Your opinion: The nature of sexuality

[Buttercat Apocalypse]

Men (or those people with masculine energy) are sexually excited by the gain of control; women (or feminine energy) are sexually excited by loss of control. Agree or disagree?

[Elrond]

Might be.

[Buttercat Apocalypse]

Originally Posted by Elrond

Might be.

I'm actually pretty certain it is true, but it's remarkable how people have this instant, unconscious reaction to even the possibility...

[Fullcrum]

I think this is true. I'm open to being disproved (there might be something I'm missing), but all that I've seen supports this to be true.

[oBakasan]

Interesting post.

I can certainly see that there's some truth in it, but not having studied my own sexuality at this point it is hard for me to say for certain. I do feel that there is something missing in your rationalization, but again, I cannot discern for certain.

[Buttercat Apocalypse]

Originally Posted by oBakasan

Interesting post.

I can certainly see that there's some truth in it, but not having studied my own sexuality at this point it is hard for me to say for certain. I do feel that there is something missing in your rationalization, but again, I cannot discern for certain.

I think a confusion arises in the negative connotations of the word "control"; women want to be able to relax entirely into the man, to feel safe through him; and a man wants to protect the woman and feel the proof of his strength through her. If you just can't accept the power dynamic as something natural, I suppose it gets perverted into the whole BDSM thing. Instinct can never be stoppered, only redirected.

[raphnix]

Originally Posted by Buttercat Apocalypse

Men (or those people with masculine energy) are sexually excited by the gain of control; women (or feminine energy) are sexually excited by loss of control. Agree or disagree?

I think this is true since other animals in the ecology do have such characteristics about sex and sexuality.

[marklang500]

I didn't vote. I think that the control issue is a piece of the pie, but in it's absence, men still get sexually excited, and so do women.

I think a confusion arises in the negative connotations of the word "control"; women want to be able to relax entirely into the man, to feel safe through him; and a man wants to protect the woman and feel the proof of his strength through her. If you just can't accept the power dynamic as something natural, I suppose it gets perverted into the whole BDSM thing. Instinct can never be stoppered, only redirected.

This is making it sound as though there is a right way and a perverted way. People are different from the animal kingdom in a lot of ways. Rape is the ultimate expression of what you are talking about, and it is not sexually exciting for women.

Tempered with love, although, I do agree that this is a subconcious piece of the pie, and that the "power dynamic" is a pretty good lable for it. But it is not always the ultimate foundation of sexual excitement. It is definately educational to try to distill sexual excitement down to the largest pie piece for each persons individual psyche!

Personally, my largest pie piece is the notion that I have the ability to provide ecstacy for someone else which in turn feeds my ecstacy. (perhaps that could be distilled down to make your point as well, huh....)

[Buttercat Apocalypse]

Originally Posted by marklang500

I didn't vote. I think that the control issue is a piece of the pie, but in it's absence, men still get sexually excited, and so do women.



This is making it sound as though there is a right way and a perverted way. People are different from the animal kingdom in a lot of ways. Rape is the ultimate expression of what you are talking about, and it is not sexually exciting for women.

Ever heard of rape fantasies? Wikipedia said a study showed that more than half of a sample of women admit to having rape fantasies. And that wasn't at all the first I heard. Notice, by the way, how it describes male rape fantasies before that to a great extent with statistics, but the female fantasies are downplayed with vaguer language and an excuse "some claim it's a way of getting over guilt". Hmm...

I'd say the distinction between rape and ravishing is love -- but the shiva-like forcefulness is the same in both.

Tempered with love, although, I do agree that this is a subconcious piece of the pie, and that the "power dynamic" is a pretty good lable for it. But it is not always the ultimate foundation of sexual excitement. It is definately educational to try to distill sexual excitement down to the largest pie piece for each persons individual psyche!

Personally, my largest pie piece is the notion that I have the ability to provide ecstacy for someone else which in turn feeds my ecstacy. (perhaps that could be distilled down to make your point as well, huh....)

[oBakasan]

The difference between a fantasy and a real life situation is that in the fantasy, the person remains in full control of what happens and maintains their power

I think this point from the wikipedia article shows what I meant when I said that there's something missing from the theory.

Even if the man is in control, it is only because the woman allowed him to be in control and she could revoke that right at any time (e.g. break up) therefore showing that the woman has just as much control over what's happening as the man.

