Duh. Everyone knows the height of romance is having a dude buy you shit, then make you feel guilty for not sleeping with him because he bought you that shit, and then attempting to have sex with you anyway because he knows that when you say "no," you must actually mean "yes," given that he's such a nice romantic guy.

Any male IWF members out there? I'm single...

SO - I guess it was really romantic when a bf in college pulled me out the open window of my car & tossed me around the yard, because I was trying to, you know, LEAVE. I always thought that experience helped foment my feminism, but thankee IWF - now I get it - I don't understand ROMANCE!

If you ask me, feminists are the most romantic women around—because we rely on our own judgment and choices to define what’s romantic

No, we like the sensitive, brawny man.

(Your Hair, It's Perfect is the funniest one)

I really love how they believe that women talking openly about their sexuality and their personal experience with rape is anti-romance. Jessica, if you ever do find out what they consider "romance" then please inform us, though it might be too painful to read. I love the dichatomy (sp?) they create because I'm pretty sure that they're idea of "romance" goes hand in hand with the abstinence movement teaching young women that their only value is in their intact hymens so that women shouldn't be having teh casual sex on dates with teh mens.

But on the other hand you've got teh mens believing that the womens don't really mean "no" and they've got to *fight* for *it* cause she's been taught to not give it up freely, least she be a whore.

Man o man, gimmie some of that right there!

Am I the only supremely bothered by the CLEAR implication from the Carrie person that it's okay for men, but not women, to have casual sex? By saying there's something wrong with freeing women to have sex "as casually as men" she's basically saying it's okay for men but not women. First off, this is illogical. Unless IWF is going to retract its almost-certainly backwards homophobic views, this begs the question whom these men will go around having casual sex WITH. Second, it's one in a line of baseless assumptions she doesn't even bother trying to back up. Like where she simply asserts that boquets are not demeaning, after she goes through all this language about how men should buy things for women. Um... this isn't demeaning because...? And she talks about "seduction," as though romance is something that just HAPPENS in a vaccuum. I'm all for seduction, as long as it's equal opportunity. But something tells me Ms. Lukas is probably, like, totally ICKED OUT at the thought of a woman courting a man. I mean, talk about unromantic! A woman going for what she wants? Hello, we're all supposed to be pretty wallflowers who just sit here HOPING the man of our dreams will go after us, and not after the girl who put out within a month!

What I find a bit funny is her tone of indignant outrage that only half of campus women have ever been asked out on dates more than 6 times, with a third only ever going out on two or less. She seems to see dating as something you do that never leads anywhere, just take the flowers and free dinners then move on to the next 'dateable' guy. (Ohmagawsh, sounds like that nasty hooking up thing!) Now, from what I can see, at least 83.33% of women have been on dates in total from her figures, and she seems to be unaware of the fact that, y'know, some women continue things after the date and stay with the guy, at which point 'dating' is a bit pointless. She also seems to skirt around the fact that, y'know, maybe people (male and female) are a bit too shy to ask for dates when (and assuming that) that's what they want, or perhaps being brought up in a culture where Sex and the City is an ideal has made some people see dating as lame, or maybe the objectification of women has led more men to see us as a quick shag and not people to spend time with. But never mind that, it's the feminists' fault!

Organizations like IWF claiming that discussion of sex and the female body (and VM specifically) destroys romance always makes me think of a male friend who credited Vagina Monologues with some of the best advice he'd ever gotten on going down on a woman(I think it was the story about the importance of delayed gratification or something) But I guess the IWF's definition of romance doesn't involve a guy wanting to pleasure his female partner.

Poor IWF folk. They actually begin with some good observations on the dehumanization and commodification of women, but then somehow conclude that this is primarily the result of the sexual revolution and, further, that the sexual revolution = feminism (speaking of bizarro myths, how did feminism come to be equated with mindless, indiscriminate and uncritical humping?).

But the idea that the dating scene was all flowers and marriage proposals before those dreadful feminists stopped shaving their legs and started banging anything that moves is, of course, nonsense. Holden Caulfield's roommate was a serial rapist, even though he took his victims out on "dates" beforehand. And the IWF readers' are poorly served if they're being told that men interested in "romance" somehow can't be rapists (or creepy-assed stalkers). What we need is not a bunch of hoakum-drenched peans to a mythical golden age of patriarchal romance, but more education about "date" rape and more and better self-defense classes (e.g., "How to shiv a mother fucker with a hairpin").

