To all who believe Fatopia exists...
The Danimal
GoddessBaybee sexually attractive.
-- the Danimal
faith
"The Danimal" <dmo...@mfm.com> wrote in message
news:cac1ad88.02041...@posting.google.com...
> ...name a country where a majority of men would not find
> GoddessBaybee sexually attractive.
>
> -- the Danimal
there is a country where men like their women fat.
glad i don't live there.
faith
Shawn Pickrell
> ...name a country where a majority of men would not find
> GoddessBaybee sexually attractive.
i for one find her s-s-s-sexually attractive.
--
... Shawn Pickrell, the Majority Stockholder of All Usenet
Stockholders may contact me at shawn_p...@yahoo.com
Kthulah
Again, I have trouble keeping with the going vendettas, so a related,
but not too personal question comes to mind:
When your looks are gone, what else will you have to offer?
Yeah, people talk alot about what's the right preference to have, but
regardless of shape, we're all going to get old. People will put up
with things when you're cute, that they won't put up with, when you're
ugly. For most people, aging is ugly...even the affects of aging that
don't have much to do with health.
I ask this because, as existing life forms on earth go, I prefer
people who are over 40, aesthetically. I generally find them more
interesting to talk to, as well. So even though some other topics may
be more "fun", when I have the chance, I like to kind of open the door
to something that's actually useful, like reminding people that
turning forty isn't some sort of tragedy.
In a little over 8 years, I'll be forty. I'm looking forward to it
even more than I looked forward to turning 30. By then, my dreads
should be very long, and more silver, and I'll have more life
experience, which will probably affect my ease of expression, and fuel
my creativity.
Are there things you can do now, or that you feel freer to do, that
you couldn't at 25?
~Kthulah
Uncle Davey
"Kthulah" <kth...@shoggoth.net> wrote in message
news:5f8d41bb.02041...@posting.google.com...
> "faith" <ha...@nanar.stebe> wrote in message
news:<a94p1g$s3k$0...@pita.alt.net>...
> > "The Danimal" <dmo...@mfm.com> wrote in message
> > news:cac1ad88.02041...@posting.google.com...
> > > ...name a country where a majority of men would not find
> > > GoddessBaybee sexually attractive.
> > >
> > > -- the Danimal
> >
> > there is a country where men like their women fat.
> > glad i don't live there.
>
>
> Again, I have trouble keeping with the going vendettas, so a related,
> but not too personal question comes to mind:
>
> When your looks are gone, what else will you have to offer?
You tell me.
Uncle Davey
The Danimal
>
> "faith" <ha...@nanar.stebe> wrote in message news:<a94p1g$s3k$0...@pita.alt.net>...
> but not too personal question comes to mind:
>
> When your looks are gone, what else will you have to offer?
A woman will still have her spending habits.
The book "The Millionaire Next Door" presents data showing that
the single biggest threat to a man's ability to accumulate wealth
is marrying a woman who lacks the discipline to live well below her
(actually in most cases that would be his) means.
Men lust after beautiful women, but in the long run men would
be better off if they rated women according to their frugality
and rejection of the notion that wealth is an entitlement.
The most practical value a woman can bring to a marriage is
her ability to account for all domestic spending in detail and
to spare at least 20% of annual household income for investment.
If men were smart, they would select women who would do that and
also who would sign prenuptial contracts to divide marital
property in proportion to the partners' total income during
their marriage in the event of divorce.
But instead most men are fairly stupid when it comes to handling
money, so they often marry women who spend uncontrollably while
they are married and then steal half of whatever assets the men
might have managed to accumulate should the marriage end.
Profligate parents tend to raise profligate children, so parents
who live high-consumption lifestyles teach their children by
example to be similarly undisciplined, and often end up having
to support their children well into adulthood, further eroding
the parents' chances of accumulating significant wealth.
> Yeah, people talk alot about what's the right preference to have,
No, that's what people who deny reality try to miscast the
discussion as being about.
The majority preference just *is*. That's a positive claim. A normative
claim is telling people what they *should* do. But notice who is
doing that. Fat acceptors are trying to change the majority
preference, not me. Fat rejectors report the way things are.
Fat acceptors talk about the way they want things to be.
I don't have to convince men to find fat women ugly. Most already
do. I don't have to convince men to find elderly women ugly. Most
already do.
Because I compete with men for the most desirable women, my chances
of getting what I want would improve if I could persuade other men
to change their preferences and go after women who are fat and/or
old. But I know this is futile, so I don't even bother to try.
Kthulah, if you bothered to read instead of read into, you'd
know that "people" aren't talking about what preferences to *have*
but about the negative consequences of ignoring the preferences
of the people who matter.
> but
> regardless of shape, we're all going to get old. People will put up
> with things when you're cute, that they won't put up with, when you're
> ugly.
