Re: advice needed from Chloe and other mature adults
NYC XYZ
yamuna wrote:
> Should I date someone 4 1/2 - 5 years younger?
Um, you're just "dating," right? As in, "having dinner," "seeing a
movie," "sharing a sunset"...no big deal, I should think, even for
teenagers, much less for someone as, um, "mature" as you....
> He is 35.
I'm 34 going on 85 but look 27!
> At my age, it
> is not easy to find guys that I am interested in who have no drama and
> baggage.
Hmm. Five years don't sound like a lot, especially once you start
going into middle age.
> So I am thinking that age should not be a big issue unless it
> will become a big issue for him. If there is such possibility, I don't
> want to bother.
There's really only one way to find out. I had thought a girl with a
kid in tow would be a big deal for me, then found out that it wasn't,
then found out that it was, only not as big as I'd thought it'd be, but
still bigger than I thought it wouldn't be....
> He is kind of shy but not to express what he wants, though not so in
> many words ..yet.
?
Parsing, please.
> 9he started kissing me and I told him that I don't
> want to rush and said let's watch the movie - we rented one - so he
> listened but not for long. It went on like that 2 more times and I knew
> he wanted it badly and I couldn't refuse it.
"It"? Are we talking about "It" with a capital "I"? Or "IT" with all
caps??
> We'll be going to a movie
> this Saturday. I think we need to talk a little more beyound the usual
> chit chat but I don't know how.
"Usual chit-chat"?? I get that shit out of the way within the first
hour!
> I wonder whether I should talk about age at some point soon, I mean,
> before the issues hits us. I am going to ask him when his BD is.
> Hopefully it will be soon. I mean, he will be 36 soon. But still, the
> mind of men the same age are younger than us females and so .. Well,
> may be I shouldn't generalize.
LOL...are you going to look up his horoscope, too?
(Women...tsk, tsk....)
> Anyway, is there anyway I can figure out on my own (I mean one sidedly
> w/o having to talk much; I don't want to make him uncomfrotable by
> asking too much) whether this one is worth putting any emotinal
> investment or not.
"If you need to ask, you can't afford it."
> I am the type that is loyal and so once I give, I
> give wholeheartedly.
These are just the bullshit artists I'm wary of.
"The Art of Loving" by Erich Fromm. More "advanced" would be
Krishnamurti's "Think on These Things" and his "Commentary on Living"
series.
>But I was always worrisome and hence an emotional
> wreck.
You're going about things the wrong way -- totally...do yourself a
great big favor and read "The Art of Loving" tonight....
> I can't aford that right now trying to have a career change.
> Well, I do feel better clearing my chest.
The other thing is to learn to just sit, as in zazen...you need to
learn to sit with your questions and "problems"...the very desire for
resolution will further confuse matters.
yamuna
NYC XYZ wrote:
> yamuna wrote:
> > Should I date someone 4 1/2 - 5 years younger?
>
> Um, you're just "dating," right? As in, "having dinner," "seeing a
> movie," "sharing a sunset"...no big deal, I should think, even for
> teenagers, much less for someone as, um, "mature" as you....
>
> > He is 35.
>
> I'm 34 going on 85 but look 27!
Look my be important initially but soon, age matters and it's a fact.
NAyway, you are way too late to be responding. He is out of my life.
He is happy wiht his slow-paced life and I am happy for him.
NYC XYZ
yamuna wrote:
>
>
> Look my be important initially but soon, age matters and it's a fact.
"Age is all about mind over matter: if you don't mind, it doesn't
matter."
> NAyway, you are way too late to be responding.
Au contraire: the underlying issues are the same, and life-long and
common.
> He is out of my life.
> He is happy wiht his slow-paced life and I am happy for him.
It's spring in the northern hemisphere. Woohoo!!
yamuna
NYC XYZ wrote:
> yamuna wrote:
> >
> >
> > Look my be important initially but soon, age matters and it's a fact.
>
> "Age is all about mind over matter: if you don't mind, it doesn't
> matter."
Then why did you only want 28 years or younger for sex, if I remembered
correctly your your age requirement?
Chris
When using numbers in your requirements shouldn't the measurement for
organ size is just as important as the one for age. Not as often used
as the famous 36-28-36 for ladies but just as important. Perhaps you
could discretely specify that he be generously endowed
Chris
yamuna
Chris wrote:
> On 26 Apr 2006 13:52:30 -0700, "yamuna" <yamun...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >NYC XYZ wrote:
> >> yamuna wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Look my be important initially but soon, age matters and it's a fact.
> >>
> >> "Age is all about mind over matter: if you don't mind, it doesn't
> >> matter."
> >
> >Then why did you only want 28 years or younger for sex, if I remembered
> >correctly your your age requirement?
>
> When using numbers in your requirements shouldn't the measurement for
> organ size
You do not know the correct meaning of organs? See
http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~acarpi/NSC/14-anatomy.htm
Chris
The reference for which you gave a link has a drawing and a
description of the male organ to which I was referring.
Chris
yamuna
Chris wrote:
[..]
>
> The reference for which you gave a link has a drawing and a
> description of the male organ to which I was referring.
Got it. Earlier, I rushed and misread your post.
>
> Chris
the Danimal
> NYC XYZ wrote:
> > yamuna wrote:
> > > Look my be important initially but soon, age matters and it's a fact.
This is true. For example, in the scenario you discussed above,
you were dating a man who is about five years younger than you.
That's not such a huge gap in itself, but the gap that matters is
not the gap between the couple, but between you and your
competitors: the other women he might be able to date.
Consider, if he has opportunities to date women within five years
of his age, that means he has opportunities to date women who
are up to ten years younger than you. When people hit middle
age and start losing their looks, ten years can make a big
difference.
Then again, if he dates younger women, that means he in turn
has to compete with even younger men. So maybe he prefers
the safer choice of an older woman who attracts less
competition.
> > "Age is all about mind over matter: if you don't mind, it doesn't
> > matter."
> Then why did you only want 28 years or younger for sex, if I remembered
> correctly your your age requirement?
Evidently he minds.
Speeding
"the Danimal" <dmo...@mfm.com> wrote in message
news:1146151155.6...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> yamuna wrote:
>> NYC XYZ wrote:
>> > yamuna wrote:
>> > > Look my be important initially but soon, age matters and it's a fact.
>
> This is true. For example, in the scenario you discussed above,
> you were dating a man who is about five years younger than you.
> That's not such a huge gap in itself, but the gap that matters is
> not the gap between the couple, but between you and your
> competitors: the other women he might be able to date.
>
> Consider, if he has opportunities to date women within five years
> of his age, that means he has opportunities to date women who
> are up to ten years younger than you. When people hit middle
> age and start losing their looks, ten years can make a big
> difference.
On yet another flip side, though... if he's dating women ten years younger,
he has to deal with the maturity level of women that are ten years younger.
The difference between a woman that is 32 versus 22 is staggering. A few
more years and that beings to change, but mostly because many women are
married by the time they reach 26ish. And marriage (and/or having kids)
changes a women even more than aging. A more mature woman and more
experienced woman can be an advantage to a youger woman.
yamuna
the Danimal wrote:
> yamuna wrote:
> > NYC XYZ wrote:
> > > yamuna wrote:
> > > > Look my be important initially but soon, age matters and it's a fact.
>
> This is true. For example, in the scenario you discussed above,
> you were dating a man who is about five years younger than you.
> That's not such a huge gap in itself, but the gap that matters is
> not the gap between the couple, but between you and your
> competitors:
Very superficial thinking. My concern was not about competing with
other women. I am one of a kind and someone so concern about age in
the superficial sense wouldn't be the type who would be attarcted to me
anyway.
My concern was about things he would want, for example, children which
I will not have becaue I can't afford at this moment. Hhad I not
gotten sick in my mide 30s that took me about 5 years to recover fully,
things may have worked out differently for me as I was never short of
admirers who wouldn't know by looking at me, that I was that weak and
in recovery period.
>the other women he might be able to date.
>
> Consider, if he has opportunities to date women within five years
> of his age, that means he has opportunities to date women who
> are up to ten years younger than you. When people hit middle
> age and start losing their looks, ten years can make a big
> difference.
>
> Then again, if he dates younger women, that means he in turn
> has to compete with even younger men.
Again, very superficial thinking.
> So maybe he prefers
> the safer choice of an older woman who attracts less
> competition.
Yet again, very superficial thinking.
Speeding
"yamuna" <yamun...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1146157366.5...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> the Danimal wrote:
>> yamuna wrote:
>> > NYC XYZ wrote:
>> > > yamuna wrote:
>> > > > Look my be important initially but soon, age matters and it's a
>> > > > fact.
>>
>> This is true. For example, in the scenario you discussed above,
>> you were dating a man who is about five years younger than you.
>> That's not such a huge gap in itself, but the gap that matters is
>> not the gap between the couple, but between you and your
>> competitors:
>
> Very superficial thinking. My concern was not about competing with
> other women. I am one of a kind and someone so concern about age in
> the superficial sense wouldn't be the type who would be attarcted to me
> anyway.
As a man, let me speak for almost all men. We ARE superficial. As many
commedians like to joke... men a simple. We are nowhere near as complicated
as women think. Really. When we say we aren't thinking about anythign. We
REALLY aren't thinking about anything. And when we say that looks aren't
everything... sure, we mean that too. There's also sex.
So, yes, age, looks, and the other women... it matters. So woman is "so
special" in other qualities that most men are going to overlook her age and
looks compared to ther women. Well... there is *one* quality that you could
be special in that might make a man decide to overlook your looks. But, do
you consider yourself to be a double bag special?
> My concern was about things he would want, for example, children which
> I will not have becaue I can't afford at this moment. Hhad I not
> gotten sick in my mide 30s that took me about 5 years to recover fully,
> things may have worked out differently for me as I was never short of
> admirers who wouldn't know by looking at me, that I was that weak and
> in recovery period.
>
>
>
>
>
>>the other women he might be able to date.
>>
>> Consider, if he has opportunities to date women within five years
>> of his age, that means he has opportunities to date women who
>> are up to ten years younger than you. When people hit middle
>> age and start losing their looks, ten years can make a big
>> difference.
>>
>> Then again, if he dates younger women, that means he in turn
>> has to compete with even younger men.
>
> Again, very superficial thinking.
Yep. Sounds just about right, too.
>> So maybe he prefers
>> the safer choice of an older woman who attracts less
>> competition.
>
> Yet again, very superficial thinking.
Many men that are AFCs are happy to settle for a UG or a 3000x5000 because
they figure they don't have to work as hard and worry so much that such a
gal will be likely to stray and/or take him for his cash. And, you know
what... in some cases... their right. It's amazing just how quickly a woman
will trade up. Many women will trade up without so much as a second thought.
Even after marriage. But before marriage, it's pretty common knowledge that
a woman will have at least one male friend, when possible, as her backup
plan.
So, men aren't the only superficial thinkers.
yamuna
Speeding wrote:
[..]
> As a man, let me speak for almost all men. We ARE superficial.
Thank you for honesty.
> As many commedians like to joke... men a simple. We are nowhere near as
> complicated as women think. Really. When we say we aren't thinking about anythign. We REALLY aren't thinking about anything.
> And when we say that looks aren't everything... sure, we mean that too.
No need to coninve me. The kind of guys I have beenw ith wouldn;'t
have been with me if I haven't had things other than just looks.
>There's also sex. So, yes, age, looks, and the other women... it matters. So woman
> is "so special" in other qualities that most men are going to overlook her age and
> looks compared to ther women.
>Well... there is *one* quality
I assume you talking bout sex?
> that you could be special in that might make a man decide to overlook your looks.
> But, do you consider yourself to be a double bag special?
If it's sex that you are referring to, I haven't had any compliant and
that's because the realtionship were based on mutail attraction. You
should know that we are not machine, not me anyway. For me, it depends
on whether I like the man or not. I never let any man I do not like *a
lot* touched me. I never hooked up with any amn just to have a man or
just because I wss lonely. BTW, none of my break-ups had been because
of sex. In fact, they wanted to continue with that actitivity after the
break-up so badly that when I wouldn't, they got upset, mad, you
named it. That's why I made a comment in my post that men are children.
> > My concern was about things he would want, for example, children which
> > I will not have becaue I can't afford at this moment. Hhad I not
> > gotten sick in my mide 30s that took me about 5 years to recover fully,
> > things may have worked out differently for me as I was never short of
> > admirers who wouldn't know by looking at me, that I was that weak and
> > in recovery period.
> >
> >> >
[..]
> >
> > Again, very superficial thinking.
>
> Yep. Sounds just about right, too.
>
> >> So maybe he prefers
> >> the safer choice of an older woman who attracts less
> >> competition.
> >
> > Yet again, very superficial thinking.
>
> Many men that are AFCs are happy to settle for a UG or a 3000x5000 because
> they figure they don't have to work as hard and worry so much that such a
> gal will be likely to stray and/or take him for his cash.
This logic must be for the type of people I have no clue about.
> And, you know
> what... in some cases... their right. It's amazing just how quickly a woman
> will trade up.
I never left any man for another man nor any man left me for another
woman. Neither I nor they were superficial.
>Many women will trade up without so much as a second thought.
> Even after marriage. But before marriage, it's pretty common knowledge that
> a woman will have at least one male friend, when possible, as her backup
> plan.
That's not me either. So much for generalization.
> So, men aren't the only superficial thinkers.
I never said that only men were superficial.
Speeding
>
> Speeding wrote:
> [..]
>
>> As a man, let me speak for almost all men. We ARE superficial.
>
> Thank you for honesty.
>
>> As many commedians like to joke... men a simple. We are nowhere near as
>> complicated as women think. Really. When we say we aren't thinking
>> about anythign. We REALLY aren't thinking about anything.
>
>> And when we say that looks aren't everything... sure, we mean that too.
>
> No need to coninve me. The kind of guys I have beenw ith wouldn;'t
> have been with me if I haven't had things other than just looks.
Maybe. You can never really know.
>>There's also sex. So, yes, age, looks, and the other women... it matters.
>>So woman
>> is "so special" in other qualities that most men are going to overlook
>> her age and
>> looks compared to ther women.
>
>>Well... there is *one* quality
>
> I assume you talking bout sex?
What else would most men be thinking about? Baseball stats?
>> that you could be special in that might make a man decide to overlook
>> your looks.
>> But, do you consider yourself to be a double bag special?
>
> If it's sex that you are referring to, I haven't had any compliant and
> that's because the realtionship were based on mutail attraction. You
> should know that we are not machine, not me anyway. For me, it depends
> on whether I like the man or not. I never let any man I do not like *a
> lot* touched me. I never hooked up with any amn just to have a man or
> just because I wss lonely. BTW, none of my break-ups had been because
> of sex. In fact, they wanted to continue with that actitivity after the
> break-up so badly that when I wouldn't, they got upset, mad, you
> named it. That's why I made a comment in my post that men are children.
Um. Gee. What a shock. <sarcasm off> If men can get a booty call, we will.
If we have a sure booty call, so much the better.
>> > My concern was about things he would want, for example, children which
>> > I will not have becaue I can't afford at this moment. Hhad I not
>> > gotten sick in my mide 30s that took me about 5 years to recover fully,
>> > things may have worked out differently for me as I was never short of
>> > admirers who wouldn't know by looking at me, that I was that weak and
>> > in recovery period.
>> >
>> >> >
> [..]
>
>> >
>> > Again, very superficial thinking.
>>
>> Yep. Sounds just about right, too.
>>
>> >> So maybe he prefers
>> >> the safer choice of an older woman who attracts less
>> >> competition.
>> >
>> > Yet again, very superficial thinking.
>>
>> Many men that are AFCs are happy to settle for a UG or a 3000x5000
>> because
>> they figure they don't have to work as hard and worry so much that such a
>> gal will be likely to stray and/or take him for his cash.
>
> This logic must be for the type of people I have no clue about.
Those would be called men.
It's a rare man that doesn't settle. Those men are called PUAs. And they
tend to not settle down for just one woman. They are players. Or at least
macks. So, when they do decide to get into a committed relationship...
unless something drastic happens, it'll likely be a permanent relationship.
>> And, you know
>> what... in some cases... their right. It's amazing just how quickly a
>> woman
>> will trade up.
>
> I never left any man for another man nor any man left me for another
> woman. Neither I nor they were superficial.
So you are married, then? If you haven't left a man without having another
in the waiting, you are rare indeed. And, I can pretty much guarentee that
if a man left you... he had a booty call lined up somewhere first.
>>Many women will trade up without so much as a second thought.
>> Even after marriage. But before marriage, it's pretty common knowledge
>> that
>> a woman will have at least one male friend, when possible, as her backup
>> plan.
>
> That's not me either. So much for generalization.
Question. What color do blind people see when they dream?
I ask because how can you know what your motivations are if you can't see,
understand, or control them? In other words, are you claiming that every
breakup you've ever had was simply due to a loss of emotional
desire/connection?
the Danimal
> "the Danimal" <dmo...@mfm.com> wrote in message
> news:1146151155.6...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > of his age, that means he has opportunities to date women who
> > are up to ten years younger than you. When people hit middle
> > age and start losing their looks, ten years can make a big
> > difference.
>
> On yet another flip side, though... if he's dating women ten years younger,
> he has to deal with the maturity level of women that are ten years younger.
> The difference between a woman that is 32 versus 22 is staggering. A few
> more years and that beings to change, but mostly because many women are
> married by the time they reach 26ish. And marriage (and/or having kids)
> changes a women even more than aging. A more mature woman and more
> experienced woman can be an advantage to a youger woman.
That would certainly be an important consideration in a
short-term relationship. In a short-term relationship, you
experience your partner at only one age.
In a long-term relationship, the problem of youth is
self-correcting. For example, in a relationship that lasts
ten years, you can expect the 22-year-old to become a
32-year-old.
In contrast, a partner who is already old enough to begin
losing her looks will only look worse in another ten
years. But since her personality and habits were already
"mature" to begin with, her increase in age is unlikely
to make her more desirable on that basis.
Physical aging is also an accelerating process. That is, the
rate of deterioration increases with each passing decade.
>From age 20 to 30, a person's appearance usually does
not change much (assuming no disfiguring accidents or
illnesses, or substantial weight gain). From 30 to 40,
the change is greater, and usually easy to see. From
40 to 50, the change is greater still, and so on.
This acceleration of physical deterioration means an
older partner is changing faster than a younger partner.
Therefore, a person who chooses an older partner had
best be attracted to that partner on some basis other
than the partner's appearance right now.
-- the Danimal
Speeding
> Speeding wrote:
>> "the Danimal" <dmo...@mfm.com> wrote in message
>> news:1146151155.6...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> > Consider, if he has opportunities to date women within five years
>> > of his age, that means he has opportunities to date women who
>> > are up to ten years younger than you. When people hit middle
>> > age and start losing their looks, ten years can make a big
>> > difference.
>>
>> On yet another flip side, though... if he's dating women ten years
>> younger,
>> he has to deal with the maturity level of women that are ten years
>> younger.
>> The difference between a woman that is 32 versus 22 is staggering. A few
>> more years and that beings to change, but mostly because many women are
>> married by the time they reach 26ish. And marriage (and/or having kids)
>> changes a women even more than aging. A more mature woman and more
>> experienced woman can be an advantage to a youger woman.
>
> That would certainly be an important consideration in a
> short-term relationship. In a short-term relationship, you
> experience your partner at only one age.
>
> In a long-term relationship, the problem of youth is
> self-correcting. For example, in a relationship that lasts
> ten years, you can expect the 22-year-old to become a
> 32-year-old.
Well, one would hope, anyways....
> In contrast, a partner who is already old enough to begin
> losing her looks will only look worse in another ten
> years. But since her personality and habits were already
> "mature" to begin with, her increase in age is unlikely
> to make her more desirable on that basis.
Agreed. As a woman ages, her personality is going to change also. Menopause
can be an especially mood altering thing.
> Physical aging is also an accelerating process. That is, the
> rate of deterioration increases with each passing decade.
For most. A few make me wonder. And, plastic surgery can do some amazing
things, too.
>>From age 20 to 30, a person's appearance usually does
> not change much (assuming no disfiguring accidents or
> illnesses, or substantial weight gain). From 30 to 40,
> the change is greater, and usually easy to see. From
> 40 to 50, the change is greater still, and so on.
Yep. Especially after about 50 or so. The hill gets steeper as you go.
> This acceleration of physical deterioration means an
> older partner is changing faster than a younger partner.
> Therefore, a person who chooses an older partner had
> best be attracted to that partner on some basis other
> than the partner's appearance right now.
Well. Yes. But they better be ready to learn how to deal with a new
personality too. With every ten years, the personality is going to shift
some too. And that also seems to change faster as the age increases.
>
> -- the Danimal
>
the Danimal
> the Danimal wrote:
> > yamuna wrote:
> > > NYC XYZ wrote:
> > > > yamuna wrote:
> > > > > Look my be important initially but soon, age matters and it's a fact.
> >
> > This is true. For example, in the scenario you discussed above,
> > you were dating a man who is about five years younger than you.
> > That's not such a huge gap in itself, but the gap that matters is
> > not the gap between the couple, but between you and your
> > competitors:
>
> Very superficial thinking.
Of course. For most people, attraction is superficial. Consider
the number of couples who meet and then have sex after
just a few dates, while they still hardly know each other.
How long does it take to really get to know someone?
One year? Five years? Ten years? Most people can start
feeling attracted to someone new in much less time.
You don't have to answer this question for us, but consider
it in your mind: how many hours did you spend getting to
know the man you have been describing before you first
began to feel desire to have sex with him? And how many
hours did you spend getting to know him before acting on
that desire?
How many hours did he spend getting to know you before
he first wanted to have sex with you? It's possible he already
found you sexually attractive before the first time he spoke
to you.
At the time when you first had sex with him, how well did
you actually know him? Did you know details such as
his middle name, his mother's maiden name, the names of
his grandparents and cousins, where he went to school,
where he was born, where he grew up, whether he had
ever been in trouble with the law, or been fired from a job,
or if he had secretly abused an animal, how many drugs
he has done, what sort of medical conditions he has, had
he ever received psychiatric treatment, the names and
number of his previous sex partners, etc.?
There have been game shows on television that feature
newlywed couples, in which the host asks each contestant
personal questions about his or her spouse, and the audience
laughs at how little the contestants know about the people
they just bet the rest of their lives on. For most people, the
normal progression is like this:
1. See someone.
2. Feel attracted.
3. Spend a few hours total getting to know the person superficially.
4. Start having sex.
5. Spend years gradually finding out who you are having sex with.
For most women, we could switch steps 2 and 3. Most women,
unlike most men, are not already desiring sex with someone
at first glance, but most women only need a few hours with a
man to warm to him---if they find him attractive.
Most men are superficial, but so are most women. For example,
it seems the vast majority of women have some sort of minimum
height requirement for a sex partner. If a man is shorter than a
woman's minimum height requirement, she rules him out on
that basis alone, before knowing anything else about him.
> My concern was not about competing with other women.
The average worker isn't concerned about saving for retirement,
either. But objectively, we know most workers should
be concerned, and they aren't saving enough for retirement.
The average American saves something like 1% of income,
or less, when most people need to save at least 10% (if they
start saving early enough, and invest well) or even more if
like most people they don't bother start saving until they
hit their 40's or 50's. (How much have you saved, by the way?)
You may not care about other women, but I assure you
every man you sleep with cares.
Unless he is blind, a (straight) man is constantly seeing other
women, and his emotional brain is probably reacting to their
physical appearance. If he frequently sees other women he finds
more superficially attractive than you, that can put him under
stress, and affect the quality of your relationship.
However, because you would probably view his normal male
behavior as a character defect ("superficiality"), and you
seem to be in denial about the fact that you compete with
other women, he probably wouldn't be able to communicate
with you honestly about the source of his stress. He's not
going to tell you what's going on in his head if it will only
make you think less of him. Thus the stress might express
itself indirectly, and degrade the quality of your relationship
in some other way that might not make sense to you.
> I am one of a kind
Everybody is one of a kind. It's not a question of you being
one of a kind, the question is how many "kinds" a given man
can be attracted to. If you're with a guy who can be attracted
to other kinds of women, then being one particular kind gives
you no competitive advantage over women of those other kinds.
Consider the analogy with food. There are many kinds of
food. You can probably satisfy your hunger with more than
one. A person who could only eat one specific
kind of food would have a problem getting through life,
because sometimes that one kind is not available.
Most people, therefore, have some flexibility.
> and someone so concern about age in
> the superficial sense wouldn't be the type who would be attarcted to me
> anyway.
Are you saying all the men you date would be just as happy
to pick up 90-year-old women at a nursing home? If they
don't care about age in the superficial sense, they should
be just as likely to find women of any age attractive.
Here's what is most likely: the men you date care about
a woman's looks---intensely; and for the most part, they
date the most physically attractive women they can attract.
For example, let's assume you aren't as superficially
attractive as the typical Victoria's Secret lingerie model.
This means you are very unlikely to date any man
who can attract those lingerie models. You can only
date men from among the set of men those models
reject.
And conversely, if a man is dating you, he is very unlikely
to leave you for any woman who is substantially uglier.
Women who are uglier are generally no competition for
you.
It's similar to the way the job market sorts workers and
positions by salary. A person who can earn $100,000/year
at one kind of job is unlikely to take another kind of job
at just $10,000/year.
Why? Because it's more fun to make $100,000/year than
just $10,000/year. Similarly, the better a woman looks,
the more fun she is for a man to be with, all else being
reasonably equal. One could say that a woman's looks
set the upper bound on how much fun she can be for
a man. If she has an unpleasant personality, she can fail to
realize all of her fun potential; but no matter how wonderful
her personality is, she can never be more fun for a man
than her looks allow.
> My concern was about things he would want, for example, children which
> I will not have becaue I can't afford at this moment.
There might be other things he wants too. For example, does
this guy ever look at young, attractive women strangers and
become immediately aroused?
> Hhad I not
> gotten sick in my mide 30s that took me about 5 years to recover fully,
> things may have worked out differently for me as I was never short of
> admirers who wouldn't know by looking at me, that I was that weak and
> in recovery period.
That's one advantage of meeting people on bike rides. The
first uphill demonstrates clearly who is weak and who isn't.
> >the other women he might be able to date.
> >
> > Consider, if he has opportunities to date women within five years
> > of his age, that means he has opportunities to date women who
> > are up to ten years younger than you. When people hit middle
> > age and start losing their looks, ten years can make a big
> > difference.
> >
> > Then again, if he dates younger women, that means he in turn
> > has to compete with even younger men.
>
> Again, very superficial thinking.
Again, a very superficial dismissal. Does attaching
a pejorative label to something eliminate its impact?
Life would be so much simpler if we could solve problems
merely by disdaining them.
> > So maybe he prefers
> > the safer choice of an older woman who attracts less
> > competition.
>
> Yet again, very superficial thinking.
There's nothing superficial about getting one's ass kicked
by a rival male.
Men can be ruthless competitors. Surrendering to a potent
rival is not necessarily a "superficial" decision---it may be
prudent.
For example, I would probably not date a woman if I
discovered she had a stalker ex-boyfriend with a long rap
sheet featuring weapons violations and assault charges,
even aside from what it would say about her to have gotten
involved with such a man.
It might be like trying to stop a suicide bomber. The
suicide bomber is ready to sacrifice his own life to harm
others, and isn't deterred by a threat of punishment. It's
difficult to deal with desperate people like that without
getting yourself hurt in the process.
-- the Danimal
yamuna
the Danimal wrote:
[..]
the gap that matters is
> > > not the gap between the couple, but between you and your
> > > competitors:
> >
> > Very superficial thinking.
>
> Of course. For most people, attraction is superficial. Consider
> the number of couples who meet and then have sex after
> just a few dates, while they still hardly know each other.
> How long does it take to really get to know someone?
> One year? Five years? Ten years? Most people can start
> feeling attracted to someone new in much less time.
Now, you are streting. If people have to wait 10 years in order to know
a perosn, then the averga emarige age would be like 40 because most
people are mot mature enough to even realize how to get to know a
person unitl they turn 30.
>
> You don't have to answer this question for us, but consider
> it in your mind: how many hours did you spend getting to
> know the man you have been describing before you first
> began to feel desire to have sex with him?
>And how many
> hours did you spend getting to know him before acting on
> that desire?
What if tell you that I could control my desire a long longer had he
not acted so wanting. That has alwasy been my weakness. I can't say
"no" to the person I like.
>
> How many hours did he spend getting to know you before
> he first wanted to have sex with you? It's possible he already
> found you sexually attractive before the first time he spoke
> to you.
Possible. After all, everything is controlled by the brain.
>
> At the time when you first had sex with him, how well did
> you actually know him? Did you know details such as
> his middle name, his mother's maiden name, the names of
> his grandparents and cousins, where he went to school,
> where he was born, where he grew up,
Funny you asked that. I used to ask all these question routinely out
of culturla habit but I only asked the guys I was getting involved
unlike my fellow countryman who would ask everybody. Since I only dated
Americans (Caucasian) and one naturalized American (non Caucasian) who
was also like a typical Americans when it comes to being asked those
questions, my experience was their uncomfortableness. Most (not
necessarily had sex) were okay with it since these guys met me in
foreign student environment and were culturally more exposed but after
one guy acted so differently, I stopped asking that much as I myself
changed.
>whether he had
> ever been in trouble with the law, or been fired from a job,
> or if he had secretly abused an animal, how many drugs
> he has done, what sort of medical conditions he has, had
> he ever received psychiatric treatment, the names and
> number of his previous sex partners, etc.?
Very funny.
>
> There have been game shows on television that feature
> newlywed couples, in which the host asks each contestant
> personal questions about his or her spouse, and the audience
> laughs at how little the contestants know about the people
> they just bet the rest of their lives on. For most people, the
> normal progression is like this:
>
> 1. See someone.
> 2. Feel attracted.
> 3. Spend a few hours total getting to know the person superficially.
> 4. Start having sex.
> 5. Spend years gradually finding out who you are having sex with.
>
> For most women, we could switch steps 2 and 3. Most women,
> unlike most men, are not already desiring sex with someone
> at first glance, but most women only need a few hours with a
> man to warm to him---if they find him attractive.
>
> Most men are superficial, but so are most women. For example,
> it seems the vast majority of women have some sort of minimum
> height requirement for a sex partner. If a man is shorter than a
> woman's minimum height requirement, she rules him out on
> that basis alone, before knowing anything else about him.
Why pick on just height when women also have other criteria they use in
picking partners? It just depends on what a person prefers.
> > My concern was not about competing with other women.
>
> The average worker isn't concerned about saving for retirement,
> either. But objectively, we know most workers should
> be concerned, and they aren't saving enough for retirement.
> The average American saves something like 1% of income,
> or less, when most people need to save at least 10% (if they
> start saving early enough, and invest well)
I am sure that people would save 10% if they can afford to.
>or even more if
> like most people they don't bother start saving until they
> hit their 40's or 50's. (How much have you saved, by the way?)
I am an immigrant who had to start from scratch and so I'd say you
can't put me in that survey.
>
> You may not care about other women, but I assure you
> every man you sleep with cares.
I know and that's one reason I have been so cautious which made left me
as I am.
>
> Unless he is blind, a (straight) man is constantly seeing other
> women, and his emotional brain is probably reacting to their
> physical appearance. If he frequently sees other women he finds
> more superficially attractive than you, that can put him under
> stress, and affect the quality of your relationship.
You are bringing up all the things that can possible happen to worry
about in life. Know that it's not only in this area one has to worry
that way. You could be driving on the highway and the guy coming from
the other direction can be getting brain aneurysm or heart attack and
hit you head-on. And we put our lives in the hand of pilot we don't
even know when we fly or use ships.
>
> However, because you would probably view his normal male
> behavior as a character defect ("superficiality"), and you
> seem to be in denial about the fact that you compete with
> other women,
I didn't say I don't compete at all but not in the petty way you were
thinking.
> he probably wouldn't be able to communicate
> with you honestly about the source of his stress. He's not
> going to tell you what's going on in his head if it will only
> make you think less of him. Thus the stress might express
> itself indirectly, and degrade the quality of your relationship
> in some other way that might not make sense to you.
So what you are saying is that I should ask him about his attraction to
toher woman and help him relieve his stress. So why do I need to bother
having such a guy?
>
> > I am one of a kind
>
> Everybody is one of a kind. It's not a question of you being
> one of a kind, the question is how many "kinds" a given man
> can be attracted to.
I'd say that most people are attracted to the same type of person
excluding the superficial attraction.
>If you're with a guy who can be attracted to other kinds of women,
I will not be with such a the person or drop him like a fly.
> then being one particular kind gives
> you no competitive advantage over women of those other kinds.
>
> Consider the analogy with food. There are many kinds of
> food. You can probably satisfy your hunger with more than
> one. A person who could only eat one specific
> kind of food would have a problem getting through life,
> because sometimes that one kind is not available.
> Most people, therefore, have some flexibility.
Food and people as analogies? I do not like to eat the same food
everyday while I want the same peroson everyday. So much for the
analogy. Of course, you can say that that's not the case with men.
Well, that mostly explians why I am alone.
>
> > and someone so concern about age in
> > the superficial sense wouldn't be the type who would be attarcted to me
> > anyway.
>
> Are you saying all the men you date would be just as happy
> to pick up 90-year-old women at a nursing home?
You streth things out of context, you know?
>If they
> don't care about age in the superficial sense, they should
> be just as likely to find women of any age attractive.
Out of context.
>
> Here's what is most likely: the men you date care about
> a woman's looks---intensely; and for the most part, they
> date the most physically attractive women they can attract.
>
> For example, let's assume you aren't as superficially
> attractive as the typical Victoria's Secret lingerie model.
> This means you are very unlikely to date any man
> who can attract those lingerie models. You can only
> date men from among the set of men those models
> reject.
The men those models reject miight be the men who would look for
merit-based qaulities aside from just looks. So it's not like they are
rejects. There are a lot of tother factors involved unlike your
simplification based on looks.
You cannot be a good researcher. You do not take into account a lot of
factors.
>
> And conversely, if a man is dating you, he is very unlikely
> to leave you for any woman who is substantially uglier.
> Women who are uglier are generally no competition for
> you.
Again, that's very superficial. If the uglier woman had other
qualities that the current woman lacks that he wants desperately, he
would go for the uglier woman.
yamuna
the Danimal wrote:
[..]
the gap that matters is
> > > not the gap between the couple, but between you and your
> > > competitors:
> >
> > Very superficial thinking.
>
> Of course. For most people, attraction is superficial. Consider
> the number of couples who meet and then have sex after
> just a few dates, while they still hardly know each other.
> How long does it take to really get to know someone?
> One year? Five years? Ten years? Most people can start
> feeling attracted to someone new in much less time.
Now, you are streting. If people have to wait 10 years in order to know
a perosn, then the averga emarige age would be like 40 because most
people are mot mature enough to even realize how to get to know a
person unitl they turn 30.
>
> You don't have to answer this question for us, but consider
> it in your mind: how many hours did you spend getting to
> know the man you have been describing before you first
> began to feel desire to have sex with him?
>And how many
> hours did you spend getting to know him before acting on
> that desire?
What if tell you that I could control my desire a long longer had he
not acted so wanting. That has alwasy been my weakness. I can't say
"no" to the person I like.
>
> How many hours did he spend getting to know you before
> he first wanted to have sex with you? It's possible he already
> found you sexually attractive before the first time he spoke
> to you.
Possible. After all, everything is controlled by the brain.
>
> At the time when you first had sex with him, how well did
> you actually know him? Did you know details such as
> his middle name, his mother's maiden name, the names of
> his grandparents and cousins, where he went to school,
> where he was born, where he grew up,
Funny you asked that. I used to ask all these question routinely out
of culturla habit but I only asked the guys I was getting involved
unlike my fellow countryman who would ask everybody. Since I only dated
Americans (Caucasian) and one naturalized American (non Caucasian) who
was also like a typical Americans when it comes to being asked those
questions, my experience was their uncomfortableness. Most (not
necessarily had sex) were okay with it since these guys met me in
foreign student environment and were culturally more exposed but after
one guy acted so differently, I stopped asking that much as I myself
changed.
>whether he had
> ever been in trouble with the law, or been fired from a job,
> or if he had secretly abused an animal, how many drugs
> he has done, what sort of medical conditions he has, had
> he ever received psychiatric treatment, the names and
> number of his previous sex partners, etc.?
Very funny.
>
> There have been game shows on television that feature
> newlywed couples, in which the host asks each contestant
> personal questions about his or her spouse, and the audience
> laughs at how little the contestants know about the people
> they just bet the rest of their lives on. For most people, the
> normal progression is like this:
>
> 1. See someone.
> 2. Feel attracted.
> 3. Spend a few hours total getting to know the person superficially.
> 4. Start having sex.
> 5. Spend years gradually finding out who you are having sex with.
>
> For most women, we could switch steps 2 and 3. Most women,
> unlike most men, are not already desiring sex with someone
> at first glance, but most women only need a few hours with a
> man to warm to him---if they find him attractive.
>
> Most men are superficial, but so are most women. For example,
> it seems the vast majority of women have some sort of minimum
> height requirement for a sex partner. If a man is shorter than a
> woman's minimum height requirement, she rules him out on
> that basis alone, before knowing anything else about him.
Why pick on just height when women also have other criteria they use in
picking partners? It just depends on what a person prefers.
> > My concern was not about competing with other women.
>
> The average worker isn't concerned about saving for retirement,
> either. But objectively, we know most workers should
> be concerned, and they aren't saving enough for retirement.
> The average American saves something like 1% of income,
> or less, when most people need to save at least 10% (if they
> start saving early enough, and invest well)
I am sure that people would save 10% if they can afford to.
>or even more if
> like most people they don't bother start saving until they
> hit their 40's or 50's. (How much have you saved, by the way?)
I am an immigrant who had to start from scratch and so I'd say you
can't put me in that survey.
>
> You may not care about other women, but I assure you
> every man you sleep with cares.
I know and that's one reason I have been so cautious which made left me
as I am.
>
> Unless he is blind, a (straight) man is constantly seeing other
> women, and his emotional brain is probably reacting to their
> physical appearance. If he frequently sees other women he finds
> more superficially attractive than you, that can put him under
> stress, and affect the quality of your relationship.
You are bringing up all the things that can possible happen to worry
about in life. Know that it's not only in this area one has to worry
that way. You could be driving on the highway and the guy coming from
the other direction can be getting brain aneurysm or heart attack and
hit you head-on. And we put our lives in the hand of pilot we don't
even know when we fly or use ships.
>
> However, because you would probably view his normal male
> behavior as a character defect ("superficiality"), and you
> seem to be in denial about the fact that you compete with
> other women,
I didn't say I don't compete at all but not in the petty way you were
thinking.
> he probably wouldn't be able to communicate
> with you honestly about the source of his stress. He's not
> going to tell you what's going on in his head if it will only
> make you think less of him. Thus the stress might express
> itself indirectly, and degrade the quality of your relationship
> in some other way that might not make sense to you.
So what you are saying is that I should ask him about his attraction to
toher woman and help him relieve his stress. So why do I need to bother
having such a guy?
>
> > I am one of a kind
>
> Everybody is one of a kind. It's not a question of you being
> one of a kind, the question is how many "kinds" a given man
> can be attracted to.
I'd say that most people are attracted to the same type of person
excluding the superficial attraction.
>If you're with a guy who can be attracted to other kinds of women,
I will not be with such a the person or drop him like a fly.
> then being one particular kind gives
> you no competitive advantage over women of those other kinds.
>
> Consider the analogy with food. There are many kinds of
> food. You can probably satisfy your hunger with more than
> one. A person who could only eat one specific
> kind of food would have a problem getting through life,
> because sometimes that one kind is not available.
> Most people, therefore, have some flexibility.
Food and people as analogies? I do not like to eat the same food
everyday while I want the same peroson everyday. So much for the
analogy. Of course, you can say that that's not the case with men.
Well, that mostly explians why I am alone.
>
> > and someone so concern about age in
> > the superficial sense wouldn't be the type who would be attarcted to me
> > anyway.
>
> Are you saying all the men you date would be just as happy
> to pick up 90-year-old women at a nursing home?
You streth things out of context, you know?
>If they
> don't care about age in the superficial sense, they should
> be just as likely to find women of any age attractive.
Out of context.
>
> Here's what is most likely: the men you date care about
> a woman's looks---intensely; and for the most part, they
> date the most physically attractive women they can attract.
>
> For example, let's assume you aren't as superficially
> attractive as the typical Victoria's Secret lingerie model.
> This means you are very unlikely to date any man
> who can attract those lingerie models. You can only
> date men from among the set of men those models
> reject.
The men those models reject miight be the men who would look for
merit-based qaulities aside from just looks. So it's not like they are
rejects. There are a lot of tother factors involved unlike your
simplification based on looks.
You cannot be a good researcher. You do not take into account a lot of
factors.
>
> And conversely, if a man is dating you, he is very unlikely
> to leave you for any woman who is substantially uglier.
> Women who are uglier are generally no competition for
> you.
Again, that's very superficial. If the uglier woman had other
qualities that the current woman lacks that he wants desperately, he
would go for the uglier woman.
>
yamuna
the Danimal wrote:
[..]
the gap that matters is
> > > not the gap between the couple, but between you and your
> > > competitors:
> >
> > Very superficial thinking.
>
> Of course. For most people, attraction is superficial. Consider
> the number of couples who meet and then have sex after
> just a few dates, while they still hardly know each other.
> How long does it take to really get to know someone?
> One year? Five years? Ten years? Most people can start
> feeling attracted to someone new in much less time.
Now, you are streting. If people have to wait 10 years in order to know
a perosn, then the averga emarige age would be like 40 because most
people are mot mature enough to even realize how to get to know a
person unitl they turn 30.
>
> You don't have to answer this question for us, but consider
> it in your mind: how many hours did you spend getting to
> know the man you have been describing before you first
> began to feel desire to have sex with him?
>And how many
> hours did you spend getting to know him before acting on
> that desire?
What if tell you that I could control my desire a long longer had he
not acted so wanting. That has alwasy been my weakness. I can't say
"no" to the person I like.
>
> How many hours did he spend getting to know you before
> he first wanted to have sex with you? It's possible he already
> found you sexually attractive before the first time he spoke
> to you.
Possible. After all, everything is controlled by the brain.
>
> At the time when you first had sex with him, how well did
> you actually know him? Did you know details such as
> his middle name, his mother's maiden name, the names of
> his grandparents and cousins, where he went to school,
> where he was born, where he grew up,
Funny you asked that. I used to ask all these question routinely out
of culturla habit but I only asked the guys I was getting involved
unlike my fellow countryman who would ask everybody. Since I only dated
Americans (Caucasian) and one naturalized American (non Caucasian) who
was also like a typical Americans when it comes to being asked those
questions, my experience was their uncomfortableness. Most (not
necessarily had sex) were okay with it since these guys met me in
foreign student environment and were culturally more exposed but after
one guy acted so differently, I stopped asking that much as I myself
changed.
>whether he had
> ever been in trouble with the law, or been fired from a job,
> or if he had secretly abused an animal, how many drugs
> he has done, what sort of medical conditions he has, had
> he ever received psychiatric treatment, the names and
> number of his previous sex partners, etc.?
Very funny.
>
> There have been game shows on television that feature
> newlywed couples, in which the host asks each contestant
> personal questions about his or her spouse, and the audience
> laughs at how little the contestants know about the people
> they just bet the rest of their lives on. For most people, the
> normal progression is like this:
>
> 1. See someone.
> 2. Feel attracted.
> 3. Spend a few hours total getting to know the person superficially.
> 4. Start having sex.
> 5. Spend years gradually finding out who you are having sex with.
>
> For most women, we could switch steps 2 and 3. Most women,
> unlike most men, are not already desiring sex with someone
> at first glance, but most women only need a few hours with a
> man to warm to him---if they find him attractive.
>
> Most men are superficial, but so are most women. For example,
> it seems the vast majority of women have some sort of minimum
> height requirement for a sex partner. If a man is shorter than a
> woman's minimum height requirement, she rules him out on
> that basis alone, before knowing anything else about him.
Why pick on just height when women also have other criteria they use in
picking partners? It just depends on what a person prefers.
> > My concern was not about competing with other women.
>
> The average worker isn't concerned about saving for retirement,
> either. But objectively, we know most workers should
> be concerned, and they aren't saving enough for retirement.
> The average American saves something like 1% of income,
> or less, when most people need to save at least 10% (if they
> start saving early enough, and invest well)
I am sure that people would save 10% if they can afford to.
>or even more if
> like most people they don't bother start saving until they
> hit their 40's or 50's. (How much have you saved, by the way?)
I am an immigrant who had to start from scratch and so I'd say you
can't put me in that survey.
>
> You may not care about other women, but I assure you
> every man you sleep with cares.
I know and that's one reason I have been so cautious which made left me
as I am.
>
> Unless he is blind, a (straight) man is constantly seeing other
> women, and his emotional brain is probably reacting to their
> physical appearance. If he frequently sees other women he finds
> more superficially attractive than you, that can put him under
> stress, and affect the quality of your relationship.
You are bringing up all the things that can possible happen to worry
about in life. Know that it's not only in this area one has to worry
that way. You could be driving on the highway and the guy coming from
the other direction can be getting brain aneurysm or heart attack and
hit you head-on. And we put our lives in the hand of pilot we don't
even know when we fly or use ships.
>
> However, because you would probably view his normal male
> behavior as a character defect ("superficiality"), and you
> seem to be in denial about the fact that you compete with
> other women,
I didn't say I don't compete at all but not in the petty way you were
thinking.
> he probably wouldn't be able to communicate
> with you honestly about the source of his stress. He's not
> going to tell you what's going on in his head if it will only
> make you think less of him. Thus the stress might express
> itself indirectly, and degrade the quality of your relationship
> in some other way that might not make sense to you.
So what you are saying is that I should ask him about his attraction to
toher woman and help him relieve his stress. So why do I need to bother
having such a guy?
>
> > I am one of a kind
>
> Everybody is one of a kind. It's not a question of you being
> one of a kind, the question is how many "kinds" a given man
> can be attracted to.
I'd say that most people are attracted to the same type of person
excluding the superficial attraction.
>If you're with a guy who can be attracted to other kinds of women,
I will not be with such a the person or drop him like a fly.
> then being one particular kind gives
> you no competitive advantage over women of those other kinds.
>
> Consider the analogy with food. There are many kinds of
> food. You can probably satisfy your hunger with more than
> one. A person who could only eat one specific
> kind of food would have a problem getting through life,
> because sometimes that one kind is not available.
> Most people, therefore, have some flexibility.
Food and people as analogies? I do not like to eat the same food
everyday while I want the same peroson everyday. So much for the
analogy. Of course, you can say that that's not the case with men.
Well, that mostly explians why I am alone.
>
> > and someone so concern about age in
> > the superficial sense wouldn't be the type who would be attarcted to me
> > anyway.
>
> Are you saying all the men you date would be just as happy
> to pick up 90-year-old women at a nursing home?
You streth things out of context, you know?
>If they
> don't care about age in the superficial sense, they should
> be just as likely to find women of any age attractive.
Out of context.
>
> Here's what is most likely: the men you date care about
> a woman's looks---intensely; and for the most part, they
> date the most physically attractive women they can attract.
>
> For example, let's assume you aren't as superficially
> attractive as the typical Victoria's Secret lingerie model.
> This means you are very unlikely to date any man
> who can attract those lingerie models. You can only
> date men from among the set of men those models
> reject.
The men those models reject miight be the men who would look for
merit-based qaulities aside from just looks. So it's not like they are
rejects. There are a lot of tother factors involved unlike your
simplification based on looks.
You cannot be a good researcher. You do not take into account a lot of
factors.
>
> And conversely, if a man is dating you, he is very unlikely
> to leave you for any woman who is substantially uglier.
> Women who are uglier are generally no competition for
> you.
Again, that's very superficial. If the uglier woman had other
qualities that the current woman lacks that he wants desperately, he
would go for the uglier woman.
>
Speeding
>
> the Danimal wrote:
> [..]
> the gap that matters is
>> > > not the gap between the couple, but between you and your
>> > > competitors:
>> >
>> > Very superficial thinking.
>>
>> Of course. For most people, attraction is superficial. Consider
>> the number of couples who meet and then have sex after
>> just a few dates, while they still hardly know each other.
>> How long does it take to really get to know someone?
>> One year? Five years? Ten years? Most people can start
>> feeling attracted to someone new in much less time.
>
> Now, you are streting. If people have to wait 10 years in order to know
> a perosn, then the averga emarige age would be like 40 because most
> people are mot mature enough to even realize how to get to know a
> person unitl they turn 30.
The level of divorce is about 50%. And, it usually happens in about 5 or so
years. About when the couple is just really starting to get to know one
another. If most people waited for two years to get married before doing so,
divorce rates would be lower. If they waited five... lower still.
And gee... around 30 is about the same age area for the majority of
divorces...
So, he's not stretching at all.
>> You don't have to answer this question for us, but consider
>> it in your mind: how many hours did you spend getting to
>> know the man you have been describing before you first
>> began to feel desire to have sex with him?
>>And how many
>> hours did you spend getting to know him before acting on
>> that desire?
>
> What if tell you that I could control my desire a long longer had he
> not acted so wanting. That has alwasy been my weakness. I can't say
> "no" to the person I like.
If you had no desire to have sexual relations with the men then what was
your attraction to them based on? Why even have a man at all? You could
simply have friendly relations with women. Or non-sexual relations with men.
If you are not in a sexually loving relationship, then why pretend you are?
>> How many hours did he spend getting to know you before
>> he first wanted to have sex with you? It's possible he already
>> found you sexually attractive before the first time he spoke
>> to you.
>
> Possible. After all, everything is controlled by the brain.
Well, if you call that part of the nervous system "brain". For most people,
it's generally not consciously controlled.
>> At the time when you first had sex with him, how well did
>> you actually know him? Did you know details such as
>> his middle name, his mother's maiden name, the names of
>> his grandparents and cousins, where he went to school,
>> where he was born, where he grew up,
>
> Funny you asked that. I used to ask all these question routinely out
> of culturla habit but I only asked the guys I was getting involved
> unlike my fellow countryman who would ask everybody. Since I only dated
> Americans (Caucasian) and one naturalized American (non Caucasian) who
> was also like a typical Americans when it comes to being asked those
> questions, my experience was their uncomfortableness. Most (not
> necessarily had sex) were okay with it since these guys met me in
> foreign student environment and were culturally more exposed but after
> one guy acted so differently, I stopped asking that much as I myself
> changed.
What? How long did you wait before having sexual relations? Months? Years?
Decades? Centuries? I doubt I could tell a LTR the names of my cousins,
details about how I grew up, why my favorite color is what it is, why I like
this kind of movie or that kind of song, or other deep details about myself.
It would take years to get to know any person well enough to have deep
understanding of who they really are. And sexual relationships are usually
developed long before that point.
Either that, or you have one heck of a long courtship period.
>>whether he had
>> ever been in trouble with the law, or been fired from a job,
>> or if he had secretly abused an animal, how many drugs
>> he has done, what sort of medical conditions he has, had
>> he ever received psychiatric treatment, the names and
>> number of his previous sex partners, etc.?
>
> Very funny.
Why? Thouse woudl certinaly be things that could be important to know before
having sexual relations with someone. Certainly before getting into a
relationship. Wouldn't you want to know the person sleeping under the sheets
next to you has AIDS... or is a bed wetter? Wouldn't you think it important
to know the person you just exchanged bodily fluids with is currently wanted
in three States for child molestation? Would you want to know that the
person you just shared that breakfast conversation with has four other
girlfriends at present and that one of them is currently on anti-depressant
medication? Here's one from the Suze Orman show... did you ask for a current
credit report?
A one night stander might not care about any of these questions. But for a
live in relationship... it's damn important.
>> There have been game shows on television that feature
>> newlywed couples, in which the host asks each contestant
>> personal questions about his or her spouse, and the audience
>> laughs at how little the contestants know about the people
>> they just bet the rest of their lives on. For most people, the
>> normal progression is like this:
>>
>> 1. See someone.
>> 2. Feel attracted.
>> 3. Spend a few hours total getting to know the person superficially.
>> 4. Start having sex.
>> 5. Spend years gradually finding out who you are having sex with.
>>
>> For most women, we could switch steps 2 and 3. Most women,
>> unlike most men, are not already desiring sex with someone
>> at first glance, but most women only need a few hours with a
>> man to warm to him---if they find him attractive.
>>
>> Most men are superficial, but so are most women. For example,
>> it seems the vast majority of women have some sort of minimum
>> height requirement for a sex partner. If a man is shorter than a
>> woman's minimum height requirement, she rules him out on
>> that basis alone, before knowing anything else about him.
>
> Why pick on just height when women also have other criteria they use in
> picking partners? It just depends on what a person prefers.
Because some of those things ARE superficial. Like the kind of car a guy
drives! The shoes he's wearing. (most men couldn't care less about shoes
other than that they cover some portion of their feet) His eye color. What
kind of job he has. If his beard is trimmed in a certain way.
Yes, it's a metter of preference. But some of those are pretty superficial.
>> > My concern was not about competing with other women.
>>
>> The average worker isn't concerned about saving for retirement,
>> either. But objectively, we know most workers should
>> be concerned, and they aren't saving enough for retirement.
>> The average American saves something like 1% of income,
>> or less, when most people need to save at least 10% (if they
>> start saving early enough, and invest well)
>
> I am sure that people would save 10% if they can afford to.
Wanna bet? There's a show on MSNBC called the Suze Orman show. (not plugging
it... much) Watch it. You might be surprised at how little some people that
can easily afford to save 20% aren't saving squat. And there are some people
that are saving 20% that can't hardly afford to save 10%, but they do it
anyways.
But, the point is that, just as most people SHOULD be concerned about
something... some just aren't. You might not be concerned with competing
with other women. But, you might find out the rather hard way that you
should have been. Unless you are with a man that you KNOW can't find someone
else.
>>or even more if
>> like most people they don't bother start saving until they
>> hit their 40's or 50's. (How much have you saved, by the way?)
>
> I am an immigrant who had to start from scratch and so I'd say you
> can't put me in that survey.
Everyone starts from scratch.
>> You may not care about other women, but I assure you
>> every man you sleep with cares.
>
> I know and that's one reason I have been so cautious which made left me
> as I am.
>
>>
>> Unless he is blind, a (straight) man is constantly seeing other
>> women, and his emotional brain is probably reacting to their
>> physical appearance. If he frequently sees other women he finds
>> more superficially attractive than you, that can put him under
>> stress, and affect the quality of your relationship.
>
> You are bringing up all the things that can possible happen to worry
> about in life. Know that it's not only in this area one has to worry
> that way. You could be driving on the highway and the guy coming from
> the other direction can be getting brain aneurysm or heart attack and
> hit you head-on. And we put our lives in the hand of pilot we don't
> even know when we fly or use ships.
True. So you have to worry about the things you can control and affect and
left perdition take its course for the rest. For example, you put your live
in the hands of a piot when you fly. But, you CAN control some of that
safety... by checking on the airline you are about to fly and picking the
safest one you can. The guy driving towards you... you can drive a car
equipped with airbags and wear your seatbelt and have your brakes in good
condition. If you don't worry at all, then it's true you might not have been
able to stop your car intime to be safe. Then again, you might have.
Same holds true for your relationship. you MIGHT not stop your man from
deciding to stray. But you certainly can do plenty of things to lessen the
odds he will.
>> However, because you would probably view his normal male
>> behavior as a character defect ("superficiality"), and you
>> seem to be in denial about the fact that you compete with
>> other women,
>
> I didn't say I don't compete at all but not in the petty way you were
> thinking.
What's petty? In what ways do you compete that are not petty? And, is it
petty to compete in every way you can to keep your man? Do you value your
relationship? If you do, then why would anything you can do to lessen the
odds of him straying be "petty"?
>> he probably wouldn't be able to communicate
>> with you honestly about the source of his stress. He's not
>> going to tell you what's going on in his head if it will only
>> make you think less of him. Thus the stress might express
>> itself indirectly, and degrade the quality of your relationship
>> in some other way that might not make sense to you.
>
> So what you are saying is that I should ask him about his attraction to
> toher woman and help him relieve his stress. So why do I need to bother
> having such a guy?
Because men have egos. You don't have to ask him about it. You damn well
better SHOW him you are aware of it, though. You better be showing him that
you value him and want to keep him and that you can offer him more than the
other women he sees can. Otherwise, what reason does he have to stay with
you? For that matter, if you don't value having him and don't care enough to
compete for him... why should he stay?
>> > I am one of a kind
>>
>> Everybody is one of a kind. It's not a question of you being
>> one of a kind, the question is how many "kinds" a given man
>> can be attracted to.