Hi everyone. I've been lurking for a few months, but this is my first comment.

My response is less about Jessica's impetus for the post, and the general annoyingness of the portrayal of feminists as anti-romantic. Yes, the linkage of anti-violence with anti-romance raises a whole host of issues.

That being said, I do perceive that there are some unintended results (I am tempted to use the more pejorative "repercussions" but don't wish to raise too much ire) to women's sexual liberation, to our having been (sort of) given permission both to have and enjoy sex.

I didn't date much when I was younger (a late bloomer who was extraordinarily picky), and got married at 26. I've been single and actively attempting to date for the past year or so. It's been quite interesting. In my experience, dating has in fact become an anachronism. Forget outdated notions of "chivalry" and "courtship;" I don't mourn the loss of those, but we seem to have thrown the baby out with the bathwater. In my experience, women’s sexual liberation, and therefore availability, has rendered romantic relationships not obsolete, but, well, that much harder to find. I have met countless men who are happy to be my “friend with benefits� or (my personal favorite) to “just hang out� (what the hell does that mean?), but almost no one who wants to “date� me. I mean, why plan an outing or activity when you can show up at her place, open a bottle of wine, and jump in bed? When I propose a dating activity, men look at me as if I’m crazy, or am getting “too serious.�

I also find it very interesting that Jessica raises stalking in response to this issue. To take nothing away from the ickiness and scariness of her experience (I don’t wish that on anyone), I have found, in my short time back in the dating world, that men (women, too, but especially men) have an amazingly low stalker threshold, and are quick to label things like phone calls “stalker� behavior. Apparently being interested in a man and wanting to let him know this is unacceptable. One too many phone calls, and the next thing you know you're a stalker.

Have we become so alienated from ourselves and others that we no longer even know how to relate to people, other than in the most superficial, corporatized, and highly sexualized fashion? Can we no longer recognize when people are trying to relate to us? Have Americans become so obsessed with “image� that the slightest hint of enthusiasm or genuine emotion is seen as not only uncool, but even unstable?

Have we become so alienated from ourselves and others that we no longer even know how to relate to people, other than in the most superficial, corporatized, and highly sexualized fashion? Can we no longer recognize when people are trying to relate to us? Have Americans become so obsessed with “image� that the slightest hint of enthusiasm or genuine emotion is seen as not only uncool, but even unstable?

This is due to advanced capitalism and the hyper-commodification and regulation of women's bodies not feminism.

Sasa, you're right. People (especially men) do toss around the word "stalker" too easily. I remember when my ex didn't want anyone to know he was still dating me, so he tried to tell his friends that I was stalking him and couldn't get over the non-existant break-up.

That said, I think I know what the problem is with the sudden "lack of dating" that Lukas is clutching at her pearls over.

I'm in the right age group, and I just find the word "dating" rather stupid. I've been on very few outings that were actually labelled dates, and I found them far more rigid and less fun than "just hanging out."

In my experience, dates are something that happen with someone I didn't really know, and it turned out wasn't all that interested in. They are pre-planned, and involve dressing up, and being picked up and dropped off, or meeting at a predetermined location.

I've been with my boyfriend for almost a year and a half, and I wouldn't label anything we've done together as an actual date. We were friends who started talking more and more, and hanging out. We do more formal stuff sometimes, but those don't feel like "dates" to me either. It's just nice dinner with my boyfriend.

If I call him and say, "I'm hungry," and then we go out for sushi, is that really a date? To me, it's just spending time with my boyfriend. It wasn't really pre-planned, and no one said, "Oh, let's go out on a date tonight."

So I've probably been on less than "actual dates," but phrasing it that way is rather misleading. It's just the term that sounds antiquated to me, and it doesn't appropriately describe what's going in my life anyway.

And I'm hardly lacking in romance. My boyfriend is constantly doing things that he thinks will amuse me or make me happy, and I do the same for him. I'm sorry if IWF doesn't find stickers and books about grammar and science romantic, but it's our relationship, and we'll label it the way we want and do what makes us happy.

Hi Sasa, welcome to the board! (That is, if I may presume to welcome you -- at least on behalf of myself, then :) )

I absolutely understand and empathize with your consternation. But I think it's important to bear in mind that this is not a RESULT of the feminist movement, but rather an unfortunate (but hopefully not permanent) FAILURE of it. That is to say, feminism stands for the self-actualization of women, specifically, and of all people broadly. Feminists want women to have the right and ability to CHOOSE whether they have a casual sexual relationship, or a deeper, committed one. The simple answer to this problem is, if you don't like what one man is willing to offer you, then don't settle for it. Demand more and if he's unwilling or unable to offer it, then move on.