Therefore what you describe as "control" is more of an "illusion of control".

I think a confusion arises in the negative connotations of the word "control";

It's not a question of negative connotations, it's a question of the word's actual meaning.

women want to be able to relax entirely into the man, to feel safe through him; and a man wants to protect the woman and feel the proof of his strength through her.

Which of course has nothing to do with your original proposition. Protecting and wanting to be protected have nothing to do with control. In fact it could be argued that since it's the man whose going out of his way to protect the woman, it's the woman who has the most control between the two.

[carenkh]

I didn't vote, either. Sometimes, I'm turned on by the thought of loss of control, sometimes by being in uber-control. It's the same for most people I've been with; various things turn us on, not one thing consistently.

[Buttercat Apocalypse]

Originally Posted by oBakasan

I think this point from the wikipedia article shows what I meant when I said that there's something missing from the theory.

Even if the man is in control, it is only because the woman allowed him to be in control and she could revoke that right at any time (e.g. break up) therefore showing that the woman has just as much control over what's happening as the man.

Therefore what you describe as "control" is more of an "illusion of control".

Yeees... you have a point, but that's the whole thing, it's not a rational process, it's instinct drive and feeling. Of course both parties have control. And of course both minds can be agreeing or disagreeing or making pacts or drawing up contracts. But at a bodily or lower-mind level that's how the power wants to flow. You can see it in the way a woman's body curls up and becomes yielding as she gets turned on while the man becomes straight and erect. Go watch some porn movies if you need convincing

It's not a question of negative connotations, it's a question of the word's actual meaning.

I differ on that... a word can mean a million subtly different things. What's important, unless you like long pointless arguments, is not to see what you think what the word should mean but rather where the speaker is coming from as he says it. As they say "the finger pointing at the moon is not the moon". Words are only pointers to meaning.

Which of course has nothing to do with your original proposition. Protecting and wanting to be protected have nothing to do with control. In fact it could be argued that since it's the man whose going out of his way to protect the woman, it's the woman who has the most control between the two.

You're talking about different sorts of control. As I was saying it's a sort of instinctual power like the pecking order in a pack of animals, etc. A women allowing a man to protect her is submitting to strength. That's how this energy flows.

[funchy]

It all has to do with how controlling a person naturally is. It could even depend on what mood a person is in, how much control they have over other aspects of their life at he moment, etc.

Also consider it depends on the partner you're with. A woman who doesn't feel she can trust the new wild-and-crazy boyfriend may not give up total control, but with a different man she may let her guard down and sometimes enjoy total surrender. Or a woman may notice her partner likes/dislikes when she takes control and she may adjust her role accordingly.

Also, look at all the examples of men who are into bondage which requires them to give up total control. Men who have stressful, powerful jobs may turn to S&M, so that for that brief time while woman completely orders him around, they can enjoy the surrender.


In short, I don't think it's fair to make such a sweeping generalization across the sexes.

[oBakasan]

I see your points, Buttercat, but again as someone who has never had this sort of experience I can only rationalize and interpolate from what I've seen.

Maybe once I actually have some sex I will be able to put it into more perspective and see what you mean.

[Dharma]

Neither excites me.

I had a girlfriend who liked getting tied up. I gave up trying to figure how she got off on that.

[Buttercat Apocalypse]

Originally Posted by funchy

It all has to do with how controlling a person naturally is. It could even depend on what mood a person is in, how much control they have over other aspects of their life at he moment, etc.

Also consider it depends on the partner you're with. A woman who doesn't feel she can trust the new wild-and-crazy boyfriend may not give up total control, but with a different man she may let her guard down and sometimes enjoy total surrender. Or a woman may notice her partner likes/dislikes when she takes control and she may adjust her role accordingly.

Also, look at all the examples of men who are into bondage which requires them to give up total control. Men who have stressful, powerful jobs may turn to S&M, so that for that brief time while woman completely orders him around, they can enjoy the surrender.


In short, I don't think it's fair to make such a sweeping generalization across the sexes.

That's why in the original post I put "(or masculine energy)". Women can be masculine, etc. I'm not always sexually masculine myself, nor do I think I should or need to be, but I notice that being masculine is just easier and seems much more congruent. It feels like what my body is made for.

