The Word 'Fond'  

SmartType 53F
560 posts
9/4/2006 6:56 pm

Last Read:
9/6/2006 12:52 pm

The Word 'Fond'

It's a horrible word. It means I like you well enough to eat dinner with you, but I would rather sleep alone. It's a word that conjures up in my mind that one is not desirable enough, but adequate enough to pinch hit for the amorous moment. If anyone says that they are "fond" of you, dump them immediately. It means you are a nothing more than a pit-stop, a piece of ass, a meal and a deal, if that, until they can find 'something' better.

Love is a big word with its implication. And Lust is hollow. I propose that we combine the two and come up with LOST. It's often hard to sometimes find the demarcation of love and lust. And Lost seems to fit it perfectly.

silverhawk762 52M/48F

9/4/2006 7:27 pm

Found this one out for myself - and will always feel like I was nothing more than a piece of ass to him, despite the things that were whispered in the dark... {=}

SmartType replies on 9/4/2006 8:07 pm:
Silver - you are not alone. Always trust your heart.

rm_Gentle12553 68M
1378 posts
9/5/2006 5:11 am

The word also has a political connotation....well it did when I was involved in the political wars...."Oh I'm very fond of him...." Or...."Yes, I am fond of that...or this or" it tended to carry a very empty meaning....kind of "Well, yes I am aware of him or her or your position, but I really don't understand it,but want you to think I support your opinion."

Now as to love and lust....hmmmm....I love little kids....I love chocolate....I love long rides in the country and I often end a letter with the words "Love Ya." Does that mean I am in love with the person....usually a female... I have been "in-love" twice in my life....(one was actually from Midland Texas...) the feeling was incredible....went way past lust....and have I lusted after a few ladies in my life...seems like every day at times...but love was all you never want it to was more that physical lust..(gee, I wanna bang her) it was....WOW I want to consume her....So...sorry to disagree, but the two experiences with LOVE were far more than lust and certainly not lost...

Just a male point of view...

SmartType replies on 9/5/2006 4:44 pm:
Well Gentle, I've been in love twice as well. Once with a man seventeen years my senior. I found him dashing, a LtCol in the Army who could speak Chinese and was most likely a CIA operative. He gave me a book before I went to Nepal and when I returned, we curled up for dinner together and had our first kiss. It was electric for me - down to my toes. I waited for five years in the hopes we would marry, but it never happened. The second guy was a loud boisterious trader (this was 4 years ago). Big fuzzy fellow who had me laughing at his commentary most of the time. But he loved me back with constraint and restraint. He also had no kink (way big bummer). That lasted a tumultuos 1.5 years. So now, although I am always hopeful for love, it's this in-between state of caring/lusting/craving sweetness that has no intention for commitment, but only the sincerest and real intention of seizing the day. Not a spring chicken anymore - and why waste days of rapture and sweetness when real love is so elusive.

tierratexas 53M

9/5/2006 9:23 pm

Heck, let's coin a new word: "loust".
It actually has an onomatopoeic ring to it.

You say fond and I say find,
You say love and I say live,
Like, lick, lust, loust,
let's call the whole thing off.

SmartType replies on 9/6/2006 12:52 am:
Tierra - you rule! But calling it off might be a bit rash. Was that a Cole Porter thing?

tierratexas 53M

9/6/2006 11:40 am

Right back atcha, ST!
OK, let's not call "it" off.
And I do so want to stay away from rashes.

Google tells me:
Lyrics by Ira Gershwin; Music by George Gershwin.

Become a member to create a blog