Taking Advantage of Vulnerable Women
Anus Face
Silver
> Okay or not okay?
OK and fun!
Michaela Mackenzie
> Okay or not okay?
There's no problem if you just remember
that with every choice there is a consequence.
- Michaela
MrWigglesworth
> Okay or not okay?
Depends on what you mean by "taking advantage" and "vulnerable".
Nil
wrote:
> On Oct 15, 4:02 am, Anus Face <AnusF...@trashymail.com> wrote:
>
> > Okay or not okay?
>
> Depends on what you mean by "taking advantage" and "vulnerable".
Don't take advantage, She is not in her exact mind.
Any moment she will lost her feet on the ground.
MorrowRd
Vulnerable women can burn you too. Don't target these kinds because
they can also be very co-dependent and suck the life and resources out
of you.
Find a good girl and go from there.
Michaela Mackenzie
Yes. As if anyone has their feet on the ground.
- Michaela
Michaela Mackenzie
> < Okay or not okay?>
>
> Vulnerable women can burn you too. Don't target these kinds because
> they can also be very co-dependent and suck the life and resources out
> of you.
>
> Find a good girl
LOL. Please provide directions.
Has nobody round here seen "Crash"?
- Michaela
and go from there.
MrWigglesworth
When I heard that a film called "Crash" was getting an Oscar
nomination I thought they meant the 1996 Cronenberg film. I thought
"Wow, the Academy Awards have really changed." Then I saw the
preachy, overblown melodrama to which they actually referred and
thought "Nope, they really haven't."
MorrowRd
You know, all your "new agey" advice serves nothing to anyone in here.
I've read alot of your posts and wonder why you waste time posting
because I'm betting not alot of people even read anything your write.
A "good girl" can be found if a person looks hard enough. I married
one, and I'm a non-socialite to this day. I'll give the
[non]socialite brothers advice.
You save your breath.
William P
@t8g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
> <LOL. Please provide directions. >
>
> You know, all your "new agey" advice serves nothing to anyone in here.
> I've read alot of your posts and wonder why you waste time posting
> because I'm betting not alot of people even read anything your write.
I read it sometimes and enjoy it, even if I don't really understand it. I
don't think you should speak for everyone here, nor should she be a serious
problem for you. She should be easy enough to avoid reading?
> A "good girl" can be found if a person looks hard enough. I married
> one, and I'm a non-socialite to this day. I'll give the
> [non]socialite brothers advice.
>
> You save your breath.
I agree with you about finding a good woman. They are out there, if scarce.
MorrowRd
You're a joke.
KC Carter
> Okay or not okay?
If you don't do it someone else will.
KC
Nil
William P wrote
> I agree with you about finding good woman. They are out there, if scarce
Hmmmm...A good woman out there.Hope so! Let say a lot of
good woman left in this world. But how a man can re-assure that the
woman
he collect and select is good.
32andtwentyseven
> Okay or not okay?
Any time a man has sex with a woman he has known for less than 3 days
he is taking advantage of her insecurities.
People tend to assume this is a bad thing. However "taking advantage"
simply means "getting what you can out of an arrangement". Everyone
does this.
As long as you show some degree of respect for the woman you are
taking advantage of, you are already head and shoulders above most
guys who are successful with women.
Michaela Mackenzie
wrote:
> On 14 Oct, 20:02, Anus Face <AnusF...@trashymail.com> wrote:
>
> > Okay or not okay?
>
> Any time a man has sex with a woman he has known for less than 3 days he is taking advantage of her insecurities.
Is that three days and three nights or just three days
without three nights? Does he have to stay with her
24/7 for those three days to qualify as not taking advantage
of her? Or can he go for a pee/home to sleep/work
when he needs to?
- Michaela, confused
Michaela Mackenzie
> I agree with you about finding a good woman. They are out there, if scarce.
Yes. The world is divided into "good" and "bad" women.
The bad women should have yellow tattoos on their foreheads.
- Michaela
Michaela Mackenzie
> <LOL. Please provide directions. >
>
> You know, all your "new agey"
advice serves nothing to anyone in here.
> I've read alot of your posts and wonder why you waste time posting
> because I'm betting not alot of people even read anything your write.
I scare the crap out of you. This I picked up the
first time you tried to shut me down.
You still want to wallow in your own judgements
a little longer. Nothing wrong with that. Just
remember that with every choice there is a
consequence.
> A "good girl" can be found if a person looks hard enough. I married
> one, and I'm a non-socialite to this day. I'll give the
> [non]socialite brothers advice.
>
> You save your breath.
Yes. You just keep blaming the world and your
in-laws for your problems. That way you get to
have drama. Something. Anything to talk about.
Love and kisses
Michaela
Michaela Mackenzie
wrote:
Uh. So you didn't get it. No need to knock it.
What I got from it is that there are no "good" or
"bad" people in this world. That at any time
any of us might do a "good" deed or a "bad"
one. And what I learnt from life is that what
to one person is "good" might be "bad" to
another.
'Tis all relative.
- Michaela
Michaela Mackenzie
How can you both respect and take advantage of
someone? Not saying one can't, just wondering
what's running thru your mind when you say
that.
- Michaela
Michaela Mackenzie
And now that I'm done, please explain what is wrong
with what I said.
I mean, if you disagree surely you know /why/ you
disagree?
- Michaela
William P
news:1192565082.6...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
If only!
MrWigglesworth
<michaelamackenzie05072...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 16, 12:53 am, MrWigglesworth <mrwigglesworth2...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 16, 6:26 am, Michaela Mackenzie
>
> > <michaelamackenzie05072...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Oct 15, 10:56 pm, MorrowRd <MorrowR...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > < Okay or not okay?>
>
> > > > Vulnerable women can burn you too. Don't target these kinds because
> > > > they can also be very co-dependent and suck the life and resources out
> > > > of you.
>
> > > > Find a good girl
>
> > > LOL. Please provide directions.
>
> > > Has nobody round here seen "Crash"?
>
> > When I heard that a film called "Crash" was getting an Oscar
> > nomination I thought they meant the 1996 Cronenberg film. I thought
> > "Wow, the Academy Awards have really changed." Then I saw the
> > preachy, overblown melodrama to which they actually referred and
> > thought "Nope, they really haven't."
>
> > > - Michaela
>
> > > and go from there.
>
> Uh. So you didn't get it. No need to knock it.
I got it. You couldn't NOT get it. That's the point. It was about
as subtle as a sledgehammer to the forehead.
MrWigglesworth
Better yet, herd them into concentration camps.
busyloner
<32andtwe...@xemaps.com> wrote:
>Any time a man has sex with a woman he has known for less than 3 days
>he is taking advantage of her insecurities.
>
It's quite common for women that go to clubs to have sex with a man
the first night and they don't feel exploited. And it's not even new.
It was already like that in the seventies, check the movie 'Looking
for Mr Goodbar'.
susans...@adelphia.net
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 03:51:26 -0700, 32andtwentyseven
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
she ended up dead - moral of story, girls won sexual freedom but they
will pay with their lives because good girls don't f)))*k around,
busyloner
I was just saying that it was normal for women to have one night
stands in the seventies. I always found this movie to be a little bit
too moralistic. Most women that had one night stands at that time
were not killed.
August Pamplona
> On 14 Oct, 20:02, Anus Face <AnusF...@trashymail.com> wrote:
>> Okay or not okay?
>
> Any time a man has sex with a woman he has known for less than 3 days
> he is taking advantage of her insecurities.
Is she taking advantage of the man?
>
> People tend to assume this is a bad thing. However "taking advantage"
> simply means "getting what you can out of an arrangement". Everyone
> does this.
>
> As long as you show some degree of respect for the woman you are
> taking advantage of, you are already head and shoulders above most
> guys who are successful with women.
August Pamplona
--
If you could prove religious beliefs with the scientific
method, it would be science.....and nobody would believe it.
- Stephen Colbert
a.a. # 1811 apatriot #20 Eater of smut
Proud member of the reality-based community.
The address in this message's 'From' field, in accordance with
individual.net's TOS, is real. However, almost all messages
reaching this address are deleted without human intervention.
In other words, if you e-mail me there, I will not receive your message.
To make sure that e-mail messages actually reach me,
make sure that my e-mail address is not hot.
MorrowRd
first time you tried to shut me down. >
What first time? And you think I'm scared? Switch that with the word
"annoyed" and then you'll be on track.
<You still want to wallow in your own judgements
a little longer. Nothing wrong with that. Just
remember that with every choice there is a
consequence. >
Wallow huh? Guess what honey, I'm in the right forum.. are you? I've
admitted I'm no socialite, and my narratives are shared because they
are to either acquire advice or give advice based on life learning.
Wallowing has nothing to do with it and if it's so distasteful to you,
stop reading it.
<And now that I'm done, please explain what is wrong
with what I said.>
Sure - my suggestion about finding a good girl is a sincere one
because it's possible provided the person comes up with some method.
And your "LOL. Please provide directions." was another cheap annoying
comment meant to do what? Discourage or help someone? You pick Miss
South Africa.
ear...@spymac.com
Heh. I suppose you also get that attempting to undermine the self-
preciousness of Michaela's thoughts is only bound to reinforce them?
Michaela Mackenzie
> Michaela Mackenzie <michaelamackenzie05072...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:1192565082.6...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Oct 16, 1:51 am, William P <your.email> wrote:
>
> >> I agree with you about finding a good woman. They are out there, if
> >> scarce.
>
> > Yes. The world is divided into "good" and "bad" women.
>
> > The bad women should have yellow tattoos on their foreheads.
>
> If only!
