[ibook4113]

there doesn't need to be sexual attraction for love. And i think there has been a romantic increase because he hasn't mentioned the sister thing again, so he must feel stronger about her. I think the truth of the matter is they both aren't telling each other the truth.

[WOMBAI]

Originally Posted by ibook4113

there doesn't need to be sexual attraction for love. And i think there has been a romantic increase because he hasn't mentioned the sister thing again, so he must feel stronger about her. I think the truth of the matter is they both aren't telling each other the truth.

Yes there does - for people of their age! And if her bunny-boiler act is actually genuine - then she definitely wants that from him! A 'love' where one wants sex and the other doesn't is doomed to failure!

[ibook4113]

Originally Posted by WOMBAI

Yes there does - for people of their age! And if her bunny-boiler act is actually genuine - then she definitely wants that from him! A 'love' where one wants sex and the other doesn't is doomed to failure!

He has said before that he doesn't like sex, so he may be an exception. Sure, where there are different feelings between the two it is not likely to work, but then they are both as bad as each other. Josie is in Lust, John is in Love. Josie doesn't really care for the feelings of John James she just wants a plaything. It is a shame she has tricked him.

[Angus]

Originally Posted by ibook4113

He has said before that he doesn't like sex, so he may be an exception. Sure, where there are different feelings between the two it is not likely to work, but then they are both as bad as each other. Josie is in Lust, John is in Love. Josie doesn't really care for the feelings of John James she just wants a plaything. It is a shame she has tricked him.

This is the most disingenuous post on the forum and illustrates perfectly how JJ supporters can excuse the vilest and most manipulative of behaviours. You say John has no siblings and therefore doesn't know how to react to a sister -but even the dimmest idiot knows you don't fondle and caress your sister in the way that he does when he "doesn't want to lead her on" (his words). In the next breath, you say he's in love with her! Seems you're trying to cover all bases. Dozy Josie is also a manipulative scheming cow, but that doesn't excuse the vileness of JJ's behaviour.

[ibook4113]

Originally Posted by angus58

This is the most disingenuous post on the forum and illustrates perfectly how JJ supporters can excuse the vilest and most manipulative of behaviours. You say John has no siblings and therefore doesn't know how to react to a sister -but even the dimmest idiot knows you don't fondle and caress your sister in the way that he does when he "doesn't want to lead her on" (his words). In the next breath, you say he's in love with her! Seems you're trying to cover all bases. Dozy Josie is also a manipulative scheming cow, but that doesn't excuse the vileness of JJ's behaviour.

I believe the point i was making was that he used to refer to her as a sister because it was a natural relationship that they had. I am NOT implying that them fondling is brotherly or sisterly, i am saying that he fancies her more than he realised. Obviously he never should have said sister because people will forever use it against him now.

And a quick point. It seems the john James haters have forgot that time moves forward, people more forward, and JJ feels stronger for Josie than he felt at the beginning. Therefore you would expect to see an increase in the description of emotion for her.