Yeah, I did notice that, as everyone's got me and duranorak wrong. Only due to the highly specific wordings used for the relationship mapping phrases mind you, but anyway.
Was not allowing denials a design decision? I'm presuming it was, and I was expecting to find an explanation of 'why not' in the FAQ.
Incidentally, as a self-proclaimed tart, perhaps you can answer me this: What relationship mapping do you give to someone who you've given head to, while you were both (partially) dressed? It's a bit more than 'snogged' (and possibly you didn't), a bit less than 'shagged', and it's not 'got naked with'. Possibly my behaviour in nightclubs is atypical... although I doubt it's that atypical.
This is like "how many people have you had sex with?" "well, that depends what you call 'sex'."
These filthy heteros can get away with defining it as 'tab A in slot B and that's all,' but those of us with more interesting lives may have other opinions. Thrashing the issue out with a fellow schlaaaggg, we decided that "proceeding with serious intent to orgasm or procedures commonly held to lead to such" would count.
(So my count is sex with 50 to 60 people over the past seventeen years, depending what counts as 'sex', and I have NO IDEA how many of those I could be said to have slept with. Per se. And every one of them is special in my memory. And that's your TMI for this evening. Thank you.)
Yeah, this is why I really don't like the phrasings used for the relationship mappings on LJ6... "had sex with" would be great, it's flexible enough to cover a range of things, whereas "shagged" is a fairly tight (sorry!) definition. Likewise 'has beaten' would cover more than 'spanked', although it's possibly atypical to do (a) without having ever done (b) in that case. I know the phrasings chosen are more fun, but they don't allow room for reasonable and flexible interpretation.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
denny
(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-16 02:16 pm (UTC)Note that you can only agree with or confirm rumours, not disagree or deny.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-16 02:37 pm (UTC)Was not allowing denials a design decision? I'm presuming it was, and I was expecting to find an explanation of 'why not' in the FAQ.
Incidentally, as a self-proclaimed tart, perhaps you can answer me this: What relationship mapping do you give to someone who you've given head to, while you were both (partially) dressed? It's a bit more than 'snogged' (and possibly you didn't), a bit less than 'shagged', and it's not 'got naked with'. Possibly my behaviour in nightclubs is atypical... although I doubt it's that atypical.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-16 03:28 pm (UTC)These filthy heteros can get away with defining it as 'tab A in slot B and that's all,' but those of us with more interesting lives may have other opinions. Thrashing the issue out with a fellow schlaaaggg, we decided that "proceeding with serious intent to orgasm or procedures commonly held to lead to such" would count.
(So my count is sex with 50 to 60 people over the past seventeen years, depending what counts as 'sex', and I have NO IDEA how many of those I could be said to have slept with. Per se. And every one of them is special in my memory. And that's your TMI for this evening. Thank you.)
(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-16 03:45 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-17 03:10 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-17 06:59 am (UTC)I did make alternative suggestions in the comment you replied to - the problem is they don't sound as 'fun' as the ones you have in place...