[I] Random late-night ponderings
Torak
sleep, bugger the world and sod the rest, and so on and so forth.
So I started thinking, my brain swooping randomly hither and thither.
And I started thinking about things I probably shouldn't think about,
such as the afterlife, religion, why I'm pathetic, and how they get
those little stripes in the toothpaste.
So I've come to a few conclusions:
*THE MEANING OF LIFE*
There is none. The meaning of life is simply to life; humans exist only
to exist (and procreate, but so many people are doing that so well that
it's probably not a major consideration).
So if there's no meaning to life beyond life itself, what about those
who feel they need some sort of meaning? Well, they turn to...
*RELIGION*
(If you're highly religious, be careful - this may offend you, but I
hope not - it's not intended to.)
Well, what's the point in religion? All right, it's codes of behaviour
to keep a bronze-age society disease-free in the desert, and to
generally stop people from poking bloody great holes in one another with
sharp sticks.
But since modern civilisation isn't bronze age (and, in most cases, not
in the desert), and religion itself has so frequently been used as an
excuse for poking bloody great holes in people with sharp sticks, then
what's the point of religion?
Simple, again; because people are worried about where they go when they
die. They want to know that, if they've been good, they go somewhere
nice with sunshine, good food, and expensive golf courses. [1] They want
to know that people who've been nasty to them go somewhere unpleasant,
possibly with non-stop reruns of Kilroy[2].
But that's something I'll come back to. For now, there is, in my view, a
basic flaw with religion:
Any god who craves worship isn't worth worshipping.
Look at SAS squaddies. They tend to be quiet, at least outside the
Regiment. They don't tend to brag about what they've done, their level
of fitness and competence, and so on. They know what they're good at,
they're secure and confident in themselves. They don't need the
adulation of the masses.
And yet people happily line up to swear fealty to a god that demands
constant worship, which strikes me as odd. And how can people justify
saying "My religion is right, all the others are wrong"? Well, OK, they
frequently try to justify it with "Because God said so", but so do all
the other sides, so how can any of them be more plausible than any of
the others? And why should gods be given more regard than other people?
And that, I suppose, is my fundamental disagreement with religion. It
says gods are more important than people, and stuff like that. If people
go against gods, they need to be put down, and whatnot. But if gods go
against people, who can't defend themselves, the god is the one who gets
the praise.
It's like that line in the first episode of The West Wing - "We're being
invaded by 1200 Cubans on rafts?" "I'm not saying I don't like our chances."
Why is the bully the one getting the praise, while the underdogs are
being told "You should have given us your lunch money, this would never
have happened. It's your own fault."
Which brings me to...
*MODERN SOCIETY*
It's exactly the same. If you go against the norm, it's your own fault
that you're shunned. If you, for instance, don't like getting drunk at
every turn, watching football [3] and bonking people at random, you're
an outcast, not in with the crowd, not worth the time of day.
There are people joining whole vaguely ridiculous subcultures, imitating
hundreds of others to prove their individuality.
And why is everything divided into black and white? You're either Tory
or Labour, Democrat or Republican, In or Out, Us or Them, Black or
White, With Us or Against Us. There are no shades of grey any more.
And criticism is practically banned! People are so used to having their
egos stroked - non-competitive sports days, whos stupid idea was that? -
that they can't take constructive criticism; look at any fanfic site,
for instance, and the slightest hint of dipping below "LOL bestest fic
EVAH!!!11!!!" is considered a flame.
*DEATH*
So, what comes after it? Is it Heaven and Hell? Is it Limbo? Is it a
cuppa with Osiris?
Actually, I quite hope that it's just The End. It's the least fright...
terrifying of the alternatives. Or, if the world really did start with
"A-one, a-two, a-one, two, three four", I wonder if death is the big
twiddly bit at the end, with lots of fast runs rtound the drums and
cymbals and the saxophone going all squiggly at the top of its range and
everything sounding bloody incredible, and then you get off the stage,
get your free drink, and then total oblivion. I'd quite like that, I
think. [4]
*PATHETICNESS*
Is it pathetic to be 24 and never have had a girlfriend? To have had
seven hugs (not counting family) in two and a half decades of life?
I mean, I hope not. But it sometimes feels like it. Which is weird, I'm
not used to feeling. At all.
That said, I should probably get some exercise. And some sleep would be
good, too. I get vaguely wibbly when I'm tired, which is particularly
disconcerting when I also have access to a keyboard, newsgroups, and m4d
100 wpm |337 7yp1n6 5k1||z. D00d. And, er, possibly w00t.
Oh yes, there was something else, wasn't there. So, finally...
*TOOTHPASTE*
Just how /do/ they get those stripes in?
[1] - Like Dubai, in fact. Yes, heaven is a place on Earth. Possibly.
[2] - Actually, he's probably live all the time there.
[3] - Even when there's actual interesting stuff on TV that actually
requires attention and some degree of mental activity
[4] - Oh, and don't worry - however it may sound[5], I'm not planning to
top myself. However unpleasant my life gets - and it's not /that/ bad
right now - it's nowhere near unpleasant enough for that terrifying
uncertainty to become the more attractive option.
[5] - It's weird. Whenever you tell a doctor that you're feeling
depressed, their first question is always "Do you ever think of harming
yourself?" My answer, accurate on a couple of occasions, flippant on
most of them, has always been "No. Harming *others*, perhaps."
Fortunately they all know I'm not homicidal except when someone's
standing between me and chips.
Arthur Hagen
> *TOOTHPASTE*
>
> Just how /do/ they get those stripes in?
You mean you never opened a tube to find out? There's several bags
inside the tube, each with its own opening below the main opening. When
you squeeze the tube, you put equal pressure on all the bags, so a more
or less similar amount will be pressed out.
I'm more interested in knowing why ALL BLOODY TOOTHPASTE HAS MINT, even
the fruit flavoured varieties. Well, there's _one_ toothpaste that's
mint free -- Tom's of Maine's Fennel variety, but that one doesn't have
Fluoride.
Regards,
--
*Art
Torak
> On Fri, 2006-09-29 at 01:39 +0200, Torak wrote:
>
>>*TOOTHPASTE*
>>
>>Just how /do/ they get those stripes in?
>
>
> You mean you never opened a tube to find out? There's several bags
> inside the tube, each with its own opening below the main opening. When
> you squeeze the tube, you put equal pressure on all the bags, so a more
> or less similar amount will be pressed out.
Neat.
> I'm more interested in knowing why ALL BLOODY TOOTHPASTE HAS MINT, even
> the fruit flavoured varieties. Well, there's _one_ toothpaste that's
> mint free -- Tom's of Maine's Fennel variety, but that one doesn't have
> Fluoride.
That's a very good question.
Anastasia
> Is it pathetic to be 24 and never have had a girlfriend? To have had
> seven hugs (not counting family) in two and a half decades of life?
>
Nah. But I'm quite proud to have given you one seventh of your total hugs.
:-D
--
Call for Papers: Representing the Other, Gender and Sexuality in the
Fantastic (International Association of the Fantastic in the Arts, Ft
Lauderdale, FL. March 14-18, 2007). GoH: Geoff Ryman, Melissa Scott,
Jane Donawerth. Details at: http://www.iafa.org
Blog: http://www.esmeraldus.blogspot.com/
Torak
> Torak wrote:
>
>
>>Is it pathetic to be 24 and never have had a girlfriend? To have had
>>seven hugs (not counting family) in two and a half decades of life?
>>
>
>
> Nah. But I'm quite proud to have given you one seventh of your total hugs.
>
> :-D
I like that way of looking at it. :-)
Anastasia
Doesn't Tom's of Maine make a couple of varieties without mint?
The kids' kinds might do. I think they've got flouride, and there's a
strawberry kind and a mango or citrs kind, IIRC.
Arthur Hagen
> Arthur Hagen wrote:
> >
> > I'm more interested in knowing why ALL BLOODY TOOTHPASTE HAS MINT,
> > even the fruit flavoured varieties. Well, there's _one_ toothpaste
> > that's mint free -- Tom's of Maine's Fennel variety, but that one
> > doesn't have Fluoride.
>
> Doesn't Tom's of Maine make a couple of varieties without mint?
>
> The kids' kinds might do. I think they've got flouride, and there's a
> strawberry kind and a mango or citrs kind, IIRC.
Yes, but in addition to the main flavour, they contain "Natural
Flavors", which...
At last the last time I called them, the only one that was guaranteed
menthol free was the Fennel one, and since then they've stopped making
it, so when I run out it's back to baking soda and salt...
Regards,
--
*Art
Arthur Hagen
Double-checking myself here, it turns out that the strawberry kid's
toothpaste does /probably/ not have peppermint oil (menthol) in it -- as
Tom's don't produce the "Natural Flavors" themselves, I've asked them to
double-check with the manufacturer. The Mango one *does* contain
menthol. Cause, you know, that's an important part of the Mango
experience...
Regards,
--
*Art
Richard Adams
You *could* just put a teaspoon of baking soda in your mouth and brush
it around. It'll accomplish the same ends and more to the point, will
neutralise acids. I don't believe toothpaste does this. It's better to
stop the acid byproduct of bacteria stripping your enamel than worrying
about flouride depositing a tin ion in a place where the acid has
already done it's work.
8'FED
> *THE MEANING OF LIFE*
>
> There is none. The meaning of life is simply to life; humans exist only to
> exist
Why is it that when people say, "The meaning of life is", the next
word is always "to"? I mean, "meaning" is a noun, but "to" means that
you're about to define a verb. That's inconsistent.
> Simple, again;
Nothing's simple...
> But that's something I'll come back to. For now, there is, in my view, a basic
> flaw with religion:
>
> Any god who craves worship isn't worth worshipping.
What if the god's motivation for wanting to be worshipped is that (in
the opinion of the god) doing so is in the best interests of the
worshippers - not because the god will punish them if they don't, but
because it's built into the nature of reality that gods always know
what's best?
It's an "if" of cosmic proportions ... but what if?
> And yet people happily line up to swear fealty to a god that demands constant
> worship, which strikes me as odd. And how can people justify saying "My
> religion is right, all the others are wrong"? Well, OK, they frequently try to
> justify it with "Because God said so", but so do all the other sides, so how
> can any of them be more plausible than any of the others?
That - relative plausibility and the immeasurability thereof - *is* the
problem with religion, I think.
> And why should gods be given more regard than other people?
Assumes that it's either/or - that it's *possible* to give regards to
gods at the expense of people. Not everyone would think so. (Analogy:
if a bomb planted by aliens is going to blow up the whole world, is it
possible to give more regard to the problem of defusing the bomb, than
to people?)
> Why is the bully the one getting the praise, while the underdogs are being
> told "You should have given us your lunch money, this would never have
> happened. It's your own fault."
I like the idea of disqualifying all religions in which gods are
bullies.
> Is it pathetic to be 24 and never have had a girlfriend? To have had seven
> hugs (not counting family) in two and a half decades of life?
Well, I'm 29...
I think that being willing to do anything to *get* a girlfriend is
what's pathetic, especially if those things involve being insincere
and not really yourself. It's pathetic not to realise that there are
more important things in life, to have your self-esteem tied to a
single basket with the word "SEX" written on it, to not have any
deeper values.
Personally, I don't, right now, need a girlfriend as such (which is
not to deny that it would be nice). But some of the things I *do* need
are sort of on the same metaphorical continent. Like having someone to
say "I love you" to and having opportunities to show it in various
ways -- that's *very* nice, but fortunately a capital R relationship
is not a prerequisite.
> *TOOTHPASTE*
<ducks, closes eyes, covers head>
<waits>
<tentatively opens eyes and uncovers head>
"And observe the strongest of the several German equivalents for
explosion -- Ausbruch. Our word Toothbrush is more powerful than
that. It seems to me that the Germans could do worse than import
it into their language to describe particularly tremendous
explosions with." -- Mark Twain
<relaxes, satisfied that nothing is about to explode>
Adrian.
Len Oil
> Torak wrote:
>
>> Is it pathetic to be 24 and never have had a girlfriend? To have had
>> seven hugs (not counting family) in two and a half decades of life?
Hey, add another 8 years to that, for me. And while I'm nominally quite
content in my current state of physical lonesomeness[1], but must admit
that there are times I wonder... I think that having Someone Special
could be good for me (help me focus on the Truly Important Things (TM))
but then again I have past experiences that tells me that T.I.T.s[2]
might be subjectively different from a partner's P.O.V. and may well be
why I generally like my existence, barring two or three improvements I'd
like to make to it (representative across the board, from professional
standing to some elementary psychological patching up of some of my
foibles).
> Nah. But I'm quite proud to have given you one seventh of your total hugs.
Add another notch regarding me, then, my dear Anastasia. When we first
met at the Con and you read my name-badge and reacted with that joyous
"It's you!" sort of thing[3], that was by /far/ the most hug I'd had
for... ...a long time. (I tried not to let it go to my head. Honest... ;)
Any sign of an outwards-going personality that I actually showed at the
Con was probably a combination of Being Amongst Friends (even if I'd
never met them before in my life, though of course /some/ of them I had)
and the fact that generally not having eaten (anything
substantial/absorbent) for most of the day counted greatly against my
normal self-restraint each evening, after partaking of something
alcoholic at the bar.
Today, for example, I haven't spoken to anyone save myself for... a good
14 hours, which is when I mumbled some vague pleasantries to the girl on
the till at the supermarket.
