[I] A general apology, with a quick question for the Oracle, I suppose...
Torak
incoherent, and almost certainly awkward, because I'm no sodding good at
this sort of thing. You have been warned...
I don't know if any of my recent posts have offended anyone - I hope
they haven't, but reading through them I know some of them sounded
rather rude and dogmatic. So a blanket apology to anyone who *was*
offended; I didn't mean it, but I haven't been terribly good at
diplomacy, coherence, thinking or anything lately.
Right, now that that's sorted, a question... well, more like a call for
a sounding board, I suppose.
You may remember that thing about depression a while back, not to
mention the problem with M and P (or, as I initially designated them, A
and B - but then I got confused and found it far easier to use their
actual initials [1]), where M told me that P was becoming depressed and
suicidal.
Well, the situation has become even more complicated. I solved one
dilemma and thought the depression would lift, but in fact it has only
got worse, and now to cap it all I think I'm falling for P.
And that is the crux of the problem. I haven't a clue about emotions;
I've been ignoring them (with varying degrees of success) for as long as
I can remember, so I have great trouble identifying them. I don't know
what I'm feeling - assuming I *am* feeling and not just thinking I ought
to be feeling - about anything, least of all P.
And even if it is what I suspect it might be, that brings up an added
problem, though this time of an ethical nature rather than an emotional
one. Y'see, I'm 21, 22 next month. But she's 16. Mentally she's older -
I've had more intelligent conversations with her than with a lot of
people twice her age - but from a chronological point of view... I
dunno, it just feels wrong. Which is deucedly confusing, I can tell you.
So, any thoughts? Advice? Anything at all? I've got nobody else to talk
to, M and P are pretty much the only close friends I have here.
[1] - Though I found out yesterday that P's name is a nickname - and her
"real" name starts with M, but that's beside the point...
Eric Jarvis
> First, a warning: this post will be very confuddled, probably
> incoherent, and almost certainly awkward, because I'm no sodding good at
> this sort of thing. You have been warned...
>
> I don't know if any of my recent posts have offended anyone - I hope
> they haven't, but reading through them I know some of them sounded
> rather rude and dogmatic. So a blanket apology to anyone who *was*
> offended; I didn't mean it, but I haven't been terribly good at
> diplomacy, coherence, thinking or anything lately.
>
you've improved over time :)
> Right, now that that's sorted, a question... well, more like a call for
> a sounding board, I suppose.
>
> You may remember that thing about depression a while back, not to
> mention the problem with M and P (or, as I initially designated them, A
> and B - but then I got confused and found it far easier to use their
> actual initials [1]), where M told me that P was becoming depressed and
> suicidal.
>
> Well, the situation has become even more complicated. I solved one
> dilemma and thought the depression would lift, but in fact it has only
> got worse, and now to cap it all I think I'm falling for P.
>
expect an email when I've got some time this evening
--
eric - afprelationships in headers
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
Thomas Zahr
> First, a warning: this post will be very confuddled,
> probably incoherent, and almost certainly awkward, because
> I'm no sodding good at this sort of thing. You have been
> warned...
>
> I don't know if any of my recent posts have offended anyone
> - I hope they haven't, but reading through them I know some
> of them sounded rather rude and dogmatic. So a blanket
> apology to anyone who *was* offended; I didn't mean it, but
> I haven't been terribly good at diplomacy, coherence,
> thinking or anything lately.
Not necessary IMHO
... snip: don't you ever do something easy?
My first reaction, regardless of age, don't. At least as long as her situation is not
*much* more settled. Trust me, she doesn't need that distraction. Again, IMHO.
If something else occurs I'll mail you. Good luck.
--
Ciao
Thomas =:-)
<To sig or not to sig, that is the question?>
CCA
(snipped to summarise)
>You may remember that thing about depression a while back, not to
>mention the problem with M and P, where M told me that P was becoming
depressed and
>suicidal.
>Well, the situation has become even more complicated. I solved one
>dilemma and thought the depression would lift, but in fact it has only
>got worse, and now to cap it all I think I'm falling for P.
(snip)
>that brings up an added
>problem, though this time of an ethical nature rather than an emotional
>one. Y'see, I'm 21, 22 next month. But she's 16. Mentally she's older -
>I've had more intelligent conversations with her than with a lot of
>people twice her age - but from a chronological point of view... I
>dunno, it just feels wrong. Which is deucedly confusing, I can tell you.
I don't know about wrong, but certainly tricky, and I get the impression you
really don't need any more complications in your life at the moment.
If I were you, I certainly wouldn't do anything yet, especially not telling her
how you feel. Give yourself a bit of time to find out how you feel, first. It
could be that you feel a lot for this girl as a friend, rather than as a
potential girlfriend. It could be that you feel protective towards her, as a
friend, especially after all she's been through.
But only you can make this decision, ultimately.
>I don't know if any of my recent posts have offended anyone - I hope
>they haven't, but reading through them I know some of them sounded
>rather rude and dogmatic. So a blanket apology to anyone who *was*
>offended; I didn't mean it, but I
>haven't been terribly good at
>diplomacy, coherence, thinking or anything lately.
>
Speaking for myself, I certainly haven't had any problem with you. And if
you're not terribly good at diplomacy ATM, well, you're certainly not alone
there!
I hope this all works out for you - it sounds like you're overdue for some good
times.
CCA:)
Rocky Frisco
> First, a warning: this post will be very confuddled, probably
> incoherent, and almost certainly awkward, because I'm no sodding good at
> this sort of thing. You have been warned...
Obviously, take any advice I offer with large amounts of salt, since I
am well-known as a curmudgeonly cynical old bugger.
> I don't know if any of my recent posts have offended anyone - I hope
> they haven't, but reading through them I know some of them sounded
> rather rude and dogmatic. So a blanket apology to anyone who *was*
> offended; I didn't mean it, but I haven't been terribly good at
> diplomacy, coherence, thinking or anything lately.
Don't worry, you have my services, now that I'm back in the newsgroup,
as a horrible example, so that anything you might do or say will pale
beside my own excesses and offenses. You're welcome.
> Right, now that that's sorted, a question... well, more like a call for
> a sounding board, I suppose.
>
> You may remember that thing about depression a while back, not to
> mention the problem with M and P (or, as I initially designated them, A
> and B - but then I got confused and found it far easier to use their
> actual initials [1]), where M told me that P was becoming depressed and
> suicidal.
>
> Well, the situation has become even more complicated. I solved one
> dilemma and thought the depression would lift, but in fact it has only
> got worse, and now to cap it all I think I'm falling for P.
>
> And that is the crux of the problem. I haven't a clue about emotions;
> I've been ignoring them (with varying degrees of success) for as long as
> I can remember, so I have great trouble identifying them. I don't know
> what I'm feeling - assuming I *am* feeling and not just thinking I ought
> to be feeling - about anything, least of all P.
>
> And even if it is what I suspect it might be, that brings up an added
> problem, though this time of an ethical nature rather than an emotional
> one. Y'see, I'm 21, 22 next month. But she's 16. Mentally she's older -
> I've had more intelligent conversations with her than with a lot of
> people twice her age - but from a chronological point of view... I
> dunno, it just feels wrong. Which is deucedly confusing, I can tell you.
>
> So, any thoughts? Advice? Anything at all? I've got nobody else to talk
> to, M and P are pretty much the only close friends I have here.
The solution to this dilemma is plain: your interactions are nobody's
business but yours and hers, as long as you avoid copulation. If that's
impossible, marry her.
My own experiences indicate that depression is not at all easily
ameliorated and that, often, suicidal tendencies are a way of saying,
"I'm not pleased by life and the world and you must fix it or I will
murder my body, so there." I apologize if this seems harsh and
unfeeling, but it's my honest opinion anyway.
My advice to such is: "Don't murder your body; your body is NOT the
problem."
-Rock http://www.rocky-frisco.com
--
JJ Cale Live CD and video: http://www.rocky-frisco.com/calelive.htm
The Wednesday Night Science Project: http://www.wednitesciproj.us
Rocky Frisco's LIBERTY website: http://www.liberty-in-our-time.com/
Torak
>
> > First, a warning: this post will be very confuddled,
> > probably incoherent, and almost certainly awkward, because
> > I'm no sodding good at this sort of thing. You have been
> > warned...
> >
> > I don't know if any of my recent posts have offended anyone
> > - I hope they haven't, but reading through them I know some
> > of them sounded rather rude and dogmatic. So a blanket
> > apology to anyone who *was* offended; I didn't mean it, but
> > I haven't been terribly good at diplomacy, coherence,
> > thinking or anything lately.
>
> Not necessary IMHO
Oh, good... I was a bit worried.
> ... snip: don't you ever do something easy?
I try, but it doesn't seem to work... ;-)
> My first reaction, regardless of age, don't. At least as long as her situation is not
> *much* more settled. Trust me, she doesn't need that distraction. Again, IMHO.
Oh, P's pretty settled by now. It's M who's really down in the dumps
now, P's cheered up no end in the last few months.
> If something else occurs I'll mail you. Good luck.
Cheers, thanks for that.
Lesley Weston
and...@andrew-perry.com wrote on 05/05/2004 5:59 AM:
> First, a warning: this post will be very confuddled, probably
> incoherent, and almost certainly awkward, because I'm no sodding good at
> this sort of thing. You have been warned...
>
> I don't know if any of my recent posts have offended anyone - I hope
> they haven't, but reading through them I know some of them sounded
> rather rude and dogmatic. So a blanket apology to anyone who *was*
> offended; I didn't mean it, but I haven't been terribly good at
> diplomacy, coherence, thinking or anything lately.
Don't worry. This group goes in for acerbity from time to time - it's part
of its charm - so anything you've said lately that might have offended
anyone probably just merged into the rest of it. Anyway, how boring if we
all had the same opinions on everything!
<snip>
>
> And even if it is what I suspect it might be, that brings up an added
> problem, though this time of an ethical nature rather than an emotional
> one. Y'see, I'm 21, 22 next month. But she's 16. Mentally she's older -
> I've had more intelligent conversations with her than with a lot of
> people twice her age - but from a chronological point of view... I
> dunno, it just feels wrong. Which is deucedly confusing, I can tell you.
>
> So, any thoughts? Advice? Anything at all? I've got nobody else to talk
> to, M and P are pretty much the only close friends I have here.
Perhaps you could try the "just friends" bit for a while, and see how it
goes?
--
Lesley Weston.
Brightly_coloured_blob is real, so as not to upset the sys-apes, but I don't
actually read anything sent to it before I empty it. To reach me, use lesley
att vancouverbc dott nett, changing spelling and spacing as required.
Torak
>
> > First, a warning: this post will be very confuddled, probably
> > incoherent, and almost certainly awkward, because I'm no sodding good at
> > this sort of thing. You have been warned...
>
> Obviously, take any advice I offer with large amounts of salt, since I
> am well-known as a curmudgeonly cynical old bugger.
And this would be a bad thing... why, exactly? ;-)
> > I don't know if any of my recent posts have offended anyone - I hope
> > they haven't, but reading through them I know some of them sounded
> > rather rude and dogmatic. So a blanket apology to anyone who *was*
> > offended; I didn't mean it, but I haven't been terribly good at
> > diplomacy, coherence, thinking or anything lately.
