How have your past girlfriend/boyfriend relationships been?

[MrIndigo]

@Colin: The reason I say other commentators is because, this not being an area in which I am at all qualified or educated beyond the incidental, I can't remember the specific names; they are not my beliefs and I did not intend to imply that I agree with them.

As I said, most of my knowledge in this area is what I've been told by people I know who have done their research in this area and I have certainly not done any research of my own, so your post has been greatly enlightening.

 

[The_Fallen]

eh, i'll just stop you right there... more people aren't bisexual, there are just more willing to admit they might bang a dude or whatever.

Her saying she has no interest in guys is a pretty strong indicator that she's not bisexual.

I meant that I've noticed more people expressing bisexuality than homosexuality. And I did read the "no interest in guys" part, but I also saw that she had an ex-boyfriend, and so assumed that at least at one point in time she was bisexual.

You... don't agree with a sexual orientation? What right do you have to do that? What right do you have to judge other people as attention seekers?

I don't agree with bisexuality or homosexuality, not sexual orientation. And, last I checked, I am entitiled to my own opinions. And I believe I have every right to judge someone as an attention seeker if I find it obvious that they are gay/lying about being gay to attract attention. (I wasn't accusing Rin of this, if that's what you thought). Also, me not agreeing with bisexuality/homosexuality does not mean that I'll go out and kill those types of people or treat them with any less respect than a heterosexual person; it just means that I don't agree with bisexuality.

Ah, I apologize if I came off as attention-seeking. [...] But it does irk me when people flaunt, or fake sexual orientation as a means for attention seeking.

You didn't come off that way; I was just making a comment. And that's exactly how I feel.

What you describe is called schizoidism. It's a personality trait (or disorder, arguably), like paranoia, in which you find other people impossible to trust. Consequently, you don't form relationships as closely or as frequently as most people do.

I think it is in part of cynicism though, as my negative view on things affects how I react to them. In other words, my views on people dissuade me from becoming too close with them. I'll admit that I am a bit paranoid, but I think that my not forming relationships as closely and as often with others is more due to dislike than distrust.

 

[MrIndigo]

I don't agree with bisexuality or homosexuality, not sexual orientation. And, last I checked, I am entitiled to my own opinions. And I believe I have every right to judge someone as an attention seeker if I find it obvious that they are gay/lying about being gay to attract attention. (I wasn't accusing Rin of this, if that's what you thought). Also, me not agreeing with bisexuality/homosexuality does not mean that I'll go out and kill those types of people or treat them with any less respect than a heterosexual person; it just means that I don't agree with bisexuality.

I think that's what Chris is me was talking about. I think he was querying how you can disagree with bisexuality/homosexuality; what is there to agree or disagree with? Are you disagreeing that bisexuality exists? In what sense does it affect you that you can disagree with it's practice?

 

[The_Fallen]

I disagree with the idea of "loving" a member of the same sex, or "loving" members of both sexes. And I disagree with it because it isn't natural; if we were all gay and weren't smart (or dumb) enough to have created things like sperm banks, humanity would cease to exist. (The fact that we have created those things doesn't make it any more right though).

 

[Mountain Dewgong]

I disagree with the idea of "loving" a member of the same sex, or "loving" members of both sexes. And I disagree with it because it isn't natural; if we were all gay and weren't smart (or dumb) enough to have created things like sperm banks, humanity would cease to exist. (The fact that we have created those things doesn't make it any more right though).

Homosexuality is a minority. And you're saying it's bad because 'if we all did it we'd die out'? On that basis, we should ban fast food, alcohol, and being a man.
Because if we were all men we'd die out, if we ate nothing but fast food or alcohol we'd die out. Holy shit your comments are flawed.

If anything I support homosexual relationships, the population is far too large as it is, and if they get children it's usually by adoption, which is a great way to give those children a loving environment. They aren't inflating the population.

 

[MrIndigo]

Also, claiming homosexuality is 'unnatural' is nonsensical; it's very existence implies it is natural (Unless you think that there is some kind of artificial method of installing an alternative sexuality into a baby at birth which then turns on at puberty).

 

[Luduan]

I fail to see how reproduction could possibly be a suitable basis to "disagree" with bisexuality, even within the rules of your flawed logic. You do realize bisexuals are sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex, right? That's like saying "I disagree with heterosexuals engaging in masturbation because it would lead to the death of the species if all heterosexuals masturbated."