Look at me. I'm rambling... Maybe I have a word quota, and the less I
speak, the more I have to type... ;) How about I switch subject and
give you a spontaneous filk that's very roughly about my current AFP
experience? It's being written at an odd hour of the night/morning, so
don't expect it to be any good! The tune should be obvious from the
very first line. The scansion may a tad off. My own attempts to sing
it are quite obviously off-key... Anyway...
# Don't cry for me, A.F.P., now,
# The truth is I'd let things back up.
# Reading the unreads,
# No short-cut catch-up.
# Through all the bad threads,
# Seen you all patch up.
# And as for religion and X-rating,
# You never invited them in,
# Though it seems that some people had problems with them,
# They were distractions,
# There were no solutions despite of some views.
# The answer was here all the time,
# The dynamics of Usenet news.
# Don't cry for me A.F.P., now,
# I've still got so many to go.
# Including large threads,
# (These are not wild boasts)
# Forty-four hundreds
# And sixty-two posts.
# Have I geeked too much?
# There's nothing more I can think of to filk to you,
# But all you have to do is read my text
# To know that every word is true
# Don't cry for me A.F.P., now...
(Talk about random late-night stuff... Luckily, I'm not required to do
anything tomorrow/today until mid-afternoon.)
[1] When I've got no professional or personal commitments intervening,
I'm perfectly happy working at... whatever my current projects are... at
home, alone, with nary a word of contact made between me and the outside
world. At least until someone tries to telephonically persuade me to
change mortgage, mobile phone or utilities supplier... For days at a
time, even, if I can stop myself from being distracted by the multitude
of solitary entertainment pursuits (no giggling, at the back, I didn't
mean /that/!) that I have available to me...
[2] An unfortunate acronym, with no actual innuendo intended.
[3] I'm sorry, my memory is swamped with the gist of what happened, not
the exact details... ;) And, yes, I'm quite aware that it probably
wasn't a greeting that was exclusively used towards me.
The Stainless Steel Cat
Torak <perr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>It's one AM, I've been briefly asleep, and now I'm awake again, can't
>sleep, bugger the world and sod the rest, and so on and so forth.
[snip early morning musings]
Yes. I agree with all of that. To the point where I have absolutely nothing
else to add...
Cat.
--
Jazz-Loving Soul Mate and Tolerable Frog to CCA
I have read of a place where humans do battle in a ring of Jello.
James Mitchelhill
> *THE MEANING OF LIFE*
>
> There is none. The meaning of life is simply to life; humans exist only
> to exist (and procreate, but so many people are doing that so well that
> it's probably not a major consideration).
Nah. You make your own meaning.
> *MODERN SOCIETY*
>
> It's exactly the same. If you go against the norm, it's your own fault
> that you're shunned. If you, for instance, don't like getting drunk at
> every turn, watching football [3] and bonking people at random, you're
> an outcast, not in with the crowd, not worth the time of day.
Maybe people you'd quite like put this front on and you never get past
that?
> There are people joining whole vaguely ridiculous subcultures, imitating
> hundreds of others to prove their individuality.
It's not about individuality. It's about solidarity. The ridiculousness
tends to be just the outer layers. Beneath that they're real people who may
or may not share the drunken, football-watching, bed-hopping idiocy you
dislike.
The trick is not to get hung up on superficialities.
> *PATHETICNESS*
>
> Is it pathetic to be 24 and never have had a girlfriend? To have had
> seven hugs (not counting family) in two and a half decades of life?
It is if it bothers you.
--
James Mitchelhill
ja...@disorderfeed.net
http://disorderfeed.net
Torak
> Torak wrote:
>
>>*THE MEANING OF LIFE*
>>
>>There is none. The meaning of life is simply to life; humans exist only to
>>exist
>
> Why is it that when people say, "The meaning of life is", the next
> word is always "to"? I mean, "meaning" is a noun, but "to" means that
> you're about to define a verb. That's inconsistent.
Oooh, very good point.
>>But that's something I'll come back to. For now, there is, in my view, a basic
>>flaw with religion:
>>
>>Any god who craves worship isn't worth worshipping.
>
> What if the god's motivation for wanting to be worshipped is that (in
> the opinion of the god) doing so is in the best interests of the
> worshippers - not because the god will punish them if they don't, but
> because it's built into the nature of reality that gods always know
> what's best?
>
> It's an "if" of cosmic proportions ... but what if?
Then said god should be clearer about it. Otherwise you get the old
"Why?" "Because." loop of the smartarse four-year-old.
>>And yet people happily line up to swear fealty to a god that demands constant
>>worship, which strikes me as odd. And how can people justify saying "My
>>religion is right, all the others are wrong"? Well, OK, they frequently try to
>>justify it with "Because God said so", but so do all the other sides, so how
>>can any of them be more plausible than any of the others?
>
> That - relative plausibility and the immeasurability thereof - *is* the
> problem with religion, I think.
Yeah. And also why I'm keeping my options open. ;-)
>>And why should gods be given more regard than other people?
>
> Assumes that it's either/or - that it's *possible* to give regards to
> gods at the expense of people. Not everyone would think so. (Analogy:
> if a bomb planted by aliens is going to blow up the whole world, is it
> possible to give more regard to the problem of defusing the bomb, than
> to people?)
That's not what I mean; I mean the way people say "You don't believe in
my god, you must be a bad person". And the multifarious extensions thereof.
>>Why is the bully the one getting the praise, while the underdogs are being
>>told "You should have given us your lunch money, this would never have
>>happened. It's your own fault."
>
> I like the idea of disqualifying all religions in which gods are
> bullies.
So do I.
>>Is it pathetic to be 24 and never have had a girlfriend? To have had seven
>>hugs (not counting family) in two and a half decades of life?
>
> Well, I'm 29...
>
> I think that being willing to do anything to *get* a girlfriend is
> what's pathetic, especially if those things involve being insincere
Absolutely. That's probably why I've never had one...
> and not really yourself. It's pathetic not to realise that there are
> more important things in life, to have your self-esteem tied to a
> single basket with the word "SEX" written on it, to not have any
> deeper values.
You know, I'm feeling better about this by the moment. I never did care
much for the whole sex thing.
> Personally, I don't, right now, need a girlfriend as such (which is
> not to deny that it would be nice). But some of the things I *do* need
> are sort of on the same metaphorical continent. Like having someone to
> say "I love you" to and having opportunities to show it in various
> ways -- that's *very* nice, but fortunately a capital R relationship
> is not a prerequisite.
Exactly! Well, in my case the capital R would be a big bonus - I like
stability, and settling down is very appealing prospect indeed - but the
important bits are the other things. Someone to talk to. Waking up next
to someone, not for any reasons involving sex, but just for the sake of
having someone who thinks you're *worth* waking up next to. Someone to
retire with, that sort of thing.
>>*TOOTHPASTE*
>
> <ducks, closes eyes, covers head>
>
> <waits>
>
> <tentatively opens eyes and uncovers head>
>
> "And observe the strongest of the several German equivalents for
> explosion -- Ausbruch. Our word Toothbrush is more powerful than
> that. It seems to me that the Germans could do worse than import
> it into their language to describe particularly tremendous
> explosions with." -- Mark Twain
>
> <relaxes, satisfied that nothing is about to explode>
<lights another fuse>
Torak
> On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 01:39:41 +0200, Torak wrote:
>
>>*THE MEANING OF LIFE*
>>
>>There is none. The meaning of life is simply to life; humans exist only
>>to exist (and procreate, but so many people are doing that so well that
>>it's probably not a major consideration).
>
> Nah. You make your own meaning.
Yeah. There's none built in, though.
>>*MODERN SOCIETY*
>>
>>It's exactly the same. If you go against the norm, it's your own fault
>>that you're shunned. If you, for instance, don't like getting drunk at
>>every turn, watching football [3] and bonking people at random, you're
>>an outcast, not in with the crowd, not worth the time of day.
>
> Maybe people you'd quite like put this front on and you never get past
> that?
Problem is, they spend so much time indulging in that front that it's
difficult to get past it without taking part.
>>There are people joining whole vaguely ridiculous subcultures, imitating
>>hundreds of others to prove their individuality.
>
> It's not about individuality. It's about solidarity. The ridiculousness
> tends to be just the outer layers. Beneath that they're real people who may
> or may not share the drunken, football-watching, bed-hopping idiocy you
> dislike.
>
> The trick is not to get hung up on superficialities.
Yeah. I think what annoys me is the whole "So why did you turn goth like
everyone else in your class?" "I wanted to express my individuality"
thing. It's as if people think they can buy themselves a personality by
wearing different clothes.
Elin
>8'FED wrote:
>> Torak wrote:
>>>Is it pathetic to be 24 and never have had a girlfriend? To have had seven
>>>hugs (not counting family) in two and a half decades of life?
>>
>> Well, I'm 29...
>>
>> I think that being willing to do anything to *get* a girlfriend is
>> what's pathetic, especially if those things involve being insincere
>
>Absolutely. That's probably why I've never had one...
I had my first bf a bit later than most people around me, and I've
still only had a whopping two of them[1]. I don't think in any way
that you need a bf/gf to not be pathetic, or need one at all really,
but they are very nice. And the longer you go with no experience, the
harder it gets - because you get more and more insecure and fall
further and further from the norm.
You don't have to be insincere to get a partner, but you need to be
conscious of the fact that nobody's perfect and that the other person
is full of weirdness too. If you unload every single thought in your
head on them at once, they're likely to be scared. If you seem too
weird, they may be too. Not because they're shallow, but because
they're people and they fret too.
The thing is, you have to be open to certain things if you want one, I
think.
1. You have to be open to the people around you - I tend to get
thunderbolted, but that's not how it works for everyone. And even if
it works that way for you, you still have to be open to getting to
know the person you've just fallen headlong in love with.
I'm sure you don't think people can know everything about you just by
looking at you once. Equally, you can't know everything about other
people just because what they superficially seem like.
2. You have to be open to the possibility of getting hurt, of it not
lasting forever. Because IMO you can't know beforehand if a certain
relationship will last, not even if you've known the other person as a
friend for ages and ages will you know what the two of you will be
like as a couple.
You have to be prepared to take it day by day. No relationship springs
from the ground fully formed, they grow and they need time to do
that. You can't start with the kind of love people have after twenty
years and a horde of kids, you have to start with the kind people have
after a couple of hours of nervous hand-holding.
>> and not really yourself. It's pathetic not to realise that there are
>> more important things in life, to have your self-esteem tied to a
>> single basket with the word "SEX" written on it, to not have any
>> deeper values.
>
>You know, I'm feeling better about this by the moment. I never did care
>much for the whole sex thing.
Have you ever had any? Cause if not, how do you know? Don knock it
until you've tried.
Seriously though, sex isn't everything. And it's certainly not all
having a gf/bf is about. But it is a part of it, and it does have
deeper values. I used to think otherwise, but it does.
[1] With luck I'll still be on number two many many years from now :o)
--
Elin
The world makes perfect sense, as a black comedy
Elin
>James Mitchelhill wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 01:39:41 +0200, Torak wrote:
>>>It's exactly the same. If you go against the norm, it's your own fault
>>>that you're shunned. If you, for instance, don't like getting drunk at
>>>every turn, watching football [3] and bonking people at random, you're
>>>an outcast, not in with the crowd, not worth the time of day.
>>
>> Maybe people you'd quite like put this front on and you never get past
>> that?
>
>Problem is, they spend so much time indulging in that front that it's
>difficult to get past it without taking part.
Well, maybe you should try it - it can be more fun than you think to
follow the norm.
Failing that, find a different location to hang out - a jazz club,
pottery class, take a french course - whatever that will allow you to
interact with people in curcumstances you find more comfortable.
8'FED
> Exactly! Well, in my case the capital R would be a big bonus - I like
> stability, and settling down is very appealing prospect indeed - but the
Regarding the stability thing, they tell me that when I was a kid,
soon to move from Scotland back to Australia, I made some remark about
how we were going to go there to live for EVER, or something like
that. In other words, stability sounded good to me as a five-year-old,
too.
Nothing else I feel like commenting on today, though naturally I
could waffle indefinitely if I chose to.
Adrian.
CCA
> Is it pathetic to be 24 and never have had a girlfriend?
No.
> *TOOTHPASTE*
>
> Just how /do/ they get those stripes in?
That's probably one of those 'if I told you, I'd have to kill you'
secrets, handed down through generations of highly-trained
toothpaste-makers. It's probably not even written down anywhere.
CCA
Philippa Cowderoy
> It's as if people think they can buy themselves a personality by wearing
> different clothes.
>
But what you can do is express that personality, and even encourage
certain aspects of it in yourself.
Performance anxiety leads to premature optimisation
Julian Hall
<snip>
> *THE MEANING OF LIFE*
>
> There is none. The meaning of life is simply to life; humans exist only
> to exist (and procreate, but so many people are doing that so well that
> it's probably not a major consideration).
I *know* this is not what you said, just making a point :) The trouble
with definitions such as Freud's who said (paraphrasing) that 'the meaning
of life is to procreate and that everything else is irrelevant and without
meaning' is that it denigrates those of the species who for whatever
reason are unable to procreate to the level of meaninigless objects taking
up other more important lifeforms' oxygen.
My personal belief is that there *is* no one Meaning. Every individual
infuses their own life with meaning by how they conduct themselves and
what they accomplish in their lives. To that end, IMHO those who search
for 'a Meaning' are missing the point that the meaning they are looking
for is how they conduct the search.
> So if there's no meaning to life beyond life itself, what about those
> who feel they need some sort of meaning? Well, they turn to...