>
> I'd say that most people are attracted to the same type of person
> excluding the superficial attraction.
Or rather... INCLUDING the superficial attraction. The superficial
attraction is a part of the personality of a person.
>>If you're with a guy who can be attracted to other kinds of women,
> I will not be with such a the person or drop him like a fly.
>
>> then being one particular kind gives
>> you no competitive advantage over women of those other kinds.
>>
>> Consider the analogy with food. There are many kinds of
>> food. You can probably satisfy your hunger with more than
>> one. A person who could only eat one specific
>> kind of food would have a problem getting through life,
>> because sometimes that one kind is not available.
>> Most people, therefore, have some flexibility.
>
> Food and people as analogies? I do not like to eat the same food
> everyday while I want the same peroson everyday. So much for the
> analogy. Of course, you can say that that's not the case with men.
> Well, that mostly explians why I am alone.
Try this analogy... You can satisfy your hunger with just the basic food
groups. And you know that sweets aren't really good for you. But, you want
them anyways. Everyone likes sweets. So, you can supress your desire for
sweets or you can give in to your desires. Your ability to supress your
desire for sweets, though, is going to be directly related to two factors...
the availability of sweets... and your options to consume things other than
sweets that will satisfy your desires.
Ditto for men (and women, including yourself). A man is going to be much
more highly tempted to give into a desire for, shall we say, something
sweet... if he's not getting anything to satify his desires for something
sweet and he can see a high availabilty of sweets around him. If you are not
satisfying your man's desires... not competeing for his attentions.... and
he can see that there are other women that would be happy to compete for him
and fullfill his needs... then he's going to go get himself a snack. Or, he
might very well decide to leave altogether.
And, could you really blame him? Would you stay in a relationship that you
are not happy to be in?
>> > and someone so concern about age in
>> > the superficial sense wouldn't be the type who would be attarcted to me
>> > anyway.
>>
>> Are you saying all the men you date would be just as happy
>> to pick up 90-year-old women at a nursing home?
> You streth things out of context, you know?
>
>>If they
>> don't care about age in the superficial sense, they should
>> be just as likely to find women of any age attractive.
>
> Out of context.
Not really. It's a good point. If age is not a factor AT ALL... then he
shouldn't have a problem being attracted to a 90 year old or an 18 year old.
Think about Anna Nicole Smith. Can you REALLY believe she was attracted to
the 85 year old man she married for any reason other than his enormous bank
account? But, if age isn't a factor.. then you'd have to answer that as no.
You'd have to say she found him charming and delightful and funny and
romantic and a sexual tiger. When his oxygen supply was running, that is.
>> Here's what is most likely: the men you date care about
>> a woman's looks---intensely; and for the most part, they
>> date the most physically attractive women they can attract.
>>
>> For example, let's assume you aren't as superficially
>> attractive as the typical Victoria's Secret lingerie model.
>> This means you are very unlikely to date any man
>> who can attract those lingerie models. You can only
>> date men from among the set of men those models
>> reject.
>
> The men those models reject miight be the men who would look for
> merit-based qaulities aside from just looks. So it's not like they are
> rejects. There are a lot of tother factors involved unlike your
> simplification based on looks.
You aren't catching his point. You CAN'T date a man that is being accepted
by supermodels. Not unless you ARE a supermodel. Because THEY are attracted
to supermodels and they are dating them. You can't date a man that is not
available to you. And a man that is not attracted to a supermodel is a man
that is not attracted to a supermodel because he can't DATE a supermodel.
Belive what you will, but men are VERY visual. A man is not going to be
attracted to a woman that is not attractive. Or, look at it this way... a
man will be MORE attracted to a woman that is more attractive.
If a man does not find you attractive, he will not be attracted to you. And
being VERY visual, he will have to find at least some visual attraction to
you. Yes, other qualities can HELP overcome being less attractive. But, it's
not going to overpower being attractive. Yes, drugs can do wonderful things
to help a man become arroused. But a man is not going to become arroused
wothout having visual attraction.
The exception being a blind man. And even blind men can use their hands to
determine a woman's level of attractivness.
> You cannot be a good researcher. You do not take into account a lot of
> factors.
There aren't many factor to take into account. Once again, men are VERY
simple. Visual appearance is EXTREMELY important. Most women know and
understand this. Ugly women dismiss it or call it shallow... but if men were
visually stimulated... then there would be no reason for women to wear
makeup, pantyhose, skirts, nailpolish, lipstick, etc, etc, etc...
But, there is. It's that simple. If you caer about your man... you'd know
and udnerstand that he's going to desire being with the most attractive mate
he can be. And if you aren't at least making an effort to be attractive for
him... then you shouldn't have any suprised when he leaves. And the reverse
is also true... if he doesn't care enough about you to want to be attractive
to you... you should kick him to the curb. Why be with someone that doesn't
care about you?
>> And conversely, if a man is dating you, he is very unlikely
>> to leave you for any woman who is substantially uglier.
>> Women who are uglier are generally no competition for
>> you.
>
> Again, that's very superficial. If the uglier woman had other
> qualities that the current woman lacks that he wants desperately, he
> would go for the uglier woman.
What qualities? Granted, if they are fairly close to being the same
attractivness, certainly that's true. If I'm dating a gal that's fairly nice
looking but treats me badly and a somewhat less attractive gal comes along
that is smarter, richer, nicer, better cooking, better cleaing, better
dressing, etc, etc, etc... okay... it could happen. Especially if the gal
I'm with is not making me feel like she cares about keeping me.
But, if the other woman is a triple bagger... then I'm likely going to stay
with the woman I have. Sure, she might not treat me like shit... but she
doesn't LOOK like shit. If the other woman is better looking... you can bet
I'm going to be thinking about trading in for the newer better looking
gal... unless me current gal is treating me as if she wants to keep me and
values me.
You are seriously underestimating the power of sexual appeal/visual
appearance on a man's thoughts. Believe me... #1 on EVERY man's list of
"what I look for in a woman" is LOOKS. (sure we all say eyes, lips,
whatever... those are all about looks. It's near impossible to find a person
that can honestly say the first thing they are attracetd to in another
person is their personality or the way they act. Though that might be their
first turnoff.) It's darn hard to have an initial attraction to a person's
invisible qualities.
>> It's similar to the way the job market sorts workers and
>> positions by salary. A person who can earn $100,000/year
>> at one kind of job is unlikely to take another kind of job
>> at just $10,000/year.
>>
>> Why? Because it's more fun to make $100,000/year than
>> just $10,000/year. Similarly, the better a woman looks,
>> the more fun she is for a man to be with, all else being
>> reasonably equal. One could say that a woman's looks
>> set the upper bound on how much fun she can be for
>> a man. If she has an unpleasant personality, she can fail to
>> realize all of her fun potential; but no matter how wonderful
>> her personality is, she can never be more fun for a man
>> than her looks allow.
Excellent point here!! A person MIGHT consider taking a $80,000 a year
position over a $100,000 a year position, if there are other incentives or
reasons. Maybe the work environment. Maybe the stress level. Who knows. But
trading a $100,000 for a $20,000... not very likely. There's going to have
to be a HUGE reason for it. A reason that the $100,000 job simply CAN'T be
accepted over the $20,000.
The same is true for attractivness. Sure, a guy might pick a 7 over a 9. But
he's not going to pick a 2 over a 9. I don't care how well the 2 treats him
or what she can do for him. No guy is going to pick a 2 unless he has to. To
pick a 2 means he has to figure out some way to become aroused for her... or
it means a sexless relationship.
yamuna
What I meant by "he's strecthing" is that the level of needing to know.
One can easily determine whether there is enough to go for the marraige
and enough to work with. Of course there is always a risk but most
divorces reuslts from not even chekcing compatibility beforehand.
>
> >> You don't have to answer this question for us, but consider
> >> it in your mind: how many hours did you spend getting to
> >> know the man you have been describing before you first
> >> began to feel desire to have sex with him?
> >>And how many
> >> hours did you spend getting to know him before acting on
> >> that desire?
> >
> > What if tell you that I could control my desire a long longer had he
> > not acted so wanting. That has alwasy been my weakness. I can't say
> > "no" to the person I like.
>
> If you had no desire to have sexual relations with the men then what was
> your attraction to them based on?
Did I say that i ha dno desire for a sexual relation? What I said was
that I wouldn't desire a sexual relation just based on physical
attraction. There would be intellectaul attraction among other thing
that would affect my brain whether i feel attraced to a guy physically.
>Why even have a man at all?
Godo question and I will answewr soon below.
> You could
> simply have friendly relations with women.
That has been my biggest dream in life but most women are so chasing
men and to be married, etc. I do have gfs back home that are for life
but they are not here for me to soocialize.
>Or non-sexual relations with men.
As if the men would go for that. So far I have not been able to develop
such a relationship with any man where the men would expect and ask me
for more. In fcat, just this saturady, I had to end a friendship with a
man known for 3 years after realizing that he is still hoping that he
has a chance with me. He contacted me again 4 months ago after being
mad at me for a little over a year for not giving him a chance. When
he was asking me for more, I had known him for a bout a year. He
wouldn't take "No" for an answer and started getting rude also. I took
him back as a friend 4 months agoa because other than that area, he's
very objective and we can really communicated as friends. I miss the
friendship but I am doing it for his sake o end the friendhsip.
> If you are not in a sexually loving relationship, then why pretend you are?
Who said I pretended. I never did. All I said was that I wouldn't waste
my time just for sex.
>
> >> How many hours did he spend getting to know you before
> >> he first wanted to have sex with you? It's possible he already
> >> found you sexually attractive before the first time he spoke
> >> to you.
> >
> > Possible. After all, everything is controlled by the brain.
>
> Well, if you call that part of the nervous system "brain". For most people,
> it's generally not consciously controlled.
Even then, a lot of other facts about a guy can influence
*unconsciously* whether you feel attracted to him. There was only one
time that I let the physical attraction took over what I was against
but still that a factor I was against wasn't anything so bad + all
other factors were desirable. Keeping in mind that this was when I was
30, here is the story: I had vowed that I would never date an
acocuntant because they would be so boring being digit cruncher. Then
I met him, a very handsome, gorgious southern guy with blue eyes and
auburn hair. Up unil I met him, I never really like white skin. He
took me to dinner, telling me how preety I was and all that. Not
realizing that he was letting me know how much he liked me, I was deep
in my thoughts thinking that someone this handsome would just make my
life side down while I have so many things to focus on nd didn't
respond to his gestures. So he thought that I wasn't interested in him
at all and said, "let's go". I didn't even get to finish eating but
then I eat slow and so just assume that he thought I wasn't going to
eat. Two days a later, I called him and left a message telling him I
liked him. That night he called me back, repeating "I thought you
didn't like me" like a parrot. Now, him being account was overidden
and .... But, he was difficult to talk to (being only 10 mons older
than me being the baby in his family may have been the reasons) but I
had enough and ended 10 months later. So, I wasn't goint to see nyone
but one came along a few months later and was really nice and I tried
to get away and he wouuld't le me and I was with him. But, he was the
kind of genius I like and so it was fun going to movies and resturants
(though the relationship never got serious) unitl I decided to move to
another state which made him got upset.
>
> >> At the time when you first had sex with him, how well did
> >> you actually know him? Did you know details such as
> >> his middle name, his mother's maiden name, the names of
> >> his grandparents and cousins, where he went to school,
> >> where he was born, where he grew up,
> >
> > Funny you asked that. I used to ask all these question routinely out
> > of culturla habit but I only asked the guys I was getting involved
> > unlike my fellow countryman who would ask everybody. Since I only dated
> > Americans (Caucasian) and one naturalized American (non Caucasian) who
> > was also like a typical Americans when it comes to being asked those
> > questions, my experience was their uncomfortableness. Most (not
> > necessarily had sex) were okay with it since these guys met me in
> > foreign student environment and were culturally more exposed but after
> > one guy acted so differently, I stopped asking that much as I myself
> > changed.
>
> What? How long did you wait before having sexual relations? Months? Years?
> Decades? Centuries? I doubt I could tell a LTR the names of my cousins,
> details about how I grew up, why my favorite color is what it is, why I like
> this kind of movie or that kind of song, or other deep details about myself.
> It would take years to get to know any person well enough to have deep
> understanding of who they really are.
>And sexual relationships are usually developed long before that point.
But people could tell each other a bit of the background. That
handsome guy above was the one I refered to who didn't want to answer
any. He made me feel really bad not communicating. I felt like all we
did was sex, sex, sex, sex, sex, and sex. So I ended and he was
furious. Duh! And , in a sense, I was right hat acocuntants are boring
though he wasn't in the bedroom.
>
> Either that, or you have one heck of a long courtship period.
I didn't mean one has to know 8everything* but some background info
would be helpful.
>
> >>whether he had
> >> ever been in trouble with the law, or been fired from a job,
> >> or if he had secretly abused an animal, how many drugs
> >> he has done, what sort of medical conditions he has, had
> >> he ever received psychiatric treatment, the names and
> >> number of his previous sex partners, etc.?
> >
> > Very funny.
>
> Why?
Funny to me because I would never meet that kind of nuts. Trust me on
that.
> Thouse woudl certinaly be things that could be important to know before
> having sexual relations with someone. Certainly before getting into a
> relationship. Wouldn't you want to know the person sleeping under the sheets
> next to you has AIDS... or is a bed wetter? Wouldn't you think it important
> to know the person you just exchanged bodily fluids with is currently wanted
> in three States for child molestation? Would you want to know that the
> person you just shared that breakfast conversation with has four other
> girlfriends at present and that one of them is currently on anti-depressant
> medication?
Again, funny.
>Here's one from the Suze Orman show... did you ask for a current credit report?
That I would do but only if I think about marraige.
>
> A one night stander might not care about any of these questions. But for a
> live in relationship... it's damn important.
I agree but I have a very narrow range of type I like and it's not
difficult for me to screen.
You say most men but most men, while consciously do nto care about
these things, they do care about an overall apeearnce of a owmn which
includes gettign an *altogether look* based on how she dresses, shoes,
hairstyle, etc.
>
> Yes, it's a metter of preference. But some of those are pretty superficial.
>
> >> > My concern was not about competing with other women.
> >>
> >> The average worker isn't concerned about saving for retirement,
> >> either. But objectively, we know most workers should
> >> be concerned, and they aren't saving enough for retirement.
> >> The average American saves something like 1% of income,
> >> or less, when most people need to save at least 10% (if they
> >> start saving early enough, and invest well)
> >
> > I am sure that people would save 10% if they can afford to.
>
> Wanna bet? There's a show on MSNBC called the Suze Orman show. (not plugging
> it... much) Watch it. You might be surprised at how little some people that
> can easily afford to save 20% aren't saving squat. And there are some people
> that are saving 20% that can't hardly afford to save 10%, but they do it
> anyways.
*Some* is the key word.
>
> But, the point is that, just as most people SHOULD be concerned about
> something... some just aren't. You might not be concerned with competing
> with other women. But, you might find out the rather hard way that you
> should have been. Unless you are with a man that you KNOW can't find someone
> else.
A relationship with someone who is with you because he/she can't find
someone else will never work.
> >>or even more if
> >> like most people they don't bother start saving until they
> >> hit their 40's or 50's. (How much have you saved, by the way?)
> >
> > I am an immigrant who had to start from scratch and so I'd say you
> > can't put me in that survey.
>
> Everyone starts from scratch.
One way or another but there is a big difference in time-scale between
a college educated foreigner who had to get more edcuation since he/she
to cpmpete in the job market to get a progessional job under the
special skills category (to obtain specific visa such as H1, L1, ).
I have seen girls chasing men and in the process some friends who
became declared enemies. With me, if there is another woman in the
picture, I let the guy decided. There were 2 times where tthere was
another woman chasing the guy. One clearly made sure that I wouldn't
misunderstand by telling me that he's not intrested in her and also
told her to stay away. (That one didn't want me to transfer to another
state and see there would be a marraige - this was when I was 25 - but
I had to put my school (grad school) a priority since I was on foreign
student status and couldn't afford to be romantic over pragamatic. He
didn't want long term relationship and so it ended.) The other one,
played game getting attention fron the other woman while acting so
attentive toward me. So I pushed him away and wasted no time.
> In what ways do you compete that are not petty? And, is it
> petty to compete in every way you can to keep your man? Do you value your
> relationship? If you do, then why would anything you can do to lessen the
> odds of him straying be "petty"?
Read my above para. And about valuing a relationship, if we are in a
serious relationship and he wants to leave, I won't stop. If I am
married to him and he had the nerve to get into an affair, he's not
worth it. That's just me. I am not going to live my life babaysitting
him. ( Other marital issue, I will be willing to go for counselling. )
But then, thsese fears are exactly the reason I don't risk it because I
can't entertain the thought of my children becoming children of
divorced parents. We all compromise our lives one way or another.
>
> >> he probably wouldn't be able to communicate
> >> with you honestly about the source of his stress. He's not
> >> going to tell you what's going on in his head if it will only
> >> make you think less of him. Thus the stress might express
> >> itself indirectly, and degrade the quality of your relationship
> >> in some other way that might not make sense to you.
> >
> > So what you are saying is that I should ask him about his attraction to
> > toher woman and help him relieve his stress. So why do I need to bother
> > having such a guy?
>
> Because men have egos. You don't have to ask him about it. You damn well
> better SHOW him you are aware of it, though. You better be showing him that
> you value him and want to keep him and that you can offer him more than the
> other women he sees can.
Well, he'd better show me that he values me and that wants to keep me
and that he can offer me more than other men can offer.
>Otherwise, what reason does he have to stay with
> you? For that matter, if you don't value having him and don't care enough to
> compete for him... why should he stay?
It's a 2 way street, as far as I am concerned.
>
> >> > I am one of a kind
> >>
> >> Everybody is one of a kind. It's not a question of you being
> >> one of a kind, the question is how many "kinds" a given man
> >> can be attracted to.
> >
> > I'd say that most people are attracted to the same type of person
> > excluding the superficial attraction.
>
> Or rather... INCLUDING the superficial attraction. The superficial
> attraction is a part of the personality of a person.
But w/o the other attractions, a relationship based on the superficial
attraction won't last.
>
> >>If you're with a guy who can be attracted to other kinds of women,
> > I will not be with such a the person or drop him like a fly.
> >
> >> then being one particular kind gives
> >> you no competitive advantage over women of those other kinds.
> >>
> >> Consider the analogy with food. There are many kinds of
> >> food. You can probably satisfy your hunger with more than
> >> one. A person who could only eat one specific
> >> kind of food would have a problem getting through life,
> >> because sometimes that one kind is not available.
> >> Most people, therefore, have some flexibility.
> >
> > Food and people as analogies? I do not like to eat the same food
> > everyday while I want the same peroson everyday. So much for the
> > analogy. Of course, you can say that that's not the case with men.
> > Well, that mostly explians why I am alone.
>
> Try this analogy... You can satisfy your hunger with just the basic food
> groups. And you know that sweets aren't really good for you. But, you want
> them anyways. Everyone likes sweets. So, you can supress your desire for
> sweets or you can give in to your desires. Your ability to supress your
> desire for sweets, though, is going to be directly related to two factors...
> the availability of sweets... and your options to consume things other than
> sweets that will satisfy your desires.
> Ditto for men (and women, including yourself). A man is going to be much
> more highly tempted to give into a desire for,
That has always been excuses used by men. They hav gotten away with it
through out history but the time has come that women say "No, Enough is
enough" and "No more excuse, you'd better decide whether you can live
w/o mistresses before you marry me". Of course, I am speaking on
behalf of women who are like me.
>shall we say, something
> sweet... if he's not getting anything to satify his desires for something
> sweet and he can see a high availabilty of sweets around him. If you are not
> satisfying your man's desires... not competeing for his attentions.... and
> he can see that there are other women that would be happy to compete for him
> and fullfill his needs... then he's going to go get himself a snack. Or, he
> might very well decide to leave altogether.
>
> And, could you really blame him? Would you stay in a relationship that you
> are not happy to be in?
My only demand is that they think hard and decide all that (including
if there is a problem, would they be wiliong to go cousnelling but
affair is not an excuse) before messing up someone's else life.
>
> >> > and someone so concern about age in
> >> > the superficial sense wouldn't be the type who would be attarcted to me
> >> > anyway.
> >>
> >> Are you saying all the men you date would be just as happy
> >> to pick up 90-year-old women at a nursing home?
> > You streth things out of context, you know?
> >
> >>If they
> >> don't care about age in the superficial sense, they should
> >> be just as likely to find women of any age attractive.
> >
> > Out of context.
>
> Not really. It's a good point. If age is not a factor AT ALL... then he
> shouldn't have a problem being attracted to a 90 year old or an 18 year old.
> Think about Anna Nicole Smith. Can you REALLY believe she was attracted to
> the 85 year old man she married for any reason other than his enormous bank
> account?
You are using an extreme case. In Probability and Statistics, Ann
Nicole's case would nto be included in hr calculation of the averge
mean.
>But, if age isn't a factor.. then you'd have to answer that as no.
> You'd have to say she found him charming and delightful and funny and
> romantic and a sexual tiger. When his oxygen supply was running, that is.
Why do you guys bring in impracatical data to make your point?
>
> >> Here's what is most likely: the men you date care about
> >> a woman's looks---intensely; and for the most part, they
> >> date the most physically attractive women they can attract.
> >>
> >> For example, let's assume you aren't as superficially
> >> attractive as the typical Victoria's Secret lingerie model.
> >> This means you are very unlikely to date any man
> >> who can attract those lingerie models. You can only
> >> date men from among the set of men those models
> >> reject.
> >
> > The men those models reject miight be the men who would look for
> > merit-based qaulities aside from just looks. So it's not like they are
> > rejects. There are a lot of tother factors involved unlike your
> > simplification based on looks.
>
> You aren't catching his point. You CAN'T date a man that is being accepted
> by supermodels.
I caught his point very well. The genius I was with never watched those
Oscar shows while the handsome guy before that one switched the channel
when he saw an actress on a late night show bearing too much skin,
saying with anger "I don't want to see their skin."
>Not unless you ARE a supermodel. Because THEY are attracted
> to supermodels and they are dating them. You can't date a man that is not
> available to you. And a man that is not attracted to a supermodel is a man
> that is not attracted to a supermodel because he can't DATE a supermodel.
> Belive what you will, but men are VERY visual. A man is not going to be
> attracted to a woman that is not attractive. Or, look at it this way... a
> man will be MORE attracted to a woman that is more attractive.
> If a man does not find you attractive, he will not be attracted to you. And
> being VERY visual, he will have to find at least some visual attraction to
> you. Yes, other qualities can HELP overcome being less attractive. But, it's
> not going to overpower being attractive. Yes, drugs can do wonderful things
> to help a man become arroused. But a man is not going to become arroused
> wothout having visual attraction.
> The exception being a blind man. And even blind men can use their hands to
> determine a woman's level of attractivness.
While I do not deny that looks are imporatnt to guys, I repeat that I
assure you that the guys I have been with would not go for
supermodels.
>
> > You cannot be a good researcher. You do not take into account a lot of
> > factors.
>
> There aren't many factor to take into account. Once again, men are VERY
> simple. Visual appearance is EXTREMELY important.
I didn't say it is not but to use supermodel examples and say the rest
of us get to choose from the rejects is just a stupid statement.
>Most women know and
> understand this.
>Ugly women dismiss it or call it shallow...
I do agree with that. Some ugly women as well as not so ugly women
have hated me wihout grounds.
>but if men were
> visually stimulated... then there would be no reason for women to wear
> makeup, pantyhose, skirts, nailpolish, lipstick, etc, etc, etc...
You are assuming that everything women do (wear) is for men.
>
> But, there is. It's that simple. If you caer about your man... you'd know
> and udnerstand that he's going to desire being with the most attractive mate
> he can be. And if you aren't at least making an effort to be attractive for
> him... then you shouldn't have any suprised when he leaves. And the reverse
> is also true... if he doesn't care enough about you to want to be attractive
> to you... you should kick him to the curb. Why be with someone that doesn't
> care about you?
You are taking extreme of this look and appearnace. I never said that I
can dress yucky and still get men. First of all, I don't like to dress
yucky. And it is not for men that I dress nice. It is for myself
first that I buy and dress.
I am getting frustrated that your oversimplification of men's
attraction (I am not talking about superficial ones) toward women as if
it is based on looks only. So I will stop her.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
yamuna
Speeding wrote:
[..]
> >
> > I never left any man for another man nor any man left me for another
> > woman. Neither I nor they were superficial.
>
> So you are married, then?
No. I meant relationship. I didn't mean that I Not he) didn't leave
but just that the reason was not because of another man or woman.
>If you haven't left a man without having another
> in the waiting, you are rare indeed.
That's sad, isn't it? That just shows that so mnay got involve din a
relationship primarily because of loneliness.
>And, I can pretty much guarentee that
> if a man left you... he had a booty call lined up somewhere first.
Well, then it's understanding why they get so upset when I left a man.
I mean he didn't have a booty call lined up and ready?
>
> >>Many women will trade up without so much as a second thought.
> >> Even after marriage. But before marriage, it's pretty common knowledge
> >> that
> >> a woman will have at least one male friend, when possible, as her backup
> >> plan.
> >
> > That's not me either. So much for generalization.
>
> Question. What color do blind people see when they dream?
> I ask because how can you know what your motivations are if you can't see,
> understand, or control them? In other words, are you claiming that every
> breakup you've ever had was simply due to a loss of emotional
> desire/connection?
In my case, it's not so much because of a loss of desire/connection but
so much because it wasn't becoming such that we get to know each other
better. At least that was the case with one.(That's why it was so hard
when I had to break up. But I did it out of respect for myself.)
Another case (after that one) was that I simply needed to leave that
city (and state) because of the climatic affects on my nasal condition
and I didn't feel that the relationship was strong enough for me stay
and endure my health issue.
The last one (referrign to last year) was because he's a Ma Ma's boy
and his Ma Ma was so controlling of the whole family. Though I would
be happy not have to do anything with his family (usually Ma Ma's
planning for this and that) but I expected him not to start hiding me
form his friends to please Ma Ma, i.e.he wasn't dating me. I wasn't
going to be in the shadow while be ready for his booty call. So who
ended it, me or him?
He wanted to continue with the physical activities w/o commitment such
that he would, sooner or later, engage in sex with others, to convince
him that we weren't together. I tested him by asking whether he would
tell me if he had sex with another woman, he said "yes" followed by
"after ward". I told him that he would lie to me, not wanting to lose
me because any body else he would get involved would not have the type
of connection I felt for him (he knew that very well) and he would not
want to let me go. I told him to put in this thick head that as much
as I cared for him, I loved myself and respect myself. So I would not
go for this arrangement, he wanted. To this day, he is upset about
this. He just sent me an email last Thursday that showed his
underlying resentment for not getting what he want. So I told him to
just follow Mommy's skirts for the rest of his life. After all, he's
Mama's little boy who gets upset when he doesn't get what he wants.
I amazes me that people break only when they have another man or woman
in line as back up. I mean, the majority of people stay in relationship
out of fear of loneliness? That's whay I said "I am one of a kind." I
do not function like that.
Speeding
Duck. What do you think it requires to check compatibility? What an
e-harmony profile? Hardly. It requires time. And not a few weeks. So, the
question still stands... how long does it take to know if someone is LTR
material versus how long does it take to know you find them sexually
acceptable?
>> >> You don't have to answer this question for us, but consider
>> >> it in your mind: how many hours did you spend getting to
>> >> know the man you have been describing before you first
>> >> began to feel desire to have sex with him?
>> >>And how many
>> >> hours did you spend getting to know him before acting on
>> >> that desire?
>> >
>> > What if tell you that I could control my desire a long longer had he
>> > not acted so wanting. That has alwasy been my weakness. I can't say
>> > "no" to the person I like.
>>
>> If you had no desire to have sexual relations with the men then what was
>> your attraction to them based on?
>
> Did I say that i ha dno desire for a sexual relation? What I said was
> that I wouldn't desire a sexual relation just based on physical
> attraction. There would be intellectaul attraction among other thing
> that would affect my brain whether i feel attraced to a guy physically.
No, what you said was "I could control my desire a long longer" and " I
can't say "no" to the person I like."
So, techincally, you did not say that you had NO desire. But you did say you
could control your sexual desires. And then say you could not control your
desire to please another. So, you had sex not out of a sexual desire, but
rather out of a desire to please another person.
Your words.
>>Why even have a man at all?
>
> Godo question and I will answewr soon below.
>
>> You could
>> simply have friendly relations with women.
>
> That has been my biggest dream in life but most women are so chasing
> men and to be married, etc. I do have gfs back home that are for life
> but they are not here for me to soocialize.
Um... name a lesbian that is chasing men and wanting to get married. That's
a duck. And married women are completely free to socialize with you.
Unmarried women aren't speding 24/7 trying to get laid or married, either.
So this is a complete duck. Do you really believe your excuse?
>>Or non-sexual relations with men.
>
> As if the men would go for that. So far I have not been able to develop
> such a relationship with any man where the men would expect and ask me
> for more. In fcat, just this saturady, I had to end a friendship with a
> man known for 3 years after realizing that he is still hoping that he
> has a chance with me. He contacted me again 4 months ago after being
> mad at me for a little over a year for not giving him a chance. When
> he was asking me for more, I had known him for a bout a year. He
> wouldn't take "No" for an answer and started getting rude also. I took
> him back as a friend 4 months agoa because other than that area, he's
> very objective and we can really communicated as friends. I miss the
> friendship but I am doing it for his sake o end the friendhsip.
Homosexual men would. Some straight men might also. Heck, there are plenty
of AFCs out there that are friends with women secretly pining away for more.
Married men might be very open to the idea of having lady friends for
strictly non-sexual reasons. If you are talking about having just
freindships, there are plenty of options. You're ducking. And badly, at
that.
>> If you are not in a sexually loving relationship, then why pretend you
>> are?
>
> Who said I pretended. I never did. All I said was that I wouldn't waste
> my time just for sex.
You did. Just above. You claimed to have had sex simply to make a man happy.
But not to satisfy your own desires.
I've got no idea what your point is.
Could is not the same as DO. And just above you said "I wouldn't waste my
time just for sex." and "I could control my desire a long longer" and " I
can't say "no" to the person I like." As it's being pointed out to you...
sexual relationships... relationships in which sex is occuring, develop LONG
before two people really get to know each other on any sort of seriously
deep level. So, physical attraction is very important in any relationship.
>> Either that, or you have one heck of a long courtship period.
>
> I didn't mean one has to know 8everything* but some background info
> would be helpful.
Depending on the goals in mind. If it's a one-night stand, you don't even
need to know a name. Just "Is he sexy? Would I desire sex with him?"
>> >>whether he had
>> >> ever been in trouble with the law, or been fired from a job,
>> >> or if he had secretly abused an animal, how many drugs
>> >> he has done, what sort of medical conditions he has, had
>> >> he ever received psychiatric treatment, the names and
>> >> number of his previous sex partners, etc.?
>> >
>> > Very funny.
>>
>> Why?
>
> Funny to me because I would never meet that kind of nuts. Trust me on
> that.
And you know this how? Do you think Laci Peterson thought her husband
capable of murder? Do you think Natalie Holoway was thinking much of
anythign other than "This'll be fun" before she went missing in Aruba? Do
you think all psychopathic murders have a stamp on their forehead to
identify them easier? Completely screwed up people, sadly, can't be identify
just by looking at them. Or even in getting to know them for a few months.
You might know a guy for years and then find out he's a complete nutcase.
The BTK killer was a "really nice, quiet guy" for decades before he was
caught. The people that are most insane or have the worst problems are often
able to appear better than anyone else.
>> Thouse woudl certinaly be things that could be important to know before
>> having sexual relations with someone. Certainly before getting into a
>> relationship. Wouldn't you want to know the person sleeping under the
>> sheets
>> next to you has AIDS... or is a bed wetter? Wouldn't you think it
>> important
>> to know the person you just exchanged bodily fluids with is currently
>> wanted
>> in three States for child molestation? Would you want to know that the
>> person you just shared that breakfast conversation with has four other
>> girlfriends at present and that one of them is currently on
>> anti-depressant
>> medication?
>
> Again, funny.
Maybe. You wouldn't think it's funny after you get your positive result back
from a clinic. Or wake up from the wet senation next to you. Or be watching
TV with your LRT and she his profile on America's Most Wanted. (and, yes,
that's something that does happen rather frequently) So, how funny would it
be to realize the guy you've been in a relationship for 2 years is wanted
for murder?
>>Here's one from the Suze Orman show... did you ask for a current credit
>>report?
>
> That I would do but only if I think about marraige.
See, not so funny.
>> A one night stander might not care about any of these questions. But for
>> a
>> live in relationship... it's damn important.
>
> I agree but I have a very narrow range of type I like and it's not
> difficult for me to screen.
You just don't realize that it is. There is no such thing as "type". That's
VERY superficial thinking. It's the sort of thinking that gets reported in
newspapers. "Today, a woman was found strangled by her boyfriend in their
New York flat. Said of the woman, she only dated certain kinds of men... and
this one happened to be wanted for the serial killings of twenty women that
fit her exact profile."
Most men don't care about THIER looks. I'd say most men couldn't care what
kind of shoes a woman wears. But yes, they do caer about looks. Which is
what you were saying is superficial.
>> Yes, it's a metter of preference. But some of those are pretty
>> superficial.
>>
>> >> > My concern was not about competing with other women.
>> >>
>> >> The average worker isn't concerned about saving for retirement,
>> >> either. But objectively, we know most workers should
>> >> be concerned, and they aren't saving enough for retirement.
>> >> The average American saves something like 1% of income,
>> >> or less, when most people need to save at least 10% (if they
>> >> start saving early enough, and invest well)
>> >
>> > I am sure that people would save 10% if they can afford to.
>>
>> Wanna bet? There's a show on MSNBC called the Suze Orman show. (not
>> plugging
>> it... much) Watch it. You might be surprised at how little some people
>> that
>> can easily afford to save 20% aren't saving squat. And there are some
>> people
>> that are saving 20% that can't hardly afford to save 10%, but they do it
>> anyways.
>
> *Some* is the key word.
Majority might even be accurate. According to 401k.org, the majortiy of
people are putting between 5 and 7% into their 401K. And only about 77%
participate in their plan at all. But, this is getting off topic.
>> But, the point is that, just as most people SHOULD be concerned about
>> something... some just aren't. You might not be concerned with competing
>> with other women. But, you might find out the rather hard way that you
>> should have been. Unless you are with a man that you KNOW can't find
>> someone
>> else.
>
> A relationship with someone who is with you because he/she can't find
> someone else will never work.
But, it will continue until they do.
>> >>or even more if
>> >> like most people they don't bother start saving until they
>> >> hit their 40's or 50's. (How much have you saved, by the way?)
>> >
>> > I am an immigrant who had to start from scratch and so I'd say you
>> > can't put me in that survey.
>>
>> Everyone starts from scratch.
>
> One way or another but there is a big difference in time-scale between
> a college educated foreigner who had to get more edcuation since he/she
> to cpmpete in the job market to get a progessional job under the
> special skills category (to obtain specific visa such as H1, L1, ).
So?
Smart. But, that's not about competing to KEEP your current man. So, what's
petty about wanting to KEEP your current man?
>> In what ways do you compete that are not petty? And, is it
>> petty to compete in every way you can to keep your man? Do you value your
>> relationship? If you do, then why would anything you can do to lessen the
>> odds of him straying be "petty"?
>
> Read my above para. And about valuing a relationship, if we are in a
> serious relationship and he wants to leave, I won't stop. If I am
> married to him and he had the nerve to get into an affair, he's not
> worth it. That's just me. I am not going to live my life babaysitting
> him. ( Other marital issue, I will be willing to go for counselling. )
> But then, thsese fears are exactly the reason I don't risk it because I
> can't entertain the thought of my children becoming children of
> divorced parents. We all compromise our lives one way or another.
Well, then you might want to be prepared to live alone. Get a few cats or
something. If you are not willing to keep yourself up to standards for a
man... not willing to show you desire to keep your man, then why should he
want to be with out. Some other woman out there WILL show him she cares
about him and cares enough about him to work to keep him. And that's where
he will be. With a woman willing to work to keep him.
And, you should expect a man that you are with to so that same deisre for
you. If he's not worth keeping.. why keep him?
>> >> he probably wouldn't be able to communicate
>> >> with you honestly about the source of his stress. He's not
>> >> going to tell you what's going on in his head if it will only
>> >> make you think less of him. Thus the stress might express
>> >> itself indirectly, and degrade the quality of your relationship
>> >> in some other way that might not make sense to you.
>> >
>> > So what you are saying is that I should ask him about his attraction to
>> > toher woman and help him relieve his stress. So why do I need to bother
>> > having such a guy?
>>
>> Because men have egos. You don't have to ask him about it. You damn well
>> better SHOW him you are aware of it, though. You better be showing him
>> that
>> you value him and want to keep him and that you can offer him more than
>> the
>> other women he sees can.
>
> Well, he'd better show me that he values me and that wants to keep me
> and that he can offer me more than other men can offer.
Exactly. So, why should it be a one-way street. If he's going to show
youthat he values you and desires you, then why wouldn't you do the same for
him?
Not so petty, after all, is it?
>>Otherwise, what reason does he have to stay with
>> you? For that matter, if you don't value having him and don't care enough
>> to
>> compete for him... why should he stay?
>
> It's a 2 way street, as far as I am concerned.
That's not what you just said.
"If I am married to him and he had the nerve to get into an affair, he's not
worth it. That's just me. I am not going to live my life babaysitting
him."
>> >> > I am one of a kind
>> >>
>> >> Everybody is one of a kind. It's not a question of you being
>> >> one of a kind, the question is how many "kinds" a given man
>> >> can be attracted to.
>> >
>> > I'd say that most people are attracted to the same type of person
>> > excluding the superficial attraction.
>>
>> Or rather... INCLUDING the superficial attraction. The superficial
>> attraction is a part of the personality of a person.
>
> But w/o the other attractions, a relationship based on the superficial
> attraction won't last.
Perhaps. Perhaps not. For some, superficial attraction might just be all
they need. But, I generally agree. My point is that there must be
superficial attraction to begin with and it has to remain in the
relationship throughout. A relationship that does not have physical
attraction is not going to fare any better than a relationship that is based
only on physical attraction.
It's been used by women too. If a person in a committed relationship feels
as if their desires are not being fullfilled for a long enough period of
time... they WILL seek to fullfill those desires in some other manner. It
might be an extra-marital affair. It might be taking up a hobby. But, they
will find something to take up the lack of fullfillment they need. That's
not a man thing. It's a people thing. and it's precisely why I said above
that you have to work to show that you are concerned in fullfilling your
man's or woman's) desires.
>>shall we say, something
>> sweet... if he's not getting anything to satify his desires for something
>> sweet and he can see a high availabilty of sweets around him. If you are
>> not
>> satisfying your man's desires... not competeing for his attentions....
>> and
>> he can see that there are other women that would be happy to compete for
>> him
>> and fullfill his needs... then he's going to go get himself a snack. Or,
>> he
>> might very well decide to leave altogether.
>>
>> And, could you really blame him? Would you stay in a relationship that
>> you
>> are not happy to be in?
>
> My only demand is that they think hard and decide all that (including
> if there is a problem, would they be wiliong to go cousnelling but
> affair is not an excuse) before messing up someone's else life.
But, how can they know you have that demand unless you discuss it? How can
they know you even care unless you are working to show you do?
>> >> > and someone so concern about age in
>> >> > the superficial sense wouldn't be the type who would be attarcted to
>> >> > me
>> >> > anyway.
>> >>
>> >> Are you saying all the men you date would be just as happy
>> >> to pick up 90-year-old women at a nursing home?
>> > You streth things out of context, you know?
>> >
>> >>If they
>> >> don't care about age in the superficial sense, they should
>> >> be just as likely to find women of any age attractive.
>> >
>> > Out of context.
>>
>> Not really. It's a good point. If age is not a factor AT ALL... then he
>> shouldn't have a problem being attracted to a 90 year old or an 18 year
>> old.
>> Think about Anna Nicole Smith. Can you REALLY believe she was attracted
>> to
>> the 85 year old man she married for any reason other than his enormous
>> bank
>> account?
>
> You are using an extreme case. In Probability and Statistics, Ann
> Nicole's case would nto be included in hr calculation of the averge
> mean.
That's another duck. Face it... whether you belive it or not, physical
attraction is a required and VERY important part of a relationship. There
can not be a sexual component to a relationship without sexual desire. And a
relationship without a sexual component is a platonic relationship. You do
not need to have a LRT with a single individual for platonic relationships.
You damn well better have a sexual attraction to have a long term sexual
relationship with someone.
>>But, if age isn't a factor.. then you'd have to answer that as no.
>> You'd have to say she found him charming and delightful and funny and
>> romantic and a sexual tiger. When his oxygen supply was running, that is.
>
> Why do you guys bring in impracatical data to make your point?
The same duck as above. It's hardly impractical. It proves unequiviocbly
that there must be a sexual attraction in a non-platonic relationship in
order for the relationship to work. If there is an obvious lack of sexual
desire, then the relationship is going to fail... unless there is an
ulterior motive in having the relationship. Like a overriding desire for the
other's money... or a desire to maintain security... or a desire to simply
have someone else to be with. Without sexual attraction, a relationship that
is not plutonic-only will fail.
A duck.
Perhaps not. But, they will have a sexual desire for some kind of woman.
There are, indeed, men that find heavier set women to be attractive and
sexually appealing. In their case, a supermodel would not be able to compete
with a heavier woman. A better looking heavier woman would then be the goal
of such a man. He would be attracted to the most attractive woman he can
find. You will not be able to compete for his attention unless you are in
that catagory he finds as sexually desirable. If you can not compete in a
sexually attractive manner for a man, you will not gain the attraction of
that man.
>> > You cannot be a good researcher. You do not take into account a lot of
>> > factors.
>>
>> There aren't many factor to take into account. Once again, men are VERY
>> simple. Visual appearance is EXTREMELY important.
>
> I didn't say it is not but to use supermodel examples and say the rest
> of us get to choose from the rejects is just a stupid statement.
You are picked from the rejects of some catagory, unless you are a 10 on the
scale of attraciveness for that particular set.
Some men desire a woman that is skinny. You will not attact such a man
unless you are the epitome of skinny. Kate Moss will. You will have to
settle for the men Kate Moss rejects.
Some men desire a heavy set woman. You will not attact such a man unless you
are the epitome of heavy. (I got no idea who would be attractive in the
heavy catagory... but) You will have to settle for the men (whoever)
rejects.
The point being, the one you are ducking, you will not be able to attract a
man that finds you physically unattractive. That's the very nature of
attraction. Attraction is attraction and if you are not attractive to men,
then you will not attract men. So, if you are found to be physically
attractive to a man, then you will be competing against other women with
your same basic physical qualities. And more attractive women of that same
quality will attract men more than you shall. You will not be able to date
those men.
>>Most women know and
>> understand this.
>
>>Ugly women dismiss it or call it shallow...
>
> I do agree with that. Some ugly women as well as not so ugly women
> have hated me wihout grounds.
>
>>but if men were
>> visually stimulated... then there would be no reason for women to wear
>> makeup, pantyhose, skirts, nailpolish, lipstick, etc, etc, etc...
>
> You are assuming that everything women do (wear) is for men.
Not at all. Mostly, it is for other women. Men couldn't care less what you
are wearing, so long as it is in a crumpled corner somewhere in thier
bedroom. But women wear such things as much, or more so, to show their level
of attractiveness to other women. A statement of "You can't compete with
this. Move along, I win you lose." Women are very competative about their
looks with other women. Men are very competative about their looks with
other men. It's a way of showing superiority. Again, deny as you desire...
but phsyical attraction is a powerful motivator and statment.
>> But, there is. It's that simple. If you caer about your man... you'd know
>> and udnerstand that he's going to desire being with the most attractive
>> mate
>> he can be. And if you aren't at least making an effort to be attractive
>> for
>> him... then you shouldn't have any suprised when he leaves. And the
>> reverse
>> is also true... if he doesn't care enough about you to want to be
>> attractive
>> to you... you should kick him to the curb. Why be with someone that
>> doesn't
>> care about you?
>
> You are taking extreme of this look and appearnace. I never said that I
> can dress yucky and still get men. First of all, I don't like to dress
> yucky. And it is not for men that I dress nice. It is for myself
> first that I buy and dress.
No. It is for your appearance to others that you dress. Otherwise, we'd be
in a naked society.
> I am getting frustrated that your oversimplification of men's
> attraction (I am not talking about superficial ones) toward women as if
> it is based on looks only. So I will stop her.
It is only you that is assuming it is oversimplification. Or rather, you
that is making it more complicated than it really is.
Deny what you wish... but physical attraction is very important. For both
men and women. A non-plutonic relationship is based, more than any other
factor, on physical attractiveness. Otherwise, it would be a platonic
relationship. It just happens to be more important for men since the male
anatomy REQUIRES sexual desires in order to facilitate the sexual part of a
sexual relationship.
In other words... a man will not get erect for a woman he doesn't find to be
good looking.If he can't get it up... then there will not be a physical
relationship.
And yes. it really is that simple.
Speeding
>
> Speeding wrote:
> [..]
>
>> >
>> > I never left any man for another man nor any man left me for another
>> > woman. Neither I nor they were superficial.
>>
>> So you are married, then?
>
> No. I meant relationship. I didn't mean that I Not he) didn't leave
> but just that the reason was not because of another man or woman.
So it was because of you? Or him? You broke it off because one of you was
not attracted to the other. Otherwise, you'd be married or in a committed
relationship.
>>If you haven't left a man without having another
>> in the waiting, you are rare indeed.
>
> That's sad, isn't it? That just shows that so mnay got involve din a
> relationship primarily because of loneliness.
Not at all. It shows that most people are smart enough to keep a backup plan
in waiting. They are prepared to leave for something better, should their
desires not be met.
>>And, I can pretty much guarentee that
>> if a man left you... he had a booty call lined up somewhere first.
>
> Well, then it's understanding why they get so upset when I left a man.
> I mean he didn't have a booty call lined up and ready?
If you dumped him... yes. And, he probably figured you had your booty call
lined up and waiting. Which is almost like cheating. Sort of. Except he'd do
the same thing. What he's really upset about is that he failed to fullfill
you desires and that, more importantly, now... his desires are being
unfullfilled.
>> >>Many women will trade up without so much as a second thought.
>> >> Even after marriage. But before marriage, it's pretty common knowledge
>> >> that
>> >> a woman will have at least one male friend, when possible, as her
>> >> backup
>> >> plan.
>> >
>> > That's not me either. So much for generalization.
>>
>> Question. What color do blind people see when they dream?
>> I ask because how can you know what your motivations are if you can't
>> see,
>> understand, or control them? In other words, are you claiming that every
>> breakup you've ever had was simply due to a loss of emotional
>> desire/connection?
>
> In my case, it's not so much because of a loss of desire/connection but
> so much because it wasn't becoming such that we get to know each other
> better. At least that was the case with one.(That's why it was so hard
> when I had to break up. But I did it out of respect for myself.)
> Another case (after that one) was that I simply needed to leave that
> city (and state) because of the climatic affects on my nasal condition
> and I didn't feel that the relationship was strong enough for me stay
> and endure my health issue.
Okay, in one case you say it was due to a health issue. But, was it really?
How many doctors did you see? What medications were you trying? How hard did
you work to find a way to stay? Did you ask if he would move? And why were
you even living in a place that caused you health problems?
In other words... what was the real reason you left the relationship? It
wasn't JUST for health. Otherwise, you'd be in a long distance relationship.
Or, you'd be living there under medication or under a doctor's care.
In the other, it was because you weren't getting to know each other better?
Really? And just how long did you wait him out to see if he'd open up? Did
you go to counciling? If it was so hard to break up... why?
People have a nasty habit of lying. And they lie to themselves faster,
harder, and more often than to anyone else. Your relationships didn't work
out. But to claim it was due to nasal alergies or a lack of openess is
simply a part of the reason. It's not the whole by any means.
> The last one (referrign to last year) was because he's a Ma Ma's boy
> and his Ma Ma was so controlling of the whole family. Though I would
> be happy not have to do anything with his family (usually Ma Ma's
> planning for this and that) but I expected him not to start hiding me
> form his friends to please Ma Ma, i.e.he wasn't dating me. I wasn't
> going to be in the shadow while be ready for his booty call. So who
> ended it, me or him?
Yes. The answer to "Who ended it, me or him?" is yes. In other words, to a
degree, both. You had reasons (not a reason) for leaving. He had reasons for
not fullfilling your desires. Your desires were not being fullfilled, so you
left to look for a man that could fullfill your desires.
And there's nothing wrong with that.
> He wanted to continue with the physical activities w/o commitment such
> that he would, sooner or later, engage in sex with others, to convince
> him that we weren't together. I tested him by asking whether he would
> tell me if he had sex with another woman, he said "yes" followed by
> "after ward". I told him that he would lie to me, not wanting to lose
> me because any body else he would get involved would not have the type
> of connection I felt for him (he knew that very well) and he would not
> want to let me go. I told him to put in this thick head that as much
> as I cared for him, I loved myself and respect myself. So I would not
> go for this arrangement, he wanted. To this day, he is upset about
> this. He just sent me an email last Thursday that showed his
> underlying resentment for not getting what he want. So I told him to
> just follow Mommy's skirts for the rest of his life. After all, he's
> Mama's little boy who gets upset when he doesn't get what he wants.
So? You have desires he doesn't fullfill.
> I amazes me that people break only when they have another man or woman
> in line as back up. I mean, the majority of people stay in relationship
> out of fear of loneliness? That's whay I said "I am one of a kind." I
> do not function like that.
You might not have a backup already... but you have someone else in mind for
what you desire. Otherwise, his actions would be satisfying your desires. If
you had access to more friends and other social circles... you'd already be
in another relationship. Some people don't even know they have their backup
lined up as they have them lined up. Others don't have the option of lining
up a backup. So, either youhave backup lined up.. or you don't have the
option to.
yamuna
[..]
> >> > What if tell you that I could control my desire a long longer had he
> >> > not acted so wanting. That has alwasy been my weakness. I can't say
> >> > "no" to the person I like.
> >>
> >> If you had no desire to have sexual relations with the men then what was
> >> your attraction to them based on?
> >
> > Did I say that i ha dno desire for a sexual relation? What I said was
> > that I wouldn't desire a sexual relation just based on physical
> > attraction. There would be intellectaul attraction among other thing
> > that would affect my brain whether i feel attraced to a guy physically.
>
> No, what you said was "I could control my desire a long longer" and " I
> can't say "no" to the person I like."
I intentionlly failed to put the phrase "the perosn I like, after i
decided to give him a chance".
>The person
> So, techincally, you did not say that you had NO desire. But you did say you
> could control your sexual desires.
Long enough to get to know the person but I admit that I alway gave in
prematurely of my time scedule to get to know him. Note that the
context is "once I decided to give him a chance".
> And then say you could not control your
> desire to please another. So, you had sex not out of a sexual desire, but
> rather out of a desire to please another person.
> Your words.
C'mon. You think my body would function if I do not hace sexualk
desire? I can't even function when I have the sexual desire and yet
feel like I am apprecaited for only sex.
>
> >>Why even have a man at all?
> >
> > Godo question and I will answewr soon below.
> >
> >> You could
> >> simply have friendly relations with women.
> >
> > That has been my biggest dream in life but most women are so chasing
> > men and to be married, etc. I do have gfs back home that are for life
> > but they are not here for me to soocialize.
>
> Um... name a lesbian that is chasing men and wanting to get married.
Again, out of context. Why would I lesbians in my discussion?
>That's
> a duck. And married women are completely free to socialize with you.
Yeah, to talk about their children and food and kitcehn gadgets.
> Unmarried women aren't speding 24/7 trying to get laid or married, either.
Unmarried women, probably the kind I like, are doing what I am doing.
> So this is a complete duck.
No.
>Do you really believe your excuse?
It's not an excuse.
>
> >>Or non-sexual relations with men.
> >
> > As if the men would go for that. So far I have not been able to develop
> > such a relationship with any man where the men would expect and ask me
> > for more. In fcat, just this saturady, I had to end a friendship with a
> > man known for 3 years after realizing that he is still hoping that he
> > has a chance with me. He contacted me again 4 months ago after being
> > mad at me for a little over a year for not giving him a chance. When
> > he was asking me for more, I had known him for a bout a year. He
> > wouldn't take "No" for an answer and started getting rude also. I took
> > him back as a friend 4 months agoa because other than that area, he's
> > very objective and we can really communicated as friends. I miss the
> > friendship but I am doing it for his sake o end the friendhsip.
>
> Homosexual men would.
I have been thinking to make friends with them but I have to find them.
Beside, they might be busy chasing other homosexual males.
>Some straight men might also. Heck, there are plenty
> of AFCs out there that are friends with women secretly pining away for more.
That was what I had with one friend (in another state) whom I ended the
friendship last Saturday because I knew that he will get hurt one of
these days, when I get another bf or when he approached again and I say
"No". And I didn't like his using the line subtle and some time snot so
subtle suggestion that I am having choices as I get older.
> Married men might be very open to the idea of having lady friends for
> strictly non-sexual reasons.
Then their wives would accuse me even when there is nothing going on.
>If you are talking about having just
> freindships, there are plenty of options. You're ducking.
Don't accuse me like that. I have always wanted good friendships more
than a sexual relationshiop with a man because it ekeps me emotionaly
safe while having people ot relate to.
>And badly, at that.
It' your opinion.
>
> >> If you are not in a sexually loving relationship, then why pretend you
> >> are?
> >
> > Who said I pretended. I never did. All I said was that I wouldn't waste
> > my time just for sex.
>
> You did. Just above. You claimed to have had sex simply to make a man happy.
No. You intrepreted to that.
> But not to satisfy your own desires.
I didn't say that. My implication was that it had to be sexual desire +
more for me to engage in a sexual activity.
> >
> > Even then, a lot of other facts about a guy can influence
> > *unconsciously* whether you feel attracted to him. There was only one
> > time that I let the physical attraction took over what I was against
> > but still that a factor I was against wasn't anything so bad + all
> > other factors were desirable. Keeping in mind that this was when I was
> > 30, here is the story:
[..]
> I've got no idea what your point is.
The point was that other things aside from sexual attraction always
subconscious affects the decision to engage in seuxal activity with
someone.
[..]
> > But people could tell each other a bit of the background. That
> > handsome guy above was the one I refered to who didn't want to answer
> > any. He made me feel really bad not communicating. I felt like all we
> > did was sex, sex, sex, sex, sex, and sex. So I ended and he was
> > furious. Duh! And , in a sense, I was right hat acocuntants are boring
> > though he wasn't in the bedroom.
>
> Could is not the same as DO. And just above you said "I wouldn't waste my
> time just for sex." and "I could control my desire a long longer" and " I
> can't say "no" to the person I like." As it's being pointed out to you...
> sexual relationships... relationships in which sex is occuring, develop LONG
> before two people really get to know each other on any sort of seriously
> deep level. So, physical attraction is very important in any relationship.
Yes physical relationship is very important but other factors are
subconsciously influencing in sexual attraction that would be strong
enought for two epople to decided to go for it.
>
> >> Either that, or you have one heck of a long courtship period.
> >
> > I didn't mean one has to know 8everything* but some background info
> > would be helpful.
>
> Depending on the goals in mind. If it's a one-night stand, you don't even
> need to know a name. Just "Is he sexy? Would I desire sex with him?"
Oh, now we are talking about one-night stand? I didn't know that.
[..]
> >> > Very funny.
> >>
> >> Why?
> >
> > Funny to me because I would never meet that kind of nuts. Trust me on
> > that.
>
> And you know this how? Do you think Laci Peterson thought her husband
> capable of murder?
Statistic man, statistic. How often does this happen?
>Do you think Natalie Holoway was thinking much of
> anythign other than "This'll be fun" before she went missing in Aruba?
Agian, this needs to be considered in the context of Probability and
Statistic.
>Do
> you think all psychopathic murders have a stamp on their forehead to
> identify them easier? Completely screwed up people, sadly, can't be identify
> just by looking at them.
That's why finding out someone's chronological background helps in
determining whether
more needs to be checked out. Unless the liar is a pro, one can sense
all the danger flags easily. At least it has been that way.
>Or even in getting to know them for a few months.
> You might know a guy for years and then find out he's a complete nutcase.
> The BTK killer was a "really nice, quiet guy" for decades before he was
> caught.
This needs to be considered in the context of Probability and
Statistic.
> The people that are most insane or have the worst problems are often
> able to appear better than anyone else.
Yeah, I know one. My oldest sister, the medical doctor with a lot of
money.