So do you or don't you think the world is divided into good and bad
people
or do you think (there's a quote to this effect somewhere I will try
to find it)
that people do good/bad things.
- Michaela
Michaela Mackenzie
Am I to take it you value sublety over "sledgehammer" clear
messages?
- Michaela, puzzled
Michaela Mackenzie
wrote:
I hope this was just a joke and that you didn't think it was possible
to divide the world into good and bad people.
- Michaela
William P
>> > Yes. The world is divided into "good" and "bad" women.
>>
>> > The bad women should have yellow tattoos on their foreheads.
>>
>> If only!
>
> So do you or don't you think the world is divided into good and bad
> people
> or do you think (there's a quote to this effect somewhere I will try
> to find it)
> that people do good/bad things.
Putting a dichotomy on it like that I think it just really dumb. I'm not
talking about perfection in all things versus flawed in all things.
But I don't see a difference between good/bad people and people who do
good/bad things. What people do is most of what is important.
Also, when looking for a relationship, looking for people to change is
unwise. So as a guy I'd look for women who do good things, in ways that
matters to me. The philosophical nitpickings underlying this and nature
versus nurture or whatever aren't very important to me.
The end result is that indeed, there are very few women who I'd consider
good, in the ways that matter to me. (Very few men too, for the
reactionaries out there.) But the set is not zero.
Darktorch
"William P" <your.email> wrote in message
news:Xns99CE6A58D...@204.153.245.131...
There are plenty of basicaly good women out there. You need to figure out
what they need....not from the laundry list of wants women keep in their
heads,<Tall,thin,strong,rich> The true must haves...<Will he protect me,Good
Dad, Help keep me under control,Let me grow,decent sex>etc...And all that
changes with her age....She'll be looking for one type at 18, totally
different at 30. But if your looking for a goody two shoes....she don't
exist, Women have the same or eqivalent urges,flaws and failings as men.
JimSummers
unwise. So as a guy I'd look for women who do good things, in ways that
matters to me. The philosophical nitpickings underlying this and nature
versus nurture or whatever aren't very important to me.
The end result is that indeed, there are very few women who I'd consider
good, in the ways that matter to me. (Very few men too, for the
>reactionaries out there.) But the set is not >zero.
The one thing that Michaela never grasps is that shy males don't want
"bad girls", they have no need for that kind of chaos. Women seem to enjoy
constant change while shybie males would rather have a stable girl and then
spend their free time playing video games.
Hardpan
<Proudlyenteringthep...@texasclown.org> wrote:
>>Also, when looking for a relationship, looking for people to change is
>unwise. So as a guy I'd look for women who do good things, in ways that
>matters to me. The philosophical nitpickings underlying this and nature
>versus nurture or whatever aren't very important to me.
>
>The end result is that indeed, there are very few women who I'd consider
>good, in the ways that matter to me. (Very few men too, for the
>>reactionaries out there.) But the set is not >zero.
>
>
> The one thing that Michaela never grasps is that shy males don't want
>"bad girls", they have no need for that kind of chaos.
Nope.
Most of us have had enough drama in schoo-hell to last a life-time.
>Women seem to enjoy
>constant change while shybie males would rather have a stable girl and then
>spend their free time playing video games.
The best type of woman for shy Men to find is what is nowadays called
a "geek girl", IMO. IOW, an introverted female who doesnt have lots of
friends, female or male.
Not that they are going to be easy to find and you will still have to
do the footwork, but at least they haven't screwed 20 guys either.
busyloner
wrote:
If the shy man has no sexual experience, his first relationship should
be a training relationship so that he will learn how to behave with a
woman. The woman should be extroverted with lots of experiences ( in
particularly sexual ) with men She should not be shy because she will
have to teach him. In fact to avoid emotional involvement, a Friend
with Benefits would be preferable or if the shybie has money he should
become the sugar daddy of a stripper. After that, if the shybie
fantasize about shy geek girls, he will have no problems. If the
shybie want absolutely to have a shy woman in his first relationship,
there is a risk that the relationship will be disastrous like the
marriage of Lisa.
Darktorch
"busyloner" <goa...@make.myday> wrote in message
news:hnujh3ddam45plc3k...@4ax.com...
A one time "bad girl" Floozy type who's trying to get around her rep and the
very low self esteem is not a bad choice either. She might like a guy who
will be attentive and the quid pro quo is She'll consider the minimum end of
a date is a BJ. Two people who are desperately try to please each other
sexually can be fun. And you can learn a hell of a lot from a nice Slut,
She'll have had a lot of poor sex and be capable of giving pointers for
improvement.
MrWigglesworth
In film, yes. I'm not fond of "message" films. If your puzzlement
stems from the fact that I don't recognise the supposed subtlety and
layered meaning in your posts, let me just say that there is a
difference between being subtle and being willfully obtuse.
MrWigglesworth
<michaelamackenzie05072...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 17, 1:37 am, MrWigglesworth <mrwigglesworth2...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 17, 5:04 am, Michaela Mackenzie
>
> > <michaelamackenzie05072...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Oct 16, 1:51 am, William P <your.email> wrote:
>
> > > > I agree with you about finding a good woman. They are out there, if scarce.
>
> > > Yes. The world is divided into "good" and "bad" women.
>
> > > The bad women should have yellow tattoos on their foreheads.
>
> > > - Michaela
>
> > Better yet, herd them into concentration camps.
>
> I hope this was just a joke and that you didn't think it was possible
> to divide the world into good and bad people.
>
> - Michaela
No, I'm seriously advocating genocide.
Hardpan
wrote:
I was speaking of seeking a long term relationship or even marriage
here, not learning sexual experiences from some slut from hell.
Hardpan
How would you know that she had "poor sex" or not?
Define "poor sex"?
As for a Floozy trying to "get around her rep", that's a non-starter
in this day and age.
Clue: Most sluts don't care what anyone thinks about them and will
throw themselves at any male they think they would like to "shag"
without any hesitation at all.
Hardpan
wrote:
>Hardpan <hardp...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>news:92rih3952v54vrgpt...@4ax.com:
>
>> The best type of woman for shy Men to find is what is nowadays called
>> a "geek girl", IMO. IOW, an introverted female who doesnt have lots of
>> friends, female or male.
>>
>> Not that they are going to be easy to find and you will still have to
>> do the footwork, but at least they haven't screwed 20 guys either.
>
>I am going to tell you that the so called "geek girl" has as a dream of a
>lifetime being able to compete against sluts for cock and attention. The
>best compromise is to use the geek girl while she still is a geek girl.
How can a "geek girl" have had the "dream of a lifetime" when she has
to compete against the dumb-headed blond cheerleader types that every
guy goes for like a fish to a lure?
What kind of "competition" are you speaking about here?
32andtwentyseven
<michaelamackenzie05072...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 16, 12:51 pm, 32andtwentyseven <32andtwentyse...@xemaps.com>
> wrote:
> > he is taking advantage of her insecurities.
>
> > simply means "getting what you can out of an arrangement". Everyone
> > does this.
>
> > As long as you show some degree of respect for the woman you are
> > taking advantage of, you are already head and shoulders above most
> > guys who are successful with women.
>
> someone? Not saying one can't, just wondering
> what's running thru your mind when you say
> that.
Well for example beating someone around the face does not constitute
respect.
freckleds...@yahoo.com
I wasn't borned-ed in the 70s so please refresh my memory; were those
women doing one-night stands by themselves, or did they have masculine
help?
Double standard?
freckleds...@yahoo.com
<ProudlyenteringthepostSolitaryFraud...@texasclown.org> wrote:
> The one thing that Michaela never grasps is that shy males don't want
> "bad girls", they have no need for that kind of chaos. Women seem to enjoy
> constant change while shybie males would rather have a stable girl and then
> spend their free time playing video games.
What you don't realize...what you have NEVER realized is that you
can't draw accurate conclusions about anything from cheesy tv programs
and internet porn.
Nor can you say with any authority what other people need or don't
need.
Michaela is way out in front of you and your clones.
freckleds...@yahoo.com
> On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 19:52:14 -0700, Hardpan <hardpan_...@yahoo.com>
This, at least, makes a little sense.
freckleds...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> On Oct 19, 6:19 pm, Michaela Mackenzie
>
>
>
>
>
> <michaelamackenzie05072...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 17, 1:37 am, MrWigglesworth <mrwigglesworth2...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 17, 5:04 am, Michaela Mackenzie
>
> > > <michaelamackenzie05072...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Oct 16, 1:51 am, William P <your.email> wrote:
>
> > > > > I agree with you about finding a good woman. They are out there, if scarce.
>
> > > > Yes. The world is divided into "good" and "bad" women.
>
> > > > The bad women should have yellow tattoos on their foreheads.
>
> > > > - Michaela
>
> > > Better yet, herd them into concentration camps.
>
> > I hope this was just a joke and that you didn't think it was possible
> > to divide the world into good and bad people.
>
> > - Michaela
>
Did you have a bad day Wiggles?
freckleds...@yahoo.com
> On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 09:14:13 -0400, busyloner <goah...@make.myday>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 19:52:14 -0700, Hardpan <hardpan_...@yahoo.com>
>
> - Show quoted text -
What about a slut from heaven?
freckleds...@yahoo.com
> On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 10:30:09 -0400, "Darktorch"
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >"busyloner" <goah...@make.myday> wrote in message
> >news:hnujh3ddam45plc3k...@4ax.com...
> >> On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 19:52:14 -0700, Hardpan <hardpan_...@yahoo.com>
More ignorant stereotyping.
Limerent Oil
Personally, I go exclusively for the heavenly sluts. A hell-slut might
use her evil snatch to chomp my dick off, or something. No thanks!