>
> Don't worry, you have my services, now that I'm back in the newsgroup,
> as a horrible example, so that anything you might do or say will pale
> beside my own excesses and offenses. You're welcome.
Coo, ta!
And knowing me, that's likely to be a long while off anyway.
Personally I don't think I'd have any problem keeping it platonic for
the foreseeable future. Besides, whether that becomes a component or
not, with that age difference I don't think I'd get into any
relationship with her without clearing it with her parents first. I
guess I'm rather old-fashioned in that regard, but...
> If that's
> impossible, marry her.
That would be the plan, as soon as I find the right girl, yes.
> My own experiences indicate that depression is not at all easily
> ameliorated and that, often, suicidal tendencies are a way of saying,
> "I'm not pleased by life and the world and you must fix it or I will
> murder my body, so there." I apologize if this seems harsh and
> unfeeling, but it's my honest opinion anyway.
>
> My advice to such is: "Don't murder your body; your body is NOT the
> problem."
Hear hear. Fortunately P *seems* to have got over her depression now,
she's back to her usual
moderately-cheerful-among-friends-but-ridiculously-withdrawn-in-public
self. You know, a few weeks ago I chatted to her on the phone for an
hour, with a conversation consisting mainly of giggles and the word
"blibble". Oh, and she has a very nice smile when she shows it.
But I digress...
Now it's M who's down in the dumps, and refusing help on the grounds
that it's "like a terminal disease, there's nothing anyone can do".
Apparently she's manic-depressive, which certainly explains a lot;
considering how it's affecting her, I wonder if she's got medication
for it or not... she's in too severe a state for even me to recommend
skipping the pills.
Torak
>
> (snipped to summarise)
>
> >You may remember that thing about depression a while back, not to
> >mention the problem with M and P, where M told me that P was becoming
> depressed and
> >suicidal.
> >Well, the situation has become even more complicated. I solved one
> >dilemma and thought the depression would lift, but in fact it has only
> >got worse, and now to cap it all I think I'm falling for P.
> (snip)
>
> >that brings up an added
> >problem, though this time of an ethical nature rather than an emotional
> >one. Y'see, I'm 21, 22 next month. But she's 16. Mentally she's older -
> >I've had more intelligent conversations with her than with a lot of
> >people twice her age - but from a chronological point of view... I
> >dunno, it just feels wrong. Which is deucedly confusing, I can tell you.
>
> I don't know about wrong, but certainly tricky, and I get the impression you
> really don't need any more complications in your life at the moment.
> If I were you, I certainly wouldn't do anything yet, especially not telling her
> how you feel. Give yourself a bit of time to find out how you feel, first. It
> could be that you feel a lot for this girl as a friend, rather than as a
> potential girlfriend. It could be that you feel protective towards her, as a
> friend, especially after all she's been through.
Yes, definitely. (By the way, regarding the "after all she's been
through" comment, M's been through much worse than either me or P.
Well, at least if everything she's told me is true.) In fact, as an
example of the whole protective thing, P's got it into her head to get
her navel pierced, I'm trying to persuade her not to. And I'm not
really sure why, apart from that I hate sharp pointy things.
Actually, a week or two ago I found that I couldn't sleep because I
was thinking even more than usual, so I pulled out paper and pen and
just wrote down everything that popped into my head. The last
paragraph:
"Oh, and I just realised why I don't want [P] to get that piercing.
(a) it involves sharp pointy things, (b) it just isn't *her*, and
(c)... well, (c), I love her just the way she is. It would be like
sacrilege, corrupting an otherwise wonderful girl."
Apart from the obvious and rather unfounded prejudice against
piercings, and the observation that it takes a certain kind of mind to
*think* alphabetised lists, I just noticed that I used "zer L-vord",
which I really hate using unless I'm absolutely certain... I must have
been very tired when I wrote that. Oh, I just don't know what to
think, damn it all to buggery.
Oh, and she does have a very nice habit of leaning her head on my
shoulder, which is nice.
And I'm trying to work out what else to say, but there's so much I
*want* to say about her, but I just can't bring myself to say them
without an excuse... Why the hell couldn't I have continued being a
bloody robot? I didn't have to worry about all this four years ago.
> But only you can make this decision, ultimately.
I used to be good at decisions. Nowadays nothing's certain, I decide
conclusively on something and next thing I know it's all changed.
> >I don't know if any of my recent posts have offended anyone - I hope
> >they haven't, but reading through them I know some of them sounded
> >rather rude and dogmatic. So a blanket apology to anyone who *was*
> >offended; I didn't mean it, but I
> >haven't been terribly good at
> >diplomacy, coherence, thinking or anything lately.
>
> Speaking for myself, I certainly haven't had any problem with you. And if
> you're not terribly good at diplomacy ATM, well, you're certainly not alone
> there!
Nice to know. :-)
> I hope this all works out for you - it sounds like you're overdue for some good
> times.
Heh, I hope so. Sounds almost as if I've borrowed Rincewind's
preemptive karma... speaking of which, I had chips for dinner. Always
good.
Maaike
> Why the hell couldn't I have continued being a
> bloody robot?
Because being a robot doesn't work. Emotions boil out eventually, and if
they've been stewing under pressure for a while there's no telling which
way they'll splurt.
> I didn't have to worry about all this four years ago.
Well, now you do. You will learn how to deal with it--everyone has to at
some point--and you'll probably end up healthier for it.
-Maaike (hoping that didn't sound patronising)
Troels Forchhammer
Torak <and...@andrew-perry.com> enriched us with:
>
<snip>
> And even if it is what I suspect it might be, that brings up an added
> problem, though this time of an ethical nature rather than an
> emotional one. Y'see, I'm 21, 22 next month. But she's 16. Mentally
> she's older - I've had more intelligent conversations with her than
> with a lot of people twice her age - but from a chronological point
> of view... I dunno, it just feels wrong. Which is deucedly confusing,
> I can tell you.
I will refrain from commenting on the emotional part; though happily
married, it is through no fault of my own (that I am aware of ;-)
My father was eight years older than my mother - when they married she
was 20 and he 28, so I am probably biased when I say that the only
possible problem I can see in such a relationship is legal (it would be
no problem in Denmark unless you're P's teacher or otherwise in 'position
of authority').
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail address is t.forch(a)mail.dk
Five exclamation marks, the sure sign of an insane mind.
- (Terry Pratchett, Reaper Man)
PeterH
> In fact, as an
> example of the whole protective thing, P's got it into her head to get
> her navel pierced, I'm trying to persuade her not to. And I'm not
> really sure why, apart from that I hate sharp pointy things.
But you seem to have no problem with blunt shooty things! <g>
> Actually, a week or two ago I found that I couldn't sleep because I
> was thinking even more than usual, so I pulled out paper and pen and
> just wrote down everything that popped into my head. The last
> paragraph:
>
> "Oh, and I just realised why I don't want [P] to get that piercing.
> (a) it involves sharp pointy things, (b) it just isn't *her*, and
> (c)... well, (c), I love her just the way she is. It would be like
> sacrilege, corrupting an otherwise wonderful girl."
Phew - how does it go again? YAMAICM(5*12=)60ZAR which wouldn't even
buy a decent paperback so you may as well keep it. And be thankful
it's just the *navel* getting pierced, which is about as common as
earpiercings these days. The only real argument I can think against it
is that it's becoming passé. Darling.
About two months ago I discovered that a friend of mine was a fetish
model. And into bondage. And (intimate) piercings. And S&M (sounds
almost friendly when you write it that way, doesn't it?). And
self-mutilation. Okay, I'd always known that she was strange but this
was a bit too much, and I immediately devised a plan to cut her down
from the suspension rig, give her some warmer clothes and teach her
that knives are for use on food and not people.
But if she decides she wants to be dressed in leather like the girl in
the Placebo song[1] then that really is her decision, and I am
certainly not qualified to counsel people who enjoy cutting
themselves. And said friend has recently moved in with her boyfriend,
who is doing his Master's in Psychology, so that should improve the
quality of life for both of them.
So that ended nicely. *And* I've discovered a new interest.
I'm going to stop now. You evidently bring out the anecdote in me.
..PeterH
[1] It happened to be playing as I wrote this.
Torak
> Torak wrote:
>
>> Why the hell couldn't I have continued being a
>>bloody robot?
>
> Because being a robot doesn't work. Emotions boil out eventually, and if
> they've been stewing under pressure for a while there's no telling which
> way they'll splurt.
Yeah, as I'm finding out...
>>I didn't have to worry about all this four years ago.
>
> Well, now you do. You will learn how to deal with it--everyone has to at
> some point--and you'll probably end up healthier for it.
Let's hope so. And let's hope I sort it out before I kill someone. ;-)
> -Maaike (hoping that didn't sound patronising)
Yeah, it did. So? I probably needed it anyway. ;-)
Torak
> Torak <and...@andrew-perry.com> enriched us with:
>
> <snip>
>
>>And even if it is what I suspect it might be, that brings up an added
>>problem, though this time of an ethical nature rather than an
>>emotional one. Y'see, I'm 21, 22 next month. But she's 16. Mentally
>>she's older - I've had more intelligent conversations with her than
>>with a lot of people twice her age - but from a chronological point
>>of view... I dunno, it just feels wrong. Which is deucedly confusing,
>>I can tell you.
>
> I will refrain from commenting on the emotional part; though happily
> married, it is through no fault of my own (that I am aware of ;-)
>
> My father was eight years older than my mother - when they married she
> was 20 and he 28, so I am probably biased when I say that the only
> possible problem I can see in such a relationship is legal (it would be
> no problem in Denmark unless you're P's teacher or otherwise in 'position
> of authority').
Right... nice to know it can work, then, cheers.
> Five exclamation marks, the sure sign of an insane mind.
> - (Terry Pratchett, Reaper Man)
Yes indeed. I've seen it in essays before now...
CCA
>Why the hell couldn't I have continued being a
>bloody robot?
A question I was asking myself a few months ago. I was listening to Simon and
Garfunkel's "I Am A Rock", and thinking that I'd like to be like the guy in it,
because it frankly sounded preferable to how I was feeling at the time. (Not
now, though, thank goodness!)
But no-one's a robot. We all have feelings like the ones you're experiencing
at the moment, and sometimes they cause complications and large dilemmas like
the one you're having to deal with. And sometimes they hurt like bugger.
>P's got it into her head to get
>her navel pierced, I'm trying to persuade her not to. And I'm not
>really sure why, apart from that I hate sharp pointy things.
Well, I'm definitely with you on this one! I think navel-piercings look awful.
But even if she goes ahead and does it, she'll probably wear it for a few
years and then take it out, so I wouldn't worry too much about that. (And at
least she's the age for it - my cousin got hers done at thirty)
>"Oh, and I just realised why I don't want [P] to get that piercing.
>(a) it involves sharp pointy things, (b) it just isn't *her*, and
>(c)... well, (c), I love her just the way she is. It would be like
>sacrilege, corrupting an otherwise wonderful girl."
>I just noticed that I used "zer L-vord",
>which I really hate using unless I'm absolutely certain...
Hmmm...
The thing is, it's still possible to love someone as a friend, especially when
you've got very close to them. I'm not saying this is necessarily what you
feel for P though.
CCA:)
Family Bites Website and Sample Chapter at http://www.falboroughhall.co.uk
Live Journal at http://www.livejournal.com/users/ciciaye
Sean Cleary
with a legal minor are jailbait problems.
