Comments on: Kyle’s Getting Married http://hitcoffee.net/index.php/file/732 Addled thoughts of a quality assurance dope Fri, 18 May 2012 10:17:18 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5 by: Peter http://hitcoffee.net/index.php/file/732#comment-2066 Tue, 17 Jul 2007 07:32:47 -0500 http://hitcoffee.net/index.php/file/732#comment-2066 The fact that things eventually worked out well does not justify Clint's stealing the date from Kyle. Clint had no way of knowing at the time that Kyle ever would recover from the loss. Moreover, it was an unjustified action even if Clint rationalized it by saying that Kyle was your friend rather than his; you don't steal another man's date, whether you know him or not. The fact that things eventually worked out well does not justify Clint’s stealing the date from Kyle. Clint had no way of knowing at the time that Kyle ever would recover from the loss. Moreover, it was an unjustified action even if Clint rationalized it by saying that Kyle was your friend rather than his; you don’t steal another man’s date, whether you know him or not.

]]> by: trumwill http://hitcoffee.net/index.php/file/732#comment-2067 Tue, 17 Jul 2007 08:06:21 -0500 http://hitcoffee.net/index.php/file/732#comment-2067 I'm mostly of the mind that all is fair in love and war, so long as you're willing to live with the consequences. So in that vein whether you're close to the boyfriend or not is all-important. If it's a guy that you're close to, you're going to lose a good friend and probably most of your mutual friends. If it's someone you're not close to, you have less to lose. The sticking point for me is that I pleaded with him not to move forward, but at the end of the day he knew that I would stick by him regardless and even if I never approved of the relationship. I never did approve, really. Originally because of what it did to Kyle, but it was hard to maintain a grudge when Kyle wasn't. My later disapproval had to do with her somewhat manipulative and ultimately nihilistic personality. Interestingly enough, Clint swooped in on one of my relationships a couple years before. Our friendship barely survived and wouldn't have if she'd actually left me for him. He also had a history before and after that of going after "marked territory", ie girls that I wasn't going out with but had my eye on. "It's not my fault that you keep meeting them first" was his rationale. I've been on the other side, too, royally screwing over my friend Kelvin's relationship with Evangeline. Kelvin was amazingly even more forgiving than Kyle on the whole matter. He had a sort of "I know what it's like to move Heaven and walk through Hell to get her" attitude. I can't imagine that I would be that forgiving, but I understood where he was coming from. On a sidenote, it's interesting how the above makes it sound like the girls were property ("marked territory", "get her", etc). It wasn't like that at all emotionally, but the terminology is interesting nonetheless. On another sidenote, one must bear in mind the old maxim that when a man leaves his wife for a mistress, there's a vacancy for a new mistress. Any woman that is jettisening some other guy to be with you will quite likely do the same to you. Whether any infidelity actually took place or not, Chloe left Clint for someone else and Evangeline never left anyone without someone else on stand-by. I’m mostly of the mind that all is fair in love and war, so long as you’re willing to live with the consequences. So in that vein whether you’re close to the boyfriend or not is all-important. If it’s a guy that you’re close to, you’re going to lose a good friend and probably most of your mutual friends. If it’s someone you’re not close to, you have less to lose. The sticking point for me is that I pleaded with him not to move forward, but at the end of the day he knew that I would stick by him regardless and even if I never approved of the relationship. I never did approve, really. Originally because of what it did to Kyle, but it was hard to maintain a grudge when Kyle wasn’t. My later disapproval had to do with her somewhat manipulative and ultimately nihilistic personality.

Interestingly enough, Clint swooped in on one of my relationships a couple years before. Our friendship barely survived and wouldn’t have if she’d actually left me for him. He also had a history before and after that of going after “marked territory”, ie girls that I wasn’t going out with but had my eye on. “It’s not my fault that you keep meeting them first” was his rationale.

I’ve been on the other side, too, royally screwing over my friend Kelvin’s relationship with Evangeline. Kelvin was amazingly even more forgiving than Kyle on the whole matter. He had a sort of “I know what it’s like to move Heaven and walk through Hell to get her” attitude. I can’t imagine that I would be that forgiving, but I understood where he was coming from.

On a sidenote, it’s interesting how the above makes it sound like the girls were property (”marked territory”, “get her”, etc). It wasn’t like that at all emotionally, but the terminology is interesting nonetheless.

On another sidenote, one must bear in mind the old maxim that when a man leaves his wife for a mistress, there’s a vacancy for a new mistress. Any woman that is jettisening some other guy to be with you will quite likely do the same to you. Whether any infidelity actually took place or not, Chloe left Clint for someone else and Evangeline never left anyone without someone else on stand-by.

