As long as the people on either end feel loved it doesn't matter if it's all scented candles and lovely music, or just a quickie.
That was kind of my point. It doesn't matter what was actually involved. There's more there than the act(s), and that's what matters!
Then you're exasperated that explicit's comment wasn't "look at the love that these two both share and how it has grown so that the act of intercourse between them is so loving and great and full of good emotions"?
We're back to needing to explain to you the intent of humorous understatement, which is where we started. I want to assume that there's a simple miscommunication here rather than anything malicious.
Well, of
course there's nothing malicious, I just really hate the term "porked"!
Seriously, though, I just kind of read Explicit's comment as - well, kind of dismissive. I understood the attempt at understatement, but it
really fell flat for me. I just wanted to reframe the conversation into something a
little more meaningful and closer to what the participants are actually experiencing.
Which is, at least in my reading, more than just sex.
All the "saccharine" dating was a buildup to this. It showed us that these two weren't just hopping in the sack, there's a relationship being made, a connection. It makes the evening's activities an act of love, not just two people bangin'.
But to be honest, It probably wouldn't have bothered me as much if
any other term had been used!
Warning - while you were typing, Explicit apologized. You should tell him it's OK, and that you're just being a pompous ass about it. *sigh*
Yeah, you're right. My bad.
No hard feelings?