Also you should get in touch with your emotions, and if you have been
suppressing them, find counseling.
Sean
Julia Jones
Cleary <seanea...@hotmail.com> writes
>and...@andrew-perry.com (Torak) wrote in message
>news:<91ff0aca.04050...@posting.google.com>...
>> sphir...@aol.com (CCA) wrote in message > Torak wrote
>> >
>> > (snipped to summarise)
>> >
>>16 will get you 20 and those are not gamboling odds. Relationships
>with a legal minor are jailbait problems.
Note: 16 is not a legal minor in (most of) the UK for these purposes.
Unless Torak is in one of the positions of authority for which the law
explicitly states an exception, the other party is not jailbait and he
is not contemplating committing a criminal offence.
It's still a good idea to think *very hard* *before* getting involved.
I don't have any good advice, other than listen to Eric who probably
does have some good advice. And well done for recognising you have a
problem on your hands and looking for advice rather than plunging in.
--
Julia Jones
"The Syndicate" - a heartwarming tale of geek love among the stars. Volumes 1
and 2 available now from http://www.amatory-ink.co.uk Details and free sample
chapters at http://www.julesjones.com/fiction/syndicate/syndicate.htm
Eric Jarvis
> In article <1c5ac0c6.04050...@posting.google.com>, Sean
> Cleary <seanea...@hotmail.com> writes
> >and...@andrew-perry.com (Torak) wrote in message
> >news:<91ff0aca.04050...@posting.google.com>...
> >> sphir...@aol.com (CCA) wrote in message > Torak wrote
> >> >
> >> > (snipped to summarise)
> >> >
> >>16 will get you 20 and those are not gamboling odds. Relationships
> >with a legal minor are jailbait problems.
>
> Note: 16 is not a legal minor in (most of) the UK for these purposes.
> Unless Torak is in one of the positions of authority for which the law
> explicitly states an exception, the other party is not jailbait and he
> is not contemplating committing a criminal offence.
>
I think it should be noted that Torak is very much not the sort of guy
whose first priority is sex...it's my understanding that this is about
emotional entanglement and that any significant physical entanglement
would be something he would look at as a separate and later decision
> It's still a good idea to think *very hard* *before* getting involved.
>
> I don't have any good advice, other than listen to Eric who probably
> does have some good advice. And well done for recognising you have a
> problem on your hands and looking for advice rather than plunging in.
>
erm...well...I hope I've had some useful things to say, but I've only seen
one side of such a situation and that was long long ago (no you aren't
getting the gory details, not least because I know the other person
concerned is a Usenetter, though not as far as I am aware an
afplurker)...so some advice to Torak from women who have been the younger
partner in a relationship might be kind of handy...especially since the
crucial thing in my view when there is this sort of age difference is the
danger of an unequal relationship stifling the younger partner whilst they
should be finishing the last stages of growing up
Julia Jones
<w...@ericjarvis.co.uk> writes
>Julia Jones julia...@gmail.com wrote:
>> In article <1c5ac0c6.04050...@posting.google.com>, Sean
>> Cleary <seanea...@hotmail.com> writes
>> >and...@andrew-perry.com (Torak) wrote in message
>> >news:<91ff0aca.04050...@posting.google.com>...
>> >> sphir...@aol.com (CCA) wrote in message > Torak wrote
>> >> >
>> >> > (snipped to summarise)
>> >> >
>> >>16 will get you 20 and those are not gamboling odds. Relationships
>> >with a legal minor are jailbait problems.
>>
>> Note: 16 is not a legal minor in (most of) the UK for these purposes.
>> Unless Torak is in one of the positions of authority for which the law
>> explicitly states an exception, the other party is not jailbait and he
>> is not contemplating committing a criminal offence.
>>
>
>I think it should be noted that Torak is very much not the sort of guy
>whose first priority is sex...it's my understanding that this is about
>emotional entanglement and that any significant physical entanglement
>would be something he would look at as a separate and later decision
>
the suggestion that Torak was contemplating doing something illegal.
Sufficiently so that I avoided the obvious tasteless joke over the typo.
:-)
While I'm certainly in a position to say that a seven year age gap is no
bar to a successful relationship, we were both in our twenties - and
that's a very different matter to on in their twenties and one in their
mid-teens. I think there's more chance of success because Torak *does*
recognise that there are potential pitfalls, but don't really have
anything useful to offer other than to tread carefully. Apart from
anything else, giving emotional support can deepen an emotional
relationship, and if there is physical attraction as well it can be
difficult to judge exactly what combination of feelings you've got, and
how the proportions of each are going to shake down over time.
Lesley Weston
seanea...@hotmail.com wrote on 06/05/2004 7:28 AM:
> and...@andrew-perry.com (Torak) wrote in message
> news:<91ff0aca.04050...@posting.google.com>...
>> sphir...@aol.com (CCA) wrote in message > Torak wrote
>>>
>>> (snipped to summarise)
>>>
>> 16 will get you 20 and those are not gamboling odds. Relationships
> with a legal minor are jailbait problems.
Depends where you are. In the UK, sixteen is the age of consent, so there
would be no legal problem.
Robert Carnegie
>, Torak <and...@andrew-perry.com> writes
Well, it's up to her. None of your business, if you're sure she's
well over the, um, other thing. And anyway, it's harmless, when
done at a reputable, hygienic establishment. In comparison with
the laser eye surgery we were just discussing... Youth is a good
time to experiment with that sort of thing (not laser eye surgery, the
piercing); doing it may be the best way to find out it doesn't suit
you, and no harm done. Piercings heal quickly.
And while I am the exact opposite of an authority, it's my
impression that the nature of your relationship is also up to her. It
is a respectable truism that emotional maturity comes earlier to
young women than to young men, and also sensitivity. Another,
although respectable is not quite the word for this one, is that
before a girl meets a handsome prince, she has to kiss a lot of
frogs. You may have already been filed by P in her "frog, tolerable"
category and not know it, as most women do with nearly all the
men they know; it will not be difficult to find out, and not
necessarily by risking a friendship, either (mind you, you'll be out
of the picture as a friend, at least temporarily, if she finds a
boyfriend elsewhere).
Something much, much less than a dramatic declaration might
be appropriate, in a public, not private, space. Ask her on an
unambiguous date, perhaps - or ask her if she knows any
unattached girls... Or don't, if you prefer to wait for someone else
to come into view, but I think you indeed may already be leaving it
a bit late.
Just to check, a /serious/ romantic relationship obviously can't
begin to exist if you don't regard the other party as, in effect, a fully
responsible adult like yourself.
Robert Carnegie at home, rja.ca...@excite.com at large
--
"Are you sure you want to post?" - my software, every time
Richard Eney
Torak <and...@andrew-perry.com> wrote:
>Troels Forchhammer wrote:
>> Torak <and...@andrew-perry.com> enriched us with:
<snip>
>> My father was eight years older than my mother - when they married she
>> was 20 and he 28, so I am probably biased when I say that the only
>> possible problem I can see in such a relationship is legal (it would be
>> no problem in Denmark unless you're P's teacher or otherwise in 'position
>> of authority').
>
>Right... nice to know it can work, then, cheers.
My parents: 14 years apart.
Two other long-term marriages I know of:
one 16 years apart
one 11 years apart
But none of them started at age 16. I think 23 was the youngest age of
anyone at the start of any of the above three relationships.
=Tamar
Stacie Hanes
25 years between me and my husband, married seven years this November. But I
was 25 when we married.
--
Stacie, fourth swordswoman of the afpocalypse.
"If you can't be a good example, you'll just have to be a horrible
warning." Catherine Aird, _His Burial Too_
"swordswomen of the afpocalypse" copyright Jon of afp, 2004.
The Stainless Steel Cat
Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
[...]
>And while I am the exact opposite of an authority, it's my
>impression that the nature of your relationship is also up to her. It
>is a respectable truism that emotional maturity comes earlier to
>young women than to young men, and also sensitivity. Another,
>although respectable is not quite the word for this one, is that
>before a girl meets a handsome prince, she has to kiss a lot of
>frogs. You may have already been filed by P in her "frog, tolerable"
>category and not know it, as most women do with nearly all the
>men they know; it will not be difficult to find out, and not
>necessarily by risking a friendship, either (mind you, you'll be out
>of the picture as a friend, at least temporarily, if she finds a
>boyfriend elsewhere).
Sorry, nothing to add to the discussion, but I had to butt in to say how
much I love the idea of being someone's "tolerable frog".
Cat.
--
Jazz-Loving Soul Mate and Tolerable Frog to CCA
La Rustimuna ^Stalkato
Eric Jarvis
you can have it...personally I'm heartily sick of it :)
X Kyle M Thompson
Aye, wot he said.
kt.
--
I'll get you any deal that you like
Ten sweets for a mountain bike you like
Jon
> Eric Jarvis wrote:
>> The Stainless Steel Cat stee...@atuin.demon.co.uk wrote:
>>> Sorry, nothing to add to the discussion, but I had to butt in to
>>> say how much I love the idea of being someone's "tolerable frog".
>> you can have it...personally I'm heartily sick of it :)
>
> Aye, wot he said.
Ribett ribett.
--
oh, allright I got upgraded to prince /eventually/, but it took a long time
Remove 'notme' to reply
Carol Hague
<age differences and relationships>
> 25 years between me and my husband, married seven years this November. But I
> was 25 when we married.
My father is ten years older than my mother.
He was 37 when they got married. He'll be 84 this Xmas. They're still
together.
--
Carol
"It was one of those films without sex and full of simple violence, and
therefore all right to take your children to."
- John Irving, _The 158lb Marriage_
CCA
>mind you, you'll be out
>of the picture as a friend, at least temporarily, if she finds a
>boyfriend elsewhere
Not necessarily. Okay, so if that happens, she may spend more time with the
'boyfriend elsewhere' than she does with Torak, but it doesn't mean he would
necessarily lose her as a friend.
Ed Weatherup
> žus cwęš X Kyle M Thompson ;
>> Eric Jarvis wrote:
>>> The Stainless Steel Cat stee...@atuin.demon.co.uk wrote:
>>>> Sorry, nothing to add to the discussion, but I had to butt in to
>>>> say how much I love the idea of being someone's "tolerable frog".
>>> you can have it...personally I'm heartily sick of it :)
>>
>> Aye, wot he said.
>
> Ribett ribett.
Shall we form the Tolerable Frogs Society, with a badge and an AGM?
--
Ed.
Ed Weatherup
> in article 4098E519...@andrew-perry.com, Torak at
> and...@andrew-perry.com wrote on 05/05/2004 5:59 AM:
>
>> So, any thoughts? Advice? Anything at all? I've got nobody else to
>> talk to, M and P are pretty much the only close friends I have here.
>
> Perhaps you could try the "just friends" bit for a while, and see how
> it goes?
"Just Friends" is a euphemism for Tolerable Frog, see elsewhere in this
thread ;-)
(IMO and TIC of course :-)
--
Ed.
Eric Jarvis
I think we must...we also need a t-shirt...I don't suppose Kevin would
consider doing one if enough of us sign up?
a slogan is going to be difficult...let me be the first to veto "Tolerable
Frogs do it once in a blue moon"
Richard Bos
> Richard Eney wrote:
> > But none of them started at age 16. I think 23 was the youngest
> > age of anyone at the start of any of the above three relationships.