]]> by: Spungen http://hitcoffee.net/index.php/file/732#comment-2093 Mon, 23 Jul 2007 00:43:42 -0500 http://hitcoffee.net/index.php/file/732#comment-2093 Froma woman's point of view: 1) We're not rag dolls with no will of our own that can be taken away. 2) It's frustrating when guys think that because they've talked to a girl or had a semi-date with her, that they've branded her or something. It's bad for the girl, and for other guys she might actually be interested in. It's different if he plays dirty, of course. As in, spreading dirt about the guy, or trying to humiliate him in front of the girl, etc. I've konwn people of both sexes who recruit their mates that way -- use a friend as bait, then cut their line and swoop in. Froma woman’s point of view: 1) We’re not rag dolls with no will of our own that can be taken away. 2) It’s frustrating when guys think that because they’ve talked to a girl or had a semi-date with her, that they’ve branded her or something. It’s bad for the girl, and for other guys she might actually be interested in.

It’s different if he plays dirty, of course. As in, spreading dirt about the guy, or trying to humiliate him in front of the girl, etc. I’ve konwn people of both sexes who recruit their mates that way — use a friend as bait, then cut their line and swoop in.

]]> by: Spungen http://hitcoffee.net/index.php/file/732#comment-2094 Mon, 23 Jul 2007 00:48:03 -0500 http://hitcoffee.net/index.php/file/732#comment-2094 I can't stress how awful it is when a group of friends is trying to force you to be with a guy in the group that you don't want to be with. Usually it's at least partly to serve their own ends. I can’t stress how awful it is when a group of friends is trying to force you to be with a guy in the group that you don’t want to be with. Usually it’s at least partly to serve their own ends.

]]> by: trumwill http://hitcoffee.net/index.php/file/732#comment-2095 Mon, 23 Jul 2007 09:10:10 -0500 http://hitcoffee.net/index.php/file/732#comment-2095 I'm not sure we're entirely talking about the same thing. We would never apply pressure to the girl to get together with the guy. Even if we privately thought she was being stupid, we souldn't air that perception publically and for the most part would remain as cordial as possible (even girls we don't want to date know girls that we do!). The only times I've seen girls cut out of our social circle are when they affirmatively dated a member and broke up with them or was broken up with by them. That's pretty much par the course, isn't it? Whenever I've broken up with (or been broken up with by) a girl, I've taken it for granted that losing friends was part of the bargain. In the event that they never dated, but she doesn't want to date guy that expressed interest first, that's fine, the only repercussion is that other guys within the group will often be reluctant to go out with her. Yeah, it sucks and it's not fair, but that's life. I can't think of any instances where we were ever mean to a girl for rejecting our friend. The <i>only</i> counterexample that I am aware of is that there was a rough stigma attached to Evangeline after something of disputed severity happened between her and someone else in my extended group. It didn't stop me from dating her, though. It didn't even cause ripples with the guy that had long since moved on. The only result was copious warnings. Anyhow, for the most part, the embargo is lifted once the rejected guy gets over it. Most guys (I've known and been friends with) are not going to come between their friends and happiness unnecessarily for any prolonged period of time. There are some cases where we would never, ever date someone due to a complication with a friend, but that's cases where his life was seriously thrown off track by her. If her presence physically hurts him, obviously we don't want her around. Guys that would let that happen over someone that they had an unrequited crush on didn't tend to be people that we would hang out with. I’m not sure we’re entirely talking about the same thing. We would never apply pressure to the girl to get together with the guy. Even if we privately thought she was being stupid, we souldn’t air that perception publically and for the most part would remain as cordial as possible (even girls we don’t want to date know girls that we do!). The only times I’ve seen girls cut out of our social circle are when they affirmatively dated a member and broke up with them or was broken up with by them. That’s pretty much par the course, isn’t it? Whenever I’ve broken up with (or been broken up with by) a girl, I’ve taken it for granted that losing friends was part of the bargain.

In the event that they never dated, but she doesn’t want to date guy that expressed interest first, that’s fine, the only repercussion is that other guys within the group will often be reluctant to go out with her. Yeah, it sucks and it’s not fair, but that’s life. I can’t think of any instances where we were ever mean to a girl for rejecting our friend.

The only counterexample that I am aware of is that there was a rough stigma attached to Evangeline after something of disputed severity happened between her and someone else in my extended group. It didn’t stop me from dating her, though. It didn’t even cause ripples with the guy that had long since moved on. The only result was copious warnings.

Anyhow, for the most part, the embargo is lifted once the rejected guy gets over it. Most guys (I’ve known and been friends with) are not going to come between their friends and happiness unnecessarily for any prolonged period of time. There are some cases where we would never, ever date someone due to a complication with a friend, but that’s cases where his life was seriously thrown off track by her. If her presence physically hurts him, obviously we don’t want her around. Guys that would let that happen over someone that they had an unrequited crush on didn’t tend to be people that we would hang out with.

]]> by: Spungen http://hitcoffee.net/index.php/file/732#comment-2105 Tue, 24 Jul 2007 19:51:41 -0500 http://hitcoffee.net/index.php/file/732#comment-2105 I just hung out with bigger losers than you did, I guess. So ... I'm Number One! (on this blogroll, at least.) I just hung out with bigger losers than you did, I guess.

So … I’m Number One! (on this blogroll, at least.)

]]>