 

[Not Scicky]

I disagree with the idea of "loving" a member of the same sex, or "loving" members of both sexes. And I disagree with it because it isn't natural; if we were all gay and weren't smart (or dumb) enough to have created things like sperm banks, humanity would cease to exist. (The fact that we have created those things doesn't make it any more right though).

I'm sure if everyone was gay, someone would figure

"Oh shit, we're all going to die, we should do something about this. ._."

 

[Bam]

I hate to minimod, but can we all just cut it out with the homosexual/bisexual/heterosexual crap here? I'm finding tons of great stories, conversations, information, and advice here, and I'd like to continue doing so without it getting locked. Take it to another more-appropriate thread.

So the girl and I are bf/gf now; I've recognized that I truly do like her, and I'm enjoying every minute with her. I'm feeling things that I haven't felt in forever, as well as some new ones. She really is an amazing person, one who has been through so much shit but has come out polished by the fire. We compliment each other well in every way, and are already looking forwards to our future.

The only problem is that I still feel somewhat distant, though I'm sure this will fix with time. However, I'm placed in a new situation that I haven't been in before: two or three friends of mine disapprove of her. Not really close friends, but just people I know somewhat well and hang out with sometimes. They haven't gotten along well in the past, and I hear some not-so-great things about my girlfriend from them. However, she has given me no reason to mistrust her, and I know that my friends are in no place to judge anything she may or may not have done as they do and have done worse things. I feel deep down that my girlfriend is not who they say she is, but for some reason I am just quick to believe anything negative, whether it's true or not, and end up doubting her. Any advice on trusting?

 

[Brain]

I disagree with the idea of "loving" a member of the same sex, or "loving" members of both sexes. And I disagree with it because it isn't natural; if we were all gay and weren't smart (or dumb) enough to have created things like sperm banks, humanity would cease to exist. (The fact that we have created those things doesn't make it any more right though).

Homosexuality is natural, just like being blonde or a dwarf. It is atypical, but natural. Not that everything should be natural anyway. Cars are not natural. The Internet is not natural. Do you disagree with these? Should we destroy all technology because it's unnatural?

""loving"" - what are the quotes for?
"If we were all gay" - we are not. it is not as if being straight was a sacrifice for most people.
"humanity would cease to exist" - No, it would not. Having straight sex a few times in a lifetime to perpetuate the species hardly seems like a big sacrifice, does it? If everybody was gay and cared about keeping humanity thriving, they would simply consider it their duty to make children, and they would take a few minutes once in a while to do it. It would be no different from voting in a democracy - a chore people put up with out of perceived necessity. And if nobody cared if humanity kept existing, then it wouldn't. Who cares? "Nature" would be much better off without us, wouldn't it?

Seriously, though, there are so many things that if we all did it, humanity would cease to exist. If everybody used protection all the time, humanity would cease to exist, therefore using protection is inherently bad. If everybody was a catholic priest, humanity would cease to exist, ergo nobody should be a catholic priest. If everybody chose not to have children, humanity would cease to exist, therefore everybody should choose to have children. That's a retarded argument.

Homosexuality is not even close to being a threat to humanity's survival and it never will be. In fact, in a situation of overpopulation, it might even serve a purpose. Not every human being needs to be a baby machine.

 

[The_Fallen]

On that basis, we should ban fast food, alcohol, and being a man.

Fast food and alcohol won't kill you if you're not completely retarded about their usage. Alcohol is fine, (red wine is actually healthy), in normal amounts, and fast food for a meal here and there does little harm as long as healthy lifestyle choices are made elsewhere. And everone being a man would kill us; I don't deny that. Keep in mind that that is almost identical to every man being gay, which was my original point.

if they get children it's usually by adoption, which is a great way to give those children a loving environment. They aren't inflating the population.

Because the parents' homosexuality won't ever influence the adopted children, right?

it's very existence implies it is natural

This is an interesting point, but it all goes by your definition of "natural." I hardly think that it was intended for humans to be homosexual. Again, seeing as if we were all gay, we couldn't reproduce; and would cease to be. Do you believe that that is natural?

You do realize bisexuals are sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex, right?

I do realize that. You left out the fact that they are also attracted to the same sex, which is a bit important. And that masturbation comment made absolutley no sense. I disagree with masturbation too, but I fail to see how that comment was related to anything and how the act itself could lead to the death of the species.

And Fishy, honestly sorry for the topic hijack. Didn't think my comments would cause this much of a debate.

 

[Accent]

To be honest if all women loved only women and all men loved only men, they would probably start a war and humanity would kill itself anyway.