That depends on how ugly they are. Ugly old persons have fewer
options and thus they have to tolerate increasingly ugly partners.
Gluttony can effectively "age" a person at a rate drastically faster
than his or her partner may be aging. A morbidly obese woman at age 20
has about the same sexual market value as a height:weight proportionate
woman in her 50's. Which is to say: very little.
In other words, the negative consequences of getting older are
somewhat blunted by the fact that everybody else in our age cohort
is getting older too. Gluttony, on the other hand, is like choosing
to get older decades ahead of schedule: an extremely stupid choice.
> For most people, aging is ugly...even the affects of aging that
> don't have much to do with health.
>
> I ask this because, as existing life forms on earth go, I prefer
> people who are over 40, aesthetically.
A man's ability to father offspring and support them does not
decline as rapidly as a woman's ability to bear children. In fact
men who are efficient accumulators of wealth become steadily
wealthier as they get older and become even better reproductive
bets for women. Even men who are poor accumulators of wealth tend
to have incomes that peak in their 50's.
Thus you have valid sociobiological reasons to be able to
find older men attractive. Not to mention the fact that older
men are less attractive to women in general, so they are more
likely to settle for women who are old or gluttons.
> I generally find them more
> interesting to talk to, as well. So even though some other topics may
> be more "fun", when I have the chance, I like to kind of open the door
> to something that's actually useful, like reminding people that
> turning forty isn't some sort of tragedy.
If you have lived as a glutton all your adult life then you have
effectively already turned 40. You may have been effectively there
when you were 20.
For a woman, getting older isn't that much of a tragedy for her
from her own subjective viewpoint.
She will get slower, weaker, and sicker, but sedentary people
who don't demand much from their bodies tend not to notice
until age has inflicted enough damage to start making even
a sedentary life difficult.
The tragedy is more for the men who derive pleasure from women
in proportion to their youth and beauty. And that would be the
vast majority of men. For men who observe women and love them,
the destruction of a woman's value by aging is a tragedy indeed.
I take no pleasure in seeing Ondrea's before/after photos.
It's like a new car gradually turning into a shitbox. If the
car were sentient, it probably wouldn't care about the creeping
damage as much as the owner does.
> In a little over 8 years, I'll be forty. I'm looking forward to it
> even more than I looked forward to turning 30. By then, my dreads
> should be very long, and more silver, and I'll have more life
> experience, which will probably affect my ease of expression, and fuel
> my creativity.
>
> Are there things you can do now, or that you feel freer to do, that
> you couldn't at 25?
Even when I was 25 I understood that the effect I have on other
people is at least as objectively important as my tendency to
indulge in self-absorption.
When you are 40 will you have the ability to comprehend the existence
of other minds?
Note that gluttony is self-absorption taken to the extreme. It's a
process of prioritizing one's immediate pleasure over the impact one
has on others.
-- the Danimal
Shawn Pickrell
> The most practical value a woman can bring to a marriage is
> her ability to account for all domestic spending in detail and
> to spare at least 20% of annual household income for investment.
> If men were smart, they would select women who would do that and
> also who would sign prenuptial contracts to divide marital
> property in proportion to the partners' total income during
> their marriage in the event of divorce.
it is possible to have enough money taken out through work and
automatic payroll deductions.
automatically, before i even notice it, the following are
taken out of my income.
1. $250 p/m to a mutual fund.
2. $75 p/w to buy my company's stock (I work for an employee owned
company; the stock has NEVER gone down since 1946. it is set every
six months and has stayed flat three or four times. 15% rate of
return over the past five years.)
3. 10% of my pre-tax income to my 401(k).
through this i hope some day to accummulate enough wealth to
be well-off one day.
for good measure i also contribute $5 p/w to the united way,
although i may look into some sort of Christmas club and then
take the money out in december and give it to a charity or
charities of my choosing. i also donate to other worthy causes
periodically although nowhere near as much as i should.
Kthulah
As in what will I have, or what will you have?
I wouldn't know about you.
With me, it's obvious. I'd tell you, but it's not something easily
put to words. It's like a force of nature.
If I could explain why I don't lack for love or lust, even though I am
not physically "perfect", and thought you or most others watching,
would have a clue of what I was talking about, I would try...but it's
one of those things that, being difficult enough to explain as it is,
would be like an alien language to you.
It's easier to explain my "technique", if one could call it that. I
am me. People are free to take that or leave it. I don't feel
entitled to be loved by everyone, and don't feel I have to love
everyone...but I respect everyone's whole humanity.
I don't expect this to change when I get older.
~Kthulah
Shawn Pickrell
> On 12 Apr 2002 11:25:42 -0700, kth...@shoggoth.net (Kthulah) wrote:
>>If I could explain why I don't lack for love or lust, even though I am
>>not physically "perfect", and thought you or most others watching,
>>would have a clue of what I was talking about, I would try...but it's
>>one of those things that, being difficult enough to explain as it is,
>>would be like an alien language to you.
