Why is it I can’t find people physically attractive until I know them a little?
Because physicality is more than just how someone looks, and genuine attraction isn’t a superficial response. (You’re much more normal in this regard than you think you are.)
If he says he wouldn’t want to see his ex again because she’s toxic, does that mean he isn’t over her?
Pay attention to the subtleties of how he says she’s toxic. If he’s telling you that she’s toxic, he’s over her. If he’s telling himself that she’s toxic, he’s not over her.
Why do women still fake orgasms? What is the root of that confusion-inducing performance? It does nothing but hurt us all in the end.
The root of that confusion-inducing performance is the fundamental fragility of the male ego, which is really the thing that hurts us all in the end.
Where/How do you draw the line between having self-respect and “Well why not? He’s really hot”?
I don’t have to draw a line because my self-respect isn’t tied to patriarchal notions of chastity and sexual shame.
The divorce is almost official and I just kicked him off my Hulu account. Such a little thing, but it really was splendid.
It’s always the little things. (Congratulations on your divorce.)
It’s really hard when you’re surrounded by dumb people not to become one of them.
Yes, but it’s worth the effort.
Do you have trouble with the physical aspects of aging?
I’d prefer that the physical aspects of aging not occur, but there’s really no point in having trouble with inevitability.
Is it morally wrong/illegal to resell items full price that you buy at a discount because you work for that company?
It’s neither morally wrong nor illegal. Although, it’s ethically shady and would probably get you fired, so keep that shit to yourself.
Are you down with Trevor Noah? I tried to give the new Daily Show a chance but I can’t get into it.
Trevor showed so much promise, but the man can’t land a joke to save his life, and with the exception of the brilliant Jessica Williams, the correspondents are all a bunch of undisciplined hacks. It’s painful to watch what the Daily Show has become. (I take solace in watching Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, who turned out to be the true heir of the Stewart legacy.)
I NEED A NEW PLAYLIST. PLEASE THIS IS LIKE FUCKING PURGATORY.
Okay, okay. Here it is.
56 thoughts on “On fun-sized advice”
Have you been watching Samantha Bee’s new show, Coke?
No. I never liked Samantha Bee (or Jason Jones for that matter.) I just don’t think she’s funny or at all insightful.
I have trouble with her voice grating on me. And her on the nose sarcasm just makes it that much more difficult.
“I’d prefer that the physical aspects of aging not occur, but there’s really no point in having trouble with inevitability.”
These are wise words.
Speaking of inevitability, Italians say: “Brutta la vecchiaia ma l’alternativa è peggio;” (old age is awful, but the alternative is worse.)
Senescence is beautiful and terrible. I personally treasure the marks left by the passing of time on my body (but then again I’m still at the age I can drink a full bottle of whiskey one night and be at work at 8 the next morning). It’s a fascinating process, and I know that the fact I exist as I do is due to the fact I will die, so I can respect that.
You drink, bro?
That seems to surprise you.
I still enjoy the Daily Show, but part of that may be because I really want to have sex with half the cast.
Re: faking orgasms, I think Elaine’s coworker in that one Seinfeld episode said it best, “You know, if it’s just enough already and I want to get some sleep.”
Yup, with regard to #3, men fake orgasms too, for a whole lot of reasons, including the one above. If it’s never occured to you, you might want to give it more thoughts.
If the sex is good, orgasm is really not necessary. And sometimes you can get a disapointing orgasm during bad sex. Maybe the focus on orgasm is the source of confusion?
And it’s a lot easier to fake an orgasm than to fake a good time. If you do not notice anything wrong during 30 minutes and then feel all ‘reassured’ by 30 seconds of noise, another explanation might be that confusion is the likely result of not paying attention?
Is it me or the title font is BIGGER?!
“It’s really hard when you’re surrounded by dumb people not to become one of them.”
Someone likes the smell of their own farts too much.
Dumb people : exhibit A
Trevor Noah is the sunk-cost fallacy personified.
Ha! That’s awesome
I feel like Trevors biggest issue is that he’s still playing it like he’s kind of an outsider. He’s got no skin in the game. If he said, “I’m going to become a U.S. Citizen!” and documented his journey, that would be something. But his delivery is a “one foot in both worlds” half assed observation. If he was all the way here, he’d be able to connect to the passion. Every time he says “you” and means Americans try saying it again as if he said “WE!” The reason we don’t embrace him is because he isn’t embracing US.
Nice observation, too.
In his defence, being born as a biracial kid in country that literally denied his existence means that he has been permanently positioned between two worlds.
Having been born in a similar (but different) situation, I understand how hard it can be to let your guard down and say WE when you don’t feel safe or trust anyone as a result of your childhood experiences. I think your assessment is right, I just want to acknowledge that even though Trevor was given a once in a lifetime opportunity that he would have to be crazy to pass up, it must not be easy to leave a country he barely fits into to work in another country he definitely doesn’t belong to.