Also, look at animals who are probably the naturalestest thing out there - a good portion of species have no problem with homosexuality at all. Snails are so hot btw

 

[ivar]

Of course cars are natural Brain. If it wasn't natural it wouldn't exist; cars are just not a carbon based entity. The only necessity of being natural is existing in the actual world (hence why the supernatural is unnatural). Organic material is not the only material that is natural and natural materials do not have to exclude man made contraptions (what if I sharpen a stick, thereby turning it into a man-made contraption... would it be unnatural?). From this it should follow that nothing is unnatural, since if something apparently unnatural were to happen (a ghost), the mere act of happening would make it natural! Seems counter-intuitive (we think of natural as plants and trees and water and not wearing clothes) but that's just a silly, vague misconception that we have. In that case homosexuality would be natural because... it happens!

Internet seems tricky though. I say it's a concept, thus neither natural/unnatural.

 

[The_Fallen]

Not that everything should be natural anyway. Cars are not natural. The Internet is not natural. Do you disagree with these? Should we destroy all technology because it's unnatural?

I don't think I said that everything unnatural is bad. I said that homosexuality was unnatural, and I said that I disagreed with it.

""loving"" - what are the quotes for?
"If we were all gay" - we are not. it is not as if being straight was a sacrifice for most people.
"humanity would cease to exist" - No, it would not. Having straight sex a few times in a lifetime to perpetuate the species hardly seems like a big sacrifice, does it? If everybody was gay and cared about keeping humanity thriving, they would simply consider it their duty to make children, and they would take a few minutes once in a while to do it. It would be no different from voting in a democracy - a chore people put up with out of perceived necessity. And if nobody cared if humanity kept existing, then it wouldn't. Who cares? "Nature" would be much better off without us, wouldn't it?

I din't think that "liking" was the right word, and I didn't want the word "loving" to be misinterpreted as something like a love for family members. I understand that we are not all gay; I was illustrating a point by creating a scenario in which homosexuality was completely natural to the point where everyone was gay. And who knows if under that scenario humans would have straight sex? I wasn't under the impression that gays would not want to have sex with the opposite gender. I don't deny that nature would be better without us. Not one bit. I thought people cared enough to think that their species' existence was natural and should be kept alive though.

Seriously, though, there are so many things that if we all did it, humanity would cease to exist. If everybody used protection all the time, humanity would cease to exist, therefore using protection is inherently bad.

Protection serves some positive purposes. If everyone used it all the time, it would cause humanity to die, but it isn't used purely to never have children. Homosexuality serves no purpose to aid humanity, but protection does, so it isn't inherently bad.

If everybody was a catholic priest, humanity would cease to exist, ergo nobody should be a catholic priest. If everybody chose not to have children, humanity would cease to exist, therefore everybody should choose to have children.

Again, Catholic priests do not exist with the sole purpose of preventing children. THey have messages to preech; and I don't think the Church has anything wrong with having children. Marriage is a Christian idea, is it not? I'll admit defeat on the choosing not to have children point; I don't have an answer for that at the moment. (Brain gets to everyone at some point...)

Homosexuality is not even close to being a threat to humanity's survival and it never will be.

Maybe it isn't, but I wouldn't say that it never will be. With more and more states passing laws that make gay marriage acceptable, it may start to become a larger and larger part of society until it takes over. It's happening right now with things like the Spanish language in America. As of now though, I don't see anything that could convince me into thinking that it is ethically correct, or completely natural.

 

[ivar]

Read my post. Homosexuality is natural. It doesn't matter if you personally feel the opposite is true: according to the definition of what it means to be natural, homosexuality is natural.

Natural is not organic life only (how can you account for natural laws, like laws of conservation). Natural is not things untouched by man (a sharpened stick used as a knife would then be unnatural). Things that happen/exist are natural; that is the only criteria.

 

[SSBM roy]

I realize that every homophobe argues based on the erroneous presumption that sexual orientation is mutable, but has anyone else noticed that their arguments always seem to presume that gay sex is so awesome that social convention is the only force keeping heterosexuality in existence?

 

[The_Fallen]

Things that happen/exist are natural; that is the only criteria.

That's a bullshit defintion. Under that, everything you see is natural, which isn't true at all. And again, I don't believe that nature intended for us to be gay.

their arguments always seem to presume that gay sex is so awesome that social convention is the only force keeping heterosexuality in existence?

Honestly am sorry if I don't see how I implied this.