> No kidding. If the world was really according to Dan I would not be
> dating as much as I do. I simply have no problem at all attracting
> guys. And for some reason they are all falling love. I don't ever
> recall that happening to me when I was in my 20's
it's amazing how ugly people find love and enjoy life.
sometimes i think dan is doing a valuable service.
other times i wonder whether he needs to provide that valuable
service.
in any case, dan has no power over anyone except dan.
for that i am grateful.
Chris Belway
Don't know what she looks like.
ps Seattle doesn't count, because even though its gay its not a country
la n.
Shawn Pickrell <sp6...@corgi.bna.com> wrote in message
news:a97mvc$818$2...@pita.alt.net...
> Rauni <jen...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> > On 12 Apr 2002 11:25:42 -0700, kth...@shoggoth.net (Kthulah) wrote:
>
> >>If I could explain why I don't lack for love or lust, even though I am
> >>not physically "perfect", and thought you or most others watching,
> >>would have a clue of what I was talking about, I would try...but it's
> >>one of those things that, being difficult enough to explain as it is,
> >>would be like an alien language to you.
>
> > No kidding. If the world was really according to Dan I would not be
> > dating as much as I do. I simply have no problem at all attracting
> > guys. And for some reason they are all falling love. I don't ever
> > recall that happening to me when I was in my 20's
>
> it's amazing how ugly people find love and enjoy life.
>
> sometimes i think dan is doing a valuable service.
>
> other times i wonder whether he needs to provide that valuable
> service.
>
> in any case, dan has no power over anyone except dan.
>
> for that i am grateful.
>
Sometmes I think that Dan is just thinking out loud about
his own circumstances.
la n. - not that there's anything wrong about that
Jim Ledford
> Kthulah wrote:
>
> >If I could explain why I don't lack for love or lust, even though I am
> >not physically "perfect", and thought you or most others watching,
> >would have a clue of what I was talking about, I would try...but it's
> >one of those things that, being difficult enough to explain as it is,
> >would be like an alien language to you.
>
> No kidding. If the world was really according to Dan I would not be
> dating as much as I do. I simply have no problem at all attracting
> guys. And for some reason they are all falling love. I don't ever
> recall that happening to me when I was in my 20's
of all the reports from Dan that I have seen and read
none of them took into account the incredible popularity
of women who suck.
Crash Street Kidd
If you weren't such a dud maybe you could find one that would.
Crash Street Kidd
>
The Danimal
> jeanette rauni runyon wrote:
>
> > Kthulah wrote:
> >
> > >If I could explain why I don't lack for love or lust, even though I am
> > >not physically "perfect", and thought you or most others watching,
> > >would have a clue of what I was talking about, I would try...but it's
> > >one of those things that, being difficult enough to explain as it is,
> > >would be like an alien language to you.
Why? I never said gluttons can't get laid. If that were true
the world wouldn't be overrun with them.
I merely said gluttons have to settle for partners who
themselves are generally unable to attract any non-gluttons,
but generally would prefer to.
Speaking of difficult things to explain: who will be the first
fat woman posting here who shows she can read?
No matter how many dozens of times I explain that it's not about
whether you can score but who you are scoring with (and who
your partners are getting rejected by), some glutton takes a
break from munching doughnuts and """refutes""" my claim
by demonstrating her endless capacity to misread.
> > No kidding. If the world was really according to Dan I would not be
> > dating as much as I do.
As women get older, they tend to compensate for their declining
physical attractiveness by pursuing men more aggressively. This
strategy tends to work well for a while because most men who aren't
already fucking something better will be receptive to just about
any woman who meets their bare minimum requirements.
A man's minimum requirements in a partner are usually a function
of what sort of women his experience with women has conditioned
him to expect he can attract.
A man who can attract height:weight proportionate 20-something
women will ignore any hints or overt interest from a 40-something
overweight woman. (If anyone has counterexamples now would be a
good time to post them.)
Since most men are insufficiently attractive to women to attract
many HWP 20-something, most are willing to settle for women of
lower quality.
If you're happy with rejects, then keep pounding down the
doughnuts. If, on the other hand, you'd like to attract better
men, get your gluttony under control.
I don't presume to tell you what you like. If you're happy to
settle, if that works for you, then don't change your behavior.
> > I simply have no problem at all attracting
> > guys. And for some reason they are all falling love. I don't ever
> > recall that happening to me when I was in my 20's
Rauni, your constant assertions of your availability and alleged
quality are consistent with my hypothesis that you are compensating
for your declining ability to attract men by advertising your
availability more aggressively. And what better way to reach an
unparalleled concentration of rejects than to advertise your wares
on soc.singles.