[funchy]

Originally Posted by Buttercat Apocalypse

That's why in the original post I put "(or masculine energy)". Women can be masculine, etc. I'm not always sexually masculine myself, nor do I think I should or need to be, but I notice that being masculine is just easier and seems much more congruent. It feels like what my body is made for.

But who says "masculine energy" is controlling? Why is it a male attribute only?

[Elrond]

Originally Posted by funchy

But who says "masculine energy" is controlling? Why is it a male attribute only?

Why is masculinity a male attribute only? Even if a woman is mainly feminine she can be masculine from time to time.

[Buttercat Apocalypse]

Originally Posted by funchy

But who says "masculine energy" is controlling? Why is it a male attribute only?

I already said. Women can be masculine. What that means is that masculinity is not a male attribute only. However it is sufficiently frequent in males for it to be known as the male attribute in normal cases. Some women are masculine, such as Margeret Thatcher (did you know her doctor reported that she had as much testosterone as a man, that is, ten times the male level? This is normally not desireable for women as they might grow a beard, their skin will lose its wonderful silky texture, and they might invade unpopulated islands in the middle of the atlantic for no reason).

[marklang500]

I see a problem here with the origin of words. You are using the word masculine to mean the control position. Then you say woman can take the control position, but then you call it "masculine".

The origin of the word masculine is that attributed to the male gender. So in a way, it is not truely owned by the woman, even if she does take the control position, because it is called masculine.

So what funchy wants is for the control postion to be called the control postion. Stop calling it masculine energy if a woman can assume the role. If it is something that a woman can't assume, like growing a full beard, then go ahead and call it masculine.

This is a fine line, and although I see funchy's point (as I explained above) I don't fully agree with it. We use our words to describe the common, not the uncommon. Like if I said "a cute little kitten" and someone said "Wait a minute, not all kittens are cute. I saw a butt-ugly kitten once. So we need to de-couple the word cute when we talk about kittens. It's only fair".

Therefore, no, I don't see a need to decouple the word "masculine" from the "control position". It is the natural tendancy in most relationships.

[pterodactyl]

I wholeheartedly disagree with Buttercat. For the record, I'm sick of these terms 'masculine energy' and 'feminine energy'; it's a big load of David Deida mysticism and I'm tired of it, not only because it is false, simplistic and inane but also because it mainly seems to promote and serve traditional gender roles. While there is nothing wrong with traditional gender roles if one chooses to employ them, they are not suited for everyone and it is irrational and unproductive to rely on models of sexuality or relationships that promote stereotypes and generalities. I do agree with marklang's assertion that it's primarily a symantics issue; the 'control' position is not synonymous with masculinity, nor is it (from my view and experience) typically associated with masculinity in relationships. From my perspective, if any person generally has more 'control' over normal heterosexual sex, it is most often the female in the relationship.

I am tired of intertwining sexuality with control. At its highest, sex is about the expression of love, intimacy and creativity; at its basest, it's a mechanism for people to get in touch with their fears and hatred through dominating or being dominated. This is gender-independent.

I see "masculine energy" associated with protection and nurturing, and it doesn't compel me to submit with my "feminine energy". From my view, "masculinity" is very positive and it's about love rather than control or power, and being boosted up by those whom one serves through leadership. This is independent of gender. This holds true in sexual situations; I feel loved, nurtured and protected by my husband but he feels the same from me. He does not feel the need to dominate and I do not wish to be dominated; if he attempted this I would wonder what other issues (anger, rejection, etc) he was feeling that were beneath that need. If I feel "masculine energy" coming from my husband, then he is feeling it also from me. We're not in a gay marriage and I'm not Margaret Thatcher, so could it be that the masculine-feminine energy model is incorrect?

[Elrond]

Originally Posted by pterodactyl

I wholeheartedly disagree with Buttercat. For the record, I'm sick of these terms 'masculine energy' and 'feminine energy'; it's a big load of David Deida mysticism and I'm tired of it, not only because it is false, simplistic and inane but also because it mainly seems to promote and serve traditional gender roles.

I've read parts of "The Way of the Superior Man" (misleading title, btw), and it has a looong disclaimer about how masculine energy is not supposed to be expressed by a specific gender and ditto with feminime energy. He says that both males and females can favor both of these energies predominantly or they can be 50-50. So he clearly does not ”promote and serve traditional gender roles.”