>[..]
Well, he's a pro and she's probably dating a lot, using online service.
But a lot of good people are on online service or before that,
telephone service. She probably put what she wants and someone targeted
her. And also, some women are so depserate that they don't use their
brain. I remember this a story on TV abou a woman inviting a man (from
another state) she has met online to come to her home. He stayed there
for a week and then before he left for the airport, he stabbed her and
took her car. But she called 911 and he was caught. Can you see the
stupidity?
>[..]
> > You say most men but most men, while consciously do nto care about
> > these things, they do care about an overall apeearnce of a owmn which
> > includes gettign an *altogether look* based on how she dresses, shoes,
> > hairstyle, etc.
>
> Most men don't care about THIER looks. I'd say most men couldn't care what
> kind of shoes a woman wears. But yes, they do caer about looks. Which is
> what you were saying is superficial.
No, that's not what I said. When you guys sound like look takes over
everything else and everyman not retained by super models are rejects,
I say that men whp talks like that are superficial.
[..]
> > *Some* is the key word.
>
> Majority might even be accurate. According to 401k.org, the majortiy of
> people are putting between 5 and 7% into their 401K. And only about 77%
> participate in their plan at all. But, this is getting off topic.
>
> >> But, the point is that, just as most people SHOULD be concerned about
> >> something... some just aren't. You might not be concerned with competing
> >> with other women. But, you might find out the rather hard way that you
> >> should have been. Unless you are with a man that you KNOW can't find
> >> someone
> >> else.
> >
> > A relationship with someone who is with you because he/she can't find
> > someone else will never work.
>
> But, it will continue until they do.
No way for me. I'd rather be alone.
[..]
> >>
> >> Everyone starts from scratch.
> >
> > One way or another but there is a big difference in time-scale between
> > a college educated foreigner who had to get more edcuation since he/she
> > to cpmpete in the job market to get a progessional job under the
> > special skills category (to obtain specific visa such as H1, L1, ).
>
> So?
>
[..]
> >> What's petty?
> > I have seen girls chasing men and in the process some friends who
> > became declared enemies. With me, if there is another woman in the
> > picture, I let the guy decided. There were 2 times where tthere was
> > another woman chasing the guy. One clearly made sure that I wouldn't
> > misunderstand by telling me that he's not intrested in her and also
> > told her to stay away. (That one didn't want me to transfer to another
> > state and see there would be a marraige - this was when I was 25 - but
> > I had to put my school (grad school) a priority since I was on foreign
> > student status and couldn't afford to be romantic over pragamatic. He
> > didn't want long term relationship and so it ended.) The other one,
> > played game getting attention fron the other woman while acting so
> > attentive toward me. So I pushed him away and wasted no time.
>
> Smart. But, that's not about competing to KEEP your current man. So, what's
> petty about wanting to KEEP your current man?
If he is that much work (I eman there is enough to deal wiht in a
relationship), I wouldn't waste time.
>
> >> In what ways do you compete that are not petty? And, is it
> >> petty to compete in every way you can to keep your man? Do you value your
> >> relationship? If you do, then why would anything you can do to lessen the
> >> odds of him straying be "petty"?
> >
> > Read my above para. And about valuing a relationship, if we are in a
> > serious relationship and he wants to leave, I won't stop. If I am
> > married to him and he had the nerve to get into an affair, he's not
> > worth it. That's just me. I am not going to live my life babaysitting
> > him. ( Other marital issue, I will be willing to go for counselling. )
> > But then, thsese fears are exactly the reason I don't risk it because I
> > can't entertain the thought of my children becoming children of
> > divorced parents. We all compromise our lives one way or another.
>
> Well, then you might want to be prepared to live alone. Get a few cats or
> something. If you are not willing to keep yourself up to standards for a
> man... not willing to show you desire to keep your man, then why should he
> want to be with out. Some other woman out there WILL show him she cares
> about him and cares enough about him to work to keep him. And that's where
> he will be. With a woman willing to work to keep him.
Well, she can have him because I want to use my time for other things
too.
> And, you should expect a man that you are with to so that same deisre for
> you. If he's not worth keeping.. why keep him?
Eaxctly. That's why I let the last guy (Ma Ma's boy) go.
>
>[..]
> >> Because men have egos. You don't have to ask him about it. You damn well
> >> better SHOW him you are aware of it, though. You better be showing him
> >> that
> >> you value him and want to keep him and that you can offer him more than
> >> the
> >> other women he sees can.
> >
> > Well, he'd better show me that he values me and that wants to keep me
> > and that he can offer me more than other men can offer.
>
> Exactly. So, why should it be a one-way street. If he's going to show
> youthat he values you and desires you, then why wouldn't you do the same for
> him?
> Not so petty, after all, is it?
I never implied that I wouldn't work on relationship that I am assured
that he values. But to base it strictly by comparing what other
men/women can offer, like he/she has more money, she cooks everyday,
etc. would be not something I would even entertain fighting for.
>
> >>Otherwise, what reason does he have to stay with
> >> you? For that matter, if you don't value having him and don't care enough
> >> to
> >> compete for him... why should he stay?
> >
> > It's a 2 way street, as far as I am concerned.
>
> That's not what you just said.
> "If I am married to him and he had the nerve to get into an affair, he's not
> worth it. That's just me. I am not going to live my life babaysitting
> him."
Of course, he should know better to talk to me if he is not happy in
the relationship than chasing other women. Either wasy, I would gladly
let him go but he chose to talk to me and accept my suggesting for
counselling, I would put effort to try to save it.
>[..]
> >> Or rather... INCLUDING the superficial attraction. The superficial
> >> attraction is a part of the personality of a person.
> >
> > But w/o the other attractions, a relationship based on the superficial
> > attraction won't last.
>
> Perhaps. Perhaps not. For some, superficial attraction might just be all
> they need. But, I generally agree. My point is that there must be
> superficial attraction to begin with and it has to remain in the
> relationship throughout.
And my point was that despite that superficial physical attarction, a
decision to engage with the perosn is influenced by other
factors/attraction.
>A relationship that does not have physical
> attraction is not going to fare any better than a relationship that is based
> only on physical attraction.
Of cousre not.
>[..]
> > That has always been excuses used by men. They hav gotten away with it
> > through out history but the time has come that women say "No, Enough is
> > enough" and "No more excuse, you'd better decide whether you can live
> > w/o mistresses before you marry me". Of course, I am speaking on
> > behalf of women who are like me.
>
> It's been used by women too. If a person in a committed relationship feels
> as if their desires are not being fullfilled for a long enough period of
> time... they WILL seek to fullfill those desires in some other manner. It
> might be an extra-marital affair. It might be taking up a hobby. But, they
> will find something to take up the lack of fullfillment they need. That's
> not a man thing. It's a people thing. and it's precisely why I said above
> that you have to work to show that you are concerned in fullfilling your
> man's or woman's) desires.
But there are boundries that would determine whether it's worth
bothering to work to save it. And I am telling you that, this general
expectation of men from women to fight to keep them while they
irresponsibly go get for extra-marital affairs don't sit well with me.
I would do everything I possibly can to avoid ending up with such a
man, including being alone. (If, for some reason, I end up with such
man, I'd be brave to divorce him as much as I can't stand the divorce.
But, instead of taking that risk of divorce, I'd rather play it safe. )
Like I said earlier, I have better things to do with my time and .. my
brain.
I have a lot of older siblings and from what I have seen, I do not like
it though one of them is having a very loving relationshp with each
other now (that after my sister finally got the nerve to shout back "
Go for it" everytime he threatened divorce over nothing - it was
childish bully act but still I didn't like it - and the other one,
which I consider "good" becaue they are not fighting but I think that
marraige is controlled by my sister while he had wanted to flirt with
me (this was about 17 years ago when I satyed with them briefly) and
I have no espect for that brother-in-law who had knwon me sinc eI was
4, to sit and watched my sister abusing me. And my oldest brother and
his wife have been sleeping in separate bed for over 5 years while my
oldest sister was too aggressive for any man. watching all of them, I
know exactly what I would accept and what I wouldn't but I am learning
as I get older that men are a lot of work and I am not sure it's worth
that amount of work and time.
[..]
> >
> > My only demand is that they think hard and decide all that (including
> > if there is a problem, would they be wiliong to go cousnelling but
> > affair is not an excuse) before messing up someone's else life.
>
> But, how can they know you have that demand unless you discuss it? How can
> they know you even care unless you are working to show you do?
It is my belief that every couple get pre marital counselling before
tieing (is it tying?) the knot and have the courage to walk away from
each other if the facts are obvious that they are not compatible.
>
[..]
> >
> > You are using an extreme case. In Probability and Statistics, Ann
> > Nicole's case would nto be included in hr calculation of the averge
> > mean.
>
> That's another duck. Face it... whether you belive it or not, physical
> attraction is a required and VERY important part of a relationship. There
> can not be a sexual component to a relationship without sexual desire.
I never said that it is not important. I am also aware that men are
acutely sensitive to notice their attraction to a woman faster than
women realized what men are feeling.
>And a
> relationship without a sexual component is a platonic relationship. You do
> not need to have a LRT with a single individual for platonic relationships.
> You damn well better have a sexual attraction to have a long term sexual
> relationship with someone.
Of cousre.
>
> >>But, if age isn't a factor.. then you'd have to answer that as no.
> >> You'd have to say she found him charming and delightful and funny and
> >> romantic and a sexual tiger. When his oxygen supply was running, that is.
> >
> > Why do you guys bring in impracatical data to make your point?
>
> The same duck as above.
NO. I never said that sexual attraction is not a requirement in a
relationship between. I think you guys get so worried that you might
not get sex in the relationship that you are stressing it
unnecessarily.
>It's hardly impractical. It proves unequiviocbly
> that there must be a sexual attraction in a non-platonic relationship in
> order for the relationship to work. If there is an obvious lack of sexual
> desire, then the relationship is going to fail... unless there is an
> ulterior motive in having the relationship. Like a overriding desire for the
> other's money... or a desire to maintain security... or a desire to simply
> have someone else to be with.
>Without sexual attraction, a relationship that is not plutonic-only will fail.
You gotta to admit that some people adjust to it and stay in it though
I would hardly consider that relationship a working one.
[..]
> >
> > While I do not deny that looks are imporatnt to guys, I repeat that I
> > assure you that the guys I have been with would not go for
> > supermodels.
>
> A duck.
> Perhaps not.
No, not a duck.
> But, they will have a sexual desire for some kind of woman.
> There are, indeed, men that find heavier set women to be attractive and
> sexually appealing. In their case, a supermodel would not be able to compete
> with a heavier woman. A better looking heavier woman would then be the goal
> of such a man. He would be attracted to the most attractive woman he can
> find. You will not be able to compete for his attention unless you are in
> that catagory he finds as sexually desirable.
> If you can not compete in a
> sexually attractive manner for a man, you will not gain the attraction of
> that man.
I don't know what is "compete in a sexually attractive manner" because
sex appeal is a built-in thing as afr as I notice. I don't act or do
anything out of ordinary to attract a man.
[..]
> > I didn't say it is not but to use supermodel examples and say the rest
> > of us get to choose from the rejects is just a stupid statement.
>
> You are picked from the rejects of some catagory,
So are the super models.
>unless you are a 10 on the scale of attraciveness for that particular set.
This is what I mean by "superficial". What the chnace of two people
having exactly the same things except in looks?
> Some men desire a woman that is skinny. You will not attact such a man
> unless you are the epitome of skinny. Kate Moss will. You will have to
> settle for the men Kate Moss rejects.
> Some men desire a heavy set woman. You will not attact such a man unless you
> are the epitome of heavy. (I got no idea who would be attractive in the
> heavy catagory... but)
That's what I call it type or category.
>You will have to settle for the men (whoever)
> rejects.
This is a very simplistic thinking because the possibility that there
are people who are exactly the same in everything except one category
such as skinny or heavy set is almost nil.
> The point being, the one you are ducking, you will not be able to attract a
> man that finds you physically unattractive. That's the very nature of
> attraction. Attraction is attraction and if you are not attractive to men,
> then you will not attract men. So, if you are found to be physically
> attractive to a man, then you will be competing against other women with
> your same basic physical qualities.
> And more attractive women of that same quality will attract men more than you shall.
Like I said, what's the chance of in finding 2 people with exactly the
same in everything but look and attractivenss.
>You will not be able to date those men.
See the above statement.
>[..]
> >>but if men were
> >> visually stimulated... then there would be no reason for women to wear
> >> makeup, pantyhose, skirts, nailpolish, lipstick, etc, etc, etc...
> >
> > You are assuming that everything women do (wear) is for men.
>
> Not at all. Mostly, it is for other women. Men couldn't care less what you
> are wearing, so long as it is in a crumpled corner somewhere in thier
> bedroom. But women wear such things as much, or more so, to show their level
> of attractiveness to other women. A statement of "You can't compete with
> this. Move along, I win you lose." Women are very competative about their
> looks with other women. Men are very competative about their looks with
> other men. It's a way of showing superiority. Again, deny as you desire...
> but phsyical attraction is a powerful motivator and statment.
Well, I do see your point, remembering how other women, including my
much older sisters
acting very competitive with me when it comes to looks. In the places I
have been, mainly college, grad schools, technical work environemnt,
there were not many women better looking than I was and so may be I
wasn't fully aware of the competition that women might feel. I am not a
model or anything like that. Just that a lot of very good looking
women ended up in different line fo work.
[..]
> >
> > You are taking extreme of this look and appearnace. I never said that I
> > can dress yucky and still get men. First of all, I don't like to dress
> > yucky. And it is not for men that I dress nice. It is for myself
> > first that I buy and dress.
>
> No. It is for your appearance to others that you dress. Otherwise, we'd be
> in a naked society.
It is not simple. How about climateic affect determineing what we wear?
>
> > I am getting frustrated that your oversimplification of men's
> > attraction (I am not talking about superficial ones) toward women as if
> > it is based on looks only. So I will stop her.
>
> It is only you that is assuming it is oversimplification. Or rather, you
> that is making it more complicated than it really is.
> Deny what you wish... but physical attraction is very important. For both
> men and women.
I never said the opposite but that there are other factors
subconsciously controlling even in hat physcial attraction.
Why stay than be alone if you are that unhappy with her? This is the
type of atittude that makes me afraid of men who runs a relationship
like it is a chess game. I know for a fact that I will never settle
with a such a man but then this kind of problem is way down the list
for me.
[..]
the Danimal
> > In contrast, a partner who is already old enough to begin
> > losing her looks will only look worse in another ten
> > years. But since her personality and habits were already
> > "mature" to begin with, her increase in age is unlikely
> > to make her more desirable on that basis.
>
> Agreed. As a woman ages, her personality is going to change also. Menopause
> can be an especially mood altering thing.
I read somewhere that a large fraction of women lose most of
their sexual desire after menopause.
Historically, this worked out OK for many of them because their
aging husbands were simultaneously losing their ability to
reliably maintain erections. Then along came recreational
drugs such as Viagra, allowing their old geezer husbands to
continue pestering them for sex. For an amusing take on this:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2001-03-21-viagra-wives.htm
> > Physical aging is also an accelerating process. That is, the
> > rate of deterioration increases with each passing decade.
>
> For most. A few make me wonder. And, plastic surgery can do some amazing
> things, too.
Plastic surgery does not yet allow anyone who is 50 years old
to pass for 20.
Eventually medical science may determine the causes of aging
and cure them. But I don't expect to live to see this.
> > This acceleration of physical deterioration means an
> > older partner is changing faster than a younger partner.
> > Therefore, a person who chooses an older partner had
> > best be attracted to that partner on some basis other
> > than the partner's appearance right now.
>
> Well. Yes. But they better be ready to learn how to deal with a new
> personality too. With every ten years, the personality is going to shift
> some too. And that also seems to change faster as the age increases.
Actually I would say the rate of personality changes slows with
aging, as people get progressively more set in their ways.
For example, would you expect the 70-something Fundamentalist
preacher Jerry Falwell to switch to some other belief system?
At this point, that would be very unlikely. Most people who drastically
revise their belief systems do so at relatively young ages. Typically
before the age of 40. While their brains can still conceive of
something else.
Would you expect Osama bin Laden to convert to, say, atheism
or Buddhism at this point?
Most ideological movements recruit most heavily among the
young. That's where the malleable brains are.
Tobacco companies were long accused of targeting their
advertisements at young people. Whether that is true or not,
the fact remains that most people who smoke started as
teenagers. Getting past age 21 or so without a smoking
habit makes a person very unlikely to pick up the habit
later in life.
-- the Danimal
the Danimal
> the Danimal wrote:
> [..]
> the gap that matters is
> > > > not the gap between the couple, but between you and your
> > > > competitors:
> > >
> > > Very superficial thinking.
> >
> > Of course. For most people, attraction is superficial. Consider
> > the number of couples who meet and then have sex after
> > just a few dates, while they still hardly know each other.
> > How long does it take to really get to know someone?
> > One year? Five years? Ten years? Most people can start
> > feeling attracted to someone new in much less time.
>
> Now, you are streting. If people have to wait 10 years in order to know
> a perosn, then the averga emarige age would be like 40 because most
> people are mot mature enough to even realize how to get to know a
> person unitl they turn 30.
You are simply agreeing with me that sexual attraction is,
for most people, superficial. If anything, you are arguing that
for a person of age 20 to feel sexually attracted to someone
else, that attraction must be even more superficial than I imagined,
because according to you it will be 10 more years before that
young person is mature enough to even realize how to get to
know a person.
Well, guess what. 20 year olds can feel sexually attracted
to other people. And when they do, their attraction is
superficial---that is, they feel attraction because of certain
traits which are "on the surface" and quickly recognizable.
A big part of this is a person's physical appearance, but it
also includes their visible behavior and mannerisms, and
how others appear to be reacting to them.
> > You don't have to answer this question for us, but consider
> > it in your mind: how many hours did you spend getting to
> > know the man you have been describing before you first
> > began to feel desire to have sex with him?
> >And how many
> > hours did you spend getting to know him before acting on
> > that desire?
>
> What if tell you that I could control my desire a long longer had he
> not acted so wanting.
When he first let you know that he wanted sex with you, would
you say he knew you well at that point?
Or was his desire still pretty superficial?
> That has alwasy been my weakness. I can't say
> "no" to the person I like.
So you are saying you like some superficial people?
Even to the point of having sex with them?
If you have sex with superficial people, for superficial
reasons, what does that make you?
Note: having sex with a man simply because he wants
sex with you and you can't say no sounds pretty superficial
to me.
> > How many hours did he spend getting to know you before
> > he first wanted to have sex with you? It's possible he already
> > found you sexually attractive before the first time he spoke
> > to you.
>
> Possible. After all, everything is controlled by the brain.
Yes. For the most part that would be the emotional brain.
> > At the time when you first had sex with him, how well did
> > you actually know him? Did you know details such as
> > his middle name, his mother's maiden name, the names of
> > his grandparents and cousins, where he went to school,
> > where he was born, where he grew up,
>
> Funny you asked that. I used to ask all these question routinely out
> of culturla habit but I only asked the guys I was getting involved
> unlike my fellow countryman who would ask everybody.
Actually I did not mean you would learn a list of facts
about a man by interrogating him, and then you would
"know" him. Instead I mean you have learned all these
things by spending time with the man in many different
situations, sharing experiences with him, and allowing
these details to emerge naturally. I merely asked these
questions to illustrate the kinds of details two people
have not yet picked up about each other while their
sexual relationship is new. Yet they still find each other
sexually attractive, because sexual attraction for most
people is SUPERFICIAL.
If you read an encyclopedia article about Hawaii, you can
then recite a number of facts about Hawaii. But that is not
the same as living there for many years. What you can read
in the encyclopedia is superficial knowledge about Hawaii.
The deep knowledge comes from years of personal
experience, and much of it is not available in words, and
maybe cannot even be put into words.
In a long-term relationship, the partners can eventually
finish each other's sentences. That kind of knowing does
not emerge from asking a stranger a list of questions
about where he went to school and so on.
In most cases, a couple has sex most often, and most
intensely, while the relationship is still new and superficial.
As they get to know each other better, they usually have
sex less.
Thus, not only is sex superficial, but superficiality is
necessary for the most enjoyable sex.
Do you know why most people are not sexually attracted
to their siblings? Because they know them too well.
I read somewhere that the same thing happens in the
Kibbutzim of Israel. Even when men and women are not
sister and brother, if they grew up together as if they were,
they prefer to look elsewhere for their sex partners.
> Since I only dated
> Americans (Caucasian) and one naturalized American (non Caucasian) who
> was also like a typical Americans when it comes to being asked those
> questions, my experience was their uncomfortableness. Most (not
> necessarily had sex) were okay with it since these guys met me in
> foreign student environment and were culturally more exposed but after
> one guy acted so differently, I stopped asking that much as I myself
> changed.
My point is that when you spend enough time with someone
to get to know him well, you do not need to ask these questions.
The information comes up in the normal course of the time you
share. For example, eventually you meet his family and friends,
you learn something about his job, he volunteers information about
his past, and so on. These details you can recount about him
are not all you know about him. You actually learn much more
about him that you cannot easily express in words.
But you don't need to wait for such deep knowledge before
you can have sex with him, and enjoy it. Even if the sex is
his idea, if you give in and enjoy it, that means your
superficial conditions for sex have been met.
> > whether he had
> > ever been in trouble with the law, or been fired from a job,
> > or if he had secretly abused an animal, how many drugs
> > he has done, what sort of medical conditions he has, had
> > he ever received psychiatric treatment, the names and
> > number of his previous sex partners, etc.?
>
> Very funny.
What is funny about these things? Many people have problems
of this nature which can emerge later in a relationship when
they are no longer on their best behavior.
For example, a bipolar person may be able to "keep it
together" during the first few months of a relationship, until
he or she feels comfortable enough to start letting loose
on you.
> > There have been game shows on television that feature
> > newlywed couples, in which the host asks each contestant
> > personal questions about his or her spouse, and the audience
> > laughs at how little the contestants know about the people
> > they just bet the rest of their lives on. For most people, the
> > normal progression is like this:
> >
> > 1. See someone.
> > 2. Feel attracted.
> > 3. Spend a few hours total getting to know the person superficially.
> > 4. Start having sex.
> > 5. Spend years gradually finding out who you are having sex with.
> >
> > For most women, we could switch steps 2 and 3. Most women,
> > unlike most men, are not already desiring sex with someone
> > at first glance, but most women only need a few hours with a
> > man to warm to him---if they find him attractive.
> >
> > Most men are superficial, but so are most women. For example,
> > it seems the vast majority of women have some sort of minimum
> > height requirement for a sex partner. If a man is shorter than a
> > woman's minimum height requirement, she rules him out on
> > that basis alone, before knowing anything else about him.
>
> Why pick on just height when women also have other criteria they use in
> picking partners? It just depends on what a person prefers.
Because we were talking about superficiality.
1. Height is a nearly universal requirement with women---almost
every woman requires a man to exceed some minimum height
before she will find him sexually attractive.
2. Height is a superficial trait which you can estimate with a
glance. A woman can glance at the men at a party, for example,
and instantly rule out some of them as being too short for her.
3. You called me superficial. I am pointing out a way in which
all women are even more superficial than I am. Even though I
prefer women to be as beautiful as possible, I am willing to
be flexible if I have to, and a woman who is not so beautiful
may be able to compensate somewhat by having a sufficiently
wonderful personality. In contrast, most women have very
rigid requirements for a man's height and their requirements
are non-negotiable.
> > > My concern was not about competing with other women.
> >
> > The average worker isn't concerned about saving for retirement,
> > either. But objectively, we know most workers should
> > be concerned, and they aren't saving enough for retirement.
> > The average American saves something like 1% of income,
> > or less, when most people need to save at least 10% (if they
> > start saving early enough, and invest well)
>
> I am sure that people would save 10% if they can afford to.
No way. Not with all the great consumer fluff to buy.
Anyone who spends 10% of disposable income on
entertainments can afford to save that 10%. Most people
in consumer societies such as the U.S.A. spend much
more than 10% of disposable income on entertainments:
vacations, dining out, and buying a more expensive
house/car/clothing/etc. than the cheapest alternative
that would do, heating their house more in winter than
the lowest temperature they could endure, driving more
than necessary, driving alone instead of car-pooling,
etc.
In modern nations such as the U.S., huge amounts of
economic activity are primarily for entertainment: television,
movies, music, leisure travel, convenience foods, home
decor beyond the functional minimum, multiple changes of
clothes, living in unnecessarily large houses unnecessarily
far from work and shopping (which makes outlandish commutes
necessary, which in turn drives the demand for comfortable
cars and expensive roads to facilitate high-speed travel), etc.
Every strip mall has a video store. Many people have cable
TV. People spend billions of dollars on various forms of fluff
instead of saving for retirement.
Did you know women spend more money on their
appearance (cosmetics, fashion, etc.) than on their
education?
> > or even more if
> > like most people they don't bother start saving until they
> > hit their 40's or 50's. (How much have you saved, by the way?)
>
> I am an immigrant who had to start from scratch and so I'd say you
> can't put me in that survey.
Well, that's good for your tendency to save, then.
"The Millionaire Next Door" says, among other things, that
getting a lot of help from one's parents often tends to be
financially crippling. The basic principle is that it's easier
to spend someone else's money, so when parents give
their kids a handout, it conditions their kids to over-consume.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Millionaire_Next_Door
> > You may not care about other women, but I assure you
> > every man you sleep with cares.
>
> I know and that's one reason I have been so cautious which made left me
> as I am.
If you were truly cautious, you would learn the facts
about a problem instead of going into denial about it,
and thinking you can scold it away.
> > Unless he is blind, a (straight) man is constantly seeing other
> > women, and his emotional brain is probably reacting to their
> > physical appearance. If he frequently sees other women he finds
> > more superficially attractive than you, that can put him under
> > stress, and affect the quality of your relationship.
>
> You are bringing up all the things that can possible happen to worry
> about in life. Know that it's not only in this area one has to worry
> that way. You could be driving on the highway and the guy coming from
> the other direction can be getting brain aneurysm or heart attack and
> hit you head-on. And we put our lives in the hand of pilot we don't
> even know when we fly or use ships.
I notice you do not scold the people who have heart attacks
while driving the same way you scolded me for being superficial.
Why is that? Do you think you can change a person's
sexual preferences by scolding him?
If that were possible, then I would scold the Victoria's Secret
lingerie models for feeling no interest in me. Perhaps I could
scold them into wanting me.
> > However, because you would probably view his normal male
> > behavior as a character defect ("superficiality"), and you
> > seem to be in denial about the fact that you compete with
> > other women,
>
> I didn't say I don't compete at all but not in the petty way you were
> thinking.
What, do you only date blind men?
> > he probably wouldn't be able to communicate
> > with you honestly about the source of his stress. He's not
> > going to tell you what's going on in his head if it will only
> > make you think less of him. Thus the stress might express
> > itself indirectly, and degrade the quality of your relationship
> > in some other way that might not make sense to you.
>
> So what you are saying is that I should ask him about his attraction to
> toher woman and help him relieve his stress. So why do I need to bother
> having such a guy?
Because you seem to want some sort of guy, and virtually
every guy responds sexually to attractive women strangers
on sight. You would have to search a long time to find a
guy who isn't turned on by the sight of attractive women
strangers, even if he has been conditioned to feel it is wrong.
I'm not saying you need a guy. Maybe you don't. Just that
you seem to have liked some guys in the past, and I would
bet a large sum of money that at least 80% of them respond
sexually to the sight of physically attractive women strangers.
For example, do any of the men you have dated enjoy looking
at some type of porn?
It is as normal for men to enjoy looking at porn as it is normal
for women to enjoy watching "chick flicks" (e.g., romantic
comedies, or romantic period films).
If I asked, why do I need to bother with such a woman (who
enjoys watching romantic comedy films), that would be
the same as asking why do I need to bother with women
at all.
I need to bother with women because I LIKE them. I don't
necessarily share their taste for chick flicks, but it's kind
of cute to hang out with people who get into some things
I personally would have little interest in on my own.
> > > I am one of a kind
> >
> > Everybody is one of a kind. It's not a question of you being
> > one of a kind, the question is how many "kinds" a given man
> > can be attracted to.
>
> I'd say that most people are attracted to the same type of person
> excluding the superficial attraction.
So all these guys you have dated, did they sit around waiting
for you to show up? And have they remained celibate since?
If they have enjoyed other women, perhaps you are not
so unique as you imagine.
>From an evolutionary standpoint, it would make no sense
for an organism to have such exacting requirements for a
mate. That organism would then be highly likely to die
before the unique partner would happen to show up.
Instead, the whole point of sex is to get the genes into
the next generation, and to do that you have to mate with
something.
> >If you're with a guy who can be attracted to other kinds of women,
> I will not be with such a the person or drop him like a fly.
Now you're just being silly. Every man you've had sex
with probably feels attracted to many different women,
both before, during, and after the time you dated him.
Of course most men learn not to call attention to this
fact when they are with particular women, because this
is not something most women care to know.
> > then being one particular kind gives
> > you no competitive advantage over women of those other kinds.
> >
> > Consider the analogy with food. There are many kinds of
> > food. You can probably satisfy your hunger with more than
> > one. A person who could only eat one specific
> > kind of food would have a problem getting through life,
> > because sometimes that one kind is not available.
> > Most people, therefore, have some flexibility.
>
> Food and people as analogies? I do not like to eat the same food
> everyday while I want the same peroson everyday. So much for the
> analogy.
I am just the opposite. I can eat the same foods every day,
while I want a different woman every day (if that were feasible
to arrange, and if it could be reasonably safe).
> Of course, you can say that that's not the case with men.
> Well, that mostly explians why I am alone.
That and your habit of scolding men for being superficial.
It's so stereotypical and tiring.
> > > and someone so concern about age in
> > > the superficial sense wouldn't be the type who would be attarcted to me
> > > anyway.
> >
> > Are you saying all the men you date would be just as happy
> > to pick up 90-year-old women at a nursing home?
> You streth things out of context, you know?
I don't know what you mean when you say "someone
so concern about age in the superficial sense."
I guess whatever you mean by that, it doesn't mean men
who are OK with dating 90-year-old women. So what do
you mean?
See, "age" is something we can put numbers on. If you
put numbers on it, everybody can know what you mean.
So what age number are you talking about?
> > If they
> > don't care about age in the superficial sense, they should
> > be just as likely to find women of any age attractive.
>
> Out of context.
No, it's perfectly in context. You wrote about men who
aren't concerned with a woman's age. That's the context.
Either a man is concerned about a woman's age, or he
isn't.
If a man won't date any 90-year-old woman, that means he
is concerned about her age. Either that, or he is concerned
about traits which all 90-year-old women share. For example,
the fact that they are all hideous.
> > Here's what is most likely: the men you date care about
> > a woman's looks---intensely; and for the most part, they
> > date the most physically attractive women they can attract.
> >
> > For example, let's assume you aren't as superficially
> > attractive as the typical Victoria's Secret lingerie model.
> > This means you are very unlikely to date any man
> > who can attract those lingerie models. You can only
> > date men from among the set of men those models
> > reject.
>
> The men those models reject miight be the men who would look for
> merit-based qaulities aside from just looks.
It doesn't matter what those men want---the models reject
them anyway.
A model might reject a gay man as being unsuitable for
her, before she even knows he is gay. The fact that he is
gay and wouldn't want sex with her anyway is irrelevant
to her ruling him out.
> So it's not like they are rejects.
No, in fact they are rejects. It's like the way I am a reject
for the job position of physician, because I lack the training,
even though I did not apply for the job.
> There are a lot of tother factors involved unlike your
> simplification based on looks.
Sure, but beautiful women have those other factors, because
as a group they are diverse.
For example, there is a Cincinnati Ben-Gals cheerleader who
is close to completing a Ph.D. in molecular biology. She is
physically beautiful, but also she is smart and studious.
Even if that is a rare combination, it does exist.
> You cannot be a good researcher. You do not take into account a lot of
> factors.
You do not take into account that no matter what a man
looks for in a woman besides her looks, he wants those
factors in the prettiest possible package.
For example, if he can choose between two women who have
all the other traits he wants, but they differ in looks, he chooses
the more physically attractive one.
Can you show us some examples of men who choose
women who are much less attractive than the most attractive
women they can get?
One example might have been (actor) Harrison Ford, who
married a woman who wasn't as pretty as other women he
could have married, but eventually she divorced him, because
he screwed around on her for years with lots of other women.
> > And conversely, if a man is dating you, he is very unlikely
> > to leave you for any woman who is substantially uglier.
> > Women who are uglier are generally no competition for
> > you.
>
> Again, that's very superficial. If the uglier woman had other
> qualities that the current woman lacks that he wants desperately, he
> would go for the uglier woman.
Unlikely, because if he can attract the current woman, he
can probably attract some other similarly-attractive woman
with the other traits he wants.
You seem to assume the man is on a desert island with
only two women. In the real world, there are lots of women
at a given level of attractiveness, with a range of other
traits.
Speaking of being a bad researcher, you are merely
speculating now instead of citing actual examples.
I know men who date lots of women. The personalities
of these women vary, but the women a particular man
dates tend to be very similar in the physical cuteness
factor.
For example, if you know a man who dates lots of
slender women, he is very unlikely to date an obese
woman regardless of what other traits she has.
That's because the sexual market sorts women by
attractiveness, with fat women and old women ranked below
slender women and young women. If a man can attract
several women who are young and slender, you will not
see him with a woman who is fat and old, any time soon
at least. Only when he has lost his ability to attract
slender young women will he consider fat old women.
-- the Danimal
Mxsmanic
> I read somewhere that a large fraction of women lose most of
> their sexual desire after menopause.
About a third, IIRC.
> Historically, this worked out OK for many of them because their
> aging husbands were simultaneously losing their ability to
> reliably maintain erections. Then along came recreational
> drugs such as Viagra, allowing their old geezer husbands to
> continue pestering them for sex.
A lot of men have lost interest in sex by that age, too.
--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
Speeding
> Speeding wrote:
> [..]
>
>> >> > What if tell you that I could control my desire a long longer had
>> >> > he
>> >> > not acted so wanting. That has alwasy been my weakness. I can't say
>> >> > "no" to the person I like.
>> >>
>> >> If you had no desire to have sexual relations with the men then what
>> >> was
>> >> your attraction to them based on?
>> >
>> > Did I say that i ha dno desire for a sexual relation? What I said was
>> > that I wouldn't desire a sexual relation just based on physical
>> > attraction. There would be intellectaul attraction among other thing
>> > that would affect my brain whether i feel attraced to a guy physically.
>>
>> No, what you said was "I could control my desire a long longer" and " I
>> can't say "no" to the person I like."
>
> I intentionlly failed to put the phrase "the perosn I like, after i
> decided to give him a chance".
What?
>>The person
>> So, techincally, you did not say that you had NO desire. But you did say
>> you
>> could control your sexual desires.
>
> Long enough to get to know the person but I admit that I alway gave in
> prematurely of my time scedule to get to know him. Note that the
> context is "once I decided to give him a chance".
So you gave sex up in order to get to know him? Is that what you are saying?
You had sex with him SO you could get to know him better?
And just what do you mean "decided to give him a chance."? Are you saying
here that you, in fact, did decide to have sex with him? Which is it..
either you did not want to have sex with him, but did so to please him... or
you had sex with him to get to know him better... or you decided you wanted
to have sex with him. Please chose which one it is.
>> And then say you could not control your
>> desire to please another. So, you had sex not out of a sexual desire,
>> but
>> rather out of a desire to please another person.
>> Your words.
>
> C'mon. You think my body would function if I do not hace sexualk
> desire? I can't even function when I have the sexual desire and yet
> feel like I am apprecaited for only sex.
Actually, yes. It's not as if there's anything that's required for a woman
to have sex. Sure, it will be more enjoyable for both parties involve if the
woman is aroused. But she needn't be. Which is not true for men. Or, to be
more technically correct, he can't penetrate very well if he's not aroused.
And after four of five times... it's going to be blindingly obvious that
it's either an ED problem... or an attraction problem.
For a woman, there is no ED. No attraction problem. That's why women can be
prostitutes so much easier than men can, comparatively speaking.
>> >>Why even have a man at all?
>> >
>> > Godo question and I will answewr soon below.
>> >
>> >> You could
>> >> simply have friendly relations with women.
>> >
>> > That has been my biggest dream in life but most women are so chasing
>> > men and to be married, etc. I do have gfs back home that are for life
>> > but they are not here for me to soocialize.
>>
>> Um... name a lesbian that is chasing men and wanting to get married.
>
> Again, out of context. Why would I lesbians in my discussion?
Again, duck. You could have a relationship with anyone.
>>That's
>> a duck. And married women are completely free to socialize with you.
>
> Yeah, to talk about their children and food and kitcehn gadgets.
You haven't talked to many married women then, have you. I got to listen in
to a few converations with married women. Yes, kitchen gadgets were
discussed... in a rather unique manner. And there were discussions that even
the raunchiest conversation in the men's locker room couldn't hold a candle
to. But, you're ducking yet again. You could have a relationship with
anyone.
>> Unmarried women aren't speding 24/7 trying to get laid or married,
>> either.
> Unmarried women, probably the kind I like, are doing what I am doing.
>
>> So this is a complete duck.
> No.
Quack. Major duck. Three in a row. That's tic tac toe.
>>Do you really believe your excuse?
> It's not an excuse.
Then what is it? If it's not an excuse, are you claiming that you are
affected by some sort of anti-social disorder? What? You can't have it both
ways.
>> >>Or non-sexual relations with men.
>> >
>> > As if the men would go for that. So far I have not been able to develop
>> > such a relationship with any man where the men would expect and ask me
>> > for more. In fcat, just this saturady, I had to end a friendship with a
>> > man known for 3 years after realizing that he is still hoping that he
>> > has a chance with me. He contacted me again 4 months ago after being
>> > mad at me for a little over a year for not giving him a chance. When
>> > he was asking me for more, I had known him for a bout a year. He
>> > wouldn't take "No" for an answer and started getting rude also. I took
>> > him back as a friend 4 months agoa because other than that area, he's
>> > very objective and we can really communicated as friends. I miss the
>> > friendship but I am doing it for his sake o end the friendhsip.
>>
>> Homosexual men would.
> I have been thinking to make friends with them but I have to find them.
> Beside, they might be busy chasing other homosexual males.
PLEASE!! You are ducking more than Ray Gordon at a Mystery Pick Up
Challenge. I've seen prize fighters duck less than this.
You *could* have a relationship with anyone. But you have given four excuses
now.
>>Some straight men might also. Heck, there are plenty
>> of AFCs out there that are friends with women secretly pining away for
>> more.
>
> That was what I had with one friend (in another state) whom I ended the
> friendship last Saturday because I knew that he will get hurt one of
> these days, when I get another bf or when he approached again and I say
> "No". And I didn't like his using the line subtle and some time snot so
> subtle suggestion that I am having choices as I get older.
So now you are psychic? You "know" he will eventually get hurt!? That's
excuse #5.
You could have a relationship with anyone.
>> Married men might be very open to the idea of having lady friends for
>> strictly non-sexual reasons.
>
> Then their wives would accuse me even when there is nothing going on.
Six. Keep them coming...
You could have a relationship with anyone.
>>If you are talking about having just
>> freindships, there are plenty of options. You're ducking.
>
> Don't accuse me like that. I have always wanted good friendships more
> than a sexual relationshiop with a man because it ekeps me emotionaly
> safe while having people ot relate to.
I'm not accusing you. I'm simply saying you are ducking the questions at
hand... You are claiming you can't have a relationship. I'm saying you can.
You've already given six lame excuses for why you can't. What's the real
reason. Be honest with yourself.
>>And badly, at that.
> It' your opinion.
Yers, it is. But it's still ducking. Give a REAL reason why you can't have a
platonic relationship that fullfills your needs as much as a sexual one.
Then try to explain why you don't need physical attraction to have a
relationship that involves a non-plutonic relationship.
>> >> If you are not in a sexually loving relationship, then why pretend you
>> >> are?
>> >
>> > Who said I pretended. I never did. All I said was that I wouldn't waste
>> > my time just for sex.
>>
>> You did. Just above. You claimed to have had sex simply to make a man
>> happy.
> No. You intrepreted to that.
No, it was your words. Make up your mind, please. You've changed it three
times now. Pick one, and only one...
#1: You decide to have sex with him.
#2: You did not want to have sex with him, but did so to please him.
#3: You had sex with him to get to know him better
>> But not to satisfy your own desires.
> I didn't say that. My implication was that it had to be sexual desire +
> more for me to engage in a sexual activity.
Perhaps that was your implication, but it is not what you said. I might be a
bit psychic, but not over the net... And, you've changed it just in this
very posting...
> Long enough to get to know the person but I admit that I alway gave in
> prematurely of my time scedule to get to know him. Note that the
> context is "once I decided to give him a chance".
so, pick just one...
#1: You decide to have sex with him.
#2: You did not want to have sex with him, but did so to please him.
#3: You had sex with him to get to know him better
And, keep in mind, that right here you are saying you didn't know him all
that well...
>> > Even then, a lot of other facts about a guy can influence
>> > *unconsciously* whether you feel attracted to him. There was only one
>> > time that I let the physical attraction took over what I was against
>> > but still that a factor I was against wasn't anything so bad + all
>> > other factors were desirable. Keeping in mind that this was when I was
>> > 30, here is the story:
>
> [..]
>
>> I've got no idea what your point is.
>
> The point was that other things aside from sexual attraction always
> subconscious affects the decision to engage in seuxal activity with
> someone.
Maybe for some people, but not for everyone. The point still stands...
you're not very likely to have sex with someone you are not physically
attracted to. And, you're not very likely to wait a signifigantly long time
to get to know them on a deep level first.
> [..]
>
>> > But people could tell each other a bit of the background. That
>> > handsome guy above was the one I refered to who didn't want to answer
>> > any. He made me feel really bad not communicating. I felt like all we
>> > did was sex, sex, sex, sex, sex, and sex. So I ended and he was
>> > furious. Duh! And , in a sense, I was right hat acocuntants are boring
>> > though he wasn't in the bedroom.
>>
>> Could is not the same as DO. And just above you said "I wouldn't waste my
>> time just for sex." and "I could control my desire a long longer" and " I
>> can't say "no" to the person I like." As it's being pointed out to you...
>> sexual relationships... relationships in which sex is occuring, develop
>> LONG
>> before two people really get to know each other on any sort of seriously
>> deep level. So, physical attraction is very important in any
>> relationship.
>
> Yes physical relationship is very important but other factors are
> subconsciously influencing in sexual attraction that would be strong
> enought for two epople to decided to go for it.
But, without the physical attraction, there won't be a relationship. At
least not a non-platonic relationship.
>> >> Either that, or you have one heck of a long courtship period.
>> >
>> > I didn't mean one has to know 8everything* but some background info
>> > would be helpful.
>>
>> Depending on the goals in mind. If it's a one-night stand, you don't even
>> need to know a name. Just "Is he sexy? Would I desire sex with him?"
>
> Oh, now we are talking about one-night stand? I didn't know that.
No. We're talking in any case. You were saying it was very funny when I
mentioned the idea of asking if the person has AIDS or is a bed wetter.
Thought it was funny that I'd suggest most people, in fact, do have sexual
relations with a person LONG before they really get to know the person on
anything other than a superficial level.
> [..]
>
>> >> > Very funny.
>> >>
>> >> Why?
>> >
>> > Funny to me because I would never meet that kind of nuts. Trust me on
>> > that.
>>
>> And you know this how? Do you think Laci Peterson thought her husband
>> capable of murder?
>
> Statistic man, statistic. How often does this happen?
Murder rates? About 1 in 10,000, on average.
Rape? About 1 in 3,500, on average.
Then there's just plain ol domestic violence, drug crimes, STD rates and all
sorts of other nasty things...
So, it happens more often than you are giving it credit.
Duck #7.
>>Do you think Natalie Holoway was thinking much of
>> anythign other than "This'll be fun" before she went missing in Aruba?
>
> Agian, this needs to be considered in the context of Probability and
> Statistic.
Yes. and the odds are not in your favor... unless you are being honest about
not having the ability to have relationships of a non-platonic level.
Duck #8.
>>Do
>> you think all psychopathic murders have a stamp on their forehead to
>> identify them easier? Completely screwed up people, sadly, can't be
>> identify
>> just by looking at them.
>
> That's why finding out someone's chronological background helps in
> determining whether
> more needs to be checked out. Unless the liar is a pro, one can sense
> all the danger flags easily. At least it has been that way.
Most liars ARE pros. Jeez. Are you kidding? The best liars are the ones that
can do it withou you ever knowing it. And just how do you find out their
chronological background. Or just their general background? What... you hire
a private detective before you engage in sexual activity with any potential
mate?
>>Or even in getting to know them for a few months.
>> You might know a guy for years and then find out he's a complete nutcase.
>> The BTK killer was a "really nice, quiet guy" for decades before he was
>> caught.
>
> This needs to be considered in the context of Probability and
> Statistic.
See above. Still ducking. #9.
>> The people that are most insane or have the worst problems are often
>> able to appear better than anyone else.
>
> Yeah, I know one. My oldest sister, the medical doctor with a lot of
> money.
Your sister is insane AND a medical doctor?
Who's a pro? Who's using a dating service? You?
Can I see the stupidity? Yes. Can you? What you are describing could just as
easily turned out to be one of those majic stories that E-Harmony likes to
brag about. And the reverse is also true. You could be dating a guy you met
that lives just down the street from you, think he's perfectly normal, do
your investigation... and unless you REALLY ARE having a private eye check
him out... you could find out the guy is the biggest dealer in town. You
simply don't know until you get to know them. By then, you might very well
have been living with the person.
>>[..]
>
>> > You say most men but most men, while consciously do nto care about
>> > these things, they do care about an overall apeearnce of a owmn which
>> > includes gettign an *altogether look* based on how she dresses, shoes,
>> > hairstyle, etc.
>>
>> Most men don't care about THIER looks. I'd say most men couldn't care
>> what
>> kind of shoes a woman wears. But yes, they do caer about looks. Which is
>> what you were saying is superficial.
>
> No, that's not what I said. When you guys sound like look takes over
> everything else and everyman not retained by super models are rejects,
> I say that men whp talks like that are superficial.
But it IS what you said. Apparently you are not typing what you mean. But I
can't read your mind. And I am saying that every man looks to find the most
attractive woman based on his ideal of beauty... be it supermodels, fattys,
skinnys, goths, whatever. But, whatever his (and it's just as true for
women) ideal is for physical attractiveness... that will be what he's
ultimately looking for. But, he might settle for less, based on various
circumstances.
> [..]
>
>> > *Some* is the key word.
>>
>> Majority might even be accurate. According to 401k.org, the majortiy of
>> people are putting between 5 and 7% into their 401K. And only about 77%
>> participate in their plan at all. But, this is getting off topic.
>>
>> >> But, the point is that, just as most people SHOULD be concerned about
>> >> something... some just aren't. You might not be concerned with
>> >> competing
>> >> with other women. But, you might find out the rather hard way that you
>> >> should have been. Unless you are with a man that you KNOW can't find
>> >> someone
>> >> else.
>> >
>> > A relationship with someone who is with you because he/she can't find
>> > someone else will never work.
>>
>> But, it will continue until they do.
>
> No way for me. I'd rather be alone.
Perhaps for you, but not for all. And, you ARE alone... right?
And, you ARE alone. Cause and effect. The part of a relationship that is the
hardest part is the part of trying to keep your partner happy while not
having to do too much that makes you unhappy. If you are both happy 100% of
the time, you aren't in a relationship. As a senator put it on the show Real
Time... if you both agree even 90% of the time... one of you is not needed
in the relationship.
>> >> In what ways do you compete that are not petty? And, is it
>> >> petty to compete in every way you can to keep your man? Do you value
>> >> your
>> >> relationship? If you do, then why would anything you can do to lessen
>> >> the
>> >> odds of him straying be "petty"?
>> >
>> > Read my above para. And about valuing a relationship, if we are in a
>> > serious relationship and he wants to leave, I won't stop. If I am
>> > married to him and he had the nerve to get into an affair, he's not
>> > worth it. That's just me. I am not going to live my life babaysitting
>> > him. ( Other marital issue, I will be willing to go for counselling. )
>> > But then, thsese fears are exactly the reason I don't risk it because I
>> > can't entertain the thought of my children becoming children of
>> > divorced parents. We all compromise our lives one way or another.
>>
>> Well, then you might want to be prepared to live alone. Get a few cats or
>> something. If you are not willing to keep yourself up to standards for a
>> man... not willing to show you desire to keep your man, then why should
>> he
>> want to be with out. Some other woman out there WILL show him she cares
>> about him and cares enough about him to work to keep him. And that's
>> where
>> he will be. With a woman willing to work to keep him.
>
> Well, she can have him because I want to use my time for other things
> too.
And she DOES have him. You ARE alone. If you are happy being alone, then
more power to you. So long as you understand and accept that you will remain
alone until you decide to work to not be alone. If you're happy being alone,
though... then what's your complaint?
>> And, you should expect a man that you are with to so that same deisre for
>> you. If he's not worth keeping.. why keep him?
>
> Eaxctly. That's why I let the last guy (Ma Ma's boy) go.
>>
>>[..]
>> >> Because men have egos. You don't have to ask him about it. You damn
>> >> well
>> >> better SHOW him you are aware of it, though. You better be showing him
>> >> that
>> >> you value him and want to keep him and that you can offer him more
>> >> than
>> >> the
>> >> other women he sees can.
>> >
>> > Well, he'd better show me that he values me and that wants to keep me
>> > and that he can offer me more than other men can offer.
>>
>> Exactly. So, why should it be a one-way street. If he's going to show
>> youthat he values you and desires you, then why wouldn't you do the same
>> for
>> him?
>> Not so petty, after all, is it?
>
> I never implied that I wouldn't work on relationship that I am assured
> that he values. But to base it strictly by comparing what other
> men/women can offer, like he/she has more money, she cooks everyday,
> etc. would be not something I would even entertain fighting for.
Then you'll be alone. It's not going to be about each individual thing. But,
about the package as a whole. If you are not a better package as a whole
than your man can get elsewhere.. then he will get the better package
elsewhere. The reverse is also true... if the guy you are with can not offer
you a better package than another man... you'll pick the better man.
>> >>Otherwise, what reason does he have to stay with
>> >> you? For that matter, if you don't value having him and don't care
>> >> enough
>> >> to
>> >> compete for him... why should he stay?
>> >
>> > It's a 2 way street, as far as I am concerned.
>>
>> That's not what you just said.
>> "If I am married to him and he had the nerve to get into an affair, he's
>> not
>> worth it. That's just me. I am not going to live my life babaysitting
>> him."
>
> Of course, he should know better to talk to me if he is not happy in
> the relationship than chasing other women. Either wasy, I would gladly
> let him go but he chose to talk to me and accept my suggesting for
> counselling, I would put effort to try to save it.
Who said he was chasing? Women chase too. It's not just you man's fault if
he strays. It's hers. And yours.
>> >> Or rather... INCLUDING the superficial attraction. The superficial
>> >> attraction is a part of the personality of a person.
>> >
>> > But w/o the other attractions, a relationship based on the superficial
>> > attraction won't last.
>>
>> Perhaps. Perhaps not. For some, superficial attraction might just be all
>> they need. But, I generally agree. My point is that there must be
>> superficial attraction to begin with and it has to remain in the
>> relationship throughout.
> And my point was that despite that superficial physical attarction, a
> decision to engage with the perosn is influenced by other
> factors/attraction.
Influenced by. But the primary influence is the "superficial" physical
attraction. Without it, there isn't attraction for anything other than a
plutonic relationship.
It's not a general expectation of JUST men. It's one women have too. If you
aren't doing what you shoudl to keep your partner happy, you are as much at
fault for infidelity as they are. And more than the other person is... after
all, they aren't married (at least to your partner).
> I have a lot of older siblings and from what I have seen, I do not like
> it though one of them is having a very loving relationshp with each
> other now (that after my sister finally got the nerve to shout back "
> Go for it" everytime he threatened divorce over nothing - it was
> childish bully act but still I didn't like it - and the other one,
> which I consider "good" becaue they are not fighting but I think that
> marraige is controlled by my sister while he had wanted to flirt with
> me (this was about 17 years ago when I satyed with them briefly) and
> I have no espect for that brother-in-law who had knwon me sinc eI was
> 4, to sit and watched my sister abusing me. And my oldest brother and
> his wife have been sleeping in separate bed for over 5 years while my
> oldest sister was too aggressive for any man. watching all of them, I
> know exactly what I would accept and what I wouldn't but I am learning
> as I get older that men are a lot of work and I am not sure it's worth
> that amount of work and time.
Well, more power to you. If you don't want men... try women. Or get a pet.
Whatever makes you happy. So long as you realize that whether it's a man or
a woman you have your relationship with... you WILL be in competion to keep
them. Like it or not. If you don't like the work that a relationship
requires... like I said before... buy a cat or two. Then you don't compete
with anything but the can opener for their affections.
>> > My only demand is that they think hard and decide all that (including
>> > if there is a problem, would they be wiliong to go cousnelling but
>> > affair is not an excuse) before messing up someone's else life.
>>
>> But, how can they know you have that demand unless you discuss it? How
>> can
>> they know you even care unless you are working to show you do?
>
> It is my belief that every couple get pre marital counselling before
> tieing (is it tying?) the knot and have the courage to walk away from
> each other if the facts are obvious that they are not compatible.
Tying. Many couples do get pre-marital counselling. In fact, I'm
Catholic... it's required to go through some pre-marriage workshop sessions
before getting married. Doesn't mean that the couple won't get married.
Heck, I almost did myself. To a women I knew wasn't very compatible with me.
Moreover, I think if we had gotten married, I likely would have stayed with
her longer than I did otherwise. I lived with her two years. Think I didn't
get to know her in that time frame? I did, to some degree. But even then I
was still learning about her. My parents were happily married for 30+
years... until my father passed away. And every day they were still learing
more about each other. And they were happily married... but compatible...
that might be pushing it.
If marriage was only about being compatible... almost no one would remain
married.
Not unnecessarily. You are underestimating the male desire for sex if you
think that. For that matter, you are underestmating the female desire too.
Remember above when I mentioned the married women with their
conversations... guess what their #1 complaint was... not enough sex. And
#2... he wants it all the time. (and yes, they really would be complaining
about both at the same time)
>>It's hardly impractical. It proves unequiviocbly
>> that there must be a sexual attraction in a non-platonic relationship in
>> order for the relationship to work. If there is an obvious lack of sexual
>> desire, then the relationship is going to fail... unless there is an
>> ulterior motive in having the relationship. Like a overriding desire for
>> the
>> other's money... or a desire to maintain security... or a desire to
>> simply
>> have someone else to be with.
>
>>Without sexual attraction, a relationship that is not plutonic-only will
>>fail.
>
> You gotta to admit that some people adjust to it and stay in it though
> I would hardly consider that relationship a working one.
Some. But it's rare and it's certainly not happy.
>> > While I do not deny that looks are imporatnt to guys, I repeat that I
>> > assure you that the guys I have been with would not go for
>> > supermodels.
>>
>> A duck.
>> Perhaps not.
> No, not a duck.
>
>> But, they will have a sexual desire for some kind of woman.
>> There are, indeed, men that find heavier set women to be attractive and
>> sexually appealing. In their case, a supermodel would not be able to
>> compete
>> with a heavier woman. A better looking heavier woman would then be the
>> goal
>> of such a man. He would be attracted to the most attractive woman he can
>> find. You will not be able to compete for his attention unless you are in
>> that catagory he finds as sexually desirable.
>
>> If you can not compete in a
>> sexually attractive manner for a man, you will not gain the attraction of
>> that man.
>
> I don't know what is "compete in a sexually attractive manner" because
> sex appeal is a built-in thing as afr as I notice. I don't act or do
> anything out of ordinary to attract a man.
Sex appeal is hardly a built-in thing. It's true that some of the aspects
are natural looks. But it's much more than that. And you might not do
anything out of the ordinary to attract a man... but that wouldn't mean you
aren't attracting them. Many women have a natural sex appeal to them.
Personally, I watch some women and consider that way they move and act to be
extremely sexually attractive. Whether they are trying to be such or not.
But, there are PLENTY of women's magazines that have TONS of advice on how
to be more attractive... how to talk, walk, dress, act, etc... to increase
sexual attraction. So, there is a great deal you can do and learn to
increase your ability to be more sexually attractive.
>> > I didn't say it is not but to use supermodel examples and say the rest
>> > of us get to choose from the rejects is just a stupid statement.
>>
>> You are picked from the rejects of some catagory,
>
> So are the super models.
