• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Relationship Status

What's your relationship status?

  • Single, not seeing anyone

    Votes: 91 37.4%
  • Single, but dating regularly (at least once a month)

    Votes: 8 3.3%
  • In a relationship (open or otherwise)

    Votes: 45 18.5%
  • Engaged

    Votes: 13 5.3%
  • Married

    Votes: 67 27.6%
  • Divorced

    Votes: 9 3.7%
  • Widowed

    Votes: 2 0.8%
  • Asexual so I don't care about this at all

    Votes: 6 2.5%
  • Forbidden from relationships for religious reasons

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Forbidden from relationships because I'm too young

    Votes: 2 0.8%

  • Total voters
    243
I used to think asexuals were a myth, but I guess not.

I regularly have lunch with a unicorn. ;) :p

It's weird, but I realized that not worrying about or dealing with sex or relationships have spared me a boatload of angst and wasted time (time that I can spend on other, more important things, like TrekBBS. Or sleeping. Or watching Two Fat Ladies on YouTube).

What's funny is that I tend to get asked quite a bit for my advice on, or get roped into discussions about, relationships by my friends. :lol:
 
Well, it's just that, like RAMA, I think humans have biological urges. It's one thing not to be in a relationship, and it's another thing not to be attracted to anyone physically, emotionally, etc. I for one can be attracted to both sexes, though I haven't been in a relationship in ages, and am totally content with that.

I guess asexuality is more common than I originally thought.
 
And for me it's not that I dislike talking to strangers. It's that I'm rarely in a situation where strangers seem even remotely appealing. And when I go out with my friends, I like to spend time with my friends. I'm not going out with existing friends in order to meet new people.

It was much easier in college, but now that I'm out in the "real world," I'm just not in situations where I'm exposed to new people that aren't related to my job.

I just don't buy this "no suitable members of the opposite sex within 200 square miles of me" thing I'm getting...

RAMA
 
And for me it's not that I dislike talking to strangers. It's that I'm rarely in a situation where strangers seem even remotely appealing. And when I go out with my friends, I like to spend time with my friends. I'm not going out with existing friends in order to meet new people.

It was much easier in college, but now that I'm out in the "real world," I'm just not in situations where I'm exposed to new people that aren't related to my job.

I just don't buy this "no suitable members of the opposite sex within 200 square miles of me" thing I'm getting...

RAMA

They might be around, but I'm not actively looking for them, and I'm not in situations where I get to meet new people very often. I don't know what you do that exposes you to such an influx of strangers to chat up, but I'm obviously not doing it.

And I feel like you're selectively ignoring a lot of what I'm saying. I've said I've been attracted to plenty of girls, but they've all had issues that have prevented me from pursuing them. Most of them have already been in relationships when I've met them, so I'm not about to start trying to hook up with them. More still are single mothers, and I have no interest in getting involved with a woman who has kids. I'm only 25, and I'm not ready to start raising somebody else's kids.

Attractive, single girls with no children are, sadly, rare around these parts...at least the ones that I am attracted to.
 
Robert--To be fair, if you were trying to make a point that different people have different levels of intimacy that they were comfortable with before having sex, I think it could have been phrased far more effectively to get that point across. When I read it, I found it very startling in much the same way I'm sure MLB did: it looked like a statement that could be taken as interfering with the individual's right to religious practice. I would be quite surprised if that was what you actually meant, but that is how your earlier statement could be taken. I think it could have been explained better from the outset.
Yes, we know you are always the quickest hand in Dodge City to play the persecution card. If somewhere, somehow, something has been said that maybe, perhaps, if you squint really hard, could be allegedly interpreted as vaguely referring in less-than-spectacular terms about your religious beliefs, we are sure you'll be very loud and very clear to self-righteously martyr yourself over it.

Case in point:
I'm not asexual. I'm sure sex is great, but I aim to only have it with my WIFE, not some random stranger. That's my attitude towards all of this.
Why do you make it out to be a black-and-white choice? There is a big spectrum between "wife" and "random stranger." It's not an either/or.
And doesn't he have a right to his beliefs? Don't I have a right to mine? Should we be required to sleep with people before we marry just to satisfy society? That certainly wouldn't be right. People are so quick to assume there is something wrong with people who choose to wait for marriage, these days...I don't think that's right at all. :(
Yeah, that's certainly a well-deserved rant and not jumping the gun at all. I see how Robert Maxwell clearly expressed his disdain for your religion, and stated in no-uncertain terms that you should be required to lay off all your beliefs and be forced to sleep with multiple partners to satisfy society's thirst for debased sexual practices.
 
Robert--To be fair, if you were trying to make a point that different people have different levels of intimacy that they were comfortable with before having sex, I think it could have been phrased far more effectively to get that point across. When I read it, I found it very startling in much the same way I'm sure MLB did: it looked like a statement that could be taken as interfering with the individual's right to religious practice. I would be quite surprised if that was what you actually meant, but that is how your earlier statement could be taken. I think it could have been explained better from the outset.
Yes, we know you are always the quickest hand in Dodge City to play the persecution card. If somewhere, somehow, something has been said that maybe, perhaps, if you squint really hard, could be allegedly interpreted as vaguely referring in less-than-spectacular terms about your religious beliefs, we are sure you'll be very loud and very clear to self-righteously martyr yourself over it.

