I think Pete is pretty hot for an old guy~~
Giovanna
Iceberg
> ~~
this proves even more that you have good taste Gio! :)
Superdave
man oh man if Gio loves pete she will go absolutely gah gah over me !
Sakari Lund
<iceber...@gmail.com> wrote:
Except that she calls Sampras old...
uly...@mscomm.com
year an exo in San Jose. He's unpleasant, dismissive of fans and
anything but good looking. He's one of the few tennis players I've
seen who looks far worse in person than on TV (Becker was another,
also Wilander). Rafa and Fed look pretty much the same in person as on
TV. Edberg in person was drop dead gorgeous, and a lovely guy.
Raja, The Great
Have you seen Borg/McEnroe/Connors/Lendl. I think they were good
looking in their prime. They seemed to look the best when they were
dominating number 1s
Vari L. Cinicke
Only Borg qualifies on that list.
The last sentence seems to be how you view them, not surprising since
dominance seems to be your only measure of greatness.
--
Cheers,
vc
drew
Until you see these guys close up in person it's often hard to get any
kind of impression
and even this is only the public persona.
But I've heard it told by more than a few who have encountered Sampras
casually that he's
a rude and sarcastic guy. He managed to guard himself in interviews
during his career
and that was probably the best thing he could do. Attempts at getting
close to the real
guy showed him for what he was...not much.
uly...@mscomm.com
I never saw Borg play. I saw Mac and Connors play many exos at the old
LA Forum. I saw Lendl only once, since he never played Indian Wells,
where the players are all really accesible and you can talk to them. I
saw Lendl at Stratton Mtn. in 1986 in Vermont. He hit with incredible
power, but I was never up close to him.
Raja, The Great
Yeah that is the only real measure for measuring greatness. If you
don't dominate all the other tennis players, how can you call yourself
the greatest?
Raja, The Great
He is supposed to be a funny guy with a wicked sense of humour. I have
magazine articles written immediately after his retirement where few
close friends (coaches and others) describe his personality.
TT
By having semifinal streaks?
Raja, The Great
>
> - Show quoted text -
I think by remaining pretty much unbeatable. Win-loss record speaks
for itself. It has always seperated the goats from the sheep. Take 5
best years of every one out there find the aggregated win-loss. You
will get a good picture.
Shakes
Well, how good or bad a normal person is, is only known to those
around him. Annacone, Bridgette, (late) Gullikson might have (had in
the case of Gullikson) a different opinion.
From what I've heard, his sense of humour is sarcastic and dry.
Similar to Lendl.
Personally, having read the autobiographies of Sampras, Becker,
Agassi, and Mac, I much prefer Sampras as a person to the other three.
He had a clean life, had nothing to hide, no skeletons in the closet.
I just loved his autobiography. Who cares about their personal life ?
At least, I don't. When I wish to read a sportsman's autobiography,
it's because I want to know what his mindset was during a big match,
his view on his opponents, how he shaped his game, what he learnt from
his coaches etc. I don't want to know about which woman he slept with,
which drugs he took etc.
As a person, I prefer Sampras to either Agassi or Mac or Becker.
Iceberg
you're just a Sampras detractor, because several female friends of
mine who've seen Becker up-close, he's often around London(where I
live), all describe him as very good looking.
Raja, The Great
Becker has white eyelashes... freaky. He is like an albino...lol
bob
since you covered the men in such excessive detail, i'll cover the
women: steffi graf was shocking attractive in nice street clothes, and
hantuchova in spandex shorts walking up a flight of stairs ahead of me
- i'll never forget that. navvratilova - she seems smaller in person
IMO.
bob
Whisper
It will give you a good picture who accumulated most points, but
greatness is measured at the slams. A record of 8 slams with no
Wimbledon, & no calendar slam to sweeten it, means you can't rank higher
than tier 3.
Whisper
Sampras was as close as you could get to a perfect tennis champion, & of
impeccable character. I also rate Federer highly, minus the
crying/whining when Rafa beats him. Nadal obviously is right up there too.
John Liang
>
> - Show quoted text -
If I haven't heard that comment from Sampras after his loss against
Rafter in 99 Cincci I would say the same. Sorry Pete your
character as a champion can't hold a candle for the elegant Stefan
Edberg.
John Liang
>
> - Show quoted text -
If the contest was about ball bouncing and time wasting and expertise
in choosing the time to call an injury time out or
quitting the match when he was about to be straight setted Nadal is
right up there.
Superdave
He's KING for sure.
Raja, The Great
LOL, you are an idiot. I am talking about who was the most dominant
players. That includes every match the player played for 5 years. Not
just 8 weeks in a year.
