"so perhaps I'm missing something"

Yes. You should work on your reading comprehension. I am not offering money, I am seeking someone who already has *at least* as much money as I do to spend on travel, and thus I specified what that amount is.

I'm recently single and I'd like to find a new boyfriend, but I'm also about to embark on a long trip so I am limiting my search to someone who can go with me. What's so crazy about that?

I am not offering money...

No, you're just offering sex. My mistake.

As I imply in my post, I come from a different generation and set of values, and the fact that you see nothing wrong with what you are doing is, in fact, the answer to the "what's wrong with this picture?" question.

It strikes me as a spoken taboo, but an unspoken understanding.

If she doesn't mention sex at all, does the post become more acceptable? She's looking for a guy for a potential long term relationship, and at minimum a travel partner and companion for the next couple months.

She knows in her head that would imply a sexual relationship. And most guys interested in taking her up on it would be assuming a sexual relationship. But once she actually mentions it out loud to be sure there's no misunderstanding people gasp at her audacity.

*shrug* I'm impressed with her ability to cut out the bullshit and say exactly what she's looking for.

It's not your demographic, Eric. I'm probably half your age and I'm still shaking my head.

Not so much at her libertine (as opposed to libertarian) attitude. The "everybody does it" mindset is quite prevalent these days. I don't agree with it and I try not to let it affect me.

I'm surprised the woman doesn't already have a boyfriend/ travelling companion/ lover.

She's not bad looking (a bit on the heavy side for my tastes) and she's obviously in tune with today's popular (im)moral/ cultural views.

So why doesn't she have a guy or even a list of regulars to service her on vacation?

Clarity in communications is hardly an acceptable substitute for strength of morals.

<sigh>

It saddens me greatly that you don't have the faintest idea of what I'm talking about, nor or you likely to care.

Mr. Freen, we apparently were posting at the same time; I hope it's obvious that my comment wasn't in response to yours.

It's the polar opposite of speed dating.

Instead of spending a few minutes with many people over an evening, it's a very long time with one person, far, far away from home.

Seems a little like the "reality" dating shows - starting a relationship in such an artificial environment doesn't seem like a good way to get to know a person.

But, whatever. What do I know?

I just hope she keeps her wits about her, and stays safe from harm.

Yuck! And I'm not responding to Mr. Freen's comment either.

Of course, I'm unqualified anyway so who cares what I think.

So you're showing your demographic....

what does that come to mean when the majority of responses she receives to her inquiry reside in your same cohort?

Some of your contemporaries don't find the idea to be too crazy. Mightn't you be the outlier? Clutching your Bible a tad too tightly?

I whole-heartedly agree with Caleb's comment.

The audacity seems to stem from the fact that she has said it...not in that she's thinking it.

...and if my generation is 'guilty' of clearly communicating their wants...then gee, God help us all...we might actually find what we're seeking.

so if my partner could also afford to treat for some travel expenses that would allow us to enjoy more destinations and activities and nicer accommodations than possible on my budget

Now, who wouldn't want a partner like that?

I'm particularly giggly at the idea that bonus whoring at online casinos is seriously considered a money-maker. Expect to spend your nights sitting in a bar at those "nicer accomodations" by yourself while Little Missy is clicking fold for 18 hours straight. What a great adventure!

Some of your contemporaries don't find the idea to be too crazy. Mightn't you be the outlier?

I don't think you really have a clue as to who my "contemporaries" are.

But, if I'm the "outlier" in this situation, it's a position I welcome.

Clutching your Bible a tad too tightly?

Oooh...good one! But, you've got it backwards (like most of your arguments): how tightly I "clutch" my Bible is irrelevant; how tightly the word of God has me is what's important.

God help us all...we might actually find what we're seeking.

Now you're starting to make sense...if, that is, you're serious about the first part of that phrase. I suggest beginning with Matthew 6:33.

An appropriate response to your comment would be: I'm rubber, you're glue....neener neener neener...

Unfortunate to result to personal attacks so early in the game, but...

Please don't sick your Jesus fish on me....

Unfortunate to result to personal attacks so early in the game, but...

But if that's all you have, I guess you have to go with it. But, you'll get better at it, I'm sure.

Kerry, it's no game...and it's a lot later than you think.

I'm sure you can teach me so much about the world, but, frankly, I've heard it all before. I wasn't impressed then, nor am I now.

Let's see, I'll bet I can find another Bible verse for you. Try Matthew 7:6.

Jacqueline does come from a braver new world than the one I grew up in. Actually what she is proposing is nothing new under the sun or sheets at all, she just goes about it straight up without all the little games, lies and pretenses. No rose-colored glasses for this gal.

However, the world suddenly seems an uglier, colder place. Personally, I prefer the grandeur and romance of playing lady and gentleman on my trip to Tahiti. Besides, the art of fluttering my eyelashes took a long time to perfect and I am not ready to chunk that little talent by the wayside just yet!

(with a bow, and a tip of the ol' Stetson)

I, for one, will be forever enamored of Miss Cowtown Pattie and those 'fluttering eyelashes' of hers

;-)

Jeff, cowboys in Stetsons are my weakness, ya know!