>
>
> *RELIGION*
> (If you're highly religious, be careful - this may offend you, but I
> hope not - it's not intended to.)
>
> Well, what's the point in religion? All right, it's codes of behaviour
> to keep a bronze-age society disease-free in the desert, and to
> generally stop people from poking bloody great holes in one another with
> sharp sticks.
Or was it to give them a justification for the 'bloody big hole poking'?
In early Britain (circa 400ADish - I forget the exact dates) the fledgling
Church, e.g. St Columba, backed the various factions going to war saying
they were upholding the Church.
Chicken/Egg?
> But since modern civilisation isn't bronze age (and, in most cases, not
> in the desert), and religion itself has so frequently been used as an
> excuse for poking bloody great holes in people with sharp sticks, then
> what's the point of religion?
Ironic isn't it?
> Simple, again; because people are worried about where they go when they
> die. They want to know that, if they've been good, they go somewhere
> nice with sunshine, good food, and expensive golf courses. [1] They want
> to know that people who've been nasty to them go somewhere unpleasant,
> possibly with non-stop reruns of Kilroy[2].
Unless they are members of UKIP.. although... OK point taken ;)
> But that's something I'll come back to. For now, there is, in my view, a
> basic flaw with religion:
>
> Any god who craves worship isn't worth worshipping.
>
> Look at SAS squaddies. They tend to be quiet, at least outside the
> Regiment. They don't tend to brag about what they've done, their level
> of fitness and competence, and so on. They know what they're good at,
> they're secure and confident in themselves. They don't need the
> adulation of the masses.
>
> And yet people happily line up to swear fealty to a god that demands
> constant worship, which strikes me as odd.
Pedantic flaw here. We as the humble masses have no direct contact with
the deity our various religions venerate, therefore we accept as
intermediaries the clergy (or equivalent thereof). It's the clergy who
demand that we worship said deity, not the deity his/herself. We don't
get some 300 foot tall man with the head of a bull stomping around saying
'Worship me or you'll get a thick ear when you die!' for example.
> And how can people justify saying "My religion is right, all the others
> are wrong"?
There is a fundamental flaw I'm sure you've already spotted with this line
of argument. One group of people know for a fact what the truth is, and
that group is growing every day. Unfortumately... it's people who have
died, so they're not in the best position to pass on their newfound
discovery to those of us still alive.
Therefore they *cannot* possibly justify such a bald statement.
> Well, OK, they frequently try to justify it with "Because
> God said so",
See above. More specifically 'the Pope/Imam/Mullah/ said so and he talks
to God who would isn't in to self promotion above all the other pretend
gods at all.'
> but so do all the other sides, so how can any of them be more plausible
> than any of the others?
They're not.
> And why should gods be given more regard than other people?
See above for my personal meaning of life. IMHO how you treat the
*people* you encounter far outweighs your method of worship of a
non-corporeal entity you're note even sure exists. Even if you *are* sure
I think it's questionable.
> And that, I suppose, is my fundamental disagreement with religion. It
> says gods are more important than people, and stuff like that. If people
> go against gods, they need to be put down, and whatnot. But if gods go
> against people, who can't defend themselves, the god is the one who gets
> the praise.
I hope this doesn't upset the devoutly religious, but I've just had a
thought. No me thinking won't upset you :) however the content might.
It's just occured to me to ponder. What is the definition of a god? I
haven't looked it up on the net so there may be an official definition,
however in very simplistic terms a god could be defined as:
A central entity worshipped as a higher being than, and possessing powers
beyond those of, the population
This definition explains Pharoahs being treated as living gods as they
were that much higher above the general population that their power seemed
(to the individual) limitless.
It also explains why in one Star Trek epsiode Captain Picard was treated
as a God, because a primitive culture had witnessed him teleport to the
ground, a power far beyond their imagining.
<snip>
> *PATHETICNESS*
>
> Is it pathetic to be 24 and never have had a girlfriend? To have had
> seven hugs (not counting family) in two and a half decades of life?
I was 27 before I had my first gf, had three in total and coming up to 7
years since the last one.
> Oh yes, there was something else, wasn't there. So, finally...
>
>
> *TOOTHPASTE*
>
> Just how /do/ they get those stripes in?
Imps.
--
Kind regards,
Julian Hall
"I'm only on the planet because I missed the bus home"
Anastasia
<hugs>
> [3] I'm sorry, my memory is swamped with the gist of what happened,
> not the exact details... ;) And, yes, I'm quite aware that it
> probably wasn't a greeting that was exclusively used towards me.
Well, lots of people got pleased smiles. Torak was, quite literally, pounced
upon.
But on the whole, comparatively few people got the "I must immediately drop
wht I am doing, stand up, and squeeze this person" treatment.
I am not one of the world's natural huggers. Never have been. So hugging
someone I've never met is a conscoius override of my basic nature. It's
quite a lot of mental effort, really, so I am sparing with the hugs. They're
harder currency than the dollar.
Anastasia
> On Fri, 29 Sep 2006, Torak wrote:
>
>> It's as if people think they can buy themselves a personality by
>> wearing different clothes.
>>
>
> But what you can do is express that personality, and even encourage
> certain aspects of it in yourself.
Or, as I am trying to teach my students, deliberately create a certain
desired impression in the people around you.
We're studying subcultures and 'm trying to get them to analyze why certain
clothes, music, and so forth appeal to them, and the difference between
subcultures and stereotypes.
Anastasia
> You know, I'm feeling better about this by the moment. I never did
> care much for the whole sex thing.
I must tread delicately here.
One, I respect your values with regard to sex too much to treat them
trivially. And there are a whole lot of women who think, for instance, that
gay men are gay because they haven't met the right woman, and that *they*
are the right woman....goes for men thinking they can "straighten out"
lesbians, too.
I am getting to the point, I promise.
Some people really are asexual or nearly, and that's both natural and okay.
(Okay because it IS natural, I guess.) Not saying this is you, of course.
However, I think Elin's right: don't knock it until you've tried it. For
instance, I've heard "wow, I never understood what guys were going on about
until now," or rough equivalents, more than once.
So it *can* be really great. But IMO a caring partner increases the chances
of a positive experience tremendously. So does a knowledgable partner, which
isn't the same as experience--RTFM, pun intended with a vengeance. (My
private speculation is that more people would have good sex lives if, as
virgins, they were issued an instruction booklet and waited until they were
emotionally mature to practice.)
Mike Stevens
>> Torak wrote:
>>> But that's something I'll come back to. For now, there is, in my
>>> view, a basic flaw with religion:
>>>
>>> Any god who craves worship isn't worth worshipping.
>>
>> What if the god's motivation for wanting to be worshipped is that (in
>> the opinion of the god) doing so is in the best interests of the
>> worshippers - not because the god will punish them if they don't, but
>> because it's built into the nature of reality that gods always know
>> what's best?
How do we know that any particular god actually wants to be worshipped?
Might it not be that worship is something that the worshipper, rarther than
the god, feels the need of?
--
Mike Stevens
narrowboat Felis Catus III
web-site www.mike-stevens.co.uk
No man is an island. So is Man.
Mike Stevens
> I had my first bf a bit later than most people around me, and I've
> still only had a whopping two of them[1].
> [1] With luck I'll still be on number two many many years from now :o)
Why not? I've not that many gfs myself, but I've been married to the latest
one for 39.5 years, so I'm not grumbling.
Gid Holyoake
to share with us..
Snippetry..
> So it *can* be really great. But IMO a caring partner increases the chances
> of a positive experience tremendously. So does a knowledgable partner, which
> isn't the same as experience--RTFM, pun intended with a vengeance. (My
> private speculation is that more people would have good sex lives if, as
> virgins, they were issued an instruction booklet and waited until they were
> emotionally mature to practice.)
And if and when you do get around to practicing, remember that the
practice can (and indeed should) be fun too.. there's nothing at all
wrong in falling apart in fits of giggles if what you're experimenting
with is obviously not working as intended.. a good laugh together is
always fun no matter what the situation causes it.. :-)
Gid
Alec Cawley
>
> *THE MEANING OF LIFE*
>
> There is none. The meaning of life is simply to life; humans exist only
> to exist (and procreate, but so many people are doing that so well that
> it's probably not a major consideration).
In an absolute sense, no, there is no Meaning to Life. But I don't think
that we should be looking at the question on the grand universal scale.
We take a many layered view of the world, and the nature of the world
and the questions you can ask and possibly answer vary at each level. At
the lowest level we have quantum mechanics: everything is made of
quantum particles. But when you move up to larger scales, that viewpoint
gets dumped. When you build a machine, you don't worry about quantum,
you worry about the bulk properties of matter (which are determined by
quantum, but what the hell). And when you are designing a new building
you don't worry about the detailed design of a lift -you just leave the
space the lift engineers told you to leave and add the right sum to the
price. And when you are worrying about plate tectonics, you ignore the
cities and forests. And when you worry about galaxies, you ignore the
detailed structure of planets - and so on.
So in a grand, universal sense, it us not reasonable to talk about the
meaning of life, and more than it is reasonable to talk about the
correct VAT rate for globular clusters. Meaning is a human-scale
context. So the Meaning of Life is the meaning you put into it - and
nothing else.
> *RELIGION*
>
> Well, what's the point in religion?
Like anything as successful as religion, it is multifunctioned. It
fulfills different needs for different people at different times. If it
only did one job, it would disappear. But because it does many jobs,
when it isn't wanted for on job, it is useful for another. And when that
is not appropriate, either a third function appears or the first comes
back into fashion.
Purposes I can think of are:
* Explaining the universe
* Providing a "cure" for death
* Providing a meaning for life
* Providing a mechanism to bribe/blackmail an unforgiving universe
* Providing a framework for a moral and ethical system
* Providing a context for ritual
* Providing a structure for a community to identify with
* Providing a structure for an elite to control the people
Starting at the beginning:
*Explaining the Universe* To an unscientific mind, it is "obvious" that
something as big, complicated, and apparently suitable for living in as
The Universe could not have come about by accident. There *must* have
been something which organized it all. It is only relatively recently
that this has ceased to be intuitively true to most of the population -
and even now, a lot of people find it hard to handle the concept that
something more complex than themselves (because they are but a tiny part
of it) could be created bu something much simpler than themselves.
So, by this thinking, there must be a Creator. The question is not
whether such a thing (or things) exists, it is what is the nature of
that thing. And, for lack of anything else, people use a mixture of
"common sense", custom, and believing charismatic individuals.
(From hers on, I'll describe any god as he, though it may of course be
she, it, they or some ineffable combination such as the Christian Trinity).
*Providing a framework for a moral end ethical system* Of course, the
preceding logic may fail you. So there is an alternative explanation,
for use when the first fails.
Humans are inherently sociable animals - much more sociable than any
other creature of anything like the complexity. The only other animals
which are as social are simple, rule-following beasts such as ants and
corals. But humans have enormous intelligence - and hence enormous
abilities to behave selfishly.
Of course, the reason humanity has reached the levels it has is because
it has managed to overcome this selfishness to a remarkable extent.
Because we have not totally overcome it, we don't realize how well we
have done. Because there is the occasional murder, we forget that tribal
warfare was the norm in prehistoric times. We have internalized the
concept of property so well that some people, quite unreasonable, expect
pets to honor it as well.
To do this, humans have a concept of "the good of Society" or "the good
of all", towards which we must all work. Logically, this could be seen
as emerging from the sum of all people. But actually, that logic doesn't
work. With the exception of a few nearest and dearest, we don't really
like or trust the vast majority of people. So the overarching "thing we
should work for" which is welded deep into our thinking is much bigger
than the "sum of all the people we know". So we label that thing "god",
and says "god says you should XXX" when we actually mean "the common,
unselfish, good of all says you should XXX".
And it works - it makes us be nice to people we don't like, and it makes
people able to work together even when they don't really want to.
And this definition "proves" that God Loves You - which the previous one
didn't. Since god is the embodiment of all social, sharing, community,
feelgood niceness, it is tautologous that god loves you, and that
anything nasty in the world is the responsibility of some plan not
apparent to you - Satan, or god testing your faith, or whatever. Since
God *is* in some sense love, anything non-loving is just some as-yet
uncomprehended side effect.
*Providing a meaning for life" That's easy - God says it has a meaning.
Enough of the existential dread, back to the party.
*Providing a cure for death*
We are strongly programmed, like Cohen the Barbarian, Not To Die. But,
as intelligent beings, we know we are going to die. Surely God, under
either explanation, didn't put us here to break our own strongest
directive (directives: Survive, Reproduce)? So there *must* logically be
an escape route - life after death.
* Providing a mechanism to bribe/blackmail an unforgiving universe*
Despite all the good side, it is often a cruel hard world. Of course,
you work hard to make the bet of it - and then the world slaps you down.
You want to find some way of tipping the scales, of getting the
world to work a bit more in your favor than it would otherwise. And if
there is a god, then god may be able to bend the rules to your
advantage. So now you have to find a way of persuade god to do this.
Which leads to...
*Providing a context for worship* How the hell can you influence the
creator of the universe? Why the hell should god do anything for you?
Surely you cannot bribe god - any lollipops you offer god, he could give
himself an infinite amount of without trying. Since he created the
universe, anything in the universe is his already, so you cannot really
give him anything because it is his already.
So if you are a poor person wanting a rich person to do something for
them, what do you do? A: Appeal to their charitable nature, and B:
Flatter them. Most religious services I remember consist essentially of
these two components. (Consider the Lords Prayer, for example).