Iceberg
Sampras did that for 6 years.
drew
. Edberg in person was drop dead gorgeous, and a lovely guy.
Edberg had it all. Looks, game, class, grace.
Giovanna
really?? well i always thought he was cute on tv =)
hey ulysses did u ever see Haas and Safin in person?
Raja, The Great
He lost 17 match each of this years. He never dominated as much as the
other greats
uly...@mscomm.com
discernible ego, unassuming. Fed is very natural and nice as well, but
Edberg was the gold standard in terms of being a classy gentleman. Pat
Rafter was another nice guy to fans and people hanging around.
drew
Edberg was treated like God when he went to Japan. He was the
embodiment
of the perfect white athlete for them. Impeccable manners, blond
hair, tall,
athletic, beautiful.
felangey
Woah....you mean handsome, right? ;)
Shakes
I wouldn't say much about Sampras' looks, but, as a person, I like
him. He has no scandals, no controversies, he's always been loyal to
those around him. He's someone with strong principles and ethics, just
like Fed. He has to be, otherwise he wouldn't have been so good at
what he does.
I see no major reason to dislike Sampras. Sure, he has an ego. But
which great champion didn't ?
drew
> >beautiful<
>
> Woah....you mean handsome, right? ;)
No. I don't know what handsome is. Women know. I know what hot or
sexy or cute is in a woman.
Beautiful is universal and exists outside of the realms of sexual
attraction IMO.
For example Wozniacki is sexy and cute and even hot-looking but I'd
say she's not really very beautiful. She's pretty alright.
Ivanovic is beautiful...as in approaching some sort of physical
perfection.
Edberg was beautiful in that kind of way.
felangey
sexy or cute is in a woman<
Women don't know what sexy or cute is in a man? Ooh you big sexist pig! ;)
>Beautiful is universal and exists outside of the realms of sexual
attraction IMO<
I don't necessarily think that 'handsome' speaks of sexual attraction. It
can speak of youth, it can speak of virtue, of dignity. It would not be out
of place, imo, for a man to refer to another guy as a 'handsome man'....or
probably more likely a son or younger guy as a 'handsome young man'....at
once illustrating the qualities afforementioned.
Also, 'beauty' is as subjective as sexy, imo. Of course it is acceptible for
a man to call another man 'beautiful'....just not in the pubs I drink in. ;)
>For example Wozniacki is sexy and cute and even hot-looking but I'd
say she's not really very beautiful. She's pretty alright.<
To you. To someone else she is beautiful.
>Ivanovic is beautiful...as in approaching some sort of physical
perfection<
To you. To someone else she is sexy....to another....a spotty kid. It's all
subjective.
>Edberg was beautiful in that kind of way<
To you. I don't get that....at all. I could more understand if you thought
he was 'fair' or 'handsome'...as these qualities, to me, encapsulate the
man, his origin and his character. In fact I would say that imo 'beautiful'
involves an emotional response, of yearning....in any of it's uses.
Joe Ramirez
E = mc^2 is a beautiful theory.
felangey
Meh. ;)
TT
Clearly you have a crush on him.
bob
but when you use the word "dominant" doesn't that mean yhou should be
able to win that which is most coveted even once in a long career?
bob
bob
wrote:
>On Mar 9, 1:45 pm, "felangey" <o...@cloudnine.com> wrote:
>> >beautiful<
>>
>> Woah....you mean handsome, right? ;)
>
>No. I don't know what handsome is. Women know. I know what hot or
>sexy or cute is in a woman.
>
>Beautiful is universal and exists outside of the realms of sexual
>attraction IMO.
>
>For example Wozniacki is sexy and cute and even hot-looking but I'd
>say she's not really very beautiful. She's pretty alright.
not nearly as hot as she was 2 yrs ago btw.
bob
bob
wrote:
>>No. I don't know what handsome is. Women know. I know what hot or
>sexy or cute is in a woman<
>
>Women don't know what sexy or cute is in a man? Ooh you big sexist pig! ;)
>
>>Beautiful is universal and exists outside of the realms of sexual
>attraction IMO<
>
>I don't necessarily think that 'handsome' speaks of sexual attraction. It
>can speak of youth, it can speak of virtue, of dignity. It would not be out
>of place, imo, for a man to refer to another guy as a 'handsome man'....or
>probably more likely a son or younger guy as a 'handsome young man'....at
>once illustrating the qualities afforementioned.
let's cut the crap, we all know what a good looking girl or a good
looking guy is. yet, as men we don't need to overly lament the
"beauty" or "handsomeness" of an edberg, just say, "hey, he was a good
looking guy" and that's it.
