Picture of Obi?

worth a gazillion words no doubt

bumpa bumpa

@obi, thanks for the well thought-out reply. It's very interesting. I don't know that I have ever known anyone who just didn't have any interest in a physical relationship with someone. I've known guys who basically live like you, but it's usually because they are too shy or nervous or intimated to talk to girls. It's not because they don't have any interest at all.

If you had that interest - if you looked at a girl when you met them and thought about sleeping with them before you even thought about whether or not you could discuss Shakespear with them, then I think you'd be like most guys, myself included. Now managing a relationship is many levels beyond that physical aspect, and that's where it takes work. Because in a relationship, you are still going to have those thoughts about every other pretty girl you meet, whether it's her friends, her sister, some girl at your school or work, or whatever. But at that point your commitment to your relationship has to over-rule your instinct to pursue sex.

So that's what most of us go through. It's a balancing act between one of the three most important built-in instincts (eat, sleep, fuck ... repeat), and the rational thought process of dealing with a relationship.

You, on the other hand, seem to not have that first driving impulse that leads the rest of us into bad and good relationships. And I don't know if that's sad, or a blessing. I've hurt a lot of people in relationships, and I've been hurt in them. but the good times, definitely outweigh the bad for me. I'm sure that's not the case with others though.

As far as the "meatheads" go who are with your female friends, you should consider that there is usually a physical attraction first. Then you get to know them. Intellegent girls can get their intellectual stimulation from their friends, but they need a man who knows what they're doing to give them physical stimulation and make them feel save and make them laugh and all of the other things girls are attracted to. Sometimes those guys are uneducated construction workers or gas station attendents. But if the girl stays with them, then they are probably doing something right - excluding cases of abuse where the girl is afraid to leave, of course.

So I think that if you ever do "Meet the right girl", someone who finally sparks that physical desire in you and wakes you up to even the possibility of love and physical attraction, AND she can talk about litterature with you, then quite possible the answer to the question of this thread might be your own life story ...

Yeah...

I'm not physically stimulating anyone, lol, I don't think I can and especially don't think I want to be the sort of person that tries...D.H. Lawrence and Puccini make it seem very poetic, but that's an author and a composer making it look that way...I only get so much time on this planet, I'd prefer not to waste it being an idiot in attempting to physically attract and thus base that aspect of my life on an instinct that's primal (besides which, I honestly don't care too much how I look, so long as it's professional--black blazer, solid grey shirt, and jeans every day, white collar shirt and slacks if it's professional work or a job interview, maybe a Mets or 49ers jersey over said grey shirt and under the blazer if I'm at a sports bar, and really that's it, I'm like Steve Jobs, same look every day.) ;)

And it's more her being intellectually compatible or superior than just her liking literature...

In fact, me being Shakespeare Obi, and it being rather redundant to have two Shakespeare/literature people together, it'd be great if Shakespeare Obi and Opera Jane (as it were) could get a cup of tea--

That being said, both Obi and Jane are minorities, so the odds of two minorities thus meeting are slim, and at that, Obi doesn't have the money, resources, or physical need to ask such a woman to be exclusive in the way you describe...it just seems rather limiting for her, and I wouldn't want that.

by the way, I started "The Idiot" today. It turns out Kindle has it as one of their free classics. So far they're still on the train, but at least it's not a dull beginning of chapter after chapter describing every aspect of the scene. I've tried to read Hugo and Dickens because everyone loves that shit, but I just can't get interested enough in the first few chapters. The Idiot goes right into a conversation on the train. Get to know the characters. That's what I like!

How about Shakespear Obi and Engineer Emily or Chemist Christina? Maybe you need a science babe to spark your primal insticts ;-)

Smart chicks are HOT!!

@obi so do you not watch porn/satisfy yourself ever or anything of the sort?

I'll say this for Dostoyevsky--

Though he's one of my favorite authors (Shakespeare, Milton, T.S. Eliot are the Holy Trinity, and then D.H. Lawrence, Virginia Woolf, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Homer, George Bernard Shaw, and Fyodor Dostoyevsky would round out that Top 10...today, anyway, in a week the Bottom 7 could change, lol) I'll say this--

If you get bored, either take a break or skim, because Dostoyevsky has a tendency to...well, go on and on and on (and I of all people know what THAT'S like!) ;)

So, as I tell people with my over-long posts, if it's that long, just skim if you want, otherwise you'll never get to the good parts, and that's sort of how Dostoyevsky works--

If you've ever seen "Bladerunner," or, to a lesser extent,"2001: A Space Odyssey," you know how much it can drag before you get to those nuggets which make them great movies (despite the fact I think both are a tad overrated) so it's the same with Dostoyevsky, you do have to skim to get to the good parts sometimes...

Because you REALLY want to get to the ending, the last 50 pages of a Dostoyevsky novel are some of the most intense periods of reading you can ever have, he lets things VERY slowly develop over the course of 500 pages, just building up a whole bunch of pressure points little by little--and the last 50 pages he'll explode with climactic moment after twist after epic speech after ANOTHER climactic twist-speech-something and so on.

