think we'd have to send out the field operatives for an intervention.

coyote said...

Right, Anon -- it's one of her new Lavalife contacts, not Mr. D.

And Agatha: Speedsticks and hairy beer guts as a turn ons? The Trailer Park Boys will love that site...

6th Apostle said...

As our fair Muse ventures out on her "non-date" with Nelson Eddy, it begs the question: when is it a date, and when is not a date?

4th Dwarf said...

Arr, Coyote, never mind the Trailer Park Boys, I'm lovin' that list of turn-offs that are turn-ons. I was feeling a bit low after Aggie got me on the bragging thing yesterday (were you thinkin' I missed it?) but I'm pretty much 5 for 7 on this list (missed the speed stick and the born-again points; okay, I admit the grey hair isn't premature any more, but it used to be.)

And 6A, I know, you're trying to get me to go public with the "Is it a Date" web site. Fair enough, I'll see if I can get something together later today. I've got some other things on my list first.

But let me preview the "Is it a Date" site by observing: while 5M says she's not on a date, and some women will agree that if she says it's not a date, it's not a date, you can be sure that Nelson thinks he's on a date - and one that lets him really show his mojo.

The Independent Observer said...

Here's hoping the canoe trip yields nothing more sinister than another idea for the 5M Clue game: Lavalife Guy, in the Canoe, with a Paddle.

Agatha said...

Here's hoping Nelson's not going to make the dreaded mistake of trying to pull a Pierre Burton in the canoe when the 5M's not thinking it's a date...

4th Dwarf said...

Alas, I have not yet had a chance to translate my "Is it a Date" Excel Spreadsheet into the "Is it a Date" Web Page.

However, as some consolation, I do have for you this report.

Sometimes, you don't want lemon squares and you don't want biscotti.

coyote said...

According to dustbury.com, who stole it from someplace else, (making the whole CRTF provenance thing a bit iffy) this is a "simple definition of what constitutes a genuine date and how to distinguish it from two friends of the opposite sex hanging together":

It's a date if both the man and woman have the genuine desire at some point to see the other naked.

Now, since I never wear pants in the first place, I'm wondering how coyotes fit into this schema.

4th Dwarf said...

I'm afraid, Coyote, that the dustbury definition leaves much to be desired.

People often go on dates to explore whether there's a chance of developing a desire.

And there are outings where both parties would have "the genuine desire..." but have no intention of ever acting on the desire.

There is no bright line dividing "dates" from "non-dates".

6th Apostle said...

I agree with Dwarfie. If both parties agree that it is, or is not, a date, then it's defined. No other criteria needs to be introduced. The problem lies when one party does not agree with the other party or that neither can clearly define the event. In these situations, the date definition becomes more of a probability definition than a yes/no definition. Is there no end to what quantum physics can explain?

The Independent Observer said...

Ah, but what of the theory that living together is replacing dating (once the whole naked thing has presumably been sorted out)? Which begs the questions, when is it cohabitation? And is it a good idea?

This from the above-linked USA Today article: "In focus groups, women perceive cohabitation as a step before marriage to that partner, whereas men are tending to see cohabitation as something to do before you make a commitment."

4th Dwarf said...

We could discuss cohabitation, IO, but it wouldn't have much relevence here, would it?

The Independent Observer said...

True enough, Dwarf. But we Observers like to keep one eye on the horizon, much like you seafaring folk. And the gust in my sails advanced the thread a little too quickly. I'll peel a few potatoes in galley as my penance. As for 6A's agreed definition of a date, few people bring wordy contracts along when meeting a new acquaintance of the opposite sex, yes? I think more often it comes down to individual, and unspoken, perceptions of whether it's a date.

6th Apostle said...

Here's my definition:

Date (n): A shared event initiated by one person, designed with a probable intention of pursuing a further courtship

I use the word "probable" to imply that both parties intentions must come into play. They need not necessarily be the same level of intent, but that there is combined likelihood of probable intention.

6th Apostle said...

Combining my defintion with Dustbury leads to:

A shared event initiated by one person, designed with a probable desire to eventually see the other naked.

7th Heathen said...

Does that mean that visits to nudist beaches would be
considered dates? (One wants to be very particular about
the desire factor here.)

And certain court cases spring to mind, where the intimate
equipment of a president (and I think of a pop star)
were examined to compare against verbal testimony.

I think that counts as a desire to see, but counting it
as a date might be a real indictment of the American
legal system.

Agatha said...

I think the date construct is far too confining for the 5M. She needs another schema.

4th Dwarf said...

Excellent lateral thinking, Agatha!

Perhaps a schema that hearkens back to the days of courtship?