Now, obviously this is not so easy to do in practice, and really not the most satisfying response. It would be so much easier if we could just CONVINCE men to change. But we can't talk them into it. There are some men who are incredibly smart, who understand that men and women both deserve the respect of being in a loving and committed relationship rather than just a sexual fling (although, if that's legitimately what both parties want, that's fine too, as long as everyone involved is open and upfront about sexual history and is vigilant to protect others from STDs, etc.). Unfortunately, this is a smaller group than we'd probably like.

I have days where I really wish I was in a relationship. But the bottom line is that I've had a string of "relationships" that haven't satisfied me. And I find that in the end, being in these "relationships" only make me bitter and unhappy. I owe it to myself not to be that person. Therefore, I have to re-commit myself to not settling for less than I deserve. I deserve a man who respects me and is compatible with me. Sometimes that means just a bottle of wine and sex, sometimes that means we go out on the town (either of us might pay on any given occasion), sometimes that means we stay in, watch a movie, and cuddle. Importantly, what it does mean is give and take from BOTH parties. Romantic gestures cannot come only from men. That's boring and presumptuous and leads to behavior that many women find stalker-ish. If I have a fabulous restaurant I've just discovered, it ought to be OKAY for me to take my boyfriend there for dinner. He shouldn't be the one always deciding what we do (and always paying). And, indeed, a lot of men report that they enjoy having the pressure taken off of them to always come up with something to do.

It's a shame that so many men are content to be one-dimensional in their "relationships." But men can hardly bear all of the blame for this behavior when we're the ones who ALLOW it. How are men going to respect us if we don't even respect ourselves enough to stand up and ask for what we want out of a relationship? If you don't want to be a fuckbuddy, then don't be a fuckbuddy. That's really about all any of us can do. Hopefully once enough of us start demanding that OUR desires be taken seriously, then romance can be TRULY romantic: instead of an expression of a man's feelings for a woman, it can be a mutual expression from both parties of affection, respect, and whatever combination of love and lust suits the individuals involved.

I'm in the right age group, and I just find the word "dating" rather stupid. I've been on very few outings that were actually labelled dates, and I found them far more rigid and less fun than "just hanging out."

Which makes me think of all the hanging out I did in my life which guys may have construed as "dates." People may think I dated them.

Which makes me think of all the hanging out I did in my life which guys may have construed as "dates." People may think I dated them.

donna, you're totally right on there. I've been horrified on more than one occasion to find out that a male friend thought we were on a "date" when I thought we were just hanging out. Yet another failure of communication -- and, again, one I blame not on feminism but on people's fear of rejection and inability to just come out and say what they want.

Donna D,

Now I'm confused. Are our bodies liberated or regulated?

Law Fairy,

Maybe I just need to be clearer about terminology. I guess I simply mean there is a reluctance to engage in a relationship on multiple levels (which you allude to). Going out for sushi is great, the men I'm talking about don't even want to leave the house. The whole encounter is built around the sexual act (these are not men I keep around for long, BTW). To go out for dinner is "too much like dating." Where dating is code for a relationship, I guess. This whole "friends with benefits" phenomenon is, I think, often an excuse on teh part of one or the other, not to have to be responsible for one's actions. Not merely questions of exclusivity, but matters of simple common courtesy. No need to return phone calls, answer direct questions, etc. One has no obligations, because "we're not dating."

Funny story: Guy approached me through Meetup.com, we planned to meet for a drink after some minor online flirtation. At one point he tells me he is "reall into cultivating friendships right now." Because I've learned a thing or two, I ask him whether these "friendships" involve sex. His response: "Of course!"

TLF, donna, you're both right, of course. I just used the "hanging out" label because I wasn't sure what else to call it. My general point was that maybe women aren't going out on dates because they're not calling them dates anymore. Maybe the term "dating" feels too rigid and formal nowadays.

I mean, we've had discussions about how it can be silly to label sexual orientation sometimes, so why not this as well? That would just mean that some of the terminology has changed, which is far less sensational.

Sasa, that sounds rather crappy and boring. It also doesn't sound like you're actually "friends with benefits." That involves being actual friends, doesn't it?

