Firstly, I've been forced to go back and re-appraise 'Vincibus Eruptum' when I finally got in this evening. Yes, it rocks, but it's gotta long way to go to be a DID for me.
To business. I've been on the first day of a course today, not bad, better than I had feared - they're usually such pointless dross. But it was OK. The high spot of the day though was a colleague saying to me "If it wasn't for you I might not have breasts still", as a thank you for my concern when she got a bit emotionally screwed up and shed loads of weight, and I pointed out to her that she was looking poorly. OK, I didn't cop a feel, but that is a small price as now they are there to be admired and appreciated. And so is she too, more importantly, rather than getting seriously ill. Too much frog-kissing, I'm afraid, whilst she ignores the princes around her.
That's it, to be honest, for today. A big thank you to Betty for clarifying the shorts issue.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
It's interesting the way she said it--it might have been a thinly-veiled "pass."
In other words, she could have said, "Thanks to you I am HEALTHY today"--and obviously made it sexually neutral.
Of course, the only reason we need to decipher the Pharoah's Tomb here is because she is good looking. If she wasn't, then who cares what she meant? I mean--we would still be glad she is healthy and all...
Of course, the way that YOU still maintain "plausible deniability" is to ask her out to lunch--because you are "concerned that she is now eating right," and blah blah blah...
Yes, I'm with Zen on this one. She's after a shag Kruster. You need to sharpen up mate!
Thanks, fellers. I note the absence of comment, and, more importantly, advice, from the ladies. When I need their view even more than usual, they go silent on me.
OK, here I am.
I think it's unfair for a woman to use the word "breasts" in conversation with a man without expecting him to ponder them.
She's just a tease. Move on to someone who says what she means.
I deleted the last comment, because I can't seem to get the wording right without sounding harsh. I just hate when women are coy, which it sounds like she is.
Flirting is one thing, but coyness in an adult woman is just... yuck.
Maybe she, as Zen says, is good-looking enough to get away with it, but geez, why can't she just be honest with you?
I keep forgetting, and this is where I show my ignorance--does Britain have a Puritanical taboo on "dipping one's pen in the company ink," as it were (as in, depending on the corporate culture of the individual organization, the U.S. does)?
That is certainly also a factor to consider--I am not saying, "don't get your freak on"; I am saying, "consider it."
She is certainly very chatty with you, and that is fine: But the best type of chick for a situation like this is the "silent, yet deadly" types.
In other words, she can scream "bloody murder" in the bedroom (and the ideal type for this usually does), but will she keep her mouth shut around the office?
So, if I can take the metaphor a step further, you have a nice little zaftig, cream puff Monica Lewinsky; but how much will she blab to her Linda Tripp-friend?
Just something to consider, Dawg!!
I'm a little concerned that no-one appears to have said anything nice to you in almost a week.
Do they not appreciate proper Poilane ( imagine the little hat over the "i") when they see it?
xxx
Post a Comment