While there is nothing wrong with traditional gender roles if one chooses to employ them, they are not suited for everyone and it is irrational and unproductive to rely on models of sexuality or relationships that promote stereotypes and generalities.

David Deida surely does not promote this, nor does Buttercat Apacolypse in this thread.

I am tired of intertwining sexuality with control. At its highest, sex is about the expression of love, intimacy and creativity; at its basest, it's a mechanism for people to get in touch with their fears and hatred through dominating or being dominated. This is gender-independent.

Oh, so having a liking for being dominated or for dominating is always caused by underlying fear and hatred? And you talk about relying on models of sexuality and relationships that promotes stereotypes and generalities?

[pterodactyl]

Let me make it clear that I am only expressing my opinion and, as I have no studies or other factual information to back up my statements, it can only be taken as my 2cents and nothing more. My comment about fear and control in domination is a personal opinion, and I apologize that I did not make that clear by first qualifying it as such. So, it cannot be said that, in general, "a person who enjoys being dominated etc. is getting in touch with fear" as this is my opinion and not something which has been tested and verified.

Next, while Deida did write at length about how masculinity and femininity are not gender-based, his work does define femininity as essentially submissive and masculinity as essentially dominant respective energies. He uses more eloquence in his definitions but this is a basic message. For all his seeming progressiveness, his work essentially fits the definition of traditional roles for masculine and feminine. Buttercat has proposed that men/masculine energy types are sexually excited by dominance or control and women/feminine types are sexually excited by being dominated. This also fits into a stereotypical gender role model. I feel that these models are incorrect as they do not adequately describe the population. Again, this is a personal opinion and not a tested fact.

[Elrond]

Originally Posted by pterodactyl

Let me make it clear that I am only expressing my opinion and, as I have no studies or other factual information to back up my statements, it can only be taken as my 2cents and nothing more. My comment about fear and control in domination is a personal opinion, and I apologize that I did not make that clear by first qualifying it as such. So, it cannot be said that, in general, "a person who enjoys being dominated etc. is getting in touch with fear" as this is my opinion and not something which has been tested and verified.

Does your opinion on fear and control in domination have any root in personal experience, or is it just formed by prejudice?

Next, while Deida did write at length about how masculinity and femininity are not gender-based, his work does define femininity as essentially submissive and masculinity as essentially dominant respective energies.

The only thing that you can argue is bad with his definition is that it doesn't seem to apply to you. Or even that the sexual duality doesn't apply to you.

He uses more eloquence in his definitions but this is a basic message. For all his seeming progressiveness, his work essentially fits the definition of traditional roles for masculine and feminine.

So he should change his "message" in order to be more progressive? No author with integrity will change their message in order to appear more politically correct or to be progressive/conservative.

So what if it fits with the traditional roles of masculine/feminine (the energies, not the genders)? You have yourself said that there is nothing bad in and of itself with ”traditional” gender roles.

[marklang500]

Again, I have to pop in and point out that the etymology of the words "masculine" and "feminine" come from the roots of "male" and "female". So if society has deemed certain characteristics as "masculine", it is because experience has shown us it is so. If society has deemed certain characteristics as "feminine", it is because experience has shown us it is so. It isn't stereotyping if it matches reality the greater majority of the time.

Of course, nobody likes to be stereotyped, and that's why some people will say things like, "He is very effeminate", or "she if very masculine". Some men are extremely masculine, and some women are extremely feminine. Everyone is different, and as such, there is no hard and fast rule about what turns different people on.

(sorry about the hard and fast pun...)

At any rate, I don't equate a woman taking a submissive role (in the sexual chemistry department) with embracing "fear" and giving up "control". I equate it more with giving up the daily stresses of "what, when, how, why" and simply letting go. Nothing wrong with that.

OUTSIDE the sexual chemistry department of our lives, like in the professional career department, the friendship department, the dealing with salespeople department...all bets are off.

In fact, I can imagine some women who have a lot of power and responsibility relish the idea of taking that submissive role in thier sex lives, just as many high powered men hire call-girls to be extremely dominant so they can let go and be submissive themselves once in a while.

Men who are weak in real life and have no control over thier daily lives may tend to over-emphasize thier dominance on thier wives, as evidenced by the comparitavely higher rate of spousal abuse among lower income households. (Abuse is the extreme fringe of dominance, that most people thankfully don't venture into...) Some of these abused women stay in the relationship because it gives them an extreme version of letting go...becoming victimized. They don't leave for a lot of reasons. How very sad.