True. And they know it too. Super models are VERY competative.
>>unless you are a 10 on the scale of attraciveness for that particular set.
> This is what I mean by "superficial". What the chnace of two people
> having exactly the same things except in looks?
With a workld population of roughly 5 BILLION... the odds are better than
average.
e men desire a woman that is skinny. You will not attact such a man
>> unless you are the epitome of skinny. Kate Moss will. You will have to
>> settle for the men Kate Moss rejects.
>> Some men desire a heavy set woman. You will not attact such a man unless
>> you
>> are the epitome of heavy. (I got no idea who would be attractive in the
>> heavy catagory... but)
>
> That's what I call it type or category.
>
>>You will have to settle for the men (whoever)
>> rejects.
>
> This is a very simplistic thinking because the possibility that there
> are people who are exactly the same in everything except one category
> such as skinny or heavy set is almost nil.
Harldy nil. In fact, the odds are rather high that people that have the same
basica physical appearance will also share several other qualities that are
similiar also. While there might be great variety in people... there are
also great similiarities as well. So yes, you WILL be competing against a
large segment of people.
Or you'll be alone.
>> The point being, the one you are ducking, you will not be able to attract
>> a
>> man that finds you physically unattractive. That's the very nature of
>> attraction. Attraction is attraction and if you are not attractive to
>> men,
>> then you will not attract men. So, if you are found to be physically
>> attractive to a man, then you will be competing against other women with
>> your same basic physical qualities.
>
>> And more attractive women of that same quality will attract men more
>> than you shall.
>
> Like I said, what's the chance of in finding 2 people with exactly the
> same in everything but look and attractivenss.
Heck, what's the odds of finding 2 people with (no, not EXACTLY) very
similiar qualaties INCLUDING looks and physical attractivness... pretty darn
high. With 5 billion people on the planet and most trying to fit in with all
the others.. the odds are very high indeed.
Siblings are more competitive than just about anyone else. All life is about
competition, though.
In sex/mating... business... etc...
>> > You are taking extreme of this look and appearnace. I never said that I
>> > can dress yucky and still get men. First of all, I don't like to dress
>> > yucky. And it is not for men that I dress nice. It is for myself
>> > first that I buy and dress.
>>
>> No. It is for your appearance to others that you dress. Otherwise, we'd
>> be
>> in a naked society.
>
> It is not simple. How about climateic affect determineing what we wear?
To a point... okay. Got me on a technicality. But, in a warm climate, we'd
be naked. In a colder climate, we'd wear whatever is warmest. Yet I see
women wearing skirts in the winter rather commonly.
Most men do run it like a chess game. It's a competition. They compete as if
it is. Both competing with the other person in their relationship AND
competing with other men outside it. If you honestly think that you can have
a relationship in which you will not be expected to keep yourself in better
shape than the women around you then you better be prepared to live alone.
Whether you realize it or not, you ARE in competition with other women in
your quest to find a male companion. If you decided to seek a female
companion.. then you will still be competing with other women. And possibly
other men, also.
Speeding
> Speeding wrote:
>> "the Danimal" <dmo...@mfm.com> wrote in message
>> news:1146228652.1...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>> > In contrast, a partner who is already old enough to begin
>> > losing her looks will only look worse in another ten
>> > years. But since her personality and habits were already
>> > "mature" to begin with, her increase in age is unlikely
>> > to make her more desirable on that basis.
>>
>> Agreed. As a woman ages, her personality is going to change also.
>> Menopause
>> can be an especially mood altering thing.
>
> I read somewhere that a large fraction of women lose most of
> their sexual desire after menopause.
But, doctors are working on that. I remember reading something about a
female version of Viagra that might help women regani smoe of their sexual
satisfaction and desire.
> Historically, this worked out OK for many of them because their
> aging husbands were simultaneously losing their ability to
> reliably maintain erections. Then along came recreational
> drugs such as Viagra, allowing their old geezer husbands to
> continue pestering them for sex. For an amusing take on this:
>
> http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2001-03-21-viagra-wives.htm
Well... it's going to be interesting. Personally... it'll be nice to know
that I can be 100 and still playing the game.
>> > Physical aging is also an accelerating process. That is, the
>> > rate of deterioration increases with each passing decade.
>>
>> For most. A few make me wonder. And, plastic surgery can do some amazing
>> things, too.
>
> Plastic surgery does not yet allow anyone who is 50 years old
> to pass for 20.
No. But it comes close. And some of the older women are being found to be
sexier now. Take a list of sexy women right now. Many of the women on the
100 FHM list are in their 30s. A few are nearing or passing 40.
> Eventually medical science may determine the causes of aging
> and cure them. But I don't expect to live to see this.
No, but I do expect that what was considered to be old when I was a kid...
60ish... will be almost midlife by the time I get there. (remember.
retirement age in 1945 was 62. Now, those folks are expected to live to at
least 85)
>> > This acceleration of physical deterioration means an
>> > older partner is changing faster than a younger partner.
>> > Therefore, a person who chooses an older partner had
>> > best be attracted to that partner on some basis other
>> > than the partner's appearance right now.
>>
>> Well. Yes. But they better be ready to learn how to deal with a new
>> personality too. With every ten years, the personality is going to shift
>> some too. And that also seems to change faster as the age increases.
>
> Actually I would say the rate of personality changes slows with
> aging, as people get progressively more set in their ways.
The personality traits that are annoying... yes. But, they get more
pronounced. That's the progression. Their personality traits tip farther and
faster to a certain personality. Their ways "set" faster as they get older.
> For example, would you expect the 70-something Fundamentalist
> preacher Jerry Falwell to switch to some other belief system?
> At this point, that would be very unlikely. Most people who drastically
> revise their belief systems do so at relatively young ages. Typically
> before the age of 40. While their brains can still conceive of
> something else.
No. I would, though, expect his beliefs to get more and more set and more
extreme as he gets older. in fact, it's doing just that. He's moving to an
extreme faster with each year. That's the acceleration I'm talking about.
> Would you expect Osama bin Laden to convert to, say, atheism
> or Buddhism at this point?
no, I would expect him to become even more radical, nearly insanely so (if
it's not there already)... if it's possible.
> Most ideological movements recruit most heavily among the
> young. That's where the malleable brains are.
But the extremists are the older ones. They get more extreme as they age.
> Tobacco companies were long accused of targeting their
> advertisements at young people. Whether that is true or not,
> the fact remains that most people who smoke started as
> teenagers. Getting past age 21 or so without a smoking
> habit makes a person very unlikely to pick up the habit
> later in life.
Exactly. It's not changing personality... its the extremes that get set
faster as they age.
> -- the Danimal
>
Mxsmanic
> But, doctors are working on that. I remember reading something about a
> female version of Viagra that might help women regani smoe of their sexual
> satisfaction and desire.
Why would anyone want to regain sexual desire? That's like wanting to
regain the desire to smoke ten packs of cigarettes a day.
Speeding
"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:42ea52h9lbe7kdh6l...@4ax.com...
Because sex is a LOT more fun than smoking.
yamuna
Speeding wrote:
>
> Sex appeal is hardly a built-in thing. It's true that some of the aspects
> are natural looks. But it's much more than that. And you might not do
> anything out of the ordinary to attract a man... but that wouldn't mean you
> aren't attracting them. Many women have a natural sex appeal to them.
> Personally, I watch some women and consider that way they move and act to be
> extremely sexually attractive.
C'mon. People move based on how their body frame is built.
> Whether they are trying to be such or not.
Yeah, see above.
> But, there are PLENTY of women's magazines that have TONS of advice on how
> to be more attractive...
Gee, if their magzines are correct with their info, we won't need asl
news group.
> how to talk, walk, dress, act, etc... to increase
> sexual attraction. So, there is a great deal you can do and learn to
> increase your ability to be more sexually attractive.
Yes, one can do and learn to increase the appeal but that's not waht we
were talking about. You were saying women do certain things and acts
with intention to attract men and I am saying that not all of us do.
Sex appeal is mostly a built-in thing.
>
> >> > I didn't say it is not but to use supermodel examples and say the rest
> >> > of us get to choose from the rejects is just a stupid statement.
> >>
> >> You are picked from the rejects of some catagory,
> >
> > So are the super models.
>
> True. And they know it too. Super models are VERY competative.
In my previous response "So are the super models.", I meant super
models get to choose from some rejects too.
>
> >>unless you are a 10 on the scale of attraciveness for that particular set.
> > This is what I mean by "superficial". What the chnace of two people
> > having exactly the same things except in looks?
>
> With a workld population of roughly 5 BILLION... the odds are better than
> average.
If your goal is just to win the conversation, of course, your statement
is valid but I am talking about a guy having access to 2 women who
differs only in looks and get to compare them.
> Siblings are more competitive than just about anyone else. All life is about
> competition, though.
I have seen sisters so loving and not petty that way. When a sister 15
years older than you and 10 years oldern than you competet that way
with you, it's not siblng rivalry. They must have some serious
psychological issues.
> >
> > It is not simple. How about climateic affect determineing what we wear?
>
> To a point... okay. Got me on a technicality.
Not technicality. It's one of the many facts.
> But, in a warm climate, we'd be naked.
Nope, in the Arabian desert, they wear long white gown, until modern
time.
> In a colder climate, we'd wear whatever is warmest.
> Yet I see women wearing skirts in the winter rather commonly.
That really puzzles me too.
I am one of the women who wear for comforts. No skirts in winter for
me.
[..]
> Most men do run it like a chess game. It's a competition. They compete as if
> it is. Both competing with the other person in their relationship AND
> competing with other men outside it. If you honestly think that you can have
> a relationship in which you will not be expected to keep yourself in better
> shape than the women around you then you better be prepared to live alone.
First of all, I will keep myself in shape because even a little weight
gain makes me feel very uncomfortable. May be that's why I never
understood that we women *must* keep in shape for men.
> Whether you realize it or not, you ARE in competition with other women in
> your quest to find a male companion. If you decided to seek a female
> companion.. then you will still be competing with other women. And possibly
> other men, also.
But this competiiton you refer to is not as competitive as you sound
because like I said, to access 2 people who differs only in one factor
be it apperance or not is quite rare.
Now, to answer you acusation:
> so, pick just one...
> #1: You decide to have sex with him.
> #2: You did not want to have sex with him, but did so to please him.
> #3: You had sex with him to get to know him better
What I said was that I had sex with him only after I decided that I
would but time-wise, it's before I really wanted to (out of just
wanting to get to know him by just talking and not because I wasn't
secually ready) because I couldn't say "no" and turn him away. I fele
that to reject him like that would be kind of cruel when he is all
aroused.
>> The point was that other things aside from sexual attraction always
>> subconscious affects the decision to engage in seuxal activity with
>> someone.
> Maybe for some people, but not for everyone.
Not may be and yes, for me.
> The point still stands...
> you're not very likely to have sex with someone you are not physically
> attracted to.
That, I never argued.
>And, you're not very likely to wait a signifigantly long time to get to know them on a
> deep level first
That happens only because I gave into the man, the man that ia lready
did decide do have sex with.
yamuna
past, when I tried that via online a little bit, people shunned away
when I tell them I only want friendship. Today, I decided to try
locally putting my ad under strictly platonic section. Got 4 responses
from men including one that's way out of my required age range. He
looked like he's under 30. Yes he sent pic even though I didn't ask in
my ad and also mentioned my age. Very clean cut guy. He said he is
looking for someone with everything I stated about me except our age
requirement doesn't match He asked me whether inknow anyone like me
and to let him know. May be he expected me to send his pics to someone
(my clone)?
Another might also be out of my requirement to be at least 37 since he
said he is close to 40 instead of being clear what age.
I'll let you know whether his so called platonic will really happen or
whether thy would want more. Consider it your experiement with me as a
volunteer. BTW, in my ad, I made it clear that if he/she is married,
he/she wouldn't not seek this friendhsip w/o the spouse's knowledge. My
other requirements include to be perfect gentleman and gentlewoman,
intelligent, not arrogant but be proud of yourself, kind, not petty,
not judgemental.
the Danimal
> the Danimal writes:
>
> > I read somewhere that a large fraction of women lose most of
> > their sexual desire after menopause.
>
> About a third, IIRC.
>
> > Historically, this worked out OK for many of them because their
> > aging husbands were simultaneously losing their ability to
> > reliably maintain erections. Then along came recreational
> > drugs such as Viagra, allowing their old geezer husbands to
> > continue pestering them for sex.
>
> A lot of men have lost interest in sex by that age, too.
Perhaps, but read the article I cited. The success of
recreational drugs such as Viagra (cleverly sold as
prescription drugs) suggests that millions of older men
naturally lose their ability to have sex before they lose their
desire.
Of course, given that the average age difference in relationships
is something like 2 years, most older men must settle for
sex with older women, creating a double whammy: the man's
sex drive is declining even as his partner's sexual attractiveness
is also declining.
The net effect is that old adults don't have as much sex as
young adults, on average.
-- the Danimal
the Danimal
> "the Danimal" <dmo...@mfm.com> wrote in message
> news:1146414981.2...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > Speeding wrote:
> >> "the Danimal" <dmo...@mfm.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1146228652.1...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> >> > In contrast, a partner who is already old enough to begin
> >> > losing her looks will only look worse in another ten
> >> > years. But since her personality and habits were already
> >> > "mature" to begin with, her increase in age is unlikely
> >> > to make her more desirable on that basis.
> >>
> >> Agreed. As a woman ages, her personality is going to change also.
> >> Menopause
> >> can be an especially mood altering thing.
> >
> > I read somewhere that a large fraction of women lose most of
> > their sexual desire after menopause.
>
> But, doctors are working on that. I remember reading something about a
> female version of Viagra that might help women regani smoe of their sexual
> satisfaction and desire.
I don't understand why, if someone doesn't want sex, they
would want to want to have sex.
Personally, if I could stop wanting sex, I would feel a great
sense of relief. I can't imagine why I would do anything to
bring the nuisance back. Although I suppose someone who
had a long-term relationship partner to keep happy might
perceive not wanting sex to be a problem.
When will doctors make a drug that causes men to enjoy
doing the chores around the house that their wives request?
> > Historically, this worked out OK for many of them because their
> > aging husbands were simultaneously losing their ability to
> > reliably maintain erections. Then along came recreational
> > drugs such as Viagra, allowing their old geezer husbands to
> > continue pestering them for sex. For an amusing take on this:
> >
> > http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2001-03-21-viagra-wives.htm
>
> Well... it's going to be interesting. Personally... it'll be nice to know
> that I can be 100 and still playing the game.
But with what? When you are 100, you aren't likely to be playing
the game with 20-year-old women.
How much Viagra would you need right now to have sex with
a 100-year-old woman?
> >> > Physical aging is also an accelerating process. That is, the
> >> > rate of deterioration increases with each passing decade.
> >>
> >> For most. A few make me wonder. And, plastic surgery can do some amazing
> >> things, too.
> >
> > Plastic surgery does not yet allow anyone who is 50 years old
> > to pass for 20.
>
> No. But it comes close.
If that were true, you should be seeing some 50-year-old
women who pass for 20. I never have. Put any 50-year-old
woman in with a group of 20-year-old women, and anybody
who gets a good look at them will spot the older woman.
Recently I met a woman who is 40 and I was surprised
to learn she is that old. She could have claimed early 30's
and fooled me. But that's different than the 30-year gap I
mentioned above.
> And some of the older women are being found to be
> sexier now. Take a list of sexy women right now. Many of the women on the
> 100 FHM list are in their 30s. A few are nearing or passing 40.
Check the list again in 10 years. At least 90 of the 100 women
will be new. Which is to say a lot of the older women on the
FHM list are in the last stages of their careers. It's almost like
a Hall of Fame list.
The FHM list does not account solely for attractiveness. Most
of the somewhat older women currently on the list looked better when
they were in their early 20's. Instead, the list accounts for who is
"hot"
in the sense of being commercially popular right now. A beautiful woman
who works in the entertainment industry has a window of time in
which she can become a hit. She may need to plug away for
years to separate herself from the crowd, get into some good
acting roles, or find the right music producer if that's her thing,
build up a following, and become recognized. However, at the
time she is advancing her career based partly on her looks, her
looks are gradually fading. At some point she will probably
"hit the wall" and either sink into Stygian obscurity or get
into one of the limited niches for "character" acting or whatever.
An example is Lena Olin, who did her share of hottie roles
when she was young, and now she plays some mommy roles.
Most Hollywood actress types report that their careers largely
dry up somewhere around or before they hit 40. A few manage
to keep going, but not many; not when there are so many
fresh-faced 20-somethings with equal talent constantly trying to
break in (or sleep in) to the industry.
The same thing goes for pop starlets. And supermodels. Etc.
A small percentage can keep going after 40, but only a very
small percentage.
It's almost exactly the same as male athletes in most of the
major pro sports. A few football and baseball players can
keep going into their 40's, but they don't have much in the
way of future upside. In the NFL, the average career is
less than 4 years. The average team keeps drafting
7-10 new young players every year, so the veterans have
to keep outperforming progressively younger players,
who are in endless supply.
That's about how Hollywood works. The average actress
is a pretty young woman. She gets a few roles, perhaps
playing the girlfriend of some older male stars, and then
she fades from view, even before she loses her looks
in many cases.
Compare a list of the top 100 Hollywood actresses from
1986, 1996, and 2006. There is a very high turnover per decade.
Even for male actors it is similar. Guys like Clint Eastwood,
who can keep starring in successful films for decades, are the
exception. To keep working, he had to change the way he acts,
to account for the drastic change in how he looks. He cannot
get away with acting the way he did when he was younger.
He can't go swaggering into saloons waving his sixguns and
getting all the girls.
> > Eventually medical science may determine the causes of aging
> > and cure them. But I don't expect to live to see this.
>
> No, but I do expect that what was considered to be old when I was a kid...
> 60ish... will be almost midlife by the time I get there. (remember.
> retirement age in 1945 was 62. Now, those folks are expected to live to at
> least 85)
Sure, but there has been no change in the rate of aging. People
are living longer only because many of the diseases and accidents
that killed people at younger ages are treatable or preventable now.
Those causes of death weren't strictly related to aging.
> >> > This acceleration of physical deterioration means an
> >> > older partner is changing faster than a younger partner.
> >> > Therefore, a person who chooses an older partner had
> >> > best be attracted to that partner on some basis other
> >> > than the partner's appearance right now.
> >>
> >> Well. Yes. But they better be ready to learn how to deal with a new
> >> personality too. With every ten years, the personality is going to shift
> >> some too. And that also seems to change faster as the age increases.
> >
> > Actually I would say the rate of personality changes slows with
> > aging, as people get progressively more set in their ways.
>
> The personality traits that are annoying... yes. But, they get more
> pronounced. That's the progression. Their personality traits tip farther and
> faster to a certain personality. Their ways "set" faster as they get older.
I would say the rate of personality change keeps slowing down
until dementia sets in. Then it accelerates again, but the "change"
at that point is more in the way of loss.
> > For example, would you expect the 70-something Fundamentalist
> > preacher Jerry Falwell to switch to some other belief system?
> > At this point, that would be very unlikely. Most people who drastically
> > revise their belief systems do so at relatively young ages. Typically
> > before the age of 40. While their brains can still conceive of
> > something else.
>
> No. I would, though, expect his beliefs to get more and more set and more
> extreme as he gets older. in fact, it's doing just that. He's moving to an
> extreme faster with each year. That's the acceleration I'm talking about.
I would like to see some example indicating any hardening of
Jerry Falwell's views in recent years. I'm not saying it hasn't
happened, just that I'm not aware of it.
John McCain, who campaigned negatively against Jerry Falwell
a few years ago, will be giving the commencement address at
Falwell's Liberty University this year.
> > Would you expect Osama bin Laden to convert to, say, atheism
> > or Buddhism at this point?
>
> no, I would expect him to become even more radical, nearly insanely so (if
> it's not there already)... if it's possible.
How can Osama bin Laden get any more extreme?
> > Most ideological movements recruit most heavily among the
> > young. That's where the malleable brains are.
>
> But the extremists are the older ones. They get more extreme as they age.
Well now. Among Islamic Fundamentalists, the suicide
bombers are virtually all young adults (mostly men).
You don't see the old geezers strapping on explosives.
Perhaps the promise of 72 virgins in the afterlife no
longer seems worth dying for.
I would say the young guy who blows himself up is more
extreme than the old men who talk him into it.
The same thing seems to be true for Fundamentalist
Christian terrorists. The guys who blow up abortion
clinics are generally not elderly.
Who do you think is more extreme? The old guy who
incites, or the young man of action who straps it on?
> > Tobacco companies were long accused of targeting their
> > advertisements at young people. Whether that is true or not,
> > the fact remains that most people who smoke started as
> > teenagers. Getting past age 21 or so without a smoking
> > habit makes a person very unlikely to pick up the habit
> > later in life.
>
> Exactly. It's not changing personality... its the extremes that get set
> faster as they age.
I don't follow you. People who smoke for 30 years are not
smoking a lot more at the end. It typically stays at the
same two-packs-per-day rate for decades.
-- the Danimal
yamuna
Out of 4, the youngest one is 38 and his email indicates that he is
looking for a serious relationshop.
I decided to talk to a one of the two 42 years olds who said he likes
to ride bikes by the river and in the mountains (which I am interested
in doing if I have someone to do it with )and this is what he said:
after 1 year of search for someone to have a relationship, he decided
to just make some friends but if he won't keep quiet if he finds out
that he likes me.
Even though I didn't make a bet with you on my claim that it is not
easy to have a strictly platonic relationship with a man (man always
wants either more than friendship or nothing with me) , I am pretty
sure that if I did, I would win.
I am hoping that if we becomes firnds, at least I get to ride bikes by
the river and in the mountain with him and get to know the city. I
won't let him this friendship go beyond friendship but of course,
technically I won't say "never". If you ask why, I will tell you in
email in case he is reading here which I doubt he is.
All I really want was to have friends to go to movies with and may be
eat out, cook my stiry fry, or BBQ if he is good at it.
yamuna
yamuna
the Danimal
Well, that's probably true for gay sex as well. Would
you take a drug that gave you a strong desire for gay sex?
-- the Danimal
yamuna
The 28 year old replied that maybe I'll be into younger man some day.
He obviouly wanted to meet me to check out for more than friendship.
Too bad that he is damn good looking.
yamuna
yamuna wrote:
> Out of 4, the youngest one is 38
28.
Speeding
>
> Speeding wrote:
>
>>
>> Sex appeal is hardly a built-in thing. It's true that some of the aspects
>> are natural looks. But it's much more than that. And you might not do
>> anything out of the ordinary to attract a man... but that wouldn't mean
>> you
>> aren't attracting them. Many women have a natural sex appeal to them.
>> Personally, I watch some women and consider that way they move and act to
>> be
>> extremely sexually attractive.
>
> C'mon. People move based on how their body frame is built.
And? They move based on how their frame is built, but they also move in a
manner that can either increase or decrease sexual attractiveness.
>> Whether they are trying to be such or not.
>
> Yeah, see above.
>
>> But, there are PLENTY of women's magazines that have TONS of advice on
>> how
>> to be more attractive...
>
> Gee, if their magzines are correct with their info, we won't need asl
> news group.
And most all of the people on here are guys. Because women don't need to
learn seduction techniques from a newsgroup. They get it from watching and
talking with other women and because it's in all the magazines. There aren't
many men's magazines that give a ton of advice on how to seduce women.
>> how to talk, walk, dress, act, etc... to increase
>> sexual attraction. So, there is a great deal you can do and learn to
>> increase your ability to be more sexually attractive.
>
> Yes, one can do and learn to increase the appeal but that's not waht we
> were talking about. You were saying women do certain things and acts
> with intention to attract men and I am saying that not all of us do.
> Sex appeal is mostly a built-in thing.
No. I said "there is a great deal you can do and learn to increase your
ability to be more sexually attractive."
I also said "Sex appeal is hardly a built-in thing. "
You said "I am saying that not all of us do. Sex appeal is mostly a built-in
thing."
Come on, it's all right here in this very post. By "not all of us" you are
mostly refering toyourself. Because the vast majority of women do what they
can to be more attractive to men. The ones that do not are doing what they
can to attract other women. Very few people are not trying to attract anyone
at all. The deisre to reproduce and/or to attract a mate is a very basic
desire.
>> >> > I didn't say it is not but to use supermodel examples and say the
>> >> > rest
>> >> > of us get to choose from the rejects is just a stupid statement.
>> >>
>> >> You are picked from the rejects of some catagory,
>> >
>> > So are the super models.
>>
>> True. And they know it too. Super models are VERY competative.
>
> In my previous response "So are the super models.", I meant super
> models get to choose from some rejects too.
That makes no sense. If a supermodel picks someone, then they are not
"picking from rejects". The act of picking means the picked is not a reject,
but a picked. You make no sense here.
>> >>unless you are a 10 on the scale of attraciveness for that particular
>> >>set.
>> > This is what I mean by "superficial". What the chnace of two people
>> > having exactly the same things except in looks?
>>
>> With a world population of roughly 5 BILLION... the odds are better than
>> average.
>
> If your goal is just to win the conversation, of course, your statement
> is valid but I am talking about a guy having access to 2 women who
> differs only in looks and get to compare them.
You are making no sense here either. You asked what the chances are of two
people having the same non-physical qualities would be. I said it would be
rather high. It doesn't matter if the guy is trying to engage them in sex,
conversation, or is just looking at them... the odds that two people of
roughly the same physical qualities would share similiar non-physical
qualities is quite high in a world filled with 5 billion souls.
>> Siblings are more competitive than just about anyone else. All life is
>> about
>> competition, though.
>
> I have seen sisters so loving and not petty that way. When a sister 15
> years older than you and 10 years oldern than you competet that way
> with you, it's not siblng rivalry. They must have some serious
> psychological issues.
Hardly. You have seen sisters that APPEAR to be loving. And perhaps they
are. But they are competing. Like it or not, life is competion. And 10 to 15
years difference in age or not, they are STILL competing. It would be the
sign of a serious psychological issue to assume they are not.
>> > It is not simple. How about climateic affect determineing what we wear?
>>
>> To a point... okay. Got me on a technicality.
>
> Not technicality. It's one of the many facts.
Technicality. If it wasn't freezing cold of blistering hot, they'd be naked,
if also not for a desire to appear modest but sexually attractive at the
same time.
And, this is a non-point... you are ducking the topic. Again.
>> But, in a warm climate, we'd be naked.
>
> Nope, in the Arabian desert, they wear long white gown, until modern time.
But only for the reason I just stated.
>> In a colder climate, we'd wear whatever is warmest.
>
>> Yet I see women wearing skirts in the winter rather commonly.
>
> That really puzzles me too.
Why? It puzzles you that women want to appear attractive. I understand that
it puzzles you. You don't care to be attractive, or so you say. So, if that
be true, then it's understandable that you would not understand normal human
behavior, not participating in normal human behavior.
> I am one of the women who wear for comforts. No skirts in winter for me.
As noted above.
>> Most men do run it like a chess game. It's a competition. They compete as
>> if
>> it is. Both competing with the other person in their relationship AND
>> competing with other men outside it. If you honestly think that you can
>> have
>> a relationship in which you will not be expected to keep yourself in
>> better
>> shape than the women around you then you better be prepared to live
>> alone.
>
> First of all, I will keep myself in shape because even a little weight
> gain makes me feel very uncomfortable. May be that's why I never
> understood that we women *must* keep in shape for men.
It's not a "must". It's only a must if you wish to attract the type of man
that is attracted to women in shape.
>> Whether you realize it or not, you ARE in competition with other women in
>> your quest to find a male companion. If you decided to seek a female
>> companion.. then you will still be competing with other women. And
>> possibly
>> other men, also.
>
> But this competiiton you refer to is not as competitive as you sound
> because like I said, to access 2 people who differs only in one factor
> be it apperance or not is quite rare.
It is not rare at all. And it is VERY competitive, whether you like it or
believe it. Just look at a magazine stand anywhere that magazines are sold.
If there are 20 women's magazines.... ALL TWENTY will have some tips abnout
how to be better looking, more attractive, better at sex, etc... If there at
20 men's magainzes, at least half will discuss tips on how to be better
looking, more attractive, better at sex, etc... The other half will at least
include photos of nearly naked (as naked as they can get away with) women.
> Now, to answer you acusation:
Not accusation... just question. And it would be nice if you do...
>> so, pick just one...
>> #1: You decide to have sex with him.
>> #2: You did not want to have sex with him, but did so to please him.
>> #3: You had sex with him to get to know him better
>
> What I said was that I had sex with him only after I decided that I
> would but time-wise, it's before I really wanted to (out of just
> wanting to get to know him by just talking and not because I wasn't
> secually ready) because I couldn't say "no" and turn him away. I fele
> that to reject him like that would be kind of cruel when he is all
> aroused.
No. I quoted what you said. That you cut it doesn't change that you said it.
I put the quote up.
So, what is your answer? #1, #2, or #3? You are trying to pick all three.
Pick one, please.
>>> The point was that other things aside from sexual attraction always
>>> subconscious affects the decision to engage in seuxal activity with
>>> someone.
>
>> Maybe for some people, but not for everyone.
>
> Not may be and yes, for me.
>
>> The point still stands...
>> you're not very likely to have sex with someone you are not physically
>> attracted to.
> That, I never argued.
But you were just saying a few posts back that having sex with someon
because of physical attraction is superficial. You need to do a better job
of keeping track of what you are saying. You're changing your story faster
than you can post it. How can you expect advice if you keep changing the
story?
>>And, you're not very likely to wait a signifigantly long time to get to
>>know them on a
>> deep level first
>
> That happens only because I gave into the man, the man that ia lready
> did decide do have sex with.
See what I mean. You are contradicting yourself in just a single
sentence....
I had sex because I wanted to, but I gave in to him when I didn't want to.
Which is it??
You wanted to have sex.
You had sex because you gave in to a desire to please his desire.
Pick one, please. Stop trying to pick every story your told. Stop trying to
justify your decisions after the fact. If all you are looking to do is
justify your decisions... then why ask about it? Why not just say that you
make a decision you did not want to make and are now sorry for making a
decision you didn't want to make.
Speeding
> Guess what? You said I can develop friendship with anyone. In the
> past, when I tried that via online a little bit, people shunned away
> when I tell them I only want friendship. Today, I decided to try
> locally putting my ad under strictly platonic section. Got 4 responses
> from men including one that's way out of my required age range. He
> looked like he's under 30. Yes he sent pic even though I didn't ask in
> my ad and also mentioned my age. Very clean cut guy. He said he is
> looking for someone with everything I stated about me except our age
> requirement doesn't match He asked me whether inknow anyone like me
> and to let him know. May be he expected me to send his pics to someone
> (my clone)?
Online is not real life. But.. anyways... before you start a new tangent...
4 men. And how many women? What kind of site are you going to to meet new
people? A dating site?
Age range? You have an age range for friendship? Damn... THAT'S really
superficial.
> Another might also be out of my requirement to be at least 37 since he
> said he is close to 40 instead of being clear what age.
>
> I'll let you know whether his so called platonic will really happen or
> whether thy would want more. Consider it your experiement with me as a
> volunteer. BTW, in my ad, I made it clear that if he/she is married,
> he/she wouldn't not seek this friendhsip w/o the spouse's knowledge. My
> other requirements include to be perfect gentleman and gentlewoman,
> intelligent, not arrogant but be proud of yourself, kind, not petty,
> not judgemental.
Why would you require a friend to tell their spouse about you? It sounds
like you are posting on a dating site. If so... then DUH!!! what would you
expect other than men looking to date a woman? You have a lot of
requirements for someone that is going to be your online friend. If you are
this demanding of your friends online... then how demanding are you with
real live people? Do you require a questionnaire be filled out? Application
To Be My Friend?
Get real.
Speeding
>
>
> Out of 4, the youngest one is 38 and his email indicates that he is
> looking for a serious relationshop.
Well, then he's not looking to be friends, is he.
> I decided to talk to a one of the two 42 years olds who said he likes
> to ride bikes by the river and in the mountains (which I am interested
> in doing if I have someone to do it with )and this is what he said:
> after 1 year of search for someone to have a relationship, he decided
> to just make some friends but if he won't keep quiet if he finds out
> that he likes me.
So, he's searching for a relationship.
> Even though I didn't make a bet with you on my claim that it is not
> easy to have a strictly platonic relationship with a man (man always
> wants either more than friendship or nothing with me) , I am pretty
> sure that if I did, I would win.
I don't doubt that you would "win". I doubt you would really try at all. If
you are posintg online ads to dating sites, then you should not be surprised
to find men that desire to date. Trying to find men that want to just be
friends with a woman on a dating site is like trying to fish in the desert.
If you want to find a man that wants a platonic only relationship... here's
a SUREFIRE place you can meet men that will have almost no sexual desires
for you, but be more than happy to be your friend...
Monestaries. Monks take a vow of celebacy. They'll certainly be a friend
without a desire to have more.
When you try to claim you can't find friends that are wanting to be platonic
only.. you can certainly lie to yourself. But if you are going to lie to
others as well... you might want to get a better cover story.
> I am hoping that if we becomes firnds, at least I get to ride bikes by
> the river and in the mountain with him and get to know the city. I
> won't let him this friendship go beyond friendship but of course,
> technically I won't say "never". If you ask why, I will tell you in
> email in case he is reading here which I doubt he is.
You're dreaming. And it's a strange dream at that. No man visits a dating
website hoping to meet a woman to "just be friends" with. Most ment don't
visit ANY website that involves women except in the hopes of having sexual
encounters.
> All I really want was to have friends to go to movies with and may be
> eat out, cook my stiry fry, or BBQ if he is good at it.
Then join a cooking club. Join a movie of the month club. There are men that
would be more than happy to share their hobby or interest with and many
others. But you ain't gonna find them online.
Speeding
>
>
> The 28 year old replied that maybe I'll be into younger man some day.
> He obviouly wanted to meet me to check out for more than friendship.
> Too bad that he is damn good looking.
And that you place such a value on something as superficial as age? Weren't
you the one saying age isn't important... and I pointed out the case of Anna
Nicole Smith? I do believe it was.
the Danimal
> Speeding wrote:
> > Sex appeal is hardly a built-in thing. It's true that some of the aspects
> > are natural looks. But it's much more than that.
What can Janet Reno do to have as much sex appeal as
Jessica Alba?
> > And you might not do
> > anything out of the ordinary to attract a man... but that wouldn't mean you
> > aren't attracting them. Many women have a natural sex appeal to them.
> > Personally, I watch some women and consider that way they move and act to be
> > extremely sexually attractive.
>
> C'mon. People move based on how their body frame is built.
That's one factor. Then there are spasmodic people with
normal builds and abnormal movements. Thus it's also
about how their brains and nervous systems coordinate
their muscles to generate movement.
> > Whether they are trying to be such or not.
>
> Yeah, see above.
>
> > But, there are PLENTY of women's magazines that have TONS of advice on how
> > to be more attractive...
>
> Gee, if their magzines are correct with their info, we won't need asl
> news group.
The purpose of such magazines is to sell products. To sell
products, you must first make the customer perceive a need
for something. For example, you could make the customer
to feel insecure.
In any case, women's magazines have done virtually nothing
to level the playing field. They might make women somewhat
more attractive across the board, but the women who are
naturally the most attractive are still the most attractive, and
by just as large a margin as ever. If anything, the Heidi Klums
of the world who have virtually flawless looks can make a lot
more money by marketing their looks than they could have
made 100 or 200 years ago.
It's like the way if all athletes in a sport take
performance-enhancing drugs, they all may get
stronger, but the top guys are still the top guys.
It's possible an entire sport can collectively benefit
from drugs, for example if there is an increase in
some aspect of play that fans like, such as home
runs. (It may be that steroids help the hitters more
than the pitchers, but why that would be I don't
know. Maybe the mechanics of pitching limit the
speed of a thrown ball, and getting stronger does
not help the pitcher to throw much faster. Whereas
a bat swing allows more efficient coupling to the
muscles, so a stronger batter can put more energy
into the swing while retaining control.)
> > how to talk, walk, dress, act, etc... to increase
> > sexual attraction. So, there is a great deal you can do and learn to
> > increase your ability to be more sexually attractive.
If a woman is obese, nothing can improve her looks more
than if she learns to eat less. In fact, all other accoutrements
and so on are likely to have a negligible effect on her
attractiveness if her weight stays the same.
It's hard to sell self-discipline as a product, because it
doesn't require buying anything.
> Yes, one can do and learn to increase the appeal but that's not waht we
> were talking about. You were saying women do certain things and acts
> with intention to attract men and I am saying that not all of us do.
> Sex appeal is mostly a built-in thing.
Actually I would say that most of what women do to attract
men is unintentional. Women feel direct instinctive urges
to decorate themselves, even if they make no conscious
association for attracting men.
It's similar to the way men feel automatic, instinctive urges
to compete with other men. When men feel they
have to beat other men in some trivial irrelevant competition,
it's not because they consciously believe this will make them
more attractive to women. But a man who wins the big
meaningful competitions against large numbers of men will
certainly be rewarded with his choice of women.
In other words, the average woman feels instinctive urges
to check and enhance her appearance, as if she were Halle
Berry or some other great beauty whose appearance is
a matter of great importance.
Similarly, the average man wants to win pointless competitions
with his obscure male peers as if he is Peyton Manning trying
to get to the Super Bowl. For example, when I am on a bike
ride with some friends, and someone challenges me on
a hill climb, I will endure considerable pain to match or exceed his
pace to the top, as long as the contest is close enough that
I have a shot. It is pointless, but in a way it is fun. It is very
difficult for me to let someone ride away when I have the ability
to keep up, even if keeping up is painful.
In both cases, the instinctive behavior is there to ultimately
increase our mating opportunities with the opposite sex, even
if we aren't consciously aware of why we are doing it.
A woman automatically cares about her appearance, and
a man automatically cares about competing, even if we
don't consciously know why we care. We care because
ultimately that's what the opposite sex wants in a mate.
Men want women who keep up their looks, and women
want men who can kick other men's butts and hog
the resources.
> > >> > I didn't say it is not but to use supermodel examples and say the rest
> > >> > of us get to choose from the rejects is just a stupid statement.
> > >>
> > >> You are picked from the rejects of some catagory,
> > >
> > > So are the super models.
> >
> > True. And they know it too. Super models are VERY competative.
>
> In my previous response "So are the super models.", I meant super
> models get to choose from some rejects too.
Maybe, but not in the ordinary sense of the word "rejects."
For example, consider Heidi Klum. She married that Seal dude,
the popular singer.
Now, maybe Seal got rejected by some other woman. In a sense
that makes him a "reject." But I don't think Seal has been generally
rejected by some entire class of women. In other words, Heidi Klum
chose a man who is probably attractive to lots of other women---
not a "reject" who has the least trouble getting a date.
Nobody is attractive to everybody. But a supermodel like
Heidi Klum, at the height of her physical attractiveness (i.e.,
while she is a young adult), could probably seduce at
least 95% of straight men regardless of their present
relationship status, if she had the time, opportunity, and
the motive.
For example, if a happily married man happens to "run into"
Heidi Klum every day under "innocent" circumstances, and
she takes an interest in him, the odds are very high that
he finds Heidi Klum to be much more attractive than his
wife, and he's probably a goner if Heidi is determined to
do him.
The reason this isn't generally understood by women is
that there are very few women as attractive as Heidi Klum,
and they don't go around trying to wreck average homes.
So it's easy for the average woman to imagine her average
man isn't sleeping with Heidi Klum because he doesn't
want to and wouldn't want to.
That's sort of like concluding the illegal immigrant doing
your dirty work for low pay is there because he likes it.
If he won the lottery, he'd be gone as soon as he could
cash the ticket.
The world remains somewhat stable and functional, however,
because most of the power relationships are relatively fixed.
In other words, everyone has his or her place in the hierarchy,
and most people accept their place. The man who has no
shot at a Heidi Klum pretty much comes to terms with it,
and forgets about doing better. Similarly, most people are
not billionaires, but we don't lose much sleep over it.
> > >>unless you are a 10 on the scale of attraciveness for that particular set.
> > > This is what I mean by "superficial". What the chnace of two people
> > > having exactly the same things except in looks?
> >
> > With a workld population of roughly 5 BILLION... the odds are better than
> > average.
>
> If your goal is just to win the conversation, of course, your statement
> is valid but I am talking about a guy having access to 2 women who
> differs only in looks and get to compare them.
Well, it's hard to find an actual case in which two women both
want the same guy and they only differ in looks. In fact, it's
probably impossible.
But it would be relatively simple to find two women who have
different personality traits but they seem comparable to the
man.
For example, each woman could have some different annoying
habits, but the man finds them similarly annoying and has
no clear preference. In that case, he will choose the woman
he finds more physically attractive.
For example, woman A might dislike a man's favorite hobby,
while agreeing with his religion. Woman B might disagree with
his religion, and like his hobby. Which woman is better? Each
one might present a comparable problem to be negotiated,
but the problems would be different.
There are some couples who disagree over a hobby, and
some who disagree over a religion. Each difference can be
worked out if the physical attraction is there. Or any sort of
difference might kill the relationship, if the partners take
hard positions and refuse to compromise.
> > Siblings are more competitive than just about anyone else. All life is about
> > competition, though.
>
> I have seen sisters so loving and not petty that way. When a sister 15
> years older than you and 10 years oldern than you competet that way
> with you, it's not siblng rivalry. They must have some serious
> psychological issues.
Lots of people have serious psychological issues. Anti-psychotic
drugs are a huge business. As are legal and illegal recreational
drugs which psychotic or neurotic people use to medicate
themselves.
> > > It is not simple. How about climateic affect determineing what we wear?
> >
> > To a point... okay. Got me on a technicality.
>
> Not technicality. It's one of the many facts.
>
> > But, in a warm climate, we'd be naked.
>
> Nope, in the Arabian desert, they wear long white gown, until modern
> time.
That's because they live in a very dry climate with no
tree cover to shade them from the blazing sun. Shading
themselves with white robes works better. Also, they
have sandstorms in the desert and they need a complete
covering to protect their skin from the stinging sand.
People who live in humid jungles historically have gone
naked or close to naked. In a dense jungle, less than
1% of sunlight reaches the forest floor. The oppressive
humidity makes any article of clothing almost useless,
because it quickly saturates with sweat and merely
slows down what little evaporative cooling is available
with the high dewpoint temperature.
In the Amazon jungle and the African jungle, the primitive
tribes have historically worn very little clothing.
The first thing Christian missionaries try to do is convince
these people to wear clothes. Duh.
> > In a colder climate, we'd wear whatever is warmest.
>
> > Yet I see women wearing skirts in the winter rather commonly.
>
> That really puzzles me too.
>
> I am one of the women who wear for comforts. No skirts in winter for
> me.
You could wear tights under the skirt, and high boots,
and a long coat. I guess.
Of course few people in the U.S.A. spend much time outside
in winter. That's probably why the winter months are the
cold and flu epidemic time. People huddle inside buildings
with artificial heat blasting away. The ideal environment for
disease transmission.
> [..]
>
> > Most men do run it like a chess game. It's a competition. They compete as if
> > it is. Both competing with the other person in their relationship AND
> > competing with other men outside it. If you honestly think that you can have
> > a relationship in which you will not be expected to keep yourself in better
> > shape than the women around you then you better be prepared to live alone.
>
> First of all, I will keep myself in shape because even a little weight
> gain makes me feel very uncomfortable. May be that's why I never
> understood that we women *must* keep in shape for men.
Suppose you knew a man who, every time he did something
you liked, explained that he did it for some reason other
than caring about what you think. Would you think this man
cares much about you?
> > Whether you realize it or not, you ARE in competition with other women in
> > your quest to find a male companion. If you decided to seek a female
> > companion.. then you will still be competing with other women. And possibly
> > other men, also.
>
> But this competiiton you refer to is not as competitive as you sound
> because like I said, to access 2 people who differs only in one factor
> be it apperance or not is quite rare.
But it takes a huge personality difference to overcome a
difference in looks.
For example, suppose I can choose from two women, one who
looks exactly like Heidi Klum, and one who looks exactly like
Janet Reno.
I don't think there is any sort of personality the Janet Reno
type could have which would make me find her sexually
attractive.
In contrast, I would put up with some pretty deranged behavior
from the Heidi Klum type, as long as she wanted me and
could behave normally enough in bed. The Heidi Klum type
would probably have to be more evil than any woman I
have met so far to cancel out her physical beauty.
Most likely, however, a woman who really looks that good
would not be interested in me, if experience is a guide.
> Now, to answer you acusation:
>
> > so, pick just one...
> > #1: You decide to have sex with him.
> > #2: You did not want to have sex with him, but did so to please him.
> > #3: You had sex with him to get to know him better
>
> What I said was that I had sex with him only after I decided that I
> would but time-wise, it's before I really wanted to (out of just
How do you define "really wanted to"? Did you reach orgasm
when you had sex with him? If you did not have an orgasm,
did you fake it?
I suspect if a woman is less than fully "into it" during
sex, she may be less likely to reach orgasm.
> wanting to get to know him by just talking and not because I wasn't
> secually ready) because I couldn't say "no" and turn him away. I fele
> that to reject him like that would be kind of cruel when he is all
> aroused.
The question originally was whether you are superficial, or not.
If you did not feel that you knew this man very well at the time
when you first had sex, then he probably did not know you any
better. Therefore, the sexual attraction he felt for you, which
was substantial because he was "all aroused," presumably in
the throbbing boner sense, was a superficial attraction.
Earlier, when you called me superficial, I interpreted that
as a pejorative. Perhaps even a kind of slur. Now you are saying
that in at least one instance you rewarded a superficial man with
the most precious gift a woman can give a man. (It is precious
both to the woman, and to the man.) Thus I am greatly relieved.
Superficiality on its own obviously isn't a showstopper for you.
> >> The point was that other things aside from sexual attraction always
> >> subconscious affects the decision to engage in seuxal activity with
> >> someone.
>
> > Maybe for some people, but not for everyone.
Oh, I think for most people. Suppose you aim a loaded shotgun
at someone's head and tell him to stop having sex. Most would
stop, especially if you fired off a couple of warning shots. In
that case, the subconcious would agree with the conscious
that we should listen to the nut with the shotgun.
There are lots of other factors beside sexual attraction that
influence the decision to have sex. Proximity, for one. How
much of a hassle it is to get with someone. Would you walk
all the way across the United States to have sex with a
woman? Would you row across the Atlantic ocean in a boat?
Would you ski across Antarctica, hauling all your supplies in
a 1000-pound sled like that endurance athlete from Norway
who did it solo? He camped out many nights when the temperature
dropped to 60 degrees below zero. It's difficult to imagine how
survival would be possible. Much less why anyone would
decide to do it.
> Not may be and yes, for me.
>
> > The point still stands...
> > you're not very likely to have sex with someone you are not physically
> > attracted to.
> That, I never argued.
How long do you have to know a man to realize you are physically
attracted to him? (Not how long until you decide you are ready
to have sex with him, which might take much longer.)
I think women can feel physically attracted to a man very early,
long before they feel ready to have sex with him. This physical
attraction is often completely superficial. What else can it be?
It is not based on any sort of deep familiarity.
> >And, you're not very likely to wait a signifigantly long time to get to know them on a
> > deep level first
>
> That happens only because I gave into the man, the man that ia lready
> did decide do have sex with.
I think the question is about how soon you felt physically attracted
to the man, not when you decided to actually have sex with him.
Just to recap so we don't lose track of the original point, my
claim is that almost everybody is "superficial" in that we
can and do feel physically attracted to people who are
strangers or are almost strangers, even though we may not
be ready to have sex with them on the spot. The attraction
is there, and basically people spend just a little time getting
to know each other a little to rule out any obvious early
deal-breakers. They start having sex long before they really
know who they are having sex with.
-- the Danimal
Speeding
Bingo. And, I'm sure many women married to these older men would prefer they
remain faithful... so, if they are going to have sex... they should at least
try to enjoy it.
> When will doctors make a drug that causes men to enjoy
> doing the chores around the house that their wives request?
When/if there is a market for it.
IE: never.
>> > Historically, this worked out OK for many of them because their
>> > aging husbands were simultaneously losing their ability to
>> > reliably maintain erections. Then along came recreational
>> > drugs such as Viagra, allowing their old geezer husbands to
>> > continue pestering them for sex. For an amusing take on this:
>> >
>> > http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2001-03-21-viagra-wives.htm
>>
>> Well... it's going to be interesting. Personally... it'll be nice to know
>> that I can be 100 and still playing the game.
>
> But with what? When you are 100, you aren't likely to be playing
> the game with 20-year-old women.
At 100... I'd be happy with 50 year olds. Heck, I'd be happy with some 40
year olds right now.
> How much Viagra would you need right now to have sex with
> a 100-year-old woman?
Um... none. And I understand your point. But, who says I'd have to be having
sex with a 100 year old woman?
>> >> > Physical aging is also an accelerating process. That is, the
>> >> > rate of deterioration increases with each passing decade.
>> >>
>> >> For most. A few make me wonder. And, plastic surgery can do some
>> >> amazing
>> >> things, too.
>> >
>> > Plastic surgery does not yet allow anyone who is 50 years old
>> > to pass for 20.
>>
>> No. But it comes close.
>
> If that were true, you should be seeing some 50-year-old
> women who pass for 20. I never have. Put any 50-year-old
> woman in with a group of 20-year-old women, and anybody
> who gets a good look at them will spot the older woman.
50, no. 40, yes. How old is Cher? Madonna? Shania Twain? Teri Hatcher? Fran
Dresher?
> Recently I met a woman who is 40 and I was surprised
> to learn she is that old. She could have claimed early 30's
> and fooled me. But that's different than the 30-year gap I
> mentioned above.
Yes it is. But, a 10 to even 15 year gap... sure, that's possible.
>> And some of the older women are being found to be
>> sexier now. Take a list of sexy women right now. Many of the women on the
>> 100 FHM list are in their 30s. A few are nearing or passing 40.
>
> Check the list again in 10 years. At least 90 of the 100 women
> will be new. Which is to say a lot of the older women on the
> FHM list are in the last stages of their careers. It's almost like
> a Hall of Fame list.
Of course it will. The 20 year olds will be 30. (and actually, chek in next
year, over half will be new) The 30 year olds will be 40. And there will be
new 20 year olds. Sure, the 40 year olds aren't likely to be on the list for
more than about 5 years.
> The FHM list does not account solely for attractiveness. Most
> of the somewhat older women currently on the list looked better when
> they were in their early 20's. Instead, the list accounts for who is
> "hot"
> in the sense of being commercially popular right now. A beautiful woman
> who works in the entertainment industry has a window of time in
> which she can become a hit. She may need to plug away for
> years to separate herself from the crowd, get into some good
> acting roles, or find the right music producer if that's her thing,
> build up a following, and become recognized. However, at the
> time she is advancing her career based partly on her looks, her
> looks are gradually fading. At some point she will probably
> "hit the wall" and either sink into Stygian obscurity or get
> into one of the limited niches for "character" acting or whatever.
> An example is Lena Olin, who did her share of hottie roles
> when she was young, and now she plays some mommy roles.
Well, one notable except being Rachel Welch... who was still hitting hottie
lists well into her mid fifties.
> Most Hollywood actress types report that their careers largely
> dry up somewhere around or before they hit 40. A few manage
> to keep going, but not many; not when there are so many
> fresh-faced 20-somethings with equal talent constantly trying to
> break in (or sleep in) to the industry.
Well, don't tell that to the cast of Desperate Housewives. Eva's the young
kid on the block. And she's barely managing to keep up with Teri and
Nicolette.
> The same thing goes for pop starlets. And supermodels. Etc.
> A small percentage can keep going after 40, but only a very
> small percentage.
Actually, name the five top supermodels right now. All five are over 30.
And, Christy Brinkly is making a hell of a comeback for her age. So did Bo
Derek. So did Kathie Ireland. And Heidi Klum.
> It's almost exactly the same as male athletes in most of the
> major pro sports. A few football and baseball players can
> keep going into their 40's, but they don't have much in the
> way of future upside. In the NFL, the average career is
> less than 4 years. The average team keeps drafting
> 7-10 new young players every year, so the veterans have
> to keep outperforming progressively younger players,
> who are in endless supply.
True. I'm not discounting age, but any long shot. But, what I am saying is
that, thanks to modern medicine, the age range is slowly increasing.
> That's about how Hollywood works. The average actress
> is a pretty young woman. She gets a few roles, perhaps
> playing the girlfriend of some older male stars, and then
> she fades from view, even before she loses her looks
> in many cases.
Thanks. I forgot Meg Ryan, Holly Hunter, Elisabeth Hurley, Helen Hunt, and
Sigorny (can't spell it) Weaver.
> Compare a list of the top 100 Hollywood actresses from
> 1986, 1996, and 2006. There is a very high turnover per decade.
> Even for male actors it is similar. Guys like Clint Eastwood,
> who can keep starring in successful films for decades, are the
> exception. To keep working, he had to change the way he acts,
> to account for the drastic change in how he looks. He cannot
> get away with acting the way he did when he was younger.
> He can't go swaggering into saloons waving his sixguns and
> getting all the girls.
That might explain why Harrison Ford is complaining about the stunts he's
doing for Indiana Jones 4. No word on whether Sean Connery is complaing or
not. But, he seemed to be doing okay for League of Gentleman and Red
October. Granted, Arnie quit... partly because he's governor now... and
partly due to that heart surgery...
>> > Eventually medical science may determine the causes of aging
>> > and cure them. But I don't expect to live to see this.
>>
>> No, but I do expect that what was considered to be old when I was a
>> kid...
>> 60ish... will be almost midlife by the time I get there. (remember.
>> retirement age in 1945 was 62. Now, those folks are expected to live to
>> at
>> least 85)
>
> Sure, but there has been no change in the rate of aging. People
> are living longer only because many of the diseases and accidents
> that killed people at younger ages are treatable or preventable now.
> Those causes of death weren't strictly related to aging.
Well. and those artifical hearts and hips and knees and elbows, etc... The
drugs to keep liver, heart, lung, kidney etc disease in check. Give medicine
enough time and they'll be able to keep you aliev forever. Heck, they can
darn near keep a body alive forever now. It's pretty rare to hear of someone
dying from just plain ol' old age anymore.
I'd say his comments about Iran and Venesuela's leader are pretty darn
extreme and hardened. He was always abit of a nutcase... but he's moreso
now.
> John McCain, who campaigned negatively against Jerry Falwell
> a few years ago, will be giving the commencement address at
> Falwell's Liberty University this year.
That's called politics. Think they'l be sipping brandy in the back after the
show? Think they'll even touch hands when they move to shake each other's
hands?
>> > Would you expect Osama bin Laden to convert to, say, atheism
>> > or Buddhism at this point?
>>
>> no, I would expect him to become even more radical, nearly insanely so
>> (if
>> it's not there already)... if it's possible.
>
> How can Osama bin Laden get any more extreme?
I shudder to ask. Or find out.
>> > Most ideological movements recruit most heavily among the
>> > young. That's where the malleable brains are.
>>
>> But the extremists are the older ones. They get more extreme as they age.
>
> Well now. Among Islamic Fundamentalists, the suicide
> bombers are virtually all young adults (mostly men).
Because the older ones #1: can't run so fast. and #2: aren't stupid and
gullible.
> You don't see the old geezers strapping on explosives.
> Perhaps the promise of 72 virgins in the afterlife no
> longer seems worth dying for.
Perhaps. I thinkit's more that they can't haul ass like a 20 year old can...
and they don't have a desire to die as badly.
> I would say the young guy who blows himself up is more
> extreme than the old men who talk him into it.
No, just more gullible and stupid. How do you think the old men got to live
long enough to be old?
> The same thing seems to be true for Fundamentalist
> Christian terrorists. The guys who blow up abortion
> clinics are generally not elderly.
But, they are, on the order, much older. 50ish.
> Who do you think is more extreme? The old guy who
> incites, or the young man of action who straps it on?
The old guy who incites. By far. It's easy to get some dummy to strap on
explosives when he gets the promise of 72 virgins and a perfect life and
gets to be called a marytr, considering how crappy his life is otherwise.
It's a LOT harder to get the guy that inciting the violence to see or even
consider a different point of view.
ies were long accused of targeting their
>> > advertisements at young people. Whether that is true or not,
>> > the fact remains that most people who smoke started as
>> > teenagers. Getting past age 21 or so without a smoking
>> > habit makes a person very unlikely to pick up the habit
>> > later in life.
>>
>> Exactly. It's not changing personality... its the extremes that get set
>> faster as they age.
>
> I don't follow you. People who smoke for 30 years are not
> smoking a lot more at the end. It typically stays at the
> same two-packs-per-day rate for decades.
Smoking is a habit and an addiction, not a personality trait.