Notice that none of the alleged HWP 20-something women posting
here feel a need to trumpet their sexual market value. All an
attractive woman needs to do is give us one photo (see:
GoddessBaybee) and she can skip all the commentary and vigorous
assertions. Men only have to look at the photo and we are convinced.
No need for any Jedi mind tricks.
Before you knee jerk and say "What about Brenda?" note that
accusing Brenda of applying your strategy is not exactly the
way to refute my hypothesis. At least when Brenda does it she's
advertising a well-maintained product.
> of all the reports from Dan that I have seen and read
> none of them took into account the incredible popularity
> of women who suck.
Are there women who won't?
-- the Danimal
Jim Ledford
oh, it was a by default type of thing.
Jim
Jim Ledford
> Jim Ledford wrote:
> > jeanette rauni runyon wrote:
> > > Kthulah wrote:
> > >
> > > >If I could explain why I don't lack for love or lust, even though I am
> > > >not physically "perfect", and thought you or most others watching,
> > > >would have a clue of what I was talking about, I would try...but it's
> > > >one of those things that, being difficult enough to explain as it is,
> > > >would be like an alien language to you.
>
> Why? I never said gluttons can't get laid. If that were true
> the world wouldn't be overrun with them.
>
> I merely said gluttons have to settle for partners who
> themselves are generally unable to attract any non-gluttons,
> but generally would prefer to.
>
> Speaking of difficult things to explain: who will be the first
> fat woman posting here who shows she can read?
>
> No matter how many dozens of times I explain that it's not about
> whether you can score but who you are scoring with (and who
> your partners are getting rejected by), some glutton takes a
> break from munching doughnuts and """refutes""" my claim
> by demonstrating her endless capacity to misread.
>
> > > No kidding. If the world was really according to Dan I would not be
> > > dating as much as I do.
>
> As women get older, they tend to compensate for their declining
> physical attractiveness by pursuing men more aggressively.
Hi George :)
> This
> strategy tends to work well for a while because most men who aren't
> already fucking something better will be receptive to just about
> any woman who meets their bare minimum requirements.
I think George is a happy man, being that he is free
to pick, choose, accept and reject.
> A man's minimum requirements in a partner are usually a function
> of what sort of women his experience with women has conditioned
> him to expect he can attract.
>
> A man who can attract height:weight proportionate 20-something
> women will ignore any hints or overt interest from a 40-something
> overweight woman. (If anyone has counterexamples now would be a
> good time to post them.)
>
> Since most men are insufficiently attractive to women to attract
> many HWP 20-something, most are willing to settle for women of
> lower quality.
>
> If you're happy with rejects, then keep pounding down the
> doughnuts. If, on the other hand, you'd like to attract better
> men, get your gluttony under control.
100%
> I don't presume to tell you what you like. If you're happy to
> settle, if that works for you, then don't change your behavior.
>
> > > I simply have no problem at all attracting
> > > guys. And for some reason they are all falling love. I don't ever
> > > recall that happening to me when I was in my 20's
>
> Rauni, your constant assertions of your availability and alleged
> quality are consistent with my hypothesis that you are compensating
> for your declining ability to attract men by advertising your
> availability more aggressively. And what better way to reach an
> unparalleled concentration of rejects than to advertise your wares
> on soc.singles.
>
> Notice that none of the alleged HWP 20-something women posting
> here feel a need to trumpet their sexual market value. All an
> attractive woman needs to do is give us one photo (see:
> GoddessBaybee) and she can skip all the commentary and vigorous
> assertions. Men only have to look at the photo and we are convinced.
> No need for any Jedi mind tricks.
>
> Before you knee jerk and say "What about Brenda?" note that
> accusing Brenda of applying your strategy is not exactly the
> way to refute my hypothesis. At least when Brenda does it she's
> advertising a well-maintained product.
quality means business :)
Jim
Kthulah
You meanie. It's not because he's a dud. It's just a matter of
priorities. Or maybe he grew up in a conservative area where giving
head is some kind of a taboo, so that if a woman does it, she gains
popularity by reputation. For others who didn't have authority
figures getting that specific about our sex lives, and with people who
don't know much about person before initiating contact, though, there
has got to be some other draw.
It is an interesting question...whether one of the reasons why some
women are pretty busy, even though they're not physically "perfect" is
because something in their demeanor indicates sexual confidence. The
people who are researching beauty say that the way a person moves is a
marker, much like the face.
~Kthulah
Stuart O. Bronstein
Kthulah wrote:
>
> It is an interesting question...whether one of the reasons why some
> women are pretty busy, even though they're not physically "perfect" is
> because something in their demeanor indicates sexual confidence. The
> people who are researching beauty say that the way a person moves is a
> marker, much like the face.
A person you notice is attractive. A person who notices you is
charming. And charming is much more important in the long run.
Stu
la n.
Stuart O. Bronstein <sab...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:3CB872DF...@sbcglobal.net...
This is cool.
la n.
