Since no one else has asked, did it work?
2 - I was too busy laughing (and drunk) to see the resolution.
You know, plausibly, it could have been this: cute woman is making eye contact with one of two buddies, but the buddy she's making eye contact with is engaged, so he plays wingman and decides to introduce his friend with "I'm kind of engaged right now, but my friend is really cool and thinks you're really hot."
Now, "kind of engaged" does sound like the locution of someone looking for a little room to wiggle (IYKWIM), but I have faith.
I'm just impressed that he told her he was engaged before sleeping with her. I guess I don't expect much.
Maybe he was going to say, "But we're going to have an open marriage," or, "She would love to have a threesome with you." There are, as ogged suggests, possible innocent explanations.
I have faith.
Dude, it's nice to have faith and all, but he also said "right now."
So if you're going to have faith, it would have to be of the "He just has an elevated vocabulary; all he meant was 'I'm busy right now holding up my drunk friend; if you give me a minute I'll have a hand free to write down my number'" variety.
Which, well...it's possible.
I'm kind of engaged right now but...
...she only has three months to live, so could I get your number?
I'm kind of engaged right now but... it's not like I'm a fanatic about it or anything.
5: So your date went well the other night?
And I hope this rapid post 2nd was not because you felt the need to respond when your bitchy co-blogger tried to bully you with the fact that Gary Farber lectured some people on the proper view of comic books at Unfogged three years ago.
13: Considering that he told me after making out with me, but before refusing my invitation to my home, that he was still in the middle of a break-up despite having a wicked crush on me, yes, I guess so. Someone here said it screamed "creep," but we were really drunk and tired and I thought it was decently above-board. I'm seeing him again this Friday. Two weeks should be long enough to finish off a break-up right? My plan is to be very patient (until I get tired of being very patient).
I'm kind of engaged right now, but...
...I should be free around seven.
Dude, it's nice to have faith and all, but he also said "right now."
He's getting married, you know. Engagements aren't forever.
15: I am, as ever, impressed by your levelheadedness.
15: Also, I'm not sure what's creepy about that, assuming he's really in the middle of the break-up and not just making that part up. As you say, two weeks is more than enough time to finish something already begun. So you'll know soon enough.
Engagements aren't forever.
Nor, necessarily, are marriages.
Hey! Teo! You're back! Good to see you! (As with news AWB's date, I'm sure your return has been remarked upon elsewhere. Sorry, I really should devote more time to Unfogged. Because, as you say, marriages really aren't forever.)
Yeah, he's not sleazy and secretive or anything. I actually think he might have been technically "free" (hence the date itself, introducing me to his friends, etc.) but felt a pang of conscience/hesitation/whatever. I'd much rather hear about such pangs when they are felt, rather than the morning after, when they tend to arise more commonly. I can be very sensitive if I know what I'm supposed to be sensitive to.
Teo's return was marked in the thread where it was revealed that Massachusetts called French Canadians Chinese.
I'd much rather hear about such pangs when they are felt, rather than the morning after, when they tend to arise more commonly.
Quite so. And the refusal to return to your apartment, coupled with the eagerness for the second date, seemingly bespeaks both decency and genuine interest -- to me, at least. But what do I know? I'm insufficiently devoted to Unfogged to have heard about your date before now.
15.---That might've been me, but if so, I said I thought it screamed "I'm going to be really fucked up and self-absorbed for a while, and I'd like to bring you into my vortex of sorrow," or something like that. That said, I'm a connoisseuse of warning signals: I spot 'em, recognise 'em, appreciate 'em, and ignore 'em. So far be it from me to prevent your fun.
23 clears everything right up for me. Obviously.
25: I didn't get any evidence of hyperemotional craziness or anything. He's really genuinely nice and decent and un-self-absorbed, all of which surprises this Bear quite pleasantly, having pretty exclusively been involved with emotionally selfish psychotics. If anything, I'm afraid of running too quickly to my misandrist stereotypes when they might not be called for.