>
> 25 years between me and my husband, married seven years this November. But I
> was 25 when we married.
You married an infant? You pervert!
Richard
Stacie Hanes
He was really cute in his little cap with the bobble on it, what can I say?
Ed Weatherup
> Ed Weatherup e...@killfile.invalid wrote:
[snip]
>> Shall we form the Tolerable Frogs Society, with a badge and an AGM?
>>
>
> I think we must...we also need a t-shirt...I don't suppose Kevin would
> consider doing one if enough of us sign up?
>
> a slogan is going to be difficult...let me be the first to veto
> "Tolerable Frogs do it once in a blue moon"
... aw! I like that one ..
But I would have to propose throwing open membership to all -- let the
ladies "... but she's got a wonderful personality ..." join too, (for
obvious reasons :-) and a special mention for all those who are/have been
"Too nice to date."
And, for some reason, I naturally assumed that the AGM would take place in a
pub ...
--
Ed.
Thomas Zahr
While I second having AGM's in pubs, this in no way institutes
a coming out of the clos^Wterrarium!
--
Ciao
Thomas =:-)
<out of sig error>
Stig M. Valstad
>Eric Jarvis wrote:
>> The Stainless Steel Cat stee...@atuin.demon.co.uk wrote:
>>>Sorry, nothing to add to the discussion, but I had to butt in to say how
>>>much I love the idea of being someone's "tolerable frog".
>> you can have it...personally I'm heartily sick of it :)
>
>Aye, wot he said.
If only they could try one kiss before making the frog not
prince decision.
--
Stig M. Valstad
Shouldn't a tolerable frog be better than an intolerable prince?
Eric Jarvis
> On Fri, 07 May 2004 11:37:49 +0100, X Kyle M Thompson wrote:
> >Eric Jarvis wrote:
> >> The Stainless Steel Cat stee...@atuin.demon.co.uk wrote:
> >>>Sorry, nothing to add to the discussion, but I had to butt in to say how
> >>>much I love the idea of being someone's "tolerable frog".
> >> you can have it...personally I'm heartily sick of it :)
> >
> >Aye, wot he said.
>
> If only they could try one kiss before making the frog not
> prince decision.
>
nononononono
2000 kisses plus over the course of a year or more...hasty decisions are
unwise
Eric Jarvis
> Eric Jarvis wrote:
> > Ed Weatherup e...@killfile.invalid wrote:
> [snip]
> >> Shall we form the Tolerable Frogs Society, with a badge and an AGM?
> >>
> >
> > I think we must...we also need a t-shirt...I don't suppose Kevin would
> > consider doing one if enough of us sign up?
> >
> > a slogan is going to be difficult...let me be the first to veto
> > "Tolerable Frogs do it once in a blue moon"
>
> ... aw! I like that one ..
>
I think I may have the answer but it requires the right picture
gent with large muscles, square jaw and a crown, smirking into a hand
mirror...with a buxom scantily clad woman hanging on each arm being
ignored
"wouldn't you prefer a tolerable frog?"
--
eric - afprelationships in headers
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"money can't buy you love, but sometimes dinner
is much more important"
Ed Weatherup
[snip]
>
> I think I may have the answer but it requires the right picture
>
> gent with large muscles, square jaw and a crown, smirking into a hand
> mirror...with a buxom scantily clad woman hanging on each arm being
> ignored
>
> "wouldn't you prefer a tolerable frog?"
<marketing-speak>
I see where you're going with that ... but it's not quite the image I had in
mind because the usual answer the the question would be "No".
So how about ... "I may be a Tolerable Frog but only because I haven't been
kissed enough" [1]
Too blatant?
(I do think the cap T and cap F are important, image-wise)
</marketing-speak>
[1] With acknowledgement of Stig's comment elsewhere in this thread.
--
Ed.
Eric Jarvis
> Eric Jarvis wrote:
> [snip]
> >
> > I think I may have the answer but it requires the right picture
> >
> > gent with large muscles, square jaw and a crown, smirking into a hand
> > mirror...with a buxom scantily clad woman hanging on each arm being
> > ignored
> >
> > "wouldn't you prefer a tolerable frog?"
>
> <marketing-speak>
> I see where you're going with that ... but it's not quite the image I had in
> mind because the usual answer the the question would be "No".
>
ah...but this is about long term branding...we can't make "frog"
attractive...so let's just put out knocking copy about "prince" and imply
that the only alternative is "frog"...the hope being that at some time in
the future the immediate reaction to a fairy tale prince is "yeuch!
couldn't she have found a frog?"
> So how about ... "I may be a Tolerable Frog but only because I haven't been
> kissed enough"
>
> Too blatant?
>
too ambitious, too direct, and leaves the "prince" brand as the market
leader...we don't want to claim that a "frog" might be a substitute for a
"prince", we need to create a genuine demand for "frogs"
> (I do think the cap T and cap F are important, image-wise)
this is true
> </marketing-speak>
>
made sense to me...I've spent too long doing marketing
--
eric - afprelationships in headers
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
Ed Weatherup
[snip]
>
> ah...but this is about long term branding...we can't make "frog"
> attractive...so let's just put out knocking copy about "prince" and
> imply that the only alternative is "frog"...the hope being that at
> some time in the future the immediate reaction to a fairy tale prince
> is "yeuch! couldn't she have found a frog?"
Indeed, but we don't want to associate Frogs with negative aspects, fer
instance openly knocking the opposition, so we should look at forming a
Toads society to knock princes (princes do *not* deserve cap P) and thereby
leaving us Frogs persil? The we can orchestrate a future campaign[1] in
which Toads self destruct and leave Frogs in a market dominant position[2]
[snip]
>> </marketing-speak>
>>
> made sense to me...I've spent too long doing marketing
Made sense to me too ... I spent too long in the pub at lunchtime :-)))
[1] Golden rule: always leave the way open for a future campaign
[2] Although we would have to be careful in Merkia, all that anti-trust
brouhaha
--
Ed.
The Stainless Steel Cat
Eric Jarvis <w...@ericjarvis.co.uk> wrote:
>Ed Weatherup e...@nospam.invalid wrote:
>> So how about ... "I may be a Tolerable Frog but only because I haven't been
>> kissed enough"
>>
>> Too blatant?
>>
>
>too ambitious, too direct, and leaves the "prince" brand as the market
>leader...we don't want to claim that a "frog" might be a substitute for a
>"prince", we need to create a genuine demand for "frogs"
How about:
"The Prince ... by Machiavelli.
Tolerable Frogs ... by your side."
or
"Princes: inbreeding since the year dot.
Why not try a Tolerable Frog instead? With Chins!"
Peter Ellis
>
>too ambitious, too direct, and leaves the "prince" brand as the market
>leader...we don't want to claim that a "frog" might be a substitute for a
>"prince", we need to create a genuine demand for "frogs"
>
>> (I do think the cap T and cap F are important, image-wise)
>
>this is true
In which case the important thing to do is think of the USP [1] of
frogs and contrast them to princes, thus both establishing the Frog(TM)
brand and knocking the sheen off the Prince(TM) brand.
So - a series of posters with varying slogans, all under the same photo
of a frog using its tongue to catch insects.
"Tolerable Frogs. There ain't no flies on us."
"Tolerable Frogs. Think of the advantages."
"Tolerable Frogs. Ribbit-ed for your pleasure."
"Does your Prince do *this* when you kiss him?"
Then, for an animated ad, you could have your standard fairytale
princess kissing your standard fairytale frog. Cue morph scene, and
appearance of a certain pint-size singer, segue into some currently
unfashionable song of his....
Princess looks to camera and says "I should have stuck with the
frog..."
<cough>
Peter
[1] Unique Selling Point(s)
CCA
>Ed Weatherup
>> Jon wrote:
>> > žus cwęš X Kyle M Thompson
>> >> Eric Jarvis wrote:
>> >>> The Stainless Steel Cat wrote:
>> >>>> Sorry, nothing to add to the discussion, but I had to butt in to
>> >>>> say how much I love the idea of being someone's "tolerable frog".
>> >>> you can have it...personally I'm heartily sick of it :)
>> >> Aye, wot he said.
>> > Ribett ribett.
>> Shall we form the Tolerable Frogs Society, with a badge and an AGM?
>a slogan is going to be difficult...let me be the first to veto "Tolerable
>Frogs do it once in a blue moon"
Can women join?
CCA:) a tolerable frogette (I suspect)
CCA
>Eric Jarvis wrote:
>> Ed Weatherup e...@killfile.invalid wrote:
>[snip]
>>> Shall we form the Tolerable Frogs Society, with a badge and an AGM?
>> I think we must...we also need a t-shirt...I don't suppose Kevin would
>> consider doing one if enough of us sign up?
>> a slogan is going to be difficult...let me be the first to veto
>> "Tolerable Frogs do it once in a blue moon"
>... aw! I like that one ..
So do I...
>But I would have to propose throwing open membership to all -- let the
>ladies "... but she's got a wonderful personality ..." join too,
"She's got a lovely personailty..."
"She's great fun..."
"She's really nice..."
or the worst one of all
"She's really sensible." (Urrrgghhh...)
>and a special mention for all those who are/have been
>"Too nice to date."
"I don't think of you in that way..."
>And, for some reason, I naturally assumed that the AGM would take place in a
>pub ...
I second that assumption :-)
CCA:)
The Roach
> "Tolerable Frogs. There ain't no flies on us."
> "Tolerable Frogs. Think of the advantages."
> "Tolerable Frogs. Ribbit-ed for your pleasure."
> "Does your Prince do *this* when you kiss him?"
"Tolerable Frogs -- our tongues are better trained" ?
--
yIn nI' yISIQ 'ej yIchep
The Roach
(www.roachware.de -- www.roach.demon.nl -- elfwood.lysator.liu.se/~mja)
CCA
>Eric Jarvis wrote:
>>Ed Weatherup wrote:
>>> So how about ... "I may be a Tolerable Frog but only because I haven't
>been
>>> kissed enough"
>>>
>>> Too blatant?
>>too ambitious, too direct, and leaves the "prince" brand as the market
>>leader...we don't want to claim that a "frog" might be a substitute for a
>>"prince", we need to create a genuine demand for "frogs
>How about:
>
>"The Prince ... by Machiavelli.
>Tolerable Frogs ... by your side."
>
>or
>
>"Princes: inbreeding since the year dot.
>Why not try a Tolerable Frog instead? With Chins!"
slogans for T.F. women...
'Tolerable Frogettes - We're Really Nice!'
Okay, no, that wouldn't work...
Er...
'Tolerable Frogettes - We'll Love You and Be Supportive'
No, I've a feeling that one wouldn't work either...
'Tolerable Frogettes - We Probably Won't Sleep With Your Best Friend'
Hmmm...has potential...
'Tolerable Frogettes - We're Really Intriguing. Yes We Are. We *Are*! Look,
We Bloody Well Are, Right! I Don't Care What Anyone Says!"
CCA:), not going into marketing any time soon...
CCA
>"Just Friends" is a euphemism for Tolerable Frog, see elsewhere in this
>thread ;-)
'Just friends' may be, but 'friends' isn't. There is a distinction to be made
there.