Crash Street Kidd
kth...@shoggoth.net says...
>
>Crash Street Kidd <crashst...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:<a99dh...@drn.newsguy.com>...
>>In article <3CB804D1...@bellsouth.net>, chubby chaser Jim Ledford says...
>> >
>> >jeanette rauni runyon wrote:
>> >
>> >> Kthulah wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >If I could explain why I don't lack for love or lust, even though I am
>> >> >not physically "perfect", and thought you or most others watching,
>> >> >would have a clue of what I was talking about, I would try...but it's
>> >> >one of those things that, being difficult enough to explain as it is,
>> >> >would be like an alien language to you.
>> >>
>> >> No kidding. If the world was really according to Dan I would not be
>> >> dating as much as I do. I simply have no problem at all attracting
>> >> guys. And for some reason they are all falling love. I don't ever
>> >> recall that happening to me when I was in my 20's
>> >
>> >
>> >of all the reports from Dan that I have seen and read
>> >none of them took into account the incredible popularity
>> >of women who suck.
>>
>> If you weren't such a dud maybe you could find one that would.
>>
>> Crash Street Kidd
>
>
>You meanie.
Thank you.
>It's not because he's a dud.
Just going by his own reports... there is a reason that
he had to tell stories about psychic projection and sex
on the astral plane.
> It's just a matter of
>priorities. Or maybe he grew up in a conservative area where giving
>head is some kind of a taboo, so that if a woman does it, she gains
>popularity by reputation.
If the reports on the bathroom walls are accurate
his wives had no problem about giving head to other men
it was just Jeem Ledford that came up short.
> For others who didn't have authority
>figures getting that specific about our sex lives, and with people who
>don't know much about person before initiating contact, though, there
>has got to be some other draw.
>
>It is an interesting question...whether one of the reasons why some
>women are pretty busy, even though they're not physically "perfect" is
>because something in their demeanor indicates sexual confidence. The
>people who are researching beauty say that the way a person moves is a
>marker, much like the face.
The Beatles said that...
"Something in the way she moves
Attracts me like no other lover"
Crash Street Kidd
smoochies!!!
>
>
>~Kthulah
The Danimal
>
> Stuart O. Bronstein <sab...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:3CB872DF...@sbcglobal.net...
> >
> >
> > Kthulah wrote:
> > >
> > > women are pretty busy, even though they're not physically "perfect" is
> > > because something in their demeanor indicates sexual confidence. The
> > > people who are researching beauty say that the way a person moves is a
> > > marker, much like the face.
> >
> > charming. And charming is much more important in the long run.
In the long run we're dead. --- John Maynard Keynes
> > Stu
>
> This is cool.
>
> la n.
It needs work.
1. A person you notice is attractive.
2. An attractive person who notices you is charming.
3. An unattractive person who notices you is bothersome.
4. The less you get noticed the less likely you are to
feel bothered when it happens.
Supporting anecdote: when I flatter GoddessBaybee she doesn't
react as favorably as when I flatter women older than 40.
Steve Chaney has the power to make an obese woman's day by
saying something nice to her.
-- the Danimal
Jim Ledford
> And so right on the money too.
!
LOL
la n.
> Supporting anecdote: when I flatter GoddessBaybee she doesn't
> react as favorably as when I flatter women older than 40.
So I've noticed.
la n.
Crash Street Kidd
Soul diss.
>
>la n.
hee hee.
Crash Street Kidd
Stuart O. Bronstein
"la n." wrote:
> The Danimal <dmo...@mfm.com> wrote
>
> > Supporting anecdote: when I flatter GoddessBaybee she doesn't
> > react as favorably as when I flatter women older than 40.
>
> So I've noticed.
I never flatter anybody. On the other hand, I often give verbal
appreciation for qualities people have that somehow please or benefit
me.
Stu
Kthulah
> Jim Ledford <jim...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<3CB804D1...@bellsouth.net>...
> > jeanette rauni runyon wrote:
> >
> > > Kthulah wrote:
> > >
> > > >If I could explain why I don't lack for love or lust, even though I am
> > > >not physically "perfect", and thought you or most others watching,
> > > >would have a clue of what I was talking about, I would try...but it's
> > > >one of those things that, being difficult enough to explain as it is,
> > > >would be like an alien language to you.
>
> Why? I never said gluttons can't get laid. If that were true
> the world wouldn't be overrun with them.
>
> I merely said gluttons have to settle for partners who
> themselves are generally unable to attract any non-gluttons,
> but generally would prefer to.
In other words, you're claiming to be psychic (again).
> Speaking of difficult things to explain: who will be the first
> fat woman posting here who shows she can read?
<brev.>
It's not that we can't read. It's just that you seem to be very
misinformed, and very few people are willing to take the step to tell
you the truth. So some talk around the issues, but stop short of a
crucial point, mainly because they're not certain of the statistics on
certain things.