> -- the Danimal
>
Speeding
NO. So, thank God there isn't one.
And, Viagra does not increase sexual DESIRE... only sexual ABILITY.
>
> -- the Danimal
>
the Danimal
> I don't doubt that you would "win". I doubt you would really try at all. If
> you are posintg online ads to dating sites, then you should not be surprised
> to find men that desire to date. Trying to find men that want to just be
> friends with a woman on a dating site is like trying to fish in the desert.
> If you want to find a man that wants a platonic only relationship... here's
> a SUREFIRE place you can meet men that will have almost no sexual desires
> for you, but be more than happy to be your friend...
> Monestaries. Monks take a vow of celebacy. They'll certainly be a friend
> without a desire to have more.
I liked the line in the movie "Hot Shots": "These men (in the
monastery)
have taken a vow of celibacy, like their fathers and grandfathers
before them."
> When you try to claim you can't find friends that are wanting to be platonic
> only.. you can certainly lie to yourself. But if you are going to lie to
> others as well... you might want to get a better cover story.
If she looks like Heidi Klum, she might not be lying to herself,
but she would have to be avoiding gay men.
> > I am hoping that if we becomes firnds, at least I get to ride bikes by
> > the river and in the mountain with him and get to know the city.
Join your local bike club. You can ride with lots of people in
groups to the river and the mountain and get to know the city,
with no expectation that you must have sex with anyone.
To find your local bike clubs, go to Google and type your city
name and the word: bicycle or bicycling or cycling.
I know you can't live where I do, because it would be quite a ride
to reach the nearest mountain. Hills, on the other hand, are all
around me.
> > I
> > won't let him this friendship go beyond friendship but of course,
> > technically I won't say "never". If you ask why, I will tell you in
> > email in case he is reading here which I doubt he is.
>
> You're dreaming. And it's a strange dream at that. No man visits a dating
> website hoping to meet a woman to "just be friends" with. Most ment don't
> visit ANY website that involves women except in the hopes of having sexual
> encounters.
Possible exception: a Web site that is about a specific activity
such as bicycling. Some people are looking for riding partners
and don't care about gender or the possibility of sex---although
they wouldn't necessarily refuse a good opportunity if one
presented itself.
Most of the people I ride bikes with regularly are other men.
The few women are almost all either unavailable, uninterested
in me, or unattractive to me. That's not a problem because
usually I'm just looking for people to ride with. I might ride with
hundreds of people before I meet one woman I could possibly
get involved with.
> > All I really want was to have friends to go to movies with and may be
> > eat out, cook my stiry fry, or BBQ if he is good at it.
>
> Then join a cooking club. Join a movie of the month club. There are men that
> would be more than happy to share their hobby or interest with and many
> others. But you ain't gonna find them online.
She could hook a trailer to her bike and ride around with the
BBQ grill going on it. The smell alone should attract lots of
men.
The best way to find men who will ride bikes to the river and
the mountain is to join the local bike club. They probably have
group rides, and usually these rides have about a 4:1 ratio
of men to women. People do meet and hook up on these
rides, but the lopsided gender ratio kind of puts the kibosh
on it most of the time. Very few men who go to bike rides
go there with the expectation that they will get laid with women
as a result. It might happen, but it's like snow in June. Not a
routine occurrence. This is different than online dating sites
which men explicitly equate with opportunities to have sex
with women, although with most of those it's also like
snow in June from what I gather.
-- the Danimal
yamuna
>
> > Now, to answer you acusation:
> >
> > > so, pick just one...
> > > #1: You decide to have sex with him.
> > > #2: You did not want to have sex with him, but did so to please him.
> > > #3: You had sex with him to get to know him better
> >
> > What I said was that I had sex with him only after I decided that I
> > would but time-wise, it's before I really wanted to (out of just
>
> How do you define "really wanted to"? Did you reach orgasm
> when you had sex with him? If you did not have an orgasm,
> did you fake it?
>
> I suspect if a woman is less than fully "into it" during
> sex, she may be less likely to reach orgasm.
I wasn't saying that I would get engaed in, if I wasn't into it. Just
that, my control based on time was overriden.
>
> > wanting to get to know him by just talking and not because I wasn't
> > secually ready) because I couldn't say "no" and turn him away. I fele
> > that to reject him like that would be kind of cruel when he is all
> > aroused.
>
> The question originally was whether you are superficial, or not.
> If you did not feel that you knew this man very well at the time
> when you first had sex, then he probably did not know you any
> better. Therefore, the sexual attraction he felt for you, which
> was substantial because he was "all aroused," presumably in
> the throbbing boner sense, was a superficial attraction.
But by that time, he knew that I had already liked him enough to spend
time with him, for example, watch TV or do other activites. So how was
that supercficial? It was not like he got all arouses at first
encounterment with me and I went along with it.
>
> Earlier, when you called me superficial, I interpreted that
> as a pejorative. Perhaps even a kind of slur. Now you are saying
> that in at least one instance you rewarded a superficial man with
> the most precious gift a woman can give a man. (It is precious
> both to the woman, and to the man.) Thus I am greatly relieved.
> Superficiality on its own obviously isn't a showstopper for you.
Why would it be superficial since I had already decided that I was
gonna. Only that I did it earlier than I was gonna.
>
> > >> The point was that other things aside from sexual attraction always
> > >> subconscious affects the decision to engage in seuxal activity with
> > >> someone.
> >
> > > Maybe for some people, but not for everyone.
>
> Oh, I think for most people. Suppose you aim a loaded shotgun
> at someone's head and tell him to stop having sex. Most would
> stop, especially if you fired off a couple of warning shots. In
> that case, the subconcious would agree with the conscious
> that we should listen to the nut with the shotgun.
>
> There are lots of other factors beside sexual attraction that
> influence the decision to have sex.
Exactly. Even the way he keeps his hair.
>Proximity, for one. How
> much of a hassle it is to get with someone. [..]
> > > The point still stands...
> > > you're not very likely to have sex with someone you are not physically
> > > attracted to.
>
> > That, I never argued.
>
> How long do you have to know a man to realize you are physically
> attracted to him? (Not how long until you decide you are ready
> to have sex with him, which might take much longer.)
What does time have to do with it? If I am not attracted to a person
that way, no amount of time would change that. That had been what my
friend didn't get when he insisted in April 2004 that I could learn to
love a man (him). And he obviosuly didn't get it when he contacted me
again last December after not talking to me for 1 1/2 years for not
giving him a chance. Since I wanted the friendship, I hoped that he was
going to understand he didn't have a chance but he wasn't going to let
go of trying again and I wasn't going to go through that again. No
amount of time, no amount of his new status making more money, would
make me like him that way.
>
> I think women can feel physically attracted to a man very early,
> long before they feel ready to have sex with him. This physical
> attraction is often completely superficial. What else can it be?
> It is not based on any sort of deep familiarity.
But a woman decides to act on this attraction only after taking into
consideration of other facts. So my point stands that physical
attraction alone wouldn't determine what happens next.
>
> > >And, you're not very likely to wait a signifigantly long time to get to know them on a
> > > deep level first
> >
> > That happens only because I gave into the man, the man that ia lready
> > did decide do have sex with.
>
> I think the question is about how soon you felt physically attracted
> to the man, not when you decided to actually have sex with him.
Again, a woman decides to act on this attraction only after taking into
consideration of other facts. So my point stands that physical
attraction alone wouldn't determine what happens next.
>
> Just to recap so we don't lose track of the original point, my
> claim is that almost everybody is "superficial" in that we
> can and do feel physically attracted to people who are
> strangers or are almost strangers, even though we may not
> be ready to have sex with them on the spot. The attraction
> is there, and basically people spend just a little time getting
> to know each other a little to rule out any obvious early
> deal-breakers.
>They start having sex long before they really
> know who they are having sex with.
While that is true since it is impossible to know another perosn that
quickly, it is still only after you know a bit about the other person
that some of us women gave in for sex when it is earlier than the
time-scale she already had in mine.
>
> -- the Danimal
yamuna
> > Gee, if their magzines are correct with their info, we won't need asl
> > news group.
>
> And most all of the people on here are guys. Because women don't need to
> learn seduction techniques from a newsgroup. They get it from watching and
> talking with other women and because it's in all the magazines.
You are generalizing that all women or most women read those crap. I
never bought one such magazine and from what ever little I read waiting
at the gorcery check out line, I never pick the title like "How to make
him blah blah..". I remember my sister (10 older) telling my oledest
sister this when she was visiting her and I wad too: I bought a
magazine to read on the airplne but couldn't read it. The magazine she
was referring to was one of those crap magazine - obviously she wanted
to see what's in it - and she obviosuly didn't find anything
interesting enough to keep her attention. In that sense all my sisters
(except my fraternal twin who routinely read junks all her life and my
other older sister who never read anaything beyond school books; hs
ebecame a homemaker very early on) are very much alike.
>There aren't
> many men's magazines that give a ton of advice on how to seduce women.
So oyu really think those magazines help women?
>
> >> how to talk, walk, dress, act, etc... to increase
> >> sexual attraction. So, there is a great deal you can do and learn to
> >> increase your ability to be more sexually attractive.
> >
> > Yes, one can do and learn to increase the appeal but that's not waht we
> > were talking about. You were saying women do certain things and acts
> > with intention to attract men and I am saying that not all of us do.
> > Sex appeal is mostly a built-in thing.
>
> No. I said "there is a great deal you can do and learn to increase your
> ability to be more sexually attractive."
> I also said "Sex appeal is hardly a built-in thing. "
> You said "I am saying that not all of us do. Sex appeal is mostly a built-in
> thing."
>
> Come on, it's all right here in this very post. By "not all of us" you are
> mostly refering toyourself. Because the vast majority of women do what they
> can to be more attractive to men. The ones that do not are doing what they
> can to attract other women.
What about women just doing it for themselves? I have never been a
sloppy dresser just because I wasn't and am not.
>Very few people are not trying to attract anyone
> at all. The deisre to reproduce and/or to attract a mate is a very basic
> desire.
>
> >> >> > I didn't say it is not but to use supermodel examples and say the
> >> >> > rest
> >> >> > of us get to choose from the rejects is just a stupid statement.
> >> >>
> >> >> You are picked from the rejects of some catagory,
> >> >
> >> > So are the super models.
> >>
> >> True. And they know it too. Super models are VERY competative.
> >
> > In my previous response "So are the super models.", I meant super
> > models get to choose from some rejects too.
>
> That makes no sense. If a supermodel picks someone, then they are not
> "picking from rejects".
A serious PhD chemist would not pick a super model. In that sense, she
has to pick from a group exlcuding that PhD chemist *which could be*
rejects by some PhD female Chemist if the men are not intelligent
enough for her though it could be mutual such that these men do not
find that female PhD to be attractive. So it's not clear cut like the
*original* implication that non supermodels (us females) get to pick
from the rejects of super models.
> The act of picking means the picked is not a reject,
> but a picked. You make no sense here.
Refer to the original claim either by you or Damial. I forget who said
it.
>
> >> >>unless you are a 10 on the scale of attraciveness for that particular
> >> >>set.
> >> > This is what I mean by "superficial". What the chnace of two people
> >> > having exactly the same things except in looks?
> >>
> >> With a world population of roughly 5 BILLION... the odds are better than
> >> average.
> >
> > If your goal is just to win the conversation, of course, your statement
> > is valid but I am talking about a guy having access to 2 women who
> > differs only in looks and get to compare them.
>
> You are making no sense here either. You asked what the chances are of two
> people having the same non-physical qualities would be.
That's not what I said. I said the chance of 2 women with the same in
*everything* except looks/appearance with the fact both of whom are
accessible by the same men.
>I said it would be
> rather high. It doesn't matter if the guy is trying to engage them in sex,
> conversation, or is just looking at them... the odds that two people of
> roughly the same physical qualities would share similiar non-physical
> qualities is quite high in a world filled with 5 billion souls.
My implication was these two people would not accessible by the same
men since these two would be at different places.
>
> >> Siblings are more competitive than just about anyone else. All life is
> >> about
> >> competition, though.
> >
> > I have seen sisters so loving and not petty that way. When a sister 15
> > years older than you and 10 years oldern than you competet that way
> > with you, it's not siblng rivalry. They must have some serious
> > psychological issues.
>
> Hardly. You have seen sisters that APPEAR to be loving. And perhaps they
> are. But they are competing. Like it or not, life is competion. And 10 to 15
> years difference in age or not, they are STILL competing. It would be the
> sign of a serious psychological issue to assume they are not.
May be in Western culture. In Asian culture, for a sister that old to
feel that way is out of ordainary. That's why I was shocked by oldest
sister's behavior though the competition I was referring to was in
looks/appearance and only from her side.
>
> >> > It is not simple. How about climateic affect determineing what we wear?
> >>
> >> To a point... okay. Got me on a technicality.
> >
> > Not technicality. It's one of the many facts.
>
> Technicality. If it wasn't freezing cold of blistering hot, they'd be naked,
> if also not for a desire to appear modest but sexually attractive at the
> same time.
> And, this is a non-point... you are ducking the topic. Again.
You just don't get it.
>
> >> But, in a warm climate, we'd be naked.
> >
> > Nope, in the Arabian desert, they wear long white gown, until modern time.
>
> But only for the reason I just stated.
You call anything that contradict your facts, a technicality.
>
> >> In a colder climate, we'd wear whatever is warmest.
> >
> >> Yet I see women wearing skirts in the winter rather commonly.
> >
> > That really puzzles me too.
>
> Why? It puzzles you that women want to appear attractive. I understand that
> it puzzles you. You don't care to be attractive, or so you say.
I care to be attractive for me. I don't consciously dress for a man or
a woman.
>So, if that
> be true, then it's understandable that you would not understand normal human
> behavior, not participating in normal human behavior.
So now, I am not a normal human?
>
> > I am one of the women who wear for comforts. No skirts in winter for me.
>
> As noted above.
You discard all the relevant facts that contradict your theory as
technicalities.
>
> >> Most men do run it like a chess game. It's a competition. They compete as
> >> if
> >> it is. Both competing with the other person in their relationship AND
> >> competing with other men outside it. If you honestly think that you can
> >> have
> >> a relationship in which you will not be expected to keep yourself in
> >> better
> >> shape than the women around you then you better be prepared to live
> >> alone.
> >
> > First of all, I will keep myself in shape because even a little weight
> > gain makes me feel very uncomfortable. May be that's why I never
> > understood that we women *must* keep in shape for men.
>
> It's not a "must". It's only a must if you wish to attract the type of man
> that is attracted to women in shape.
Now you are saying...
>
> >> Whether you realize it or not, you ARE in competition with other women in
> >> your quest to find a male companion. If you decided to seek a female
> >> companion.. then you will still be competing with other women. And
> >> possibly
> >> other men, also.
> >
> > But this competiiton you refer to is not as competitive as you sound
> > because like I said, to access 2 people who differs only in one factor
> > be it apperance or not is quite rare.
>
> It is not rare at all. And it is VERY competitive, whether you like it or
> believe it. Just look at a magazine stand anywhere that magazines are sold.
> If there are 20 women's magazines.... ALL TWENTY will have some tips abnout
> how to be better looking, more attractive, better at sex, etc... If there at
> 20 men's magainzes, at least half will discuss tips on how to be better
> looking, more attractive, better at sex, etc... The other half will at least
> include photos of nearly naked (as naked as they can get away with) women.
You think all woman live for looks only. I do agree that the vast
majority do but not all.
>
> > Now, to answer you acusation:
>
> Not accusation... just question. And it would be nice if you do...
I have but you want to put your answer in my mouth as a yes or no.
>
> >> so, pick just one...
> >> #1: You decide to have sex with him.
> >> #2: You did not want to have sex with him, but did so to please him.
> >> #3: You had sex with him to get to know him better
> >
> > What I said was that I had sex with him only after I decided that I
> > would but time-wise, it's before I really wanted to (out of just
> > wanting to get to know him by just talking and not because I wasn't
> > secually ready) because I couldn't say "no" and turn him away. I fele
> > that to reject him like that would be kind of cruel when he is all
> > aroused.
>
> No. I quoted what you said. That you cut it doesn't change that you said it.
> I put the quote up.
> So, what is your answer? #1, #2, or #3? You are trying to pick all three.
> Pick one, please.
See above about yes or no.
>
> >>> The point was that other things aside from sexual attraction always
> >>> subconscious affects the decision to engage in seuxal activity with
> >>> someone.
> >
> >> Maybe for some people, but not for everyone.
> >
> > Not may be and yes, for me.
> >
> >> The point still stands...
> >> you're not very likely to have sex with someone you are not physically
> >> attracted to.
> > That, I never argued.
>
> But you were just saying a few posts back that having sex with someon
> because of physical attraction is superficial.
What I said was with the implication of *choosing* someone to have sex
with based on appearance only while you guys said that sexual
attraction based on appearance *determines* whether one would have sex
with him or not.
> You need to do a better job
> of keeping track of what you are saying.
I am very clear on what I said. You saw it out of context.
> You're changing your story faster than you can post it.
No. you remove my implication and insist your own words as if I said
that.
>How can you expect advice if you keep changing the
> story?
>
> >>And, you're not very likely to wait a signifigantly long time to get to
> >>know them on a
> >> deep level first
> >
> > That happens only because I gave into the man, the man that ia lready
> > did decide do have sex with.
>
> See what I mean. You are contradicting yourself in just a single
> sentence....
> I had sex because I wanted to, but I gave in to him when I didn't want to.
> Which is it??
You want a yes or not based on *your* question, not based on what I
said.
> You wanted to have sex.
> You had sex because you gave in to a desire to please his desire.
> Pick one, please.
See above.
>Stop trying to pick every story your told. Stop trying to
> justify your decisions after the fact. If all you are looking to do is
> justify your decisions... then why ask about it? Why not just say that you
> make a decision you did not want to make and are now sorry for making a
> decision you didn't want to make.
No. I am not sorry because I never do things that I wouldn't want to do
at all and I never said what you are claiming that I said. You took it
out of context by removing the implication that was very clear.
yamuna
Speeding wrote:
[..]
>
> I don't doubt that you would "win". I doubt you would really try at all. If
> you are posintg online ads to dating sites,
It wasn't a dating sites. It's craigslist.com where all kinds of ads
appear.
> then you should not be surprised
> to find men that desire to date. Trying to find men that want to just be
> friends with a woman on a dating site is like trying to fish in the desert.
This is not a site just for dating. And the category clearly states
"strictly platonic".
>
> If you want to find a man that wants a platonic only relationship... here's
> a SUREFIRE place you can meet men that will have almost no sexual desires
> for you, but be more than happy to be your friend...
> Monestaries. Monks take a vow of celebacy. They'll certainly be a friend
> without a desire to have more.
Are you saying that we can make friends with just anybody regardless of
comon interest? Actually, you have implied that already when you said
that I coudl make friends with anyone I do not have sexual attraction.
>
> When you try to claim you can't find friends that are wanting to be platonic
> only.. you can certainly lie to yourself. But if you are going to lie to
> others as well... you might want to get a better cover story.
See how quick you are to accuse me?
> > I am hoping that if we becomes firnds, at least I get to ride bikes by
> > the river and in the mountain with him and get to know the city. I
> > won't let him this friendship go beyond friendship but of course,
> > technically I won't say "never". If you ask why, I will tell you in
> > email in case he is reading here which I doubt he is.
>
> You're dreaming. And it's a strange dream at that. No man visits a dating
> website
The category as I mentioned when I said about putting an ad was
"Strictly platonic". And I said in my title that am in search of
like-minded males and females for friends of age (~ -~).
>hoping to meet a woman to "just be friends" with. Most ment don't
> visit ANY website that involves women except in the hopes of having sexual
> encounters.
You are so quick to judge.
>
> > All I really want was to have friends to go to movies with and may be
> > eat out, cook my stiry fry, or BBQ if he is good at it.
>
> Then join a cooking club. Join a movie of the month club. There are men that
> would be more than happy to share their hobby or interest with and many
> others. But you ain't gonna find them online.
You are hopeless. May be because you know that most of what you claimed
do not apply to all men or all women.
yamuna
the Danimal wrote:
[..]
> Join your local bike club. You can ride with lots of people in
> groups to the river and the mountain and get to know the city,
> with no expectation that you must have sex with anyone.
>
> To find your local bike clubs, go to Google and type your city
> name and the word: bicycle or bicycling or cycling.
But I don't like group and my main focus was not just riding but
riding with a friend.
[..]
>That's not a problem because
> usually I'm just looking for people to ride with.
Well, I am not looking for people just to ride. I am looking for friend
sto hang out with via riding or other things.
[..]
>
> She could hook a trailer to her bike and ride around with the
> BBQ grill going on it. The smell alone should attract lots of
> men.
You are rude and you took things out of contect. BBQ was not the goal.
The goal was to make friends. I even prefer women but like I said it
has been harder to do that.
>
> The best way to find men who will ride bikes to the river and
> the mountain is to join the local bike club.
Out of context.
>This is different than online dating sites
While it is not online dating sites per se, it clearly said "Strictly
Platonic". Which parts of these two words do they not understand as
English speaking men?
yamuna
Speeding wrote:
> "yamuna" <yamun...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1146447754.6...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> > The 28 year old replied that maybe I'll be into younger man some day.
> > He obviouly wanted to meet me to check out for more than friendship.
> > Too bad that he is damn good looking.
>
> And that you place such a value on something as superficial as age?
What? By "good-looking", I meant that I like his style (what he wear,
his hair cut) aside from his features. But if he wear his hair long and
wear oversized shirts, his features wouldn't matter. I wouldn't think
he is good-looking. But then, my statement of "good-looking" doesn't
mean I already liked him.
> Weren't
> you the one saying age isn't important...
Where did I make such an excat cliam? Don''t tiwst the point I was
making in a particular context and turn it into a generalized cliam.
yamuna
Speeding wrote:
[..]
> Online is not real life.
I was aiming to meet somepeople in my subdivison.
>But.. anyways... before you start a new tangent...
> 4 men. And how many women? What kind of site are you going to to meet new
> people? A dating site?
Nope. Not a dating site per se.
> Age range? You have an age range for friendship? Damn... THAT'S really
> superficial.
Because the 35 year old guy didn't know about a topic that happen in
1998. Made me realize that the closer the age the better chance I would
have to find someone that I can talk with. If it is not online, age
wouldn't matter. But because it is online, I have to maximize my chance
to get the right type. But I also knew that someone who was out of that
range and felt that he/she met other requirements, he/she could
contact me. And since I failed to put "college educated"though I gave
good indication for it, I got one response who told me later "I am not
higly educated" which to me sounded like he's saying "I am not too
intelligent" though non college-educted doesn't mean unintelligent.
[..]
>
> Why would you require a friend to tell their spouse about you? It sounds
> like you are posting on a dating site.
I don't want married men aproaching me for extra marital secret
activites.
>If so... then DUH!!!
It's not. And so, duh to you.
>what would you
> expect other than men looking to date a woman? You have a lot of
> requirements for someone that is going to be your online friend.
I do require a lot for good reasons. I have friends for the last
school I was at, who is 25 or 26 now. We email each other once ina
ahilw but can only talk about IT related topic. and how boring life is.
> If you are
> this demanding of your friends online... then how demanding are you with
> real live people? Do you require a questionnaire be filled out? Application
> To Be My Friend?
> Get real.
Hey, I have few friends but these few, I get along really well.
I am friendly to almost all people but I wouldn't sit and chit chat
with everbody frequently unless I feel real connected. There must be
common things such as intellectual level compatibility among other
things. The gf I am trying to help with marital problems wears me out
with her nonsense talks whenever I get together with her but I only
see her once every 6-12 mos and only because we live in the same city.
Yes, I have my critera. Simply put, "Birds of the same feather flocks
together."
Mxsmanic
> Perhaps, but read the article I cited. The success of
> recreational drugs such as Viagra (cleverly sold as
> prescription drugs) suggests that millions of older men
> naturally lose their ability to have sex before they lose their
> desire.
Maybe--or they just want to please their partners. Or they feel
obligated to "perform" (I've always been amused by that term in
reference to men engaging in sex--apparently for men it is a
performance, whereas for women it is not).
> Of course, given that the average age difference in relationships
> is something like 2 years, most older men must settle for
> sex with older women, creating a double whammy: the man's
> sex drive is declining even as his partner's sexual attractiveness
> is also declining.
Yes.
It's a bit like so-called "impotence" generally: often it's just a
matter of a man not being aroused. He might be somewhat interested in
sex, but not interested enough to have an erection, and his partner
may be less than spectacular. Here again, the term used is
interested, as it implies that an erection equates to power. I see it
as almost the opposite: an erection is an uncontrolled and automatic
reaction that serves as a distraction, and thus hardly empowers the
person afflicted with it.
> The net effect is that old adults don't have as much sex as
> young adults, on average.
They don't want as much sex. And the less sex you have, the more time
you have for more interesting pursuits.
Mxsmanic
> Because sex is a LOT more fun than smoking.
Only if you're programmed to think so. If that programming fades,
it's no longer fun, and in that case, why bother with it? There are
more interesting things in life ... things that do not depend on
hormones to make them "interesting."
Mxsmanic
> Well, that's probably true for gay sex as well. Would
> you take a drug that gave you a strong desire for gay sex?
Exactly.
Mxsmanic
> And, Viagra does not increase sexual DESIRE... only sexual ABILITY.
So if you have no desire, Viagra is a waste of time.
Mxsmanic
> I don't understand why, if someone doesn't want sex, they
> would want to want to have sex.
Neither do I.
My theory is that most people don't realize that their desire for sex
is biologically mediated. They think there is something fundamentally
wonderful about sex. But there isn't; people like sex because they
are programmed to like it. There is nothing psychologically
attractive about it.
This means that, if the desire for sex wanes due to a fading of the
programming that compels people to engage in it, there's no real
reason to try to get it back. If you aren't interested in it, you
don't miss it, and you don't find it fun.
> Personally, if I could stop wanting sex, I would feel a great
> sense of relief. I can't imagine why I would do anything to
> bring the nuisance back. Although I suppose someone who
> had a long-term relationship partner to keep happy might
> perceive not wanting sex to be a problem.
Precisely. Ideally, neither partner would be interested in sex, and
so neither would "want to want" it, and would not miss it. It would
free up a tremendous amount of time to not want sex, and it would
render a lot of social interaction unnecessary, too, since so many
people are moved to interact only by the desire for sex.
> If that were true, you should be seeing some 50-year-old
> women who pass for 20. I never have. Put any 50-year-old
> woman in with a group of 20-year-old women, and anybody
> who gets a good look at them will spot the older woman.
A few pre-menopausal 50-year-old women can compete with 20-year-olds,
but not many. It's rare enough that the few exceptions can be
ignored.
> Recently I met a woman who is 40 and I was surprised
> to learn she is that old. She could have claimed early 30's
> and fooled me. But that's different than the 30-year gap I
> mentioned above.
I've met several women who looked to be no older than 30 who were
already into their 40s. From a distance, I took them to be in their
mid-twenties, no older. From close up, I saw a few small wrinkles
that told me they might be older, but I still figured they were only
30 or so. I was very surprised to learn that they were in their
forties, but I was pleased, too, since that means there _are_ pretty
women around even well past 40.
> Sure, but there has been no change in the rate of aging. People
> are living longer only because many of the diseases and accidents
> that killed people at younger ages are treatable or preventable now.
> Those causes of death weren't strictly related to aging.
The rate of aging is also affected by lifestyle. Some people age more
quickly because of their lifestyle; others age more slowly for the
same reasons.
Look at any US President, and you'll see signs of significant aging
over just four years. It's the stress of the job. Look at FDR over
his multiple terms.
People who smoke, drink, take drugs, and sunbathe also age very
quickly.
> Well now. Among Islamic Fundamentalists, the suicide
> bombers are virtually all young adults (mostly men).
Angry young men are ideal for the job. They are young and healthy,
and unless they are unusually bright they are probably ruled by
hormones, which makes it easy to manipulate them emotionally and
persuade them to do all sorts of stupid things. Angry young men make
excellent soldiers for the same reason: they'll get all fired up and
try to take the hill even when it is suicide to do so. Throw enough
angry young men at a certain-death assignment and eventually a few
might get through (think D-Day).
Mxsmanic
> 50, no. 40, yes. How old is Cher? Madonna? Shania Twain? Teri Hatcher? Fran
> Dresher?
60, 46, 41, 42, and 49
> Thanks. I forgot Meg Ryan, Holly Hunter, Elisabeth Hurley, Helen Hunt, and
> Sigorny (can't spell it) Weaver.
45, 48, 41, 43, 57
It is interesting to note that, perhaps with one or two exceptions,
none of these women has reached menopause.
However, HRT can counter the effects of menopause.
yamuna
Mxsmanic wrote:
> Speeding writes:
>
> > Because sex is a LOT more fun than smoking.
>
> Only if you're programmed to think so. If that programming fades,
> it's no longer fun, and in that case, why bother with it? There are
> more interesting things in life ...
> things that do not depend on hormones to make them "interesting."
Well said.
Speeding
Damn. Can't you recall what you said just a few posts ago. It's really
tiring watching you forget what you just said. Is this a matter of selective
memory or are you seriously having short term memory problems?
Here it is...
> >> > and someone so concern about age in
> >> > the superficial sense wouldn't be the type who would be attarcted to
> >> > me
> >> > anyway.
>> and I pointed out the case of Anna
>> Nicole Smith? I do believe it was.
Remember the Anna Nicole point I made, the one you dismissed as being a
"rare" case. Apparently, it's so common that even you are one of the ladies
that makes a superficial decision based on age. And height. And other
physical only appearances.
Speeding
> Speeding wrote:
>> I don't doubt that you would "win". I doubt you would really try at all.
>> If
>> you are posintg online ads to dating sites, then you should not be
>> surprised
>> to find men that desire to date. Trying to find men that want to just be
>> friends with a woman on a dating site is like trying to fish in the
>> desert.
>> If you want to find a man that wants a platonic only relationship...
>> here's
>> a SUREFIRE place you can meet men that will have almost no sexual desires
>> for you, but be more than happy to be your friend...
>> Monestaries. Monks take a vow of celebacy. They'll certainly be a friend
>> without a desire to have more.
>
> I liked the line in the movie "Hot Shots": "These men (in the
> monastery)
> have taken a vow of celibacy, like their fathers and grandfathers
> before them."
Yep. It was pretty good.
>> When you try to claim you can't find friends that are wanting to be
>> platonic
>> only.. you can certainly lie to yourself. But if you are going to lie to
>> others as well... you might want to get a better cover story.
>
> If she looks like Heidi Klum, she might not be lying to herself,
> but she would have to be avoiding gay men.
Bingo. Heidi Klum certainly has male friends on a strictly platonic level.
I'd be willing to bet a fw are not gay either. Wouldn't you think one of the
other supermodel's husband's is interested in Heidi for a plutonic
relationship. (while he's tagging another model, that is) I simply don't buy
an arugment from any woman that she can't find a platonic friend on the
basis that "everyone" wants to have sex with her. Even in a supermodel. (but
I would believe it faster for a supermodel)
Heck, keep in mind one of the ideas for being a successful player. Have hot
looking female friends around you. Just having hot looking women around you
will cause other women to assume you are sexually desirable.
>> > I am hoping that if we becomes firnds, at least I get to ride bikes by
>> > the river and in the mountain with him and get to know the city.
>
> Join your local bike club. You can ride with lots of people in
> groups to the river and the mountain and get to know the city,
> with no expectation that you must have sex with anyone.
>
> To find your local bike clubs, go to Google and type your city
> name and the word: bicycle or bicycling or cycling.
>
> I know you can't live where I do, because it would be quite a ride
> to reach the nearest mountain. Hills, on the other hand, are all
> around me.
>
>> > I
>> > won't let him this friendship go beyond friendship but of course,
>> > technically I won't say "never". If you ask why, I will tell you in
>> > email in case he is reading here which I doubt he is.
>>
>> You're dreaming. And it's a strange dream at that. No man visits a dating
>> website hoping to meet a woman to "just be friends" with. Most ment don't
>> visit ANY website that involves women except in the hopes of having
>> sexual
>> encounters.
>
> Possible exception: a Web site that is about a specific activity
> such as bicycling. Some people are looking for riding partners
> and don't care about gender or the possibility of sex---although
> they wouldn't necessarily refuse a good opportunity if one
> presented itself.
Well, if it's a website for dating bicyclists... it'd still hold true. I got
the very distint impression she was visiting a dating website. Like I
said... no man signs on to a dating website for any goal other than to meet
women. For sex.
> Most of the people I ride bikes with regularly are other men.
> The few women are almost all either unavailable, uninterested
> in me, or unattractive to me. That's not a problem because
> usually I'm just looking for people to ride with. I might ride with
> hundreds of people before I meet one woman I could possibly
> get involved with.
Ther are other activites like that too. Church activities. Bowling leagues.
Dart leagues. Political Action groups. AA meetings. It's a long list.
>> > All I really want was to have friends to go to movies with and may be
>> > eat out, cook my stiry fry, or BBQ if he is good at it.
>>
>> Then join a cooking club. Join a movie of the month club. There are men
>> that
>> would be more than happy to share their hobby or interest with and many
>> others. But you ain't gonna find them online.
>
> She could hook a trailer to her bike and ride around with the
> BBQ grill going on it. The smell alone should attract lots of
> men.
LOL! And probably a few dogs and cats.
> The best way to find men who will ride bikes to the river and
> the mountain is to join the local bike club. They probably have
> group rides, and usually these rides have about a 4:1 ratio
> of men to women. People do meet and hook up on these
> rides, but the lopsided gender ratio kind of puts the kibosh
> on it most of the time. Very few men who go to bike rides
> go there with the expectation that they will get laid with women
> as a result. It might happen, but it's like snow in June. Not a
> routine occurrence. This is different than online dating sites
> which men explicitly equate with opportunities to have sex
> with women, although with most of those it's also like
> snow in June from what I gather.
Snow in hell in July.
> -- the Danimal
>
Speeding
>
> Speeding wrote:
> [..]
>
>
>>
>> I don't doubt that you would "win". I doubt you would really try at all.
>> If
>> you are posintg online ads to dating sites,
>
> It wasn't a dating sites. It's craigslist.com where all kinds of ads
> appear.
Oh please. A dating site. Sure, you can post in Strictly Platonic. And say
I'm a woman looking for a man. And if you're expecting even 1 in 20 men to
honestly think you REALLY want a platonic relationship... well... be
realistic here. Or do you honestly think "Female Spooning Friend Wanted -
m4w - 39" is platonic? 90% of those posts are people looking for sexual
relations.
Try doing what Danimal suggests... ask about joining a cycling group.
>> then you should not be surprised
>> to find men that desire to date. Trying to find men that want to just be
>> friends with a woman on a dating site is like trying to fish in the
>> desert.
>
> This is not a site just for dating. And the category clearly states
> "strictly platonic".
Which is why there are posts about... let's see...
Female Spooning Friend Wanted - m4w - 39
I INHERITED $1M USD AND NEED TO SPEND IT NOW!!! - m4w - 23
Where do single people from Redwood city go? - m4mw - 33
Let's just start by being friends first: - m4w - 34
Sure platonic only. If you believe that... reply to the "I got a million and
want to spend it". You just might buy a bridge. Or oceanfront property in
Arizona.
If you want to convince me you are THAT gullible, you'll have to work a bit
harder at it. Otherwise, I'm going to think you are just making excuses.
>> If you want to find a man that wants a platonic only relationship...
>> here's
>> a SUREFIRE place you can meet men that will have almost no sexual desires
>> for you, but be more than happy to be your friend...
>> Monestaries. Monks take a vow of celebacy. They'll certainly be a friend
>> without a desire to have more.
>
> Are you saying that we can make friends with just anybody regardless of
> comon interest? Actually, you have implied that already when you said
> that I coudl make friends with anyone I do not have sexual attraction.
No. I did not say "just anybody". Nor did I mention "common interest". Nor
did I imply that (or say) you could make friends with anyone you are not
sexually attracted to. I did say you can find friends for a non-platonic
relationship, even men. How you go about doing so, however, I left up to you
to decide.
>> When you try to claim you can't find friends that are wanting to be
>> platonic
>> only.. you can certainly lie to yourself. But if you are going to lie to
>> others as well... you might want to get a better cover story.
>
> See how quick you are to accuse me?
And? I'm simply saying you are making excuses. Or you really are so gullible
that you thing a post like Female Spooning Friend Wanted - m4w - 39 is
someone seeking a non-plutonic relationship. When you make obvious
statements that are ludicris I will call you on them.
>> > I am hoping that if we becomes firnds, at least I get to ride bikes by
>> > the river and in the mountain with him and get to know the city. I
>> > won't let him this friendship go beyond friendship but of course,
>> > technically I won't say "never". If you ask why, I will tell you in
>> > email in case he is reading here which I doubt he is.
>>
>> You're dreaming. And it's a strange dream at that. No man visits a dating
>> website
>
> The category as I mentioned when I said about putting an ad was
> "Strictly platonic". And I said in my title that am in search of
> like-minded males and females for friends of age (~ -~).
And what? That's automatically going to stop men that want sex from seeking
you? Get real. Have you replied to the numerous entries of postings from
people saying they are looking for friends only?
>>hoping to meet a woman to "just be friends" with. Most ment don't
>> visit ANY website that involves women except in the hopes of having
>> sexual
>> encounters.
>
> You are so quick to judge.
So? It doesn't take a year and a science degree to figure out men looking on
websites where men and women are posting to find relationships are probably
there looking for a relationship. In fact, it would take someone that is
either EXTREMELY gullible or looking for an excuse to assume the men posting
there are looking for anythign BUT a relationship. As I said before... if
you want to catch fish, try fishing on the lake. Don't fish in the desert
and then say that there are no fish to be caught anywhere. You're fishing in
the wrong place... so the question becomes...
Why are you looking for a platonic relationship in places you know (or
should know) are likely to not have people looking for platonic
relationships.
>> > All I really want was to have friends to go to movies with and may be
>> > eat out, cook my stiry fry, or BBQ if he is good at it.
>>
>> Then join a cooking club. Join a movie of the month club. There are men
>> that
>> would be more than happy to share their hobby or interest with and many
>> others. But you ain't gonna find them online.
>
> You are hopeless. May be because you know that most of what you claimed
> do not apply to all men or all women.
You can rant all you wish. Go fishing in the desert and then scream to high
heaven that you can't catch fish. See if anything changes. Keep looking for
a plutonic relationship in places where men go to find sexual encounters and
see if you catch a plutonic relationship. Get a clue. If you're really that
gullible, get a clue. But, I tend to think you are not that gullible. I
think you are trying to internally justify your excuses to yourself. Like I
said before... people lie to themselves far more often than to anyone else.
And they'll believe their own lies far faster and easier. (and feel free to
dismiss it by saying I'm accusing you. It's just another lie to tell
yourself.)
Speeding
>
> the Danimal wrote:
> [..]
>
>> Join your local bike club. You can ride with lots of people in
>> groups to the river and the mountain and get to know the city,
>> with no expectation that you must have sex with anyone.
>>
>> To find your local bike clubs, go to Google and type your city
>> name and the word: bicycle or bicycling or cycling.
>
> But I don't like group and my main focus was not just riding but
> riding with a friend.
See my point yet? Any lie you can tell yourself to justify the conclusion
you want to believe.
>>That's not a problem because
>> usually I'm just looking for people to ride with.
>
> Well, I am not looking for people just to ride. I am looking for friend
> sto hang out with via riding or other things.
So, what's the problem? Get on with it, then. Stop making excuses and lying
to yourself, already!
>> She could hook a trailer to her bike and ride around with the
>> BBQ grill going on it. The smell alone should attract lots of
>> men.
>
> You are rude and you took things out of contect. BBQ was not the goal.
> The goal was to make friends. I even prefer women but like I said it
> has been harder to do that.
He's not being rude at all. He's being helpful. You are lying to yourself.
That's rude. It's rude to yourself and rude to others that assume you are
being honest in saying you are looking for friends, when you are looking to
"prove" you can't find any.
> "I even prefer women but like I said it has been harder to do that."
Which explains the posts
Why is it so hard to find good female friends? - w4ww - 23
looking for GIRLFRIENDS to hang out with... - w4w - 22
Increase Your Platonic Reationships - m4m
Yep.. soooo hard. What with all those posts asking for that very thing
getting in the way and all. Not to mention that when you walk out the front
door... there's this place out there called Earth... just filled with people
looking to find other people.
>> The best way to find men who will ride bikes to the river and
>> the mountain is to join the local bike club.
>
> Out of context.
Standard duck. Please learn some newer ones. At least your other lies to
yourself have some modicum of effort to them.
g sites
>
> While it is not online dating sites per se, it clearly said "Strictly
> Platonic". Which parts of these two words do they not understand as
> English speaking men?
The part that says "strictly" and "platonic". They, just like many of the
women, think it means "strictly platonic until sex becomes involved, which
is my goal" Or do you honestly want to explain how Female Spooning Friend
Wanted - m4w - 39 is in any way plutonic appearing...
Speeding
> yamuna wrote:
>> Speeding wrote:
>> > Sex appeal is hardly a built-in thing. It's true that some of the
>> > aspects
>> > are natural looks. But it's much more than that.
>
> What can Janet Reno do to have as much sex appeal as
> Jessica Alba?
Not much. A more accurate question would be...
What can Janet Reno do to have as much sex appeal as Margret Thatcher?
or...
What can Jessica Alba do to have as much sex appeal as Scarlett Johannson?
And the answer to that is... Plenty! My point is that women that have
fairly similar looks can do a great deal to improve their sexual appear
within a group of women that they look similiar to. Or vice versa, in this
case, there is plenty they can NOT do to lessen their sexual attractiveness
compared to other women that look similiar to themselves.
>> > And you might not do
>> > anything out of the ordinary to attract a man... but that wouldn't mean
>> > you
>> > aren't attracting them. Many women have a natural sex appeal to them.
>> > Personally, I watch some women and consider that way they move and act
>> > to be
>> > extremely sexually attractive.
>>
>> C'mon. People move based on how their body frame is built.
>
> That's one factor. Then there are spasmodic people with
> normal builds and abnormal movements. Thus it's also
> about how their brains and nervous systems coordinate
> their muscles to generate movement.
Well, true. But, given an average grouping of ordinary women that all have
basically the same physical looks, there will be some that know how to
dress, move, talk, and act in a manner that increases their sexual
attractiveness compared to the other women in that similiar group.
>> > Whether they are trying to be such or not.
>>
>> Yeah, see above.
>>
>> > But, there are PLENTY of women's magazines that have TONS of advice on
>> > how
>> > to be more attractive...
>>
>> Gee, if their magzines are correct with their info, we won't need asl
>> news group.
>
> The purpose of such magazines is to sell products. To sell
> products, you must first make the customer perceive a need
> for something. For example, you could make the customer
> to feel insecure.
Works pretty damn good too. Thankfully for men. Imagine a world where men
have to approach women where they are ALL confident about their looks. Even
supermodels think about themselves and woory about being too *this* of not
enough *that*. Around other supermodels, they are VERY self conscious of
thier flaws. Around a group of ugly women, they are going to look like,
well, supermodels. and they will know it.
> In any case, women's magazines have done virtually nothing
> to level the playing field. They might make women somewhat
> more attractive across the board, but the women who are
> naturally the most attractive are still the most attractive, and
> by just as large a margin as ever. If anything, the Heidi Klums
> of the world who have virtually flawless looks can make a lot
> more money by marketing their looks than they could have
> made 100 or 200 years ago.
Thank God they haven't. Just as men's magainzes haven't. But, this does not
in any way mean that among a group of Heidi Klums, the individual models are
all thinking about their own flaws and wondering how to be more attractive
than the other Heidi Klums. They compete within their own group. And the
competition is fierce. Outside their group, they are Godlike. But inside it,
they are just plain old average... hoping to find some subtle advantage to
put them on the top.
> It's like the way if all athletes in a sport take
> performance-enhancing drugs, they all may get
> stronger, but the top guys are still the top guys.
But one of those top guys is THE top guy. And the others are doing
everything and anything they can to figure out how to become the NEW top
guy. Comparing the guys at the top of the game to the rookies is simply not
accurate. Comparing the top guys to the other top guys is. And that's
exactly what they do with each other. Comparing the rookies to one another
is accurate. They are also doing what they need to in order to stand out
from the other rookies. So they might get a shot at maybe someday getting to
the top of the pile.
> It's possible an entire sport can collectively benefit
> from drugs, for example if there is an increase in
> some aspect of play that fans like, such as home
> runs. (It may be that steroids help the hitters more
> than the pitchers, but why that would be I don't
> know. Maybe the mechanics of pitching limit the
> speed of a thrown ball, and getting stronger does
> not help the pitcher to throw much faster. Whereas
> a bat swing allows more efficient coupling to the
> muscles, so a stronger batter can put more energy
> into the swing while retaining control.)
It's more like the reverse. If one player is benefiting from using
steriods... and he's suddenly top of the pile.. the other players that used
to be (or are trying to be) top of the pile will either become content with
being second best... or they will start using drugs as well, in an effort to
get to the top of the list.
>> > how to talk, walk, dress, act, etc... to increase
>> > sexual attraction. So, there is a great deal you can do and learn to
>> > increase your ability to be more sexually attractive.
>
> If a woman is obese, nothing can improve her looks more
> than if she learns to eat less. In fact, all other accoutrements
> and so on are likely to have a negligible effect on her
> attractiveness if her weight stays the same.
Compared to whom? Less obese women? Yes. Compared to other obese women...
no. She can compete with the other women that have her same physical builds.
If you are going to compare such a thing, it must be apples to apples and
oranges to oranges. Expecting an apple to compare to a prune is simply not
realistic. But, if you could compare five prunes, you can certainly group
the prunes into an order of attractiveness based on the qualities each prune
has compared to the other prunes. But, the prune is never going to be in the
same league as the apple, baring severe changes. At which point, the prune
is no longer a prune, but an apple... and can then be compared to other
apples.
> It's hard to sell self-discipline as a product, because it
> doesn't require buying anything.
Try telling that to Dr. Phil. He's doing a hell of a job selling it.
>> Yes, one can do and learn to increase the appeal but that's not waht we
>> were talking about. You were saying women do certain things and acts
>> with intention to attract men and I am saying that not all of us do.
>> Sex appeal is mostly a built-in thing.
>
> Actually I would say that most of what women do to attract
> men is unintentional. Women feel direct instinctive urges
> to decorate themselves, even if they make no conscious
> association for attracting men.
Agreed.
> It's similar to the way men feel automatic, instinctive urges
> to compete with other men. When men feel they
> have to beat other men in some trivial irrelevant competition,
> it's not because they consciously believe this will make them
> more attractive to women. But a man who wins the big
> meaningful competitions against large numbers of men will
> certainly be rewarded with his choice of women.
Agreed again. It's how the apples are able to compete against each other to
show which apple gets the blue ribbon.
> In other words, the average woman feels instinctive urges
> to check and enhance her appearance, as if she were Halle
> Berry or some other great beauty whose appearance is
> a matter of great importance.
BINGO!! The average woman will NEVER hope to be as sexually appealing as
Halle Berry. But, that doesn't mean she can set that as her goal in an
effort to appear more attractive to the other average women around her. She
will instinctively desire, in most cases any ways, to be more attractive
than other women that she can compete with. Though she can never hope to BE
as sexy as Halle, she CAN hope to approach that level, and thus, exceed the
other women in her grouping.
And, Halle IS competing against other women in HER group... Toni Braxton,
Selma Hayak, Beyoncé Knowles.. Right now, Halle is on the top of the pile.
But, she's constantly working to stay there, too.
> similarly, the average man wants to win pointless competitions
> with his obscure male peers as if he is Peyton Manning trying
> to get to the Super Bowl. For example, when I am on a bike
> ride with some friends, and someone challenges me on
> a hill climb, I will endure considerable pain to match or exceed his
> pace to the top, as long as the contest is close enough that
> I have a shot. It is pointless, but in a way it is fun. It is very
> difficult for me to let someone ride away when I have the ability
> to keep up, even if keeping up is painful.
Again, completely agreed. And, as you are sure.. it has nothing to do, or it
would appear, with women. It's simply a competition thing. But, it does
translate over, because if you win this competition, you get an ego boost
and confidence builder. Which women can pick up on. As your confidence
increases, your "alpha" status is more apparent. Thus, being more alpha..
you are more attractive. It works the same for women... the competitions are
just different.
> In both cases, the instinctive behavior is there to ultimately
> increase our mating opportunities with the opposite sex, even
> if we aren't consciously aware of why we are doing it.
Yep.
> A woman automatically cares about her appearance, and
> a man automatically cares about competing, even if we
> don't consciously know why we care. We care because
> ultimately that's what the opposite sex wants in a mate.
> Men want women who keep up their looks, and women
> want men who can kick other men's butts and hog
> the resources.
And we both understand this.
For me, it would be Shania Twain... but you're dead on target. If I'm in a
LTR and Shania were to set her sights on me... the odds I'd be able to
remain faithful would be incredibly low. If my current LTR is doing
literally everythign right.. there might be as much as a 10% chance. Maybe.
And if it's Shania and and someone else with her at the same time... the
odds are more like in the negative column.
And women are just as equally likely. Let George Clooney or Brad Pitt put a
woman into the same position... the odds are even less than for the men.
The woman WILL stray.
> The reason this isn't generally understood by women is
> that there are very few women as attractive as Heidi Klum,
> and they don't go around trying to wreck average homes.
> So it's easy for the average woman to imagine her average
> man isn't sleeping with Heidi Klum because he doesn't
> want to and wouldn't want to.
Women understand it. They don't like it, but they understand it. just as it
would be for the revers I mention above. They know if Brad Pitt were to walk
in the front door, they'd be exactly the same way.
> That's sort of like concluding the illegal immigrant doing
> your dirty work for low pay is there because he likes it.
> If he won the lottery, he'd be gone as soon as he could
> cash the ticket.
Probably faster than that even.
> The world remains somewhat stable and functional, however,
> because most of the power relationships are relatively fixed.
> In other words, everyone has his or her place in the hierarchy,
> and most people accept their place. The man who has no
> shot at a Heidi Klum pretty much comes to terms with it,
> and forgets about doing better. Similarly, most people are
> not billionaires, but we don't lose much sleep over it.
Exactly. We continue to compete to improve. We even set those lofty goals as
the standard. But we know the odds of getting there are slim indeed.
>> > >>unless you are a 10 on the scale of attraciveness for that particular
>> > >>set.
>> > > This is what I mean by "superficial". What the chnace of two people
>> > > having exactly the same things except in looks?
>> >
>> > With a workld population of roughly 5 BILLION... the odds are better
>> > than
>> > average.
>>
>> If your goal is just to win the conversation, of course, your statement
>> is valid but I am talking about a guy having access to 2 women who
>> differs only in looks and get to compare them.
>
> Well, it's hard to find an actual case in which two women both
> want the same guy and they only differ in looks. In fact, it's
> probably impossible.
Because both women know that the better looking woman is pretty much a
shoe-in.
> But it would be relatively simple to find two women who have
> different personality traits but they seem comparable to the
> man.
Dirt simple.
> For example, each woman could have some different annoying
> habits, but the man finds them similarly annoying and has
> no clear preference. In that case, he will choose the woman
> he finds more physically attractive.
Even if some women don't care to admit this is true.
> For example, woman A might dislike a man's favorite hobby,
> while agreeing with his religion. Woman B might disagree with
> his religion, and like his hobby. Which woman is better? Each
> one might present a comparable problem to be negotiated,
> but the problems would be different.
What she is claiming is that the odds of finding two women that both like
his hobby and dislike his religion and have comparable looks are impossible
or nearly so. I say that the odds of two women that would share all those
traits are high. And in such a case, the man will likely pick the woman that
is better looking.
Some do just that. In fact, it's not totally unusual to see a woman come in
wearing pants or leggings and take them off revealing her skirt underneath
once inside. The temperature outside doesn't have ANY effect on the desire
to appear attractive once the weather element is no longer present. And,
some women will even wear thin blouses in the cold.
Ask any guy that works in a supermarket... or take a trip there yourself...
and see if there aren't a few women that will wear rather thin tops and then
go to the meat counter for a few minutes. And then walk through the rest of
the store shopping. And enjoy the observations of the men that see the
effects the cold has had on her. Some women will do that just for fun.
> Of course few people in the U.S.A. spend much time outside
> in winter. That's probably why the winter months are the
> cold and flu epidemic time. People huddle inside buildings
> with artificial heat blasting away. The ideal environment for
> disease transmission.
>>
Or, any personality type that would make you decide to be in a relationship
with Janet if you could be with Heidi instead, the "Heidi" would have to
treat you like complete crap and the "Janet" would have to treat you like a
God. Even then... many men would still accept being with "Heidi". Physical
appearance is that important to some people.
> In contrast, I would put up with some pretty deranged behavior
> from the Heidi Klum type, as long as she wanted me and
> could behave normally enough in bed. The Heidi Klum type
> would probably have to be more evil than any woman I
> have met so far to cancel out her physical beauty.
BINGO!!!
> Most likely, however, a woman who really looks that good
> would not be interested in me, if experience is a guide.
>
>> Now, to answer you acusation:
>>
>> > so, pick just one...
>> > #1: You decide to have sex with him.
>> > #2: You did not want to have sex with him, but did so to please him.
>> > #3: You had sex with him to get to know him better
>>
>> What I said was that I had sex with him only after I decided that I
>> would but time-wise, it's before I really wanted to (out of just
>
> How do you define "really wanted to"? Did you reach orgasm
> when you had sex with him? If you did not have an orgasm,
> did you fake it?
>
> I suspect if a woman is less than fully "into it" during
> sex, she may be less likely to reach orgasm.
And she's still not answering the question. She's trying to answer all three
at one. Either she wanted to have sex with him or she did not, but had sex
for one of the other reasons. But she doesn't want to say which it is. She
had A (as in one) reason for having sex. the other "reasons" are
justifications for the primary reason.
>> wanting to get to know him by just talking and not because I wasn't
>> secually ready) because I couldn't say "no" and turn him away. I fele
>> that to reject him like that would be kind of cruel when he is all
>> aroused.
>
> The question originally was whether you are superficial, or not.
> If you did not feel that you knew this man very well at the time
> when you first had sex, then he probably did not know you any
> better. Therefore, the sexual attraction he felt for you, which
> was substantial because he was "all aroused," presumably in
> the throbbing boner sense, was a superficial attraction.
>
> Earlier, when you called me superficial, I interpreted that
> as a pejorative. Perhaps even a kind of slur. Now you are saying
> that in at least one instance you rewarded a superficial man with
> the most precious gift a woman can give a man. (It is precious
> both to the woman, and to the man.) Thus I am greatly relieved.
> Superficiality on its own obviously isn't a showstopper for you.
Heck, it's even a trait she herself seems to have. (the age requirements and
such)
>> >> The point was that other things aside from sexual attraction always
>> >> subconscious affects the decision to engage in seuxal activity with
>> >> someone.
>>
>> > Maybe for some people, but not for everyone.
>
> Oh, I think for most people. Suppose you aim a loaded shotgun
> at someone's head and tell him to stop having sex. Most would
> stop, especially if you fired off a couple of warning shots. In
> that case, the subconcious would agree with the conscious
> that we should listen to the nut with the shotgun.
And likely wet the bed and be running out the door fairly quickly too!!!
> There are lots of other factors beside sexual attraction that
> influence the decision to have sex. Proximity, for one. How
> much of a hassle it is to get with someone. Would you walk
> all the way across the United States to have sex with a
> woman? Would you row across the Atlantic ocean in a boat?
> Would you ski across Antarctica, hauling all your supplies in
> a 1000-pound sled like that endurance athlete from Norway
> who did it solo? He camped out many nights when the temperature
> dropped to 60 degrees below zero. It's difficult to imagine how
> survival would be possible. Much less why anyone would
> decide to do it.
Of course there are. But it's equally silly to suggest that it's superficial
to base a decision to have sex on sexual attraction.
Thank you. Let's get back to that. She's been ducking it like crazy.
>
> -- the Danimal
>
Speeding
>
>
>> > Gee, if their magzines are correct with their info, we won't need asl
>> > news group.
>>
>> And most all of the people on here are guys. Because women don't need to
>> learn seduction techniques from a newsgroup. They get it from watching
>> and
>> talking with other women and because it's in all the magazines.
>
> You are generalizing that all women or most women read those crap. I
> never bought one such magazine and from what ever little I read waiting
> at the gorcery check out line, I never pick the title like "How to make
> him blah blah..". I remember my sister (10 older) telling my oledest
> sister this when she was visiting her and I wad too: I bought a
> magazine to read on the airplne but couldn't read it. The magazine she
> was referring to was one of those crap magazine - obviously she wanted
> to see what's in it - and she obviosuly didn't find anything
> interesting enough to keep her attention. In that sense all my sisters
> (except my fraternal twin who routinely read junks all her life and my
> other older sister who never read anaything beyond school books; hs
> ebecame a homemaker very early on) are very much alike.
