I conducted an experiment. Test subjects A, B, and C consisted of three males.
Dependent variables were the modes of communication between myself and the subjects.
The object is to determine whether or not the communication of an in-person confrontation, a phone call, or a text message clarifies the intentions of the relationship.
Subject A (“Michael Phelps”) was swimming laps in the lane beside mine in the SRSC.
As we both took a breather, he devilishly smiled and challenged me to a race. Call me a sore loser, but because he beat me I did not give him my phone number. Afterward, when he saw me upstairs outside the pool, he insisted and I disclosed my digits.
Later that week Phelps called me and we shared an hour-long conversation and agreed on meeting for dinner Friday night. Like a gentleman, he picked me up and took me out to a sushi restaurant and we continued to date for four months.
Variables are that we met in a daytime environment participating in an activity. Other variables consist of meeting in a natural state without any maintenance of appearance. It was sincere and real interest.
Subject B (“Party Boy”) introduced himself to me at a party at his fraternity. In a loud music-blaring atmosphere, he offered me a drink and then brought me to the dance floor. Once the party was over, he walked me home.
Being particularly warm on this late night, I decided I wanted to go for a quick dip. We climbed over the fence and went skinny dipping in the outdoor pool.
Although he and I never shared much real conversation, we had adventure. We shared a different kind of intimacy that was unsuitable for a substantial relationship to function. Our relationship consisted of him calling me to his fraternity to party, and I never saw him when the sun was up. Our activity was fun-related and never serious. Efforts relied on exciting party perks.
It was quite appropriate that I met subject C during the day because we both happened to share the same weakness: day sex. In fact, we will call him “Mr. Day Sex.”
We met during a party in honor of the event of the Little 500 race. I liked his style and did not ask questions as we walked back to his place to “hang out.”
Mr. Day Sex and I continued to meet in this fashion up until this semester, and I cannot tell you one detail about him other than how he is in bed. He texts me before a weekend is coming up and makes plans for us to meet.
That is all. No favorite color nonsense, nothing. Straight up sex.
I do not know what his voice sounds like on the phone. Factors are that our initial meeting was impulsive and effortless. We have a connection, but it is not meaningful, it simply satisfies.
The saying, “Why buy the cow if you can get the milk for free,” applies to this experiment.
Funny how Michael Phelps and I started with a race and he chased after me. If he had simply texted me the way Mr. Day Sex had done, then I would not have beckoned an inch further. Texting is a pathetic cop-out and does not buy the cow. Because Mr. Day Sex and I started unconventionally, I accepted the texts. Mr. Day Sex had no reason to call me over the phone or spend time with me because I gave the milk for free. This was okay because I was getting milk too. Party Boy was a happy medium between the extremes and was fun. As long as all of our party pertained, there was no need to risk the moment.
It takes neither cow nor scientist to notice that what you give influences what you get.