I am aware of the statistics, and I am unwilling to correct you. So
while you find whatever excuses to express your dislike for fat women
(again) and use baseless speculation to do it (again), I sit here and
give a grim chuckle, and only respond occasionally to let you know
that it's okay to have your preferences. You don't really need to
justify them. I can't speak for others, but to me, it's almost cute
that you are so naive.
~Kthulah
Kthulah
> >
> > Stuart O. Bronstein <sab...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> > news:3CB872DF...@sbcglobal.net...
> > >
> > >
> > > Kthulah wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It is an interesting question...whether one of the reasons why some
> > > > women are pretty busy, even though they're not physically "perfect" is
> > > > because something in their demeanor indicates sexual confidence. The
> > > > people who are researching beauty say that the way a person moves is a
> > > > marker, much like the face.
> > >
> > > A person you notice is attractive. A person who notices you is
> > > charming. And charming is much more important in the long run.
>
> In the long run we're dead. --- John Maynard Keynes
The question is what sort of impact we'll have on the world before
that happens. If one is satisfied with mediocrity, as most people
are, then what is popular would be satisfying. For those of us who
think bigger, though, popularity isn't the most important thing...even
though it sometimes happens as a result of being exceptional.
> > > Stu
> >
> > This is cool.
> >
> > la n.
>
> It needs work.
>
> 1. A person you notice is attractive.
> 2. An attractive person who notices you is charming.
> 3. An unattractive person who notices you is bothersome.
> 4. The less you get noticed the less likely you are to
> feel bothered when it happens.
>
> Supporting anecdote: when I flatter GoddessBaybee she doesn't
> react as favorably as when I flatter women older than 40.
>
> Steve Chaney has the power to make an obese woman's day by
> saying something nice to her.
I, personally, take looks based flattery with a grain of salt. This
is because I became aware far too young that people liking me, and
liking the way I look, didn't always, or even usually mean that they
respected me. I respond favorably to it, because I can take a
compliment. This does not mean, however, that I trust people simply
for complimenting me.
I've been told I was beautiful, and then violated. I'm sure that
this, or similar things, have happened to a few other women in this
newsgroup. Once something like that happens...and it does happen to
many women, we might not run away screaming every time, but we don't
take it to mean that the guy saying it respects us.
Sorry if that bursts your bubble.
The power that a beautiful woman may have over you is not the power
that beautiful women have in general, over men. The power to give an
erection on sight is only that. It is not the power to change
someone's personality, and especially not to change a hurtful or
violent person into a nice one.
Physical beauty, however one defines it is like a double edged blade,
and one of those edges is nastily serrated.
~Kthulah
Jim Ledford
> The Danimal wrote:
> > Jim Ledford wrote:
> Hey I am *huge*!!! LOL <rolls eyes> Psst I haven't had a doughnut in
> 15 years.
> >
> >I don't presume to tell you what you like. If you're happy to
> >settle, if that works for you, then don't change your behavior.
> >
> >> > I simply have no problem at all attracting
> >> > guys. And for some reason they are all falling love. I don't ever
> >> > recall that happening to me when I was in my 20's
> >
> >Rauni, your constant assertions of your availability and alleged
> >quality are consistent with my hypothesis that you are compensating
> >for your declining ability to attract men by advertising your
> >availability more aggressively. And what better way to reach an
> >unparalleled concentration of rejects than to advertise your wares
> >on soc.singles.
>
> Advertise my wares on soc.single? Pleeze! If I say my experiences are
> contrary to what you assert that makes me advertising my wares?
> Actually I have *never* dated anyone I have met on a newsgroup.
>
> And quite frankly I am dating anything but rejects. But ok if it
> makes you feel better that I do, ok think that. Just remember that I
> have been supporting myself for a very long time I don’t need nor want
> losers in my life. I will be sure inform the retired Marine who owns
> his own business and is a stunt car driver that his is a loser. Or the
> stock broker, or the airline pilot. Dan, you are trying to hard.
>
> >Notice that none of the alleged HWP 20-something women posting
> >here feel a need to trumpet their sexual market value. All an
> >attractive woman needs to do is give us one photo (see:
> >GoddessBaybee) and she can skip all the commentary and vigorous
> >assertions. Men only have to look at the photo and we are convinced.
> >No need for any Jedi mind tricks.
>
> My untouched photo did just as well as Brenda's on amihotornot. I
> don't feel bad at all about my looks. And apparently neither do the
> men I date. I am routinely mistaken for my late 30's. And I am not
> dumb enough to think I look as good as I did my 20's, but that is ok I
> am no longer interested in dating children. Which is why I don't out
> with anyone under 40.
>
> >Before you knee jerk and say "What about Brenda?" note that
> >accusing Brenda of applying your strategy is not exactly the
> >way to refute my hypothesis. At least when Brenda does it she's
> >advertising a well-maintained product.