CCA:)
Daibhid Ceannaideach
>From: The Roach nos...@roach.demon.nl
>Date: 07/05/04 21:48 GMT Daylight Time
>Message-id: <2g2b0vF...@uni-berlin.de>
>
>Begin by imagining that pj...@cam.ac.uk might have said...
>
>> "Tolerable Frogs. There ain't no flies on us."
>> "Tolerable Frogs. Think of the advantages."
>> "Tolerable Frogs. Ribbit-ed for your pleasure."
>> "Does your Prince do *this* when you kiss him?"
>
>"Tolerable Frogs -- our tongues are better trained" ?
Let's work up to these. We should start with a campaign the princesses are more
likely to accept straight off:
A picture of a handsome prince and the caption "Tolerable Frogs: Because,
really, it's not gonna happen, is it?"
(Better yet, why don't Tolerable Frogs and Frogettes just get together and let
the princes and princesses who don't recognise a good thing when they see one
lose out?)
--
Dave
The Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc
Fans are great. Fandom is weird.
-Terry Pratchett
Richard Bos
> How about:
>
> "The Prince ... by Machiavelli.
> Tolerable Frogs ... by your side."
Myeah, well, but... remember there's a Vetinari fan club... (full of
Tolerable Froggettes, too, I'll bet!)
> "Princes: inbreeding since the year dot.
> Why not try a Tolerable Frog instead? With Chins!"
What, several of them? I've only got one...
Richard
Troels Forchhammer
Stacie Hanes <house_d...@yahoo.com> enriched us with:
>
> Richard Eney wrote:
>>
<snip>
>> My parents: 14 years apart.
[...]
>
> 25 years between me and my husband, married seven years this
> November. But I was 25 when we married.
There was 30 years between Lord and Lady Baden-Powell, with her being,
IIRC, in her twenties when they married ;-)
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail address is t.forch(a)mail.dk
And he that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of
wisdom.
- Gandalf, 'LotR' (J.R.R. Tolkien)
Stig M. Valstad
>Ed Weatherup wrote
>
>>Eric Jarvis wrote:
>
>>> a slogan is going to be difficult...let me be the first to veto
>>> "Tolerable Frogs do it once in a blue moon"
>
>>... aw! I like that one ..
>
>So do I...
Would be bragging, though. A blue moon happens on average once
a year.
>>But I would have to propose throwing open membership to all -- let the
>>ladies "... but she's got a wonderful personality ..." join too,
>
>"She's got a lovely personailty..."
>"She's great fun..."
>"She's really nice..."
>or the worst one of all
>"She's really sensible." (Urrrgghhh...)
I like all that in a girl. Of course I also like good looks.
>>and a special mention for all those who are/have been
>>"Too nice to date."
>
>"I don't think of you in that way..."
Normally preceeded by "You are such a wonderful person, you'll
be the perfect partner for someone, but..."
Apparently I am both goodlooking and with a good personality,
but even the most desperate girls won't consider me.
And what's the point of being able to give wonderful back
rubs when noone wants me to rub their back.
--
Stig M. Valstad
"You have the cutest little suppurating sores, has anyone ever
told you that?" Glory
Iain Hallam
> In which case the important thing to do is think of the USP [1]
[1] Should I be worried that I didn't even break step to substitute
Unique Selling Point in there even though I'm a Computer Scientist?
- Iain.
Iain Hallam
> "I don't think of you in that way..."
Ouch! That's one of the nastiest (and, I might add, most frequent)
indications of TF-ness, in my experience.
- Iain.
Graycat
<e...@killfile.invalid> jotted down:
>Eric Jarvis wrote:
>> Ed Weatherup e...@killfile.invalid wrote:
>[snip]
>>> Shall we form the Tolerable Frogs Society, with a badge and an AGM?
>>>
>>
>> I think we must...we also need a t-shirt...I don't suppose Kevin would
>> consider doing one if enough of us sign up?
>>
>> a slogan is going to be difficult...let me be the first to veto
>> "Tolerable Frogs do it once in a blue moon"
>
>... aw! I like that one ..
>
>But I would have to propose throwing open membership to all -- let the
>ladies "... but she's got a wonderful personality ..." join too, (for
>obvious reasons :-) and a special mention for all those who are/have been
>"Too nice to date."
How about "oh, and good hair" ?
:o)
--
Elin
The Tale of Westala and Villtin
http://www.student.lu.se/~his02ero/index.html
The Oswalds DW casting award - Vote Now!
http://www.student.lu.se/~his02ero/Oswald/index.html
Graycat
<us...@domain.invalid> jotted down:
I don't know. I don't believe in princes, and if I pick
someone to kiss it's because I want _him_, I don't want him
to turn into someone else. So really Good Frog is my first
and only choise.
The ones I decide not to kiss aren't tolerable frogs (to me)
they're...something else without relationship connotations.
The ones I dno't _get_ to kiss because they don't choose me
or I'm too chicken to ask are frogs.
The only princes are on posters, in books and in movies.
There you don't have to go to the bathroom and have no dirty
laundry.
Caroline Alexander
Why nasty? I mean, compared to the "you're gorgeous and nice and lovable
and clever and blah-de-blah, but you're just too gorgeous and nice and
lovable and clever and blah-de-blah for me"-lie it's straightforward and
honest, isn't it? There's billions of people on this planet that I don't
think of "in that way", so that is a rejection I can certainly relate
to. Sometimes attraction happens, sometimes it doesn't. And I'd prefer
honesty above hollow flattery every time.
--
Carl.
CCA
>Iain Hallam wrote:
>> CCA wrote:
>> > "I don't think of you in that way..."
>> Ouch! That's one of the nastiest (and, I might add, most frequent)
>> indications of TF-ness, in my experience.
>Why nasty? I mean, compared to the "you're gorgeous and nice and lovable
>and clever and blah-de-blah, but you're just too gorgeous and nice and
>lovable and clever and blah-de-blah for me"-lie it's straightforward and
>honest, isn't it?
And also, it's not patronising (IMO anyway). It's not like the person's
thinking "this man/woman can't handle an honest answer".
And as far as 'nasty' goes, I can think of a lot nastier ways to turn someone
down than that.
"I don't want to go out with you because you're boring/ugly/too old/too
young/haven't got enough money/too fat/too thin/got zits/you're not as
good-looking as (whoever)..." I think that sounds a lot nastier than "I don't
think of you in that way".
CCA:)
CCA
>>From: The Roach
>>"Tolerable Frogs -- our tongues are better trained" ?
>A picture of a handsome prince and the caption "Tolerable Frogs: Because,
>really, it's not gonna happen, is it?"
I like that one :-)
>Better yet, why don't Tolerable Frogs and Frogettes just get together and
let
>the princes and princesses who don't recognise a good thing when they see one
>lose out?
And that's the best plan yet!
Peter Ellis
>Caroline Alexander wrote
>
>>Iain Hallam wrote:
>
>>> CCA wrote:
>
>>> > "I don't think of you in that way..."
>
>>> Ouch! That's one of the nastiest (and, I might add, most frequent)
>>> indications of TF-ness, in my experience.
>
>>Why nasty? I mean, compared to the "you're gorgeous and nice and lovable
>>and clever and blah-de-blah, but you're just too gorgeous and nice and
>>lovable and clever and blah-de-blah for me"-lie it's straightforward and
>>honest, isn't it?
>
>And also, it's not patronising (IMO anyway). It's not like the person's
>thinking "this man/woman can't handle an honest answer".
>And as far as 'nasty' goes, I can think of a lot nastier ways to turn someone
>down than that.
>"I don't want to go out with you because you're boring/ugly/too old/too
>young/haven't got enough money/too fat/too thin/got zits/you're not as
>good-looking as (whoever)..." I think that sounds a lot nastier than "I don't
>think of you in that way".
I think the problem with this kind of brush off is that while it's
honest, it doesn't contain any real information. It boils down to the
tautologous "I don't want you because I don't want you" [1]. There's
no indication of *why* you don't want to go out with the other person,
whether it's "never" or just "not now", whether there's anything they
could do to change your mind. Presumably you *have* real reasons,
you're just not willing to share them.
"I don't want to go out with you because you're an idle bastard with
love handles large enough to tow a tractor" at least tells them what
they're doing wrong, and how to smarten up their act and avoid future
rejection, by you or anyone else.
Cheers,
Peter
[1] It's as bad as the platform announcements saying "This service is
delayed because of the late arrival of an incoming train" - I.e. "It's
late because it's running late".
Daibhid Ceannaideach
Date: 08/05/04 12:19 GMT Daylight Time
>>Caroline Alexander wrote
>>
>>>Iain Hallam wrote:
>>
>>>> CCA wrote:
>>
>>>> > "I don't think of you in that way..."
>>
>>>> Ouch! That's one of the nastiest (and, I might add, most frequent)
>>>> indications of TF-ness, in my experience.
>>
>>>Why nasty?
<snp>
>I think the problem with this kind of brush off is that while it's
>honest, it doesn't contain any real information. It boils down to the
>tautologous "I don't want you because I don't want you" [1]. There's
>no indication of *why* you don't want to go out with the other person,
>whether it's "never" or just "not now", whether there's anything they
>could do to change your mind. Presumably you *have* real reasons,
>you're just not willing to share them.
Why do you presumably have real reasons? I mean, even as prime TF material, I
know there are some women who just don't "do it" for me, and I've no idea
why...
If people knew how attraction (even their own) worked, the world would be a lot
easier to operate in.
Graycat
<pj...@cam.ac.uk> jotted down:
>I think the problem with this kind of brush off is that while it's
>honest, it doesn't contain any real information. It boils down to the
>tautologous "I don't want you because I don't want you" [1]. There's
>no indication of *why* you don't want to go out with the other person,
>whether it's "never" or just "not now", whether there's anything they
>could do to change your mind. Presumably you *have* real reasons,
>you're just not willing to share them.
But when it comes to emotions and feromones and all that
stuff "I don't want yo ubecause I don't want you" _is_ a
real reason. At least foor me. I usually have no idea why I
feel drawn to this person but not that one, that's just they
way it is, it either sparks or doesn't.
Matthew Seaman
> Apparently I am both goodlooking and with a good personality,
> but even the most desperate girls won't consider me.
Ah, but are you rich and successful? According to that Mr Dawin,
attractiveness is all down to predicting who will be the most
successful breeding partner, even if that isn't what you're
consciously after. And that means that Women are looking out for two
things in a Man: good genes, and the wherewithal to support them as
they produce children. That sounds horribly patronizing in this day
and age, but has been simple necessity for most of the existence of
the human race.
Just make sure that bulge in your trousers is a well-stuffed wallet,
and you'll get a lot more attention.
Cheers,
Matthew
--
Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 26 The Paddocks
Savill Way
PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Marlow
Tel: +44 1628 476614 Bucks., SL7 1TH UK
David Jensen
wrote in <86r7tv1...@happy-idiot-talk.infracaninophile.co.uk>:
>sti...@siclone.itea.ntnu.no (Stig M. Valstad) writes:
>
>> Apparently I am both goodlooking and with a good personality,
>> but even the most desperate girls won't consider me.