bob
bob
seen em both, haas much much better looking. safin grossly overrated,
strange shape of head. lmao.
bob
bob
wrote:
>On Mar 9, 8:42 am, Giovanna <giovana...@bol.com.br> wrote:
>> > Gio, I saw Pete many times in person in his prime and saw him last
>> > year an exo in San Jose. He's unpleasant, dismissive of fans and
>> > anything but good looking. He's one of the few tennis players I've
>> > seen who looks far worse in person than on TV (Becker was another,
>> > also Wilander). Rafa and Fed look pretty much the same in person as on
>> > TV. Edberg in person was drop dead gorgeous, and a lovely guy.
>>
>> really?? well i always thought he was cute on tv =)
>>
>> hey ulysses did u ever see Haas and Safin in person?
>
>I wouldn't say much about Sampras' looks, but, as a person, I like
>him. He has no scandals, no controversies,
he's a rotten tipper, no?
bob
Shakes
> On Wed, 9 Mar 2011 10:49:03 -0800 (PST), Shakes <kvcsh...@gmail.com>
Oh, yeah. But I don't need any tips, so that's fine by me. :-)
Superdave
>Edberg was the nicest pro tennis player I ever saw. Genuinely nice, no
>discernible ego, unassuming. Fed is very natural and nice as well, but
>Edberg was the gold standard in terms of being a classy gentleman.
he sounds a lot like me really. i mean in person and not in this hellhole called rst.
Quincy
> On Mar 8, 10:47 am, "Vari L. Cinicke" <variesn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 3/8/2011 11:34 AM, Raja, The Great wrote:
>
> > >> Gio, I saw Pete many times in person in his prime and saw him last
> > >> year an exo in San Jose. He's unpleasant, dismissive of fans and
> > >> anything but good looking. He's one of the few tennis players I've
> > >> seen who looks far worse in person than on TV (Becker was another,
> > >> also Wilander). Rafa and Fed look pretty much the same in person as on
> > >> TV. Edberg in person was drop dead gorgeous, and a lovely guy.
>
> > > looking in their prime. They seemed to look the best when they were
> > > dominating number 1s
>
> > Only Borg qualifies on that list.
>
> > The last sentence seems to be how you view them, not surprising since
> > dominance seems to be your only measure of greatness.
>
> Yeah that is the only real measure for measuring greatness. If you
> don't dominate all the other tennis players, how can you call yourself
> the greatest?
Yes like Lendl dominated in 1989 by losing against Becker in Wimbledon
AND USOpen.
drew
That one's been argued in philosophy circles endlessly. You know,
that if beauty is purely subjective then it
must not exist, and so on.
Of course it is acceptible for
> a man to call another man 'beautiful'....just not in the pubs I drink in. ;)
Dave went to a bar where he found a beautiful girl....turns out she
was a beautiful guy.
>
> >For example Wozniacki is sexy and cute and even hot-looking but I'd
>
> say she's not really very beautiful. She's pretty alright.<
>
> To you. To someone else she is beautiful.
Hell yeah. She's a lot closer to beautiful than the blind date I was
set up with once. And that
one was a certified beauty. Shoulda known better. An Italian set me
up with her. There's an element
of subjectivity to beauty but IMO beauty exists. I grew up in an
Italian Canadian community as an Irish Jew.
If that wasn't traumatic enough :-), I had to deal with these wops in
class who broke out into a sweat whenever
they would see blond hair and big tits. It didn't matter if the tits
and hair belonged to a horse or a pig. To them
it was beautiful.
>
> >Ivanovic is beautiful...as in approaching some sort of physical
>
> perfection<
>
> To you. To someone else she is sexy....to another....a spotty kid. It's all
> subjective.
She doesn't exude sexiness like Wozniacki. In fact I saw her posing
in a photo shoot. The
photographer was looking for sexy and Ivanovic couldn't really do sexy
all that well. That's not
to say she doesn't raise the tent for me...she does.
Fortunately there is disagreement over beauty. But for the record,
they have shown pictures of
people of different races to a wide audience of people of varying
colours and backgrounds and countries
of origin and there DOES appear to be general agreement upon what
people find beautiful... in a face, at least.
drew
I'm no fag but if I had to fuck a guy, I'd fuck Edberg. (to
paraphrase a line in "True Romance").
But hey, coming from a guy who CLEARLY has a permanent erection for
Nadal....well at least the guy
I have a crush on doesn't pick his bum and look like a malevolent
elf.