JimSummers
By believing that men and women's personalities are the same? No, that
makes her an idiot.
Darkfalz
> Okay or not okay?
The only thing that makes any woman "vulnerable" is her desperate need
to be desired and fucked by bad boy hunks, even if it only lasts up
until he cums inside her and leaves. Of course at this point she'll
feign suprise and say she thought he "loved" her.
Yup, any woman will allow herself to be abused, fucked, raped,
sodomised, humilated, cheated on and used by a guy if he is good
looking enough. This is their fundamental weakness and the bain of the
rest of us who just want some basic companionship.
Hardpan
wrote:
Bullshit!
You put a brainless "hunk" out in the playing field and the sluts who
wouldn't give the time of day to a high IQ geek will be all over the
"hunk".
Its encoded in the vary nature of most women to go after the numbskull
who looks like he can pass on the "best" genes, that she thinks she
can get.
It's no wonder that human beings remain at such a low level of
development and intelligence when our genes, designed for a totally
different era still filled with predators that we can now vanquish at
will, control the vast majority of the human race's genetic makeup.
Hardpan
wrote:
A slut, by definition, is a creature from the depths of hell.
freckleds...@yahoo.com
When did she ever say that? I've never read a post from Michaela in
which she asserted that.
You'd be foolish, however, to believe that men and women are poles
apart.
And since you yourself have admitted to being a complete failure with
women - maybe YOU need to change your view of things.
But we both know that you can't.
freckleds...@yahoo.com
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 17:36:22 -0700, freckledsalaman...@yahoo.com
The problem with your screech above is that you do not seem to realize
that men are exactly the same - driven by their harmones too.
If the human species is in such terrible shape - the blame is equal.
Personally, I'm not convinced that we, as a species, are so bad off.
But you could get that impression watching stupid tv programs.
That's why I don't watch them.
freckleds...@yahoo.com
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 17:30:54 -0700, freckledsalaman...@yahoo.com
There is no such place. People make their own hells and heavens. You
get to choose.
freckleds...@yahoo.com
MrWigglesworth
Every day is a bad day for me, sister.
A Veteran
Darkfalz <darkf...@gmail.com> wrote:
how does the old song go.
"from my personal point of view, Get an ugly girl to marry you"
--
when you believe the only tool you have is a hammer.
All problems look like nails.
Just me
> On Oct 15, 5:02 am, Anus Face <AnusF...@trashymail.com> wrote:
>> Okay or not okay?
>
> The only thing that makes any woman "vulnerable" is her desperate need
> to be desired and fucked by bad boy hunks, even if it only lasts up
> until he cums inside her and leaves.
So where do I find a vulnerable woman? Sign me up!
Well...I mean to say a good looking, childless, free of STDs, late 20s to
early 30s, reasonably intelligent, non-bible-thumping, vulnerable
woman...I need one bad!
OK. So I don't intend to do the "wham-bam. Thank you ma'am." Maybe
that's my problem, eh? Too much character?
Darktorch
side.....The dumb broads never seem to catch onto that.
"Just me" <noema...@somedomain.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.10...@somedomain.com...
Hardpan
wrote:
Assuming that you are a woman, what you say is true of many Men.
Yes, most males want the the skinny "cheerleader" type as youths, or
even into adulthood as we see on a daily basis.
In my case, however, you are sadly mistaken, but then you are a female
and in our culture you are allowed slack that this not given to males.
Clue: I don't like ignorant and stupid people, be they Man or women.
BTW, I don't waste my time on stupid TV programs and I can't stand
all the ignorant "breeder" women who's sole purpose in life is to spew
out most of the same: stupid people who begat more stupid people.
You know who I mean: people the likes of GW Bush, who cant find his
@$$ from his elbow, thanks to that bitch mother of his, Barbara Bush,
AKA the "Whore from Hell" , who spewed him forth 60 years ago.
Fact is that most of humanity are very stupid and/or ignorant in one
manner of another. Its been going on for thousands, if not millions of
years and its time to use reason and logic, else we wont last much
longer.
It boggles my mind that so many humans think that we are being
observed by vastly superior beings flying around in UFO's ,as if we
have anything of value to offer them.
If that is so, they probably look upon us as we would look upon a
tribe of ancient troglodytes in a zoo, that we call earth, and we are
nothing more then a freaky amusment sideshow to them.
Hardpan
wrote:
>On Oct 21, 12:12 am, Hardpan <hardpan_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Angels are from Heaven.
Sluts are pure Hell.
Hardpan
wrote:
>Hardpan <hardp...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>news:r6vlh3d349sr4vf9l...@4ax.com:
>The geek girl envies those cheerleader types and aspires to become one like
>them. It's her lifetime dream to overcome her reservations and start
>flirting around, showing her belly and tighs and doind one night stands and
>fucking and sucking in club toilets.
>
>As for "every guy", even the more disgusting females have lots of guys
>going after them.
>
>In the past I made the mistake of thinking this way about the so-called
>"geek girls". It was just this, a mistake. All females are the same, think
>the same way and react the same way, and of course want the same stereotype
>of "exciting bad boys".
Then you run into the problem of there only being so many "exciting
bad boys" that acually exist in the world. Most
Men dont fit that bill.
Hardpan
wrote:
>Definition of a Slut: A woman having sex - but not with you.
>
Nope. Thats just a female with poor taste in real Men...like myself.
freckleds...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> On Oct 23, 9:30 am, freckledsalaman...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 20, 5:35 pm, MrWigglesworth <mrwigglesworth2...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 19, 6:19 pm, Michaela Mackenzie
>
> > > <michaelamackenzie05072...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Oct 17, 1:37 am, MrWigglesworth <mrwigglesworth2...@hotmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Oct 17, 5:04 am, Michaela Mackenzie
>
> > > > > <michaelamackenzie05072...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Oct 16, 1:51 am, William P <your.email> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > I agree with you about finding a good woman. They are out there, if scarce.
>
> > > > > > Yes. The world is divided into "good" and "bad" women.
>
> > > > > > The bad women should have yellow tattoos on their foreheads.
>
> > > > > > - Michaela
>
> > > > > Better yet, herd them into concentration camps.
>
> > > > I hope this was just a joke and that you didn't think it was possible
> > > > to divide the world into good and bad people.
>
> > > > - Michaela
>
> > > No, I'm seriously advocating genocide.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > Did you have a bad day Wiggles?
>
FWIW, I am sorry to hear that.
freckleds...@yahoo.com
> Assuming that you are a woman, what you say is true of many Men.
>
> Yes, most males want the the skinny "cheerleader" type as youths, or
> even into adulthood as we see on a daily basis.
It's just reality and I am not saying that men who think that way are
"bad". They are responding to a natural impulse. If I was fat an ugly
I might be bitter about it. But I am not, so I am not.
> In my case, however, you are sadly mistaken, but then you are a female
> and in our culture you are allowed slack that this not given to males.
> Clue: I don't like ignorant and stupid people, be they Man or women.
I work five days a week. I earn an okay income. What "slacking" are
you talking about?
Try that on a 40 year old man who lives with his mother and is
unemployed.
> BTW, I don't waste my time on stupid TV programs and I can't stand
> all the ignorant "breeder" women who's sole purpose in life is to spew
> out most of the same: stupid people who begat more stupid people.
Most tv executives are men.
> You know who I mean: people the likes of GW Bush, who cant find his
> @$$ from his elbow, thanks to that bitch mother of his, Barbara Bush,
> AKA the "Whore from Hell" , who spewed him forth 60 years ago.
I'm no fan of the Bushies.
> Fact is that most of humanity are very stupid and/or ignorant in one
> manner of another. Its been going on for thousands, if not millions of
> years and its time to use reason and logic, else we wont last much
> longer.
Gender hatred isn't logical. A cursory examination of humans in
general finds that ignorance is pretty well distributed among both men
and women. Men, by-in-large, put Bush into office.
> It boggles my mind that so many humans think that we are being
> observed by vastly superior beings flying around in UFO's ,as if we
> have anything of value to offer them.
I met one of those k00ks in a bar just the other day. He had those
weird eyes and was telling me all about bizarre conspiracies. I bailed
out politely as soon as I could.
> If that is so, they probably look upon us as we would look upon a
> tribe of ancient troglodytes in a zoo, that we call earth, and we are
> nothing more then a freaky amusment sideshow to them.-
I personally don't see any concrete evidence that we are being watched
by anyone.
Except maybe some voyeur types.
freckleds...@yahoo.com
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 17:30:54 -0700, freckledsalaman...@yahoo.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
I don't believe in heaven either. Well...maybe Mendocino.
Michaela Mackenzie
> <I scare the crap out of you. This I picked up the
> first time you tried to shut me down. >
>
> What first time?
I think your words were something to the effect
of "Who asked you anyway?"
And you think I'm scared? Switch that with the word
> "annoyed" and then you'll be on track.
Fear is about closing out as is annoyance. You
are trying to scare me off because you don't
want to look inside and take responsibility for
any of your hassles.
Both fear and annoyance are are about shutting out.
> <You still want to wallow in your own judgements
> a little longer. Nothing wrong with that. Just
> remember that with every choice there is a
> consequence. >
>
> Wallow huh? Guess what honey,
LOL. Patronise me all you like sweetums.
I'm in the right forum..
Ahhh.
are you? I've
> admitted I'm no socialite, and my narratives are shared because they
> are to either acquire advice or give advice based on life learning.
I apologise if I'm wrong, but you seem very negative
to me.
> Wallowing has nothing to do with it and if it's so distasteful to you, stop reading it.
I experience no distaste wrt you. You read
too much into what I say.
