Like Pink says: Keep your drink, just give me the money. It's just you and your hand tonight!

It's the same idea, anyway.

In a sense, it is a lifestyle choice for me to. It means being single and not needing to compromise what I want for another adult.

It means being single and not needing to compromise what I want for another adult.

Bingo.

Interestingly enough...to me anyway...once I adopted this policy, my partners seemed to enjoy themselves a lot more too.

But, um, if we were in Bitches, which we're not, so I'm not saying the this thing about how I'm particularly get-offy about doing that particular thing. So it's win/win.

And let us not discuss that matter any further and resume arguing about neighbor-love.

But at any rate, even that seems like a wrong fantasy to have about recently separated neighbor boy.

I just want someone to bring me a freakin' latte.

Hey, me too. Maybe a biscotti.

Someone's bringing me a pizza. I'm okay with that.

I had a guy offer me coffee the other morning, but I think it was some kind of sales pitch, and I had already had mine for the day, so I REJECTED it.

BullSHIT. Maybe the last time you hooked up with your separated neighbour it was all sunshine and roses and fellatio. But that's hardly the point, is it? No one has to have exactly your boundaries to fall in love--people with different lines have been falling in love since we invented the romantic little notion.

I'm not arguing for my exact boundaries. I'm arguing that arbitrary boundaries are inimical to intimacy.

Why are you distorting the scope of the discussion and damning anyone who doesn't want to sleep with neighbours or separated people to a dry and loveless life?

While I jokily endorsed hooking up with the neighbor, all I'm really arguing against is looking for reasons to not pursue it. I'm arguing that Allyson should be open to the possibility.

I mean, do you really believe it's true, that people who won't take that particular risk don't desire love or committed relationships?

If your first instinct is to throw up walls, instead of seeing how far any potential relationship will go, then I think that path will be less successful.

Fine, you think Allyson and msbelle and Jesse and I are stuffy and dead inside.

That's a radical interpretation of the text. Not only do I not think of any of the people in that list as either stuffy or dead inside, I don't think there's a lot of commonality in that set regarding romance.

I'm not taking a radical stance. I'm just disagreeing with dissuading Allyson from allowing things to happen with her neighbor. It may not work out for a variety of reasons. I don't think it needs to be cut off for the reasons stated.

I'm arguing that arbitrary boundaries are inimical to intimacy.

You think the boundaries are arbitrary, but maybe they make a skosh more sense to the people who have them.

That's a radical interpretation of the text.

But it was a fun leap to make.

Don't you trust, however, that the people who are giving the advice think that there are sensible reasons for those particular red flags? I mean, you believe red flags exist, right?

I'm just disagreeing with dissuading Allyson from allowing things to happen with her neighbor.

You went way past that, though.

Allyson came into the thread with what seemed to be a request for a bolstering a conclusion she'd already come to.

Substitute into the equation things you think are red flags--is she still in the wrong for looking for reasons not to pursue it?