I totally get it. And it doesn’t matter what race you are, it’s hard moving to another country from my personal experience.
I also think the divided perspective doesn’t resonate with an “us or them” emotional economy.
Yeah, the TDS bit on the Zika virus was pretty painfully bad. Like, you have these radically anti-choice countries telling women not to get pregnant, and all you can say about it is that Latin American women are hot and it’s a good opportunity to get anal? Seriously?
Ugh. That particular zika segment was terrible. It was like seeing an accident about to happen, then start to happen, then actually happening but not being able to do anything.
But in general I don’t think the new Daily Show is so bad, usually. There’s something funny in most episides and I think theyre still growing. I don’t expect Trevor ‘ s wry geniality to be the same as Stewart’s righteous laugh-to-keep-from-crying passion (which was at its peak during Bush/Cheney). Noah has a different style and it has its charms. What the new TDS isn’t — yet, anyway — is essential, nor is it yet emotionally or intellectually cathartic. It’s amusing, usually, but hasn’t gotten beyond that, not consistently anyway.
Besides, it’s HARD to do what they’re doing 4 nights a week. Stewart & Co were often brilliant but they had plenty of dud nights and misfires too.
Oliver is definitely my favorite right now, his crew are actually digging up stuff beyond the superficial headline beats I could think up myself. The horrifying yet slapstick footage of the “ghost voters” in the TX state legislature cracked me up and I watched it 3x! But it may not be fair to directly compare to TDS; Oliver does his show only once a week, with months-long periods off, HBO’s deep pockets, no need to cut to commercial and no freaking guests. I actually think Jon was a little envious of that setup.
I think Larry’s doing a great job and is first on my Hulu, before TDS. He doesn’t do the deep video clips thing as much as Stewart and Oliver, but what I like is the seemingly easy camaraderie among his very smart, likable regulars. It’s a nice hangout. He has guests, but I like that they just get to visit the clubhouse and there’s no boring synchophantic interview.
Colbert the “conservative” I really miss. Now I can only watch him in the occasional YouTube clip because I detest the long boring network talk show format.
Whew! I’ve been wanting to get out for a while. Thanks for the space and indulgence.
Yeah, there have been some episodes that were real bores but I’ve also seen some fantastic ones. I think it’s going to improve along the way, especially because it’s only the first season. Watching the new TDS episode from the previous night while I make breakfast has become a new morning ritual and I enjoy it. They’re not doing something easy and I think calling it “painful” is a little hyperbolic.
I hear Stewart wasn’t that great in the beginning too, so I definitely do hope things improve. Colbert’s show is actually pretty good IMO, it’s got a surprising edge for a talk show… although his ratings apparently aren’t very good at the moment, so not sure how long that will last.
Oliver is my favorite too. Especially after his segment on abortion:
Huh, I’m the same as the first advice-asker (not finding people attractive until I know them a bit). But I’d always assumed it was a side effect of my social anxiety: the anxiety I always feel around new people blocking my loins from having an opinion until I know them better and the anxiety chills out a bit.
THE LIKE BUTTON IS GONE.
Long live Coquette. Long live ergonomics.
I really liked that the heart broke when I clicked on it and turned black.
I’m sad it was so temporary.
I liked the heart too!
Me too. I actually quite, um, liked the button. Many times that I agree with a poster and/or want to give them props, but don’t actually have anything worthwhile enough to add to want to make a comment.
Sex without cuming … God, what’s the point?
Honestly, goal-oriented sex- what’s the point?
lol yeah, fuck the very point of sex.
You can experience pleasure without cumming, you know that, right?
In your opinion. There are a lot of different reasons why people have sex and all kinds of ways to do it.
I still enjoy sex even if I don’t climax.
I once had a partner who refused to stop jackhammering away at me until I came. That’s actually what made me fake orgasms with them.
IKR!~ don’t forget your goalies.
That comment sounds painfully male and heterosexual
Well, what’s wrong with that?
My husband (and the men he says he’s talked to about it) is this way. Climaxing is the point. It’s not that he doesn’t enjoy it along the way, but if he doesn’t get there, he’s going to wind up frustrated, which is worse than not doing it at all. He had trouble understanding what I was talking about when I said it wasn’t always necessary for me, because he just hadn’t experienced it.
As a hetero female, I have a very healthy sex drive – I’m in my early 40s and would do it daily, sometimes more than once (sadly, he can’t quite keep up with that!). I’m more likely than he is to enjoy sex without orgasm, but I always prefer to have one, and much of the time am not satisfied without (and would on those occasions think, “What was the point?”).