> <And now that I'm done, please explain what is wrong
> with what I said.>
>
> Sure - my suggestion about finding a good girl is a sincere one
> because it's possible provided the person comes up with some method.
> And your "LOL. Please provide directions." was another cheap annoying
> comment meant to do what? Discourage or help someone?
What you are suggesting is that people look for happiness
outside of themselves. What you suggest is that
people don't have to look at themselves, but that all
they need do is wait until the "right" one happens
along.
People reflect each other and what we do/say
leads us in different directions and thus we
encounter different people and 'bring out'
different aspects of each other.
For some reason you are annoyed by my words.
Whenever I am annoyed with someone else, I
vent and then immediately I try to look at myself
and see what aspect of myself I am mirroring.
This is not "New Agey". It is common sense.
You pick Miss
> South Africa.
Eh?
- Michaela
Michaela Mackenzie
> Michaela Mackenzie <michaelamackenzie05072...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:1192785409....@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> > Yes. The world is divided into "good" and "bad" women.
>
> >> > The bad women should have yellow tattoos on their foreheads.
>
>
> > So do you or don't you think the world is divided into good and bad
> > people
> > or do you think (there's a quote to this effect somewhere I will try
> > to find it)
> > that people do good/bad things.
>
> Putting a dichotomy on it like that I think it just really dumb. I'm not
> talking about perfection in all things versus flawed in all things.
>
> But I don't see a difference between good/bad people and people who do
> good/bad things. What people do is most of what is important.
Is there an error in that sentence? Or am I reading
badly?
> Also, when looking for a relationship, looking for people to change is
> unwise.
I've never said look to change people. I keep mentioning Mike's
mom: when I changed MY ATTITUDE towards her, she seemed
to change towards me. She is just one of 1000's of examples
(but one of the more important to me, she is my MIL after all)
in my life.
So as a guy I'd look for women who do good things, in ways that
> matters to me.
You mebbe, but how many people don't develop a crush
on someone they barely know?
The philosophical nitpickings underlying this and nature
> versus nurture or whatever aren't very important to me.
I'm missing your point.
> The end result is that indeed, there are very few women who I'd consider
> good, in the ways that matter to me. (Very few men too, for the
> reactionaries out there.) But the set is not zero.
And you were prolly prepared to lower your initial "high"
standards too.
- Michaela
Hardpan
wrote:
You are from California, then?
Mendocino county not only grows wine grapes but the second largest
money making crop in CA, that being marijauna, of course.
But as to pure Hell, I was speaking of pain, of course. Sluts are
always a pain in the ass. You dont get anything for free in this
world, except air.
Michaela Mackenzie
<ProudlyenteringthepostSolitaryFraud...@texasclown.org> wrote:
> >Also, when looking for a relationship, looking for people to change is
>
> unwise. So as a guy I'd look for women who do good things, in ways that
> matters to me. The philosophical nitpickings underlying this and nature
> versus nurture or whatever aren't very important to me.
>
> The end result is that indeed, there are very few women who I'd consider
> good, in the ways that matter to me. (Very few men too, for the
>
> >reactionaries out there.) But the set is not >zero.
>
> The one thing that Michaela never grasps is that shy males don't want
> constant change while shybie males would rather have a stable girl and then
> spend their free time playing video games.
I never said anyone consciously or unconsciously
wants "bad girls" I may have implied that people subconsciously/
consciously simultaneously feel
afraid yet compelled by that which helps them grow.
A woman who is not completely tamed (e.g. beret
girl) is therefore more compelling than a "nice" girl.
You, as a "shy" person have never experienced that of which you speak
(a LTR) so how can you say that you
would not want a bit of a challenge from a girl?
Wait until you've walked a mile in a LTR before
saying stuff about them.
- Michaela
Michaela Mackenzie
wrote:
> On Oct 19, 6:18 pm, Michaela Mackenzie
>
>
>
>
>
> <michaelamackenzie05072...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 17, 1:30 am, MrWigglesworth <mrwigglesworth2...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 17, 5:12 am, Michaela Mackenzie
>
> > > <michaelamackenzie05072...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Oct 16, 12:53 am, MrWigglesworth <mrwigglesworth2...@hotmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Oct 16, 6:26 am, Michaela Mackenzie
>
> > > > > <michaelamackenzie05072...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Oct 15, 10:56 pm, MorrowRd <MorrowR...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > < Okay or not okay?>
>
> > > > > > > they can also be very co-dependent and suck the life and resources out
> > > > > > > of you.
>
> > > > > > > Find a good girl
>
> > > > > > LOL. Please provide directions.
>
> > > > > > Has nobody round here seen "Crash"?
>
> > > > > When I heard that a film called "Crash" was getting an Oscar
> > > > > nomination I thought they meant the 1996 Cronenberg film. I thought
> > > > > "Wow, the Academy Awards have really changed." Then I saw the
> > > > > preachy, overblown melodrama to which they actually referred and
> > > > > thought "Nope, they really haven't."
>
> > > > > > - Michaela
>
> > > > > > and go from there.
>
> > > > Uh. So you didn't get it. No need to knock it.
>
> > > I got it. You couldn't NOT get it. That's the point. It was about
> > > as subtle as a sledgehammer to the forehead.
>
> > > > What I got from it is that there are no "good" or
> > > > "bad" people in this world. That at any time
> > > > any of us might do a "good" deed or a "bad"
> > > > one. And what I learnt from life is that what
> > > > to one person is "good" might be "bad" to
> > > > another.
>
> > > > 'Tis all relative.
>
> > > > - Michaela-
>
> > Am I to take it you value sublety over "sledgehammer" clear
> > messages?
>
> > - Michaela, puzzled
>
> In film, yes. I'm not fond of "message" films.
And so your point is that you didn't like it cos
it was a "message" film? Great argument.
For the record I doubt anyone wanted to
consciously carry a message when they
made that movie.
If your puzzlement
> stems from the fact that I don't recognise the supposed subtlety and
> layered meaning in your posts, let me just say that there is a
> difference between being subtle and being willfully obtuse.
And what about being unwillfully obtuse?
- Michaela
Michaela Mackenzie
>
>
>
>
>
> <michaelamackenzie05072...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 17, 1:37 am, MrWigglesworth <mrwigglesworth2...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 17, 5:04 am, Michaela Mackenzie
>
> > > <michaelamackenzie05072...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Oct 16, 1:51 am, William P <your.email> wrote:
>
> > > > > I agree with you about finding a good woman. They are out there, if scarce.
>
>
> > > > The bad women should have yellow tattoos on their foreheads.
>
>
> > > Better yet, herd them into concentration camps.
>
> > I hope this was just a joke and that you didn't think it was possible
> > to divide the world into good and bad people.
>
> > - Michaela
>
> No, I'm seriously advocating genocide.
I see you were having a JimSummers week
here.
- Michaela
Michaela Mackenzie
Please explain exactly how you came to the
conclusion that I ever said this.
[I'm beginning to think this is what the Tower
of Babel story actually meant. People no
longer being able to understand one another
due to their pride and desire for "uniqueness".
Before you go getting all defensive, I'm speaking
as much for myself as I am for anyone else
round here.]
- Michaela
Michaela Mackenzie
Which of course, is my point.
You will find that which you seek: you've
decided and everything you see is tainted.
- Michaela, buy yourself a gratitude book
and count your blessings. I guess that
won't make sense to you at this stage,
but one day it will.
Hardpan
wrote:
>On Oct 24, 3:45 am, Hardpan <hardpan_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Assuming that you are a woman, what you say is true of many Men.
>>
>> Yes, most males want the the skinny "cheerleader" type as youths, or
>> even into adulthood as we see on a daily basis.
>
>It's just reality and I am not saying that men who think that way are
>"bad". They are responding to a natural impulse. If I was fat an ugly
>I might be bitter about it. But I am not, so I am not.
Good for you, but I wasn't just including physical features as being
the only attractive qualities in human.
Ignorance and stupidity are very unattractive qualities for myself and
many others who believe that the majority of humans are not much
better then cows munching on grass in a pasture.
>> In my case, however, you are sadly mistaken, but then you are a female
>> and in our culture you are allowed slack that this not given to males.
>> Clue: I don't like ignorant and stupid people, be they Man or women.
>
>I work five days a week. I earn an okay income. What "slacking" are
>you talking about?
You misunderstood me. I was not speaking about you personally in this
matter.
By "slack", I meant that most males accept the fact that women are
quite different then ourselves due to many factors, so we allow
behaviors from them that we would not tolerate from members of our
own gender.
The "Dumb blondes", the forgetfulness, showing up late to
appointments, acting irrationally for no apparent decernable reason,
calling in to work sick way too often, and so on are many of the
double standards that men allow women to get away with.
>Try that on a 40 year old man who lives with his mother and is
>unemployed.
I'll assume that you are not speaking about me here as I am 52, my
mother is dead and I take care of myself, living alone and working at
the same profession for over 28 years.
>> BTW, I don't waste my time on stupid TV programs and I can't stand
>> all the ignorant "breeder" women who's sole purpose in life is to spew
>> out most of the same: stupid people who begat more stupid people.
>
>Most tv executives are men.
Perhaps, but more and more we see women such as Oprah running the
show, so to speak. Its more and more becoming a "womans world" and
the results are quite disappointing, to say the least.
>> You know who I mean: people the likes of GW Bush, who cant find his
>> @$$ from his elbow, thanks to that bitch mother of his, Barbara Bush,
>> AKA the "Whore from Hell" , who spewed him forth 60 years ago.
>
>I'm no fan of the Bushies.
Nor am I.
>> Fact is that most of humanity are very stupid and/or ignorant in one
>> manner of another. Its been going on for thousands, if not millions of
>> years and its time to use reason and logic, else we wont last much
>> longer.