It's odd how tempted I am to go with a variant on Witt's (tongue-in-cheek) explanation in 7:
"I'm kind of engaged right now" understood as "kind of in a relationship right now," but it's not serious and I expect it to end soon.
Somewhat idle question: if you knew a friend was routinely doing this sort of thing, shopping around despite being in a relationship because he/she didn't expect the relationship to last, though the relationshipee had no clue about this, would you call him/her on it? Well, none of your business, right?
I'm remembering a (female) friend years ago who made a habit of having short affairs with men who were attached but claimed that their relationships weren't serious. I understood what my friend was doing (engaging with men who would necessarily be temporary), but I was stumped over whether I disapproved. We left it at just talking through the question once or twice, without judgment.
If you can manage to use him for sex for a little while, just until the aftermath of his previous relationship shakes out, I'd be more comfortable with the whole idea.
30: What's weird (and really uncharacteristic) is that I'm considering not pressuring him to sleep with me before he's ready. I don't have a lot of time to devote to anything right now, anyway, at least until July, so I can afford to be very laid-back about it.
Uh-oh. You're really into him, aren't you? Am I going to need to threaten that motherfucker?
Let's give it some time. He may prove to be a dick yet, or he may actually be really decent. I barely know him, so I can't be "really into him" yet. It's just that, unlike most men I've spent that amount of time with, I don't yet have any evidence that he's tempted to treat me poorly. As of now, feeling-status is positive-neutral.
Teo's return was marked in the thread where it was revealed that Massachusetts called French Canadians Chinese.
Indeed, although this revelation apparently occurred after I stopped reading that thread.
(Sorry, didn't mean to threadjack; preview is your friend.)
Good luck, AWB!
Jackmormon's a really good threatener. One threat from her and a guy will stay in line for years.
It's a good question, parsimon. It sort of creeps me out when my friends actively pursue guys who are married or in relationships, because they tend to talk about it like it's a competition. "Oh sure, he buys her dinner, but when he wants to get a great blowjob, he calls me." It makes me feel queasy when people brag that their worth is that deeply validated by some dumb dude's "choice" of her over someone they claim to love.
Plus, I guess I'm just weirded out by complexity in the first place. I've slept with a woman who is in an open marriage, but the complexity sort of got to me, even with the husband's consent. When I wanted to sleep with someone short-term, I'd specifically go after guys with whom I was totally emotionally incompatible or guys who were about to move to another country in a few months. I wouldn't be able to enjoy myself with the specter of someone's wronged partner in my mind.
I wouldn't be able to enjoy myself with the specter of someone's wronged partner in my mind.
You show admirable caution in this time of rampant sexual witchcraft.
29: I only disapprove of my friends' relationships when they seem to be heading toward marriage.
Maybe I could make a little money in the threat business. Presumably dsquared knows to which pubs I should apply for such work?
Oh, and on the first question, yeah, I think shopping around while you're still very much with someone is incredibly shitty. I think it has something to do with a fear that people will think you're pathetic if you're single. I've been single most of my adult life, and maybe I am pathetic, but I get to do whatever I want without checking in with anyone, which is pretty great.
Good luck, AWB!
Huh. I really have been away a long time.
I would have posted that to "Sowing Discord", but, you know.
37: I didn't want to introduce the added wrinkle, but my years-ago friend is a lesbian who occasionally liked to sleep with men. She'd have these affairs in between her real relationships, and always with guys who were in sort-of-not-serious, or troubled, or ending, relationships (the guys wouldn't have been looking otherwise, I guess).
So there was no competition in my friend.
It was really this: I wouldn't be able to enjoy myself with the specter of someone's wronged partner in my mind that bothered me about what she was doing. It didn't bother her. So -- as I said, no judgment.
44: Ah, I see. Yeah, I think I do the same thing with my affairs with women, actually. I'm primarily straight and not looking to get involved with a woman long-term, so I make excuses to find women I can't be "with."
ZOMG. I just tried the cacao nibs I'm adding to my chocolate shortbreads for this Friday, and holy fucking crap they're delicious.
