Harumph. Kids these days.
“Stylings” for underwear? Where do you get them? Prince Albert’s Secrets?
Harumph.
I’m gonna play Devil’s advocate here.
Why, why why, Tramp, if you were so all-fired pissed off that you were going to dump the guy, why did you let him in and into your bed in the first place?
The fact that you tried to maintain a relationship with such an insensitive clod only begs the question, “Did he become an insensitive clod this weekend?” Probably not. Insensitive Clods usually develop maximal cloditudeness through the protracted cooperation of their long-suffering victims.
I may be way off base with your particular situation, Tramp, but over the years I’ve allowed my shoulder to be used as a crying towel by too many female friends who were involved with insensitive clods. I quit allowing the shoulder to be used that way when the same women kept crying about the same type of guy… and often the very same guy, over and over.
The “We’ll see how it goes” isn’t exactly a hopeful sign, IMO.
Long story short: Proof’s in the pudding, Tramp. Don’t tell us about how you dumped him. Tell us in three months how he stayed dumped. Even better, how you’re going out with a different guy who truly respects you.
He should stay dumped! Obviously he is more self oriented than considerate towards your needs and feelings and that is not good. It would be too much effort and frustration to change him and such feelings for others have to come from the heart, not be on a to-do list. He is a lout and will remain a lout. If you keep him, it will only be a matter of time before he is sitting about the house in an undershirt, demanding you get him beers as he watches sports on TV with his buddies.
Harumph. Kids these days, with their sleek underwear. Why, when I was a lad, I had to make do with a paper grocery bag with holes punched in it for my legs!
Uphill, both ways!
Oh please- the “we have balls so we can’t help being jerks” argument? Come on. Anyone can treat another human being with basic respect. It’s not that hard, nuts or not.
Zette
You had legs? We had to walk on our hands, without opposable thumbs for added balance.
You had bodies? We were just disembodied spirits, floating around getting nowhere, tossed about by the vagaries of the capricious wind.
You had spirits? Lucky bastard! What we woulda given for a spirit to be blown about by the wind.
We were non-entities, unable to sense the universe or interact with it in any way. And if we complained, our father would punish us by taking away our nothingness.
Well… I can almost see his side of the story - when you are back in town, one drink with the lads can more than easily turn into a loooooong night of booze. But it’s a bit odd to drive to see your girlfriend, then decide to nip off to see the lads first without mentioning it. If he’d said “I’m going for a quick beer first” then fallen through your door at some ungodly hour, I could understand. It would still be jerkish, but it happens - bars with mates in them are dangerous places, and do not obey the normal rules of time. You gotta take you medicine like a man, though.
So, I was kind of undecided about whether the guy falls into the “dumb fool” or the “asshole” category, with the option tending towards “asshole” 'cos of the unannounced departure to the bar.
But then this sentence was the crucial one:
Well, that kind of sums things up a treat.
Ten bucks says she takes him back.
I’ll see your ten and raise you another ten that I don’t. I’m not that kind of girl.
I have to disagree – this is not something that I can “understand.” This was a long-distance relationship – he’s supposed to be glad to be coming to see HER, not a beer. I can’t imagine Mr. S coming home after not seeing me for several days or weeks and saying, “Oh, I’m going off for a beer first.” The correct response is “LET’S go out for a beer/a walk/a movie/whatever.”
This guy obviously considered tramp a prop, an accessory, something to be taken for granted. Mature people don’t treat their lovers/partners that way.
tramp, I’m glad to see your response. Go find Mr. Right! And leave Mr. Wrong by the side of the road, where he belongs.
But you’ve already left the door open for him to wiggle in.
No kidding, spooje. The OP was great. The open-ended denoument left much to be desired. That guy’s not even a decent friend, much less whatever else tramp may have once thought he was.
You had nothingness? We were stuck with existence, and just hoping for essence. Which would have been ok, if it hadn’t have been for that ugly, walleyed, fat French kid.
Re: the OP–Good for you. Tramp. Someone who is working didligently to get ahead and create a better life for herself doesn’t need some lazy drone living off her. You go, girl!
Re: the hijack–My only objection to Scott Evil’s AIDS post was that Tramp was not a participant in the relevant threads, and so should not have been dragged into the debate. If this had been a participant’s thread, then SE would have been making an excellent point.
He may also be glad to be coming back to see old friends in the town. Sometimes a night out with the lads is a night out with the lads, i.e. guys only - like a girls’ night out, but with less shrieking.
So, I could understand if he was going to see some old mates whilst visiting his girlfriend (but still only if it had been pre-arranged) - but this shows an odd sense of priorities, if you ask me, and that in itself should tell tramp something.
Keep in mind, sirjamesp, that we’re dealing with American-sized distamces here.
He left his car in Philadelphia, and had to backtrack from Atlantic City to get it. That’s more than an hour away.
Then he had to drive to the DC area, which is better than three hours. These distances in Germany or Britain would be the other end of the country.
He was not seeing old mates while in town. He was seeing them in another state. This is a very big deal indeed.
Re: the hijack
So, I’m trying to figure this out. Somebody said something rude and unkind to Scott in another thread.
So, he goes and does the exact same thing to somebody else that he found so offensive when it happened to him.
This is supposed to be teaching me what lesson.
Two axioms:
Two wrongs don’t make a right.
Don’t carry your garbage with you.
IMO, that SE’s hijack was so rude and inappropriate is an opportunity for the straight posters to fume and feel put-upon, which is exactly how we gay men feel. Think of it as walking in our shoes, if only for a bit.
My objection is that Tramp was not a party to the previous discussion, and so the hijack shouldn’t have happened in this thread, but for other people…