>
>Gender hatred isn't logical. A cursory examination of humans in
>general finds that ignorance is pretty well distributed among both men
>and women. Men, by-in-large, put Bush into office.
Perhaps or not, but Americans putting him in the oval office for a
second term was a complete disaster for this country.
Yes, humans are quite stupid, as well as being very cowardly in this
day and age.
A bunch of frightened sheep who huddle together, hoping the big bad
wolf (terrorists, the government, ect.) won't come a calling, and blow
the house down with a pack of stormtroopers...errr..I mean a
police/FBI/BATF SWAT team.
How disgustingly afraid of their own shadows most Americans have
become since the post WW II era.
>> It boggles my mind that so many humans think that we are being
>> observed by vastly superior beings flying around in UFO's ,as if we
>> have anything of value to offer them.
>
>I met one of those k00ks in a bar just the other day. He had those
>weird eyes and was telling me all about bizarre conspiracies. I bailed
>out politely as soon as I could.
Good. I don't believe in UFO's either, but mixing such things up with
man-made atrocities, such as 9/11, is a huge mistake, IMO.
So is the war in Iraq, as Saddam had nothing to do with
9/11whatsoever, by all accounts.
Even Bush has said so, so what are we doing there?
>> If that is so, they probably look upon us as we would look upon a
>> tribe of ancient troglodytes in a zoo, that we call earth, and we are
>> nothing more then a freaky amusment sideshow to them.-
>
>I personally don't see any concrete evidence that we are being watched
>by anyone.
>Except maybe some voyeur types.
Yes, humans DO love there surveillance systems these days, don't they?
Yes, "Big Brother" has come to life and most people love Big
Brother...as long as he leaves them alone.
-------------------------------------------------------
"When fascism comes to America, it will come wrapped
in an American flag."
-Former Governor of Louisiana, Huey Long
MorrowRd
<I think your words were something to the effect
of "Who asked you anyway?" >
I think I do remember saying that. What was the conversation about? I
usually don't say things like that unless I'm attacked first.
<Fear is about closing out as is annoyance. You
are trying to scare me off because you don't
want to look inside and take responsibility for
any of your hassles.>
I'm not trying to scare anyone off. Fear is something I know very
well in life - and it isn't about being afraid either. It's a huge
umbrella term - a lot of items come under that umbrella but I'm not
sure if being annoyed is one of them.
I have the power to ignore you - I know you have no ability to
threaten me.
<Both fear and annoyance are are about shutting out.>
That I agree with. Get rid of comes to mind.
<I apologise if I'm wrong, but you seem very negative
to me. >
It sounds that way but trust me, war with the world has given me
tools, and has sharpened my survival skills.
So no, it's positive actually - being sharpened isn't pleasant in the
short term but is necessary to suceed in the big picture.
<I experience no distaste wrt you. You read
too much into what I say. >
I try to help bring insight, inspire others to bring method into their
lives with the motive of acquiring the things they want. In this
forum, most of the people are like myself - brothers I call them in
social dysfunction. I share what works for me - maybe they can come
up with a similar system.
Girlfriends are possible - marrying a good-looking loyal girl is
possible, for anyone willing to pay the price.
Nothings free.
<What you are suggesting is that people look for happiness
outside of themselves. What you suggest is that
people don't have to look at themselves, but that all
they need do is wait until the "right" one happens
along. >
You must not pay much attention to what I write - and jump at a chance
to comment instead. Consistently, I've told people here (and in real
life) that most answers to life's problems are within. Fix the
within, and you fix the without. A saying I live by actually.
ear...@spymac.com
<michaelamackenzie05072...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 19, 4:22 pm, William P <your.email> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Michaela Mackenzie <michaelamackenzie05072...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:1192785409....@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com:
>
> > >> > Yes. The world is divided into "good" and "bad" women.
>
> > >> > The bad women should have yellow tattoos on their foreheads.
>
> > >> If only!
>
> > > So do you or don't you think the world is divided into good and bad
> > > people
> > > or do you think (there's a quote to this effect somewhere I will try
> > > to find it)
> > > that people do good/bad things.
>
> > Putting a dichotomy on it like that I think it just really dumb. I'm not
> > talking about perfection in all things versus flawed in all things.
>
> > But I don't see a difference between good/bad people and people who do
> > good/bad things. What people do is most of what is important.
>
> Is there an error in that sentence? Or am I reading
> badly?
>
> > Also, when looking for a relationship, looking for people to change is
> > unwise.
>
> I've never said look to change people. I keep mentioning Mike's
> mom: when I changed MY ATTITUDE towards her, she seemed
> to change towards me. She is just one of 1000's of examples
> (but one of the more important to me, she is my MIL after all)
> in my life.
This is something true, though not necessarily incompatible with what
W.P. said. Seek to improve, and find improvement from, those around
you, but in the end, find a good woman.
> So as a guy I'd look for women who do good things, in ways that
>
> > matters to me.
>
> You mebbe, but how many people don't develop a crush
> on someone they barely know?
Yeah. Maybe he holds off on acting until he finds out what he needs
to know? Well, I'll let William answer.
For me, it's a couple of things. One, if she is pretty or beautiful
or cute in a way that gets me, and the other is essentially good.
That is enough, I think. The rest will be all right.
And can you see that a person is essentially good in a short time?
Well, often, you can't. Sometimes, depending on the people and the
context in which you interact, you can't tell even in a long time.
But occasionally, you really can tell. Or at least, I have, and my
intuition hasn't burned me thus far.
> The philosophical nitpickings underlying this and nature
>
> > versus nurture or whatever aren't very important to me.
>
> I'm missing your point.
>
> > The end result is that indeed, there are very few women who I'd consider
> > good, in the ways that matter to me. (Very few men too, for the
> > reactionaries out there.) But the set is not zero.
>
> And you were prolly prepared to lower your initial "high"
> standards too.
Hey, I'm starting to wonder - are WWWWCH and your relativism
concerning what is good, ways to reconcile yourself with settling? No
offense intended here, just curious.
(My theory right now is that what faces women is, for the most part,
to make the best with - to use William's term - the "sets" of men they
are able to attract (and keep); whereas men often do well to expand
the sets of women they attract. So, men of less-than-stellar looks
(say, Mick Jagger, Ben Stiller, the late Notorious B.I.G.), in finding
confidence and making something of themselves, can potentially
increase their attractiveness to women a hundredfold - well beyond
that of good-looking but more "ordinary" guys. I don't think the same
thing really exists for women, not to anywhere near the same degree,
anyway. So to stay with familiar examples, Drew Barrymore and
Jennifer Aniston have done a lot with themselves, but a lot of guys
would still rather take the best-looking girl in the mall.)
This would also explain why, in that German(?) speed-dating
experiment, it was the women who were quicker to form a pragmatic
assessment of the strata of men they would be able to attract, and
fall in with those expectations.)
MrWigglesworth
My main problem with the movie was that all of the characters were
standard archetypes who barely act like real people. The film seems
to exist solely to push all the right buttons and make us feel like
we're a better person for having watched it. It doesn't do anything
to challenge us, it just reinforces our preconceived ideas. This is
what I mean by a "message" movie. It pretends like it's an important
movie that has something to say, but it doesn't.
The plot also hinges on a bunch of clockwork contrivances. I imagine
this is supposed to show how we're all connected or something.
> For the record I doubt anyone wanted to
> consciously carry a message when they
> made that movie.
Are you serious?
> If your puzzlement
>
> > stems from the fact that I don't recognise the supposed subtlety and
> > layered meaning in your posts, let me just say that there is a
> > difference between being subtle and being willfully obtuse.
>
> And what about being unwillfully obtuse?
>
> - Michaela
That's different again.
William P
news:1193254399.7...@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>> But I don't see a difference between good/bad people and people who
>> do good/bad things. What people do is most of what is important.
>
> Is there an error in that sentence? Or am I reading
> badly?
No, I think it came out correct. Maybe for a person viewing themself
what's in the head is important, but for me, what other people do is the
only thing that is important.
>> Also, when looking for a relationship, looking for people to change
>> is unwise.
>
> I've never said look to change people.
You have to judge when choosing a relationship, and probably in every
other area of life. Judgement can be wrong, and it can be improved over
time, but it must be done. So yes, in dating someone, it really is
important to decide, based on what they're like, if they are "good" or
"bad" for me. And it's necessary.
> I keep mentioning Mike's
> mom: when I changed MY ATTITUDE towards her, she seemed
> to change towards me. She is just one of 1000's of examples
> (but one of the more important to me, she is my MIL after all)
> in my life.
I'm not going to say that doesn't happen, but there's also such a thing
as just not being compatible for a relationship. I'm saying that most
women are not compatible for a relationship with me, and often for
reasons which I actually think less of them as people for.
> So as a guy I'd look for women who do good things, in ways that
>> matters to me.
>
> You mebbe, but how many people don't develop a crush
> on someone they barely know?
Everyone, I'd assume.
>> The end result is that indeed, there are very few women who I'd
>> consider good, in the ways that matter to me. (Very few men too, for
>> the reactionaries out there.) But the set is not zero.
>
> And you were prolly prepared to lower your initial "high"
> standards too.
If anything, my standards have gone only up. Certain things for me are
not negotiable, and never will be, including trustworthyness and honesty,
and being what I'd call a good natured person. Unfortunately, I do feel
that that alone counts out most women. It isn't a matter of perspective
or boomerang effects, or anything else, in my mind. It's just that for
personal characteristics that are important to me, which are expressed
fairly simply and universally, I do think that they are rare.
