Sorry Kermit!

:-)

teach, I do rather pity your joylessness so completely failing to relate in the face of what seems like perfectly heady sexual aggression. Maybe it is you who lacks romance. But to rephrase: Are men outgoing and emotionally accessible truly so difficult to locate? Or is it that they must also be chaste and dignified as well?

And no, I have quite failed to make the connections such whereof I speak. Thank you for asking! And indeed, no Empirical evidence thereof readily springs to mind. But you do not say which passage on FoolQuest.com you alude to when you ask me that. In any case, there is all manner of precedent beyond the scope my own meager personal experience, that I have drawn upon in my studies of the problem. For surely, in confronting loneliness and isolation beyond simple solitude or shyness, review our values of that which nourishes the personality versus all mere empty aggravation at best, all is paramount.

I guess if romance is supposed to include sexual aggression, then yes, I am the one who lacks romance. I don't expect the man to be chaste, but am not one to go with the typical divorce attitude of satisfying any sexual urges that may occur. Being divorced doesn't give permission to throw out any previous values one might have had, at least that's my thoughts.

Ah! So you do have a quarrel with natural urges. Why so? Not only unromantic and maladaptive, but ultimately downright Nihilistic. Because sexual urges are, tautologically, a value. So there's your permission.

You are frustrated will men making advances or else you are frustrated with men advancing no further with you. Either way, perhaps it is actually you who fails to respond to the signals.

I'm turned off by men who don't carry the same values I do of keeping sexual "application" in the bounds of marriage. Sexual urges are fine, acting on them without marriage, not for me, nor a value I want to encourage in my own child. If it's considered to be maladaptive, so be it. A man can be romantic and courtly without blatant sexual passes.

So, yes, I'm frustrated when men make sexual advances as the foremost issue in a relationship. There are so many more important focuses in a relationship, and the sex should just be the bonus, not the glue holding the relationship.

As for your website passage question:Rather, loneliness is only ever truly resolved by someone else who relates and responds so as to move you, uniquely, with challenge and variety, compatibly and reciprocally, ever the better to know one another. And since emotion finding outlet thus becomes motivation, meaningful common goals or inquiries actively pursued may greatly facilitate the aforesaid resolution of loneliness. Indeed, in substantive co-operative endeavor may the flame of just such affection be most readily be fanned and nurtured. And loneliness is but the starvation thereof.

Sorry, didn't mean to send that yet. I did mean to apologize for copying and pasting from your site, but wanted to let you know which passage. You're quite impressive in your ability to write as you do.

You destroyed your life and happiness all in the name of marriage. And now you have simply found another way to mutilate every hope of fulfillment, likewise before the alter of that Moloch named marriage. That cannot be a value. If there is, indeed, an underlying value proposition, then it goes unstated by you. Care to rectify?

And don't be silly. You need not apologize for excerpting my website. Anyhow, surely you are within fair use.

Indeed, the answer to your previous question becomes that I have indeed ever experienced deep connection to others. Alas, nevertheless, there was no end of neurotic cross-purpose rather than healthy close collaboration such whereof I might better wish for in a functional web of support.

Bit harsh. No, I've not destroyed my life and happiness because I hold to the Christian value of what should remain in a marriage and what should not. Fortunately, my life isn't a negative result of the horrible marriage I endured.

It doesn't surprise me that you haven't experienced that deep connection, hard to find that with constant human nature falling into play.

No, I said that I have, indeed, experienced deep connection, as is only natural, not at all despite human nature. You have read in your own unhappy prejudice. Rather, it is flawed nurture that frustrates natural intimacy. Again, care to articulate your Christian value proposition? Sex so roundly demonized, has never really been the culprit, but fear of intimacy.

If you feel that I interpreted your comment: "that I have indeed ever experienced" due to prejudice, that's unfortunate. I read it confused by the word "ever", as it didn't seem to fit, and assumed it was a typo for "never". If you feel that's a prejudice, so be it.

I see no reason to articulate the "sex before marriage" idea, when you can readily read it yourself, as I know from your website you've got experience in researching through the bible.

Kermit, I'm sorry that this thread has drifted from your initial beginning.