If you can manage to use him for sex for a little while, just until the aftermath of his previous relationship shakes out, I'd be more comfortable with the whole idea.
It is rather easier to tell yourself you can manage this, however, than it is to actually manage it. At least, if you are actually consciously thinking such a concept through, you are probably already too mentally invested to "just" be using the guy for sex.
I have used plenty of people for sex, with the assumption that they were using me for sex too. It's not very hard for me, or at least it hasn't in the past. What's more difficult is to recognize when someone wants something more, and to decide whether I'm capable of offering that, and to proceed tentatively on those grounds. At this point, I'm not really bothering to think about it, in case he develops a sudden and irrepressible desire to get back together with this woman. He doesn't owe me anything other than friendliness when we run into each other.
45: Yeah. I just kept thinking: (years-ago) friend, do you respect these men given what they're doing (with you) to their partners? And, um, are you sleeping with men you don't respect? No. She chose only men she did respect. Not assholes. I had to trust her judgment. It was a really weird moment.
People do a lot of things, not always explainable to the outsider.
People do a lot of things, not always explainable to the outsider.
Amen. Not always explainable to themselves, either. People are complicated.
So now we're giving a pass to people who sleep with married people? Standards, people, standards.
That reminds me of this girl I knew in high school who, from the age of 14 on, only dated married men in their 40's. She was scary-brilliant, and really cool and stuff, so I kept asking her how she could constantly involve herself in dangerous situations with married pedophiles. She shrugged and said, "They listen to me when I talk, and are thoughtful about my needs, and care about whether I enjoy sex or not. I'm just not going to find anyone like that in high school."
I felt like making that a poster or a T-shirt or something. Do you hear that, young dudes? Gorgeous brilliant teen women are resorting to fucking pedophiles because you have your heads so far up your asses you can't be decent enough to them.
51: Nobody said married. In a relationship allegedly not serious or in the process of breaking up (with the notable caveat that the relationshipee may not be aware of this).
I said it was problematic.
I get to do whatever I want without checking in with anyone, which is pretty great.
This is nice, but can be a problem if what you want is to check in with someone, but not just anyone, but someone you want to want to be able to do what you want with checking in with them. That sounds complicated; Emerson wins.
So now we're giving a pass to people who sleep with married people? Standards, people, standards.
Parsimon's question addressed men who were attached but claimed their relationships "weren't serious." I suppose this doesn't explicitly preclude marrieds, but that seemed to be the premise.
Nevertheless, there is also a distinction between "giving a pass" and recognizing that sometimes good people do shitty things for reasons we can't quite fathom.
So now we're giving a pass to people who sleep with married people?
HOORAY!
Nobody said married. In a relationship allegedly not serious or in the process of breaking up
Ah, right. Ok. Quick, rather than slow death for those people, then.
So, like anyone who may have slept with me while I was in the midst of the divorce, but still married must die?
(And just to preempt, let's just assume for the hypothetical that, no, sleeping with me wasn't already punishment enough.)
Ogged's opposition to this will soften once he's married.
Parsimon's story brings up a good question, though, which is to what extent we expect our friends to share our values. I'm not comfortable being friends with people who do unethical things, and if their definitions of ethical and mine are too far apart, the friendship is unlikely to last. (From their side at least as often as from mine.)
It's easy enough to have a single-subject friendship, like being golf buddies or something, but if you're going for an actual 360-degree relationship, it provokes a whole lot of cognitive dissonance.
59: Well, sure, but so was anyone who might have slept with me while I was mid-divorce but still married.
And to 58, having observed a lot of relationships that took months if not years to disetangle, I'd say that a primary criterion is whether the person was continuing to have sex (especially unprotected) with the ex while seeing the new person unbeknownst to the ex. From a health standpoint alone, that is arguably borderline-homicidal. And yes, that's hyperbole, statistically speaking, but not by as much as people like to think.