Case in point:
Why do you make it out to be a black-and-white choice? There is a big spectrum between "wife" and "random stranger." It's not an either/or.
And doesn't he have a right to his beliefs? Don't I have a right to mine? Should we be required to sleep with people before we marry just to satisfy society? That certainly wouldn't be right. People are so quick to assume there is something wrong with people who choose to wait for marriage, these days...I don't think that's right at all. :(
Yeah, that's certainly a well-deserved rant and not jumping the gun at all. I see how Robert Maxwell clearly expressed his disdain for your religion, and stated in no-uncertain terms that you should be required to lay off all your beliefs and be forced to sleep with multiple partners to satisfy society's thirst for debased sexual practices.

And hell, I wasn't even saying MLB should go sleep around, just that he was creating a false dichotomy that was frankly insulting to anyone who thought differently. I'm offended by the notion that sleeping with someone you aren't married to is tantamount to fucking a "random stranger." If anyone should be pissed, it's me. But I addressed it very calmly and directly.

My opinion on the matter also happens to reflect reality. MLB and Nerys don't have to like it but they cannot credibly deny that it's the truth.
 
Married.. Sometimes happily, other times not.. Pretty typical for something that's lasted 15 years..
 
Relationship, six years. Fucking random strangers sounds like fun too, but you go with the devil you know.
 
And for me it's not that I dislike talking to strangers. It's that I'm rarely in a situation where strangers seem even remotely appealing. And when I go out with my friends, I like to spend time with my friends. I'm not going out with existing friends in order to meet new people.

It was much easier in college, but now that I'm out in the "real world," I'm just not in situations where I'm exposed to new people that aren't related to my job.

I just don't buy this "no suitable members of the opposite sex within 200 square miles of me" thing I'm getting...

RAMA

My belief is that if a person wants to be in a relationship, he or she will be, no matter what. It's more a matter of choice than circumstance.
 
And for me it's not that I dislike talking to strangers. It's that I'm rarely in a situation where strangers seem even remotely appealing. And when I go out with my friends, I like to spend time with my friends. I'm not going out with existing friends in order to meet new people.

It was much easier in college, but now that I'm out in the "real world," I'm just not in situations where I'm exposed to new people that aren't related to my job.

I just don't buy this "no suitable members of the opposite sex within 200 square miles of me" thing I'm getting...

RAMA

My belief is that if a person wants to be in a relationship, he or she will be, no matter what. It's more a matter of choice than circumstance.

Then you've been unbelievably lucky in love. Because it's really the other way around.
 
I just don't buy this "no suitable members of the opposite sex within 200 square miles of me" thing I'm getting...

RAMA

My belief is that if a person wants to be in a relationship, he or she will be, no matter what. It's more a matter of choice than circumstance.

Then you've been unbelievably lucky in love. Because it's really the other way around.

On the contrary, I can't say I've been lucky. I've come to the realization that all these years that I haven't sought anyone, it's because I'm perfectly content not being in a relationship. But that's not to say I'm not attracted to people. Please note that I did say "more a matter of choice." Sure, there's a percentage of the population who aren't in a relationship because of the lack of prospects, but unless you're living alone in Antarctica, I don't see how or why a person "can't find someone" they want to pursue a relationship with.
 
And for me it's not that I dislike talking to strangers. It's that I'm rarely in a situation where strangers seem even remotely appealing. And when I go out with my friends, I like to spend time with my friends. I'm not going out with existing friends in order to meet new people.

It was much easier in college, but now that I'm out in the "real world," I'm just not in situations where I'm exposed to new people that aren't related to my job.

I just don't buy this "no suitable members of the opposite sex within 200 square miles of me" thing I'm getting...

RAMA

They might be around, but I'm not actively looking for them, and I'm not in situations where I get to meet new people very often. I don't know what you do that exposes you to such an influx of strangers to chat up, but I'm obviously not doing it.

And I feel like you're selectively ignoring a lot of what I'm saying. I've said I've been attracted to plenty of girls, but they've all had issues that have prevented me from pursuing them. Most of them have already been in relationships when I've met them, so I'm not about to start trying to hook up with them. More still are single mothers, and I have no interest in getting involved with a woman who has kids. I'm only 25, and I'm not ready to start raising somebody else's kids.

Attractive, single girls with no children are, sadly, rare around these parts...at least the ones that I am attracted to.


I think its about attitude..because everyone who thinks what you do here basically is saying the same thing. When you have that mental outlook you're really not going to find much. I live in one of the least populated areas of NJ, and I could find 25 girls in about a day that I'd want to date, and maybe out of that number 1 or 2 would be relationship material. You get out of it what you put into it.

I just don't buy this "no suitable members of the opposite sex within 200 square miles of me" thing I'm getting...

::surveys the menz of this city::

Yup. All of them are basically dickwads.

I rest my case...

RAMA
 
I am going to have sex with my wife in a shower tonight. Then I will snuggle up next to her all night in bed, because I love her more than anything.
 
My belief is that if a person wants to be in a relationship, he or she will be, no matter what. It's more a matter of choice than circumstance.

Then you've been unbelievably lucky in love. Because it's really the other way around.

On the contrary, I can't say I've been lucky. I've come to the realization that all these years that I haven't sought anyone, it's because I'm perfectly content not being in a relationship. But that's not to say I'm not attracted to people. Please note that I did say "more a matter of choice." Sure, there's a percentage of the population who aren't in a relationship because of the lack of prospects, but unless you're living alone in Antarctica, I don't see how or why a person "can't find someone" they want to pursue a relationship with.

Fair enough. But, pursuing a relationship is not the same thing as achieving one. I spent enough years of my life alone to have learned the difference. Far more than I would have liked, in fact. Just pursuing one doesn't mean you will automatically find one. Liking somebody doesn't mean shit if they don't like you back.
 
RAMA said:
I live in one of the least populated areas of NJ

This isn't exactly like saying you live in one of the least populated areas of, say, Algeria, you understand... ;)
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top