* Providing a context for ritual * Humans *like* ritual for several
reasons, which I will develop further below. Even without religions, we
have rituals: birthday cakes, military parades, christenings and
funerals, after dinner speeches, stag parties. Religion makes them look
a little less illogical.
And a lot of things that are done for religion make people feel happier.
A lot of the things done in the mane of religion are generators of
endorphins, from the meditative ecstasy of deep prayer to the whoopee of
a charismatic drum and dance. Community singing and dancing are natural
behaviors that make you feel good. If you do it in the name of religion,
you ascribe the happy feeling to gods blessing and treat it as another
proof of gods existence. But it is just endorphins.
* Providing a structure for a community to identify with * As already
pointed out, people want to be part of a community. If god is a
representation of "the community", "the common good", you desperately
want to be a part of that - you want to join the "community of god". How
do you do that? You obey The Rules of God. And actually, it is important
that some of those rules are *not* actually common sense. If you do
things only because they are sensible, how will either god or your
community know that you are doing it for God (i.e. for the community).
The Knights Who Say Ni prove their membership of the group by saying Ni.
If they called themselves the Knights Who Wear Chain Mail, they would
have difficulty in differentiating themselves from any old knight who
wandered by.
Of course, in principle it would be good enough just to wear a badge.
But actually, merely wearing a badge doesn't show much commitment, does
it? You could easily change the badge and join another group. So most
groups (not just religions) require things to be harder. You have to
*pay* to get in (initiation ceremonies, joining fees, circumcision). And
you usually have to pay to stay in (church on Sunday, membership fees,
kosher/halal food). And because your membership has cost you a lot, you
tend to value it. If you left, you would be walking away from a massive
investment - and would probably have to make a further investment to
enter a new community. And because you have shown that you value your
membership of the community, your fellow members will tend to trust you
more because you have too much to lose by breaking community rules.
* Providing a structure for an elite to control the people *
Hardly needs expanding.
But the point is that religion serves *all* of these functions. And it
takes quite a lot of strength of mind to discard them all at the same
time. Different believers will take different things from the buffet of
religion - and may discard things that others feel central. Thus the
bible-truthers want certainty - it may not be logical, but it is
certain. Whereas the CoE want community and ritual - they may not be
very certain how much of the Bible they actually believe, bus they have
have joined their community in Doing That Which Is Done.
To answer a couple of your points directly:
> Simple, again; because people are worried about where they go when they
> die.
As already said, one of the many functions. But not all religions
promise an afterlife - I believe Judaism is notably uncertain in this area.
> Any god who craves worship isn't worth worshipping.
It is not god that craves to be worshipped, it is worshippers crave to
worship.
> Which brings me to...
>
>
> *MODERN SOCIETY*
>
> It's exactly the same. If you go against the norm, it's your own fault
> that you're shunned. If you, for instance, don't like getting drunk at
> every turn, watching football [3] and bonking people at random, you're
> an outcast, not in with the crowd, not worth the time of day.
'Twas ever thus. There is inevitably a social norm in any community,
which may not actually be the desired norm of all, or even eny,
individuals.
Actually, we have a wider range of different nonconformities available
now than ever before. Once upon a time, there was only one way to
behave: the (only) church on Sunday, wear clothes thus, live so etc.
> There are people joining whole vaguely ridiculous subcultures, imitating
> hundreds of others to prove their individuality.
Which exactly contradicts your previous point. There are plenty of
subcultures which do not focus on drunkenness, football, and bonking. At
any time, there is bound to be a dominant culture, and it will be
disliked by those of other subcultures. I agree which your description
of the current dominant subculture - but it is only the largest of many,
not even a majority. Indeed, most subcultures will regard most other
subcultures as strange and ridiculous. Of course, the actions of your
own subculture are eminently reasonable and normal - it is everybody
else who is out of step.
> And why is everything divided into black and white? You're either Tory
> or Labour, Democrat or Republican, In or Out, Us or Them, Black or
> White, With Us or Against Us. There are no shades of grey any more.
Any more? People have always tried to reduce grays to black-and-white.
It makes life so easy. Christian/Pagan, Greek/barbarian etc. We have
since time immemorial had coming-of-age ceremonies to convert the
gradual process of changing from child to adult into a sharp transition.
It has always taken clever people to be able to handle shades of gray.
And even so, we don't want to handle gray in everything. If you can
reduce at least some parts of this complex world to B/W decisions, you
have more intellectual energy to devote to the remaining aspects which
remain gray.
The world is complicated. Since it contains six billion people, many of
whom are just as clever as you are but are following their own agenda,
it will *always* be more complicated than you can understand. So any
simplification is valuable. Of course, the skill is in choosing the
right things to simplify - and the right things not to simplify.
> And criticism is practically banned! People are so used to having their
> egos stroked - non-competitive sports days, whos stupid idea was that? -
> that they can't take constructive criticism; look at any fanfic site,
> for instance, and the slightest hint of dipping below "LOL bestest fic
> EVAH!!!11!!!" is considered a flame.
When was criticism actively encouraged in many places? Heresy, the
Inquisition... Non-competitive sports days were never anything other
than a small scale aberration - they have completely gone now. To pick
them up is a straw man.
And the common culture has always been a low level - see the
blood-and-sensation Victorian papers.
> *DEATH*
>
> So, what comes after it? Is it Heaven and Hell? Is it Limbo? Is it a
> cuppa with Osiris?
>
> Actually, I quite hope that it's just The End. It's the least fright...
> terrifying of the alternatives.
From previous comments, I think you will see that I agree with you.
>
> *PATHETICNESS*
>
> Is it pathetic to be 24 and never have had a girlfriend? To have had
> seven hugs (not counting family) in two and a half decades of life?
>
> I mean, I hope not. But it sometimes feels like it. Which is weird, I'm
> not used to feeling. At all.
No. Or if is, I was pathetic too.
Julian Hall
True.. I once experimented with a gf and *short version* she bit me.. my
response of 'Jesus Christ! That *hurts*!!' made her fall off the bed
laughing *ahem*
Alec Cawley
> Some people really are asexual or nearly, and that's both natural and okay.
> (Okay because it IS natural, I guess.) Not saying this is you, of course.
>
> However, I think Elin's right: don't knock it until you've tried it. For
> instance, I've heard "wow, I never understood what guys were going on about
> until now," or rough equivalents, more than once.
>
> So it *can* be really great. But IMO a caring partner increases the chances
> of a positive experience tremendously. So does a knowledgable partner, which
> isn't the same as experience--RTFM, pun intended with a vengeance. (My
> private speculation is that more people would have good sex lives if, as
> virgins, they were issued an instruction booklet and waited until they were
> emotionally mature to practice.)
There is a case for what is alleged to be the aristocratic custom of
taking a young man down to the local brothel for a course of instruction
before releasing him upon potential partners.
I certainly think that, other things being equal (which they most
certainly are not), an experienced partner the first time would be a
good thing.
Andrew Nevill
wrote:
>Len Oil wrote:
>
>Well, lots of people got pleased smiles. Torak was, quite literally, pounced
>upon.
>
>But on the whole, comparatively few people got the "I must immediately drop
>wht I am doing, stand up, and squeeze this person" treatment.
>
>I am not one of the world's natural huggers.
[snip],
> so I am sparing with the hugs. They're harder currency than the dollar.
I'm not sure if I got a hug. Hugs happened when we met but I'm not sure if I
hugged you first. I *DO* remeber literally picking you up. In hindsight, I'm
surprised I may be lucky to be alive. :-)
--
Andrew Nevill B.F. D.W. FdV. Reply address: ane...@btopenworld.com
AFPWorshipper to Spooky, AFPfiance to Sarah (Nanny Ogg) & Anastasia.
AFPUncle to James Vaughan. You cannot value friends as pennies,
nor can you replace them as easily (Spooky in email, Aug 2001.)
Arthur Hagen
>
> There is a case for what is alleged to be the aristocratic custom of
> taking a young man down to the local brothel for a course of
> instruction before releasing him upon potential partners.
And for women, there's the droit du seigneur.
> I certainly think that, other things being equal (which they most
> certainly are not), an experienced partner the first time would be a
> good thing.
Possibly not for the partner, though...
What's even worse than someone with no experience is someone with experience
from a single partner without variations.
--
*Art
Eric Jarvis
<1159497862.1...@fairy.broomstick.com>:
Finally something that mystifies me even more than the fact that all pre-
packaged shepherd's pies contain added sugar. [1]
[1] Probably because at wholesale prices sugar is extremely cheap compared
to almost any other strong flavour, so it pays to put a load of sugar in
any pre prepared food that uses cheap and largely flavourless ingredients,
no matter how at odds with the recipe. At a guess.
--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
Eric Jarvis
<argvu3x...@news.gkhs.net>:
>
> So it *can* be really great. But IMO a caring partner increases the chances
> of a positive experience tremendously. So does a knowledgable partner, which
> isn't the same as experience--RTFM, pun intended with a vengeance. (My
> private speculation is that more people would have good sex lives if, as
> virgins, they were issued an instruction booklet and waited until they were
> emotionally mature to practice.)
>
I don't entirely agree. I think a basic knowledge of the risks is
important, along with a basic understanding of anatomy. Beyond that the
ideal may well be two people learning all the rest through a dedicated
course of practical experiments. At least I found that to be an ideal
start.
Really there are no rules. There are no ideals. As with anything involving
human beings, it depends. If you surround sex with a set of rules,
definitions and requirements, then it is in danger of turning into a
commodity. Which is why magazine and newspaper articles do so. Precisely
as pornography does. Since a commodity can be bought and sold. If you
dispense with all rules, definition, and make the sole requirement that it
brings two people closer together, then you have something that is nigh on
impossible to write about. Something which is entirely independent of
commerce of any sort. And something which can be immensely satisfying,
entertaining, rewarding and intermittently hilarious.
Of course there aren't any rules. So some people will need much more of a
"formal" structure. However I think it's important to note that some of us
don't.
When it comes to emotional maturity I agree 100%. Unfortunately I'm not
convinced that a majority of people ever achieve emotional maturity. So
that has to be sorted out first, otherwise it would lead to the extinction
of the entire human race.
My final thought is that it's OK to make mistakes. So long as you don't
ever irrevocably harm anyone, and sometimes even just so long as nobody
dies.
--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"in the beginning was the word, and the word was
'try switching the damn thing on first'"
Eric Jarvis
<6c66e$451cf2b8$d5594586$32...@news.chello.se>:
> James Mitchelhill wrote:
> > On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 01:39:41 +0200, Torak wrote:
> >
> >>*THE MEANING OF LIFE*
> >>
> >>There is none. The meaning of life is simply to life; humans exist only
> >>to exist (and procreate, but so many people are doing that so well that
> >>it's probably not a major consideration).
> >
> > Nah. You make your own meaning.
>
> Yeah. There's none built in, though.
>
There are a seemingly infinite number built in. Life does not require a
meaning. My life, and probably just about everyone else's does require a
meaning. So what I have looked for is the meaning of MY life. Which is
largely to learn as much as possible and then poke fun at it.
Lesley Weston
a...@broomstick.com wrote on 28/09/2006 5:33 PM:
> On Fri, 2006-09-29 at 01:39 +0200, Torak wrote:
>> *TOOTHPASTE*
>>
>> Just how /do/ they get those stripes in?
>
> You mean you never opened a tube to find out? There's several bags
> inside the tube, each with its own opening below the main opening. When
> you squeeze the tube, you put equal pressure on all the bags, so a more
> or less similar amount will be pressed out.
>
> I'm more interested in knowing why ALL BLOODY TOOTHPASTE HAS MINT, even
> the fruit flavoured varieties. Well, there's _one_ toothpaste that's
> mint free -- Tom's of Maine's Fennel variety, but that one doesn't have
> Fluoride.
Try baking soda and a fluoride rinse. Though some of those are mint, so
you'll have to be careful.
--
Lesley Weston.
Brightly_coloured_blob is real, but I don't often check even the few bits
that get through Yahoo's filters. To reach me, use leswes att shaw dott ca,
changing spelling and spacing as required.
Lesley Weston
perr...@hotmail.com wrote on 28/09/2006 4:39 PM:
> It's one AM, I've been briefly asleep, and now I'm awake again, can't
> sleep, bugger the world and sod the rest, and so on and so forth.
Try cocoa.
> *THE MEANING OF LIFE*
>
> There is none.
Why should there be?
> The meaning of life is simply to life; humans exist only
> to exist (and procreate, but so many people are doing that so well that
> it's probably not a major consideration).
Humans exist. Period. There doesn't need to be a purpose.
<snip>
> *TOOTHPASTE*
>
> Just how /do/ they get those stripes in?
You think I'm going to tell you *that*?
Elin
<sex>
>When it comes to emotional maturity I agree 100%. Unfortunately I'm not
>convinced that a majority of people ever achieve emotional maturity. So
>that has to be sorted out first, otherwise it would lead to the extinction
>of the entire human race.
>
>My final thought is that it's OK to make mistakes. So long as you don't
>ever irrevocably harm anyone, and sometimes even just so long as nobody
>dies.
The way I approach it is that it shouldn't be taken too damn
seriously. I think people twist themselves into knots sometimes by
assigning way too much meaning to little things.
The first time I had sex wasn't great - it also wasn't awful. It was
as you'd expect it to be when you've no clue what you're doing; a bit
awkward and clumsy. So what? I was only with the guy for about three
months. So what?
Kepp safe as far as disease and prgnancy and bodily harm goes - the
rest just doesn't have to be such a big deal.