(I'm sure there's a sea of assholes among the guys too, but I don't have
to deal with that.)
William P
news:1193263835.5...@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
>> So as a guy I'd look for women who do good things, in ways that
>>
>> > matters to me.
>>
>> You mebbe, but how many people don't develop a crush
>> on someone they barely know?
>
> Yeah. Maybe he holds off on acting until he finds out what he needs
> to know? Well, I'll let William answer.
I think I'm pretty lucky, because women who have ever been interested in
me are very selected to begin with. The kind I don't like who isn't aware
of herself and plays lots of games isn't any more interested in me than I
would be in her.
> For me, it's a couple of things. One, if she is pretty or beautiful
> or cute in a way that gets me, and the other is essentially good.
> That is enough, I think. The rest will be all right.
Yes, I'd agree with that, but there are lots of things that can get in
the way of a relationship that I couldn't have any way of knowing without
actually trying it.
> And can you see that a person is essentially good in a short time?
> Well, often, you can't.
I think I actually can. Maybe not if the person is actually a conscious
and skilled con artist, but I don't think that is very common. It's
pretty easy to see what someone's life values are, imo.
> Sometimes, depending on the people and the
> context in which you interact, you can't tell even in a long time.
> But occasionally, you really can tell. Or at least, I have, and my
> intuition hasn't burned me thus far.
>> And you were prolly prepared to lower your initial "high"
>> standards too.
>
> Hey, I'm starting to wonder - are WWWWCH and your relativism
> concerning what is good, ways to reconcile yourself with settling? No
> offense intended here, just curious.
Uh oh, the michaela gun is being turned back around!
> (My theory right now is that what faces women is, for the most part,
> to make the best with - to use William's term - the "sets" of men they
> are able to attract (and keep); whereas men often do well to expand
> the sets of women they attract. So, men of less-than-stellar looks
> (say, Mick Jagger, Ben Stiller, the late Notorious B.I.G.), in finding
> confidence and making something of themselves, can potentially
> increase their attractiveness to women a hundredfold - well beyond
> that of good-looking but more "ordinary" guys. I don't think the same
> thing really exists for women, not to anywhere near the same degree,
> anyway.
I'd agree with that to some extent. Beauty in women is a much more
important and universal requirement to most men.
But I don't think it's so much that men aren't attracted to women based
on personality. But I think that the personality characteristics in men
that attract women are much more universal than the other way around.
Almost all women are attracted to a guy who is assured, confident,
powerful, socially graceful, and affluent. None of these things do
particularly much for a woman, one way or another (except the socially
graceful part). But I think that different men do have different "types"
that have nothing to do with looks, it's just that we aren't all looking
for the same similar things. (Again with exceptions, and for most but not
all guys a lack of sexual experience would be one.) So there are tons of
men (perhaps most) who could easily be with someone more beautiful, but
choose someone else for various other reasons.
freckleds...@yahoo.com
> Mendocino county not only grows wine grapes but the second largest
> money making crop in CA, that being marijauna, of course.
All that and it's beautiful too.
> But as to pure Hell, I was speaking of pain, of course. Sluts are
> always a pain in the ass. You dont get anything for free in this
> world, except air.-
It seems to me that sluts, both the male and female models, just have
sex and move on.
If you really want to get stung - let one of those guilt obsessed
xians get her well manicured talons into you!
Michaela Mackenzie
I'm not "sorry" for anyone. Myself included.
We can choose to be happy regardless.
It just takes effort which most of us find
really hard to do.
- Michaela
freckleds...@yahoo.com
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 07:00:21 -0700, freckledsalaman...@yahoo.com
> wrote:
>
> >On Oct 24, 3:45 am, Hardpan <hardpan_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> Assuming that you are a woman, what you say is true of many Men.
>
> >> Yes, most males want the the skinny "cheerleader" type as youths, or
> >> even into adulthood as we see on a daily basis.
>
> >It's just reality and I am not saying that men who think that way are
> >"bad". They are responding to a natural impulse. If I was fat an ugly
> >I might be bitter about it. But I am not, so I am not.
>
> Good for you, but I wasn't just including physical features as being
> the only attractive qualities in human.
>
> Ignorance and stupidity are very unattractive qualities for myself and
> many others who believe that the majority of humans are not much
> better then cows munching on grass in a pasture.
I wouldn't say that they are >that< stupid. I think mostly people are
just confused a lot.
> >> In my case, however, you are sadly mistaken, but then you are a female
> >> and in our culture you are allowed slack that this not given to males.
> >> Clue: I don't like ignorant and stupid people, be they Man or women.
>
> >I work five days a week. I earn an okay income. What "slacking" are
> >you talking about?
>
> You misunderstood me. I was not speaking about you personally in this
> matter.
I'm not a workaholic either.
> By "slack", I meant that most males accept the fact that women are
> quite different then ourselves due to many factors, so we allow
> behaviors from them that we would not tolerate from members of our
> own gender.
I don't see that where I work...but go on...
> The "Dumb blondes", the forgetfulness, showing up late to
> appointments, acting irrationally for no apparent decernable reason,
> calling in to work sick way too often, and so on are many of the
> double standards that men allow women to get away with.
But surely there are double standards on both sides of the scales.
> >Try that on a 40 year old man who lives with his mother and is
> >unemployed.
>
> I'll assume that you are not speaking about me here as I am 52, my
> mother is dead and I take care of myself, living alone and working at
> the same profession for over 28 years.
No, not you. But one of the most notorious misogynists here, a guy
full of advice for everyone on everything, is a 40 year old unemployed
virgin who lives with his mother. He does apparently find time to
spend all day and late into the night online. I call that being a real
slacker.
> >> BTW, I don't waste my time on stupid TV programs and I can't stand
> >> all the ignorant "breeder" women who's sole purpose in life is to spew
> >> out most of the same: stupid people who begat more stupid people.
>
> >Most tv executives are men.
>
> Perhaps, but more and more we see women such as Oprah running the
> show, so to speak. Its more and more becoming a "womans world" and
> the results are quite disappointing, to say the least.
I don't think that stands up to the facts. You can't say that women in
MOST of the world control much of anything. Not even their own bodies.
I think you greatly exaggerate.
> >> Fact is that most of humanity are very stupid and/or ignorant in one
> >> manner of another. Its been going on for thousands, if not millions of
> >> years and its time to use reason and logic, else we wont last much
> >> longer.
>
> >Gender hatred isn't logical. A cursory examination of humans in
> >general finds that ignorance is pretty well distributed among both men
> >and women. Men, by-in-large, put Bush into office.
>
> Perhaps or not, but Americans putting him in the oval office for a
> second term was a complete disaster for this country.
I agree.
> Yes, humans are quite stupid, as well as being very cowardly in this
> day and age.
Personally, looking back in time, I think we are better than we were
in the past.
> A bunch of frightened sheep who huddle together, hoping the big bad
> wolf (terrorists, the government, ect.) won't come a calling, and blow
> the house down with a pack of stormtroopers...errr..I mean a
> police/FBI/BATF SWAT team.
What would you suggest?
> How disgustingly afraid of their own shadows most Americans have
> become since the post WW II era.
I know a guy that is getting ready to go back to Iraq for his second
time. He seems quite brave. I don't agree with this war, but he and
his friends seem like they are very brave.
> >> It boggles my mind that so many humans think that we are being
> >> observed by vastly superior beings flying around in UFO's ,as if we
> >> have anything of value to offer them.
>
> >I met one of those k00ks in a bar just the other day. He had those
> >weird eyes and was telling me all about bizarre conspiracies. I bailed
> >out politely as soon as I could.
>
> Good. I don't believe in UFO's either, but mixing such things up with
> man-made atrocities, such as 9/11, is a huge mistake, IMO.
This guy looked normal at first, but what he believed was like insane.
Kinda like Jim Summers about the Holocaust. That's just stupid.
That kind of worries me. How can people be so deluded?
> So is the war in Iraq, as Saddam had nothing to do with
> 9/11whatsoever, by all accounts.
>
> Even Bush has said so, so what are we doing there?
Transfering wealth to his friends and supporters. Have you seen Iraq
For Sale?
> >> If that is so, they probably look upon us as we would look upon a
> >> tribe of ancient troglodytes in a zoo, that we call earth, and we are
> >> nothing more then a freaky amusment sideshow to them.-
>
> >I personally don't see any concrete evidence that we are being watched
> >by anyone.
> >Except maybe some voyeur types.
>
> Yes, humans DO love there surveillance systems these days,
> don't they?
It seems surveilance systems are everywhere now.
> Yes, "Big Brother" has come to life and most people love Big
> Brother...as long as he leaves them alone.
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> "When fascism comes to America, it will come wrapped
> in an American flag."
>
> -Former Governor of Louisiana, Huey Long
I thought that was Sinclair Lewis?
MrWigglesworth
I'm just kidding. My life is pretty good, all things considered.
MrWigglesworth
Oh fuck off, seriously.
Hardpan
wrote:
>On Oct 24, 1:39 pm, Hardpan <hardpan_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 07:00:21 -0700, freckledsalaman...@yahoo.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Oct 24, 3:45 am, Hardpan <hardpan_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> Assuming that you are a woman, what you say is true of many Men.
>>
>> >> Yes, most males want the the skinny "cheerleader" type as youths, or
>> >> even into adulthood as we see on a daily basis.
>>
>> >It's just reality and I am not saying that men who think that way are
>> >"bad". They are responding to a natural impulse. If I was fat an ugly
>> >I might be bitter about it. But I am not, so I am not.
>>
>> Good for you, but I wasn't just including physical features as being
>> the only attractive qualities in human.