 

[ivar]

Read my post carefully before you go calling my definition bullshit. Just because it is against your intuitions does not mean it is bullshit and yes, everything that exists IS natural. I don't know what you mean by what you see... products of delusions I might see but do not exist. And yes, even cars are natural. What is natural is what is produced by nature/a product of nature. Everything that exists is a product of nature... hence why everything that exists is natural. Think for like maybe five seconds beyond the obvious, seriously.

Better yet, come up with your own definition of what is natural that somehow excludes homosexuality and cars and stuff, but includes naturals laws (gravity, conservation laws), organic materials, and man-made organic materials (otherwise there is a contradiction).

 

[Myriad]

hold up, are you seriously saying that everything natural is right and everything not-natural is wrong?

lion packs kill old leaders to prove that they're the new best leader. should we be killing any leader who isn't doing a good job in our opinion? there are laws against murder which are not natural but they, you know, make the society better.

i am attracted to people, not genitalia. if you can't accept that, then keep it to yourself.


now, back to the topic at hand:

i haven't actively seeked out a relationship in a long time... solely due to lack of interest in them. the main reason for this is that i have dated a few of needy guys & girls, and as a very independent person this frustrates me a lot. i don't really want to see the same person all the time.

my first relationship lasted ~4 months, and for the most part i was happy. i lost my virginity to him, and his to me. he was nice all the time, caring and was always there for me when i needed it. but i fucked this one up really badly, when i was at his party and ended hooking up with his best friend (i was trashed at the time to be fair ): ). i haven't really forgiven myself, because ever since he spiraled further into drugs then he already was. and he wasn't exactly straight edge while we were dating.

after that i didn't really date for a year and a half, excepting very casual things. i had a few 'boyfriends' and 'girlfriends' but it was pretty much "open polygamous relationship" where we would see each other once or twice a week. i couldn't handle a serious level of commitment at that stage.

then after that year and a half, i met my very recent ex sarah. we dated for almost 8 months. we were both extremely independent, and we fell in and out of infatuation with each other. we met at a rave, danced, exchanged numbers and kissed as the sun rose. i've never really been in such a roller coaster relationship as that one though. very recently (new years eve eve) we broke up because neither of us could handle the relationship anymore. we're both terribly emotional girls and we did have quite spectacular fights...

so now i'm single again and not really looking, as i like being (:

 

[The_Fallen]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I don't believe that homosexuality was what nature intended for us. Hence unnatural.

hold up, are you seriously saying that everything natural is right and everything not-natural is wrong?

lion packs kill old leaders to prove that they're the new best leader. should we be killing any leader who isn't doing a good job in our opinion? there are laws against murder which are not natural but they, you know, make the society better.

No, as a matter of fact I am not. You, (and some others), are taking one thing that I said and applying it to a lot more far-fetched ideas than what I meant. Oh, and I'm sorry, but are we lions? No. Nature did give us thought processes and sentience, so I hardly think that lion behavior can be applied here. The laws against murder are a result of the intelligence that nature gave us; they may not be natural, per se, but I don't have any problems with them at all, seeing as they do something to strenghen society.

i am attracted to people, not genitalia. if you can't accept that, then keep it to yourself.

I can accept it. I may not like it, but I can accept that people are gay. I don't know where you came up with the idea that I couldn't.

 

[Brain]

Because the parents' homosexuality won't ever influence the adopted children, right?

Considering how children raised by heterosexual, homophobic parents may still be homosexual, I don't think it would. As far as I can tell, studies have failed to show any difference in the statistics of sexual orientation in children raised by gay parents. The ratio of homosexuality seems to be the same regardless of the parents' sexual orientation - at the very least, a majority ends up heterosexual in all cases.

Note that it is unlikely that homosexual parents would raise their children to be gay - I would say that they are much less likely than heterosexual parents to be prejudiced for or against any particular sexual orientation. I don't think I've met any gay person who thinks homosexuality is "better" than heterosexuality or who is prejudiced against straight people, even though the converse is (sadly) very common. In general, children of gay parents would probably feel that their parents would 100% support their decision regardless of what it is, and there is ample evidence that the majority will end up heterosexual.

Again, seeing as if we were all gay, we couldn't reproduce; and would cease to be. Do you believe that that is natural?

It is not natural for 100% of people to be gay, but it might very well be natural for a small percentage of people to be gay. And it is the latter that is the case.

I don't think I said that everything unnatural is bad. I said that homosexuality was unnatural, and I said that I disagreed with it.