If at first you don't succeed, try again. This is one area where
practice certainly makes perfect, or at least much better.
Jeff Howell
> Arthur Hagen wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 2006-09-28 at 21:10 -0400, Anastasia wrote:
>>
>>> Arthur Hagen wrote:
>>>
>>>> even the fruit flavoured varieties. Well, there's _one_ toothpaste
>>>> that's mint free -- Tom's of Maine's Fennel variety, but that one
>>>> doesn't have Fluoride.
>>>
>>>
>>> The kids' kinds might do. I think they've got flouride, and there's a
>>> strawberry kind and a mango or citrs kind, IIRC.
>>
>>
>> Yes, but in addition to the main flavour, they contain "Natural
>> Flavors", which...
>> At last the last time I called them, the only one that was guaranteed
>> menthol free was the Fennel one, and since then they've stopped making
>> it, so when I run out it's back to baking soda and salt...
>
> it around. It'll accomplish the same ends and more to the point, will
> neutralise acids. I don't believe toothpaste does this.
<snip>
Depends on the toothpaste. The Arm & Hammer brand has baking soda in
it, so it'll do at least some of that. Probably not quite as much as a
teaspoon straight, and I have no idea what other toothpastes have in them.
--
Jeff
Anastasia
Lack of traction can be hilarious, for instance. I won't draw you a literal
mental diagram, but <cue Mr. Mental Image Fairy> picture a cat with
frictionless paws on a tile floor.
Anastasia
> Anastasia house_d...@yahoo.com wrote in
> <argvu3x...@news.gkhs.net>:
>>
>> So it *can* be really great. But IMO a caring partner increases
>> the chances of a positive experience tremendously. So does a
>> knowledgable partner, which isn't the same as experience--RTFM,
>> pun intended with a vengeance. (My private speculation is that
>> more people would have good sex lives if, as virgins, they were
>> issued an instruction booklet and waited until they were
>> emotionally mature to practice.)
>>
>
> I don't entirely agree. I think a basic knowledge of the risks is
> important, along with a basic understanding of anatomy. Beyond that
> the ideal may well be two people learning all the rest through a
> dedicated course of practical experiments. At least I found that to
> be an ideal start.
Naw . . . I think there's really no going wrong with having an idea of basic
technique before you set out, just so you're not fumbling around.
For example, lots of sources say that men like to be (generally) touched
differently than women (generally) do. Further, that a lot of sexual
dissatisfaction results from each gender touching a partner the way they
would like to BE touched, by way of leading by example.
So when I realized that I would prefer female partners to male ones, I read
a few books on how women (generally) like to be touched. Being a woman
myself was not as specifically instructive as you might imagine. Reading the
"instructions" about pacing and intensity of touch, f'rinstance, cleared up
some of the possible reasons I hadn't been entirely happy with some
experiences.
Reading shortened the learning curve considerably, and I don't feel I missed
out on the intermediate stages.
peachy ashie passion
> Arthur Hagen wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 2006-09-29 at 01:39 +0200, Torak wrote:
>>
>>> *TOOTHPASTE*
>>>
>>> Just how /do/ they get those stripes in?
>>
>>
>>
>> You mean you never opened a tube to find out? There's several bags
>> inside the tube, each with its own opening below the main opening. When
>> you squeeze the tube, you put equal pressure on all the bags, so a more
>> or less similar amount will be pressed out.
>
>
> Neat.
>
>> I'm more interested in knowing why ALL BLOODY TOOTHPASTE HAS MINT, even
>> the fruit flavoured varieties. Well, there's _one_ toothpaste that's
>> mint free -- Tom's of Maine's Fennel variety, but that one doesn't have
>> Fluoride.
>
>
> That's a very good question.
I brushed my teeth with cinnamon this morning. Er, cinnamon
flavoured toothpaste that is.
No mint in sight. Additionally, my children both use fruit flavored
toothpaste with no mint added. Blech.
Dom
> Len Oil wrote:
>
> <hugs>
>
> Well, lots of people got pleased smiles. Torak was, quite literally, pounced
> upon.
>
> But on the whole, comparatively few people got the "I must immediately drop
> wht I am doing, stand up, and squeeze this person" treatment.
>
> I am not one of the world's natural huggers. Never have been. So hugging
> someone I've never met is a conscoius override of my basic nature. It's
> quite a lot of mental effort, really, so I am sparing with the hugs. They're
> harder currency than the dollar.
I have, for most of my life, not been fond of close contact. In fact it
got to a stage where hugs actually made me feel unwell :-(
Since becoming a part of the afpcommunity[1] I have got better and am
now quite comfortable with hugging most people.
I do, however, really regret not getting to hug Anastasia at the Pub
meet in London before the con. The circumstances were really odd. I
walked into the pub looking out for all the people I know who were
going to be there and the first face I recognised was... yep :)
[1] Over four years on afp/#afp now, and I'm only just starting to
feel like I'm a regular...
--
Dom
afpSlave to CCA
Dom
>
> (sex, whatever that is)
>
> And if and when you do get around to practicing, remember that the
> practice can (and indeed should) be fun too.. there's nothing at all
> wrong in falling apart in fits of giggles if what you're experimenting
> with is obviously not working as intended.. a good laugh together is
> always fun no matter what the situation causes it.. :-)
Hmm, you make it sound like it might be fun. Maybe one day I'll
give it a try, but probably not.
CCA
> In article <argvu3x...@news.gkhs.net>, Anastasia generously decided
> to share with us..
> Snippetry..
>
> > So it *can* be really great. But IMO a caring partner increases the chances
> > of a positive experience tremendously. So does a knowledgable partner, which
> > isn't the same as experience--RTFM, pun intended with a vengeance...
> And if and when you do get around to practicing, remember that the
> practice can (and indeed should) be fun too.. there's nothing at all
> wrong in falling apart in fits of giggles if what you're experimenting
> with is obviously not working as intended.. a good laugh together is
> always fun no matter what the situation causes it.. :-)
And if something that's 'supposed to be fun' doesn't turn out to be
much fun for you, don't immediately think "Ah, I must have something
wrong with me, then..." Because we're all different.
CCA
CCA
> I certainly think that, other things being equal (which they most
> certainly are not), an experienced partner the first time would be a
> good thing.
However, an experienced partner who gets impatient when you don't know
exactly what to do and when to do it from the start, is no good at all.
Sometimes it's good to learn your pleasures together, sort of thing.
CCA
Torak
>>>more important things in life, to have your self-esteem tied to a
>>>single basket with the word "SEX" written on it, to not have any
>>>deeper values.
>>
>>You know, I'm feeling better about this by the moment. I never did care
>>much for the whole sex thing.
>
>
> until you've tried.
>
> Seriously though, sex isn't everything. And it's certainly not all
> having a gf/bf is about. But it is a part of it, and it does have
> deeper values. I used to think otherwise, but it does.
Oh, I'm sure it has its moments. I'm just saying it's not worth hunting
frantically (in the style of so many dreadful American teen "comedies")
for a girl just for the sake of having sex. It should be a pleasant side
effect of a relationship worth the effort of continuing, not a goal in
itself.
Torak
> On Fri, 29 Sep 2006, Torak wrote:
>
>>It's as if people think they can buy themselves a personality by wearing
>>different clothes.
>
> But what you can do is express that personality, and even encourage
> certain aspects of it in yourself.
Yeah. But shouldn't one then think it through oneself rather than wear
what all one's friends wear?
I mean, my style of dress isn't exactly common - 5.11 Tactical and suits
almost exclusively - but I wear them because they're practical and
comfortable and with a cut that suits me. I don't wear them because all
my friends (if I had any) wear them.
I suppose the crux is that it's not what you wear that matters, it's why
you wear it.
Torak
> On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 01:39:41 +0200, Torak wrote:
>
>
>>*THE MEANING OF LIFE*
>>
>>There is none. The meaning of life is simply to life; humans exist only
>>it's probably not a major consideration).
>
> with definitions such as Freud's who said (paraphrasing) that 'the meaning
> of life is to procreate and that everything else is irrelevant and without
> meaning' is that it denigrates those of the species who for whatever
> reason are unable to procreate to the level of meaninigless objects taking
> up other more important lifeforms' oxygen.
>
> My personal belief is that there *is* no one Meaning. Every individual
> infuses their own life with meaning by how they conduct themselves and
> what they accomplish in their lives. To that end, IMHO those who search
> for 'a Meaning' are missing the point that the meaning they are looking
> for is how they conduct the search.
Oh, I absolutely agree.
>>But since modern civilisation isn't bronze age (and, in most cases, not
>>in the desert), and religion itself has so frequently been used as an
>>excuse for poking bloody great holes in people with sharp sticks, then
>>what's the point of religion?
>
> Ironic isn't it?
Immensely.
>>But that's something I'll come back to. For now, there is, in my view, a
>>basic flaw with religion:
>>
>>Any god who craves worship isn't worth worshipping.
>>
>>Look at SAS squaddies. They tend to be quiet, at least outside the
>>Regiment. They don't tend to brag about what they've done, their level
>>of fitness and competence, and so on. They know what they're good at,
>>they're secure and confident in themselves. They don't need the
>>adulation of the masses.
>>
>>And yet people happily line up to swear fealty to a god that demands
>>constant worship, which strikes me as odd.
>
> Pedantic flaw here. We as the humble masses have no direct contact with
> the deity our various religions venerate, therefore we accept as
> intermediaries the clergy (or equivalent thereof). It's the clergy who
> demand that we worship said deity, not the deity his/herself. We don't
> get some 300 foot tall man with the head of a bull stomping around saying
> 'Worship me or you'll get a thick ear when you die!' for example.
Would make life a hell of a lot easier, wouldn't it?
>>And how can people justify saying "My religion is right, all the others
>>are wrong"?
>
> There is a fundamental flaw I'm sure you've already spotted with this line
> of argument. One group of people know for a fact what the truth is, and
> that group is growing every day. Unfortumately... it's people who have
> died, so they're not in the best position to pass on their newfound
> discovery to those of us still alive.
>
> Therefore they *cannot* possibly justify such a bald statement.
Exactly.
>>Well, OK, they frequently try to justify it with "Because
>>God said so",
>
> See above. More specifically 'the Pope/Imam/Mullah/ said so and he talks
> to God who would isn't in to self promotion above all the other pretend
> gods at all.'
Hehe. I particularly like the way world leaders - no names mentioned, of
course - base policy around statements like "I talked to God, and he
told me to invade..."
>>And why should gods be given more regard than other people?
>
> See above for my personal meaning of life. IMHO how you treat the
> *people* you encounter far outweighs your method of worship of a
> non-corporeal entity you're note even sure exists. Even if you *are* sure
> I think it's questionable.
Exactly!
>>*TOOTHPASTE*
>>
>>Just how /do/ they get those stripes in?
>
> Imps.
Ah. I knew there was a logical explanation.
Torak
> Len Oil wrote:
>
> <hugs>
>
>>not the exact details... ;) And, yes, I'm quite aware that it
>>probably wasn't a greeting that was exclusively used towards me.
>
>
> Well, lots of people got pleased smiles. Torak was, quite literally, pounced
> upon.
Something, IIRC, along the lines of "TORAAK!" <BOING> "Ooof."
Not entirely unpleasant, I must admit, though some warning would have
been helpful. :-)
> But on the whole, comparatively few people got the "I must immediately drop
> wht I am doing, stand up, and squeeze this person" treatment.
>
> I am not one of the world's natural huggers. Never have been. So hugging
> someone I've never met is a conscoius override of my basic nature. It's
> quite a lot of mental effort, really, so I am sparing with the hugs. They're
> harder currency than the dollar.
You mean the pound sterling. The dollar's down. ;-)
Eric Jarvis
<451d548...@news.individual.net>:
> Eric Jarvis <er...@ericjarvis.co.uk> wrote:
>
> <sex>
>
> >When it comes to emotional maturity I agree 100%. Unfortunately I'm not
> >convinced that a majority of people ever achieve emotional maturity. So
> >that has to be sorted out first, otherwise it would lead to the extinction
> >of the entire human race.
> >
> >My final thought is that it's OK to make mistakes. So long as you don't
> >ever irrevocably harm anyone, and sometimes even just so long as nobody
> >dies.
>
> The way I approach it is that it shouldn't be taken too damn
> seriously. I think people twist themselves into knots sometimes by
> assigning way too much meaning to little things.
>
> The first time I had sex wasn't great - it also wasn't awful. It was
> as you'd expect it to be when you've no clue what you're doing; a bit
> awkward and clumsy. So what? I was only with the guy for about three
> months. So what?
>
Without going into the realms of TMI, whilst my first time probably wasn't
that special in terms of the biomechanics, that wasn't the point anyway.
It was a very special emotional experience and an awful lot of fun, not to
mention somewhat unexpected for both of us.
> Kepp safe as far as disease and prgnancy and bodily harm goes - the
> rest just doesn't have to be such a big deal.
>
> If at first you don't succeed, try again. This is one area where
> practice certainly makes perfect, or at least much better.
>
And let's be honest here. There isn't actually an eventual intended level
of achievement. It's all practise and experiment and is never going to be
anything else.
There is no such thing as being good or bad at making love. There may well
be a range of abilities at different forms of sexual activity. However the
thing that counts for most of us is what happens between two (or more)
people (though hopefully not domesticated animals), and that includes
emotions and communication, and isn't ever a failure simply because one
partner isn't any good at the purely physical side of it. So there's not
actually all that much at risk, provided basic precautions are taken.