>
> Funny the guys I date think the same about me. I have no problems
> finding guys who like my curves. They think my waist to hip ratio is
> just fine. I don't need a testimonials about how wonderful I am at the
> end of everything I post either.
>
> >> of all the reports from Dan that I have seen and read
> >> none of them took into account the incredible popularity
> >> of women who suck.
> >
> >Are there women who won't?
> >
> Only those women who won’t do Jim or Dan!
jeanette rauni runyon, when I said you suck, it had nothing
to do with your cum guzzling dick sucking, you made that
distinction for yourself.
Stuart O. Bronstein
Kthulah wrote:
> dmo...@mfm.com (The Danimal) wrote
> > 1. A person you notice is attractive.
> > 2. An attractive person who notices you is charming.
So far, so good.
> > 3. An unattractive person who notices you is bothersome.
Only if you're an idiot.
> > 4. The less you get noticed the less likely you are to
> > feel bothered when it happens.
Could you translate that into English?
> > Supporting anecdote: when I flatter GoddessBaybee she doesn't
> > react as favorably as when I flatter women older than 40.
Flattery (which, to me, means phony compliments) is seldom beneficial.
But sometimes some people either can't tell the difference, or choose
not to tell the difference. that still doesn't make it any better to
do.
> > Steve Chaney has the power to make an obese woman's day by
> > saying something nice to her.
Funny thing I discovered - if you treat people like they're beautiful,
most of them actually become beautiful (if you didn't perceive them that
way already).
> I, personally, take looks based flattery with a grain of salt. This
> is because I became aware far too young that people liking me, and
> liking the way I look, didn't always, or even usually mean that they
> respected me. I respond favorably to it, because I can take a
> compliment. This does not mean, however, that I trust people simply
> for complimenting me.
Looks fade over time. And for me, frankly, I get bored with a person's
looks after a fairly short time. So I go for inner beauty and pretty
much ignore superficial beauty. It's much more likely to last, and it's
much more likely to lead to a pleasing interaction.
Stu
Stuart O. Bronstein
Kthulah wrote:
> dmo...@mfm.com (The Danimal) wrote
> > Speaking of difficult things to explain: who will be the first
> > fat woman posting here who shows she can read?
> <brev.>
>
> It's not that we can't read. It's just that you seem to be very
> misinformed, and very few people are willing to take the step to tell
> you the truth.
Does anybody actually read the garbage he spouts?
Stu
Jim Ledford
> Kthulah wrote:
> > The Danimal wrote
>
> > > 1. A person you notice is attractive.
> > > 2. An attractive person who notices you is charming.
>
> So far, so good.
>
> > > 3. An unattractive person who notices you is bothersome.
>
> Only if you're an idiot.
>
> > > 4. The less you get noticed the less likely you are to
> > > feel bothered when it happens.
>
> Could you translate that into English?
>
> > > Supporting anecdote: when I flatter GoddessBaybee she doesn't
> > > react as favorably as when I flatter women older than 40.
>
> Flattery (which, to me, means phony compliments) is seldom beneficial.
> But sometimes some people either can't tell the difference, or choose
> not to tell the difference. that still doesn't make it any better to
> do.
as long as we say or agree the photo GoddessBaybee put up as herself
is herself, then there will be no phony compliments because the
little girl in that picture is really kind of cute and baring being
hit by a train the pretty little girl in that picture could actually
grow into a beautiful woman over the next several years.
> > > Steve Chaney has the power to make an obese woman's day by
> > > saying something nice to her.
>
> Funny thing I discovered - if you treat people like they're beautiful,
> most of them actually become beautiful (if you didn't perceive them that
> way already).
I gave this a try. For ten minutes I closed my eyes and pretended
jeanette rauni runyon was beautiful, it did not work. I still see
a mean spirited woman posting the address and phone numbers of the
really beautiful women that cause jeanette rauni runyon's hate to
burn deep inside of her. hate makes'em as ugly as the ugly stick.
> > I, personally, take looks based flattery with a grain of salt. This
> > is because I became aware far too young that people liking me, and
> > liking the way I look, didn't always, or even usually mean that they
> > respected me. I respond favorably to it, because I can take a
> > compliment. This does not mean, however, that I trust people simply
> > for complimenting me.
>
> Looks fade over time. And for me, frankly, I get bored with a person's
> looks after a fairly short time. So I go for inner beauty and pretty
> much ignore superficial beauty. It's much more likely to last, and it's
> much more likely to lead to a pleasing interaction.
>
> Stu
I'm that way myself. as long as the women are not FAT, I can
be accepting of little imperfections life sometimes leaves
people with.
I know this one fellow who tried to date a fat girl. they got
into a big fight about the number of feeding periods in one
day. He says there are three feeding times in one day. she
says there are ten feeding times in one day. I don't think
they are going to make it together, especially after he gets
that grocery bill.