61: And maybe this is why I lean toward parsimon's position of non-judgmental bewilderment -- very few of my friends actually share my values 360 degrees.
very few of my friends actually share my values 360 degrees
Hmm, most of my friends do. It's one way I choose friends, I think, and one reason I don't have many of them. And when we differ, we tend to bitch each other out.
Most of mine don't. It's funny -- the older I get the more I realize that my main criteron for relationships of any sort is that they can put up with me, rather than vice versa.
57: Ah, right. Ok. Quick, rather than slow death for those people, then.
That tends to be my feeling. You don't knowingly hurt other people (the relationshipee), even if you don't know them, even if they may never know. You don't sleep with someone who's, shall we say, still engaged. You don't even flirt with him (because it tends to mean he's shopping around).
61: I'm not comfortable being friends with people who do unethical things, and if their definitions of ethical and mine are too far apart, the friendship is unlikely to last.
Right; the question is what counts as too far apart. In the case of my years-ago friend, I couldn't flatly condemn her as a home-wrecker; these were not married men, and they'd have found someone else to sleep with anyway. She was an enabler. I was disturbed, upset about it. But for me to descend to shocked outrage would have been just ... puritanical?
As I said, a very weird moment. We talked, I was very serious; she moved away shortly thereafter.
Yeah, the critical value that most of my friends share with me is tolerance for different viewpoints.
"They listen to me when I talk, and are thoughtful about my needs, and care about whether I enjoy sex or not."
Clearly these men are sick, or at least terribly lacking in self-esteem. I say stone them!
I was recently contacted by someone who I stopped being friends with on ethical-dissimilarity grounds. She wants to talk or start hanging out again, and I really don't know how to respond. I was very clear about what was disturbing me, and she never seemed to take my concerns seriously, so I have severe doubts that she wants to show me how she's changed. I have no idea what to do, and, as usual in these cases, I'll probably just not respond and be really awkward about it.
69: I didn't say they were sick because they were nice to her. I said it because they were cheating on their wives with a 15-year-old.
70: When the ex-friend who had UNG over for Christmas emailed to tell me her "door was open," I responded by listing all the issues that had originally shut that door, reminded her that the issues remained unaddressed, and told her I had no desire to renew any friendship without addressing those issues.
I did not hear back.
Go, Di!
(And "door is open" is such a passive phrase, ugh.)
Not a passive phrase, a passive aggressive one. It means, "I'm far too superior to take any initiative, but I'm offering you the opportunity to demean yourself by crawling back to me."
75, 74, 70: I read those comments in the order I just listed them, that is, most recent first, and was a bit puzzled, because I associate the phrase "the/my door is open" with such things as that scene at the end of Wild Strawberries.
You don't even flirt with him (because it tends to mean he's shopping around).
Wait a minute. Convincing but harmless flirtation with married men people ought to be encouraged.
Yeah, no kidding. Marriage really would be the long march if you couldn't flirt. Marriage is license to flirt.
There are different kinds of flirting, I think. Some married people you know you can "flirt" with in a harmless way because that's just how you get along best together, but some you can't flirt with at all because they take one too seriously. It's pretty easy, actually, to tell the difference between the two, usually. Of course, the first group can shuttle unexpectedly into the second when there's trouble at home.
'Now, "kind of engaged" does sound like the locution of someone looking for a little room to wiggle (IYKWIM), but I have faith.'
wow, Yglesias has his own acronym now. sort of ironic that it should be 'If Yglesias knows what I mean' though, because Yglesias knows all.
That tends to be my feeling. You don't knowingly hurt other people (the relationshipee), even if you don't know them, even if they may never know. You don't sleep with someone who's, shall we say, still engaged.
I am still curious where exactly people draw this line, given (as Witt observed) "a lot of relationships [take] months if not years to disentangle." I think I can safely presume that most people here are okay with getting involved a year after the divorce petition was filed, even if the final decree was still months off. But where does it start to get gray?
Is filing the cut off? Consulting a lawyer with intent to file? Separation with or without intent to file? How do you define that line in non-marital relationships in the process of dissolving. Does it turn on just whether or not the "relationshipee" is aware that the relationship is over? Or that the relationship has been opened to "seeing other people"?