>>
>> Ignorance and stupidity are very unattractive qualities for myself and
>> many others who believe that the majority of humans are not much
>> better then cows munching on grass in a pasture.
>
>I wouldn't say that they are >that< stupid. I think mostly people are
>just confused a lot.
One has to ask: Why are they confused, then?
If one is truly an intelligent human being, then one can educate
oneself and then there should be no further confusion.
Did you have a specific idea or thought that come to mind in regards
to the confusion of most people?
>> >> In my case, however, you are sadly mistaken, but then you are a female
>> >> and in our culture you are allowed slack that this not given to males.
>> >> Clue: I don't like ignorant and stupid people, be they Man or women.
>>
>> >I work five days a week. I earn an okay income. What "slacking" are
>> >you talking about?
>>
>> You misunderstood me. I was not speaking about you personally in this
>> matter.
>
>I'm not a workaholic either.
I am not pointing any fingers at you here in regards to your working
habits nor your income here at all, FWIW.
>>By "slack", I meant that most males accept the fact that women are
>> quite different then ourselves due to many factors, so we allow
>> behaviors from them that we would not tolerate from members of our
>> own gender.
>
>I don't see that where I work...but go on...
Perhaps so, but I have. Most likely I am older then you and I have
worked for or at many companies where such things are a matter of
course, and have been for many years.
>> The "Dumb blondes", the forgetfulness, showing up late to
>> appointments, acting irrationally for no apparent decernable reason,
>> calling in to work sick way too often, and so on are many of the
>> double standards that men allow women to get away with.
>
>But surely there are double standards on both sides of the scales.
Yes, but they are not as disruptive to the working environment as the
female double-standards are, in most cases.
Pregnancy leaves, the monthly female menses and other factors that
simply don't happen to Men, for instance.
Of course these double-standards happen outside the working
environment as well.
>> >Try that on a 40 year old man who lives with his mother and is
>> >unemployed.
>>
>> I'll assume that you are not speaking about me here as I am 52, my
>> mother is dead and I take care of myself, living alone and working at
>> the same profession for over 28 years.
>
>No, not you. But one of the most notorious misogynists here, a guy
>full of advice for everyone on everything, is a 40 year old unemployed
>virgin who lives with his mother. He does apparently find time to
>spend all day and late into the night online. I call that being a real
>slacker.
Yes, I know who you mean. "Slacker" would be a good name for him.
>> >> BTW, I don't waste my time on stupid TV programs and I can't stand
>> >> all the ignorant "breeder" women who's sole purpose in life is to spew
>> >> out most of the same: stupid people who begat more stupid people.
>>
>> >Most tv executives are men.
>>
>> Perhaps, but more and more we see women such as Oprah running the
>> show, so to speak. Its more and more becoming a "womans world" and
>> the results are quite disappointing, to say the least.
>
>I don't think that stands up to the facts. You can't say that women in
>MOST of the world control much of anything. Not even their own bodies.
>I think you greatly exaggerate.
I was speaking about western women in America, Europe and Australia,
in other words, first world countries, not third world countries.
>> >> Fact is that most of humanity are very stupid and/or ignorant in one
>> >> manner of another. Its been going on for thousands, if not millions of
>> >> years and its time to use reason and logic, else we wont last much
>> >> longer.
>>
>> >Gender hatred isn't logical. A cursory examination of humans in
>> >general finds that ignorance is pretty well distributed among both men
>> >and women. Men, by-in-large, put Bush into office.
>>
>> Perhaps or not, but Americans putting him in the oval office for a
>> second term was a complete disaster for this country.
>
>I agree.
Good. We concur on that fact.
>> Yes, humans are quite stupid, as well as being very cowardly in this
>> day and age.
>
>Personally, looking back in time, I think we are better than we were
>in the past.
Not I. We have practically no privacy rights keft and that is a
keystone of freedom, yet we are told that we need to give that
up for so-called "safety."
I suppose it all comes back to what you mean by the term "better" too.
>> A bunch of frightened sheep who huddle together, hoping the big bad
>> wolf (terrorists, the government, ect.) won't come a calling, and blow
>> the house down with a pack of stormtroopers...errr..I mean a
>> police/FBI/BATF SWAT team.
>
>What would you suggest?
Dismantling most of the Federal and state agencies created in the
last century would be a great start in this regard.
>> How disgustingly afraid of their own shadows most Americans have
>> become since the post WW II era.
>
>I know a guy that is getting ready to go back to Iraq for his second
>time. He seems quite brave. I don't agree with this war, but he and
>his friends seem like they are very brave.
There are always exceptions to any rule, of course. And a Man at 25
is very different person then a Man at 50. The main male hormone,
Testosterone, makes young Men do very stupid things in their youth.
And, as I have observed for years, humans act completely different
when they are alone then when they have a group or a pack
to fall back on for support, usually when they know they have
outnumbered or have "outgunned" their opposition completely.
>> >> It boggles my mind that so many humans think that we are being
>> >> observed by vastly superior beings flying around in UFO's ,as if we
>> >> have anything of value to offer them.
>>
>> >I met one of those k00ks in a bar just the other day. He had those
>> >weird eyes and was telling me all about bizarre conspiracies. I bailed
>> >out politely as soon as I could.
>>
>> Good. I don't believe in UFO's either, but mixing such things up with
>> man-made atrocities, such as 9/11, is a huge mistake, IMO.
>
>This guy looked normal at first, but what he believed was like insane.
>Kinda like Jim Summers about the Holocaust. That's just stupid.
>That kind of worries me. How can people be so deluded?
Because they are not rational, for the most part.
Humans are governed more by emotion then logic and probably always
will be. Lots of humans want to spice life up in many ways and one way
to accomplish that is by believing in things that are not real, IMO.
>> So is the war in Iraq, as Saddam had nothing to do with
>> 9/11whatsoever, by all accounts.
>>
>> Even Bush has said so, so what are we doing there?
>
>Transfering wealth to his friends and supporters. Have you seen Iraq
>For Sale?
No, assuming you are speaking of a film or book. Yes, the war in Iraq
is all about power, control and oil. Human greed at work once more.
>> >> If that is so, they probably look upon us as we would look upon a
>> >> tribe of ancient troglodytes in a zoo, that we call earth, and we are
>> >> nothing more then a freaky amusment sideshow to them.-
>>
>> >I personally don't see any concrete evidence that we are being watched
>> >by anyone.
>> >Except maybe some voyeur types.
>>
>> Yes, humans DO love there surveillance systems these days,
>> don't they?
>
>It seems surveilance systems are everywhere now.
Yes. I find it quite disturbing myself.
Digital recordings can be altered way too easily, but most people do
not understand that and trust such technology without a second
thought.
>> Yes, "Big Brother" has come to life and most people love Big
>> Brother...as long as he leaves them alone.
>> -------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> "When fascism comes to America, it will come wrapped
>> in an American flag."
>>
>> -Former Governor of Louisiana, Huey Long
>
>I thought that was Sinclair Lewis?
In a manner of speaking, I suppose that's true.
Sinclair Lewis said "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped
in the flag and carrying the cross."
Perhaps Gov. Huey Long was just paraphrasing it somewhat.
ci+
news:1192482466....@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com:
> Yes. As if anyone has their feet on the ground.
remove your socks and step off the paving... :>
--
Are you a 30 year old virgin? http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/pdx/41661987.html
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1745736/
http://images.google.com/images?q=Eva+Mendes&safe=off
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0578949/photogallery-granitz-0
http://images.google.com/images?q=Julie+Ann+Emery&safe=off
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1024264/photogallery-granitz-0
http://www.waymusic.co.uk/Fan%20Page/waysters-emmasearles.JPG
http://www.waymusic.co.uk/Fan%20Page/waysters-lydia.JPG
http://www.waymusic.co.uk/Fan%20Page/waysters-meg.JPG
http://images.google.com/images?q=Cheryl+Hines&safe=off
ci+
news:1192392550.8...@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
> On Oct 14, 9:02 pm, Anus Face <AnusF...@trashymail.com> wrote:
>> Okay or not okay?
>
> There's no problem if you just remember
> that with every choice there is a consequence.
... which is???
you get to take advantage of 'her'?
or you find yourself posting in a.s.s. under the nym 'anusface'? :>
> - Michaela
freckleds...@yahoo.com
A better word than "sorry"? I don't like to think he is suffering.
> We can choose to be happy regardless.
In the abstract, you are correct. That's what some self-help gurus
say. But maybe for some people - just managing not to be unhappy is an
accomplishment? And then "happiness" seems ephemeral. It seems that I
"catch myself" being happy, as if it snuck up on me when I wasn't
looking and caught me unaware.
> It just takes effort which most of us find
> really hard to do.
>
> - Michaela-
Does it? Hmmmm...I think I discover myself being happy when I am not
thinking about being happy.
freckleds...@yahoo.com
Good!
And have a good weekend too.
:)
freckleds...@yahoo.com
> On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 15:51:20 -0700, freckledsalaman...@yahoo.com
> >I wouldn't say that they are >that< stupid. I think mostly people are
> >just confused a lot.
>
> One has to ask: Why are they confused, then?
All the mixed messages pounding our senses from every angle. Some of
those messages are tailored by psychologists to target and exploit our
weakest places. Sometimes you just have to shut everything off and
turn inward and just THINK.
Mental ecology.
Did you know that more than half of the American people don't even
believe in evolution? How stupid is that? But maybe it's because
people are lying to them continuously and they are being bombarded
with crap info.
> If one is truly an intelligent human being, then one can educate
> oneself and then there should be no further confusion.
>
> Did you have a specific idea or thought that come to mind in regards
> to the confusion of most people?