The big deal is what happens emotionally, and that's inevitably complex
whether or not any actual sexual activity takes place. In fact the only
way to avoid emotional complications would be to either seal oneself away
from the entire world, or do so emotionally by refusing to make any real
contact with anyone else.
Which brings us back to the first sentence quoted above. Unfortunately
sexuality is inextricably linked to emotional development. You can't
become emotionally mature without first picking up a few scars and
bruises. All you can hope to do is minimise the scars and bruises you
cause to other people. Including the scars and bruises you may cause by
isolating yourself from them.
Tricky isn't it? :)
The poets have written the best handbook. "To thine own self be true".
"When the world is no longer watching, stay faithful to your trust".
"Nobody hurts you harder than yourself".
All of which is far more important than what Alan Bennett once memorably
described as "putting it in and jiggling about a bit".
Torak
> Torak wrote:
>
>
>>You know, I'm feeling better about this by the moment. I never did
>>care much for the whole sex thing.
>
>
>
> One, I respect your values with regard to sex too much to treat them
> trivially. And there are a whole lot of women who think, for instance, that
> gay men are gay because they haven't met the right woman, and that *they*
> are the right woman....goes for men thinking they can "straighten out"
> lesbians, too.
>
> I am getting to the point, I promise.
>
> Some people really are asexual or nearly, and that's both natural and okay.
> (Okay because it IS natural, I guess.) Not saying this is you, of course.
>
> However, I think Elin's right: don't knock it until you've tried it. For
> instance, I've heard "wow, I never understood what guys were going on about
> until now," or rough equivalents, more than once.
>
> of a positive experience tremendously. So does a knowledgable partner, which
> virgins, they were issued an instruction booklet and waited until they were
> emotionally mature to practice.)
Oh, I'm not saying it's not worth bothering with - I'm just saying it
shouldn't (at least not in my case) be an end in itself. The mental
connection is, in my view, more important than the physical, and
anything more physical would be a pleasant bonus rather than the aim.
Torak
> Gid Holyoake wrote:
>
>>In article <argvu3x...@news.gkhs.net>, Anastasia generously
>>decided to share with us..
>>
>>Snippetry..
>>
>>
>>>So it *can* be really great. But IMO a caring partner increases
>>>the chances of a positive experience tremendously. So does a
>>>knowledgable partner, which isn't the same as experience--RTFM,
>>>pun intended with a vengeance. (My private speculation is that
>>>more people would have good sex lives if, as virgins, they were
>>>issued an instruction booklet and waited until they were
>>>emotionally mature to practice.)
>>
>>And if and when you do get around to practicing, remember that the
>>practice can (and indeed should) be fun too.. there's nothing at all
>>wrong in falling apart in fits of giggles if what you're
>>experimenting with is obviously not working as intended.. a good
>>laugh together is always fun no matter what the situation causes
>>it.. :-)
>
> Lack of traction can be hilarious, for instance. I won't draw you a literal
> mental diagram, but <cue Mr. Mental Image Fairy> picture a cat with
> frictionless paws on a tile floor.
Would somebody please shoot that bloody fairy?
Now I've got a mental image - although out of that context - of Stacie
in full Matrix Terminator gear skidding along a recently polished tiled
floor, flailing arms in the traditional bullet time style...
CCA
> Alec Cawley <al...@aleccawley.com> wrote:
> > I certainly think that, other things being equal (which they most
> > certainly are not), an experienced partner the first time would be a
> > good thing.
> Possibly not for the partner, though...
> What's even worse than someone with no experience is someone with experience
> from a single partner without variations.
Oh well done. Great way to make lots of us feel *really* inadequate,
Arthur...
CCA
James Mitchelhill
Not worth hunting frantically for, but your attitude towards sex seems as
conventional as the people you dislike for bonking others at random. It's
also an attitude that American teen "comedies" largely share. The comedy
comes from the fact that sex is a cypher for other needs, like love and
understanding. In American Pie, for example, the happiest character is
definitely the one in a relationship. The characters in that film who
really are only after sex are portrayed as ridiculous and obnoxious.
So yeah, it's not worth sacrificing other aspects of your life for, but sex
can be a pleasant side effect to things other than relationships, including
friendship and acquaintance. You don't necessarily have to want an ongoing
relationship with someone for sex to be meaningful, fulfilling and
enjoyable for all concerned (although being sure that the other person
involved isn't under other impressions is fairly important).
Meaningful, fulfilling and enjoyable relationships of any duration are rare
enough, whether the basis of them is sex, love or something else.
--
James Mitchelhill
ja...@disorderfeed.net
http://disorderfeed.net
Eric Jarvis
<1159565826.1...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
I suspect we are back to "everybody is different". Or maybe whatever we
start with sticks. Or possibly even the opposite for some and not for
others. What's important is that there isn't a rulebook, there isn't a
scoring system, and there aren't any judges.
Sometimes a referee might be handy though.
8'FED
> and says "god says you should XXX" when we actually mean "the common,
> unselfish, good of all says you should XXX".
[...]
> And this definition "proves" that God Loves You - which the previous one
> didn't. Since god is the embodiment of all social, sharing, community,
> feelgood niceness, it is tautologous that god loves you,
Adrian Plass explains (in _Growing Up Pains_) that God not only LOVES
you, God does more -- God LIKES you, too.
(I don't have time to find the exact quote(s), though.)
> *Providing a context for worship* How the hell can you influence the
> creator of the universe? Why the hell should god do anything for you?
> Surely you cannot bribe god - any lollipops you offer god, he could give
> himself an infinite amount of without trying. Since he created the
> universe, anything in the universe is his already, so you cannot really
> give him anything because it is his already.
>
> So if you are a poor person wanting a rich person to do something for
> them, what do you do? A: Appeal to their charitable nature, and B:
> Flatter them. Most religious services I remember consist essentially of
> these two components. (Consider the Lords Prayer, for example).
Historically that's probably true. There are, of course, more
sophisticated theologies of prayer (some of which I can discuss in
some detail if we want to go there) but prayer itself predates those
sophisticated theologies, so historically it probably boils down to
flattery and begging, as you say.
Adrian.
Arthur Hagen
Lots of you never have variations in your sex with your single partner?
--
*Art
Torak
> On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 23:50:35 +0200, Torak wrote:
>>Elin wrote:
>>>Torak <perr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>>You know, I'm feeling better about this by the moment. I never did care
>>>>much for the whole sex thing.
>>>
>>>
>>>Have you ever had any? Cause if not, how do you know? Don knock it
>>>until you've tried.
>>>
>>>Seriously though, sex isn't everything. And it's certainly not all
>>>having a gf/bf is about. But it is a part of it, and it does have
>>>deeper values. I used to think otherwise, but it does.
>>
>>Oh, I'm sure it has its moments. I'm just saying it's not worth hunting
>>frantically (in the style of so many dreadful American teen "comedies")
>>for a girl just for the sake of having sex. It should be a pleasant side
>>effect of a relationship worth the effort of continuing, not a goal in
>>itself.
>
> Not worth hunting frantically for, but your attitude towards sex seems as
> conventional as the people you dislike for bonking others at random. It's
> also an attitude that American teen "comedies" largely share. The comedy
> comes from the fact that sex is a cypher for other needs, like love and
> understanding. In American Pie, for example, the happiest character is
> definitely the one in a relationship. The characters in that film who
> really are only after sex are portrayed as ridiculous and obnoxious.
Hang on, you'll have to explain that a bit. My attitude may be as common
as their attitude - I haven't exactly commissioned any polls on the
subject - but in substance it's almost diametrically opposed.
James Mitchelhill
I wasn't contradicting you on that. I do think your attitude is fairly
conventional (though entirely your choice, of course). I also think that
your attitude of sex as a pleasant side effect of otherwise fulfilling
relationships is very close to the underlying narrative in US teen
comedies.
The resolution of US teen comedies usually involves the teens who have been
seeking out sex realising that they really want love and relationships, and
that sex is not the main - or most important - part of this.
And this is another way of showing that yours *is* a conventional view (not
that there's anything wrong with that, though I disagree with some aspects
of it), since it's very much the line that Hollywood sells.
SteveD
wrote:
>Lack of traction can be hilarious, for instance. I won't draw you a literal
>mental diagram, but <cue Mr. Mental Image Fairy> picture a cat with
>frictionless paws on a tile floor.
This is why you should never jump enthusiastically onto a silk-sheeted bed
wearing silk pajamas.
Vwip! THUD.
SteveD
wrote:
>Alec Cawley <al...@aleccawley.com> wrote:
>> I certainly think that, other things being equal (which they most
>> certainly are not), an experienced partner the first time would be a
>> good thing.
>
>Possibly not for the partner, though...
True, although as in many areas, teaching can have its own joys.
Eric Jarvis
<tv2sh2dor4i95hvgl...@4ax.com>:
Never say never. Soft cushions can be very useful.
CCA
Lots of people haven't got a huge amount of experience, as a lot of
this thread shows.
Unfortunately, the prevalent attitude today is that anyone without a
fair amount of experience is a loser and not worth bothering with.
It's an attitude that meant I didn't have a first partner until I was
past the so-called average age, and am still very wary of getting into
relationships now.
CCA
Kath
> Torak wrote:
>
>> You know, I'm feeling better about this by the moment. I never did
>> care much for the whole sex thing.
<snip>
> However, I think Elin's right: don't knock it until you've tried it. For
> instance, I've heard "wow, I never understood what guys were going on about
> until now," or rough equivalents, more than once.
I agree. I was one of those 'I really can't be arsed with it all/ it
seems to much trouble for me/ I'm happy as I am/ I'm not bothered'
people. Then I became involved in my first relationship, and muttered
the phrase mentioned above. Although replace 'my friends' for the word
'guys'.
> So it *can* be really great.
It can be absolutely fantastic. However, it can also be horrible at
times. It's all part and parcel of having someone there *all the time*.
Sometimes you just wish they'd s*d off and give you some space, other
times you desperately need them around for security/ companionship/ a
damn good laugh.
Oh you were talking about sex again; sorry I was waffling on about a
relationship as a whole.
> But IMO a caring partner increases the chances
> of a positive experience tremendously.
Ditto.
> So does a knowledgable partner, which
> isn't the same as experience--RTFM, pun intended with a vengeance. (My
> private speculation is that more people would have good sex lives if, as
> virgins, they were issued an instruction booklet and waited until they were
> emotionally mature to practice.)
What's the age of being emotionally mature?
--
Kath
Arthur Hagen
>
> What's the age of being emotionally mature?
Subjectively, whatever age you are. People younger than you will always
seem emotionally immature, while you always will think you're emotionally
mature.
Objectively, probably around 91.
Regards,
--
*Art
Anastasia
>
> What's the age of being emotionally mature?
We've visited this toic before, as age of consent.
I'd say early teens is too young. Past that, I wouldn't presume.
--
Call for Papers: Representing the Other, Gender and Sexuality in the
Fantastic (International Association of the Fantastic in the Arts, Ft
Lauderdale, FL. March 14-18, 2007). GoH: Geoff Ryman, Melissa Scott,
Jane Donawerth. Details at: http://www.iafa.org
Blog: http://www.esmeraldus.blogspot.com/
Daibhid Ceanaideach
speaker: "Arthur Hagen" <a...@broomstick.com>
I read somewhere that Aristotle said 31. The peice I read it
in continued "We don't know how old he was when he said that,
but we can guess."
--
Dave
Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://sesoc.eusa.ed.ac.uk/
"The need to compile lists is a personality disorder,
as is the need to assert the superiority of some things
over other things."
-Jeremy Hardy
Eric Jarvis
<vt82v3x...@news.gkhs.net>:
> Kath wrote:
> >
> > What's the age of being emotionally mature?
>
> We've visited this toic before, as age of consent.
>
> I'd say early teens is too young. Past that, I wouldn't presume.
>
Whereas I'd say it is different for men and women. Most women reach a
reasonable level of emotional maturity between 14 and 25 years old.
Eventually a man will live long enough to achieve emotional maturity and
we'll start getting some idea of the age for men.
--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"I got in touch with my inner child, he told me
to grow up"
Orjan Westin
> Anastasia house_d...@yahoo.com wrote in
> <vt82v3x...@news.gkhs.net>:
>> Kath wrote:
>>>
>>> What's the age of being emotionally mature?
>>
>> We've visited this toic before, as age of consent.
>>
>> I'd say early teens is too young. Past that, I wouldn't presume.
>>
>
> Whereas I'd say it is different for men and women. Most women reach a
> reasonable level of emotional maturity between 14 and 25 years old.
> Eventually a man will live long enough to achieve emotional maturity
> and we'll start getting some idea of the age for men.
Misandrist.
I considered myself emotionally mature - and was considered to be so by
people around me - at the age of 24.
Of course, ever since then I've been looking back at myself of one ot five
years ago and thought "What an immature prat", but I still consider myself
to have had a reasonable level of emotional maturity before turning 25.
Orjan
--
The Tale of Westala and Villtin
http://tale.cunobaros.com/
Fiction, Thoughts and Software
http://www.cunobaros.com/
Orjan Westin
>> The way I approach it is that it shouldn't be taken too damn
>> seriously. I think people twist themselves into knots sometimes by
>> assigning way too much meaning to little things.
But it takes a lot of confidence - in yourself or in your first-time
partner - to be relaxed about your first time, given the amount of
media/fiction/popsong/friend-gossip attention it's given.
>> Kepp safe as far as disease and prgnancy and bodily harm goes - the
>> rest just doesn't have to be such a big deal.