If homosexuality being natural or unnatural does not matter to you agreeing or disagreeing with it, then do not mention it. It makes your point unclear.

Protection serves some positive purposes. If everyone used it all the time, it would cause humanity to die, but it isn't used purely to never have children. Homosexuality serves no purpose to aid humanity, but protection does, so it isn't inherently bad.

Protection serves a purpose to aid humanity? What purpose? If the purpose of protection is to lower birth rates, so does homosexuality in a much more "natural" manner: by adjusting the percentage of homosexuals, nature can easily regulate population growth without any need for fancy contraptions. If the purpose of protection is to make people have sex more often, the same effect could be achieved by having both straight sex and gay sex (and then I sure wonder why you'd be opposed to masturbation).

And on what grounds would you say that homosexuality serves no purpose to aid humanity? I can find many purposes to it. Homosexuality allows for a greater population to exist without its numbers exploding. Bisexuality can help relieve sexual tension in situations where there is a large gender imbalance for a long period of time. Homosexuals in ancient times might have been more likely to stay with their own family or become helpers, since they couldn't settle and start a family, and their presence might have been helpful to others.

Again, Catholic priests do not exist with the sole purpose of preventing children.

Homosexuality does not exist with the sole purpose of preventing children. What gave you that idea? One theory for the existence of homosexuality is that the same genes encode greater fertility in women and homosexuality in men, in such a way that the overall balance is positive. In that light, homosexuality is, quite the contrary, a compromise aiming to have more children in total. Life is a lot more complex than you think it is, you know.

THey have messages to preech;

And little boys to molest. Which they'd do much less if they could marry, I reckon.

and I don't think the Church has anything wrong with having children.

Neither do homosexuals.

Marriage is a Christian idea, is it not?

Not at all. Pretty much all cultures and all religions have or have had marriage, and it predates recorded history. I have no idea how you came to believe it was a Christian idea, that's pretty outlandish :(

Maybe it isn't, but I wouldn't say that it never will be. With more and more states passing laws that make gay marriage acceptable, it may start to become a larger and larger part of society until it takes over. It's happening right now with things like the Spanish language in America. As of now though, I don't see anything that could convince me into thinking that it is ethically correct, or completely natural.

You are speaking nonsense. As I said before, there is absolutely no evidence that gay parents raise gay children any more than straight parents do (in fact there's evidence that they do not). There is ample evidence that homosexuality is genetic and not really a choice. Gay marriage being legal won't make anyone suddenly go: "oh hey gay marriage is legal, let's be gay!!" - they can and will be gay without marriage. The majority of people are quite happy with being straight and won't turn gay out of the blue.

Your fear is completely irrational. Homosexuality isn't some kind of viral culture. It's not even a culture at all. A small percentage of the population is born that way and that percentage is naturally regulated so that we can hardly make it any higher or lower. That's all there is to it and there is nothing to be against.

Of course cars are natural Brain. If it wasn't natural it wouldn't exist; cars are just not a carbon based entity. The only necessity of being natural is existing in the actual world (hence why the supernatural is unnatural).

In some sense you are right, but given the context of the conversation it's not really relevant. You are essentially picking apart the meaning of "natural", but it was used in an informal way. By "unnatural" we essentially mean manmade or cultural as opposed as genetic. While the frontier between "natural" and "unnatural" would be somewhat blurry and arbitrary if we were to define it formally, I feel that it is beyond the scope of the discussion. At best, you uncovered a semantic confusion, but I don't think it is worth elaborating upon it.

To put it in another way, "natural" isn't a very well defined term formally, it has no meaning that's both precise and useful ("everything is natural" is useless even if true). Still, most people would say that a car is not natural but trees are, and when you use "natural" in a conversation it is fine to rely on that implicit definition. When somebody says "x is natural" you sort of know what they mean by that (they mean it is not a car) and even if you think that natural doesn't or shouldn't mean that, it's usually a good idea to just let it slide to avoid going off course, or even to embrace it to make a point. I often do that with "free will" - free will is an incoherent concept and crumbles under analysis, but when people use it I try to avoid pointing it out unless I have to, and if I think that using it will make others understand what I say, I do.

Did that make sense?

 

[cim]

I disagree with the idea of "loving" a member of the same sex, or "loving" members of both sexes. And I disagree with it because it isn't natural; if we were all gay and weren't smart (or dumb) enough to have created things like sperm banks, humanity would cease to exist. (The fact that we have created those things doesn't make it any more right though).