>
>Ah, but are you rich and successful? According to that Mr Dawin,
>attractiveness is all down to predicting who will be the most
>successful breeding partner, even if that isn't what you're
>consciously after. And that means that Women are looking out for two
>things in a Man: good genes, and the wherewithal to support them as
>they produce children. That sounds horribly patronizing in this day
>and age, but has been simple necessity for most of the existence of
>the human race.
>
>Just make sure that bulge in your trousers is a well-stuffed wallet,
>and you'll get a lot more attention.
Of course there are also men who have many children with different women
and few people can see what his attraction is, particularly since the
woman has to have some idea that he will not provide anything to that
child.
Matthew Seaman
Yes. You should at least have done a double take after assuming it
was a typo for UPS. And if you're thinking of brown vans, then you're
in the wrong career.
Cheers,
Matthew, who would feel right at home in situations where the
important thing to do was to think of the UPS.
Stacie Hanes
> From: Peter Ellis pj...@cam.ac.uk
> Date: 08/05/04 12:19 GMT Daylight Time
>
>>> Caroline Alexander wrote
>>>
>>>> Iain Hallam wrote:
>>>
>>>>> CCA wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> "I don't think of you in that way..."
>>>
>>>>> Ouch! That's one of the nastiest (and, I might add, most
>>>>> frequent) indications of TF-ness, in my experience.
>>>
>>>> Why nasty?
>
> <snp>
>
>> I think the problem with this kind of brush off is that while it's
>> honest, it doesn't contain any real information. It boils down to
>> the tautologous "I don't want you because I don't want you" [1].
>> There's no indication of *why* you don't want to go out with the
>> other person, whether it's "never" or just "not now", whether
>> there's anything they could do to change your mind. Presumably
>> you *have* real reasons, you're just not willing to share them.
>
> Why do you presumably have real reasons? I mean, even as prime TF
> material, I know there are some women who just don't "do it" for
> me, and I've no idea why...
>
> If people knew how attraction (even their own) worked, the world
> would be a lot easier to operate in.
It could be as simple as no chemistry/physical attraction, which happens
sometimes even if the person is attractive. You don't always know why a
person who should, in theory, be romantically interesting...isn't.
--
Stacie, fourth swordswoman of the afpocalypse.
"If you can't be a good example, you'll just have to be a horrible
warning." Catherine Aird, _His Burial Too_
"swordswomen of the afpocalypse" copyright Jon of afp, 2004.
Matthew Seaman
> But when it comes to emotions and feromones and all that
> stuff "I don't want yo ubecause I don't want you" _is_ a
> real reason. At least foor me. I usually have no idea why I
> feel drawn to this person but not that one, that's just they
> way it is, it either sparks or doesn't.
It's chemistry. People have to smell right in order to be attractive
-- and not because they've doused themselves in perfume or anything.
It's all those apocrine sweat glands under your hairy bits. They
produce a sticky sort of sweat that isn't much good for cooling the
body, but contains a cocktail of proteins and carbohydrates which,
after being acted on by the bacterial flora on your skin, result in
your unique body odour[1]. Quite a lot of what makes it unique is
down to diet, the environment, physical health and so forth[2], but a
large component is genetic.
To be precise it depends on your major histocompatability complex,
which is a bunch of genes that code for the functional end of
antibodies. The variety of different antibodies you can make comes
out of different combinations of those genes -- kind of like a socket
set. The more varied your histocompatability complex, the wider the
range of antibodies you can produce, and in general the more effective
your immune system will be.
In terms of attraction to the opposite sex, what you want is someone
with a complementary MHC so that any offspring will have as varied a
MHC as possible. And you can find that just by following your nose.
Cheers,
Matthew
[1] You might think "yeuch -- B.O. What on earth is attractive about
that?" Not a lot, but /clean/ human skin is one of the best smelling
and sexy things there is. Such prized foodstuffs as chocolate,
champagne and strawberries have a lot in common with it -- as well as
all being incrediby complex mixtures of hundreds of different
components making them practically impossible to synthesize
effectively.
[2] Dogs can tell identical twins apart simply by scent.
Jenny Radcliffe
> It's all those apocrine sweat glands under your hairy bits. They
> produce a sticky sort of sweat that isn't much good for cooling the
> body, but contains a cocktail of proteins and carbohydrates which,
> after being acted on by the bacterial flora on your skin, result in
> your unique body odour[1]. Quite a lot of what makes it unique is
> down to diet, the environment, physical health and so forth[2], but a
> large component is genetic.
And conversely, will recognise "their people's" family members by smell, as
well.
Jenny
Torak
> In article <1c5ac0c6.04050...@posting.google.com>, Sean
> Cleary <seanea...@hotmail.com> writes
> >> >
> >>16 will get you 20 and those are not gamboling odds. Relationships
> >with a legal minor are jailbait problems.
>
> Note: 16 is not a legal minor in (most of) the UK for these purposes.
> Unless Torak is in one of the positions of authority for which the law
> explicitly states an exception, the other party is not jailbait and he
> is not contemplating committing a criminal offence.
Agreed, but - as Eric noted - it is my understanding that such
considerations only become an issue once certain activities become
involved. And as far as I'm concerned, that's still a VERY long way
off... I'd have absolutely no problem keeping things entirely platonic
for the foreseeable future.
> It's still a good idea to think *very hard* *before* getting involved.
Definitely, yes.
> I don't have any good advice, other than listen to Eric who probably
> does have some good advice. And well done for recognising you have a
> problem on your hands and looking for advice rather than plunging in.
Yes, I've had a few very helpful emails from him. I've also spoken to
P's brother [1] and he too advised me to tell her as soon as possible.
[1] - THe conversation went something like this:
H - "So what exactly *is* the problem?"
A - "Meh..."
H - "Relationships?"
A - "Meh..." <nod-ish>
H - "Girlfriend?"
A - <nods, sort of>
H - "[P]?"
A - <stares at H in disbelief> "Who are you, Mystic sodding Meg?"
Torak
>
> Well, it's up to her. None of your business, if you're sure she's
> well over the, um, other thing. And anyway, it's harmless, when
> done at a reputable, hygienic establishment. In comparison with
> the laser eye surgery we were just discussing... Youth is a good
> time to experiment with that sort of thing (not laser eye surgery, the
> piercing); doing it may be the best way to find out it doesn't suit
> you, and no harm done. Piercings heal quickly.
Yes, that's what I'm trying to tell myself.
> And while I am the exact opposite of an authority, it's my
> impression that the nature of your relationship is also up to her. It
> is a respectable truism that emotional maturity comes earlier to
> young women than to young men, and also sensitivity. Another,
> although respectable is not quite the word for this one, is that
> before a girl meets a handsome prince, she has to kiss a lot of
> frogs. You may have already been filed by P in her "frog, tolerable"
> category and not know it, as most women do with nearly all the
> men they know; it will not be difficult to find out, and not
> necessarily by risking a friendship, either (mind you, you'll be out
> of the picture as a friend, at least temporarily, if she finds a
> boyfriend elsewhere).
I hope I'm not a frog. I don't even speak French terribly well.
> Something much, much less than a dramatic declaration might
> be appropriate, in a public, not private, space. Ask her on an
> unambiguous date, perhaps - or ask her if she knows any
> unattached girls... Or don't, if you prefer to wait for someone else
> to come into view, but I think you indeed may already be leaving it
> a bit late.
Yes, I think I'm just going to tell her.
> Just to check, a /serious/ romantic relationship obviously can't
> begin to exist if you don't regard the other party as, in effect, a fully
> responsible adult like yourself.
That's one of the things I've been pondering, in fact. I think I came
to the conclusion that mentally, she certainly is at least a match,
it's just her chronological age I'm worried about.
Torak
> Ed Weatherup wrote
>
> >But I would have to propose throwing open membership to all -- let the
> >ladies "... but she's got a wonderful personality ..." join too,
>
> "She's great fun..."
> "She's really nice..."
> or the worst one of all
> "She's really sensible." (Urrrgghhh...)
Ermmm... those are all attributes I rather like, actually...
Torak
Definitely.
Part of the problem, I suspect, is that I've always been of the
opinion that relationships should start with friendship and work from
there. Thus on the rare occasions where I start liking a girl enough
to consider telling them (thrice so far, including this one) I always
end up chickening out because they are invariably among my very
closest friends and I daren't jeopardise that. So I suppose there is
an advantage to the modern system, at least.
Eric Jarvis
rather like?...I consider them all to be essential...along with "has a
nice voice that doesn't irritate me", "makes me laugh sometimes and
sometimes laughs when I think I've been funny", "will tell me not to be so
damn stupid when required", "has hypnotic eyes", and of course, "smells
right"
which doesn't leave a lot of room for anything optional
--
eric - afprelationships in headers
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
Eric Jarvis
> sphir...@aol.com (CCA) wrote
> > Ed Weatherup wrote
> >
> > >"Just Friends" is a euphemism for Tolerable Frog, see elsewhere in this
> > >thread ;-)
> >
> > 'Just friends' may be, but 'friends' isn't. There is a distinction to be made
> > there.
>
>
> Part of the problem, I suspect, is that I've always been of the
> opinion that relationships should start with friendship and work from
> there. Thus on the rare occasions where I start liking a girl enough
> to consider telling them (thrice so far, including this one) I always
> end up chickening out because they are invariably among my very
> closest friends and I daren't jeopardise that. So I suppose there is
> an advantage to the modern system, at least.
>
if the friendship is based on anything real it shouldn't be put in
jeopardy so long as you are prepared to take the inevitable emotional
bruises
Rocky Frisco
> sti...@siclone.itea.ntnu.no (Stig M. Valstad) writes:
>
>
>>Apparently I am both goodlooking and with a good personality,
>>but even the most desperate girls won't consider me.
>
>
> Ah, but are you rich and successful? According to that Mr Dawin,
> attractiveness is all down to predicting who will be the most
> successful breeding partner, even if that isn't what you're
> consciously after. And that means that Women are looking out for two
> things in a Man: good genes, and the wherewithal to support them as
> they produce children. That sounds horribly patronizing in this day
> and age, but has been simple necessity for most of the existence of
> the human race.
>
> Just make sure that bulge in your trousers is a well-stuffed wallet,
> and you'll get a lot more attention.
We used to have a rock singer here who learned to moonwalk like MJ but
would grab his wallet (in a side trousers pocket) instead of his crotch;
always got a big laugh.
-Rock http://www.rocky-frisco.com
--
JJ Cale Live CD and video: http://www.rocky-frisco.com/calelive.htm
The Wednesday Night Science Project: http://www.wednitesciproj.us
Rocky Frisco's LIBERTY website: http://www.liberty-in-our-time.com/
Rocky Frisco
This response is NEVER necessary, or in any way the best possible
response. It's a carry-over from the gradeschool dramas with their
queens and playground eunuchs. I equate it with the head-stroke that
kills the recipient and empowers the Highlander. It belongs in a class
with racism and hazing.
Graycat
<m.se...@infracaninophile.co.uk> jotted down:
>sti...@siclone.itea.ntnu.no (Stig M. Valstad) writes:
>
>> Apparently I am both goodlooking and with a good personality,
>> but even the most desperate girls won't consider me.
>
>Ah, but are you rich and successful? According to that Mr Dawin,
>attractiveness is all down to predicting who will be the most
>successful breeding partner, even if that isn't what you're
>consciously after. And that means that Women are looking out for two
>things in a Man: good genes, and the wherewithal to support them as
>they produce children. That sounds horribly patronizing in this day
>and age, but has been simple necessity for most of the existence of
>the human race.