Notice I said " from watching and talking with other women AND..."
Okay, I should have said AND/OR... The point is.. women learn it from
various sources. Men generally do not.
>>There aren't
>> many men's magazines that give a ton of advice on how to seduce women.
>
> So oyu really think those magazines help women?
Some of them... yes. they aren't none too shabby for men either.
>> >> how to talk, walk, dress, act, etc... to increase
>> >> sexual attraction. So, there is a great deal you can do and learn to
>> >> increase your ability to be more sexually attractive.
>> >
>> > Yes, one can do and learn to increase the appeal but that's not waht we
>> > were talking about. You were saying women do certain things and acts
>> > with intention to attract men and I am saying that not all of us do.
>> > Sex appeal is mostly a built-in thing.
>>
>> No. I said "there is a great deal you can do and learn to increase your
>> ability to be more sexually attractive."
>> I also said "Sex appeal is hardly a built-in thing. "
>> You said "I am saying that not all of us do. Sex appeal is mostly a
>> built-in
>> thing."
>>
>> Come on, it's all right here in this very post. By "not all of us" you
>> are
>> mostly refering to yourself. Because the vast majority of women do what
>> they
>> can to be more attractive to men. The ones that do not are doing what
>> they
>> can to attract other women.
>
> What about women just doing it for themselves? I have never been a
> sloppy dresser just because I wasn't and am not.
You only think you are doing it for yourself. You shouldn't care about it if
it was ONLY for yourself. Are you trying to claim that you spend hours and
hours cleaning, ironing, coordinating, etc, etc simply for your own self
satisfaction? Come on. If so, then why dress at all? After all, if it is
ONLY for yourself... then you could wear anything you wanted and it should
not matter. Sloppy sweat pants and a baggy shirt is surely more comfortable
and easier to maintain that a business suit. So, are you claiming you dress
sloppily, since you don't care about what others think... it's only for your
comfort?
Put it this way... would you wear a red top with a gren bottom? Of course
not... but.. answer... Why not?
>>Very few people are not trying to attract anyone
>> at all. The deisre to reproduce and/or to attract a mate is a very basic
>> desire.
>>
>> >> >> > I didn't say it is not but to use supermodel examples and say the
>> >> >> > rest
>> >> >> > of us get to choose from the rejects is just a stupid statement.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You are picked from the rejects of some catagory,
>> >> >
>> >> > So are the super models.
>> >>
>> >> True. And they know it too. Super models are VERY competative.
>> >
>> > In my previous response "So are the super models.", I meant super
>> > models get to choose from some rejects too.
>>
>> That makes no sense. If a supermodel picks someone, then they are not
>> "picking from rejects".
>
> A serious PhD chemist would not pick a super model. In that sense, she
> has to pick from a group exlcuding that PhD chemist *which could be*
> rejects by some PhD female Chemist if the men are not intelligent
> enough for her though it could be mutual such that these men do not
> find that female PhD to be attractive. So it's not clear cut like the
> *original* implication that non supermodels (us females) get to pick
> from the rejects of super models.
A serious PhD chemist certainly would (and some have) pick supermodels. And
a PhD chemist would likely be even faster to pick a supermodel that also
happens to be of a like scientific mind. Your point is completely blown.
And my point is that given a fairly equal set of other circumstances, a man
will pick a better looking woman over a less attractive one. Your argument
that the odds of two people sharing the same non-physical attributes as
being low is completely off base.
>> The act of picking means the picked is not a reject,
>> but a picked. You make no sense here.
>
> Refer to the original claim either by you or Damial. I forget who said it.
Post it. I have no clue (and it sounds like you might not either) what you
are trying to say.
A person that is picked is not a reject. It's pretty straightforward.
>> >> >>unless you are a 10 on the scale of attraciveness for that
>> >> >>particular
>> >> >>set.
>> >> > This is what I mean by "superficial". What the chnace of two people
>> >> > having exactly the same things except in looks?
>> >>
>> >> With a world population of roughly 5 BILLION... the odds are better
>> >> than
>> >> average.
>> >
>> > If your goal is just to win the conversation, of course, your statement
>> > is valid but I am talking about a guy having access to 2 women who
>> > differs only in looks and get to compare them.
>>
>> You are making no sense here either. You asked what the chances are of
>> two
>> people having the same non-physical qualities would be.
> That's not what I said. I said the chance of 2 women with the same in
> *everything* except looks/appearance with the fact both of whom are
> accessible by the same men.
Damn. You are disagreeing WHILE saying that you agree. Look at what you are
saying!!! Jeez...
I said the chance of 2 women with the same in *everything* except
looks/appearance with the fact both of whom are accessible by the same men.
Okay *everything*! Just HOW technically exact are you trying to make this.
Same DNA? Same fingerprints? Same brain patterns?
The chance of 2 women with similiar qualities except looks/appearance with
both of whom are accessible by the same men is low.
That's your claim.
I say BS. I say the odds that 2 women with similiar qualities INCLUDING or
EXCLUDING appearance with both of whom are accessible by the same men is
HIGH. Rather HIGH! Throw out the looks line completely. I'll spell it out
for you as simple as possible...
You say:
The chance of 2 women with similiar qualities with both of whom are
accessible by the same man is low.
I say:
The chance of 2 women with similiar qualities with both of whom are
accessible by the same man is high.
On a planet with 5 Billion people on it, the odds that 2 women fit into a
broad (or even a narrow) catagory of similiar traits while also being in
proximity to a given male is high. Very high. That's why women MUST compete.
And, the reverse is true...
The chance of 2 men with similiar qualities with both of whom are accessible
by the same woman is high. Which is why men must also compete.
>>I said it would be
>> rather high. It doesn't matter if the guy is trying to engage them in
>> sex,
>> conversation, or is just looking at them... the odds that two people of
>> roughly the same physical qualities would share similiar non-physical
>> qualities is quite high in a world filled with 5 billion souls.
>
> My implication was these two people would not accessible by the same
> men since these two would be at different places.
Mine is that they would be. You seem to think people are like snowflakes...
no two are *EXACTLY* alike. I think that people are like snowflakes... while
it might be true that no two people are *EXACTLY* alike... you have to look
pretty damn closely and carefully to find differences to seperate the
individuals. Otherwise, you've got a lot of snow to look at.
>> >> Siblings are more competitive than just about anyone else. All life is
>> >> about
>> >> competition, though.
>> >
>> > I have seen sisters so loving and not petty that way. When a sister 15
>> > years older than you and 10 years oldern than you competet that way
>> > with you, it's not siblng rivalry. They must have some serious
>> > psychological issues.
>>
>> Hardly. You have seen sisters that APPEAR to be loving. And perhaps they
>> are. But they are competing. Like it or not, life is competion. And 10 to
>> 15
>> years difference in age or not, they are STILL competing. It would be the
>> sign of a serious psychological issue to assume they are not.
>
> May be in Western culture. In Asian culture, for a sister that old to
> feel that way is out of ordainary. That's why I was shocked by oldest
> sister's behavior though the competition I was referring to was in
> looks/appearance and only from her side.
Sure. Women in the rest of the world are so different. Keep telling yourself
that. Women are women. They compete. Men are men. They compete.
It's a lot more simply that you want to believe... but if you want to keep
lying to yourself, so be it.
>> >> > It is not simple. How about climateic affect determineing what we
>> >> > wear?
>> >>
>> >> To a point... okay. Got me on a technicality.
>> >
>> > Not technicality. It's one of the many facts.
>>
>> Technicality. If it wasn't freezing cold of blistering hot, they'd be
>> naked,
>> if also not for a desire to appear modest but sexually attractive at the
>> same time.
>> And, this is a non-point... you are ducking the topic. Again.
>
> You just don't get it.
No, You don't get it. Danimal made an excellent point about people in jungle
climates.
>> >> But, in a warm climate, we'd be naked.
>> >
>> > Nope, in the Arabian desert, they wear long white gown, until modern
>> > time.
>>
>> But only for the reason I just stated.
> You call anything that contradict your facts, a technicality.
Any lie you have to tell yourself to make yourself feel better, then.
>> >> In a colder climate, we'd wear whatever is warmest.
>> >
>> >> Yet I see women wearing skirts in the winter rather commonly.
>> >
>> > That really puzzles me too.
>>
>> Why? It puzzles you that women want to appear attractive. I understand
>> that
>> it puzzles you. You don't care to be attractive, or so you say.
>
> I care to be attractive for me. I don't consciously dress for a man or
> a woman.
Sure. Any lie you have to tell yourself to make yourself feel better, then.
Tell me, though... do you care if you wear a green top and a red bottom?
Why?
>>So, if that
>> be true, then it's understandable that you would not understand normal
>> human
>> behavior, not participating in normal human behavior.
>
> So now, I am not a normal human?
By your claim. You are the one that a few posts back that was claiming to be
so unique. So different from all other people.
Make up your mind.
>> > I am one of the women who wear for comforts. No skirts in winter for
>> > me.
>>
>> As noted above.
>
> You discard all the relevant facts that contradict your theory as
> technicalities.
Any lie you have to tell yourself to make yourself feel better. You are
ducking. I've lost count, but it's somewhere in the upper 20s.
>> >> Most men do run it like a chess game. It's a competition. They compete
>> >> as
>> >> if
>> >> it is. Both competing with the other person in their relationship AND
>> >> competing with other men outside it. If you honestly think that you
>> >> can
>> >> have
>> >> a relationship in which you will not be expected to keep yourself in
>> >> better
>> >> shape than the women around you then you better be prepared to live
>> >> alone.
>> >
>> > First of all, I will keep myself in shape because even a little weight
>> > gain makes me feel very uncomfortable. May be that's why I never
>> > understood that we women *must* keep in shape for men.
>>
>> It's not a "must". It's only a must if you wish to attract the type of
>> man
>> that is attracted to women in shape.
>
> Now you are saying...
That you care about your appearance as much, or more, for the appearance you
wish to present to others. Otherwise, your claim is that you don't care
about your appearance. Or that you only care about your appearance for
yourself.
>> >> Whether you realize it or not, you ARE in competition with other women
>> >> in
>> >> your quest to find a male companion. If you decided to seek a female
>> >> companion.. then you will still be competing with other women. And
>> >> possibly
>> >> other men, also.
>> >
>> > But this competiiton you refer to is not as competitive as you sound
>> > because like I said, to access 2 people who differs only in one factor
>> > be it apperance or not is quite rare.
>>
>> It is not rare at all. And it is VERY competitive, whether you like it or
>> believe it. Just look at a magazine stand anywhere that magazines are
>> sold.
>> If there are 20 women's magazines.... ALL TWENTY will have some tips
>> abnout
>> how to be better looking, more attractive, better at sex, etc... If there
>> at
>> 20 men's magainzes, at least half will discuss tips on how to be better
>> looking, more attractive, better at sex, etc... The other half will at
>> least
>> include photos of nearly naked (as naked as they can get away with)
>> women.
>
> You think all woman live for looks only. I do agree that the vast
> majority do but not all.
Not for looks ONLY. But looks are a part of the package. A VERY important
part of it.
>> > Now, to answer you acusation:
>>
>> Not accusation... just question. And it would be nice if you do...
>
> I have but you want to put your answer in my mouth as a yes or no.
As a - one answer only please -. As in stop trying to change your claim
every other post... or twice in the same post, in some cases.
And, have you answered yet....
>> >> so, pick just one...
>> >> #1: You decide to have sex with him.
>> >> #2: You did not want to have sex with him, but did so to please him.
>> >> #3: You had sex with him to get to know him better
>> >
>> > What I said was that I had sex with him only after I decided that I
>> > would but time-wise, it's before I really wanted to (out of just
>> > wanting to get to know him by just talking and not because I wasn't
>> > secually ready) because I couldn't say "no" and turn him away. I fele
>> > that to reject him like that would be kind of cruel when he is all
>> > aroused.
>>
>> No. I quoted what you said. That you cut it doesn't change that you said
>> it.
>> I put the quote up.
>> So, what is your answer? #1, #2, or #3? You are trying to pick all three.
>> Pick one, please.
>
> See above about yes or no.
Answer the question.
Or simply state that you have no idea what the answer to the question is.
But stop lying that the "answer" is Yes, No and All of the Above.
You flip flop more than John Kerry. More waffles than an IHOP.
>> >>> The point was that other things aside from sexual attraction always
>> >>> subconscious affects the decision to engage in seuxal activity with
>> >>> someone.
>> >
>> >> Maybe for some people, but not for everyone.
>> >
>> > Not may be and yes, for me.
>> >
>> >> The point still stands...
>> >> you're not very likely to have sex with someone you are not physically
>> >> attracted to.
>> > That, I never argued.
>>
>> But you were just saying a few posts back that having sex with someon
>> because of physical attraction is superficial.
>
> What I said was with the implication of *choosing* someone to have sex
> with based on appearance only while you guys said that sexual
> attraction based on appearance *determines* whether one would have sex
> with him or not.
Damn. Another flop. Or is it a flip? You made the claim just two posts back
that you have a height requirement for me. That's a superficial requirement
based on physical attractiveness. If you have sex with someone based in part
on such a decision, then you ARE having sex based on a superficial decision.
Otherwise, you'd have sex with short men.
o a better job
>> of keeping track of what you are saying.
>
> I am very clear on what I said. You saw it out of context.
No. I posted it word for word. Your word for word. You cut it out, but that
doesn't change it was YOUR word for word that I quoted. So, you are saying
YOU said it out of context. Because your context changed yet again. Flip -
Flop. Like a fish out of water.
>> You're changing your story faster than you can post it.
>
> No. you remove my implication and insist your own words as if I said
> that.
No. I posted YOUR words. I've been posting YOUR words. You are the one
changing YOUR words and saying YOUr words are being taken out of context. Or
that YOUR words are not what you mean. Or that YOUR words are not yours. As
was saying about "Any lie you have to tell yourself to make yourself feel
better." Well, that's all fine and dandy to lie to yourself. But don't try
to tell me I'm using anything but YOUR word when I've been quoting directly
from them.
>>How can you expect advice if you keep changing the
>> story?
>>
>> >>And, you're not very likely to wait a signifigantly long time to get to
>> >>know them on a
>> >> deep level first
>> >
>> > That happens only because I gave into the man, the man that ia lready
>> > did decide do have sex with.
>>
>> See what I mean. You are contradicting yourself in just a single
>> sentence....
>> I had sex because I wanted to, but I gave in to him when I didn't want
>> to.
>> Which is it??
>
> You want a yes or not based on *your* question, not based on what I
> said.
DAMN IT!!! @$%^&!!! They are YOUR words. I even pasted them right there.
What part of YOUR words are you claiming are not yours, then...
>> > What I said was that ***I had sex with him only after I decided that I
>> > would*** but time-wise, it's ***before I really wanted to*** (out of
>> > just
>> > ***wanting to get to know him*** by just talking and not because I
>> > wasn't
>> > secually ready) ***because I couldn't say "no" and turn him away.***
>> > ***I fele
>> > that to reject him like that would be kind of cruel when he is all
>> > aroused.***
DAMN IT!!! YOUR words. Stop lying to yourself and then trying to say it's my
fault I don't accept your lies. Let's read it yet again... cut down to the
parts...
***I had sex with him only after I decided that I would***
***before I really wanted to***
*** (out of just wnting to get to know him***
***because I couldn't say "no" and turn him away.***
***I felt that to reject him like that would be kind of cruel when he is all
aroused.***
Pick one. You are trying to justify your desicions with (now up to) five
different excuses. One of which may or may not be the actual reason you made
your decision. Heck, you might end up adding more to the list. It grows with
each post. What I am asking you is to stop lying to yourself and say just
which REASON was THE reason you decided to have sex. Then you can
objectivily look at the other reasons. Or.... keep telling yourself any lie
you have to tell yourself to make yourself feel better. but stop trying to
say your lie is my fault for not uderstanding the lie you yourself can't
even explain.
>> story your told. Stop trying to
>> justify your decisions after the fact. If all you are looking to do is
>> justify your decisions... then why ask about it? Why not just say that
>> you
>> make a decision you did not want to make and are now sorry for making a
>> decision you didn't want to make.
>
> No. I am not sorry because I never do things that I wouldn't want to do
> at all and I never said what you are claiming that I said. You took it
> out of context by removing the implication that was very clear.
DAMN. You did it yet again. Right after you just said flip.. you say flop...
Which is is....
I never do things that I wouldn't want to do OR
It's before I really wanted to
Do you even realize how much you are flip-flopping? At least ten times just
in this post alone. When your story doesn't fit, you change it to something
else. And then claim the words you just posted aren't your own. Make up your
mind, if you can.
Speeding
>
> Speeding wrote:
> [..]
>
>> Online is not real life.
>
> I was aiming to meet somepeople in my subdivison.
Here's a suggestion or two then... Take a walk out the door and around the
subdivision. Buy a bicycle and ride around the subdivision. If you want to
meet people... a really good way to do it is to go to where they are and say
"Hi." Then improvise from there.
>>But.. anyways... before you start a new tangent...
>> 4 men. And how many women? What kind of site are you going to to meet new
>> people? A dating site?
>
> Nope. Not a dating site per se.
Any closer and it'd be E-Harmony.
>> Age range? You have an age range for friendship? Damn... THAT'S really
>> superficial.
>
> Because the 35 year old guy didn't know about a topic that happen in
> 1998. Made me realize that the closer the age the better chance I would
> have to find someone that I can talk with. If it is not online, age
> wouldn't matter. But because it is online, I have to maximize my chance
> to get the right type. But I also knew that someone who was out of that
> range and felt that he/she met other requirements, he/she could
> contact me. And since I failed to put "college educated"though I gave
> good indication for it, I got one response who told me later "I am not
> higly educated" which to me sounded like he's saying "I am not too
> intelligent" though non college-educted doesn't mean unintelligent.
You have to "maximize" the chance of meeting a person online for friendship?
What? How about trying this instead....
#1: Open front door.
#2: Step outside, close door, maybe lock door.
#3: Start walking.
#4 When you see someone, say "Hi, how are you doing today".
#5: Keep talking... you just made a new friend. Ta da.
Repeat steps #4 and #5 as desired.
#6: Return to home, open door, step inside.
#7, If needed, jot down the names of your new friends so you'll remember
then next time you repeat steps 1-5 again.
>> Why would you require a friend to tell their spouse about you? It sounds
>> like you are posting on a dating site.
>
> I don't want married men aproaching me for extra marital secret
> activites.
That makes no sense. Are you looking for extra marital secret activities? If
not, then what's it matter. Answer.. it doesn't. It's another excuse. Try
steps 1-7 above... Forget all the BS about "I need this quality" or "I don't
wan't friends of that quality" if you make you friend desision making
process so narrow that no humans canfit into it.. then it's no secret as to
why you can't meet friends. Otherwise, you are just lying to yourself once
again about what your real desires and motivations are.
>>If so... then DUH!!!
>
> It's not. And so, duh to you.
But, it is. Unless you think Female Spooning Friend Wanted - m4w - 39 (SF or
EastBay) is some sort of non-platonic request.
Try steps 1-7 as listed above. but, lose the "I don't want any friends
unless they fit into my perfect mold for them" attitute.
>>what would you
>> expect other than men looking to date a woman? You have a lot of
>> requirements for someone that is going to be your online friend.
> I do require a lot for good reasons. I have friends for the last
> school I was at, who is 25 or 26 now. We email each other once ina
> ahilw but can only talk about IT related topic. and how boring life is.
>
>
>> If you are
>> this demanding of your friends online... then how demanding are you with
>> real live people? Do you require a questionnaire be filled out?
>> Application
>> To Be My Friend?
>> Get real.
>
> Hey, I have few friends but these few, I get along really well.
I would hope, considering the stringent requirements you have for a
friendship.
> I am friendly to almost all people but I wouldn't sit and chit chat
> with everbody frequently unless I feel real connected. There must be
> common things such as intellectual level compatibility among other
> things. The gf I am trying to help with marital problems wears me out
> with her nonsense talks whenever I get together with her but I only
> see her once every 6-12 mos and only because we live in the same city.
> Yes, I have my critera. Simply put, "Birds of the same feather flocks
> together."
Birds of the same feather flock into engine intakes ... or.. it's hard to
fly like an eagle if you are surrounded by turkeys.
If you REALLY want to make friends... broaden your horizions a little. Heck,
you might just discover there's a whole world out there filled with lots of
interesting topics you never thought would interest you until you opened up
to them.
Speeding
> the Danimal writes:
>
>> Perhaps, but read the article I cited. The success of
>> recreational drugs such as Viagra (cleverly sold as
>> prescription drugs) suggests that millions of older men
>> naturally lose their ability to have sex before they lose their
>> desire.
>
> Maybe--or they just want to please their partners. Or they feel
> obligated to "perform" (I've always been amused by that term in
> reference to men engaging in sex--apparently for men it is a
> performance, whereas for women it is not).
>
>> Of course, given that the average age difference in relationships
>> is something like 2 years, most older men must settle for
>> sex with older women, creating a double whammy: the man's
>> sex drive is declining even as his partner's sexual attractiveness
>> is also declining.
>
> Yes.
>
> It's a bit like so-called "impotence" generally: often it's just a
> matter of a man not being aroused. He might be somewhat interested in
> sex, but not interested enough to have an erection, and his partner
> may be less than spectacular. Here again, the term used is
> interested, as it implies that an erection equates to power. I see it
> as almost the opposite: an erection is an uncontrolled and automatic
> reaction that serves as a distraction, and thus hardly empowers the
> person afflicted with it.
Wiht older men, it's more a matter of "the mind is willing but the flesh is
weak." It's impotence because the man is aroused but unable to become erect.
If he is not aroused, then Viagra is useless. It won't do diddly to him. And
erection might equate to power because an older man that desires to have one
can't always get it due to his age. Hense, his "powers", like his body... is
weak.
It is an uncontrolled and automatic reaction that serves as a distraction..
but it's ALSO (perhaps more so) an uncontrolled reaction that serves as a
distraction when it DOESN'T react... For men, that's a terribly distressing
thing.
>> The net effect is that old adults don't have as much sex as
>> young adults, on average.
>
> They don't want as much sex. And the less sex you have, the more time
> you have for more interesting pursuits.
Desire is not the same as ability. My grandfather was having desires way
past 70. Hugh Hefner is certainly going strong, too. Viagra makes ability a
bit more in line with desire, is all. Viagra does not increase or even
affect desire.
Speeding
> Speeding writes:
>
>> Because sex is a LOT more fun than smoking.
>
> Only if you're programmed to think so. If that programming fades,
> it's no longer fun, and in that case, why bother with it? There are
> more interesting things in life ... things that do not depend on
> hormones to make them "interesting."
That "programmed".. that would be men. It doesn't fade. (well, maybe I
shouldn't say that... when I hit 80, maybe it will...)
Speeding
> Speeding writes:
>
>> And, Viagra does not increase sexual DESIRE... only sexual ABILITY.
>
> So if you have no desire, Viagra is a waste of time.
Um.. DUH!!! Like the article mentioned... many women have figured out their
husbands were up to playing around because they have Viagra. They wouldn't
go and get Viagra if they didn't have a desire to put it to use. So,
obviously... desire isn't exactly decreasing even in older men. Perhaps in
some of them. But certainly not all of them.
Speeding
> the Danimal writes:
>
>> I don't understand why, if someone doesn't want sex, they
>> would want to want to have sex.
>
> Neither do I.
I think Danimal meant if someone doesn't want sex, why they would have it...
> My theory is that most people don't realize that their desire for sex
> is biologically mediated. They think there is something fundamentally
> wonderful about sex. But there isn't; people like sex because they
> are programmed to like it. There is nothing psychologically
> attractive about it.
If a person THINKS there is something wonderful about sex... then that would
BE a psychological attraction for it. Thinking is psychological.
Now, saying that a desire for sex is a biological function... maybe. But, if
that were true, then sexual desire would drop as age increases. Yet, for
many men, that doesn't seem to be the case. Then again, biologically,
perhaps an explaination could be that men have an ability to continue
reproductive activity far beyond the age at which women can.
> This means that, if the desire for sex wanes due to a fading of the
> programming that compels people to engage in it, there's no real
> reason to try to get it back. If you aren't interested in it, you
> don't miss it, and you don't find it fun.
True. But, if the desire does NOT fade.... for men, there's Viagra. Then
they can continue to have, what for them, is fun.
>> Personally, if I could stop wanting sex, I would feel a great
>> sense of relief. I can't imagine why I would do anything to
>> bring the nuisance back. Although I suppose someone who
>> had a long-term relationship partner to keep happy might
>> perceive not wanting sex to be a problem.
>
> Precisely. Ideally, neither partner would be interested in sex, and
> so neither would "want to want" it, and would not miss it. It would
> free up a tremendous amount of time to not want sex, and it would
> render a lot of social interaction unnecessary, too, since so many
> people are moved to interact only by the desire for sex.
Why not? Sexual attraction is the original basis for mating. After mating,
then your theory would be that the couple goes their seperate ways. After
all, if there's no need for sex, then there is no need for companionship
either. Once the children are weaned, then there is no biological need for
the couple to remain together. Sex, however, provides a psychological need
to remain together long after the biological reproductive needs are gone.
And gee, if the desire to have social interaction is removed when the desire
to have sex is removed (which I don't fully believe) then ther would be no
need for people to have interpersonal relationships at all. We'd al be
hermits after having raised children.
>> If that were true, you should be seeing some 50-year-old
>> women who pass for 20. I never have. Put any 50-year-old
>> woman in with a group of 20-year-old women, and anybody
>> who gets a good look at them will spot the older woman.
>
> A few pre-menopausal 50-year-old women can compete with 20-year-olds,
> but not many. It's rare enough that the few exceptions can be
> ignored.
Can't disagree. But, today's exceptions are tomorrow's norms. 100 years ago,
someone just living to 70 would have been rather exceptional. Now, it's
common.
>> Recently I met a woman who is 40 and I was surprised
>> to learn she is that old. She could have claimed early 30's
>> and fooled me. But that's different than the 30-year gap I
>> mentioned above.
>
> I've met several women who looked to be no older than 30 who were
> already into their 40s. From a distance, I took them to be in their
> mid-twenties, no older. From close up, I saw a few small wrinkles
> that told me they might be older, but I still figured they were only
> 30 or so. I was very surprised to learn that they were in their
> forties, but I was pleased, too, since that means there _are_ pretty
> women around even well past 40.
Agreed again. You have to hunt, sometimes, to find and see the older age.
All you have to do is look up the meaning of the word MILF... older aged
women are starting to gain an acceptance as potentially sexy. Heck, there's
even a song (Stacy's Mom) and a commerical for a body spray (Axe) that
pretty much say that the older woman is more sexually attractive than her
daughter is.
>> Sure, but there has been no change in the rate of aging. People
>> are living longer only because many of the diseases and accidents
>> that killed people at younger ages are treatable or preventable now.
>> Those causes of death weren't strictly related to aging.
>
> The rate of aging is also affected by lifestyle. Some people age more
> quickly because of their lifestyle; others age more slowly for the
> same reasons.
>
> Look at any US President, and you'll see signs of significant aging
> over just four years. It's the stress of the job. Look at FDR over
> his multiple terms.
>
> People who smoke, drink, take drugs, and sunbathe also age very
> quickly.
>
>> Well now. Among Islamic Fundamentalists, the suicide
>> bombers are virtually all young adults (mostly men).
>
> Angry young men are ideal for the job. They are young and healthy,
> and unless they are unusually bright they are probably ruled by
> hormones, which makes it easy to manipulate them emotionally and
> persuade them to do all sorts of stupid things. Angry young men make
> excellent soldiers for the same reason: they'll get all fired up and
> try to take the hill even when it is suicide to do so. Throw enough
> angry young men at a certain-death assignment and eventually a few
> might get through (think D-Day).
And don't forget they are living in a sexually repressed society. The idea
of 72 ANYTHING female that they can touch is probably more than enough
incentive for them.
Speeding
> Speeding writes:
>
>> 50, no. 40, yes. How old is Cher? Madonna? Shania Twain? Teri Hatcher?
>> Fran
>> Dresher?
>
> 60, 46, 41, 42, and 49
And two of those are tops of the hottest and sexiest women today. Plenty
(including me) would put Fran into the group also. Let me have a shot at
Shania... there's not another woman on the planet I thing could complete
against her.
>> Thanks. I forgot Meg Ryan, Holly Hunter, Elisabeth Hurley, Helen Hunt,
>> and
>> Sigorny (can't spell it) Weaver.
>
> 45, 48, 41, 43, 57
All considered to be rather sexy as well.
> It is interesting to note that, perhaps with one or two exceptions,
> none of these women has reached menopause.
Okay. Give medicine time to advance.
> However, HRT can counter the effects of menopause.
It's getting there. Like I said... what's uncommon today will be considered
quite normal in 100 years. We're talking about a civilization that went from
flight to moon landing in 60 years. Granted, we having moved much since
then... but we could.
Mxsmanic
> If a person THINKS there is something wonderful about sex... then that would
> BE a psychological attraction for it.
They only think there is something wonderful about sex because their
hormones compel them to think this.
It's rather like adrenalin: when it flows, people become anxious,
nervous, and get a feeling of impending doom. But all of this is
simply the effect of the adrenalin--it's not an independent
psychological development. Remove the adrenalin, and this
"psychological" state of mind disappears.
> Now, saying that a desire for sex is a biological function... maybe.
> But, if that were true, then sexual desire would drop as age increases.
And it does.
> Yet, for many men, that doesn't seem to be the case.
What makes you say that? All the data I've ever seen indicate a
steady decline in interest in sex among men throughout life after
puberty. The same is true for women, except that women are often
raised to be extremely inhibited, so that they experience an apparent
peak later in life when inhibitions have died down and libido still
remains to some extent, even though they aren't as physically
interested as they once were.
> Then again, biologically,
> perhaps an explaination could be that men have an ability to continue
> reproductive activity far beyond the age at which women can.
In older couples, it is quite common for women to complain that their
husbands are no longer interested in sex.
> Why not? Sexual attraction is the original basis for mating.
Mating is useful only for reproduction. People who have no desire to
reproduce need not waste time mating.
> After all, if there's no need for sex, then there is no need for
> companionship either.
Companionship is a separate issue that is largely a function of
personality.
It's best not to get too caught up in biological explanations for
everything. Human beings are not slaves to their biology; they do
have the ability to ignore some aspects of biology at their
discretion.
> Can't disagree. But, today's exceptions are tomorrow's norms. 100 years ago,
> someone just living to 70 would have been rather exceptional. Now, it's
> common.
It wasn't that exceptional 100 years ago. If a person avoided
infections and enjoyed proper nutrition, he might well live to his 70s
or beyond. The average life expectancy was low mainly because there
was no treatment for infection diseases, and malnutrition and
accidents were common and untreated.
> And don't forget they are living in a sexually repressed society. The idea
> of 72 ANYTHING female that they can touch is probably more than enough
> incentive for them.
If they can actually be convinced of that.
It's usually easier to just make them angry, though. Angry young men
will do whatever they are told, even if it means killing themselves.
They make great cannon fodder.
yamuna
Speeding wrote:
[..]
> Oh please. A dating site. Sure, you can post in Strictly Platonic. And say
> I'm a woman looking for a man. And if you're expecting even 1 in 20 men to
> honestly think you REALLY want a platonic relationship... well... be
> realistic here.
If I wanted, non-platonic, I would have stated that he be at least
college educated and have a job, etc.
>Or do you honestly think "Female Spooning Friend Wanted -
> m4w - 39" is platonic?
Yes.
>90% of those posts are people looking for sexual
> relations.
> Try doing what Danimal suggests... ask about joining a cycling group.
I am not that serious cyclcist. That's why I searched for like-minded
people.
[..]
>
> Which is why there are posts about... let's see...
> Female Spooning Friend Wanted - m4w - 39
You are rude. And that's because your cliam that I can make platonic
friendship with any one is refuted.
> I INHERITED $1M USD AND NEED TO SPEND IT NOW!!! - m4w - 23
> Where do single people from Redwood city go? - m4mw - 33
> Let's just start by being friends first: - m4w - 34
>
> Sure platonic only. If you believe that... reply to the "I got a million and
> want to spend it". You just might buy a bridge. Or oceanfront property in
> Arizona.
> If you want to convince me you are THAT gullible,
I wasn't that gullible; I wanted to refute your implication that it's
that easy to make platonic friendhsip with males who are heterosexual
like me.
>you'll have to work a bit
> harder at it. Otherwise, I'm going to think you are just making excuses.
Firstly, you tell me that it is easy to make platonic friendships with
males; Secondly, you said (implied) that if I am that picky, I will be
missing out in life. You failed to acknowledge me as an individual who
knows what she wants and insist to act like every other female..
[..]
> > Are you saying that we can make friends with just anybody regardless of
> > comon interest? Actually, you have implied that already when you said
> > that I coudl make friends with anyone I do not have sexual attraction.
>
> No. I did not say "just anybody". Nor did I mention "common interest". Nor
> did I imply that (or say) you could make friends with anyone you are not
> sexually attracted to. I did say you can find friends for a non-platonic
> relationship, even men. How you go about doing so, however, I left up to you
> to decide.
So far, I have not succeeded in making friends with men because I would
sleep with them under the "friendhsip" category. AS SImple As That.
>
> >> When you try to claim you can't find friends that are wanting to be
> >> platonic
> >> only.. you can certainly lie to yourself. But if you are going to lie to
> >> others as well... you might want to get a better cover story.
> >
> > See how quick you are to accuse me?
>
> And? I'm simply saying you are making excuses. Or you really are so gullible
> that you thing a post like Female Spooning Friend Wanted - m4w - 39 is
> someone seeking a non-plutonic relationship.
See, that's your typical male interpretataion.
>When you make obvious
> statements that are ludicris I will call you on them.
What ludicrous statement? Age requirement? Religion requirement?
Political viewrequirement? It is an important fact in even in
friendship for the kind of friendship I want, with the kind being. At
this point in my life, I would not be freind with someone who supports
Bush's murdering milions of civilions.
[..]
> >
> > The category as I mentioned when I said about putting an ad was
> > "Strictly platonic". And I said in my title that am in search of
> > like-minded males and females for friends of age (~ -~).
>
> And what? That's automatically going to stop men that want sex from seeking
> you? Get real. Have you replied to the numerous entries of postings from
> people saying they are looking for friends only?
>
> >>hoping to meet a woman to "just be friends" with. Most ment don't
> >> visit ANY website that involves women except in the hopes of having
> >> sexual
> >> encounters.
> >
> > You are so quick to judge.
>
> So? It doesn't take a year and a science degree to figure out men looking on
> websites where men and women are posting to find relationships are probably
> there looking for a relationship.
So it is about men and their lies, isn't it? I am getting tired of
your defending men who wouldn't try to understand women and just accuse
and blame them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
yamuna
But what was the context I was wriring in? Care to display the context
of what I was corresponding to?
>
>
> >> and I pointed out the case of Anna
> >> Nicole Smith? I do believe it was.
>
> Remember the Anna Nicole point I made, the one you dismissed as being a
> "rare" case. Apparently, it's so common that even you are one of the ladies
> that makes a superficial decision based on age.
That extreme age differece and weath is rare.
yamuna
Speeding wrote:
> "yamuna" <yamun...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1146460617....@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Speeding wrote:
> > [..]
> >
> >> Online is not real life.
> >
> > I was aiming to meet somepeople in my subdivison.
>
> Here's a suggestion or two then... Take a walk out the door and around the
> subdivision.
Let me tell you that not even walking around the subdivision got me
married men chaising me behind their wives. So why would I walk like
an idiot to look for decent men to make friends.
>Buy a bicycle and ride around the subdivision.
You just have to wint he converstaion, don't you? See above.
> If you want to
> meet people... a really good way to do it is to go to where they are and say
> "Hi." Then improvise from there.
Say Hi to married assholes?
>
> >>But.. anyways... before you start a new tangent...
> >> 4 men. And how many women? What kind of site are you going to to meet new
> >> people? A dating site?
> >
> > Nope. Not a dating site per se.
>
> Any closer and it'd be E-Harmony.
That's a duck from you and a BIG one at that.
>
[..]
>
> You have to "maximize" the chance of meeting a person online for friendship?
> What? How about trying this instead....
> #1: Open front door.
> #2: Step outside, close door, maybe lock door.
> #3: Start walking.
> #4 When you see someone, say "Hi, how are you doing today".
> #5: Keep talking... you just made a new friend. Ta da.
You are not serious, are you?
> Repeat steps #4 and #5 as desired.
> #6: Return to home, open door, step inside.
> #7, If needed, jot down the names of your new friends so you'll remember
> then next time you repeat steps 1-5 again.
You really want to win the conversation that badly?
>
> >> Why would you require a friend to tell their spouse about you? It sounds
> >> like you are posting on a dating site.
> >
> > I don't want married men aproaching me for extra marital secret
> > activites.
>
> That makes no sense. Are you looking for extra marital secret activities?
You are not so gulible that such men wouldn't try, are you?
> If
> not, then what's it matter. Answer.. it doesn't. It's another excuse. Try
> steps 1-7 above... Forget all the BS about "I need this quality" or "I don't
> wan't friends of that quality" if you make you friend desision making
> process so narrow that no humans canfit into it..
A few have fit and I am happy with those friends. If they are in the
same city, I wouldn't need to be making any new friends.
>then it's no secret as to
> why you can't meet friends. Otherwise, you are just lying to yourself once
> again about what your real desires and motivations are.
So you know my real desire more thna I do?
>
> >>If so... then DUH!!!
> >
> > It's not. And so, duh to you.
>
> But, it is. Unless you think Female Spooning Friend Wanted - m4w - 39 (SF or
> EastBay) is some sort of non-platonic request.
And you are so gullible that married assholes won't respond to my ad if
I don't place it in strcitly platonic., I screen a lot of them by
putting in platonic and stating my requirement and you need to
acknwoledge that.
> Try steps 1-7 as listed above.
And get marraied men chasing you for sex.
>but, lose the "I don't want any friends
> unless they fit into my perfect mold for them" attitute.
Then I will get acquaintances, nto friends.
>
[..]
> >
> > Hey, I have few friends but these few, I get along really well.
>
> I would hope, considering the stringent requirements you have for a
> friendship.
Yes I do.
>
> > I am friendly to almost all people but I wouldn't sit and chit chat
> > with everbody frequently unless I feel real connected. There must be
> > common things such as intellectual level compatibility among other
> > things. The gf I am trying to help with marital problems wears me out
> > with her nonsense talks whenever I get together with her but I only
> > see her once every 6-12 mos and only because we live in the same city.
> > Yes, I have my critera. Simply put, "Birds of the same feather flocks
> > together."
>
> Birds of the same feather flock into engine intakes ... or.. it's hard to
> fly like an eagle if you are surrounded by turkeys.
> If you REALLY want to make friends... broaden your horizions a little.
But I only want the kind of friends I want.
>Heck,
> you might just discover there's a whole world out there filled with lots of
> interesting topics you never thought would interest you until you opened up
> to them.
I am sure that there are a lot of other interesting topics but I can
only afford what I can afford after my other priorites in life.
the Danimal
> > >> >> > I didn't say it is not but to use supermodel examples and say the
> > >> >> > rest
> > >> >> > of us get to choose from the rejects is just a stupid statement.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> You are picked from the rejects of some catagory,
> > >> >
> > >> > So are the super models.
> > >>
> > >> True. And they know it too. Super models are VERY competative.
> > >
> > > In my previous response "So are the super models.", I meant super
> > > models get to choose from some rejects too.
> >
> > That makes no sense. If a supermodel picks someone, then they are not
> > "picking from rejects".
>
> A serious PhD chemist would not pick a super model.
You must be seriously smoking something!
Speaking of serious, show this photo of Heidi Klum:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Heidi_Klum_-_GQ_Cover.jpg
around to all the straight men you know, including the PhD chemists,
and tell us how many appear to be repulsed.
The only possible knock against Heidi is that she's fairly
tall, and some short guys might prefer a shorter woman
with comparable looks. But her height is not entirely clear
from her photos.
Heidi Klum gets paid millions of dollars to stand around and
look good. The vast majority of straight men merely have to
see her, and we are instantly attracted to her. Of course the
vast majority can only dream of actually having a woman who
looks even close to that good. Someday that may change,
when technology gets good enough to create affordable,
convincing Heidibots.
When (if) that happens, you will find it more difficult to
remain in denial of the obvious, as the vast majority of men
will find stunningly beautiful, charmingly well-behaved
sexbots impossible to resist.
> In that sense, she
> has to pick from a group exlcuding that PhD chemist *which could be*
> rejects by some PhD female Chemist if the men are not intelligent
> enough for her though it could be mutual such that these men do not
> find that female PhD to be attractive. So it's not clear cut like the
> *original* implication that non supermodels (us females) get to pick
> from the rejects of super models.
For the most part, an average-looking woman can only select
from men who have no shot at the few women who look like
Heidi Klum.
Virtually every straight man would choose a stunningly beautiful
woman if he could attract women of that caliber. Most men
cannot, so they settle for women they find less than ideally
attractive.
> > The act of picking means the picked is not a reject,
> > but a picked. You make no sense here.
>
> Refer to the original claim either by you or Damial. I forget who said
> it.
My original claim is that an average-looking woman, for the most
part, can only choose from men who have no shot at attracting
a supermodel (or highly attractive actress, etc.).
Recently the tabloids made noise about Angelina Jolie "stealing"
Brad Pitt from Jennifer Aniston. Since Jennifer Aniston is a
highly attractive woman, only another highly attractive woman
could "steal" her man. Brad Pitt would not leave Jennifer Aniston
for some old obese woman, for example. The odds of that
would be so close to zero that we just don't observe it.
The old obese woman isn't in the running for a Brad Pitt
type. Only the Jennifer Aniston and Agelina Jolie types
have a shot at him.
> > >> >>unless you are a 10 on the scale of attraciveness for that particular
> > >> >>set.
> > >> > This is what I mean by "superficial". What the chnace of two people
> > >> > having exactly the same things except in looks?
> > >>
> > >> With a world population of roughly 5 BILLION... the odds are better than
> > >> average.
> > >
> > > If your goal is just to win the conversation, of course, your statement
> > > is valid but I am talking about a guy having access to 2 women who
> > > differs only in looks and get to compare them.
> >
> > You are making no sense here either. You asked what the chances are of two
> > people having the same non-physical qualities would be.
> That's not what I said. I said the chance of 2 women with the same in
> *everything* except looks/appearance with the fact both of whom are
> accessible by the same men.
As I posted elsewhere, two women do not have to identical in
all other respects besides looks to be comparably desirable to
a particular man in all other respects besides looks.
Think of the economic analogy, in which very different products
can all have the same price (value).
Almost anyone you meet will have some personality traits you
like, and some you don't like. It's quite possible for two prospective
partners to have different personalities, but you don't have a clear
preference because each of them presents a different mix of
traits that you find similarly compatible.
It's like choosing between two houses. One has a better location,
the other has better features. Which do you prefer? Maybe it's
a toss-up.
> >I said it would be
> > rather high. It doesn't matter if the guy is trying to engage them in sex,
> > conversation, or is just looking at them... the odds that two people of
> > roughly the same physical qualities would share similiar non-physical
> > qualities is quite high in a world filled with 5 billion souls.
>
> My implication was these two people would not accessible by the same
> men since these two would be at different places.
Right. Proximity and availability cut the sample size way
down from 6 billion. A person selects partners from an effective
population of just a few thousand people at best.
However, the sexual market influences the choices available
to us, according to the efficiency of the sexual market.
Consider the housing market. The price you have to pay for
a given type of house, at a given location, reflects the overall
supply and demand. The houses available to you are a function
of what all the competing buyers want, and how much money
they have to spend. You don't have to look at all the houses to
feel the effects of what everybody is doing.
Basically, if you have X dollars to spend, you can only select
from houses that have been rejected by buyers in your area
who have more than X dollars to spend---because any of them
can outbid you for any house they want. Thus you must settle
for a house the richer buyers consider less desirable.
Conversely, you generally don't have to worry about someone
with less than X dollars beating you out for the house you
want.
The housing market is highly efficient because there are
professional real estate agents and appraisers telling
everybody how much each house is worth. In the sexual
market, people may have distorted views of their attractiveness
(sexual value) to others, but everyone has a pretty accurate
view of what they themselves find attractive in others.
Because most men want similar things in a woman, and
most women want similar things in a man, each gender
rank-orders the other gender in terms of overall desirability.
Individual rankings may differ slightly, but most people
agree on the general trend. For example, it is very unlikely
that one woman would rank a man at the bottom of her
attractiveness scale, and another woman would rank him
at the top. With men, the rankings are even more similar
from man to man. A woman like Heidi Klum is close to
being universally attractive to straight men. And not just
attractive, but intensely attractive. Her looks are like
Bill Gates' money: her looks put her at the top of the
sexual market, like Bill Gates' money puts him at the
top of the economic market.
Anyway, getting back to the original point: even though
you cannot meet and evaluate 6 billion people, the overall
sexual market (which reflects the choices, preferences,
and opportunities of all those 6 billion people) shapes the
choices available to you. Just as the kind of house you
buy depends on what everybody else is buying.
> > >> In a colder climate, we'd wear whatever is warmest.
> > >
> > >> Yet I see women wearing skirts in the winter rather commonly.
> > >
> > > That really puzzles me too.
> >
> > Why? It puzzles you that women want to appear attractive. I understand that
> > it puzzles you. You don't care to be attractive, or so you say.
>
> I care to be attractive for me.
What does that mean? 99% of the time you can't even see yourself.
How do you know if you are attractive?
Suppose you sit on a bench with wet paint, and do not notice as
you walk around with a giant paint stain on your backside. As
far as you are aware, you are still attractive to yourself. Only if
someone points out the paint stain, or you notice later when you
take your coat off, will you realize you had been walking around
with paint on yourself.
If someone points out that you have paint on your clothes, you
will probably feel concerned. Why? Because you now find
yourself less attractive than you did a minute earlier? No. You
will feel concerned because you subconsciously become aware
that others will look disapprovingly on your paint-stained clothes,
and you feel an instinctive urge to keep up your appearance
FOR THEM.
> I don't consciously dress for a man or a woman.
When you check your appearance in a mirror, you are checking to
see how you look TO OTHERS. You cannot see yourself that way,
because you cannot stand outside your body to look at it. If you
are not consciously aware of this, well then, I guess you aren't too
clever.
Why do you deny the obvious? Do you think there is something
wrong with catering to the expectations of others? Other people
have a huge influence on how much you can enjoy your life, so
it is perfectly reasonable to consider how they view you.
If your whole society despises and rejects you, your life will
probably be a horror. Conversely, if you are popular and most
people like you, your life will probably be good (unless maybe
you have some terrible medical condition that causes unrelenting
pain).
It's hilarious that most people are deeply concerned about what
others think of them, and yet at the same time most people
stridently deny this.
> >So, if that
> > be true, then it's understandable that you would not understand normal human
> > behavior, not participating in normal human behavior.
>
> So now, I am not a normal human?
It is normal for humans to have wrong ideas why they do some of the
things they do. Psychologists have done experiments that show
people can be greatly mistaken about their true motives, and
then they strongly believe their mistaken ideas.
> > It is not rare at all. And it is VERY competitive, whether you like it or
> > believe it. Just look at a magazine stand anywhere that magazines are sold.
> > If there are 20 women's magazines.... ALL TWENTY will have some tips abnout
> > how to be better looking, more attractive, better at sex, etc... If there at
> > 20 men's magainzes, at least half will discuss tips on how to be better
> > looking, more attractive, better at sex, etc... The other half will at least
> > include photos of nearly naked (as naked as they can get away with) women.
>
> You think all woman live for looks only. I do agree that the vast
> majority do but not all.
So if you go to a party, and you notice all the other women are
either much more formally dressed, or casually dressed, than
you are, you won't be concerned?
Most women I know are highly concerned about dressing
"correctly" for the occasion. This is often the first item they
discuss when planning to go somewhere unfamiliar.
I have heard women saying they didn't want to participate
in certain activities, such as bicycling, because they didn't
care for the clothing style associated with the activity. It's
hard for me to think of something less relevant than fashion
when I'm considering some new activity I haven't tried before.
But to women this is very important, and it makes perfect
sociobiological sense, given that a woman's looks almost
entirely determine her reproductive chances.
> > > Now, to answer you acusation:
> >
> > Not accusation... just question. And it would be nice if you do...
>
> I have but you want to put your answer in my mouth as a yes or no.
Men are always trying to stick something in a woman's mouth.
> > >>> The point was that other things aside from sexual attraction always
> > >>> subconscious affects the decision to engage in seuxal activity with
> > >>> someone.
> > >
> > >> Maybe for some people, but not for everyone.
> > >
> > > Not may be and yes, for me.
> > >
> > >> The point still stands...
> > >> you're not very likely to have sex with someone you are not physically
> > >> attracted to.
> > > That, I never argued.
> >
> > But you were just saying a few posts back that having sex with someon
> > because of physical attraction is superficial.
>
> What I said was with the implication of *choosing* someone to have sex
> with based on appearance only while you guys said that sexual
> attraction based on appearance *determines* whether one would have sex
> with him or not.
Men don't choose women solely for their looks, just 95% for their
looks. The other 5% can be important in individual cases.
It's possible to get along with almost anyone for a
sufficiently short relationship, if the sexual attraction is
strong enough. There are lots of relationships like that.
Probably more than the number of long-term relationships.
> >How can you expect advice if you keep changing the
> > story?
Easy. Expect advice that changes.
But who is expecting advice? She called me "superficial." I
admitted to my superficiality, and then gave examples to
illustrate how superficial most other people are. Men and
women alike. Regardless of whether they realize it.
> > >>And, you're not very likely to wait a signifigantly long time to get to
> > >>know them on a
> > >> deep level first
> > >
> > > That happens only because I gave into the man, the man that ia lready
> > > did decide do have sex with.
> >
> > See what I mean. You are contradicting yourself in just a single
> > sentence....
> > I had sex because I wanted to, but I gave in to him when I didn't want to.
> > Which is it??
>
> You want a yes or not based on *your* question, not based on what I
> said.
If you can be talked into having sex with someone, that's equivalent
to "wanting" sex as far as my original question goes.
Consider: you probably have rejected men who asked you
to have sex. Obviously you did not want to have sex with them,
because they could not talk you into it.
There are degrees to wanting something. If you want something
strongly enough, you may take the initiative to seek it out. If
you want something a little less strongly, you might not seek it
out, but if the opportunity presents itself, you will accept it.
Even in that case, you still "want" it. Perhaps a better term
would be "willing." You are "willing" to have sex at that point.
I may be willing to mow my neighbor's lawn if he asks me
kindly, but I am not going to walk over there and suggest it.
So, to avoid confusion in these cases where you get talked into
having sex, let me revise my question:
How much time do you have to spend with a man before you
become willing to have sex with him?
I'm guessing you could not usually be talked into having sex
with a man in the first five minutes of conversation (unless maybe
you think he is really hot i.e. superficially attractive). But on the
other hand, you don't need to spend ten years getting to know
a man properly before you can be talked into having sex with
him. Which is to say, you are as prone as most other people
to experiencing superficial sexual attraction for someone you
don't know well.
-- the Danimal
Mxsmanic
> Speaking of serious, show this photo of Heidi Klum:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Heidi_Klum_-_GQ_Cover.jpg
>
> around to all the straight men you know, including the PhD chemists,
> and tell us how many appear to be repulsed.
There are zillions of women who look like this, and there are zillions
of women who are much prettier.
> The only possible knock against Heidi is that she's fairly
> tall, and some short guys might prefer a shorter woman
> with comparable looks. But her height is not entirely clear
> from her photos.
There are lots of potential points against her, not the least of which
is her blonde hair (fortunately, it doesn't appear to be natural).
> Heidi Klum gets paid millions of dollars to stand around and
> look good. The vast majority of straight men merely have to
> see her, and we are instantly attracted to her.
You sound like a publicist's dream. There's nothing special about
Heidi Klum.
> Of course the
> vast majority can only dream of actually having a woman who
> looks even close to that good. Someday that may change,
> when technology gets good enough to create affordable,
> convincing Heidibots.
Not necessary. All you need is a good make-up artist and a good
photographer. I've seen what these models look like in real life, and
they are fairly ordinary, although they are usually somewhat better
looking than average.
> When (if) that happens, you will find it more difficult to
> remain in denial of the obvious, as the vast majority of men
> will find stunningly beautiful, charmingly well-behaved
> sexbots impossible to resist.
I regularly see stunningly beautiful unknown women right on the
street. You need to get out more.
> Virtually every straight man would choose a stunningly beautiful
> woman if he could attract women of that caliber.
Not really ... mainly because there is no universal consensus on what
constitutes "stunningly beautiful." I don't think Heidi is anything
special, and I know I'm not alone. Actually, I'm tired of blondes.
> The old obese woman isn't in the running for a Brad Pitt
> type. Only the Jennifer Aniston and Agelina Jolie types
> have a shot at him.
They can have him.
yamuna
Speeding wrote:
> "yamuna" <yamun...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1146458474.7...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> Notice I said " from watching and talking with other women AND..."
> Okay, I should have said AND/OR... The point is.. women learn it from
> various sources. Men generally do not.
Historically, men has gotten upperhand from women being oppressed. Only
now,t hey are facing crisis of having to compete with women. Yes
compete with women to get attention from women.
Yes. I was raised that way.
>Come on. If so, then why dress at all?
Because I am cold or I am hot or whatever.
>After all, if it is
> ONLY for yourself... then you could wear anything you wanted
Anything I want to may be very comfrotable cashmere sweater or a prety
summer dress.
> and it should
> not matter. Sloppy sweat pants and a baggy shirt is surely more comfortable
> and easier to maintain that a business suit.
Business suit is more comfortbale than dresses.
> So, are you claiming you dress
> sloppily, since you don't care about what others think... it's only for your
> comfort?
Who told you that sloppiness provides comfort?
>
> Put it this way... would you wear a red top with a gren bottom? Of course
> not... but.. answer... Why not?
Because the color coordinataion is not pleasing to my eyes.
>
> >>Very few people are not trying to attract anyone
> >> at all. The deisre to reproduce and/or to attract a mate is a very basic
> >> desire.
> >>
> >> >> >> > I didn't say it is not but to use supermodel examples and say the
> >> >> >> > rest
> >> >> >> > of us get to choose from the rejects is just a stupid statement.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> You are picked from the rejects of some catagory,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > So are the super models.
> >> >>
> >> >> True. And they know it too. Super models are VERY competative.
> >> >
> >> > In my previous response "So are the super models.", I meant super
> >> > models get to choose from some rejects too.
> >>
> >> That makes no sense. If a supermodel picks someone, then they are not
> >> "picking from rejects".
> >
> > A serious PhD chemist would not pick a super model. In that sense, she
> > has to pick from a group exlcuding that PhD chemist *which could be*
> > rejects by some PhD female Chemist if the men are not intelligent
> > enough for her though it could be mutual such that these men do not
> > find that female PhD to be attractive. So it's not clear cut like the
> > *original* implication that non supermodels (us females) get to pick
> > from the rejects of super models.
>
> A serious PhD chemist certainly would (and some have) pick supermodels.
Some? Show me that some *practicing* chemist (non practicing do nto
count) with a super model?
> And
> a PhD chemist would likely be even faster to pick a supermodel that also
> happens to be of a like scientific mind. Your point is completely blown.
Super Model with a zeal for science the *way* hard core scientists do.
That's a first.
> And my point is that given a fairly equal set of other circumstances, a man
> will pick a better looking woman over a less attractive one.
May be men like you.
> Your argument
> that the odds of two people sharing the same non-physical attributes as
> being low is completely off base.
For people like you.
>
> >> The act of picking means the picked is not a reject,
> >> but a picked. You make no sense here.
> >
> > Refer to the original claim either by you or Damial. I forget who said it.
>
> Post it. I have no clue (and it sounds like you might not either) what you
> are trying to say.
Find it yourself.
> A person that is picked is not a reject. It's pretty straightforward.
A person who is picked only after not being picked by someone else is a
reject as you or Danimal stated.
>
> >> >> >>unless you are a 10 on the scale of attraciveness for that
> >> >> >>particular
> >> >> >>set.
> >> >> > This is what I mean by "superficial". What the chnace of two people
> >> >> > having exactly the same things except in looks?
> >> >>
> >> >> With a world population of roughly 5 BILLION... the odds are better
> >> >> than
> >> >> average.