Iceberg
that's a pretty fair assessment! beauty is different to being hot.
drew
> let's cut the crap, we all know what a good looking girl or a good
> looking guy is.
No. Some people here used to say that Seles was good looking.
And Giovanna has moist panties for Federer and he's gotta be just
average, let's be serious.
yet, as men we don't need to overly lament the
> "beauty" or "handsomeness" of an edberg, just say, "hey, he was a good
> looking guy" and that's it.
Nothing like uncomforable silence. Just for shits and giggles, I used
to yell in the locker room, "Who wants to
suck my dick?" Nothing gets you privacy and quiet like that, let me
tell you when you're sick of hearing macho
bullshit that never ends.
drew
> On Wed, 9 Mar 2011 09:52:03 -0800 (PST), "ulys...@msomm.com" <ulys...@mscomm.com> wrote:
> >Edberg was the nicest pro tennis player I ever saw. Genuinely nice, no
> >discernible ego, unassuming. Fed is very natural and nice as well, but
> >Edberg was the gold standard in terms of being a classy gentleman.
>
> he sounds a lot like me really. i mean in person and not in this hellhole called rst.
You mean you're not really a religious zealot?
felangey
average, let's be serious.<
Lol...or so you might think. Try telling that to one of the biggest fan
forums on the planet, staffed almost entirely by breathless swooning
laydeez. :)
Patrick Kehoe
Fed and Nadal both have unconventional looks... for Fed that European
well groomed, tanned, good hair look and for Rafa the good physique,
natural look... being famous and ZILLIONAIRES doesn't hurt either...
let's be real... they had a feature on a news show here in Canada on
the CBC where they took 8 by 10s photos of 20 different guys all
between 25 and 35ish of different nationalities, races, etc. and
showed them to women and had them rate them either a 1 (being most
attractive) and 2 and 3 (least attractive)... they just stopped young
women on a street in Toronto (most multi-cultural city in the world
along with New York according to the UN)... after the women rated them
THEN they told them what their incomes were (the typical hot guy was
labelled like a waiter's income and the #3s were all doctors and
lawyers incomes)... then RIGHT THERE they shuffled the photos and had
them rate them AGAIN this time SEEING EACH GUYS INCOME... and 87% of
the 3s PRESTO became 1's...
They wanted to test the 'if a guy has money he hotter' maxim... and
yep... slam dunk if it wasn't true... then a week later they did it in
New York and the numbers came out almost exactly the same... it was
slightly HIGHER in New York for the 'turn around' of 3s into 1s in New
York, but essentially the same! Nothing guys don't know... BUT... it
was fascinating to see women actually SAY IT/evaluate men to their
monetray value right on camera...
P
drew
>
> They wanted to test the 'if a guy has money he hotter' maxim... and
> yep... slam dunk if it wasn't true... then a week later they did it in
> New York and the numbers came out almost exactly the same... it was
> slightly HIGHER in New York for the 'turn around' of 3s into 1s in New
> York, but essentially the same! Nothing guys don't know... BUT... it
> was fascinating to see women actually SAY IT/evaluate men to their
> monetray value right on camera...
It's very consistent with sexual selection theory elsewhere in the
animal kingdom. A female
chooses the male who can offer the most resources. Particularly
interesting in bird biology
where resource availability seems to influence whether the
relationships are polygynous or
polyandrous. Of course in the animal kingdom you don't get to inherit
wealth so generally the fitter
individuals offer the greater resources to the female, both materially
and genetically.
Women find powerful, rich men sexy. Of course if they are simply
indulging in some sport fucking,
they will often choose a mate simply on the basis of looks. But when
it comes to actually settling
down and having a litter, human females seem to be more concerned with
the material resources that
the male will bring to the table than the genetic fitness that he
disiplays. If they can get both, fine, but
certainly money will compensate for a very average genetic
contribution from the male.
Patrick Kehoe
That has been the case up until now... yes, certainly when I was in my
20s, it was CLEARLY defined... today women who are either young and
doing well OR on their second or third go at 'settling down' (which
can be a marriage and one common law stint or other 'mixes' of
'settled relationships') can choose against this normative
modelling... THOUGH I AGREE WITH YOU, most do choose some form of the
'materialist mating model'... absolutely... YET, women now have more
income, some much much larger than before WITHOUT inheritance/
inheriting... so now they can and are increasingly open to choosing
merely for companions the way males have done forever, basically...
they don't en masse just yet, and it will be interesting to see how
that chances over the next 25 years... but the options for women to
just pick aesthetically has begun to change...