But that is at the extreme fringe.

I would also venture to say that the evolution of porn is a distilled indicator of the root animal insticts of sex from a mans point of view. (Since sex caters to men and is produced by men) What it takes to get a porn addict aroused these days is getting more and more dominant to the point of abuse. So we can see, through desensitization, the dominace ingredient gone awry.

It would be interesting if women would use porn to achieve arousal and orgasm for 10 years and produce thier own porn through the desensitization process what sort of porn we would end up with.

All the above is just my opinion, by the way.

[eskimo]

Well I can't speak for women but as a man, I remember in my past having been sexually excited when I felt dominant or in control. But these days, I don't experience this very often but rather feel sexually stimulated when my heart chakra is open and connects with a girl whose heart chakra is on the same wavelength.

And when this happens, it seems that her sacral chakra opens up and sends out a beacon signal to my sacral chakra (saying, "Come and dock your ship in my port, big fella") which causes the arousal. I think this is probably a purer form of sexual attraction.

There you have it boys and girls - chakra mechanics at work!

[pterodactyl]

Hmm. I think some things were misunderstood based upon your responses, Elrond. I will try to clear it up.

I cannot see in my post where I am showing prejudice against those who like bondage and control; I can't imagine where such an opinion would lead me and I would not foster one. Perhaps this is something you have inferred, in which case you should re-examine your own perceptions. I can openly state that I don't carry such prejudice; anyone who wishes to engage in this kind of behavior is free to do so in my mind. So let us clear that up now. I do not have experience with this, nor do I feel the need to comment extensively on it, except to say that I feel that, in general, oppressing others or dominating others is an expression of fear and powerlessness on the part of the oppressor. Again, *my opinion* is that this is the case but I am happy to look for factual cases to support it if that is what's needed; I doubt it is necessary to do so.

To address your second point, my issue is with the appropriateness of Deida's model of sexuality. Of course, his definitions may not fit me, but they also do not apply to many other people. The value of a model lies in its ability to accurately reflect real data. In the case of Deida's hypothesis on sexuality and sexual chemistry, we have no or limited information on its appropriateness, yet he has filled an entire book with extrapolations that many people seem to believe. It would be interesting to see whether there are couples who have actually been helped by his theories; for example look at relationships which were salvaged or improved by Deida's book and evaluate how appropriate his ideas really are. I think there are much better and more highly validated models to employ when thinking about attractiveness, mate selection and sexual choice of partner rather than individuals responding to this mystical "masculine and feminine core essence."

As to your last point, I think you are missing my point. To clarify, my point was that Deida's work appears outwardly progressive and open-minded, but ultimately boils down to the same old, same old. It was the terms "masculine energy" and "feminine energy" that prompted me to bring him into the conversation; I regret doing so as I did not intend to derail this topic.

[Elrond]

Originally Posted by pterodactyl

Hmm. I think some things were misunderstood based upon your responses, Elrond. I will try to clear it up.

I don't think so, you have overall confirmed that what I percieved your opinions to be originally were in fact such.

I cannot see in my post where I am showing prejudice against those who like bondage and control; I can't imagine where such an opinion would lead me and I would not foster one.

"I am tired of intertwining sexuality with control. At its highest, sex is about the expression of love, intimacy and creativity; at its basest, it's a mechanism for people to get in touch with their fears and hatred through dominating or being dominated. This is gender-independent."

Saying that it’s your opinion only doesn’t take away the obvious fact that you don’t have any personal experience to back up this opinion. Also note that the poll only included the word ”control” – not bondage. ”Control” can mean many things, and certainly doesn’t have to mean ”domination” in any radical sexual-expression sense. It can just mean to be ontop of things (oops..), being in control, being a leader, etc. And you're obviously right in that regard: people that like to be in control and to be a leader are clearly getting in touch with their fears and hatred.

Perhaps this is something you have inferred, in which case you should re-examine your own perceptions. I can openly state that I don't carry such prejudice; anyone who wishes to engage in this kind of behavior is free to do so in my mind.

Of course. There is a lot of ways that I condone where people can get in touch with their fears and hatred.