>
>Just make sure that bulge in your trousers is a well-stuffed wallet,
>and you'll get a lot more attention.
Well, it's not that unusual for people to marry someone they
meet in uni, and hardly any students have any money. A lot
of the careers you get out of it also don't pay that well.
For me money has _never_ been an issue, I pay my own way and
once there's children we'll deal, and have planned
beforehand if I have any say.
I look for what would make a good dad, not at first, even
though I do think about it young as I am, but I've never
bothered about looking for a provider, that's not what I'm
after.
Mainly it's about spark. The concious, intellectual part of
my mind is never informed about the rest of my mind and
body's decisions about who I'm to fancy until I allready do.
After that it's just a case of whether it's a passing fancy
or not, and whether it's returned or not.
Stevie D
> Shall we form the Tolerable Frogs Society, with a badge and an AGM?
Count me in :-)
Can I be the first one to make a tasteless remark about how good frogs
are with their tongues?
--
Stevie D
\\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the
\\\\\\\__X__/////// common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________
Stevie D
> I think the problem with this kind of brush off is that while it's
> honest, it doesn't contain any real information. It boils down to the
> tautologous "I don't want you because I don't want you" [1]. There's
> no indication of *why* you don't want to go out with the other person,
> whether it's "never" or just "not now", whether there's anything they
> could do to change your mind. Presumably you *have* real reasons,
> you're just not willing to share them.
Unlike the train analogy, this is often the case.
If a train is late, there is a causal link back to some point where it
was on time, and you can explain the lateness in terms of signal
failure, mechanical difficulties, too many passengers getting on/off,
and so on. They might say "It's late because it's late", but there are
reasons if you dig deep enough.
Love isn't like that. I have lots of friends, but there are very few
that I could even contemplate a relationship with. In about half of
those cases, it's because the other person is of the wrong gender -
that's a pretty good reason. In about half of the rest, there are some
definite personality traits that are fine in a friend but not in a
boyfriend.
That leaves about a quarter of my friends that I would say 'no' to but
without a tangible reason - apart from "I just don't think of them
like that". Maybe there are reasons involving hormones and pheromones
that I don't see or understand, but to me, there's no reason. They're
nice people, they don't have any particularly obnoxious habits, I
really enjoy spending time with them, they aren't visually repulsive
(well, apart from one <g>), but I just couldn't think about getting
into a closer relationship with them.
Malcolm Starke
pursue that at all will you? What is this modern system that you seem to
believe in? Is it any good? I am all for modernity myself so long as it
does not involve EFFORT on anybody's part. And are you a clone of Waletr?>
I love you maternally
Mum
"Torak" <and...@andrew-perry.com> wrote in message
news:91ff0aca.04050...@posting.google.com...
François-Xavier de Montgolfier
wrote:
>"Tolerable Frogs -- our tongues are better trained" ?
I ressemble that ;-P
FiX, who sometimes love being French
--
what's the difference between a laser and #afp ....a laser's coherent
- Hippo on #afp, as he suddenly realises the devastating truth
Malcolm Starke
interest now (that is one of the things mothers are 4) - so what is TFness?
Ask a silly question or dont and you will always get an answer - whether you
like it or not.
You sound like a nice boy so i am quite happy with all of this
"Rocky Frisco" <ro...@rocky-frisco.com> wrote in message
news:%J8nc.45078$Fl5.14971@okepread04...
Daibhid Ceannaideach
Date: 08/05/04 19:16 GMT Daylight Time
>Ed Weatherup wrote:
>
>> Shall we form the Tolerable Frogs Society, with a badge and an AGM?
>
>Count me in :-)
>
>Can I be the first one to make a tasteless remark about how good frogs
>are with their tongues?
<Looks elsewhere in thread>
Sadly not...
Graycat
Montgolfier <Fi...@club.lemonde.fr> jotted down:
>On Fri, 7 May 2004 22:48:48 +0200, The Roach <nos...@roach.demon.nl>
>wrote:
>
>>"Tolerable Frogs -- our tongues are better trained" ?
>
>I ressemble that ;-P
So are you putting it out to demonstrate, or to be
evaluated?
François-Xavier de Montgolfier
wrote:
>On Sat, 08 May 2004 21:00:40 +0200, François-Xavier de
>Montgolfier <Fi...@club.lemonde.fr> jotted down:
>>On Fri, 7 May 2004 22:48:48 +0200, The Roach <nos...@roach.demon.nl>
>>wrote:
>>>"Tolerable Frogs -- our tongues are better trained" ?
>>I ressemble that ;-P
>So are you putting it out to demonstrate, or to be
>evaluated?
You have to put your tongue out in order to best asses wine? I was
totally unaware of that! Errr, we _were_ talking about gustative
training, weren't we? ;-P
FiX
Matthew Seaman
> On 08 May 2004 13:58:27 +0100, Matthew Seaman
> <m.se...@infracaninophile.co.uk> jotted down:
> >Ah, but are you rich and successful? According to that Mr Dawin,
> >attractiveness is all down to predicting who will be the most
> >successful breeding partner, even if that isn't what you're
> >consciously after. And that means that Women are looking out for two
> >things in a Man: good genes, and the wherewithal to support them as
> >they produce children. That sounds horribly patronizing in this day
> >and age, but has been simple necessity for most of the existence of
> >the human race.
> >
> >Just make sure that bulge in your trousers is a well-stuffed wallet,
> >and you'll get a lot more attention.
>
> Well, it's not that unusual for people to marry someone they
> meet in uni, and hardly any students have any money. A lot
> of the careers you get out of it also don't pay that well.
>
> For me money has _never_ been an issue, I pay my own way and
> once there's children we'll deal, and have planned
> beforehand if I have any say.
Remember this is evolved behaviour predating the invention of money by
many thousands of years. Money is just a handy shorthand in modern
terms: think about what it all means in terms of a primitive hunter
gatherer society. It's more about having stuff -- taking pride in
your person and appearance being an important part of that -- or being
able to get it -- really all about being a capable person and having a
bit of get up and go. Being prepared to share it is pretty important
too: even if courting behaviour is largely symbolic nowadays. I'll
bet you like it when the B.F. gives you flowers. (Mind you, you'ld
probably give him the boot P.D.Q. if he started presenting you with a
pound of sausages or a joint of meat or a brace of coneys -- so much
for man the hunter...)
> I look for what would make a good dad, not at first, even
> though I do think about it young as I am, but I've never
> bothered about looking for a provider, that's not what I'm
> after.
So what does make a good dad? Perhaps it boils down to being prepared
to take their fair share of bringing up the kids. Support isn't
necessarily limited to the economic sphere; although having a roof
over your head and food on the table is pretty important for
successful family life.
> Mainly it's about spark. The concious, intellectual part of
> my mind is never informed about the rest of my mind and
> body's decisions about who I'm to fancy until I allready do.
> After that it's just a case of whether it's a passing fancy
> or not, and whether it's returned or not.
Exactly; although ironically there is a theory that all of that
intellectual stuff that Hom. Sap. does is the the result of sexual
selection. Our ape-women ancestors would choose the most articulate
and creative ape-men as their preferred mates. As the genes that seem
to control those bits of brain function that result in intelligence
are mostly to be found on the X chromosome, that meant brighter
daughters as well as brighter sons.
Graycat
<m.se...@infracaninophile.co.uk> jotted down:
>Graycat <gra...@passagen.se> writes:
>
>> On 08 May 2004 13:58:27 +0100, Matthew Seaman
>> <m.se...@infracaninophile.co.uk> jotted down:
>
>> >Ah, but are you rich and successful? According to that Mr Dawin,
>> >attractiveness is all down to predicting who will be the most
>> >successful breeding partner, even if that isn't what you're
>> >consciously after. And that means that Women are looking out for two
>> >things in a Man: good genes, and the wherewithal to support them as
>> >they produce children. That sounds horribly patronizing in this day
>> >and age, but has been simple necessity for most of the existence of
>> >the human race.
>> >
>> >Just make sure that bulge in your trousers is a well-stuffed wallet,
>> >and you'll get a lot more attention.
>>
>> Well, it's not that unusual for people to marry someone they
>> meet in uni, and hardly any students have any money. A lot
>> of the careers you get out of it also don't pay that well.
>>
>> For me money has _never_ been an issue, I pay my own way and
>> once there's children we'll deal, and have planned
>> beforehand if I have any say.
>
>Remember this is evolved behaviour predating the invention of money by
>many thousands of years. Money is just a handy shorthand in modern
>terms: think about what it all means in terms of a primitive hunter
>gatherer society.
Sure. I was objecting to the phrase "Just make sure that
bulge in your trousers is a well-stuffed wallet, and you'll
get a lot more attention." It's one stereotype that has
always annoyed me. And seems to usually be used by bitter
men who refuse to see that they aren't god's gift to women
so blame their loneliness on the callous bitches that are
womankind instead. Not saying this is you though, not at
all.
> It's more about having stuff -- taking pride in
>your person and appearance being an important part of that -- or being
>able to get it -- really all about being a capable person and having a
>bit of get up and go. Being prepared to share it is pretty important
>too: even if courting behaviour is largely symbolic nowadays. I'll
>bet you like it when the B.F. gives you flowers. (Mind you, you'ld
>probably give him the boot P.D.Q. if he started presenting you with a
>pound of sausages or a joint of meat or a brace of coneys -- so much
>for man the hunter...)
Actually...we are talking about me in particular here, so I
have to say that a joint of meat is always well recieved, or
a brace of coneys, just as long as he's also prepared to
cook it.
>> I look for what would make a good dad, not at first, even
>> though I do think about it young as I am, but I've never
>> bothered about looking for a provider, that's not what I'm
>> after.
>
>So what does make a good dad? Perhaps it boils down to being prepared
>to take their fair share of bringing up the kids. Support isn't
>necessarily limited to the economic sphere; although having a roof
>over your head and food on the table is pretty important for
>successful family life.
Kindness, the ability to be responsible and not act
irrationally, the ability to play and good values. It's not
everything, but as far as I'm concerned it's a lot.
esmi
<snip>
>>Ah, but are you rich and successful? According to that Mr
>>Dawin, attractiveness is all down to predicting who will be
>>the most successful breeding partner, even if that isn't what
>>you're consciously after. And that means that Women are
>>looking out for two things in a Man: good genes, and the
>>wherewithal to support them as they produce children. That
>>sounds horribly patronizing in this day and age, but has been
>>simple necessity for most of the existence of the human race.
Mr Darwin was a well-to-do Victorian male who may well have
subconsciously coloured his theories with his own cultural bias.
Hardly the best person to define what women do, or don't want in a
prospective partner.
>>Just make sure that bulge in your trousers is a well-stuffed
>>wallet, and you'll get a lot more attention.
<snip>
>For me money has _never_ been an issue, I pay my own way and
>once there's children we'll deal, and have planned
>beforehand if I have any say.
Loudly seconded!
>I look for what would make a good dad, not at first, even
>though I do think about it young as I am, but I've never
>bothered about looking for a provider, that's not what I'm
>after.