This is true. In hindsight, at least. Whether it's an easily achieved
attitude there and then is another matter.
>> If at first you don't succeed, try again. This is one area where
>> practice certainly makes perfect, or at least much better.
Well, can do. Practice is not enough, IMO, as you also need to do a lot of
experimenting and exploring. This can be a lot of fun for all involved if
they're relaxed and open-minded about it, and are able, and confident
enough, to communicate well.
> And let's be honest here. There isn't actually an eventual intended
> level of achievement. It's all practise and experiment and is never
> going to be anything else.
>
> There is no such thing as being good or bad at making love. There may
> well be a range of abilities at different forms of sexual activity.
Mm... depends on your definition of "making love", I guess. I consider a
certain amount of generosity, participation and perceptivity to be
prerequisites, and from what I've heard they're not universally available.
People who only think of their own pleasure, instead of trying to share,
people who do what they always do (whether from personal preferences or from
having "learned" from porn films or whatever) without noticing it might not
be appreciated, people who don't do anything and expect to be served, people
who don't really want to, people who are afraid to say what they want and
like, or have been afraid to explore and experiment and haven't found
anything they particurlary like...
It's not about the size of this or that body part, or overall looks, or
experience or stamina or agility or strength. It's about confidence in
yourself and your partner(s), and curiosity and humour and respect.
> However the thing that counts for most of us is what happens between
> two (or more) people (though hopefully not domesticated animals), and
> that includes emotions and communication,
Don't bet on either of those. You're talking about what should be, not what
always is.
> and isn't ever a failure
> simply because one partner isn't any good at the purely physical side
> of it. So there's not actually all that much at risk, provided basic
> precautions are taken.
No physical risk, no, provided one or both isn't too drunk and/or
intimidated to say when something hurts.
> The big deal is what happens emotionally, and that's inevitably
> complex whether or not any actual sexual activity takes place.
This is true.
I tried to have a look at that (among other things) in a set of stories
starting from a common point I've been writing over the last five years.
One reader has called it "emotional porn", but most of it isn't porny at
all.
It's at http://cunobaros.com/fiction/fatn/index.php if anybody's interested.
Torak
>>
>>>What's the age of being emotionally mature?
>>
>>We've visited this toic before, as age of consent.
>>
>>I'd say early teens is too young. Past that, I wouldn't presume.
>
> Whereas I'd say it is different for men and women. Most women reach a
> reasonable level of emotional maturity between 14 and 25 years old.
> Eventually a man will live long enough to achieve emotional maturity and
> we'll start getting some idea of the age for men.
It's say it's different... period.
esmi
> I'm more interested in knowing why ALL BLOODY TOOTHPASTE HAS MINT, even
> the fruit flavoured varieties. Well, there's _one_ toothpaste that's
> mint free -- Tom's of Maine's Fennel variety, but that one doesn't have
> Fluoride.
http://www.dooyoo.co.uk/health-products/colgate-herbal-toothpaste/405047/
I'm 99% sure it doesn't contain mint as I used it when I needed a
mint-free toothpaste. Not always easy to get hold of, though.
--
esmi
A Brief Guide to alt.fan.pratchett:
http://www.blackwidows.co.uk/afp-guide/
CCA
> I considered myself emotionally mature - and was considered to be so by
> people around me - at the age of 24.
>
> Of course, ever since then I've been looking back at myself of one ot five
> years ago and thought "What an immature prat", but I still consider myself
> to have had a reasonable level of emotional maturity before turning 25.
I think people's maturity fluctuates, depending on the situation
they're reacting to, really. And all sorts of other factors like
stress, etc.
CCA
Eric Jarvis
<4o7kmgF...@individual.net>:
> Eric Jarvis wrote:
> > Anastasia house_d...@yahoo.com wrote in
> > <vt82v3x...@news.gkhs.net>:
> >> Kath wrote:
> >>>
> >>> What's the age of being emotionally mature?
> >>
> >> We've visited this toic before, as age of consent.
> >>
> >> I'd say early teens is too young. Past that, I wouldn't presume.
> >>
> >
> > Whereas I'd say it is different for men and women. Most women reach a
> > reasonable level of emotional maturity between 14 and 25 years old.
> > Eventually a man will live long enough to achieve emotional maturity
> > and we'll start getting some idea of the age for men.
>
> Misandrist.
>
> I considered myself emotionally mature - and was considered to be so by
> people around me - at the age of 24.
>
> Of course, ever since then I've been looking back at myself of one ot five
> years ago and thought "What an immature prat", but I still consider myself
> to have had a reasonable level of emotional maturity before turning 25.
>
That's because you are in touch with your feminine side, which naturally
matured in your late teens.
:)
Eric Jarvis
> Eric Jarvis wrote:
> > Elin grayca...@gmail.com wrote in
> > 451d548...@news.individual.net:
>
> >> The way I approach it is that it shouldn't be taken too damn
> >> seriously. I think people twist themselves into knots sometimes by
> >> assigning way too much meaning to little things.
>
> But it takes a lot of confidence - in yourself or in your first-time
> partner - to be relaxed about your first time, given the amount of
> media/fiction/popsong/friend-gossip attention it's given.
>
I was VERY lucky.
However there are some simple things that make a big difference. Most
importantly I'd have said that establishing that you'd rather be together
as a couple simply being physically close, rather than doing anything with
anyone else, takes an awful lot of the pressure away. Sex then becomes a
choice and not an expectation. My advice to any young couple starting out
on a relationship, even if one or both has some sexual experience, is to
simply sleep together a few times before moving on to anything else. It'll
all seem more natural that way, and unless you have remarkable stamina
it's liable to be the more important aspect of being together anyway. :)
> >> Kepp safe as far as disease and prgnancy and bodily harm goes - the
> >> rest just doesn't have to be such a big deal.
>
> This is true. In hindsight, at least. Whether it's an easily achieved
> attitude there and then is another matter.
>
See above.
> >> If at first you don't succeed, try again. This is one area where
> >> practice certainly makes perfect, or at least much better.
>
> Well, can do. Practice is not enough, IMO, as you also need to do a lot of
> experimenting and exploring. This can be a lot of fun for all involved if
> they're relaxed and open-minded about it, and are able, and confident
> enough, to communicate well.
>
Of course in a sense that's what sex is. Experiment, exploration and
communication. Talking is good. Except, perhaps. when your mouth is full.
> > And let's be honest here. There isn't actually an eventual intended
> > level of achievement. It's all practise and experiment and is never
> > going to be anything else.
> >
> > There is no such thing as being good or bad at making love. There may
> > well be a range of abilities at different forms of sexual activity.
>
> Mm... depends on your definition of "making love", I guess. I consider a
> certain amount of generosity, participation and perceptivity to be
> prerequisites, and from what I've heard they're not universally available.
>
> People who only think of their own pleasure, instead of trying to share,
> people who do what they always do (whether from personal preferences or from
> having "learned" from porn films or whatever) without noticing it might not
> be appreciated, people who don't do anything and expect to be served, people
> who don't really want to, people who are afraid to say what they want and
> like, or have been afraid to explore and experiment and haven't found
> anything they particurlary like...
>
> It's not about the size of this or that body part, or overall looks, or
> experience or stamina or agility or strength. It's about confidence in
> yourself and your partner(s), and curiosity and humour and respect.
>
Absolutely. Basically it's really about all the stuff that can't be
described in books or shown on films because it's about two specific
people in a specific place and time. That overrides absolutely everything
else.
> > However the thing that counts for most of us is what happens between
> > two (or more) people (though hopefully not domesticated animals), and
> > that includes emotions and communication,
>
> Don't bet on either of those. You're talking about what should be, not what
> always is.
>
True.
> > and isn't ever a failure
> > simply because one partner isn't any good at the purely physical side
> > of it. So there's not actually all that much at risk, provided basic
> > precautions are taken.
>
> No physical risk, no, provided one or both isn't too drunk and/or
> intimidated to say when something hurts.
>
Oh yes. Another hint. Be careful with things like earrings. They can get
caught on a pillow. This is not a good thing.
> > The big deal is what happens emotionally, and that's inevitably
> > complex whether or not any actual sexual activity takes place.
>
> This is true.
>
> I tried to have a look at that (among other things) in a set of stories
> starting from a common point I've been writing over the last five years.
> One reader has called it "emotional porn", but most of it isn't porny at
> all.
>
> It's at http://cunobaros.com/fiction/fatn/index.php if anybody's interested.
>
Bookmarked.
One of my first writing exercises was to attempt to write straightforward
descriptions of the emotional journeys brought about by my various
relationships. None of which is for anyone else to ever look at (unless
those directly involved ever ask) but much of which has proven very useful
when approaching scenes that I really don't want to become sex scenes but
in which sex takes place.
8'FED
> Eric Jarvis wrote:
>> Elin wrote:
>
>>> The way I approach it is that it shouldn't be taken too damn
>>> seriously. I think people twist themselves into knots sometimes by
>>> assigning way too much meaning to little things.
>
> But it takes a lot of confidence - in yourself or in your first-time
> partner - to be relaxed about your first time, given the amount of
> media/fiction/popsong/friend-gossip attention it's given.
99.999999% of the time, the media/fiction/popsong message about sex is
that there's no such thing as a bad one: that disappointing sex is an
oxymoron, and fantastic sex a tautology.
The only dissenting voice seems to be that of spammers.
Personally, the only authority I have about sex is my intuition, and
that intuition tells me that the most effective way to make sex
disappointing would be to approach it with a paradigm in which
technique (i.e. fancy footwork or fancy anythingelsework) is
particularly important.
Adrian.
Orjan Westin
> Arthur Hagen wrote:
>> CCA <sphir...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> Arthur Hagen wrote:
>>>> Alec Cawley <al...@aleccawley.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> I certainly think that, other things being equal (which they most
>>>>> certainly are not), an experienced partner the first time would
>>>>> be a good thing.
>
>>>> Possibly not for the partner, though...
>>>> What's even worse than someone with no experience is someone with
>>>> experience from a single partner without variations.
>
>>> Oh well done. Great way to make lots of us feel *really*
>>> inadequate, Arthur...
>
>> Lots of you never have variations in your sex with your single
>> partner?
>
> Lots of people haven't got a huge amount of experience, as a lot of
> this thread shows.
>
> Unfortunately, the prevalent attitude today is that anyone without a
> fair amount of experience is a loser and not worth bothering with.
But that's not an attitude Arthur evidences above. He's talking about a
person who has his or her way of doing things, because "I've always done it
like this", and has never varied that or experiemented. That's a person
who's very likely to think "that's how it's done", which he claims is, and I
agree with him here, much worse than someone who doesn't know how it's done
at all.
It's not about whether you've had none, one or thousands of partners. It's
about your attitude, whether you're willing to explore, experiment, try to
vary things, and see what works.
And without going into TMI, I've experienced both "this is how I do it",
"how do you like to do it?" and "I have no idea - do you?"
The first of those from someone with lots of experience, and it wasn't any
fun at all. The others were, though, including the almost-no-experience who
gave the last of those three phrases with a happy smile.
As for his original point, that someone without any experience at all is
/possibly/ not a good thing for the partner, I agree with him there too.
If you are someone's first, you might feel a lot more pressure and
nervousness than if they're experienced, simply because then it's up to you
to show then that it can be pleasurable, and help them explore and find out
what they like. You have to be (if you have some empathy at all, and aren't
completely selfish) a mentor, which is a role many people are nervous about.
Again, if you have mutual trust, it's a /lot/ easier, to talk, to play, and
to find out together. For many, this trust is not there the first time.
> It's an attitude that meant I didn't have a first partner until I was
> past the so-called average age
AFAIK, the average age (at least in Sweden) is not "so-called", but is.
16.4 years for girls, 16.7 for boys - that's been pretty constant the last
thirty-odd years.
Which means I was 1.6 years behind the average, for instance. As was the
girl I was with, I might mention, which partly explains why it was, to put
it mildly, less than successful.
> and am still very wary of getting into
> relationships now.
I'm sorry to hear that, but I can definitely sympathise with you. Not
because of sex, but because of trust. And that, I think, may be the root of
your wariness.
Of course, lots of people have relationships with little or no mutual trust
and understanding, but that tends to lead to a lot of frustration and mutual
hurt (which makes it that much harder to build trust).
On the other hand, it's perfectly possible to have a relationship with
almost absolute mutual trust and understanding, and mutual (or unilateral)
sexual attraction, without ever having sex or letting the sexual attraction
get in the way of the relationship. I should know, I've got a fair few of
those. Of course, they're not big-R Relationships, but friendships.
Should the occasion ever arise when there's an opportunity to take them to
another level, by agreeing to have sex for instance (which we don't and
haven't so far, despite the attraction, for reasons outside our
relationship - like having a Relationship, too), well, that's something
we'll be able to talk about then.
The trust is there, though, which is the important thing.
Elin
>Eric Jarvis wrote:
>> Elin grayca...@gmail.com wrote in
>> 451d548...@news.individual.net:
>
>>> The way I approach it is that it shouldn't be taken too damn
>>> seriously. I think people twist themselves into knots sometimes by
>>> assigning way too much meaning to little things.
>
>But it takes a lot of confidence - in yourself or in your first-time
>partner - to be relaxed about your first time, given the amount of
>media/fiction/popsong/friend-gossip attention it's given.
Yeah...well, I'm not sure about confidence, but certainly trust is
important. My point is that your own mental state is important - being
relaxed is a good start - and the number of roses, scented candles,
location [1] and what song is playing is much less so. The first time
is usually not that great anyway[2], so hooking too much expectation
on it is bound to make it even worse.