So while I’m more aware of the phenomenon than he is (having experienced it sometimes), I understand what it feels like for him, or at least as much as I can understand without those levels of testosterone!
Nothing wrong with feeling that way, and it’s certainly not exclusive to hetero males.
There’s a difference between your comment and the comment I reacted to.
You developped your point, and clearly you’ve experienced sex without cumming, enjoyed it, and can see the point of it.
You expressed a fully formed, personal opinion. They didn’t. (My problem was more about saying there’s no point in sex without cumming in general)
Please teach us bad males to understand sex without cumming please, oh you, great feminist !
Oh my god I’m not a “great feminist”, i’m just gay.
“What is the root of that confusion-inducing performance?”
Let’s say you go to a party. The person you brought is having an amazingly good time but is about out of steam. You’re having an okay time, but kinda wish it was over. Maybe you strain yourself laughing a little too hard at that one joke so you can say, “maybe it’s a perfect time to call it a night.”
OP for this Q. IMO it’s a lot easier to say “thank you so much, great party, but I just can’t drink anymore, I’ve had enough.” When women fake orgasms, it does nothing but placate and confuse an already-confused gender. xoxo.
I think it has a lot to do with poor communication dynamics within the relationship. If one partner isn’t comfortable saying that they would rather stop, either because they aren’t comfortable saying it or because they don’t think that their partner will be receptive to hearing it, you can see how faking it might become a solution. I agree that it’s not an ideal solution, but it is an understandable one.
If it’s a persistent problem in your own relationships, evaluate the sorts of conversations you and your partners have – about sex, during sex, after sex, having nothing to do with sex. Do you both feel heard and validated? Do you both feel like your feelings and desires and needs are being respected? Do you both feel comfortable establishing boundaries, and are you both confident that your boundaries will be respected? Establishing clear, open communication with your partners helps ensure that everyone involved can be honest about how they’re feeling and what they want, without fear of anger or judgement.
“NO, godamnit! We are going back into that party and we’re not leaving until I think you’ve had enough fun! At least as much fun as I have, if not, MORE! And not only that, but you will tell me exactly how much fun you are having at all times!”
Sorry, I phrased my question in a confusing way. I meant to ask: do I walk away because I shouldn’t put up with a condescending asshole (self-respect), or do I stay because we have a lot of fun together (on the rare occasion we see each other)?
Never put up with it. In a way you are continuously telling yourself who you are in light of your actions or how you handle different situations. Start telling – show – yourself that you’ll never have a condescending asshole around you for a longer period of time than it takes to tell them to fuck off, or for you to leave.
OP, maybe you will find your answer (in the last few lines) here .
You know, being attracted to people only when you know them has a name, it’s demisexuality. I mean, there’s a difference between not wanting to fuck someone before you know them (which is indeed common, and common sense) and physically not finding them attractive unless you know them (as far as I can see, lots of people have no trouble finding someone attractive without even meeting them).
Nah, CQ was right, it’s just being a normal person. No need to spice up your regular habits with fancy names and prefixes, just own the normalcy. Demisexuality… Good lord.
Yeah no that’s definitively not what demisexuality is.
There’s a difference between finding someone attractive (i.e. feeling attraction toward them) and noticing they have good cheekbones.
You’d be surprised how little people can actually go and kiss a hot stranger they’ve just seen.
(demisexuality typically implies a strong bond to be made with the person, not just surface level chit chat)
“You’d be surprised how little people can actually go and kiss a hot stranger they’ve just seen.”
I’m confused, because that’s an action, not a feeling. Just because you find yourself attracted to someone doesn’t mean you’re ready to go and kiss them, right? I know I can be wrong, cause I’ve hardly experienced any of this first-hand, but it seems to me you’re saying roughly the same thing as me.
I was just repeating what I’ve been reading, because it makes sense to me. There’s (from my point of view) recognizing someone as “attractive” which only involves your eyes, then there’s actually being attracted to them, which is more than just the eyes, and then there’s being actually ready to kiss/fuck them, which involves mainly the brain and decision-making.
The way I understood it, it’s possible to do/feel the second without knowing the person, and is apparently the case for lots of people, to the point where “demisexuality” was coined to describe people for whom it’s not the case. To clarify, I don’t identify as it myself, it’s just something I see going around from time to time.
“The root of that confusion-inducing performance is the fundamental fragility of the male ego, which is really the thing that hurts us all in the end.”
At first I got pretty defensive with this damn answer. Kinda “why is it all the guys’ fault? Why did she get all passive agressive with the answer?”
Then I re-read the answer and it’s not passive agressive at all. It’s a pretty valid answer. It actually makes sense.
Then I looked at my knee-jerk reaction. The male ego is a fragile thing indeed.
I like this comment. This is a good comment.
I think the remark is most cutting when we’re talking about an excellent actress.