See above.
I see that in politics, at least, we very much agree.
Seeing the gender issues differently is only natural.
Michaela Mackenzie
> More options Oct 24, 10:49 pm
>
> Newsgroups: alt.support.shyness
> From: MorrowRd <MorrowR...@gmail.com>
> Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 13:49:09 -0700
> Local: Wed, Oct 24 2007 10:49 pm
> Subject: Re: Taking Advantage of Vulnerable Women
>
>> What first time?
>
> <I think your words were something to the effect
> of "Who asked you anyway?" >
>
> I think I do remember saying that. What was the conversation about? I
> usually don't say things like that unless I'm attacked first.
Attacked? I try not to feel like anyone's attacking me -- I have
been practicing detachment for years now.
Anyway, if I do feel attacked, it's prolly cos there's at least a
grain of
truth in what I'm hearing. In which case someone/something is prolly
there to help me understand something about myself.
> <Fear is about closing out as is annoyance. You
> are trying to scare me off because you don't
> want to look inside and take responsibility for
> any of your hassles.>
>
> I'm not trying to scare anyone off.
Didn't you say something earlier this week about me leaving you
to handle the shybies? Perhaps not...
Fear is something I know very
> well in life - and it isn't about being afraid either. It's a huge
> umbrella term - a lot of items come under that umbrella but I'm not
> sure if being annoyed is one of them.
>
> I have the power to ignore you - I know you have no ability to
> threaten me.
That's right. You do it to yourself.
> <Both fear and annoyance are are about shutting out.>
>
> That I agree with. Get rid of comes to mind.
So you would like to get rid of me because... anything I have to
say has no relevance to you and your ilk cos I am not "shy"?
Did I get that right?
> <I apologise if I'm wrong, but you seem very negative
> to me. >
>
> It sounds that way but trust me, war with the world has given me
> tools, and has sharpened my survival skills.
And all you needed to learn to do was to embrace (read: love) it.
If only we could keep remembering that.
> So no, it's positive actually - being sharpened isn't pleasant in the
> short term but is necessary to suceed in the big picture.
I have a similar theory, but you'd just label it New Age or summat.
> <I experience no distaste wrt you. You read
> too much into what I say. >
>
> I try to help bring insight, inspire others to bring method into their
> lives with the motive of acquiring the things they want. In this
> forum, most of the people are like myself - brothers I call them in
> social dysfunction.
I'll tell you what I think: I think we're all pretty dysfunctional.
Some
of us are just better at hiding it (even from ourselves) than others.
That's all.
I share what works for me - maybe they can come
> up with a similar system.
And of course your system is right and mine is wrong. Right?
> Girlfriends are possible - marrying a good-looking loyal girl is
> possible, for anyone willing to pay the price.
Ah. There's that labeling thing again. I shan't argue. I don't seem
to have the energy.
> Nothings free.
Scarcity consciousness would have you think that.
> <What you are suggesting is that people look for happiness
> outside of themselves. What you suggest is that
> people don't have to look at themselves, but that all
> they need do is wait until the "right" one happens
> along. >
>
> You must not pay much attention to what I write - and jump at a chance
> to comment instead. Consistently, I've told people here (and in real
> life) that most answers to life's problems are within. Fix the
> within, and you fix the without. A saying I live by actually.
Why exactly don't you get along with your in-laws again?
- Michaela
Michaela Mackenzie
> More options Oct 25, 12:10 am
>
> Newsgroups: alt.support.shyness
> From: eara...@spymac.com
> Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 22:10:35 -0000
> Local: Thurs, Oct 25 2007 12:10 am
> Subject: Re: Taking Advantage of Vulnerable Women
>> On Oct 19, 4:22 pm, William P wrote:
>>> Michaela Mackenzie wrote
And my point is that when I "improve" (whatever that means) I *will*
find and bring out the best in others.
Same thing really, but in my version the responsibility for change
rests entirely on my shoulders.
>> So as a guy I'd look for women who do good things, in ways that
>
>>> matters to me.
>
>> You mebbe, but how many people don't develop a crush
>> on someone they barely know?
>
> Yeah. Maybe he holds off on acting until he finds out what he needs
> to know? Well, I'll let William answer.
>
> For me, it's a couple of things. One, if she is pretty or beautiful
> or cute in a way that gets me, and the other is essentially good.
> That is enough, I think. The rest will be all right.
>
> And can you see that a person is essentially good in a short time?
> Well, often, you can't. Sometimes, depending on the people and the
> context in which you interact, you can't tell even in a long time.
> But occasionally, you really can tell. Or at least, I have, and my
> intuition hasn't burned me thus far.
So people live up to your expectations of them. Is that what you're
saying?
>> The philosophical nitpickings underlying this and nature
>>> versus nurture or whatever aren't very important to me.
For the record, I wonder how conscious you are of your motivations
wrt deciding to use the word "nitpickings" above.
Here's something that occured to me today (the "nitpickings"
of nature vs nurture aka yin vs. yang etc. occur to me all the
time, but as this one's fresh in my head I'll bring it up.
Some of us who are having our birthdays in this time-frame
at one of my offices clubbed together to provide pizza
and then cheesecake for everyone there. I had one slice of
pizza and put the rest away to bring home for my family (yeah,
I was being lazy. I don't like cooking at the best of times.).
And then when it came time for cheesecake I declined as I
wasn't hungry. All the girls were on about how divine this
cheesecake tasted. Eventually I snuck over to take a look at
the divine cheesecake. And it did indeed look good, and though
I was tempted, I didn't take any cos then I'd just be eating for
the sake of eating.
Ok. So most of us at this office would like to lose a kilogram or
two. Those girls were prepared to sacrifice longterm gain for
shortterm enjoyment. And that's sometimes/often the difference
between one decision and the next: by believing I can indeed
say "No" I am missing out on the immediate gratification of a slice
of cake, but in the longterm I am the one who won't curse
themselves over not being able to fit into a pair of pants.
You can try ot fit this into the nature-nurture paradigm. Or not.
It's up to you. I just wanted to type it anyway.
>> I'm missing your point.
>
>>> The end result is that indeed, there are very few women who I'd
>>> consider good, in the ways that matter to me. (Very few men too,
>>> for the reactionaries out there.) But the set is not zero.
>
>> And you were prolly prepared to lower your initial "high"
>> standards too.
>
> Hey, I'm starting to wonder - are WWWWCH and your relativism
> concerning what is good, ways to reconcile yourself with settling? No
> offense intended here, just curious.
Actually, I was being a little glib, but that's a good question.
No offense taken. I'm actually wondering if I ever did write a post
about
this or if I just planned it or if it's just still sitting in my
drafts folder
unsent cos I didn't think anyone would want to understand.
Some years ago Mike and I had this very conversation. We are both
pretty
clear in that we know that on some levels both of us settled. And imo
that ain't such a bad thing. Cos at that point we know we have to
commit
(read: work on the relationship).
There's always going to be someone more beautiful/rich/handsome/
strong/
sexy/lithe/whatever than the person we are with. But at some point one
has to say "Well I've looked hard and long enough and I like how I
feel
around this person more than I don't like how I feel when I'm around
this
person and they'd make a good enough breeding partner and and and...
So yes, both Mike and I know we settled to some extent. And perhaps
this thread wasn't such a waste of time after all.
And, I may be trying to compensate, but you know puppy seems to
have inherited his charm and she's catching on quick wrt playing the
games of life so I'm well pleased that I chose who I chose. There's
that damned nature vs. nurture thing again.
Longterm there's no one I'd rather be with.
> (My theory right now is that what faces women is, for the most part,
> to make the best with - to use William's term - the "sets" of men they
> are able to attract (and keep);
See, that' where I disagree with you and William. We can attract
"better"
(whatever that means) sets of people: we just have to /believe/ we
can. And when we believe something (and we can only truly believe it
if we deserve it i.e. if we believe we deserve it, but we keep putting
limitations on ourselves). Anyway, belief is a whole other
conversation.
whereas men often do well to expand
> the sets of women they attract. So, men of less-than-stellar looks
> (say, Mick Jagger, Ben Stiller, the late Notorious B.I.G.), in finding
> confidence and making something of themselves, can potentially
> increase their attractiveness to women a hundredfold - well beyond
> that of good-looking but more "ordinary" guys. I don't think the same
> thing really exists for women, not to anywhere near the same degree,
> anyway. So to stay with familiar examples, Drew Barrymore and
> Jennifer Aniston have done a lot with themselves, but a lot of guys
> would still rather take the best-looking girl in the mall.)
That's in your world and your experience. Not mine. I have, at
different
times of my life, been in a position to attract the most brilliant of
individuals,
the jockiest, the sexiest, the hottest, the everything-you-can-think-
of'est
and at other times (like when I desperately felt like having a
boyfriend)
I couldn't seem to attract the ugliest guys.
IMO it has a lot more to do with one's state of mind than most of us
want
to admit.
> This would also explain why, in that German(?) speed-dating
> experiment, it was the women who were quicker to form a pragmatic
> assessment of the strata of men they would be able to attract, and
> fall in with those expectations.)
[Beware BMA up ahead]
I'm not crazy about experiments. In my understanding, if one doesn't
understand that at our source we are all one and that we'd do anything
to deny that, any experiment one performs can contradict the next
and we'll think we have grand answers but...
Having said that, are you saying that men go for the hottest girl
regardless
of whether or not they "can" get her and that women are more
"realistic"
in their guesses re who'd be interested in them?
If that's what you are saying then I just flat out disagree. To me,
each
situation is different. And today I may respond/react in a way that
may make me look like a much "nicer/nastier" person than I would
have yesterday.
- Michaela