Sasa,

Both.

Hanging out and dating both have merits. Young peoples' habits start inhabiting older people and the older people miss old fashioned dating.

Sasa, I agree that it's frustrating and aggravating. Trust me, I've been involved with my share of men who had such immature views about relationships. Another fun one I heard a lot in law school: "I don't want to date another law student." After we'd slept together, of course.

Eventually I realized that the answer was to 1) not sleep together right away unless I'm legitimately and genuinely happy with this being all we do (which is not anti-feminist; it's simply a realization that, for ME, I want more than just sex) and 2) not give assholes the time of day.

Yeah, I go out on "dates" a lot less. But I have my self-respect, and that's more important to me than a regular booty-call, even if it means I give up on the (illusory, btw) prospect of a "relationship" with one of these wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am type of guys.

Obviously modern society is not in an ideal situation. And this is unfortunate. But all that any of us can do is demand love on our own terms, and NOT ACCEPT any less. The more of us stand our ground, the faster we'll see things change.

It isn't easy, but it's worth it.

I'll give you an example to make things a little more concrete. Last year I went to a club with my cousin. It was some sort of costume party and I wore a fun, somewhat sexy costume (because I felt like it and I damn well do what I feel like). A guy got to flirting with me and I actually liked him pretty well, thought he was cute, etc., and he even had a pretty good sense of humor AND humility (which said to me -- intelligence, in spite of being a pretty actor/surfer bum-type guy). So I gave him my number. He called precisely one week later (a Friday) at about 10:30 p.m. I didn't answer and I never returned his call, because it was obvious what he was looking for, and while it was a bummer that this cute, fun guy wasn't interested in a relationship, I was not going to settle for something less than I wanted and deserved, simply so I could get one cute, fun guy out of hundreds of thousands of them.

On the other side of the spectrum -- I met a guy at my gym who also seemed very cute and fun. He was foreign (which gave him a yummy accent), in amazingly good shape, and seemed fun and friendly so, again, I gave him my number. We went on a single date on which he went on and on and on and ON about how he wasn't "like other guys" and he was "very romantic" and liked cuddling as much as sex, etc., etc. Which is all well and good, except that in my mind that's the sort of thing you SHOW someone rather than telling her. We made out for a little bit and I excused myself to go home, and he was very pushy about me staying. Not, fortunately, in a frightening way -- but very naggy and needy. In my mind I tried to cut him some slack because he was foreign. But when I went away the next weekend and he called me as soon as I got back and said he "missed" me and was "jealous" of the fact that I'd been hanging out with my male friends during my trip. Bear in mind we'd been on ONE date. I was too skeezed out to be remotely interested in him. He called me virtually every day for a week. I didn't answer or return his calls and then he started blocking his number when he called. Fortunately he never got to the level of being a stalker, but for a few weeks there I was really scared/nervous.

Some women might have found this "romantic." I found it annoying, immature, and frightening. So I guess I'm just saying, even dating guys who believe in traditional "dating" or "romance" doesn't fix the problem.

I think they're conflating "romance" with "elaborate courtship ritual," and thinking that if it weren't for the sexual revolution they'd get to go to all those fancy parties they read about in Pride and Prejudice.

I mean, why plan an outing or activity when you can show up at her place, open a bottle of wine, and jump in bed?

Because it's enjoyable? That's really what it comes down to. If you're out doing something with a sexual partner just so you don't feel shame at jumping their bones later, you're only wasting your time and theirs.

Wow, seems I've come off as an old prude, which is friggin' hilarous. I'll be 35 soon, and proud of it. Jeff--Love a bottle of wine and a shag. Just partook this weekend, in fact. I was referring to a common class of men (my sample ranges from 24 to 40 year-olds) who feel that taking the relationship out of the bedroom and out into public is "too serious."

Sasa, I don't think you're a prude! :) I think your concerns are absolutely reasonable and I share them (and I know *I'm* not a prude). (And, jeez, 35 is younger than some of my best friends -- all of whom are light-years from being "old").

I guess in my manly/lawyerly style, I saw a problem and felt compelled to propose a solution. Damn me and my unfeminine brain!

"Some women might have found this "romantic." I found it annoying, immature, and frightening. So I guess I'm just saying, even dating guys who believe in traditional "dating" or "romance" doesn't fix the problem."

I'm a traditional guy and I don't see how that would make me more "romantic" than say some new progressive liberal guy who hasn't realized that the definition of romantic is not limited to commercialism.