P
felangey
females seem to be more concerned with
the material resources that the male will bring to the table than the
genetic fitness that he disiplays.<
Holy sweeping statement batman! In my experience, the type of guy who marrys
a female interested in the material assets he brings to the table....usually
deserves her...and the increasingly common asset split that comes from the
divorce. I don't deny that this is the culture that seems to be increasingly
permuating society....idolised to the young by WAG culture.
Some may find it quaint or idealistic to believe in a meeting of minds,
shared interests, common ideals and beliefs. Every worthwhile marriage I
know of boasts those qualities as it's basis....but yeah, I don't deny that
there is a shallower element of society that operates on a rich guy/hot
chick materialised basis.
bob
wrote:
>On Mar 9, 6:31 pm, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> let's cut the crap, we all know what a good looking girl or a good
>> looking guy is.
>
>No. Some people here used to say that Seles was good looking.
seeing seles on dancing with the stars recently, i think she's far
more attractive now then when she was 17.
>And Giovanna has moist panties for Federer and he's gotta be just
>average, let's be serious.
well that's some sort of strange thing.
> yet, as men we don't need to overly lament the
>> "beauty" or "handsomeness" of an edberg, just say, "hey, he was a good
>> looking guy" and that's it.
>
>Nothing like uncomforable silence. Just for shits and giggles, I used
>to yell in the locker room, "Who wants to
>suck my dick?" Nothing gets you privacy and quiet like that, let me
>tell you when you're sick of hearing macho
>bullshit that never ends.
that's funny. as long as you're not looking for any takers.
bob
bob
moral of the story: make sure you're the guy making lots of money.
bob
John Liang
>
> - Show quoted text -
On the other side of the coin. Bob you are the guy who consistantly
act like a fool but
that is just what you are a fool.
drew
> "But when it comes to actually settling down and having a litter, human
> females seem to be more concerned with
> the material resources that the male will bring to the table than the
> genetic fitness that he disiplays.<
>
> Holy sweeping statement batman! In my experience, the type of guy who marrys
> a female interested in the material assets he brings to the table....usually
> deserves her...and the increasingly common asset split that comes from the
> divorce. I don't deny that this is the culture that seems to be increasingly
> permuating society....idolised to the young by WAG culture.
I'm not familiar with WAG culture. It's always a reverse
anthropocentric fascination of
mine to study human behavior compared to animal behavior. Perhaps it
is false to draw
parallels but I think there is a basis for comparison.
>
> Some may find it quaint or idealistic to believe in a meeting of minds,
> shared interests, common ideals and beliefs. Every worthwhile marriage I
> know of boasts those qualities as it's basis...
But we are basically animals and the female human who is planning to
have children
may make decisions based upon the perceived fitness of a mate. This
may be broad
shoulders and it might be a thick wallet.....or as men with minds and
hearts we'd like
to think that it might have something to do with who we are as
people.
.but yeah, I don't deny that
> there is a shallower element of society that operates on a rich guy/hot
> chick materialised basis.
There's a temptation to see it as a shallow element. I prefer to see
it as some kind
of biological imperative that dominates spiritual interests....in
other words the little head
is ruling the big head (in the male) and the womb is ruling the heart
(in the woman).
There is a species of bird where the males will attract females by
bringing them little gifts.
These might be shiny objects that a human has discarded somewhere.
Reminds of of guys picking up chicks with their shiny Camaros in the
70s.
felangey
it as some kind
of biological imperative that dominates spiritual interests....in
other words the little head
is ruling the big head (in the male) and the womb is ruling the heart
(in the woman).<
I don't think you will find much opposition to this viewpoint...especially
around these here parts. :) I would like to think that the best
relationships are based on a whole lot more, or at least don't have these
impulses as their sole keystone. For what happens when the kids have
arrived, her looks are gone....and he loses his job? In the (what I would
call) superficial relationship....it is all too often a divvy up of
assets...following an affair or some such.
I'm perfectly sure that guys will always try to impress chicks...but not
overly convinced that the womb rules the heart in the woman. Case in point,
the increasing numbers of couples electing not to have kids (childfree
culture). Also pertinent is the increasing culture of self-sufficiency....of
living light, un -'stuff' filled lives.
Personally I think perhaps the best quality you can take into a marriage is
the ability to make each other laugh. My wife certainly doesn't keep me for
my money (she earns wayyy more) or my good looks (okay...maybe a little). I
must be a funny guy! ;)
Giovanna
> >And Giovanna has moist panties for Federer and he's gotta be just
> >average, let's be serious.