I'm not sure I've ever looked for a 'good dad' per se but I almost
certainly looked for someone who I felt could work with me to make
a set of good parents. To a large extent, that meant trying to
find someone who was on the same wavelength as me and whose views
I could respect.
esmi
--
AFP: www.blackwidows.org.uk/afp/
Internet Guide: www.imp-guide.blackwidows.org.uk
Graphic Art: www.deitydiva.co.uk
Web Design: www.blackwidows.org.uk
esmi
>Begin by imagining that pj...@cam.ac.uk might have said...
>> "Tolerable Frogs. There ain't no flies on us."
>> "Tolerable Frogs. Think of the advantages."
>> "Tolerable Frogs. Ribbit-ed for your pleasure."
>> "Does your Prince do *this* when you kiss him?"
>"Tolerable Frogs -- our tongues are better trained" ?
I think the whole "Tongue thing" has distinct marketing
possibilities...
Simon Waldman
> Torak and...@andrew-perry.com wrote:
>>Part of the problem, I suspect, is that I've always been of the
>>opinion that relationships should start with friendship and work from
>>there. Thus on the rare occasions where I start liking a girl enough
>>to consider telling them (thrice so far, including this one) I always
>>end up chickening out because they are invariably among my very
>>closest friends and I daren't jeopardise that. So I suppose there is
>>an advantage to the modern system, at least.
>>
snap...
> if the friendship is based on anything real it shouldn't be put in
> jeopardy so long as you are prepared to take the inevitable emotional
> bruises
In my case the friendships are often based at last partly on my being an
agony-uncle and general listener. This is something which is very
unlikely to continue if the talker is aware that the listener fancies
them. Some friendships will survive this, but I've lost two "best
friend"-catagory people this way. Neither in a hostile manner, but once
this came out we simply drifted apart. In both cases I'd happily have
settled for being friends.
It does make one rather scared of doing it again.
Of course, the related issue is whether I fell for them at least partly
*because* of the agony-uncle thing. This is possible, but it's not all
there is to it - I don't fall for everybody that I have this kind of
relationship with!
--
"of course we never see the beginning. We come in in the middle, after
the lights have gone down, and try to make some sense of the story so
far... We get by."
-Neil Gaiman
---------------------------------------------------------------
Simon Waldman, UK email: swal...@firecloud.org.uk
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Cleary
> Ed Weatherup e...@nospam.invalid wrote:
> > Eric Jarvis wrote:
> > [snip]
> > >
> > > I think I may have the answer but it requires the right picture
> > >
> > > gent with large muscles, square jaw and a crown, smirking into a hand
> > > mirror...with a buxom scantily clad woman hanging on each arm being
> > > ignored
> > >
> > > "wouldn't you prefer a tolerable frog?"
> >
> > <marketing-speak>
> > I see where you're going with that ... but it's not quite the image I had in
> > mind because the usual answer the the question would be "No".
> >
>
> ah...but this is about long term branding...we can't make "frog"
> attractive...so let's just put out knocking copy about "prince" and imply
> that the only alternative is "frog"...the hope being that at some time in
> the future the immediate reaction to a fairy tale prince is "yeuch!
> couldn't she have found a frog?"
>
> > So how about ... "I may be a Tolerable Frog but only because I haven't been
> > kissed enough"
> >
> > Too blatant?
> >
>
> too ambitious, too direct, and leaves the "prince" brand as the market
> leader...we don't want to claim that a "frog" might be a substitute for a
> "prince", we need to create a genuine demand for "frogs"
>
> > (I do think the cap T and cap F are important, image-wise)
>
> this is true
>
> > </marketing-speak>
> >
>
> made sense to me...I've spent too long doing marketing
I am taking a short course in self marketing c/o my local library.
this is wonderful to hear such talk, to comfirm the thought pattern
that my books are teaching me.
Sean
esmi
<m.se...@infracaninophile.co.uk> wrote
>Graycat <gra...@passagen.se> writes:
<snip>
>> I look for what would make a good dad, not at first, even
>> though I do think about it young as I am, but I've never
>> bothered about looking for a provider, that's not what I'm
>> after.
>So what does make a good dad? Perhaps it boils down to being
>prepared to take their fair share of bringing up the kids.
Cooperation, flexibility and the ability to work together.
>Support isn't necessarily limited to the economic sphere;
>although having a roof over your head and food on the table is
>pretty important for successful family life.
Agreed but I don't think it matters one whit who provides the cash
to achieve. It's 'community money'. What *might* be an important
factor is how that community cash is spent.
>> Mainly it's about spark.
<snip>
>Exactly; although ironically there is a theory that all of
>that intellectual stuff that Hom. Sap. does is the the result
>of sexual selection. Our ape-women ancestors would choose the
>most articulate and creative ape-men as their preferred mates.
Now that's a theory I could live with. :-)
Lesley Weston
w...@ericjarvis.co.uk wrote on 07/05/2004 11:57 AM:
<snip>
>
>> So how about ... "I may be a Tolerable Frog but only because I haven't been
>> kissed enough"
>>
>> Too blatant?
>>
>
> too ambitious, too direct, and leaves the "prince" brand as the market
> leader...we don't want to claim that a "frog" might be a substitute for a
> "prince", we need to create a genuine demand for "frogs"
How about "Frogs - we try harder!" I seem to be coming in on the wrong side
of this one, but after all there are female frogs, or where would tadpoles
come from?
--
Lesley Weston.
Brightly_coloured_blob is real, so as not to upset the sys-apes, but I don't
actually read anything sent to it before I empty it. To reach me, use lesley
att vancouverbc dott nett, changing spelling and spacing as required.
ingenious paradox
wrote:
>In article <4099FD41...@andrew-perry.com>,
>Torak <and...@andrew-perry.com> wrote:
>>Troels Forchhammer wrote:
>>> Torak <and...@andrew-perry.com> enriched us with:
>
> <snip>
>
>>>> Y'see, I'm 21, 22 next month. But she's 16.
>
>My parents: 14 years apart.
>Two other long-term marriages I know of:
> one 16 years apart
> one 11 years apart
>
My parents were 7andahalf years apart. My sister Ali is 5 years
younger than her husband.
>But none of them started at age 16. I think 23 was the youngest age of
>anyone at the start of any of the above three relationships.
>
Hm. Ali was almost 20 when it started, and 23 when they married (9
years ago now).
My mum was 16 at the start. 23 was when she had her first child. Got
married at 19.
On the other hand - as she hastily pointed out to me when I said "hey,
when you were my age you were getting married today" - she had been
working for 3 years.
On the perpendicular hand, despite various tensions in the
relationship and the financial hardships involved in having lots of
children and a mortgage in the 70s, they were still together and (so
far as anyone else could tell) happy with it at her death.
[Actually, looking at the wedding photos you wouldn't think they were
so far apart in age <g>. There's this really pretty woman with a
goofy geeky-looking bloke.... my dad said "I always think 'Joyce must
have had faith...'" He also reckons he's always felt about 10 years
younger than he actually is.]
LBs
Julie
a medley of extemporanea
Lesley Weston
pj...@cam.ac.uk wrote on 08/05/2004 4:19 AM:
> sphir...@aol.com wrote:
>> Caroline Alexander wrote
>>
>>> Iain Hallam wrote:
>>
>>>> CCA wrote:
>>
>>>>> "I don't think of you in that way..."
<snip>
>
> I think the problem with this kind of brush off is that while it's
> honest, it doesn't contain any real information. It boils down to the
> tautologous "I don't want you because I don't want you" [1]. There's
> no indication of *why* you don't want to go out with the other person,
> whether it's "never" or just "not now", whether there's anything they
> could do to change your mind. Presumably you *have* real reasons,
> you're just not willing to share them.
>
> "I don't want to go out with you because you're an idle bastard with
> love handles large enough to tow a tractor" at least tells them what
> they're doing wrong, and how to smarten up their act and avoid future
> rejection, by you or anyone else.
I would say it is by far the most informative brush-off, as well as the
least offensive. If you don't find someone attractive, you just don't, and
it's not going to help them if they know why not. Usually, there isn't even
a reason why not - it just didn't happen and that's that. So there's nothing
the rejected one could do to change things, as far as that particular
rejecter is concerned. Another person might like the rejectee just the way
they are, and anyway that *is* the way they are. Why have them frantically
trying to be something they are not, when people who want whatever it is
they're pretending to be will see through them at once, and people who would
like what they really are, given the chance, will be put off by the
pretence?
Matthew Seaman
> Sure. I was objecting to the phrase "Just make sure that
> bulge in your trousers is a well-stuffed wallet, and you'll
> get a lot more attention." It's one stereotype that has
> always annoyed me. And seems to usually be used by bitter
> men who refuse to see that they aren't god's gift to women
> so blame their loneliness on the callous bitches that are
> womankind instead. Not saying this is you though, not at
> all.
Errr.. Yes, you do most definitely have a point there. I meant that
remark to be slightly risqué but I seem to have crossed the line into
tasteless and offensive. For which I do most humbly and abjectly
apologise.
I still maintain though that the appearance of prosperity does a man
no harm at all in the courts of love. It is however neither necessary
nor sufficient to ensure success.
Lesley Weston
Seaman at m.se...@infracaninophile.co.uk wrote on 08/05/2004 5:58 AM:
> sti...@siclone.itea.ntnu.no (Stig M. Valstad) writes:
>
>> Apparently I am both goodlooking and with a good personality,
>> but even the most desperate girls won't consider me.
>
> Ah, but are you rich and successful? According to that Mr Dawin,
> attractiveness is all down to predicting who will be the most
> successful breeding partner, even if that isn't what you're
> consciously after. And that means that Women are looking out for two
> things in a Man: good genes, and the wherewithal to support them as
> they produce children. That sounds horribly patronizing in this day
> and age, but has been simple necessity for most of the existence of
> the human race.
>
> Just make sure that bulge in your trousers is a well-stuffed wallet,
> and you'll get a lot more attention.
You know, that comes across as really quite offensive, though I'm assuming
that you didn't actually intend to offend. Women look for the same things in
men as vice versa - someone whom they find physically attractive and whose
company they enjoy. The concept of a woman looking to sell herself to the
highest bidder never really applied, and most certainly does not now. In the
past, a woman's family might sell her in this way, certainly, but that was
never the woman's choice.
Orjan Westin
> Our ape-women ancestors would choose the most articulate
> and creative ape-men as their preferred mates.
Creative and articulate? I knew it was all about the chat-up line!
Orjan
Daibhid Ceannaideach
Date: 08/05/04 23:07 GMT Daylight Time
>>>>> CCA wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> "I don't think of you in that way..."
<sbip>
>I would say it is by far the most informative brush-off, as well as the
>least offensive. If you don't find someone attractive, you just don't, and
>it's not going to help them if they know why not.
True, however the more I think about it the more I think that "I don't think of
you in that way" is has more of a subtext than "I don't find you
sexually/romantically attractive". And this subtext is not a good thing.
It might be honest, but if you've just poured your heart out to the person you
want to argue about kids' names with, do you really want an honest answer of
"Oh, you're a member of the opposite sex? Hadn't really noticed."
"I don't think of you in that way" isn't "I don't find you attractive"; it's
"the mere possibility of finding you attractive has honestly never entered my
head, even theoretically."
It has a similar effect on the male psyche as "Men are all scum though. <pause>
Oh, don't worry, Dave, you don't count." a phrase I have heard far too often.