Sasa, I like hanging out and dating, the latter more, now that I'm older.

some new progressive liberal guy who hasn't realized that the definition of romantic is not limited to commercialism.

Progressive liberal guys are rich?

"Progressive liberal guys are rich?"

Sure, money is intertwined to romance through energy consumption.

knights, I wouldn't call him a progressive liberal if he thinks commercialism is romantic.

Also, commercialism didn't even figure into my story. I'm not sure where you got commercialism from... I never said he bought me flowers and candy. Rather, he was clingy and engaged in an (unwanted) pursuit. My understanding is that this is the sort of thing that passes for "romantic" in, e.g., modern romantic comedies.

Similarly, I think of myself as "spontaneous" in that, for instance, if my friends are taking off to Vegas for the weekend and I'm not stuck with work, I just might hop along for the ride even if I'd planned on a relaxing weekend at home. A lot of guys, however, (particularly in the online dating world) take "spontaneous" to mean "drop everything and fly to Jamaica with me because I've decided it works for MY schedule," and if I'm unwilling to do this, somehow I'M not "spontaneous."

I know that's not strictly on point, I just had to air this particular pet peeve because it randomly occurred to me :)

Jeff: I agree they're confusing romance with an elaborate courtship ritual.

One of my biggest beefs with this is that the idea of romanticism is so prescribed. I mean honestly, some girls might think flowers are romantic, but i think they're a lame fall-back for a guy who can't think of anything to give me that i might actually appreciate. and then i'm stuck pretending to be flattered when i would've preferred a bottle of wine and a multi-orgasmic evening. sigh...

this all goes back to not seeing women as distinct individuals. we don't all want to fuck on the first date, but we don't all want to wait a month. we don't all want the beefy guy with the fast car, big ego and frighteningly huge penis (although i realize fast car and big ego don't normally equal huge penis) anymore than we all want the brainy, sensitive, skinny guy.

having recently attempted dating and realized again how bad i am at it because i don't understand dating protocol in the least, i find myself realizing that all i really want is to not feel like i have to try so hard. that would be awfully romantic if you ask me....

energy consumption?

"and then i'm stuck pretending to be flattered when i would've preferred a bottle of wine and a multi-orgasmic evening."

Or, Colleen, you could try my sister's approach and be pissed at the guy for bringing you flowers. My sister's ex-boyfriend once bought her flowers after she explicitly told him she didn't want flowers (he purchased them on the advice of a friend that "girls love flowers" -- again, bear in mind here she had ALREADY TOLD HIM SHE DIDN'T WANT THEM). She got mad because he didn't listen to her, and he was so upset because he "didn't understand" why she was mad, that he almost cried.

Needless to say, they're no longer together. She prefers men who listen to her and give a shit what she thinks :)

"She prefers men who listen to her and give a shit what she thinks :)"

Ah, wise woman. I have a good example - a bf once gave me diamond earrings for Christmas. Pretty damn "romantic," right? Except that I had been going on all year about how I'd really like a new snowboard. He said he'd love to get me one but couldn't afford it - well, guess which cost more (earring, 'natch). And me, I was a b*tch for not neing THRILLED w/ his romantic gesture...

Sasa - try other avenues. A few years back, I dated *quite formally* through the local weekly personals. Every dang one of the guys was looking to date formally in his search for a wife. I wasn't too keen on the wife thing, but they were all nice guys, and I had a blind phone # to call into that allowed me to pre-screen guys. Most guys who are looking for a "hook-up" are pretty clear, even if it's w/ code like "I'ma great kisser," or "I give great back/foot/body-part rubs."

GOOD LUCK....

um, being, not neing - sorry

Oh and meant to say to Sasa - the phone # means you get to hear what they have to say & they have NO idea how to contact you - saving you infinite hassles from the guy that lives in his mother's basement and now that he's turned 50, thinks he's ready to commit...

Well, enough said. I digress.

Law Fairy -

Sounds like the gym fellow was dreadfully inexperienced with women (and creepy.)

When you want to get rid of a guy, clarity is the key. It's better to be clear and blunt, even if "unladylike" [sic]. Even if his feelings get hurt, if he needs to go, he needs to hear "It's time for you to go" or even "get lost" (assuming more polite language fails once.) This is not easy to say for some people, but odds are whatever makes him a "goner" in your book will make him less than clued in on where you are, so to speak. If he is a gentleman (i.e. an overall decent person), he will thank you later if not then for clarity. If not, getting rid of him is the prime directive.