>
> well that's some sort of strange thing.
he's ridiculously hot and charming~~ his face&eyes are beautiful, his
body is very nice, his voice is perfect, he's smart, funny, his hair
is stunning, etc
TT
Funny, I just read this description about Roger in another forum:
"His potato nose, his eyes sunk in the skull, his witchy chin, his
spindly extremities, his pot belly, his absent wasteline, his animal fur
all over what he calls a body?"
"And don't forget the mouth that looks like he has false teeth when he
smiles and looks like a cavern when he opens it wide. And his squinty
rat-like eyes with the slanting eyebrows that make him look evil. "
I guess these gals see it differently. :)
Giovanna
> I guess these gals see it differently. :)
and I also read girls calling rafa a gross monster, monkey,
neanderthal, sweaty greasy hair, ugly fugly dumb etc all the time~~
TT
You were reading your own posts probably. Deal with it...Rafa is
considered as hot as a man as Megan Fox is considered as a woman...
drew
>
> I don't think you will find much opposition to this viewpoint...especially
> around these here parts. :) I would like to think that the best
> relationships are based on a whole lot more, or at least don't have these
> impulses as their sole keystone.
That's the problem, isn't it. Nature has a way of getting couples
together but
the permanent pair-bond is probably not the way humans are most
inclined to behave
when the natural attraction fades.
For what happens when the kids have
> arrived, her looks are gone....and he loses his job? In the (what I would
> call) superficial relationship....it is all too often a divvy up of
> assets...following an affair or some such.
Sure. When it's more about hard work and giving than fun and self-
gratification,
the whole situation can and often does unravel very quickly.
> I'm perfectly sure that guys will always try to impress chicks...but not
> overly convinced that the womb rules the heart in the woman. Case in point,
> the increasing numbers of couples electing not to have kids (childfree
> culture).
Women naturally want to be mothers. The problem for women is that the
traditional
family (according to feminists) doesn't bring them the self-
actualization that they need.
Now that they can in many cases earn as much or more than a man, they
don't necessarily
have any MATERIAL reason to live in a traditional marriage so you get
all sorts of alternative
lifestyle possibilities. Most healthy women at one time or another
have an urge to be mothers.
felangey
gratification, the whole situation can and often does unravel very quickly<
They key is building a relationship where the hard work and giving....are
fun! ;)
>Most healthy women at one time or another have an urge to be mothers<
Your challenge for the week, should you choose to accept it, is to pick one
of the burgeoning Childfree forums and float this very idea. And post me the
link so I can be there to witness the carnage! ;)
Patrick Kehoe
Yes... good points... once we consumed via the tangetical reaches of
technology (a stone, fishing rod, gun)... then technology took a
parallel relational value to us (taking us to the moon and depths of
the ocean) and now we are interphasing with technology (bio-tech) AND
are really being consumed by the matrix of technology (total
dependance on technology for our civilization as it self defines)...
and in this welter of dependence, we re-cast our notions of
'freedoms' (political, economic and social) and 'identity' (personal/
psychological and interpersonal)... many of the 'normative' structures
of inheritance are being tested or thrown off or deemed invalid to
some extent (as racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.)... How we live in
relation to one another as intimates is really now ALMOST beyond
classification... I hate to tell the sociologists and journalists on
this form... and all one has to do is TALK to people to find an almost
limitless number of 'living arrangements', listening to people with
multiple partners, no partners, families constituted dozens of ways...
and guy in their 50s and 60s are acting like 20 year olds, leaving
relationships and rolling with dozens of females... it's astounding
what the words 'family' and 'relationships' and 'partner(s)' means in
terms of 1. Lifestyle and 2. Living Arrangements now...
NOW WONDER EVERYONE IS TIRED TODAY... :)))))))
P
Patrick Kehoe
Well, to Drew's point... he's 'overdetermining' biology IN THE SENSE
that it necessarily constitutes anything beyond itself... it
doesn't... biology doesn't arrange our lives or define our perceptual
values... we construct and de-construct our lives and living
arrangements according to a host of sociological/cultural/economic and
enviromental reasons... on the post-modern desert island of our
existence nothing is a 'given'...
P
felangey
I like that....and I think you are right. While we will no doubt maintain
biological instincts and behaviours.....even beyond those science has yet
discovered....we have never been more of a melting point of these stolen,
borrowed and invented sociological ideolgies and aspirations....which act as
our primary driving factor. I guess in part, our turbo down this path has
been the very nature of the technology we have developed....visibility....we
see how everybody does everything...no longer confined to our small
communities, cultures and ways of doing things.