> >> >
> >> > If your goal is just to win the conversation, of course, your statement
> >> > is valid but I am talking about a guy having access to 2 women who
> >> > differs only in looks and get to compare them.
> >>
> >> You are making no sense here either. You asked what the chances are of
> >> two
> >> people having the same non-physical qualities would be.
> > That's not what I said. I said the chance of 2 women with the same in
> > *everything* except looks/appearance with the fact both of whom are
> > accessible by the same men.
>
> Damn. You are disagreeing WHILE saying that you agree. Look at what you are
> saying!!! Jeez...
Don't pretend like you didn't know my conteaxt. You took it out of
context in the first place and now wants to put words in my mouth.
Got other things to do man...
yamuna
Mxsmanic wrote:
> the Danimal writes:
>
> > Speaking of serious, show this photo of Heidi Klum:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Heidi_Klum_-_GQ_Cover.jpg
> >
> > around to all the straight men you know, including the PhD chemists,
> > and tell us how many appear to be repulsed.
>
> There are zillions of women who look like this, and there are zillions
> of women who are much prettier.
You tell them Mxm.
>
> > The only possible knock against Heidi is that she's fairly
> > tall, and some short guys might prefer a shorter woman
> > with comparable looks. But her height is not entirely clear
> > from her photos.
>
> There are lots of potential points against her, not the least of which
> is her blonde hair (fortunately, it doesn't appear to be natural).
>
> > Heidi Klum gets paid millions of dollars to stand around and
> > look good. The vast majority of straight men merely have to
> > see her, and we are instantly attracted to her.
>
> You sound like a publicist's dream. There's nothing special about
> Heidi Klum.
I remmeber the first time I saw her in a TV show "Spin City" where the
character of Michel J Fox was so excited. When I saw here, I didn't
understand what he was so excited about. Before that I didn't know who
Heidi Klum was but I was a typical forein graduate student in a hard
core science major.
>
> > Of course the
> > vast majority can only dream of actually having a woman who
> > looks even close to that good. Someday that may change,
> > when technology gets good enough to create affordable,
> > convincing Heidibots.
>
> Not necessary. All you need is a good make-up artist and a good
> photographer. I've seen what these models look like in real life,
Isn't that truth?
> and
> they are fairly ordinary, although they are usually somewhat better
> looking than average.
Yup. Most of them are.
>
> > When (if) that happens, you will find it more difficult to
> > remain in denial of the obvious, as the vast majority of men
> > will find stunningly beautiful, charmingly well-behaved
> > sexbots impossible to resist.
>
> I regularly see stunningly beautiful unknown women right on the
> street. You need to get out more.
Tell them.
>
> > Virtually every straight man would choose a stunningly beautiful
> > woman if he could attract women of that caliber.
>
> Not really ... mainly because there is no universal consensus on what
> constitutes "stunningly beautiful." I don't think Heidi is anything
> special, and I know I'm not alone.
I never thought Heidi was that pretty.
> Actually, I'm tired of blondes.
>
> > The old obese woman isn't in the running for a Brad Pitt
> > type. Only the Jennifer Aniston and Agelina Jolie types
> > have a shot at him.
>
> They can have him.
Brad Pit looks like a woman to me.
Mike Given
>Speeding wrote:
>>"yamuna" wrote:
>>>Speeding wrote:
>>>[..]
>>>>Online is not real life.
>>>I was aiming to meet somepeople in my subdivison.
>>Here's a suggestion or two then... Take a walk out the door and
>>around the subdivision.
>Let me tell you that not even walking around the subdivision got
>me married men chaising me behind their wives. So why would I
>walk like an idiot to look for decent men to make friends.
The only alternative I could see is to print up some sort of dating
application (..I would suggest a page or less) to the door of every
unmarried man in your "subdivision" (whatever that is). Only men
that're interested would bother to apply, and you wouldn't have to
"walk like an idiot to look for decent men".
>>Buy a bicycle and ride around the subdivision.
>You just have to wint he converstaion, don't you? See above.
By what other means could you hope to achieve meeting men in the
narrow range of your subdivision? Unless of course you're willing to
throw a beer bash or a lingerie party or something like that.
>>If you want to meet people... a really good way to do it is to
>>go to where they are and say "Hi." Then improvise from there.
>Say Hi to married assholes?
Wow - such hostility. Not all married men are assholes whose sole
purpose in life is to cheat on their wives, ya know. Some married men
even have single male friends and/or relatives they might be willing
to introduce to you.
>[..]
>>>>Why would you require a friend to tell their spouse about you?
>>>>It sounds like you are posting on a dating site.
>>>I don't want married men aproaching me for extra marital secret
>>>activites.
>>That makes no sense. Are you looking for extra marital secret
>>activities?
>You are not so gulible that such men wouldn't try, are you?
You're not so conceited to think that every married man would, are
you? You do realize that not even every single man is going to want
you, right?
>>Forget all the BS about "I need this quality" or "I don't want
>>friends of that quality" if you make you friend desision making
>>process so narrow that no humans canfit into it..
>A few have fit and I am happy with those friends. If they are in
>the same city, I wouldn't need to be making any new friends.
I don't think your problem has anything to do with the quality of
people around you.
>>then it's no secret as to why you can't meet friends. Otherwise,
>>you are just lying to yourself once again about what your real
>>desires and motivations are.
>So you know my real desire more thna I do?
I think you see your real desire in the mirror every day. Likely,
some several times per day. Or at least that's how you're coming
across to me in these fora.
>>But, it is. Unless you think Female Spooning Friend Wanted
>> - m4w - 39 (SF or EastBay) is some sort of non-platonic request.
>And you are so gullible that married assholes won't respond to my
>ad if I don't place it in strcitly platonic., I screen a lot of
>them by putting in platonic and stating my requirement and you need
>to acknwoledge that.
Catch-22, that. A married man who doesn't want to cheat on his wife
but *does* want to meet new friends (female or otherwise) is going to
hit the "platonic" requests first - so you may unwittingly be
attracting the very classification ("married") of men you're trying to
avoid.
>>but, lose the "I don't want any friends unless they fit into my
>>perfect mold for them" attitute.
>Then I will get acquaintances, nto friends.
Yah, it's such a shame that people that live near you won't just
capitulate to being the way that you want them to be, or that people
who are within your seemingly narrow realm of acceptibility won't just
move from where they are just to be nearer to you.
Boy, does life ever suck bad, huh?
>[..]
>>>Hey, I have few friends but these few, I get along really well.
>>I would hope, considering the stringent requirements you have for
>>a friendship.
>Yes I do.
You're a snob, hon. Maybe not Zsa-Zsa-Gabor-snobby or
Paris-Hilton-snobby, but you're a snob nonetheless. Looks like you'll
just hafta suffer with your perfection.
>>>I am friendly to almost all people
I'm betting not. My bet is that you're *maybe* tolerably polite to
most people, but "friendly" - no, not buying it.
>>>but I wouldn't sit and chit chat with everbody frequently unless
>>>I feel real connected.
Did you ever stop to consider even the possibility that the reason
you might not feel connected to more people isn't so much a problem
with all those other people as it is more a problem with you?
>>>There must be common things such as intellectual level compatibility
"Intellectual level compatibility"? What in the spanking hell is
that supposed to mean?
>>>among other things. The gf I am trying to help with marital problems
>>>wears me out with her nonsense talks whenever I get together with her
>>>but I only see her once every 6-12 mos and only because we live in
>>>the same city.
Like I said: "tolerably polite".
Of course I don't know you so I could be wrong, and if so, mind if I
ask what part of your life you talk to her about?
>>>Yes, I have my critera. Simply put, "Birds of the same feather
>>>flocks together."
Stupid aphorism; humans are ever-so-slightly more emotionally
complex than birds.
>>Birds of the same feather flock into engine intakes ... or..
>>it's hard to fly like an eagle if you are surrounded by turkeys.
>>If you REALLY want to make friends... broaden your horizions a
>>little.
>But I only want the kind of friends I want.
Did I read somewhere that you're 34 years old? Because you sound
like you haven't gotten out of middle school yet.
>>Heck, you might just discover there's a whole world out there
>>filled with lots of interesting topics you never thought would
>>interest you until you opened up to them.
>I am sure that there are a lot of other interesting topics but I
>can only afford what I can afford after my other priorites in life.
You're not going to make too many friends until you realize that
your prioroties aren't the only ones on the planet. Or even in your
subdivision, for that matter.
Mikey (..beware graduating from "priorities" to "agendas".)
the Danimal
> the Danimal wrote:
> [..]
>
> > Join your local bike club. You can ride with lots of people in
> > groups to the river and the mountain and get to know the city,
> > with no expectation that you must have sex with anyone.
> >
> > To find your local bike clubs, go to Google and type your city
> > name and the word: bicycle or bicycling or cycling.
>
> But I don't like group
How do you know? Have you tried riding with a group?
If you enjoy bicycling, I don't see how you would not enjoy
bicycling in a group. Even a relatively anti-social introvert
such as myself enjoys bicycling in a group. If you don't
want to talk to anyone, you don't have to.
> and my main focus was not just riding but
> riding with a friend.
Joining the bike club is how you meet friends to ride with,
and how you find the best roads to ride on.
One problem is finding people who share your preferences
for speed and distance. If two random people meet in
some non-cycling context, and then they try to ride
together, chances are they will want to ride at
different speeds.
By going to group rides, you can meet people who
sort out to your speed preference during the ride.
It may be very difficult for someone who never rides with
groups to locate people to ride with. In contrast, anyone
who goes to club rides can quickly meet lots of people
who are also interested in riding with one other person.
Usually, people who ride in groups also ride solo or
with one or two friends. A club might have one or two
organized group rides per week, but most of the riders
also ride on other days.
This is a subject I know something about, since
I lead more than 50 group rides per year.
> [..]
>
> >That's not a problem because
> > usually I'm just looking for people to ride with.
>
> Well, I am not looking for people just to ride. I am looking for friend
> sto hang out with via riding or other things.
Well, that is possible too. On bike rides, as with any
social event, you can find people for all sorts of things:
other types of outings, business deals, whatever
different kinds of people may do.
You seem to be attaching too many conditions up front.
Getting along with other people is not like ordering a
computer from Dell, where you specify every feature you
want and they build it to your specs.
If you want friends, or lovers, or business partners, or
whatever, the first step is to get out and socialize with
lots of people. Find out their interests; tell them your
interests. If they don't share your interests, ask if they
know someone who does. Each person you meet
potentially connects you to many other people they
know.
You might achieve the same thing online, but online
communities tend to link people who are geographically
distant. To meet people who live nearby, you are
probably better off socializing in locally popular venues.
> > She could hook a trailer to her bike and ride around with the
> > BBQ grill going on it. The smell alone should attract lots of
> > men.
>
> You are rude and you took things out of contect. BBQ was not the goal.
> The goal was to make friends. I even prefer women but like I said it
> has been harder to do that.
Well, that's unusual. Most women I know have tons
of women friends and they frequently go to this
or that event. Until now, I hadn't imagined a woman would
have trouble making women friends. I assumed
women friends were the standard woman accessory.
> > The best way to find men who will ride bikes to the river and
> > the mountain is to join the local bike club.
>
> Out of context.
If the context is reality, my statement stands. For lots of
recreational activities, there are organized clubs containing
people who share an interest. Often these clubs are one of
the best ways to learn about and try a new activity, compared
to figuring everything out on your own.
> >This is different than online dating sites
>
> While it is not online dating sites per se, it clearly said "Strictly
> Platonic". Which parts of these two words do they not understand as
> English speaking men?
Anyone who works in technical support knows there
are lots of plain English words that lots of customers
do not understand.
One problem with English speaking men who hear the
phrase "strictly platonic" is that they may have heard
women saying such things right up until they decided
to have sex.
-- the Danimal
yamuna
Mike Given wrote:
> yamuna wrote:
> >Speeding wrote:
[..]
>
> The only alternative I could see is to print up some sort of dating
> application
But I wasn't looking to date.
>(..I would suggest a page or less) to the door of every
> unmarried man in your "subdivision" (whatever that is). Only men
> that're interested would bother to apply, and you wouldn't have to
> "walk like an idiot to look for decent men".
Are you serious about this approach?
>
> >>Buy a bicycle and ride around the subdivision.
> >You just have to wint he converstaion, don't you? See above.
>
> By what other means could you hope to achieve meeting men in the
> narrow range of your subdivision? Unless of course you're willing to
> throw a beer bash or a lingerie party or something like that.
That's the thing. I don't drink and not interseted in lingerie party.
>
> >>If you want to meet people... a really good way to do it is to
> >>go to where they are and say "Hi." Then improvise from there.
> >Say Hi to married assholes?
>
> Wow - such hostility. Not all married men are assholes
I didn't say all. You shoudl read betwene the lines.
>whose sole
> purpose in life is to cheat on their wives, ya know.
> Some married men
> even have single male friends and/or relatives they might be willing
> to introduce to you.
May be so but their wives (Some anyway) would be worrying and hating if
their husbands talk to me, a stranger.
>
> >[..]
> >>>>Why would you require a friend to tell their spouse about you?
> >>>>It sounds like you are posting on a dating site.
> >>>I don't want married men aproaching me for extra marital secret
> >>>activites.
> >>That makes no sense. Are you looking for extra marital secret
> >>activities?
> >You are not so gulible that such men wouldn't try, are you?
>
> You're not so conceited to think that every married man would, are
> you?
No, of cusre not.
>You do realize that not even every single man is going to want
> you, right?
Understood, sir.
>
> >>Forget all the BS about "I need this quality" or "I don't want
> >>friends of that quality" if you make you friend desision making
> >>process so narrow that no humans canfit into it..
> >A few have fit and I am happy with those friends. If they are in
> >the same city, I wouldn't need to be making any new friends.
>
> I don't think your problem has anything to do with the quality of
> people around you.
I didn't say the above. I know that my problem is I don't meet the kind
of people I wan to meet.
>
> >>then it's no secret as to why you can't meet friends. Otherwise,
> >>you are just lying to yourself once again about what your real
> >>desires and motivations are.
> >So you know my real desire more thna I do?
>
> I think you see your real desire in the mirror every day. Likely,
> some several times per day. Or at least that's how you're coming
> across to me in these fora.
What? My desire is to find some friends after I gave up of hope
finding a compatible man whom I can trust.
>
> >>But, it is. Unless you think Female Spooning Friend Wanted
> >> - m4w - 39 (SF or EastBay) is some sort of non-platonic request.
> >And you are so gullible that married assholes won't respond to my
> >ad if I don't place it in strcitly platonic., I screen a lot of
> >them by putting in platonic and stating my requirement and you need
> >to acknwoledge that.
>
> Catch-22, that. A married man who doesn't want to cheat on his wife
> but *does* want to meet new friends (female or otherwise) is going to
> hit the "platonic" requests first - so you may unwittingly be
> attracting the very classification ("married") of men you're trying to
> avoid.
Married is okay as long as their wives know about the friendship with
me. I said that in my ad.
>
> >>but, lose the "I don't want any friends unless they fit into my
> >>perfect mold for them" attitute.
> >Then I will get acquaintances, nto friends.
>
> Yah, it's such a shame that people that live near you won't just
> capitulate to being the way that you want them to be, or that people
> who are within your seemingly narrow realm of acceptibility won't just
> move from where they are just to be nearer to you.
> Boy, does life ever suck bad, huh?
I am not saying that they are not here in this city.
>
> >[..]
> >>>Hey, I have few friends but these few, I get along really well.
> >>I would hope, considering the stringent requirements you have for
> >>a friendship.
> >Yes I do.
>
> You're a snob, hon. Maybe not Zsa-Zsa-Gabor-snobby or
> Paris-Hilton-snobby, but you're a snob nonetheless.
I know that I look that way because I am very outfront about what I
want and what I reject.
> Looks like you'll just hafta suffer with your perfection.
>
> >>>I am friendly to almost all people
>
> I'm betting not. My bet is that you're *maybe* tolerably polite to
> most people, but "friendly" - no, not buying it.
That's your opinion.
>
> >>>but I wouldn't sit and chit chat with everbody frequently unless
> >>>I feel real connected.
>
> Did you ever stop to consider even the possibility that the reason
> you might not feel connected to more people isn't so much a problem
> with all those other people as it is more a problem with you?
I never use the word "problem" as if it's the people's fault. I beleive
that I have a right to what kind of people I would give a chance to.
>
> >>>There must be common things such as intellectual level compatibility
>
> "Intellectual level compatibility"? What in the spanking hell is
> that supposed to mean?
>
> >>>among other things. The gf I am trying to help with marital problems
> >>>wears me out with her nonsense talks whenever I get together with her
> >>>but I only see her once every 6-12 mos and only because we live in
> >>>the same city.
>
> Like I said: "tolerably polite".
That's your opinion.
> Of course I don't know you so I could be wrong, and if so, mind if I
> ask what part of your life you talk to her about?
Nothing serious. Everytime she sees me she asks me these 2 perosnal
questions like a little kid:
(1) Are you not afraid living alone?
(2) Are you not goignt o get married?
>
> >>>Yes, I have my critera. Simply put, "Birds of the same feather
> >>>flocks together."
>
> Stupid aphorism; humans are ever-so-slightly more emotionally
> complex than birds.
Oh My God! You are joking, right?
>
> >>Birds of the same feather flock into engine intakes ... or..
> >>it's hard to fly like an eagle if you are surrounded by turkeys.
> >>If you REALLY want to make friends... broaden your horizions a
> >>little.
> >But I only want the kind of friends I want.
>
> Did I read somewhere that you're 34 years old? Because you sound
> like you haven't gotten out of middle school yet.
And you are so mature with your bird statement.
>
> >>Heck, you might just discover there's a whole world out there
> >>filled with lots of interesting topics you never thought would
> >>interest you until you opened up to them.
> >I am sure that there are a lot of other interesting topics but I
> >can only afford what I can afford after my other priorites in life.
>
> You're not going to make too many friends until you realize that
> your prioroties aren't the only ones on the planet. Or even in your
> subdivision, for that matter.
I don't want too many friends. I am a loner. I like it. I just want a
few friends in town.
yamuna
the Danimal wrote:
[..]
>
> So you are saying you like some superficial people?
> Even to the point of having sex with them?
Twist as you wish and take things out of context as you wish. You guys
are childish people.
>
> If you have sex with superficial people, for superficial
> reasons, what does that make you?
Twist as you wish and take things out of context as you wish. You guys
are childish people.
>
> Note: having sex with a man simply because he wants
> sex with you and you can't say no sounds pretty superficial
> to me
.
Twist as you wish and take things out of context as you wish. You guys
are childish people.
>
> > > How many hours did he spend getting to know you before
> > > he first wanted to have sex with you? It's possible he already
> > > found you sexually attractive before the first time he spoke
> > > to you.
> >
> > Possible. After all, everything is controlled by the brain.
>
> Yes. For the most part that would be the emotional brain.
>
> > > At the time when you first had sex with him, how well did
> > > you actually know him? Did you know details such as
> > > his middle name, his mother's maiden name, the names of
> > > his grandparents and cousins, where he went to school,
> > > where he was born, where he grew up,
> >
> > Funny you asked that. I used to ask all these question routinely out
> > of culturla habit but I only asked the guys I was getting involved
> > unlike my fellow countryman who would ask everybody.
>
> Actually I did not mean you would learn a list of facts
> about a man by interrogating him, and then you would
> "know" him. Instead I mean you have learned all these
> things by spending time with the man in many different
> situations, sharing experiences with him, and allowing
> these details to emerge naturally.
Understood but for me, asking question and learning, for example, they
didn't go to college at all, allow me to screen them because it would
be very hard for soemone lik e that to enjoy the kind of jokes or
things I do. The guy I was with before I moved to this state was so fun
to be with because we get the same jokes because out knowledge are is
very similar. I remember when we were watching a movie (comedy) in a
theatre where this guy filling in for his lawyer friend got a witness
who said "just move O (Oxygen atom) here and move N (Nitrogen) here"
and "what the difference? It's just a little moving" and we both broke
into laughs. There were not many people in the theatre but we wer the
only 2 who got the jokes and laughed.
> I merely asked these
> questions to illustrate the kinds of details two people
> have not yet picked up about each other while their
> sexual relationship is new. Yet they still find each other
> sexually attractive, because sexual attraction for most
> people is SUPERFICIAL.
>
> If you read an encyclopedia article about Hawaii, you can
> then recite a number of facts about Hawaii. But that is not
> the same as living there for many years. What you can read
> in the encyclopedia is superficial knowledge about Hawaii.
> The deep knowledge comes from years of personal
> experience, and much of it is not available in words, and
> maybe cannot even be put into words.
>
> In a long-term relationship, the partners can eventually
> finish each other's sentences. That kind of knowing does
> not emerge from asking a stranger a list of questions
> about where he went to school and so on.
>
> In most cases, a couple has sex most often, and most
> intensely, while the relationship is still new and superficial.
> As they get to know each other better, they usually have
> sex less.
Not the case with everybody.
>
> Thus, not only is sex superficial, but superficiality is
> necessary for the most enjoyable sex.
> Do you know why most people are not sexually attracted
> to their siblings? Because they know them too well.
>
> I read somewhere that the same thing happens in the
> Kibbutzim of Israel. Even when men and women are not
> sister and brother, if they grew up together as if they were,
> they prefer to look elsewhere for their sex partners.
Wait a minute. I heard that jews used to marry cousins.
>
> > Since I only dated
> > Americans (Caucasian) and one naturalized American (non Caucasian) who
> > was also like a typical Americans when it comes to being asked those
> > questions, my experience was their uncomfortableness. Most (not
> > necessarily had sex) were okay with it since these guys met me in
> > foreign student environment and were culturally more exposed but after
> > one guy acted so differently, I stopped asking that much as I myself
> > changed.
>
> My point is that when you spend enough time with someone
> to get to know him well, you do not need to ask these questions.
But I don't want to spend time with the person who at leats meet my
basic requirement.
> The information comes up in the normal course of the time you
> share. For example, eventually you meet his family and friends,
> you learn something about his job, he volunteers information about
> his past, and so on.
For guys, it may be easy to accept a wide range of women because guys
are into women physical attributes more than other things. But we women
are not like that thoguh physical attaribute of a man is important.
> These details you can recount about him
> are not all you know about him. You actually learn much more
> about him that you cannot easily express in words.
>
> But you don't need to wait for such deep knowledge before
> you can have sex with him, and enjoy it. Even if the sex is
> his idea, if you give in and enjoy it, that means your
> superficial conditions for sex have been met.
I didn't know him that deeply when I got involved with my last bf whom
I met on campus in Fall 2004. But the fact that we have known each
other for about 5 weeks helped when we hooked up. As we got to know
each other, we still liked each other because we already sensed from
the beginning what type of person I was and what type he was. If it
weren't for the age difference, he wouldn't try to please his
controlling Mommy and we'd still be together. He is till upset that I
didn't continue the sexual relationsho[ with him. He knows he won't
find another perosn like me easily and I won't find another person like
him easily.
Funny things was that the *very* first time I laid my eyes on him I
sensed something VERY strong but I dismissed it immeidatley as "Oh, may
be I was just surprised to see such a handsome man in the computer
lab".
Would you call this attraction "superficial attraction"? You probably
would. To me, it was more than that. It was super natural. He agreed
too when I told him about it. Both of us are not religious at all but
we know that there is something bigger than us. Even though we started
talking a bit to each other in labs (never more than 2-5 mins), without
even asking each other's name, the trigger point that broguth us
together was when I was at my wit's end to find someone to help me with
some PC hardware issue that needed immediately attention. I didn't
think of asking him and one day, I was sitting in the lab, very
frustrated and then I lifted my head up, I saw him sitting in direct
view of me at the end of the room. So, I decided to bother him. I had
no idea what was about to happen.
I didn't even ask his name when I asked whether he knew PC hardware
very well. Of course, he's a man, and he was already attracted to me
(as he later told me) , he answered "yes" enthusiastically. (Later, he
told me that he hates dealing with hardware issues but he kept that to
hismelf.) I told him my PC problem and we exchanged name and ph
numbers and at that *very* moment, I knew what was going to happen. At
that time, I still didn't know him well yet but at least I knew he's in
IT like me but with skills in diferent areas. That was underlying thing
that may have contibuted in the sexual/physical attraction. Would you
put this attraction "superficial physican/sexual attraction"? I
wouldn't. To me, sexual attraction (strong enough for to engage in
sex) is influenced by other things. BTW, we didn't do it the first
time we met up. We, actually, I avoided the second time meeting which
was not for PC issue.
>
> > > whether he had
> > > ever been in trouble with the law, or been fired from a job,
> > > or if he had secretly abused an animal, how many drugs
> > > he has done, what sort of medical conditions he has, had
> > > he ever received psychiatric treatment, the names and
> > > number of his previous sex partners, etc.?
> >
> > Very funny.
>
> What is funny about these things? Many people have problems
> of this nature which can emerge later in a relationship when
> they are no longer on their best behavior.
>
> For example, a bipolar person may be able to "keep it
> together" during the first few months of a relationship, until
> he or she feels comfortable enough to start letting loose
> on you.
>
> > > There have been game shows on television that feature
> > > newlywed couples, in which the host asks each contestant
> > > personal questions about his or her spouse, and the audience
> > > laughs at how little the contestants know about the people
> > > they just bet the rest of their lives on. For most people, the
> > > normal progression is like this:
> > >
> > > 1. See someone.
> > > 2. Feel attracted.
> > > 3. Spend a few hours total getting to know the person superficially.
> > > 4. Start having sex.
> > > 5. Spend years gradually finding out who you are having sex with.
> > >
> > > For most women, we could switch steps 2 and 3. Most women,
> > > unlike most men, are not already desiring sex with someone
> > > at first glance, but most women only need a few hours with a
> > > man to warm to him---if they find him attractive.
> > >
> > > Most men are superficial, but so are most women. For example,
> > > it seems the vast majority of women have some sort of minimum
> > > height requirement for a sex partner. If a man is shorter than a
> > > woman's minimum height requirement, she rules him out on
> > > that basis alone, before knowing anything else about him.
> >
> > Why pick on just height when women also have other criteria they use in
> > picking partners? It just depends on what a person prefers.
>
> Because we were talking about superficiality.
Height is not the only superficiality.
>
> 1. Height is a nearly universal requirement with women---almost
> every woman requires a man to exceed some minimum height
> before she will find him sexually attractive.
>
> 2. Height is a superficial trait which you can estimate with a
> glance. A woman can glance at the men at a party, for example,
> and instantly rule out some of them as being too short for her.
>
> 3. You called me superficial. I am pointing out a way in which
> all women are even more superficial than I am.
That's your opinion/view.
>Even though I
> prefer women to be as beautiful as possible, I am willing to
> be flexible if I have to, and a woman who is not so beautiful
> may be able to compensate somewhat by having a sufficiently
> wonderful personality. In contrast, most women have very
> rigid requirements for a man's height and their requirements
> are non-negotiable.
Don't you think there might be a Biological reson for that and not
superficiality?
>
> > > > My concern was not about competing with other women.
> > >
> > > The average worker isn't concerned about saving for retirement,
> > > either. But objectively, we know most workers should
> > > be concerned, and they aren't saving enough for retirement.
> > > The average American saves something like 1% of income,
> > > or less, when most people need to save at least 10% (if they
> > > start saving early enough, and invest well)
> >
> > I am sure that people would save 10% if they can afford to.
>
> No way. Not with all the great consumer fluff to buy.
>
> Anyone who spends 10% of disposable income on
> entertainments can afford to save that 10%. Most people
> in consumer societies such as the U.S.A. spend much
> more than 10% of disposable income on entertainments:
> vacations, dining out, and buying a more expensive
> house/car/clothing/etc. than the cheapest alternative
> that would do, heating their house more in winter than
> the lowest temperature they could endure, driving more
> than necessary, driving alone instead of car-pooling,
> etc.
>
> In modern nations such as the U.S., huge amounts of
> economic activity are primarily for entertainment: television,
> movies, music, leisure travel, convenience foods, home
> decor beyond the functional minimum, multiple changes of
> clothes, living in unnecessarily large houses unnecessarily
> far from work and shopping (which makes outlandish commutes
> necessary, which in turn drives the demand for comfortable
> cars and expensive roads to facilitate high-speed travel), etc.
> Every strip mall has a video store. Many people have cable
> TV. People spend billions of dollars on various forms of fluff
> instead of saving for retirement.
>
> Did you know women spend more money on their
> appearance (cosmetics, fashion, etc.) than on their
> education?
Not me.
>
> > > or even more if
> > > like most people they don't bother start saving until they
> > > hit their 40's or 50's. (How much have you saved, by the way?)
> >
> > I am an immigrant who had to start from scratch and so I'd say you
> > can't put me in that survey.
>
> Well, that's good for your tendency to save, then.
I didn't say I saved either. Most my money went to non-resident
tution rate and books.
>
> "The Millionaire Next Door" says, among other things, that
> getting a lot of help from one's parents often tends to be
> financially crippling. The basic principle is that it's easier
> to spend someone else's money, so when parents give
> their kids a handout, it conditions their kids to over-consume.
that book doesn't apply to everybody.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Millionaire_Next_Door
>
> > > You may not care about other women, but I assure you
> > > every man you sleep with cares.
> >
> > I know and that's one reason I have been so cautious which made left me
> > as I am.
>
> If you were truly cautious, you would learn the facts
> about a problem instead of going into denial about it,
> and thinking you can scold it away.
What do you think my problem is? Choosy? Well, that's me. I am choosy
with everything. For example, I don't wear synthetic fiber (not as the
first layer) because my skin can breath and I get annoyed.
>
> > > Unless he is blind, a (straight) man is constantly seeing other
> > > women, and his emotional brain is probably reacting to their
> > > physical appearance. If he frequently sees other women he finds
> > > more superficially attractive than you, that can put him under
> > > stress, and affect the quality of your relationship.
> >
> > You are bringing up all the things that can possible happen to worry
> > about in life. Know that it's not only in this area one has to worry
> > that way. You could be driving on the highway and the guy coming from
> > the other direction can be getting brain aneurysm or heart attack and
> > hit you head-on. And we put our lives in the hand of pilot we don't
> > even know when we fly or use ships.
>
> I notice you do not scold the people who have heart attacks
> while driving the same way you scolded me for being superficial.
> Why is that? Do you think you can change a person's
> sexual preferences by scolding him?
I didn't scold you. I just expected you to understand that not everyone
is like you were portraying.
>
> If that were possible, then I would scold the Victoria's Secret
> lingerie models for feeling no interest in me. Perhaps I could
> scold them into wanting me.
Funny.
>
> > > However, because you would probably view his normal male
> > > behavior as a character defect ("superficiality"), and you
> > > seem to be in denial about the fact that you compete with
> > > other women,
> >
> > I didn't say I don't compete at all but not in the petty way you were
> > thinking.
>
> What, do you only date blind men?
But you strecth it (physical attractiveness) as the primary factor.
>
> > > he probably wouldn't be able to communicate
> > > with you honestly about the source of his stress. He's not
> > > going to tell you what's going on in his head if it will only
> > > make you think less of him. Thus the stress might express
> > > itself indirectly, and degrade the quality of your relationship
> > > in some other way that might not make sense to you.
> >
> > So what you are saying is that I should ask him about his attraction to
> > toher woman and help him relieve his stress. So why do I need to bother
> > having such a guy?
>
> Because you seem to want some sort of guy, and virtually
> every guy responds sexually to attractive women strangers
> on sight. You would have to search a long time to find a
> guy who isn't turned on by the sight of attractive women
> strangers, even if he has been conditioned to feel it is wrong.
I accept men for what they are but they shouldn't one-sidedly pursue
their interest disregarding the woman's response. (Of cousre not every
man is liek that but a lot are.) Even my friend disregards what I
said and I had to get into argument with him and still he didn't accept
what I said. He think I am being picky, etc. Even if he calls it
"picky", I want him to accept that it's my right but he won't.
>
> I'm not saying you need a guy. Maybe you don't. Just that
> you seem to have liked some guys in the past, and I would
> bet a large sum of money that at least 80% of them respond
> sexually to the sight of physically attractive women strangers.
I am sure they did but my point was they didn't end up with these women
just based on that primordial sexual attraction just as they checked
other things about me before they ended up with me.
>
> For example, do any of the men you have dated enjoy looking
> at some type of porn?
Only one. I accidentally saw the book. This was the guy that I threw
away my requirement of "No accountant".
>
> It is as normal for men to enjoy looking at porn as it is normal
> for women to enjoy watching "chick flicks" (e.g., romantic
> comedies, or romantic period films).
>
> If I asked, why do I need to bother with such a woman (who
> enjoys watching romantic comedy films), that would be
> the same as asking why do I need to bother with women
> at all.
>
> I need to bother with women because I LIKE them. I don't
> necessarily share their taste for chick flicks, but it's kind
> of cute to hang out with people who get into some things
> I personally would have little interest in on my own.
>
> > > > I am one of a kind
> > >
> > > Everybody is one of a kind. It's not a question of you being
> > > one of a kind, the question is how many "kinds" a given man
> > > can be attracted to.
> >
> > I'd say that most people are attracted to the same type of person
> > excluding the superficial attraction.
>
> So all these guys you have dated, did they sit around waiting
> for you to show up? And have they remained celibate since?
Again, you stretch things out of context. All of them did use the word
"unique" with me.
>
> If they have enjoyed other women, perhaps you are not
> so unique as you imagine.
I am sure that those women were much like me.
>
> >From an evolutionary standpoint, it would make no sense
> for an organism to have such exacting requirements for a
> mate. That organism would then be highly likely to die
> before the unique partner would happen to show up.
> Instead, the whole point of sex is to get the genes into
> the next generation, and to do that you have to mate with
> something.
>
> > >If you're with a guy who can be attracted to other kinds of women,
> > I will not be with such a the person or drop him like a fly.
>
> Now you're just being silly. Every man you've had sex
> with probably feels attracted to many different women,
> both before, during, and after the time you dated him.
I meant he was *attracted enough to enagge in sex with them* while he
is with me. So far, no one has done that.
>
> Of course most men learn not to call attention to this
> fact when they are with particular women, because this
> is not something most women care to know.
>
> > > then being one particular kind gives
> > > you no competitive advantage over women of those other kinds.
> > >
> > > Consider the analogy with food. There are many kinds of
> > > food. You can probably satisfy your hunger with more than
> > > one. A person who could only eat one specific
> > > kind of food would have a problem getting through life,
> > > because sometimes that one kind is not available.
> > > Most people, therefore, have some flexibility.
> >
> > Food and people as analogies? I do not like to eat the same food
> > everyday while I want the same peroson everyday. So much for the
> > analogy.
>
> I am just the opposite. I can eat the same foods every day,
> while I want a different woman every day (if that were feasible
> to arrange, and if it could be reasonably safe).
Typical man.
>
> > Of course, you can say that that's not the case with men.
> > Well, that mostly explians why I am alone.
>
> That and your habit of scolding men for being superficial.
I don't scold any of them; none of them were *that* superficial.
.
> It's so stereotypical and tiring.
For you, it is.
>
> > > > and someone so concern about age in
> > > > the superficial sense wouldn't be the type who would be attarcted to me
> > > > anyway.
> > >
> > > Are you saying all the men you date would be just as happy
> > > to pick up 90-year-old women at a nursing home?
> > You streth things out of context, you know?
>
> I don't know what you mean when you say "someone
> so concern about age in the superficial sense."
You and I have to re-read that post to see in what cintext you asked
and I said that.
>
> I guess whatever you mean by that, it doesn't mean men
> who are OK with dating 90-year-old women. So what do
> you mean?
>
> See, "age" is something we can put numbers on. If you
> put numbers on it, everybody can know what you mean.
> So what age number are you talking about?
Age gives general info about a person life experience. How can a
typical 28 year old possibly under me though he thinks he does?
>
> > > If they
> > > don't care about age in the superficial sense, they should
> > > be just as likely to find women of any age attractive.
> >
> > Out of context.
>
> No, it's perfectly in context. You wrote about men who
> aren't concerned with a woman's age. That's the context.
> Either a man is concerned about a woman's age, or he
> isn't.
>
> If a man won't date any 90-year-old woman, that means he
> is concerned about her age. Either that, or he is concerned
> about traits which all 90-year-old women share. For example,
> the fact that they are all hideous.
Age represents look and in that age range of 90 years old, would a 40
year old man date that woman unless she is filthy rich but that's a
rare case.
>
> > > Here's what is most likely: the men you date care about
> > > a woman's looks---intensely; and for the most part, they
> > > date the most physically attractive women they can attract.
> > >
> > > For example, let's assume you aren't as superficially
> > > attractive as the typical Victoria's Secret lingerie model.
> > > This means you are very unlikely to date any man
> > > who can attract those lingerie models. You can only
> > > date men from among the set of men those models
> > > reject.
> >
> > The men those models reject miight be the men who would look for
> > merit-based qaulities aside from just looks.
>
> It doesn't matter what those men want---the models reject
> them anyway.
>
> A model might reject a gay man as being unsuitable for
> her, before she even knows he is gay. The fact that he is
> gay and wouldn't want sex with her anyway is irrelevant
> to her ruling him out.
>
> > So it's not like they are rejects.
>
> No, in fact they are rejects. It's like the way I am a reject
> for the job position of physician, because I lack the training,
> even though I did not apply for the job.
>
> > There are a lot of tother factors involved unlike your
> > simplification based on looks.
>
> Sure, but beautiful women have those other factors, because
> as a group they are diverse.
>
> For example, there is a Cincinnati Ben-Gals cheerleader who
> is close to completing a Ph.D. in molecular biology. She is
> physically beautiful, but also she is smart and studious.
> Even if that is a rare combination, it does exist.
Cheerleader is difefrent form being a career super model. It's an
extra curricular activity for that very active girl. If she wants to do
serious reserach as a mol Biologist, she couldn't continue such similar
activites after she graduates. She won't have time.
>
> > You cannot be a good researcher. You do not take into account a lot of
> > factors.
>
> You do not take into account that no matter what a man
> looks for in a woman besides her looks, he wants those
> factors in the prettiest possible package.
I din't say that he wouldn't. What I said was that "prettiest is not
the primary thing all men would look for".
>
> For example, if he can choose between two women who have
> all the other traits he wants, but they differ in looks, he chooses
> the more physically attractive one.
I already gave my view on that to speeding.
>
> Can you show us some examples of men who choose
> women who are much less attractive than the most attractive
> women they can get?
Yes, the woman with money or power (as in royalty) are sometimes
chosen.
>
> One example might have been (actor) Harrison Ford, who
> married a woman who wasn't as pretty as other women he
> could have married, but eventually she divorced him, because
> he screwed around on her for years with lots of other women.
>
> > > And conversely, if a man is dating you, he is very unlikely
> > > to leave you for any woman who is substantially uglier.
> > > Women who are uglier are generally no competition for
> > > you.
> >
> > Again, that's very superficial. If the uglier woman had other
> > qualities that the current woman lacks that he wants desperately, he
> > would go for the uglier woman.
>
> Unlikely, because if he can attract the current woman, he
> can probably attract some other similarly-attractive woman
> with the other traits he wants.
>
> You seem to assume the man is on a desert island with
> only two women.
> In the real world, there are lots of women
> at a given level of attractiveness, with a range of other
> traits.
Actually, that was my EXACT point.
> > Speaking of being a bad researcher, you are merely
> speculating now instead of citing actual examples.
>
> I know men who date lots of women. The personalities
> of these women vary, but the women a particular man
> dates tend to be very similar in the physical cuteness
> factor.
See. I said that in one of my abive statement. A man goes for women
with similar qaulitites and traits. And I am sort of like that.
>
> For example, if you know a man who dates lots of
> slender women, he is very unlikely to date an obese
> woman regardless of what other traits she has.
I wouldn't date obese men. So it''s not juts men. We all have our
priorites.
>
> That's because the sexual market sorts women by
> attractiveness, with fat women and old women ranked below
> slender women and young women. If a man can attract
> several women who are young and slender, you will not
> see him with a woman who is fat and old, any time soon
> at least.
> Only when he has lost his ability to attract
> slender young women will he consider fat old women.
Though I do not agree wiht that totally, I would say this: The women
would do the same.
>
> -- the Danimal
Mike Given
>Mike Given wrote:
>>yamuna wrote:
>>>Speeding wrote:
>[..]
>>The only alternative I could see is to print up some sort of
>>dating application
>But I wasn't looking to date.
What-evar.
>>(..I would suggest a page or less) to the door of every
>>unmarried man in your "subdivision" (whatever that is). Only
>>men that're interested would bother to apply, and you wouldn't
>>have to "walk like an idiot to look for decent men".
>Are you serious about this approach?
Obviously not. It's silly and I was teasing. But your reluctance
to at least minimally socialize with the unwashed masses in order to
find at least a few people you might like is just as silly.
>>>>Buy a bicycle and ride around the subdivision.
>>>You just have to wint he converstaion, don't you? See above.
>>By what other means could you hope to achieve meeting men in
>>the narrow range of your subdivision? Unless of course you're
>>willing to throw a beer bash or a lingerie party or something
>>like that.
>That's the thing. I don't drink and not interseted in lingerie
>party.
Er, sorry, but the beer bash and/or lingerie party is more my sort
of thing, and again, I was just teasing.
>>>>If you want to meet people... a really good way to do it is to
>>>>go to where they are and say "Hi." Then improvise from there.
>>>Say Hi to married assholes?
>>Wow - such hostility. Not all married men are assholes
>I didn't say all. You shoudl read betwene the lines.
"Speeding" wrote that the simple way to start is to find people and
say "hi". Nothing about married men *at all*, and yet you saw fit to
hiss back about "married assholes". So really, cracks about my
reading comprehension from you are somewhat useless, and my point,
which is that married men are just as nice (or not) as any other man
unless proven otherwise, is still valid in light of your essentially
unprovoked comment.
>>whose sole purpose in life is to cheat on their wives, ya know.
>>Some married men even have single male friends and/or relatives
>>they might be willing to introduce to you.
>May be so but their wives (Some anyway) would be worrying and
>hating if their husbands talk to me, a stranger.
That's their problem/insecurity.
>>>>Forget all the BS about "I need this quality" or "I don't want
>>>>friends of that quality" if you make you friend desision making
>>>>process so narrow that no humans canfit into it..
>>>A few have fit and I am happy with those friends. If they are in
>>>the same city, I wouldn't need to be making any new friends.
>>I don't think your problem has anything to do with the quality of
>>people around you.
>I didn't say the above. I know that my problem is I don't meet the
>kind of people I wan to meet.
Believe me, even if nothing else does, that particular part of your
dilemma comes through loud and clear.
But no one here knows what kind of people you want to meet, and
you're even vague and generalized on the kind of people you don't want
to meet. Other than the very specific "married assholes", of course.
>>>>then it's no secret as to why you can't meet friends. Otherwise,
>>>>you are just lying to yourself once again about what your real
>>>>desires and motivations are.
>>>So you know my real desire more thna I do?
>>I think you see your real desire in the mirror every day. Likely,
>>some several times per day. Or at least that's how you're coming
>>across to me in these fora.
>What? My desire is to find some friends after I gave up of hope
>finding a compatible man whom I can trust.
Ah, yes, the pillar on which friendship is built: Trust.
Who do *you* trust?
>>>>But, it is. Unless you think Female Spooning Friend Wanted
>>>>- m4w - 39 (SF or EastBay) is some sort of non-platonic
>>>>request.
>>>And you are so gullible that married assholes won't respond to
>>>my ad
There you go again, by the way. "Speeding" said nothing about
"married men" and you came right out on the attack.
>>>if I don't place it in strcitly platonic., I screen a lot
>>>of them by putting in platonic and stating my requirement and
>>>you need to acknwoledge that.
>>Catch-22, that. A married man who doesn't want to cheat on his
>>wife but *does* want to meet new friends (female or otherwise)
>>is going to hit the "platonic" requests first - so you may
>>unwittingly be attracting the very classification ("married")
>>of men you're trying to avoid.
>Married is okay as long as their wives know about the friendship
>with me. I said that in my ad.
Sorry - I didn't see your ad. What I *do* see is lots of overt
hostility towards married men specifically and relative contempt for
people-in-general. Even if there's some justification, you might
consider "dialing it back a bit". Nothing personal - I've never even
been married once - but that heart on your sleeve isn't doing you much
good.
>>>>but, lose the "I don't want any friends unless they fit into
>>>>my perfect mold for them" attitute.
>>>Then I will get acquaintances, nto friends.
>>Yah, it's such a shame that people that live near you won't
>>just capitulate to being the way that you want them to be, or
>>that people who are within your seemingly narrow realm of
>>acceptibility won't just move from where they are just to be
>>nearer to you.
>>Boy, does life ever suck bad, huh?
>I am not saying that they are not here in this city.
Well then what *are* you saying? Can you point a url to this ad of
which you speak?
[...]
>>>>>Hey, I have few friends but these few, I get along really well.
>>>>I would hope, considering the stringent requirements you have for
>>>>a friendship.
>>>Yes I do.
>>You're a snob, hon. Maybe not Zsa-Zsa-Gabor-snobby or
>>Paris-Hilton-snobby, but you're a snob nonetheless.
>I know that I look that way because I am very outfront about what
>I want and what I reject.
And that's just fine-n-dandy if you're happy with just the circle of
friends you've got; they know you, and they're willing to tolerate
that from you.
But you seem to want to widen your social circle without even the
slightest compromise.
Ain't working so well, is it?
That's what people here are trying to tell you, and your "I want
what I want" looks like nothing more than a bratty tantrum. If you
want *new* friends, you may need to be just a *teeny* bit more
tolerant. You may find that some people might actually put up with
some of your snobbiness and you might even like them despite some
deficiency in their "intellectual level".
>>>I am friendly to almost all people
>>I'm betting not. My bet is that you're *maybe* tolerably polite to
>>most people, but "friendly" - no, not buying it.
>That's your opinion.
Actually I don't know you at all to even form any sort of actual
opinion - it's just a plain-old guess, really. But from what I'm
reading from you here, it's a damn good guess.
>>>but I wouldn't sit and chit chat with everbody frequently
>>>unless I feel real connected.
>>Did you ever stop to consider even the possibility that the
>>reason you might not feel connected to more people isn't so
>>much a problem with all those other people as it is more a
>>problem with you?
>I never use the word "problem" as if it's the people's fault.
It's not about "fault", it's about flaws. I didn't mean "problem" as
a bad thing, per se; if it helps at all, a better word might be
"conundrum".
>I beleive that I have a right to what kind of people I would
>give a chance to.
That rumbling sound you might be feeling isn't so much an earthquake
as it is Dale Carnegie spinning in his grave.
>>Like I said: "tolerably polite".
>That's your opinion.
Still nothing more than a guess, dearie.
>>Of course I don't know you so I could be wrong, and if so,
>>mind if I ask what part of your life you talk to her about?
>Nothing serious. Everytime she sees me she asks me these 2
>perosnal questions like a little kid:
>(1) Are you not afraid living alone?
>(2) Are you not goignt o get married?
So basically, you wait for her to give you cues as to what she wants
you to talk about and you don't actually tell her anything about your
life.
Thought as much. She's not your friend so much as she is someone
you occasionally tolerate to keep from being lonely. If she does get
any of your real life out of you, it has to be pried loose.
>>>>>Yes, I have my critera. Simply put, "Birds of the same feather
>>>>>flocks together."
>>Stupid aphorism; humans are ever-so-slightly more emotionally
>>complex than birds.
>Oh My God! You are joking, right?
No, I'm not joking in the least.
People (..at least people like me, anyways) often enjoy a bit of
variety in their life. I don't expect or want everyone to be like me
or even to adhere to some nonsensical "intellectual level
compatibility". It's funny that I'm probably double or treble the
cynic that you are and somehow I still manage to be at least slightly
more tolerant of people as individuals.
You say "birds of a feather", others say "opposites attract"; both
are stupid bromides that don't come anywhere near human reality.
Except maybe in freaky cults or something like that.
>>>>Birds of the same feather flock into engine intakes ... or..
>>>>it's hard to fly like an eagle if you are surrounded by turkeys.
>>>>If you REALLY want to make friends... broaden your horizions a
>>>>little.
>>>But I only want the kind of friends I want.
>>Did I read somewhere that you're 34 years old? Because you sound
>> like you haven't gotten out of middle school yet.
>And you are so mature with your bird statement.
Actually, "yes", I am. In fact, I'm a goddamn marvel'o'modern
science, and even if I wasn't, I'm still older'n'smarter than you.
Well, older, anyways.
>>>I am sure that there are a lot of other interesting topics
>>>but I can only afford what I can afford after my other
>>>priorites in life.
>>You're not going to make too many friends until you realize
>>that your prioroties aren't the only ones on the planet. Or
>>even in your subdivision, for that matter.
>I don't want too many friends.
Ohfer pity's sake.
Riddle me this, Batman: How many friends is too many?
>I am a loner. I like it.
Bullshit. "Loners" aren't the kind of people that're desperate
enough to place personal ads - they're secure within themselves and
actually often make friends on a whim pretty much anywhere they go and
disappear and reappear as things suit them. They go where they want
to go, do what they want to do and friends aren't an issue.
Even with what precious little I can get from just Usenet posts, I
can tell you're nothing of the kind, and you most certainly don't like
it. Just the opposite in fact - you're scared of being alone.
And there's not a damn thing wrong with that - even I would be
scared of being alone if there was even the vaguest possibility of
that happening (..lots of people are gonna hafta die for that to come
true). I'm not saying you're bucking for Miss Popularity 2k6, but I
ain't buyin' that "loner" nonsense either.
>I just want a few friends in town.
Okay then, bottom line:
They're not going to magically appear, even with a personal ad. Not
gonna happen. You don't define friendship - it's one of those things
that just happens. It's as much about chemistry as it is about
criteria, and lots (if not most) of the time, chemistry will trump
criteria. Like when I posted:
>>(..beware graduating from "priorities" to "agendas".)
If it's an actual opinion you're after, you're on that line. You
don't just have priorities for a friendship, you're developing agendas
on top. My *guess* is that it will come to a woeful end because as
your agenda(s) grow, so shall your social circle narrow until you find
yourself very much alone.
Not gonna be easy - you don't strike me as someone that takes any
sort of compromise or risk with your trust. But until you do, you're
going to be moderately sad and stiffly tolerant.
Mikey (..as opposed to reasonably happy and mildly satisfied.)
yamuna
Mike Given wrote:
[..]
>
> "Speeding" wrote that the simple way to start is to find people and
> say "hi". Nothing about married men *at all*,
He probably assumes as he does wiht a lot of things w.r.t me, that
being singl, I live in apartment complex. I live in residential
neighborhood (where no one I have seen so far is w/o family).
>and yet you saw fit to
> hiss back about "married assholes".
Two married assholes, 4 blocks down the road, my sister's neighbors,
have tried me.
My assholes remarks was meant to refer to them.
>So really, cracks about my
> reading comprehension from you are somewhat useless, and my point,
> which is that married men are just as nice (or not) as any other man
> unless proven otherwise, is still valid in light of your essentially
> unprovoked comment.
I am sure that I mentioned about these two men diretcly or indirectly
but "speeding" was quick at picking on me.
>
> >>whose sole purpose in life is to cheat on their wives, ya know.
> >>Some married men even have single male friends and/or relatives
> >>they might be willing to introduce to you.
> >May be so but their wives (Some anyway) would be worrying and
> >hating if their husbands talk to me, a stranger.
>
> That's their problem/insecurity.
But I noticed that one guy (married guy) cut the converstation with me
quickly - I was inquiring the way he was waxing his car.
>
> >>>>Forget all the BS about "I need this quality" or "I don't want
> >>>>friends of that quality" if you make you friend desision making
> >>>>process so narrow that no humans canfit into it..
> >>>A few have fit and I am happy with those friends. If they are in
> >>>the same city, I wouldn't need to be making any new friends.
> >>I don't think your problem has anything to do with the quality of
> >>people around you.
> >I didn't say the above. I know that my problem is I don't meet the
> >kind of people I wan to meet.
>
> Believe me, even if nothing else does, that particular part of your
> dilemma comes through loud and clear.
C'mon. We live in a society where people are isolated form each toher
unless you got o bars and socialize. Anyone this old (men or women)
going to bar for socializing must have serious issues.
> But no one here knows what kind of people you want to meet, and
> you're even vague and generalized on the kind of people you don't want
> to meet. Other than the very specific "married assholes", of course.
C'Mon.
>
> >>>>then it's no secret as to why you can't meet friends. Otherwise,
> >>>>you are just lying to yourself once again about what your real
> >>>>desires and motivations are.
> >>>So you know my real desire more thna I do?
> >>I think you see your real desire in the mirror every day. Likely,
> >>some several times per day. Or at least that's how you're coming
> >>across to me in these fora.
> >What? My desire is to find some friends after I gave up of hope
> >finding a compatible man whom I can trust.
>
> Ah, yes, the pillar on which friendship is built: Trust.
> Who do *you* trust?
Exactly.
>
> >>>>But, it is. Unless you think Female Spooning Friend Wanted
> >>>>- m4w - 39 (SF or EastBay) is some sort of non-platonic
> >>>>request.
> >>>And you are so gullible that married assholes won't respond to
> >>>my ad
>
> There you go again, by the way. "Speeding" said nothing about
> "married men" and you came right out on the attack.
There, I was angry at the way he was putting words in my mouth but
still, only a fool would refer to all married men as assholes and so
give me a break, will ya?
>
> >>>if I don't place it in strcitly platonic., I screen a lot
> >>>of them by putting in platonic and stating my requirement and
> >>>you need to acknwoledge that.
> >>Catch-22, that. A married man who doesn't want to cheat on his
> >>wife but *does* want to meet new friends (female or otherwise)
> >>is going to hit the "platonic" requests first - so you may
> >>unwittingly be attracting the very classification ("married")
> >>of men you're trying to avoid.
> >Married is okay as long as their wives know about the friendship
> >with me. I said that in my ad.
>
> Sorry - I didn't see your ad. What I *do* see is lots of overt
> hostility towards married men specifically and relative contempt for
> people-in-general.
I see a lot of ads where married men looking for women for sex
discreetly.
>Even if there's some justification, you might
> consider "dialing it back a bit". Nothing personal - I've never even
> been married once - but that heart on your sleeve isn't doing you much
> good.
>
> >>>>but, lose the "I don't want any friends unless they fit into
> >>>>my perfect mold for them" attitute.
> >>>Then I will get acquaintances, nto friends.
> >>Yah, it's such a shame that people that live near you won't
> >>just capitulate to being the way that you want them to be, or
> >>that people who are within your seemingly narrow realm of
> >>acceptibility won't just move from where they are just to be
> >>nearer to you.
> >>Boy, does life ever suck bad, huh?
> >I am not saying that they are not here in this city.
>
> Well then what *are* you saying? Can you point a url to this ad of
> which you speak?
I have removed it.
>
> [...]
> >>>>>Hey, I have few friends but these few, I get along really well.
> >>>>I would hope, considering the stringent requirements you have for
> >>>>a friendship.
> >>>Yes I do.
> >>You're a snob, hon. Maybe not Zsa-Zsa-Gabor-snobby or
> >>Paris-Hilton-snobby, but you're a snob nonetheless.
> >I know that I look that way because I am very outfront about what
> >I want and what I reject.
>
> And that's just fine-n-dandy if you're happy with just the circle of
> friends you've got; they know you, and they're willing to tolerate
> that from you.
They like me, not tolerate me.
> But you seem to want to widen your social circle without even the
> slightest compromise.
I may compromis just a little tiny bit.
Because none of my freinds are in my state muchh less my city.
> Ain't working so well, is it?
Nope.
> That's what people here are trying to tell you, and your "I want
> what I want" looks like nothing more than a bratty tantrum. If you
> want *new* friends, you may need to be just a *teeny* bit more
> tolerant.
But to tolerate things that are hard on me just to get friends is not
my idea of fun.
>You may find that some people might actually put up with
> some of your snobbiness and you might even like them despite some
> deficiency in their "intellectual level".
I understand that but it annoys me when they don't understand a point I
make and will not just leave it at that insist on telling to change my
thinking or view.
>
> >>>I am friendly to almost all people
> >>I'm betting not. My bet is that you're *maybe* tolerably polite to
> >>most people, but "friendly" - no, not buying it.
> >That's your opinion.
>
> Actually I don't know you at all to even form any sort of actual
> opinion - it's just a plain-old guess, really. But from what I'm
> reading from you here,
> it's a damn good guess.
See, judgemental. You already formed an opinion whther you admit it or
not.
>
> >>>but I wouldn't sit and chit chat with everbody frequently
> >>>unless I feel real connected.
