I finally figured out where the mysterious "third nipple," displayed smack dab between the other two breasts so many women haul around these>"/>
I finally figured out where the mysterious "third nipple," displayed smack dab between the other two breasts so many women haul around these days, comes from.
It seems that when the "woman of three nipples" is pinching her top between the normal two breasts to pull out something from underneath (to relieve someungodly pressure, apparently), she leaves a "ghost nipple" betwixt the other two. Phew. Glad that's solved.
Which leads me to my question: If we're supposed to call those shirtlike things that you wear "tops," why is it that we get slapped so hard for calling your skintight pants "bottoms"?
This "punishment" we continue to receive for attempting to keep in stride with your already redefined clothing nomenclature has escaped me for nearly half a century.
So why is it that I can't seem to get a date anymore these days? I forget.
As third nipples are second only to vestigial tails as one of my all-time favorite body oddities, I was most excited to read your letter. However, I regret to inform you that you've been misinformed as far as your theory on their origin. What you speak of is called "underwire udder." It is caused by ill-fitting brassieres that force the wearer into making all manner of unflattering public adjustments. The resulting pucker is not a permanent condition. (For actual pics of third nips—and other celebrity skin conditions—check out www.skinema.com.)
As for your question . . . well, I don't know why anyone would get cranky over you referring to her skintight pants as "bottoms." "Slacks" might make me a bit cranky, but then I still refer to "panties" as underpants. Why you can't get a date is beyond me, though you might have better luck if you stop with the non sequiturs and quit staring at women who are trying to adjust their undergarments.
I've recently ended a relationship with a woman that I had very good times with—clubbing, drinking, movies, and marathon deep tongue and cuddling sessions. However, when it came to sex she became "weird" and somewhat frigid. In breaking up with me a few weeks after the initial sexual encounter, she said that she didn't feel the chemistry necessary to take the relationship to the next level "at this time." She threw out the usual compliments of my being a nice guy, smart and articulate, and having a "great body." She also offered to be friends. Usually when a woman wants you to be her "friend" it means you will never get to the status of boyfriend ever again.
Should I accept this or totally cut her off? It's really bewildering considering the intense passion we shared.
Confused and Frustrated
Men will pretty much always give up the booty to their gal pals. But oddly enough, once you pass into the realm of "friend" in girlland, alas, that's usually where you'll languish. I think what you want from me is affirmation that her seeming ambivalence is a signal that something's gonna change somewhere down the line . . . like she'll suddenly cast aside her hang-ups, morph into a sexual she-beast, and fuck you senseless. That's probably not gonna happen.
I'm not trying to be cruel. I had a boyfriend who, after months of dating, told me the thought of having sex with me made him "squeamish." He went on to describe in great detail how he had never been attracted to me but had "tried really hard" to be. Gulp. At least your girl was kind about giving you the shaft. Who knows why she did it (and I wouldn't waste much time worrying about it). In the end—and this is the end—it doesn't matter. What you have to worry about is yourself. Your ego is bruised and your heart probably has a little ding. Do not keep mulling this over in your mind. Be strong and move on.
Need strength? Write Dategirl at firstname.lastname@example.org or c/o Seattle Weekly, 1008 Western, Ste. 300, Seattle, WA 98104.