Hey, matt_mcl, can I have a minute?

matt, you seem like a decent guy. I generally look forward to reading your posts. They are often insightful, witty, and interesting.

I admire your contributions to this board. It is thanks in large part to you and a number of other Dopers that I have become more interested in issues within the GLBT community here and in my hometown. I know you don’t realize that you have made an impact on me, because I don’t post much, but you deserve to know. Basically, I think you’re a class act.

Maybe you can understand, then, why I find your behavior in this thread to be disappointing. I didn’t expect that the fist time I ever had a direct interaction with you, it would be in the form of an apparent drive-by attack. I don’t fault you for the offense you took (although I think you misunderstood me), but I was sort of offended that you didn’t seem to think it rated a followup of any sort. I was all ready to try to clarify my statement, and I was looking forward to the opportunity to talk to you – but you never came back.

If some random person had done that, I would have shrugged my shoulders and said, “How rude!” – but I have a high enough opinion of you that I would like it to have some other resolution. Thanks for your time.

boy, I can’t believe it – my first time calling someone out to the pit and it’s matt_mcl…I feel so evil.

Well, if it makes you feel any better, this is probably the most complimentary and polite calling-out that I’ve ever read.

Maybe I can explain it to you. “IMHO, someone who sleeps with a person so quickly without having “feelings” for them probably does not have such high morals as all that” takes the approach that anyone who does have casual sex out of personal desire, not love, is doing something evil and has no morals. I completely understand why matt would take exception to that statement.

That was my take too, iampunha. I sensed that matt was saying “fuck you” for implying that people who have casual sex don’t have high morals, however I don’t think he was daming you completely. It’s just that he took objection to that comment.

but iampunha, that’s because your making the same mistake matt did.
this quote:

sounds to me like the OP is saying that casual sex, when both parties realize that’s all it is, is fine. It’s people that pretend it’s something more in order to get it, and then drop the charade afterwards that have no morals. That was my interpretation anyway.

iampunha and samarm, you seem to be doing the same thing matt did- ignoring the second part of the sentence:

I would have to say I agree with that statement: if you are looking for casual sex let your partner know that is all you are looking for. It is wrong to fuck someone while allowing them to believe it is serious.
Let a dude know if all you want is casual sex.

Yeah I agree grendel, point taken. We can only await Matt’s arrival to see why he made that comment. I’m guessing he is call Matt IRL (?)

Well… there may be some context confusion, and even I am not quite sure of whether Civil Defense is talking about a young gay man’s one night stand or a young girl’s one night stand…or what. For better or worse, fairly or unfairly, there is (usually) a somewhat different context and set of social expectations to two young gay men making a casual sexual hookup vs a young girl/woman and young boy/man doing the same thing.

Matt_mcl’s biting reply was a little out of character for him, but if he thought you were impugning some aspect of his lifestyle and he feels that the option to have casual, no-obligations sexual interactions without recriminations or moral judgements is an integral part of it, then that’s probably why he snapped at you.

Yumanite’s advice (if to a young woman) worrying about her moral corruption for seducing a young man with puportedly high morals, and counseling her it takes two to tango was (IMO) quite practical.

Thank you, Grendel and 5-HT. That is indeed what I meant, although I agree it was not as clear as it could have been. As I said before, I don’t begrudge him the reaction so much as the drive-by nature of it.


Knowing Matt, he probably had just had a bad day, and one or two phrases popped out at him, and he hurriedly shot off a response. Also knowing him, he’ll be around shortly to own up and set things rights. There is no one here that I admire more than him.

Also, me too on the compliments for your OP.

I don’t think it’s inherently necessary to tell someone specifically “I don’t love you, I just want to get laid”. Sex means different things to people. If you know they don’t care either way, then what’s the harm? Saying “So, wanna fuck?” to someone you’ve just met doesn’t exactly convey to me an “I love you, I want to spend the rest of my life with you” if you’ve just met them or you’re good friends or otherwise not in a serious relationship with them. I would think, in fact, that it would be quite obvious that someone who says “So, wanna fuck?” to someone with whom he is just good friends wouldn’t exactly be looking for love.

For what it’s worth, Yumanite, I agreed with your statement in the other thread. If someone says they don’t do one-night stands and then they do a one-night stand, I would say their actions speak louder than their words. I don’t think there’s any judgement on their morals by saying that, other than that they should maybe get more in touch with what their morals actually are.

With regard to this thread, don’t worry too much about the occasional drive-by. Even old, experienced posters sometimes forget there’s a human being at the keyboard on the other end. Keep your stick on the ice. We’re all pulling for you.

I agree with you to a certain extent, iampunha. However, the OP of that thread was an excellent example of how that isn’t always the case. There simply weren’t enough details to really know how they would up in bed – my main point was that she (?) shouldn’t bear the sole responsibility for the fact they had sex, and should look at him as capable of human failings, too.

Darn, I keep simulposting.

Thanks, featherlou.

Certainly. The situation in the original thread wasn’t a quick pickup, though. It was a date.
And while I can see where you are coming from about gender differences making a difference, I know I am not the only gay man who isn’t interested in casual sex and just want to point out that casual sex isn’t specifically a “gay thing.”
No offense intended toward those who are into it, but I don’t like having homosexuality equated with libertinism.

I think I’m confused by something. I’m not quite sure what it is, which makes things all the more interesting.

If that was directed at my post above yours, I’m the one who was confused. I had somehow thought that astro’s post was made by you, and had tied it in with your comments.
Sorry for the confusion.:frowning:

Here’s my guess:

matt took what you said to be: “People who have casual sex do not have strong morals.”

You meant to say: “If this guy had sex with you in the situation you describe, I wouldn’t worry too much about his morals, as they are either not strong or they are not the morals you thought they were.”

What you said, though you obviously didn’t mean it to be, was somewhat in between.

Just a simple misunderstanding, most likely.

I think now I’m even more confused. So here’s what I propose:

We all wait for matt to get here so he can respond.

And then we all take a nice long nap.

Or at least the nap.