So let us clear that up now. I do not have experience with this, nor do I feel the need to comment extensively on it, except to say that I feel that, in general, oppressing others or dominating others is an expression of fear and powerlessness on the part of the oppressor. Again, *my opinion* is that this is the case but I am happy to look for factual cases to support it if that is what's needed; I doubt it is necessary to do so.

Lol, I don’t have any scientific studies on it, but here is a site where men and women alike are very happy with being in a male-led relationship:

(Reader beware: some of the articles on this site may contain explicit content)

Taken In Hand

To address your second point, my issue is with the appropriateness of Deida's model of sexuality. Of course, his definitions may not fit me, but they also do not apply to many other people. The value of a model lies in its ability to accurately reflect real data. In the case of Deida's hypothesis on sexuality and sexual chemistry, we have no or limited information on its appropriateness, yet he has filled an entire book with extrapolations that many people seem to believe. It would be interesting to see whether there are couples who have actually been helped by his theories; for example look at relationships which were salvaged or improved by Deida's book and evaluate how appropriate his ideas really are. I think there are much better and more highly validated models to employ when thinking about attractiveness, mate selection and sexual choice of partner rather than individuals responding to this mystical "masculine and feminine core essence."

As to your last point, I think you are missing my point. To clarify, my point was that Deida's work appears outwardly progressive and open-minded, but ultimately boils down to the same old, same old.

Nope. Didn’t miss you point. That’s exactly what you said in your last post. And I still fail to see how there seems to be a problem with his message being the ”same old, same old”. In fact, the ”same old, same old” is more likely to be true for a greater part of the populace than any other theory on masculine/feminine, and I daresay also your theory of the absence of masculine/feminine (or that they are sexual polarities). You should also know that even if people act and do certain things in a relationship does not mean that it is how they would like to act or how they would like their relationships to be. They might have a liking, knowing or unknowingly, towards controlling/not controlling. But who counteracts this?

Society. Society, at least the society that I am a part of, has a big thing for romantic relationships being equal, and for one part to be more in control than the other is fundamentally unequal. You can in fact find a good amount of testimonials from people that wanted a certain relationship, but they felt guilty about their desires because of what society had taught them. You can also find testimonials of people that were raging old-school feminists and literally being appelled by having a relationship that resembles the dynamic proposed here as far as sexual attraction is concerned, and then finding out that they actually prefer that dynamic. Both on that site that I mentioned.

[pterodactyl]

Thanks for your responses, Elrond. It's quite clear I have hit a nerve with my remark about *my opinion* of sexuality and its reflection of deeper emotional states as you keep returning to it.

For the record, I was NOT referring to individuals in "the lifestyle" or BDSM. My comment was more in the context of using sex as a means to dominate or control others because one is afraid and hateful. An example is a rapist who is fearful and hateful of women, using sex as a mechanism for expressions of that violence, or a man who prefers violent pornography. Must I be raped to experience this firsthand and therefore (in your opinion) be qualified to express my views? Must I be controlled or "led" in order to feel that this response is wrong? A person who is obsessed with "being a leader" and "being in control" is weak, IMO. Showing this weakness by insisting on dominating others sexually whether they enjoy it or not is a base form of sexuality. Again, IMO. I suppose I'll have to qualify every statement I make in this manner for those to whom it's not obvious from the context.


Why should my particular views of this issue be worthy of such scrutiny? It's just an opinion. You believe I am prejudiced based upon my personal view of sexuality. I suppose you will continue to believe that regardless of what I've said to contrary, so as we have hit an impasse there is no need to continue the conversation. You have your opinion, I have my own, and neither is apparently helpful or crucial. I'm not interested in detracting from the original post.

The site you mentioned is disturbing to myself and others who have seen it, but I do not feel the need to explore that further here.

My points in this post have been made; I primarily responded to disagree with Buttercat, as it was a poll after all. I've communicated what I want to communicate, and that's all. Best wishes.

[Elrond]

Originally Posted by pterodactyl

Thanks for your responses, Elrond. It's quite clear I have hit a nerve with my remark about *my opinion* of sexuality and its reflection of deeper emotional states as you keep returning to it.

Haha, not really. The only thing that I get upset about that is in the slightly same vain as this is when people express with authority what a man should be and not be, the whole "real man"-stuff. In that regard, I might have some in common with you when it comes to what upsets me.

Anyway like you said, we are going nowhere. My time can be better spent elsewhere and guessing by your apparent displease, so can yours.

Good Luck.