Well, how do you feel about Yankees in Stetsons? (Go ahead, Jeff; time to fess up!) ;-)

Liz, I appreciate your remarks about the post in question. The Gazette's female readers have been strangely silent on the issues. I think your observation about the world being uglier and colder -- presumably due to the dismissal of certain moral norms as irrelevant and/or outdated, although I don't want to put words in your keyboard -- is perceptive. You and I come at this issue from different perspectives, but we still seem to share a final position in some important respects.

Yeah, you see, not everyone has an imaginary friend they believe has given them a list of arbitrary and/or outdated rules to follow.

We live in the age of modern birth control and STD testing, and thus there are no longer any compelling reasons to wait until after marriage to have sex. In fact, it is a very good idea to have sex *before* marriage -- who buys a car they've never test-driven? Sexual compatibility is very important, and the only way you can discover whether you have it is to do it!

Eric, It's not just you.

I will admit that I excerised her moral judgement when I was her age. But something always tickled me in the back of my head saying that this way of life was wrong.
That tickle was Christ showing me his way. I pray that Jacqueline will also listen to the tickle. If I can be forgiven, then anyone can. Until then I pray for her safety.

Yeah, you see, not everyone has an imaginary friend they believe has given them a list of arbitrary and/or outdated rules to follow.

Dang, I must be losing my touch. I predicted that exact response...only I thought it would arrive about six hours ago. Oh well.

However, I'm not offended by your ridicule of my faith. At least you're not trying to distort Scripture to make it sound like God actually approves of your lifestyle.

Good luck with those decisions and choices you embrace. It's all going to end badly, of course, but you've obviously got your mind set to sow the wind. Just don't complain that you didn't understand the cost when it comes time to reap what you sowed.

Shannon, the critical difference between you and Jacqueline is that you understood that what you were doing was wrong, even as you were doing it.

That's something that every Christian back to the Apostle Paul can relate to, by the way. Just because we're saved and being sanctified doesn't keep us from stumbling. That humbling realization keeps me from judging Jacqueline as a person, but that doesn't mean I have to approve what she does and, like the Old Testament watchguard, I can't shirk my responsibility of sounding an alarm and trying to explain the consequences of ignoring it.

Eric, you mention that your female readers have been silent. Truth is that I just don't know what to say that hasn't already been said (and well) by you and a couple of others.

I grieve at the lie that boys and girls are told at such an early age that sex is free and easy and that they should do it as often as they can with as many as they can. There is always a cost to sex had outside of the covenant of marriage - be it the stress of worrying about an unwanted pregnancy, the devastation of an STD, and the damage done to the heart and psyche because of a gift that is given and taken too lightly.

Yes, we have the Pill and condoms and society is more tolerant of immoral behavior. I don't think they are improvements, but rather Man's way of trying to get around God's way - the best way.

Jen, you underestimate the importance of your opinion on an issue like this. Many of the readers here probably don't know your background as a young single woman who chose "the best way" and now has no regrets as she prepares for a wonderful marriage. Your perspective has much more credibility than that of any of us guys...and I appreciate so much your sharing it.

"I grieve at the lie that boys and girls are told at such an early age that sex is free and easy and that they should do it as often as they can with as many as they can."
[Comment edited by site owner. Profanity will not be tolerated.]

It seems like the lack of reading comprehension extends beyond just Eric, because I wrote in my post that I am specifically *not* interested in that sort of thing.

There is a reason I chose the word "lover" instead of "f*** buddy". Perhaps y'all need to get out your dictionaries and look up what it means?

Personally, I don't attribute anything religious to someone's personal choice of sexual behavior. What one does behind closed doors is not my business. Nor, do I look down upon someone who chooses differently than I. However, I see no advantage or need to drop your drawers in public.

Sexuality is a part of who we are and I am very glad I don't have to condone to a Middle Ages' mindset of proper behavior for a woman ( nor even that of the 1960's for that matter).

BUT...

I cannot take one very important ingredient out of the recipe for great sex...LOVE. I don't need Sunday school to know this, either. Can't say that my requirements should be that of Jacqueline's or anyone else's. Speaking totally for myself, I enjoy (...no , I require) romance, mystery, flirtation and that old black magic between a man and a woman. To reduce that dance to an economic equation is to make pecan pie without the pecans.

As a mother of four daughters, I feel somewhat qualified to speak about what to tell teenagers. It was hard to not give the dumb old speech my mother gave me: "men won't buy the cow if they get the milk for free."

What I did tell them is that the choices they made in terms of their own sexuality were important and stayed with them their whole lives. You can't undo that first step, and you only have that special relationship gift to give but once, so make it count. To do anything less is to treat your body and your soul as a inanimate throw-away thing.

Jacqueline, I wasn't speaking to you specifically, although I do think that you're selling yourself short in what you ask.

You think you're looking for a lover but I'd be surprised if you found someone more than a "f-buddy." The internet can be a dangerous place and I pray that you will be very careful whom you choose to go on your vacation with you - cons, rapists, and murderers can wrap themselves in very pretty and charming robes.

Eric, thanks for your kind response.