In general, traditional North American straight men don't "do subtle." Most are traditional. A young man (since this site is by and for young feminists) may be so inexperienced as to interpret "I have to wash my hair" as "I have to wash my hair, let's try another day" rather than what is really meant, which is usually "I am definitely not interested, cease all contact with me whatsoever, immediately."

If the man does not respect the clear non-subtle indication, then he does not respect you and that is his major attitude problem, not a communication styles issue.

Crab, partly agreed. However, I don't think that after a single date I "owe" him any goodbye or explanation whatsoever. The bottom line was I just didn't want to talk to him -- not because I was too "nervous" to tell him I didn't want to see him again, I just *didn't like him* and didn't want to talk to him. And frankly, I absolutely think that's my prerogative. I don't owe clarity to anyone I'm not involved with. Until we've slept together or been together a significant enough time that hurt feelings could be involved, there's absolutely nothing required of either party. Most guys, though no masters of subtlety, get the hint after one or at least two unreturned phone calls. This guy was a little off his rocker... somehow I don't think clarity would have helped in this case (and, who knows, may have even made things worse... at least this way he can concoct a fantasy world in which I couldn't call him back because I came down with brain cancer, and thus he's not going to stalk me trying to change my mind).

Sasa: I think what your problem boils down to is, sometimes people just suck. At least the sexual revolution means people are more likely to be upfront with the suckiness; would you rather have a man go through a charade of a relationship because he felt societally pressured to do so, when really he wasn't emotionally invested at all, and find out after you'd already gotten invested?

(uh, that might have sounded oddly combative. trust me, i am very sympathetic to how much it sucks when people suck, and i hope you find a man worth your time soon :) )

"In general, traditional North American straight men don't "do subtle." Most are traditional. A young man (since this site is by and for young feminists) may be so inexperienced as to interpret "I have to wash my hair" as "I have to wash my hair, let's try another day" rather than what is really meant, which is usually "I am definitely not interested, cease all contact with me whatsoever, immediately."

Why is the young male supposed to translate metaphors or analogies to get the point? The answer should be clear and it would clear out a lot more confusion that might result from "trying" to say no. Alos, young males also get more attached in their early 20's and below. They have not developed in terms of immotional intelligence.

For example; if the girl cheats on a younger male, the reaction is emotional (this could range from complete sadness and depression to full out anger). This reaction to an older male is silly and brings about unecessary consequences. An older male would see cheating as some dust on the shoulder and brush it off very easily.

perhaps all feminism did was make many women realize that traditional ideas of romaces are not only a bit outdated, but fake and forced usually as well. not to mention, very often sexist. i may be totally wrong, but i know MANY men who think i am pretty cool bc i dont want flowers, or empty mushy moments, or lots of jewelry etc etc. Did most men ever like to be romantic in the traditional sense? Or did they just do it bc they thought it was the only way to get into a womans pants, and bc a "real" woman likes all that mushy gushy stuff? to me, alot of what consitutes traditional romance is just something that women are socialized to like, and told they must like, if they want to be considered wife or GF material.

and Law Fairy, I agree with the whole implication that here it is obvious to IWF that it's perfectly acceptable for men to want casual sex but not women.

I think Jessica's idea of why feminists are more romantic is perfect.

Just to put in two cents on my own recent experiences in coming back from dating after divorce (I'm twenty-seven, if that matters).

Some guys want to take you out and show you the town. Some guys want to sit at home and watch movies. Some guys want to do both. Which they want to do can depend on things like energy level, work schedules, spendable income (on the part of both people), and how long it's been since you've seen each other. I call it dating because the term is easy and everyone knows what I mean. You could just as easily call it hanging out. I think both activities are alive and well, and it's all a matter of the personalities involved. The key is to find the personality that fits with yours and go from there.

As a guy who considers himself a feminist, please let me express my view that anyone who stalks you and abuses your privacy and considers it to be "love" or "caring" is completely off their rocker. I have no doubt that if a woman that these men did not feel desirable did the same thing to them, they would also find it creepy and disturbing.. thus their attitudes display an inherent disregard for equality.. and that means they fucking suck.

I strive to treat and judge people not by what genitalia they possess.. but rather by how they treat other humans around themselves.... Why this seems to be so hard, I'll never know...