Oh this is too deep for Friday avo! :) But like you say....there are
absolutely no absolutes.
drew
>
> >Most healthy women at one time or another have an urge to be mothers<
>
> Your challenge for the week, should you choose to accept it, is to pick one
> of the burgeoning Childfree forums and float this very idea. And post me the
> link so I can be there to witness the carnage! ;)
I know this is an unpopular idea with couples who are childless by
choice. I have been
in this type of relationship and I know that I defended this choice
with ferocity. Now I'm
not saying that the urge to be a mother necessarily leads to the
decision to have a child,
but in the absence of pathology this is a natural feeling. Some women
may say they've never
ever had a maternal urge. I doubt that. I certainly don't presume to
judge anybody's
lifestyle or living arrangement.
Sakari Lund
The last four posts here sound exactly like two teenage girls arguing
which one is hotter, Rafa or Roger...
Giovanna
> You were reading your own posts probably. Deal with it...Rafa is
> considered as hot as a man as Megan Fox is considered as a woman...
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
RAFA IS DISGUSTING, MOST GIRLS WOULD RATHER BANG MEGAN FOX THAN THE
GROSS OGRE TBQH
Patrick Kehoe
What's really amusing is that we DO have "biological imperatives" but
they are awash in all these formulation and happenstances of intimacy,
relationships, communial arrangements, political systems, economic
cells, etc... NO WONDER 'deviance' and 'the chaotic' are becoming so
VISIBLE today... as structures fall away we are thrown back to our
biology EVEN as we are held in check by the environmental realities of
living today and in that/those phasings you get some wickedly odd
behaviors... put that in terms of dating or socializing with women and
ya, it gets challenging, strange, problematic, risky, and even
dangerous at times...
P
TT
Suck my lolly sakari. Everything in RST sounds like 2 teenage girls arguing.
drew
> Well, to Drew's point... he's 'overdetermining' biology IN THE SENSE
> that it necessarily constitutes anything beyond itself... it
> doesn't... biology doesn't arrange our lives or define our perceptual
> values... we construct and de-construct our lives and living
> arrangements according to a host of sociological/cultural/economic and
> enviromental reasons... on the post-modern desert island of our
> existence nothing is a 'given'...
Given an absence of raging hormones, people reflect, think, plan and
make
decisions about their lives based upon the above.
But....what is the subject of the day....besides tennis? Yes, sex,
sex, sex.
And how much of our art, literature and creative juice comes from this
desire for
sex? The desire to be desirable. The need for physical contact,
sexual gratification...
it may not necessarily result in reproduction....but we're definitely
designed for
reproduction, and in the absence of reproduction, we're still
hardwired for sex.
Vari L. Cinicke
Of course it is. Does anyone on rst doubt that this breathless battle is
between two people with the hots for Rafa/Rog?
Nothing wrong with it even if it takes away from the tennis discussions.
Probably fit better on the fan forums on the respective player sites and
probably are lifted from there anyway.
--
Cheers,
vc
Giovanna
> > The last four posts here sound exactly like two teenage girls arguing
> > which one is hotter, Rafa or Roger...
he started it, not me~~
TT
It's ok then.
felangey
This may or may not be true....how will we ever know. Similarly, I am not
sure on what grounds you doubt them! :)
>I certainly don't presume to judge anybody' lifestyle or living
>arrangement.<
I try not to....but being a sanctimonious git is a hard burden to carry
sometimes! ;)
TT
In fact every tennis forum sounds like it. That's probably because all
tennis forums are filled with fans of Roger Federer, Justin Bieber and
Lady Gaga.
Sakari Lund
Not everything is about the looks of two male players. It is creepy,
honestly.
drew
> >Some women may say they've never ever had a maternal urge.<
>
> This may or may not be true....how will we ever know. Similarly, I am not
> sure on what grounds you doubt them! :)
Just observing women around babies or the way most women will respond
if a child
is crying or is hurt. Overt maternal behaviour.
But I don't know what really goes on in the female brain. I'm not
sure
I really want to know.. Ask Mel Gibson. :-)
TT
Tell that to Giovanna. I have tried before.
Sakari Lund
I am just telling it to both of you. But as far as I understand, Gio
is a lot closer to being a teenage girl than you, so it is more
understandable in her case.
drew
> >arrangement.<
>
> I try not to....but being a sanctimonious git is a hard burden to carry
> sometimes! ;)
My wife gives me gravol for it cause she figures if she finds me that
sickening, I must be really nauseated....actually she just says "take
a pill",
and I get the message.
TT
Nah, you have no problem whatsoever with it. You're just being an
opportunistic dickhead.
Or maybe I just forget all the hundreds of times you have asked Giovanna
to quit her stunt.