So yeah...skim if you must, because you WANT to get to the last 10-15% of the novel. :)

Hugo I've read some...Dickens I've read a lot-lot more of, obviously...he's good, and I like him, but I generally like his works where it's not such a happy ending ("Great Expectations" being the best example, and "Bleak House" works as well..."A Tale of Two Cities" ends on a redemptive note, but because of the way the novel's structured and how beautiful and famous the last speech is, it's worth it and doesn't feel like fluff or having a somewhat-uplifting ending just to make people feel better.)

And yeah...

Engineer Emily or Chemist Christina or Physicist Francine, why not...

Though the science people are WAY on the other side of campus from the English people (was like that at my old campus as well) and I'm either in class all day or else I'm sitting in an empty English classroom reading/listening to music or an audiobook/awaiting a client...

The music people are closer, and closer to my discipline--but in any case, I'm not a pursuer of women either way (even if seeing Verdi's "Otello" would be an awesome joint venture for Shakespeare Obi and Opera Jane...I can see it with her and then let her go home to whoever she's married to or engaged to or dating, no reason to chain her up.)

;)

"so do you not watch porn/satisfy yourself ever or anything of the sort?"

No; I'm a Los Angelino (or close enough, location-wise) and liberal...

As far as I'm concerned, if it doesn't hurt anyone, modes of expression like porn should be allowable for consenting and of-age adults who, for whatever reason, are into that...

I don't find it appealing, find it degrading (even though those people can make good money sometimes) to the actors and actresses especially in it, and I just don't see the attraction...doing it's one thing, but this isn't like football where I couldn't throw a pass 20 YDs to save my life but watching the 49ers (hopefully) do so is enjoyable...

Where's the fun or arousal in watching OTHER people get it on?

Seems sort of vicarious and rather sorry and pitiful route, really...but again, if someone's into that sort of thing, as long as they let me watch my literature miniseries and movies and operas and whatnot, and no one is harmed by it, to each their own, I suppose...

Ah that makes sense, is rather consistent with what you've been saying, and am happy you're happy with your life in the partner area. I hope the question didn't come across as crude too

"actors and actresses "

@obi - You sexist pig! They are all just "actors" now. You don't designate male versus female any more than you say writer and writeress. You fail the PC test *big time*!!!!!!!

<rant>
Draug, I realize that that was in jest, but I still feel the need to tell you to shut the fuck up. I also want to tell people trying to make that a thing to shut the fuck up.

"-er" is a gender-neutral Germanic suffix that we carry into English. "-or" and "-rix" (usually Anglicized as "-ress") are gender specific suffices that are only found on specific words derived from Latin. Hence, it is stupid to make specific feminine form of a gender-neutral word (writer -> writress) but not to have two gender specific forms of the same word (actor <- act -> actress).
</rant>

@ghug - Yes it was completely in jest. I hate the idea that it's not lead female actor instead of lead actress at the oscars and it is now flight attendant not steward/stewardess and waiter/waitress.

But in regards to your etymology, please note that only actor/actress fit within that etymology and in fact waiter/waitress uses the gender neutral you point out for the masculine form and steward/stewardess has no neutral or masculine suffix. So that "rule" is nothing more than an explanation of one specific use (maybe more but I can't think of any of the top of my head) and doesn't explain a great number of other situations where "ess" is appended to be a feminine form of the noun.

now lead female actor...

^+1...

And when starlets (yeah, sue me) start fighting and clawing in the press and in multi-million dollar acting vanity projects over the Best Actor award and NOT Best Actress...

Then I'll use the term.

Until then--

Actor, Actress, Comedian, Comedienne, Hero, Heroine, the point is--

I'm not dating ANY of them, now, am I? ;)

Er, that +1 was for ghug, to clarify...

And Wikipedia still lists it as "Best Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role," Draug...

Comedienne, really? Some of those words have no need for feminine counterparts.

Interesting... So does Oscar.org and Emmys.com LOL! So why the fuck do they always seem to use the PC form when announcing them on TV? Gotta love the hypocrisy.

But I was just having some fun and busting balls for the hell of it. I am *not* PC when it comes to that at all.

@ghug:

I didn't know it was a thing either...

But more and more I see the term "comedienne" popping up.

Gotta love them first world problems.

Since no one seems to have suggested it yet, I'd like to nominate "Twilight" in response to the original poster's question.

Actually, Gobbledydook did at the top of page 2. But then if Twilight is the best love story, why is everyone saying "still better lovestory than Twilight"? This world is too complicated.

And I'd like to smack yebellz in the face... :p

would that be a glittery vampire face? or a hairy overgrown wolf face?

Cast Away

WILSON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(You understand I'm talking about Dr. James Wilson, Dr. House's best, totally-bromance friend, of course...)

Field of Dreams. Think about it.

The people I found on top of me after briefly falling asleep on New Year's.

Me and ghug after I woke up on top of him on New Year's.