Forgive me as I haven't read the thread.

I'm going to challenge your "isn't natural" basis quick here. I'm ignoring, for now, whether or not something is "natural" is required for it to be preferred, possible, etc. (i.e., clothing is very unnatural, yet we wear it) and merely addressing the claim that homosexuality is not "natural".

Possibly my favorite article on Wikipedia is "List of animals displaying homosexual behavior". It's a rather accurate article, with each documented animal on the list based on information from verifiable sources. The list is so long, it's split into several other articles by class.

I'm sure plenty of people have gotten to your other posts. Brain's said anything better than I ever could.

 

[ivar]

I doubt nature has intentions and even if it does you do not know what they are. At best we can take a stab at it (again, this is assuming the absurdity that nature meticulously intends certain scenarios). Ill bold this question so you don't skip it: if nature does not intend to have homosexuals, then why does nature produce organic lifeforms that are homosexual?

Yeah I got what you're saying Brain but the point is a bit more important than just a semantic clarification. Fallen refuses to accept the unnatural as "good" (for whatever reason beyond me), so I tried to show that homosexuality is, actually, natural.

And I don't think that natural is a fickle, indeterminate term: it is commonly used incorrectly as a fickle, indeterminate term, when its meaning is actually rather clear (excluding natural used as a figure of speech kinda thing). It just seems weird to us.

 

[andrea]

I hate to minimod, but can we all just cut it out with the homosexual/bisexual/heterosexual crap here? I'm finding tons of great stories, conversations, information, and advice here, and I'd like to continue doing so without it getting locked. Take it to another more-appropriate thread.

So the girl and I are bf/gf now; I've recognized that I truly do like her, and I'm enjoying every minute with her. I'm feeling things that I haven't felt in forever, as well as some new ones. She really is an amazing person, one who has been through so much shit but has come out polished by the fire. We compliment each other well in every way, and are already looking forwards to our future.

The only problem is that I still feel somewhat distant, though I'm sure this will fix with time. However, I'm placed in a new situation that I haven't been in before: two or three friends of mine disapprove of her. Not really close friends, but just people I know somewhat well and hang out with sometimes. They haven't gotten along well in the past, and I hear some not-so-great things about my girlfriend from them. However, she has given me no reason to mistrust her, and I know that my friends are in no place to judge anything she may or may not have done as they do and have done worse things. I feel deep down that my girlfriend is not who they say she is, but for some reason I am just quick to believe anything negative, whether it's true or not, and end up doubting her. Any advice on trusting?

Thanks for posting that, even though most people ignored it =/

Anyways... make sure you still listen to your friends. They have your back- there must have been a time where one of your friends dated someone that you didn't like. They probably see something that you don't notice. Now, I'm not saying that you should leave her as soon as they point out a flaw- give it time, but just don't forget to listen to your friends. They have your best interests at heart.

Now, on to a story of my own...

Through a series of really random events, I've realized how much I have in common with this one guy. We seriously have a crapload of the same interests.... paintball, dirtbikes/quads, video games.... even pokemon, hahaha (and I'm just praying that he doesn't finally join smogon to realize that I'm writing this). Anyways, I'm rather shy. And I really don't want to have to take the initiative, but I've been told that he doesn't catch on very easily. My one friend was supposed to push him in the right direction, but she really isn't doing such a good job =/ Now, I'm like 90% sure my feelings are returned. Any advice on how to approach this?

 

[Bam]

When I said they had "past problems", I more along the lines meant that one girl had done something terrible to my now-girlfriend, and drama ensued, with both of them ending their friendship with each other (they were best friends). The other friends are good friends of the one who hurt my girlfriend, and I know they have done worse things than what they accuse her of. What I meant was that they are warning me about her, but I know without a doubt that there's no way they're doing this out of the goodness of their hearts.

And aside from that, they're just casual friends, not people I hang out with or see on a daily basis, and my gf goes to a different school than the rest of us.

Anyways, to your dilemma. I've found that, though cheesy, when in the midst of a deep conversation you can bring up the topic of liking somebody - but don't mention who - and eventually (if the feeling is returned), you get into this "I'll tell you who I like if you tell me who you like first" game that is ridiculously dumb but you'll look back and be like "wow that was so silly/cute". Aside from that, just go out on a date and give casual signs of physical affection, like putting your hand on his shoulder, hugging him for a long time, and if you're really, REALLY daring, maybe slip your hand into his! You'll easily be able to tell by his reaction whether the feelings truly are returned or not.