And, sex over all, is, I think, a fun thing to do, with your bf/gf or,
if you like, someone else [3]. It's not that big a deal. It doesn't
change the world. It doesn't make you into a completely other person
(other than perhaps temporarily). It's not this huge big spell that
rules everything and is all-important once you've tried it. It's not,
imo, sacred. It's like snogging but sweatier.
If you have bad sex, or you have sex with the wrong person, it
shouldn't ruin your life. Just take it as a learning experience.
>>> Keep safe as far as disease and prgnancy and bodily harm goes - the
>>> rest just doesn't have to be such a big deal.
>
>This is true. In hindsight, at least. Whether it's an easily achieved
>attitude there and then is another matter.
It was for me...but probably there were special circumstances.
[1] Well...location not entirely unimportant, at least it wasn't for
me. I specifically tried to avoid one of the more stereotypical
ones...
[2] Because you're nervous and have no idea what you're doing.
[3] Though I don't reccomend doing it with someone else while having a
bf/gf unless they are ok with it.
--
Elin
The world makes perfect sense, as a black comedy
Julian Hall
The phrase 'Don't fix what isn't broken' springs to mind. In this
context, who cares if a person has one single partner and no variation in
their sex life? If they *enjoy* it and both are happy why should they go
through the Kama Sutra trying every page until they end up in a cross
between Casualty and the World Knotcraft Championships as they attempt to
untangle each other with a minimum of injury?
Bottom line: If you enjoy it, do it, if you stop enjoying it *then* try
something different.
Not forgetting, if a person has a 'limited repertoire' so to speak, the
chances are that they are much better at what they *can* do than someone
who is a 'jack of all trades and master of none'. So for a person who
also enjoys the same as them, the experience will be a lot *more* not
less fulfilling.
--
Kind regards,
Julian Hall
"I'm only on the planet because I missed the bus home"
Julian Hall
Not to mention the possibilities of static buildup causing some nasty
moments when the two of you touch to get back on the bed.
*spark*
OW MY......
CCA
> CCA wrote:
> > Unfortunately, the prevalent attitude today is that anyone without a
> > fair amount of experience is a loser and not worth bothering with.
> > It's an attitude that meant I didn't have a first partner until I was
> > past the so-called average age and am still very wary of getting into
> > relationships now.
> I'm sorry to hear that, but I can definitely sympathise with you. Not
> because of sex, but because of trust. And that, I think, may be the root of
> your wariness.
It wasn't sex, or at least wasn't *only* sex, that I was thinking of -
it's the general attitude put forward by the media, etc, that someone
over a certain age (whatever that age is) who hasn't had x amount of
relationships, is a loser. Which tends to make me think "Well, who's
going to want someone in their thirties who's only had one
relationship?" And I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in thinking this
either.
CCA
Julian Hall
> The time: 30 Sep 2006. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The
> speaker: "Arthur Hagen" <a...@broomstick.com>
>
>> Kath <ka...@REMOVEsuitcase.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> What's the age of being emotionally mature?
>>
>> Subjectively, whatever age you are. People younger than
>> you will always seem emotionally immature, while you always
>> will think you're emotionally mature.
>>
>> Objectively, probably around 91.
>
> I read somewhere that Aristotle said 31. The peice I read it
> in continued "We don't know how old he was when he said that,
> but we can guess."
Personally I find it curious [1] that a discussion on a single topic has
devolved into religion, sex, and toothpaste. Recombining the three could
be amusing:
'Oh my God! I'm c..' *mwah* 'Did you clean your teeth??'
IGMC
[1] Albeit normal for AFP
Cathy Young
> Personally I find it curious [1] that a discussion on a single topic has
> devolved into religion, sex, and toothpaste.
Really? I find it somewhat less curious, given that the original post
that started the thread discussed religion, sex, and toothpaste.
:-)
--
Cathy
http://www.bentbacktulips.co.uk/
8'FED
> Yeah...well, I'm not sure about confidence, but certainly trust is
> important. My point is that your own mental state is important - being
> relaxed is a good start - and the number of roses, scented candles,
> location [1] and what song is playing is much less so.
Nevertheless, it's a song thread we haven't had yet...
Adrian.
Alec Cawley
> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 14:19:17 +0800, SteveD wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 14:07:37 -0400, "Anastasia" <house_d...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Lack of traction can be hilarious, for instance. I won't draw you a literal
>>> mental diagram, but <cue Mr. Mental Image Fairy> picture a cat with
>>> frictionless paws on a tile floor.
>> This is why you should never jump enthusiastically onto a silk-sheeted bed
>> wearing silk pajamas.
>>
>> Vwip! THUD.
>
> Not to mention the possibilities of static buildup causing some nasty
> moments when the two of you touch to get back on the bed.
>
> *spark*
>
> OW MY......
From what I have heard, nylon (Brentford Nylons???) is even worse from
both points of view. I do not speak from knowledge - other than the
occasional unpleasant night (alone) on nylon sheets with nylon pyjamas.
Who ever thought either was a good idea?
Torak
I'm guessing Barry White will feature.
As for scented candles.... really, what's the point?
Torak
> Julian Hall wrote:
>
>
>>Personally I find it curious [1] that a discussion on a single topic has
>>devolved into religion, sex, and toothpaste.
>
>
> Really? I find it somewhat less curious, given that the original post
> that started the thread discussed religion, sex, and toothpaste.
>
> :-)
Not sex. Well, not directly.
Kath
> Kath wrote:
>> What's the age of being emotionally mature?
>
> We've visited this toic before, as age of consent.
Ah well, I don't have time to read every post/thread, so wouldn't know.
> I'd say early teens is too young. Past that, I wouldn't presume.
Hmm, I'd say 16 is the appropriate age personally. But that's just MHO.
--
Kath
Kath
> Anastasia house_d...@yahoo.com wrote in
> <vt82v3x...@news.gkhs.net>:
>> Kath wrote:
>>> What's the age of being emotionally mature?
>> We've visited this toic before, as age of consent.
>>
>> I'd say early teens is too young. Past that, I wouldn't presume.
>>
>
> Whereas I'd say it is different for men and women. Most women reach a
> reasonable level of emotional maturity between 14 and 25 years old.
> Eventually a man will live long enough to achieve emotional maturity and
> we'll start getting some idea of the age for men.
ROFL!
Well done Eric, exactly my views.
BTW has anyone read "Why men don't listen & women can't read maps"?
--
Kath
Volker Hetzer
agree and other bits where the female friends I showed it didn't agree
either.
For instance the bit about the inbuilt compass. Some people appear to
have it but much much less than "every man". Seafaring history would
have been way different if a sizeable number of people with inbuilt
compasses were available as navigators.
As for multitasking, back in east germany as a pupil I've stood
alongside female workers at big lathes and milling machines in a
motor company and I can safely say that those women were at least
as good as the male workers and, more importantly /equally
concentrated on their job/.
So I guess it's more a matter of preference than ability, to
either focus or spread your attention.
Men like tunnel vision and women like radar vision...
Lots of Greetings!
Volker
8'FED
> 8'FED wrote:
>> Elin wrote:
>>
>>>Yeah...well, I'm not sure about confidence, but certainly trust is
>>>important. My point is that your own mental state is important - being
>>>relaxed is a good start - and the number of roses, scented candles,
>>>location [1] and what song is playing is much less so.
>>
>> Nevertheless, it's a song thread we haven't had yet...
>
> I'm guessing Barry White will feature.
One problem with such a song thread might be the disappointment people
could feel if they don't know the music mentioned. For example, if I
were to suggest "Dusty Wine Bottle" by Kila, and you didn't know it,
then I wouldn't actually leave you any the wiser. [1] And afpthreads
should leave people wiser, or at least, more amused.
> As for scented candles.... really, what's the point?
If the location of the scented candles causes the roses to catch fire,
I think all three of those things may turn out to be important after
all.
Adrian.
[1] FWIW, it's an instrumental (rather than a song) that starts of
very slow and gentle but gets extremely vigorous and powerful by
the end - which may or may not be applicable.
Volker Hetzer
> Anastasia house_d...@yahoo.com wrote in
> <vt82v3x...@news.gkhs.net>:
>> Kath wrote:
>>> What's the age of being emotionally mature?
>> We've visited this toic before, as age of consent.
>>
>> I'd say early teens is too young. Past that, I wouldn't presume.
>>
>
> Whereas I'd say it is different for men and women. Most women reach a
> reasonable level of emotional maturity between 14 and 25 years old.
> Eventually a man will live long enough to achieve emotional maturity and
> we'll start getting some idea of the age for men.
testosterone does a lot for the absence of that. So, sorry, not much hope
there...
Lots of Greetings!
Volker
Cathy Young
--
Cathy
http://www.bentbacktulips.co.uk/
peachy ashie passion
The point is to set an atmosphere by stimulating ALL the senses,
rather than just the genitalia. It's an attempt to increase both the
sensation, the sensitivity, and endow the encounter with meaning beyond
grab and poke.
Not that there's anything wrong with grab and poke.
~ peach
Lesley Weston
For me - none. I'd be too busy coughing and wheezing to take much interest
in anything else.
--
Lesley Weston.
Brightly_coloured_blob is real, but I don't often check even the few bits
that get through Yahoo's filters. To reach me, use leswes att shaw dott ca,
changing spelling and spacing as required.
Kath
> Kath wrote:
>> Eric Jarvis wrote:
>>> Anastasia house_d...@yahoo.com wrote in
>>> <vt82v3x...@news.gkhs.net>:
>>>> Kath wrote:
>>>>> What's the age of being emotionally mature?
>>>> We've visited this toic before, as age of consent.
>>>>
>>>> I'd say early teens is too young. Past that, I wouldn't presume.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Whereas I'd say it is different for men and women. Most women reach a
>>> reasonable level of emotional maturity between 14 and 25 years old.
>>> Eventually a man will live long enough to achieve emotional maturity
>>> and we'll start getting some idea of the age for men.
>>
>> ROFL!
>>
>> Well done Eric, exactly my views.
>>
>> BTW has anyone read "Why men don't listen & women can't read maps"?
> Yes, great reading but there are many bits where I as a guy couldn't
> agree and other bits where the female friends I showed it didn't agree
> either.
<snip>
I did the test to show which end of the spectrum your brain lies (from
very female through to very male). Mine came out as although pretty much
on the girly side, I'm near the overlap area. Which would account for my
preference to male friends ('cos girls are just too bitchy), ability to
reverse park (on a pin, as one mater describes it) and ability to read maps.
It did however explain an awful lot of things, that have been driving me
mad, about men. Arguments in the household have been fewer since I
discovered that; no he just can't see the butter/ dishcloth/ pair of
scissors unless it's screaming at him, and no he absolutely can't
multi-task.
> So I guess it's more a matter of preference than ability, to
> either focus or spread your attention.
> Men like tunnel vision and women like radar vision...
Do you really think that? I thought the explanation for why men don't
have radar vision made a hell of a lot of sense personally. I've always
known it, but never known why.
--
Kath
Daibhid Ceanaideach
speaker: Kath <ka...@REMOVEsuitcase.org>
> Volker Hetzer wrote:
>> Kath wrote:
>>> BTW has anyone read "Why men don't listen & women can't
>>> read maps"?
>> Yes, great reading but there are many bits where I as a
>> guy couldn't agree and other bits where the female friends
>> I showed it didn't agree either.
>
> <snip>
>
> I did the test to show which end of the spectrum your brain
> lies (from very female through to very male). Mine came out
> as although pretty much on the girly side, I'm near the
> overlap area. Which would account for my preference to male
> friends ('cos girls are just too bitchy), ability to
> reverse park (on a pin, as one mater describes it) and
> ability to read maps.
I've not read the book, but that destroys my theory (which is
that *no-one* can read maps, but men [with certain exceptions,
such as myself] refuse to admit it...)
--
Dave
Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://sesoc.eusa.ed.ac.uk/
"The need to compile lists is a personality disorder,
as is the need to assert the superiority of some things
over other things."
-Jeremy Hardy
Elin
>I did the test to show which end of the spectrum your brain lies (from
>very female through to very male). Mine came out as although pretty much
>on the girly side, I'm near the overlap area. Which would account for my
>preference to male friends ('cos girls are just too bitchy), ability to
>reverse park (on a pin, as one mater describes it) and ability to read maps.
Is it online? I can read maps too, and have mostly male friends. Don't
know If I can reverse park because I don't drive though :o)
Torak
> Torak wrote:
>
>>8'FED wrote:
>>
>>>Elin wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Yeah...well, I'm not sure about confidence, but certainly trust is
>>>>important. My point is that your own mental state is important - being
>>>>relaxed is a good start - and the number of roses, scented candles,
>>>>location [1] and what song is playing is much less so.
>>>
>>>Nevertheless, it's a song thread we haven't had yet...
>>
>>I'm guessing Barry White will feature.
>
>
> One problem with such a song thread might be the disappointment people
> could feel if they don't know the music mentioned. For example, if I
> were to suggest "Dusty Wine Bottle" by Kila, and you didn't know it,
> should leave people wiser, or at least, more amused.
Or with something to search for on Amazon. Would be a very dull group if
we only talked about things everyone knew.
>>As for scented candles.... really, what's the point?
>
> If the location of the scented candles causes the roses to catch fire,
> I think all three of those things may turn out to be important after
> all.
Yes. But the problem can be avoided by just skipping the candles.