Witt's 63 does seem like a bright, bottom line answer -- absolutely necessary, but I don't think it would be sufficient if I were the one potentially involved with the relationshipor or if I were the relationshipee.
I think for a divorce case, it can't just be filing or the intent to file, especially because some places you have to be separated a long time before you can file. Witt has the right necessary criterion, but as for sufficient all I can come up with it 'isn't going to be too huge a fucking mess' which isn't helpful.
Does it turn on just whether or not the "relationshipee" is aware that the relationship is over? Or that the relationship has been opened to "seeing other people"?
Yes. The only issue is deception.
I'd think there are two different issues for the third party -- ethical and self-protective. Deception is the only issue for ethics, but getting involved with someone whose still emotionally in the middle of ending their last relationship, while it isn't wrong as such, sounds like often a terrible idea in terms of how it's going to come out.
But in that case, whether the papers are signed isn't a good proxy for emotional attachment. Depends on how the marriage fell apart, whether someone had checked out of the marriage mentally years before, etc.
The only solution is to never have sex with anyone ever.
Well, yeah, it's a judgment call. I would say that anyone less than a couple months out of a marriage is very likely to be situationally nuts, and expecting a relationship with them to go smoothly is unlikely. But there's no brightline rule.
But people who have been single too long are also nuts. Keep in mind. As Cala suggests, no one is safe.
Oh, if something unthinkable ever happened and I found myself single again, I'd be headed straight for a convent (are there Unitarian nuns?). I have no idea how people manage.
||
The fuck. First, I never get sick. Now I'm sick for five days in a row with a variety of symptoms that seem to change every 24 hours. Note to little motherfucker germs: pick a part to infect and stick with it, so I can chase you and kill you dead.
|>
I am beginning to think that everyone goes on about the sanctity of marriage because the truth of the matter is that putting up with anyone for any period of time better require a lot of paperwork to get out of.
people who have been single too long are also nuts
So true. A vague baseline of desperation does horrible things to one's personality and comportment. Nothing really major, but just enough small tweaks to make one wonder if you've always had that slight neediness and paranoia in your actions.
no one is safe
I have no idea how people manage.
Many of us manage poorly, but, as a romantic as well as an idealist, I would say that after decades of managing poorly (spectacularly poorly, in some cases), I still believe that the payoff of finding the right person is worth all the tears and angst.
I am still curious where exactly people draw this line
I think LB gets at somehting important with regard to the two separate questions of protecting yourself emotionally and avoiding doing something unethical to antoher person. With the former, I think it's kind of an informed consent -- you give the other person a small snapshot of where you are, emotionally and logistically, and they decide whether they are comfortable navigating that.
I know someone who started dating a guy literally 36 hours after a breakup, but a) he knew about the breakup (not in gory detail, but with some specifics), and b) she had been emotionally out of the relationship for some time before the breakup. Not ideal, and not how you'd choose to orchestrate it, but they're happily married now, so.
People react differently to breakups, of course. I started seeing someone else within a week of the extremely sudden and shocking demise of a 2.5-year relationship, and the ex was never a factor. I don't even remember the ex even coming up in conversation, aside from the night we met. New Guy had been single for six months, and it was mutually understood that it was his (admittedly serious) issues that eventually made the relationship intolerable for both of us.
All people are equally potentially fucked-up and baggage-laden, just as the Lord wants us to be! But yeah, recently/not-yet divorced people are a special kind of nuts. I happen to find their nutsiness attractive, apparently.
48: Once when a friend expressed disapproval of the idea of people being used for sex, I said, "What's wrong with being useful?"
"kind of engaged" - has nobody mentioned that it might be an arranged marriage which might not end up happening?
Did he appear to be of one of the arranged-marriage ancestries?
48: Once when a friend expressed disapproval of the idea of people being used for sex, I said, "What's wrong with being useful?"
My end is a universal means.