> >>Did you ever stop to consider even the possibility that the
> >>reason you might not feel connected to more people isn't so
> >>much a problem with all those other people as it is more a
> >>problem with you?
> >I never use the word "problem" as if it's the people's fault.
>
> It's not about "fault", it's about flaws. I didn't mean "problem" as
> a bad thing, per se; if it helps at all, a better word might be
> "conundrum".
Not all flaws can be tolerated. If they can be, there would be no
divorce. The guy I had in the previous state was messy in the bathroom
basin and also queezed tooth paste form the top but I tolerated that.
>
> >I beleive that I have a right to what kind of people I would
> >give a chance to.
>
> That rumbling sound you might be feeling isn't so much an earthquake
> as it is Dale Carnegie spinning in his grave.
>
> >>Like I said: "tolerably polite".
> >That's your opinion.
>
> Still nothing more than a guess, dearie.
>
> >>Of course I don't know you so I could be wrong, and if so,
> >>mind if I ask what part of your life you talk to her about?
> >Nothing serious. Everytime she sees me she asks me these 2
> >perosnal questions like a little kid:
> >(1) Are you not afraid living alone?
> >(2) Are you not goignt o get married?
>
> So basically, you wait for her to give you cues as to what she wants
> you to talk about and you don't actually tell her anything about your
> life.
What to tell to someone who came on student visa like I did but instead
of finsihing school, applied for politcal asylum and quit school and
worked at a rseturtant an dthen at a shop and got married to the owner
of the shop? And she told me that she hates studying.
> Thought as much. She's not your friend so much as she is someone
> you occasionally tolerate to keep from being lonely.
Nope.
She is friend based on the fact that she comes from my country and
initially, we cooked some ethnic dish becaie it was not fun to eat
alone with so much work in cooking. I don't go to her place for any
socialization but she has a shop that's near the grocery store I go and
I stop by *occasionally* and buy things at her place because I left
most of my things back in the other state.
I went to her baby shower in January and last week, she called me and
aske dme to stay with me for the weekend due to her marital issue.
See, how quickly you guys judge?
> If she does get
> any of your real life out of you, it has to be pried loose.
Judgemental.
>
> >>>>>Yes, I have my critera. Simply put, "Birds of the same feather
> >>>>>flocks together."
> >>Stupid aphorism; humans are ever-so-slightly more emotionally
> >>complex than birds.
> >Oh My God! You are joking, right?
>
> No, I'm not joking in the least.
You must be smokign something.
> People (..at least people like me, anyways) often enjoy a bit of
> variety in their life. I don't expect or want everyone to be like me
> or even to adhere to some nonsensical "intellectual level
> compatibility".
That's you but I have a right to be how I want to be.
> It's funny that I'm probably double or treble the
> cynic that you are and somehow I still manage to be at least slightly
> more tolerant of people as individuals.
> You say "birds of a feather", others say "opposites attract"; both
> are stupid bromides that don't come anywhere near human reality.
> Except maybe in freaky cults or something like that.
For real friednship, it has to be birds of the same feather. For more
than freinds, it is more complex.
>
> >>>>Birds of the same feather flock into engine intakes ... or..
> >>>>it's hard to fly like an eagle if you are surrounded by turkeys.
> >>>>If you REALLY want to make friends... broaden your horizions a
> >>>>little.
> >>>But I only want the kind of friends I want.
> >>Did I read somewhere that you're 34 years old? Because you sound
> >> like you haven't gotten out of middle school yet.
> >And you are so mature with your bird statement.
>
> Actually, "yes", I am. In fact, I'm a goddamn marvel'o'modern
> science, and even if I wasn't, I'm still older'n'smarter than you.
> Well, older, anyways.
Thank you for such humility.
>
> >>>I am sure that there are a lot of other interesting topics
> >>>but I can only afford what I can afford after my other
> >>>priorites in life.
> >>You're not going to make too many friends until you realize
> >>that your prioroties aren't the only ones on the planet. Or
> >>even in your subdivision, for that matter.
> >I don't want too many friends.
>
> Ohfer pity's sake.
> Riddle me this, Batman: How many friends is too many?
>
> >I am a loner. I like it.
>
> Bullshit. "Loners" aren't the kind of people that're desperate
> enough to place personal ads - they're secure within themselves
If my sisters have been nice to me half way decent, and if I am not new
in this city, I won't need any human interction with outside people.
You don't even know me but you judge me.
>and
> actually often make friends on a whim pretty much anywhere they go and
> disappear and reappear as things suit them.
Those are not the type of friendship I want.
> They go where they want
> to go, do what they want to do and friends aren't an issue.
> Even with what precious little I can get from just Usenet posts, I
> can tell you're nothing of the kind, and you most certainly don't like
> it.
If you are talking about making friends here and there and not really
in touch with them, yes you are right. I don't consider those
meaningful friendship.
> Just the opposite in fact - you're scared of being alone.
Nope. You are wrong. If I am not working out of home and (my ibslings
are not so cruel) and commute to a workplace, I won't even look for
friends like this.
I am in CA (not in SF By area) and I want to see the state and I need
someone to go with though I have gone alone once. Last Janauray, my
friend from another state came and we went to Tahoe. Last year August,
another from another state, came and we went to SF and Santa Cruz. Me
and my friend's wife (who is my friend now) from another state talk
about going to new York or Rome, or Paris. We would be doing that this
summer if they are not moving to canada. She invited me to join to
Canada even on the trip they move.
Mike Given
>Mike Given wrote:
>>>I know that my problem is I don't meet the kind of people
>>>I wan to meet.
>>Believe me, even if nothing else does, that particular part of
>>your dilemma comes through loud and clear.
>C'mon. We live in a society where people are isolated form each
>toher unless you got o bars and socialize.
Maybe on your planet, but on the planet that I live not everyone
socializes at bars. There's gyms, classes and workshops, coffee
shops, book shops, beaches and boardwalks, concerts, and block
parties. Some people go to popular fishing holes, museums, religious
services, and community events.
>Anyone this old (men or women) going to bar for socializing must
>have serious issues.
You got some nerve calling me "judgemental". The bar in which I
usually whet my whistle has a softball team and a billiards team.
Sometimes we organize outings to sporting events and music festivals.
We even invite friends that don't go to the bar.
So really, if we have "serious issues", it still sucks more to be
you.
>>But no one here knows what kind of people you want to meet, and
>>you're even vague and generalized on the kind of people you don't
>>want to meet. Other than the very specific "married assholes",
>>of course.
>C'Mon.
It's the truth.
>>>What? My desire is to find some friends after I gave up of hope
>>>finding a compatible man whom I can trust.
>>Ah, yes, the pillar on which friendship is built: Trust.
>>Who do *you* trust?
>Exactly.
So you trust pretty much no one. Big suprise, that.
[...]
>>>>You're a snob, hon. Maybe not Zsa-Zsa-Gabor-snobby or
>>>>Paris-Hilton-snobby, but you're a snob nonetheless.
>>>I know that I look that way because I am very outfront about
>>>what I want and what I reject.
>>And that's just fine-n-dandy if you're happy with just the circle
>>of friends you've got; they know you, and they're willing to
>>tolerate that from you.
>They like me, not tolerate me.
You misunderstand. I didn't say your friends don't like you, I said
they tolerate a flaw in you. It's because they *do* like you that the
tolerance is provided.
>>But you seem to want to widen your social circle without even
>>the slightest compromise.
>I may compromis just a little tiny bit.
Ah, a glimmer of wisdom. Just be careful not to put too much out
there so ya don't get hurt too badly if things don't work out so well.
>Because none of my freinds are in my state muchh less my city.
I pretty much got that from your previous posts
>>That's what people here are trying to tell you, and your "I
>>want what I want" looks like nothing more than a bratty
>>tantrum. If you want *new* friends, you may need to be just
>>a *teeny* bit more tolerant.
>But to tolerate things that are hard on me just to get friends
>is not my idea of fun.
Ya know, sometimes one of my friends will do something that annoys
the shit out of me. And sometimes I'll do something that annoys the
shit out of them. Because we're friends, we talk those things out and
try not to do them again.
Being friends with someone isn't always "fun".
>>You may find that some people might actually put up with some
>>of your snobbiness and you might even like them despite some
>>deficiency in their "intellectual level".
>I understand that but it annoys me when they don't understand a
>point I make and will not just leave it at that insist on telling
>to change my thinking or view.
Got an example?
>>>>>I am friendly to almost all people
>>>>I'm betting not. My bet is that you're *maybe* tolerably polite
>>>>to most people, but "friendly" - no, not buying it.
>>>That's your opinion.
>>Actually I don't know you at all to even form any sort of actual
>>opinion - it's just a plain-old guess, really. But from what I'm
>>reading from you here, it's a damn good guess.
>See, judgemental. You already formed an opinion whther you admit it
>or not.
What part of "I don't know you at all" didn't sink in?
Yes, I'm making a judgement call based on what you've posted here.
No, I have not formed any sort of opinion. I know you probably
don't believe that, but that's your problem, not mine.
>>>>>but I wouldn't sit and chit chat with everbody frequently
>>>>>unless I feel real connected.
>>>>Did you ever stop to consider even the possibility that the
>>>>reason you might not feel connected to more people isn't so
>>>>much a problem with all those other people as it is more a
>>>>problem with you?
>>>I never use the word "problem" as if it's the people's fault.
>>It's not about "fault", it's about flaws. I didn't mean "problem"
>>as a bad thing, per se; if it helps at all, a better word might
>>be "conundrum".
>Not all flaws can be tolerated. If they can be, there would be no
>divorce.
That's a silly thing to say, because if flaws couldn't be tolerated
there wouldn't be any marriage to begin with.
>The guy I had in the previous state was messy in the bathroom
>basin and also queezed tooth paste form the top but I tolerated
>that.
Pah. I once dated a girl that had a pet tarantula named "Floyd"; I
tolerated Floyd 'cuz she was funny, had the dark sense of humor I tend
to like, wasn't too girly, and pretty damn spectacular in the sack. I
raise your toothpaste tube by one big-ass hairy spider.
>>>>Of course I don't know you so I could be wrong, and if so,
>>>>mind if I ask what part of your life you talk to her about?
>>>Nothing serious. Everytime she sees me she asks me these 2
>>>perosnal questions like a little kid:
>>>(1) Are you not afraid living alone?
>>>(2) Are you not goignt o get married?
>>So basically, you wait for her to give you cues as to what she
>>wants you to talk about and you don't actually tell her anything
>>about your life.
>What to tell to someone who came on student visa like I did but
>instead of finsihing school, applied for politcal asylum and quit
>school and worked at a rseturtant an dthen at a shop and got
>married to the owner of the shop?
Hell, I don't know. Did you at least tell her that you were
thinking about placing a personal ad to seek out some more friends in
your area?
>And she told me that she hates studying.
Do you hate studying?
>>Thought as much. She's not your friend so much as she is someone
>> you occasionally tolerate to keep from being lonely.
>Nope.
>She is friend based on the fact that she comes from my country and
>initially, we cooked some ethnic dish becaie it was not fun to eat
>alone with so much work in cooking. I don't go to her place for any
>socialization but she has a shop that's near the grocery store I go
>and I stop by *occasionally* and buy things at her place because I
>left most of my things back in the other state.
Having a cultural connection isn't a bad start, but it doesn't
necessarily make for a friendship.
>I went to her baby shower in January and last week, she called me
>and aske dme to stay with me for the weekend due to her marital
>issue. See, how quickly you guys judge?
I only have what you've posted to go on. And it still looks like a
relationship of convenience to me; other than the cultural things, it
looks like the two of you have little else in common.
>>If she does get any of your real life out of you, it has to be
>>pried loose.
>Judgemental.
Yup. Seems to me that the only way to get any real information out
of you (..at least in this particular venue) is to confront you a bit,
otherwise all's I see is you returning straight back to "I have a
right to want what I want" nonsense.
>>>>>>>Yes, I have my critera. Simply put, "Birds of the same feather
>>>>>>>flocks together."
>>>>Stupid aphorism; humans are ever-so-slightly more emotionally
>>>>complex than birds.
>>>Oh My God! You are joking, right?
>>No, I'm not joking in the least.
>You must be smokign something.
Now, now - you don't want to be judgemental, do ya?
>>People (..at least people like me, anyways) often enjoy a bit of
>>variety in their life. I don't expect or want everyone to be like
>>me or even to adhere to some nonsensical "intellectual level
>>compatibility".
>That's you but I have a right to be how I want to be.
Yes, you do.
How's that working out for you?
>>It's funny that I'm probably double or treble the cynic that
>>you are and somehow I still manage to be at least slightly
>>more tolerant of people as individuals.
>>You say "birds of a feather", others say "opposites attract"; both
>>are stupid bromides that don't come anywhere near human reality.
>>Except maybe in freaky cults or something like that.
>For real friednship, it has to be birds of the same feather.
I have plenty of evidence that you're dead-wrong, but I don't expect
you to even begin to accept that since you seem more interested in
being entitled to want what you want.
>For more than freinds, it is more complex.
That's definitely true, but for many types of relationships
including many friendships, it's also more complex. Complexity isn't
exclusive to romantic relationships, and sometimes romantic
relationships aren't all that complex at all.
But again, I don't expect to convince you - you want what you want
and you have your right to want it.
[...]
>>>>>I am sure that there are a lot of other interesting topics
>>>>>but I can only afford what I can afford after my other
>>>>>priorites in life.
>>>>You're not going to make too many friends until you realize
>>>>that your prioroties aren't the only ones on the planet. Or
>>>>even in your subdivision, for that matter.
>>>I don't want too many friends.
>>Ohfer pity's sake.
>>Riddle me this, Batman: How many friends is too many?
Not going to answer that question..?
>>>I am a loner. I like it.
>>Bullshit. "Loners" aren't the kind of people that're desperate
>>enough to place personal ads - they're secure within themselves
>If my sisters have been nice to me half way decent, and if I am
>not new in this city, I won't need any human interction with outside
>people.
>You don't even know me but you judge me.
You make it too easy.
>>and actually often make friends on a whim pretty much anywhere
>>they go and disappear and reappear as things suit them.
>Those are not the type of friendship I want.
Then you aren't a "loner".
>>They go where they want to go, do what they want to do and
>>friends aren't an issue. Even with what precious little I can
>>get from just Usenet posts, I can tell you're nothing of the
>>kind, and you most certainly don't like it.
>If you are talking about making friends here and there and not
>really in touch with them, yes you are right. I don't consider
>those meaningful friendship.
Loners are people who, by definition, do not seek out meaningful
relationships. Kinda spoils the point of being a "loner". I don't
doubt that you possibly have a need for more self-time than others
might, but that still doesn't qualify for being a loner or even liking
being alone.
>>Just the opposite in fact - you're scared of being alone.
>Nope. You are wrong. If I am not working out of home and (my
>ibslings are not so cruel) and commute to a workplace, I won't
>even look for friends like this.
Not having a copy of your personal ad, I don't really know what
"like this" is.
>I am in CA (not in SF By area) and I want to see the state and
>I need someone to go with though I have gone alone once.
You "need someone" to go with..?
>Last Janauray, my friend from another state came and we went
>to Tahoe. Last year August, another from another state, came
>and we went to SF and Santa Cruz. Me and my friend's wife
>(who is my friend now) from another state talk about going to
>new York or Rome, or Paris.
Sounds rather nice. Never been to Rome, myself; I hear it's
fascinating.
>We would be doing that this summer if they are not moving to
>canada. She invited me to join to Canada even on the trip they
>move.
You don't sound like you're really wanting to be a loner.
I do think that from what you've posted here, you're running a good
chance of ending up that way though, save for a precious few
long-distance relationships.
Mikey (..feel free to tell me how wrong and judgemental I am though)
--
"There is no nonsense so gross that society will not, at some
time, make a doctrine of it and defend it with every weapon
of communal stupidity." - Robertson Davies
yamuna
Mxsmanic wrote:
> Speeding writes:
[..]
>
> > After all, if there's no need for sex, then there is no need for
> > companionship either.
>
> Companionship is a separate issue that is largely a function of
> personality.
>
> It's best not to get too caught up in biological explanations for
> everything. Human beings are not slaves to their biology; they do
> have the ability to ignore some aspects of biology at their
> discretion.
Well put.
>
>
> > Can't disagree. But, today's exceptions are tomorrow's norms. 100 years ago,
> > someone just living to 70 would have been rather exceptional. Now, it's
> > common.
>
> It wasn't that exceptional 100 years ago. If a person avoided
> infections and enjoyed proper nutrition, he might well live to his 70s
> or beyond. The average life expectancy was low mainly because there
> was no treatment for infection diseases, and malnutrition and
> accidents were common and untreated.
>
> > And don't forget they are living in a sexually repressed society. The idea
> > of 72 ANYTHING female that they can touch is probably more than enough
> > incentive for them.
Any man who believes these men perform suicide mission for that reward
has no clue abouthis fellowmen. Teh way I see it is that for these
young suiciders whose lives are ending prematurely, it was just just
psychological therapy of going out early w/o a normal life (with a
woman) on earth. The married suiciders were concern that they would not
see their wives and were assured by their leaders that as martyr, they
could take so many people to heaven with them. At least that's what I
learned from the movie made about 9/11 hijackers.
>
> If they can actually be convinced of that.
Again, well said.
>
> It's usually easier to just make them angry, though. Angry young men
> will do whatever they are told, even if it means killing themselves.
Killing oneself for the betternes of one's people. No one can beat
that motivation.
the Danimal
> Mike Given wrote:
> > say "hi". Nothing about married men *at all*,
>
> He probably assumes as he does wiht a lot of things w.r.t me, that
> being singl, I live in apartment complex. I live in residential
> neighborhood (where no one I have seen so far is w/o family).
If you ride a bicycle, you can ride to lots of other neighborhoods.
> > and yet you saw fit to
> > hiss back about "married assholes".
>
> Two married assholes, 4 blocks down the road, my sister's neighbors,
> have tried me.
What was their verdict?
> My assholes remarks was meant to refer to them.
>
> >So really, cracks about my
> > reading comprehension from you are somewhat useless, and my point,
> > which is that married men are just as nice (or not) as any other man
> > unless proven otherwise, is still valid in light of your essentially
> > unprovoked comment.
>
> I am sure that I mentioned about these two men diretcly or indirectly
> but "speeding" was quick at picking on me.
Perhaps that's because you don't write from a neutral point
of view.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
Also, your definition of "picking on me" may be a bit expansive.
Toughen up a little and you'll fare better online. Maybe in real
life too.
> > >>whose sole purpose in life is to cheat on their wives, ya know.
> > >>Some married men even have single male friends and/or relatives
> > >>they might be willing to introduce to you.
> > >May be so but their wives (Some anyway) would be worrying and
> > >hating if their husbands talk to me, a stranger.
> >
> > That's their problem/insecurity.
>
> But I noticed that one guy (married guy) cut the converstation with me
> quickly - I was inquiring the way he was waxing his car.
That is one possible outcome when you talk to strangers. But
eventually you find some who want to talk longer.
> C'mon. We live in a society where people are isolated form each toher
> unless you got o bars and socialize. Anyone this old (men or women)
> going to bar for socializing must have serious issues.
You only need to go to bars if you want to meet drunks like
Mike Given.
People who aren't drunks have lots of other places to socialize.
Join an activity club of some sort, such as a bicycle club.
> > >>>>But, it is. Unless you think Female Spooning Friend Wanted
> > >>>>- m4w - 39 (SF or EastBay) is some sort of non-platonic
> > >>>>request.
> > >>>And you are so gullible that married assholes won't respond to
> > >>>my ad
> >
> > There you go again, by the way. "Speeding" said nothing about
> > "married men" and you came right out on the attack.
>
> There, I was angry at the way he was putting words in my mouth but
> still, only a fool would refer to all married men as assholes and so
> give me a break, will ya?
You can earn your own breaks by being a little less quick on
the trigger.
> > >>>if I don't place it in strcitly platonic., I screen a lot
> > >>>of them by putting in platonic and stating my requirement and
> > >>>you need to acknwoledge that.
> > >>Catch-22, that. A married man who doesn't want to cheat on his
> > >>wife but *does* want to meet new friends (female or otherwise)
> > >>is going to hit the "platonic" requests first - so you may
> > >>unwittingly be attracting the very classification ("married")
> > >>of men you're trying to avoid.
> > >Married is okay as long as their wives know about the friendship
> > >with me. I said that in my ad.
> >
> > Sorry - I didn't see your ad. What I *do* see is lots of overt
> > hostility towards married men specifically and relative contempt for
> > people-in-general.
>
> I see a lot of ads where married men looking for women for sex
> discreetly.
I wonder if any of those ads get results? It seems hard to believe
there could be many women who are specifically looking to
meet some married man for sex.
> >You may find that some people might actually put up with
> > some of your snobbiness and you might even like them despite some
> > deficiency in their "intellectual level".
>
> I understand that but it annoys me when they don't understand a point I
> make and will not just leave it at that insist on telling to change my
> thinking or view.
If they don't understand a point you make, then you didn't make
your point.
"Making a point" implies making it in a language someone can
understand.
Everybody understands a large number of facts. For example, we
know the Earth is spheroidal, it rotates, and is not flat. We
perceive the sky to be blue when it isn't cloudy or nighttime. And
so on. Start with facts that everybody agrees on, and then show
how whatever point you want to make follows logically from the
facts.
If you can't show how your point follows logically from the facts,
then maybe others will disagree with your point. And you might
not sound persuasive to them.
Most people have no idea how to "make points." Instead, they
merely assert their beliefs. Most people have little idea why
they believe much of what they believe. They just mindlessly
absorbed most of it from their culture. Then when they encounter
someone who absorbed different beliefs from another culture,
they get upset. People like that can only be happy if they
surround themselves with others who happen to share all
the same mindless beliefs, so they can wallow endlessly in
comforting groupthink. See: any religion.
If you believe something, and you cannot show how it follows
logically from facts, why do you believe it? Any belief not based
in facts has a chance of turning out to be wrong.
If you have been wrong about something before, maybe you
are wrong about other things and don't know it yet.
The funny thing about making points from facts is that you
can win all the battles and still lose the war, when you are
arguing with someone who holds a purely emotional belief.
> > >>>I am friendly to almost all people
> > >>I'm betting not. My bet is that you're *maybe* tolerably polite to
> > >>most people, but "friendly" - no, not buying it.
> > >That's your opinion.
> >
> > Actually I don't know you at all to even form any sort of actual
> > opinion - it's just a plain-old guess, really. But from what I'm
> > reading from you here,
>
> > it's a damn good guess.
> See, judgemental. You already formed an opinion whther you admit it or
> not.
You're probably friendly to some people and unfriendly to other
people, just like everyone is.
You may think of yourself as "friendly," but everyone who meets
you will have a different perception of how friendly you are to them.
> > >>>but I wouldn't sit and chit chat with everbody frequently
> > >>>unless I feel real connected.
> > >>Did you ever stop to consider even the possibility that the
> > >>reason you might not feel connected to more people isn't so
> > >>much a problem with all those other people as it is more a
> > >>problem with you?
> > >I never use the word "problem" as if it's the people's fault.
> >
> > It's not about "fault", it's about flaws. I didn't mean "problem" as
> > a bad thing, per se; if it helps at all, a better word might be
> > "conundrum".
>
> Not all flaws can be tolerated. If they can be, there would be no
> divorce. The guy I had in the previous state was messy in the bathroom
> basin and also queezed tooth paste form the top but I tolerated that.
It's easy to fix the toothpaste tube by pulling it backwards
across the edge of the countertop, with the lid closed,
to push the toothpaste forward.
Or you could date a British guy who doesn't brush.
> > >>Of course I don't know you so I could be wrong, and if so,
> > >>mind if I ask what part of your life you talk to her about?
> > >Nothing serious. Everytime she sees me she asks me these 2
> > >perosnal questions like a little kid:
> > >(1) Are you not afraid living alone?
> > >(2) Are you not goignt o get married?
> >
> > So basically, you wait for her to give you cues as to what she wants
> > you to talk about and you don't actually tell her anything about your
> > life.
>
> What to tell to someone who came on student visa like I did but instead
> of finsihing school, applied for politcal asylum and quit school and
> worked at a rseturtant an dthen at a shop and got married to the owner
> of the shop?
Well, you could print some articles by "the Danimal" and read
them to her aloud and have a good time laughing, maybe even
thinking.
> And she told me that she hates studying.
You could ask her what she hates about it. There's probably
something she enjoys studying. For example, she might
enjoy studying brochures of resorts when she is planning
a vacation.
> She is friend based on the fact that she comes from my country and
> initially, we cooked some ethnic dish becaie it was not fun to eat
> alone with so much work in cooking. I don't go to her place for any
> socialization but she has a shop that's near the grocery store I go and
> I stop by *occasionally* and buy things at her place because I left
> most of my things back in the other state.
>
> I went to her baby shower in January and last week, she called me and
> aske dme to stay with me for the weekend due to her marital issue.
> See, how quickly you guys judge?
Is that more quickly than you judge strangers to be "superficial"?
> > People (..at least people like me, anyways) often enjoy a bit of
> > variety in their life. I don't expect or want everyone to be like me
> > or even to adhere to some nonsensical "intellectual level
> > compatibility".
>
> That's you but I have a right to be how I want to be.
Yes. But the more conditions you impose on who can
be your friend, the fewer friends you have.
It's like the way adding more requirements to an Internet
search usually shortens the list of results.
If you get no results, that means you imposed too many
requirements.
> > It's funny that I'm probably double or treble the
> > cynic that you are and somehow I still manage to be at least slightly
> > more tolerant of people as individuals.
>
> > You say "birds of a feather", others say "opposites attract"; both
> > are stupid bromides that don't come anywhere near human reality.
> > Except maybe in freaky cults or something like that.
>
> For real friednship, it has to be birds of the same feather.
Yes, if you strongly hold a large number of emotional beliefs
not based in facts, and you get upset when different people
hold different emotional beliefs. Then you can only get along
with yes-men.
If, on the other hand, you keep an open mind about everything
for which no conclusive evidence exists, you can get along with
more people.
For example, if you run into someone who believes in Santa
Claus, you don't have to get upset immediately because for all
we know, maybe Santa Claus does exist.
It can still be a problem getting along with people who hold
fervent emotional beliefs while they deny their beliefs are
purely emotional and not based on facts. Those kinds of people
often try to force their emotional beliefs on everyone around them.
You can still have fun demolishing all their stupid arguments,
which they stupidly absorb from their leaders, and which have
all been amply debunked.
This is more of a problem in the U.S. than it is in other
developed countries. The U.S. has a level of religious belief
that is more characteristic of a developing country.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence
> For more than freinds, it is more complex.
> > >>>>Birds of the same feather flock into engine intakes ... or..
> > >>>>it's hard to fly like an eagle if you are surrounded by turkeys.
Did you know the largest known flying bird from the fossil
record had a wingspan of more than 20 feet?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teratorn
Imagine being a cave man and having one of those things fly
overhead and crap on you.
> > >>>>If you REALLY want to make friends... broaden your horizions a
> > >>>>little.
> > >>>But I only want the kind of friends I want.
> > >>Did I read somewhere that you're 34 years old? Because you sound
> > >> like you haven't gotten out of middle school yet.
> > >And you are so mature with your bird statement.
> >
> > Actually, "yes", I am. In fact, I'm a goddamn marvel'o'modern
> > science, and even if I wasn't, I'm still older'n'smarter than you.
> > Well, older, anyways.
>
> Thank you for such humility.
Mike Given works very hard to maintain his humility. It's such a
struggle when he really is superior to everyone else, and the
reminders are continuous and overwhelming.
> > >>>I am sure that there are a lot of other interesting topics
> > >>>but I can only afford what I can afford after my other
> > >>>priorites in life.
> > >>You're not going to make too many friends until you realize
> > >>that your prioroties aren't the only ones on the planet. Or
> > >>even in your subdivision, for that matter.
> > >I don't want too many friends.
> >
> > Ohfer pity's sake.
> > Riddle me this, Batman: How many friends is too many?
> >
> > >I am a loner. I like it.
> >
> > Bullshit. "Loners" aren't the kind of people that're desperate
> > enough to place personal ads - they're secure within themselves
>
> If my sisters have been nice to me half way decent, and if I am not new
> in this city, I won't need any human interction with outside people.
> You don't even know me but you judge me.
He's not judging you, he's judging the logical contradictions
in your article.
"You" are not the issue here. All we see are words on a screen.
Stop associating your personal essense with your words. They
aren't the same.
It's possible you are a "loner" in the sense that you don't mind
spending most of your time alone, but you want to spend some
time with friends. If you were more specific, for example by saying
you want to be a loner 95% of the time, then you would not
contradict yourself by saying you want friends for the other 5%.
> >and
> > actually often make friends on a whim pretty much anywhere they go and
> > disappear and reappear as things suit them.
>
> Those are not the type of friendship I want.
>
> > They go where they want
> > to go, do what they want to do and friends aren't an issue.
> > Even with what precious little I can get from just Usenet posts, I
> > can tell you're nothing of the kind, and you most certainly don't like
> > it.
>
> If you are talking about making friends here and there and not really
> in touch with them, yes you are right. I don't consider those
> meaningful friendship.
Having a girl in every port may not be meaningful, but it's still
worthwhile.
> > Just the opposite in fact - you're scared of being alone.
>
> Nope. You are wrong. If I am not working out of home and (my ibslings
> are not so cruel) and commute to a workplace, I won't even look for
> friends like this.
>
> I am in CA (not in SF By area) and I want to see the state and I need
> someone to go with though I have gone alone once. Last Janauray, my
> friend from another state came and we went to Tahoe. Last year August,
> another from another state, came and we went to SF and Santa Cruz. Me
> and my friend's wife (who is my friend now) from another state talk
> about going to new York or Rome, or Paris. We would be doing that this
> summer if they are not moving to canada. She invited me to join to
> Canada even on the trip they move.
If you go to Canada, ask them to explain the single point rule.
> > And there's not a damn thing wrong with that - even I would be
> > scared of being alone if there was even the vaguest possibility of
> > that happening (..lots of people are gonna hafta die for that to come
> > true). I'm not saying you're bucking for Miss Popularity 2k6, but I
> > ain't buyin' that "loner" nonsense either.
> >
> > >I just want a few friends in town.
I want a womb with a view.
> > Okay then, bottom line:
> > They're not going to magically appear, even with a personal ad. Not
> > gonna happen. You don't define friendship - it's one of those things
> > that just happens. It's as much about chemistry as it is about
> > criteria, and lots (if not most) of the time, chemistry will trump
> > criteria. Like when I posted:
> > >>(..beware graduating from "priorities" to "agendas".)
> >
> > If it's an actual opinion you're after, you're on that line. You
> > don't just have priorities for a friendship, you're developing agendas
> > on top. My *guess* is that it will come to a woeful end because as
> > your agenda(s) grow, so shall your social circle narrow until you find
> > yourself very much alone.
I don't know. She made friends in other cities. What she did once,
she can probably do again.
What she won't get is advice on Usenet she can use, because
she takes everything as a personal insult.
yamuna
Guess what? I got a response from an Asian-Fillipino, and Asian (don't
know male or female yet), both 39, The latter one has has a degree in
Biochem who said he/she is looking for someone for movies, dinners,
etc. I can't find a more like-minded person than a Chemist (My former
trade) and am very pleased.
These two are obviously into friendship unlike the white guys (and
other guy - a latino - who responded even though they didn't meet
requirement and seemed upset and criticized me despite my explanation
that I have no clue on that culture; I even told him that I prefer
Asians and Asian-Americans the most right now) whose interest is more
in sex.
I won't be in usenets too much as I have a lot of things to do. Just
wanted to tell all of you (speeding and Mike Given as well) that
somepeople do read things in context.
And I am not surprised that it's an Asian.
Speeding
"the Danimal" <dmo...@mfm.com> wrote in message
news:1146528069.2...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> yamuna wrote:
>> While it is not online dating sites per se, it clearly said "Strictly
>> Platonic". Which parts of these two words do they not understand as
>> English speaking men?
>
> Anyone who works in technical support knows there
> are lots of plain English words that lots of customers
> do not understand.
>
> One problem with English speaking men who hear the
> phrase "strictly platonic" is that they may have heard
> women saying such things right up until they decided
> to have sex.
Or even AFTER, sometimes. Other times they hear "I want sex" and then here
"strictly platonic" after.. but those are cases that usually end up in court
rooms.
>
> -- the Danimal
>
Speeding
This IS the context you were writing in. What... you're going to deny the
whole conversation now?
>> >> and I pointed out the case of Anna
>> >> Nicole Smith? I do believe it was.
>>
>> Remember the Anna Nicole point I made, the one you dismissed as being a
>> "rare" case. Apparently, it's so common that even you are one of the
>> ladies
>> that makes a superficial decision based on age.
>
> That extreme age differece and weath is rare.
What is your point? Rare? So? You are, as I pointed out and am pointing out
again, are one of those ladies that makes superficial decisions. Even while
condemning men for the same.
Speeding
>
> Speeding wrote:
> [..]
>
>> Oh please. A dating site. Sure, you can post in Strictly Platonic. And
>> say
>> I'm a woman looking for a man. And if you're expecting even 1 in 20 men
>> to
>> honestly think you REALLY want a platonic relationship... well... be
>> realistic here.
>
> If I wanted, non-platonic, I would have stated that he be at least
> college educated and have a job, etc.
What, you think people have your same set of expectaions?
Oh, and remember that whole superficial thing... now he's got to have a
college education? Just to date you? Damn...
>>Or do you honestly think "Female Spooning Friend Wanted -
>> m4w - 39" is platonic?
>
> Yes.
There is ocean front property for sale in Arizona. Would you care to buy it?
Why would you care about a man's education if you are so gullible as to
think a man looking to lay naked next to women is looking for anything BUT
sex....
>>90% of those posts are people looking for sexual
>> relations.
>> Try doing what Danimal suggests... ask about joining a cycling group.
>
> I am not that serious cyclcist. That's why I searched for like-minded
> people.
Like minded? What are you doing? Making friends... or looking for a husband?
Why are you so superficial and pick about your freinds. I thought you were
the one condemning superficial people?
>> Which is why there are posts about... let's see...
>> Female Spooning Friend Wanted - m4w - 39
>
> You are rude. And that's because your cliam that I can make platonic
> friendship with any one is refuted.
It is not rude to suggest that a man who states he wants to spoon with women
(and spooning is a sexual activity) is looking for sex.
And your claim is not refuted because of the fact you posted on a site. It
is refuted because you are so damn superficial that no one will ever measure
up to the qualities you are demanding in a person that you calim to only
desire as a friend.
>> I INHERITED $1M USD AND NEED TO SPEND IT NOW!!! - m4w - 23
>> Where do single people from Redwood city go? - m4mw - 33
>> Let's just start by being friends first: - m4w - 34
>>
>> Sure platonic only. If you believe that... reply to the "I got a million
>> and
>> want to spend it". You just might buy a bridge. Or oceanfront property in
>> Arizona.
>> If you want to convince me you are THAT gullible,
>
> I wasn't that gullible; I wanted to refute your implication that it's
> that easy to make platonic friendhsip with males who are heterosexual
> like me.
You were and are that gullible. If you REALLY think a guy wants to have a
woman lie in bed naked while he is lying naked behind her in a sexual
position... then you are either completely insane, dumber than a box of
rocks, or the most gullible peson I've ever heard of. Or, you are lying
through your teeth.
And you can feel free to call me rude. Just also realize I am being honest.
>>you'll have to work a bit
>> harder at it. Otherwise, I'm going to think you are just making excuses.
>
> Firstly, you tell me that it is easy to make platonic friendships with
> males; Secondly, you said (implied) that if I am that picky, I will be
> missing out in life. You failed to acknowledge me as an individual who
> knows what she wants and insist to act like every other female..
Bullshit. You ARE making excuses. When you try to state that you will only
accept a male friend that is <insert a fourty page long description of
required qualities> and top it off by making one and only one post to what
is essentially a "get together" website, then don't try to say you are doing
anything other than making extremely stupid excuses. Or, to be more
accurate, you can lie to yourself. But not to me. I won't accept a liar's
words.
>> > Are you saying that we can make friends with just anybody regardless of
>> > comon interest? Actually, you have implied that already when you said
>> > that I coudl make friends with anyone I do not have sexual attraction.
>>
>> No. I did not say "just anybody". Nor did I mention "common interest".
>> Nor
>> did I imply that (or say) you could make friends with anyone you are not
>> sexually attracted to. I did say you can find friends for a non-platonic
>> relationship, even men. How you go about doing so, however, I left up to
>> you
>> to decide.
>
> So far, I have not succeeded in making friends with men because I would
> sleep with them under the "friendhsip" category. AS SImple As That.
What? You have NOT made friends with men because you DID sleep with them?
Okay. either it's a typo or you are the biggest liar I've ever seen. No way
a man is going to turn down "friends plus sex". Well. maybe. But I can
safely say that there are PLENTY of men that will happliy be your bestest
buddy if you are willing to have sex with them.
So, I'll assume it was a typo and you meant that you haven't succeeded in
making friends with men that you wouldn't sleep with...
This I can easily believe. you haven't TRIED to make friends with men in a
plutonic manner. To make friends with men... you have to... radical idea...
go outside and meet some men. And.. you have to be a bit less demanding than
asking for their complete background history. Heck, you don't even sleep
with men you know that well... so why must you have more information about
the men you wish to be friends with than the men you have sex with?
It makes no sense to say your standards in friendship are higher than your
standards in sexual partners. So explain to me why you keep insisting that
you require higher standards in your potential friends than your potential
sexual partners.
>> >> When you try to claim you can't find friends that are wanting to be
>> >> platonic
>> >> only.. you can certainly lie to yourself. But if you are going to lie
>> >> to
>> >> others as well... you might want to get a better cover story.
>> >
>> > See how quick you are to accuse me?
>>
>> And? I'm simply saying you are making excuses. Or you really are so
>> gullible
>> that you thing a post like Female Spooning Friend Wanted - m4w - 39 is
>> someone seeking a non-plutonic relationship.
>
> See, that's your typical male interpretataion.
Yes.. men are bad. Make your point. Beside.. who says I'm a man?
Further, let's just assume I am... if, as a man, I would assume that is a
request for sex... why would other men think differently?
For that matter, what woman would think a man that asks her to get naked,
lay in bed, let me get behind you naked also, and we'll just cuddle VERY
closely... is not a sexual request? No. I don't think you are that stupid.
Or that insane. Or that gullible. I think you are lying. I think you are
lying to yourself and expecting me to accept your lie as reality.
Guess what, I do not accept lies as reality.
>>When you make obvious
>> statements that are ludicris I will call you on them.
>
> What ludicrous statement? Age requirement? Religion requirement?
> Political viewrequirement? It is an important fact in even in
> friendship for the kind of friendship I want, with the kind being. At
> this point in my life, I would not be freind with someone who supports
> Bush's murdering milions of civilions.
Statements such as you trying to claim that you would expect a man and woman
lying in bed naked and cuddled together in a sexual position is anything
other than a request for sexual activity. Statements such as claiming that
you are doing "everything" you can to find plutonic male friends but then
saying that they must meet stringent requirements that even a priest might
not meet and excusing several other suggestings and going to only one
on-line site and then claiming that you can't find *any man anywhere* to be
just a plutonic friend. And now adding political confictions, religious
views, age, heights, weight, hair color, eye color... what else....
If you REALLY awntd to make friends with people, you would not care about
their political views or their religious views. After all, meeting people
with various other views in life is how one can learn and grow. They can
grow and develop from those other views, even if they do not accept or agree
with them. As Arostle said... It is the mark of an educated mind to be able
to entertain a thought without accepting it. Are you unwilling to learn? Are
you THAT close minded that even the presence of differing thought would
taint your carefully crafted world view. Or are you just someone that hates
all men and will find any excuse to continue hating all men?
Like I've said plenty of times before. You can feel free to lie to yourself
all you want. But, do not lie to me and expect that I will accept your lie
as reality.
>> > The category as I mentioned when I said about putting an ad was
>> > "Strictly platonic". And I said in my title that am in search of
>> > like-minded males and females for friends of age (~ -~).
>>
>> And what? That's automatically going to stop men that want sex from
>> seeking
>> you? Get real. Have you replied to the numerous entries of postings from
>> people saying they are looking for friends only?
Kind of skipped this, didn't you... did you ever respond to those posts that
specifically say they are looking for freindship only?
>> >>hoping to meet a woman to "just be friends" with. Most ment don't
>> >> visit ANY website that involves women except in the hopes of having
>> >> sexual
>> >> encounters.
>> >
>> > You are so quick to judge.
>>
>> So? It doesn't take a year and a science degree to figure out men looking
>> on
>> websites where men and women are posting to find relationships are
>> probably
>> there looking for a relationship.
>
> So it is about men and their lies, isn't it? I am getting tired of
> your defending men who wouldn't try to understand women and just accuse
> and blame them.
Yes.
It is about your belief that all men are liars and evil and bad. Your faith
and your unwillingness to open to the world around you. Your desire to
completely shut yourself off from anyone and anything that you are against.
It is you that are defending your belief that all men can not and will not
try to understand women and you that accuse and blame all men of only
wanting to have a sexual relationship, even in the face of the fact that
there are plenty of men and women that are STRICTLY plutonic friends only.
Your desire to hate all men and remain completely closed to any other views
that might change your beliefs.
There's a word that defines such an attitude....
A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles or
identities differing from his or her own.
You are a bigot. You hate all men and are intolerant of opinions to the
contrary.
Feel free to dismiss that as rude too. But, it's not my definition. And it
is reality.
Speeding
> Speeding writes:
>
>> If a person THINKS there is something wonderful about sex... then that
>> would
>> BE a psychological attraction for it.
>
> They only think there is something wonderful about sex because their
> hormones compel them to think this.
I'd like to think there is more to it than that... but with no scientific
evidence to prove or disprove your theory... I'll remain open to the idea
that it could be possible.
> It's rather like adrenalin: when it flows, people become anxious,
> nervous, and get a feeling of impending doom. But all of this is
> simply the effect of the adrenalin--it's not an independent
> psychological development. Remove the adrenalin, and this
> "psychological" state of mind disappears.
But, in much the same manner, the behaviors can be controlled. Adrenalin
does not, no matter how much a few people would like to claim otherwise,
FORCE people into thinking of taking an action. Adrenalin rush can be
controlled. So can hormones. It would be completely wrong to try to justify
something such as rape as just a factor of hormones, taking your example to
it's logical conclusion. Yes, hormones certainly do INFLUENCE a desire to
have sex. But to claim that this desire can not be controlled is simply
incorrect. And, so, the reverse is also true. Though the hormones that
influence a desire for sex might decrease, mental control can certainly
override the lack of hormones to create a greater desire for sex.
Also, I should perhaps point out that the adrenalin rush is not the cause of
the feeling... it is the result OF the feeling. You do not have an adrenalin
rush and THEN get scared. You get scared. Then your body reacts to the fear
by producing adrenalin. So, by this logic, hormones for sexual desire could
be created by thoughts of arousal. You feel aroused and then your body
reacts by producing hormones. Or so it goes by your logic.
>> Now, saying that a desire for sex is a biological function... maybe.
>> But, if that were true, then sexual desire would drop as age increases.
>
> And it does.
No. Not always. Sometimes it actually increases. In fact, sexual drive often
increases well past the point where hormones have begun to drop. Women often
experience their sharpest and strongest sexual desires in the mid 30s. But,
by this time, their hormones levels are far lower than in their late teens.
And many men have RAGING sexual desires well into their 70s, 80s, and even
90s.
>> Yet, for many men, that doesn't seem to be the case.
>
> What makes you say that? All the data I've ever seen indicate a
> steady decline in interest in sex among men throughout life after
> puberty. The same is true for women, except that women are often
> raised to be extremely inhibited, so that they experience an apparent
> peak later in life when inhibitions have died down and libido still
> remains to some extent, even though they aren't as physically
> interested as they once were.
You've been looking at the wrong data. All I need to look at are men. Hugh
Hefner certainly doesn't seem to have diminshed sex drive. It's perhaps
stronger now that it's ever been (heck he's got THREE playmates right now!)
Ditto for Michael Douglas, Sean Connery, Harrison Ford... it's a long
list.... Plus, I'm certainly on that list. I can very easily assure you that
my sexual desires and sexdrive are FAR higher than they ever were in High
School. So far, they not only aren't receeding... they are increasing.
And I'd say ditto for women, if Kim Catrall and the ladies from Sex in The
City are any indicator. Or Teri Hatcher. Or any of the women from Deperate
Housewifes... and before you mention the sexual repression... Madonna was
NEVER one that could be described as sexually inhibited. And yet her sex
drive skyrocketed in her mid 30s andeven into her 40s. So, no, the data you
have is certainly not matching up to anything observable otherwise.
But, it might after age 50, for women, after menopause hits.
>> Then again, biologically,
>> perhaps an explaination could be that men have an ability to continue
>> reproductive activity far beyond the age at which women can.
>
> In older couples, it is quite common for women to complain that their
> husbands are no longer interested in sex.
Then start looknig into the trend coming to be known as Viagra suits. It's a
trend where older women are finding out their husbands are taking Viagra.
And they didn't know about it. If I can find the link again, I'll post it.
Someone else posted it a few days ago.
>> Why not? Sexual attraction is the original basis for mating.
>
> Mating is useful only for reproduction. People who have no desire to
> reproduce need not waste time mating.
But, men are capable of reproducing well into their 90s. Women into their
50s. So, again by your own logic... sex drive should be continuing right up
to those points.
>> After all, if there's no need for sex, then there is no need for
>> companionship either.
>
> Companionship is a separate issue that is largely a function of
> personality.
It's based on mating, as well. So, as I mentioned, once the reproductive
needs are complete... then companionship is no longer required.
> It's best not to get too caught up in biological explanations for
> everything. Human beings are not slaves to their biology; they do
> have the ability to ignore some aspects of biology at their
> discretion.
I agree, let's not get caught up in biological explainations. As I stated
above, in disagreeing with you, Human Beings are not slaves to their
hormones. So, I would say that it is completely plausible for sexual drives
and urges to remain high even without hormonal supports. As you appear to
agree her, but disagree above.
>> Can't disagree. But, today's exceptions are tomorrow's norms. 100 years
>> ago,
>> someone just living to 70 would have been rather exceptional. Now, it's
>> common.
>
> It wasn't that exceptional 100 years ago. If a person avoided
> infections and enjoyed proper nutrition, he might well live to his 70s
> or beyond. The average life expectancy was low mainly because there
> was no treatment for infection diseases, and malnutrition and
> accidents were common and untreated.
If is a big word. IF I avoid infections and enjoy proper nutrition, I might
well live to 140. But... it's extremely unlikely as I'm not planning to give
up cigars, wine, or chocolate anytime soon. Ditto for red meat, cheeze, and
a total avoidance of anything that remotely looks like a fruit or vegetable.
Like I said it was exceptional for someone to survive to age 70 pre-1900,
simply because, as you agree, diseases, malnutrition, and accidents were
common.
The IFs kind of change things.
>> And don't forget they are living in a sexually repressed society. The
>> idea
>> of 72 ANYTHING female that they can touch is probably more than enough
>> incentive for them.
>
> If they can actually be convinced of that.
They certainly seem to be so far. There's no shortage of these idiots
willing to do all sorts of stupid things. Especially when you think that
after just one attempt, they are not around to repeat their actions again.
So there's no shortage of them getting convinced.
> It's usually easier to just make them angry, though. Angry young men
> will do whatever they are told, even if it means killing themselves.
> They make great cannon fodder.
And it's amazing how a lack of sex plus seeing violence daily and seeing the
people that you are being told commit the violence are not being sexually
repressed might make them angry. Heck, it might even make their adrenalin
and hormone levels go so high that they could no longer control what they
were doing. Maybe.
Speeding
>
> Speeding wrote:
>> "yamuna" <yamun...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1146460617....@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > Speeding wrote:
>> > [..]
>> >
>> >> Online is not real life.
>> >
>> > I was aiming to meet somepeople in my subdivison.
>>
>> Here's a suggestion or two then... Take a walk out the door and around
>> the
>> subdivision.
>
> Let me tell you that not even walking around the subdivision got me
> married men chaising me behind their wives. So why would I walk like
> an idiot to look for decent men to make friends.
Sure. Sounds like a BS excuse to me. Try walking around in places where REAL
men are, not Internet men on the Sims 2.
You can lie to yourself. You can try to lie to me. but don't expect me to
believe your lies.
>>Buy a bicycle and ride around the subdivision.
> You just have to wint he converstaion, don't you? See above.
Given your responses about how your potential friend must met this, that,
and every other requirement...
Nope, still doesn't pass the BS test. Talk to a priest. I GUAREENTEE they
are not intereste even remotely in sex with you. Try joining a church
choir... you'd meet a LOT of men that would not even have a thought about
having sex with you. Try going to the local gay men's bar. You'd meet lots
of men with NO interest in having sex with you.
>> If you want to
>> meet people... a really good way to do it is to go to where they are and
>> say
>> "Hi." Then improvise from there.
>
> Say Hi to married assholes?
Why do you assume they are assholes if you've never even gotten to know
them? And how do you know they are married? You are making excuses and they
are the crappies excuses I've ever seen. You are simply pre-judging all men.
Are you a man hater? Is there some reason you assume all men are married
cheater before you even say more than one word to them? Why do you hate all
men? What is the REAL reason you WON'T (not can't) make friends with men?
>> >>But.. anyways... before you start a new tangent...
>> >> 4 men. And how many women? What kind of site are you going to to meet
>> >> new
>> >> people? A dating site?
>> >
>> > Nope. Not a dating site per se.
>>
>> Any closer and it'd be E-Harmony.
>
> That's a duck from you and a BIG one at that.
It's as close to a dating site as it can get without saying it's a dating
site. And, speaking of duck... did you contact any of the people that said
they were looking for friends only... or just the ones that said they were
looking for freindship and more?
>> You have to "maximize" the chance of meeting a person online for
>> friendship?
>> What? How about trying this instead....
>> #1: Open front door.
>> #2: Step outside, close door, maybe lock door.
>> #3: Start walking.
>> #4 When you see someone, say "Hi, how are you doing today".
>> #5: Keep talking... you just made a new friend. Ta da.
>
> You are not serious, are you?
Yes. If you want to meet people... the best way to do it... is to meet
people. Playing on your computer is not the same thing as meeting people.
>> Repeat steps #4 and #5 as desired.
>> #6: Return to home, open door, step inside.
>> #7, If needed, jot down the names of your new friends so you'll remember
>> then next time you repeat steps 1-5 again.
>
> You really want to win the conversation that badly?
You really serious about meeting men for plutonic relationships or are you
just a man-basher that has to find a way to justify her hatred of men?
>> >> Why would you require a friend to tell their spouse about you? It
>> >> sounds
>> >> like you are posting on a dating site.
>> >
>> > I don't want married men aproaching me for extra marital secret
>> > activites.
>>
>> That makes no sense. Are you looking for extra marital secret activities?
>
> You are not so gulible that such men wouldn't try, are you?
Such men? The ones you haven't yet spoken to? Men such as priests that have
taken strick vows of celebacy? Men such as happily married men of deep
religious conviction that wouldnot cheat on their wives even at gun point?
Or are you just making excuses so you can hate all men, even the ones you've
never even said "Hi" to yet?
>> If
>> not, then what's it matter. Answer.. it doesn't. It's another excuse. Try
>> steps 1-7 above... Forget all the BS about "I need this quality" or "I
>> don't
>> wan't friends of that quality" if you make you friend desision making
>> process so narrow that no humans canfit into it..
>
> A few have fit and I am happy with those friends. If they are in the
> same city, I wouldn't need to be making any new friends.
So, you HAVE made male friends that are only seeking plutonic erlationships?
Is that what you are saying? Be clear here. If you have done it before...
then you can certainly do it again.
>>then it's no secret as to
>> why you can't meet friends. Otherwise, you are just lying to yourself
>> once
>> again about what your real desires and motivations are.
>
> So you know my real desire more thna I do?
Perhaps. You have specific requirements for meeting male friends. Such
exacting requirements that no person, male or frmale, can meet those
requirements. So, you tell me, then... why are you so demanding about making
a friend? Why do you automatically assume that all men are wanting to have
sex with you? Why do you assume all men you meet on the street, in gay bars,
at bookstores, in church... are all married assholes?
>> >>If so... then DUH!!!
>> >
>> > It's not. And so, duh to you.
>>
>> But, it is. Unless you think Female Spooning Friend Wanted - m4w - 39 (SF
>> or
>> EastBay) is some sort of non-platonic request.
>
> And you are so gullible that married assholes won't respond to my ad if
> I don't place it in strcitly platonic., I screen a lot of them by
> putting in platonic and stating my requirement and you need to
> acknwoledge that.
Again, more male bashing. Married assholes? What is your deal? If you just
want to say you hate all men, then do so. But, don't try to tell me you are
trying your best when you are so clearly going out of your way to NOT meet
any males that might be interest in being strictly plutonic.
By the way, you don;t make friends by screening? What, are you taking an
application? "Application to be my plutonic male freind" With an
attitute like that, you won't make ANY friends.
>> Try steps 1-7 as listed above.
> And get marraied men chasing you for sex.
Bullshit. Leave the man-bashing aside. Yes, you might get some men looking
for sex... married or not. But you might ALSO get men that really do only
want to be plutonic friends. As the old saying goes... you can't get a rose
without a few thorns. Keep the real friends - dump the sex only guys.
>>but, lose the "I don't want any friends
>> unless they fit into my perfect mold for them" attitute.
>
> Then I will get acquaintances, nto friends.
Then you have a real problem. Or rather... several...
#1: You don't GET friends. You MAKE them. And they make you.
#2: A REAL friend does not pre-judge them. A REAL friend is a friend
regardless of a few differences... or better... BECAUSE of them.
#3: A FRIEND does not judge a friend. They console, they discuss, they
confide, they even disagree. But not judge.
>> > Hey, I have few friends but these few, I get along really well.
>>
>> I would hope, considering the stringent requirements you have for a
>> friendship.
>
> Yes I do.
Too bad you aren't THEIR friend in return.
>> > I am friendly to almost all people but I wouldn't sit and chit chat
>> > with everbody frequently unless I feel real connected. There must be
>> > common things such as intellectual level compatibility among other
>> > things. The gf I am trying to help with marital problems wears me out
>> > with her nonsense talks whenever I get together with her but I only
>> > see her once every 6-12 mos and only because we live in the same city.
>> > Yes, I have my critera. Simply put, "Birds of the same feather flocks
>> > together."
>>
>> Birds of the same feather flock into engine intakes ... or.. it's hard
>> to
>> fly like an eagle if you are surrounded by turkeys.
>> If you REALLY want to make friends... broaden your horizions a little.
>
> But I only want the kind of friends I want.
Well, like I said.. then don't cry to me about your prejudices. If you are a
person filled with hate for people that aren't like you... then why ask how
to be freinds.
Join a hate group.
>>Heck,
>> you might just discover there's a whole world out there filled with lots
>> of
>> interesting topics you never thought would interest you until you opened
>> up
>> to them.
>
> I am sure that there are a lot of other interesting topics but I can
> only afford what I can afford after my other priorites in life.
Then you are missing out on more things in this life than you will ever
imagine. You have to set priorities. You have to decide you want to meet
people, even men, to be friends with. And, if you are going to have
prejudices about the types of people you associate with... then why complain
about your prejudice? It's not that you CAN'T find men to be friends. It's
that you WON'T fid men to be friends. You'd rather cling to hate and/or
prejudice. So, just admit that.
Speeding
Just a few tidbits....
Her claim is that she can not find any men that want to be ONLY friends.
plutonic only.
Her claim is that every man she meets wants to screw her. Even if she tells
them she just wants to be friends.
I suggested to her that she get out and meet more people. Certainly a priest
would not want sex from her.
Her response was to post an add on Craig's List in the "Plutonic Section".
I laugher her "effort" off, since there are adds there that mention men
seeking to spoon....
people with a million dollars looking for someone to spend it with...
and what you'd generally expect to find on a personal ad site....
a few people looking for riding partners or such... and a bunch looking
for sex.
Her response is that she doesn't ride. And that the man friend only must be
college educated.
And intelligent. And her age. And her "type". And not politically
different from her.
And not religiously different from her. And I might be missing one or
two others.
So, I laugher her off again for basically having a "friend application"
And she insists she is "really" trying to meet men for plutonic only
relationships.
And that she only gets replies from married men looking for sex.
And that all men are assholes. It kinda goes on from there, but you get the
idea....
"Mike Given" <asp...@gipco.org> wrote in message
news:fvbd529c96ri5hihj...@4ax.com...