Vari L. Cinicke
TT's invitation to you is an example of what his constant fantasies
about Nadal have done to his psyche. TThe boy *is* creepy.
--
Cheers,
vc
Patrick Kehoe
I thought we were talking about relationships, why and how we
cohabitate with others... of course you are correct about the
biological impreatives... but that's absolutely determinative to
relationships or structures of intimacy... it is part of the
processing that leads to it... but a fleeting one in one sense and a
destabilizing one in another but not totally determinative... that's
my point...
P
Patrick Kehoe
See, that's the basis of a good relationship right there...
communications :))))))
P
felangey
communications :))))))<
:)
drew
Even as it applies to animals I was always skeptical about how
absolutely my
profs would assert sexual selection theory as an answer for almost all
behavior. I
suspect that even female birds have discretion when it comes to
choosing a mate, "Yeah,
that guy controls the whole south side of the pond...but Fred over
there has a quirky song
that really appeals to me...I know he's not the nicest looking bird,
but I think he's the one..."
No wonder I was never better than a B+ student. :-)
drew
Being the listener when the room is quiet...not the one who has to
speak first...
these simple things have taken me so many years to learn.
Vari L. Cinicke
Without variations in behavior (and presumed model that drives it),
there wouldn't be much of selection going on. So there is room for birds
to fall in love with oddballs that might not appeal to the majority of
birds.
Explaining everything using sexual selection is silly. One prime mode of
selection is the predator-prey relationship. And I doubt that any
antelope is running around saying "Wow! Look at the ass on that lion
chasing me!"
--
Cheers,
vc
drew
A sexual selection theorist might answer that the lion who hunts best
maximises his territory and
ability to procure food, and therefore establishes his
dominance....hence is successful in passing his
genes to the next generation.
And I doubt that any
> antelope is running around saying "Wow! Look at the ass on that lion
> chasing me!"
That would be a kind of inter-specific sexual attraction that would be
unlikely.
More likely he would say, "Wow look at the ass in that lion's
mouth....that looks like my ass...damn...that
is my ass..."
Joe Ramirez
> On Mar 11, 1:48 pm, "Vari L. Cinicke" <variesn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Explaining everything using sexual selection is silly. One prime mode of
> > selection is the predator-prey relationship.
>
> A sexual selection theorist might answer that the lion who hunts best
> maximises his territory and
> ability to procure food, and therefore establishes his
> dominance....hence is successful in passing his
> genes to the next generation.
That's not sexual selection. That's garden-variety natural selection.
Obtaining food is a direct measure of fitness.
Shakes
But it's indirectly related to sexual selection also because the lion
that is capable of establishing it's dominance to a larger extent,
also has the capability to repel rival males during mating
competitions (by virtue of the same strength that allows it to
maximize it's territory, procure more food etc.).
bob
<giova...@bol.com.br> wrote:
>
>> >And Giovanna has moist panties for Federer and he's gotta be just
>> >average, let's be serious.
>>
>> well that's some sort of strange thing.
>
>
>he's ridiculously hot and charming~~ his face&eyes are beautiful, his
>body is very nice, his voice is perfect, he's smart, funny, his hair
>is stunning, etc
like i said - that's just some sort of strange thing. :-)
bob
yolanda
Just a nitpick, but lions in general don't do much hunting. Most of the
hunting is done by the lionesses as team hunting.
bob
>11.3.2011 17:04, Giovanna kirjoitti:
>>> I guess these gals see it differently. :)
>> and I also read girls calling rafa a gross monster, monkey,
>> neanderthal, sweaty greasy hair, ugly fugly dumb etc all the time~~
>
>You were reading your own posts probably. Deal with it...Rafa is
>considered as hot as a man as Megan Fox is considered as a woman...
i think megan fox is wayyy overrated btw. nice body, avg face.
bob
bob
<giova...@bol.com.br> wrote:
>
>> You were reading your own posts probably. Deal with it...Rafa is
>> considered as hot as a man as Megan Fox is considered as a woman...
>
>LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
>
>RAFA IS DISGUSTING, MOST GIRLS WOULD RATHER BANG MEGAN FOX THAN THE
>GROSS OGRE TBQH
i watched rafa practicing at uso last yr and there was an overflow
crowd watching - 90% women. and all asking him to "remove his shirt
please".
bob
Vari L. Cinicke
In so much as sexual selection only occurs among those surviving long
enough to take part in the mating raffle.
Traits that improve survival get you to the mating game. In many
species, the traits that then allows you to find a mate may well get in
the way of survival. It is a numbers game ultimately.
--
Cheers,
vc