Jim Ledford
la n.
So I've noticed ... ;)
la n.
la n.
Stu, you're a good man, Stu. A gentleman and a scholar.
And you have infinitely more luck with women than Danimal,
I might add.
la n.
la n.
Heh. Brenda wept.
la n.
Shawn Pickrell
> Kthulah wrote:
>> dmo...@mfm.com (The Danimal) wrote
>> > 1. A person you notice is attractive.
>> > 2. An attractive person who notices you is charming.
> So far, so good.
>> > 3. An unattractive person who notices you is bothersome.
> Only if you're an idiot.
obviously you have not heard a group of 16-25 year old
women dissing a guy who has the temerity to like one of
them while committing the similar sin of being unattractive.
if i were to touch some girl on the back and make a highly
pointed compliment about her dress, she would likely
squirm away. she would be less likely to do so if (fill
in favourite famous person of your choice here) were to
do so.
>> > 4. The less you get noticed the less likely you are to
>> > feel bothered when it happens.
> Could you translate that into English?
easy. if you are not very attractive to the opposite sex,
any attention you get from them is more likely to be
appreciated as opposed to being a bother. for example,
goddessbaybee probably gets noticed by a wide variety of
men in the course of her daily activities, probably more
than the number of women that notice dan and myself
combined (just to pull a name out of the hat.) she may
even get (gasp!) annoyed at the attention.
whereas the moderately attractive newly minted college
grad who was trying to chat me up a bit last week is
still somewhere in the recesses of my memory.
> Flattery (which, to me, means phony compliments) is seldom beneficial.
> But sometimes some people either can't tell the difference, or choose
> not to tell the difference. that still doesn't make it any better to
> do.
did i tell you that suit makes you look distinguished? ;-)
> Funny thing I discovered - if you treat people like they're beautiful,
> most of them actually become beautiful (if you didn't perceive them that
> way already).
the # of people for whom this is not true is simply so
low as to not be a factor. i.e. this is where i branch
from dan and the hardcore smv acceptors.
>> I, personally, take looks based flattery with a grain of salt. This
>> is because I became aware far too young that people liking me, and
>> liking the way I look, didn't always, or even usually mean that they
>> respected me. I respond favorably to it, because I can take a
>> compliment. This does not mean, however, that I trust people simply
>> for complimenting me.
> Looks fade over time. And for me, frankly, I get bored with a person's
> looks after a fairly short time. So I go for inner beauty and pretty
> much ignore superficial beauty. It's much more likely to last, and it's
> much more likely to lead to a pleasing interaction.
to say looks don't matter is a bit of puffery.
however the old adage, "you don't sleep with a personality, but you
don't marry (have a relationship) with a piece of ass," remains correct.
--
... Shawn Pickrell, the Majority Stockholder of All Usenet
Stockholders may contact me at shawn_p...@yahoo.com
Goodgirl
news:<3CB804D1...@bellsouth.net>...
> > jeanette rauni runyon wrote:
> >
> > > Kthulah wrote:
> > >
> > > >If I could explain why I don't lack for love or lust, even though I
am
> > > >not physically "perfect", and thought you or most others watching,
> > > >would have a clue of what I was talking about, I would try...but it's
> > > >one of those things that, being difficult enough to explain as it is,
> > > >would be like an alien language to you.
>
> Why? I never said gluttons can't get laid. If that were true
> the world wouldn't be overrun with them.
How would that be? I thought obesity wasn't a question of genitics?
>
> I merely said gluttons have to settle for partners who
> themselves are generally unable to attract any non-gluttons,
> but generally would prefer to.
>
> Speaking of difficult things to explain: who will be the first
> fat woman posting here who shows she can read?
We all can. You just prefer to pretend we can't so you don't have to admit
when you have been proven shallow.
>
> No matter how many dozens of times I explain that it's not about
> whether you can score but who you are scoring with (and who
> your partners are getting rejected by), some glutton takes a
> break from munching doughnuts and """refutes""" my claim
> by demonstrating her endless capacity to misread.
Just because you 'explain' something does not mean said explaination has
anything to do with anyones reality than yours. That you refuse to even try
to see the world through any eyes but your own is telling indeed. Try
taking the bias colored glasses off once in a while - it could be a real eye
opener, if your brain can handle the input, that is.
>
> > > No kidding. If the world was really according to Dan I would not be
> > > dating as much as I do.
>
> As women get older, they tend to compensate for their declining
> physical attractiveness by pursuing men more aggressively.
This is news to me. I have never pursued anyone. Its not in my nature to
do so.
>This strategy tends to work well for a while because most men who aren't
> already fucking something better will be receptive to just about
> any woman who meets their bare minimum requirements.
MY, MY, MY!!! What a telling comment. Do the women in your life know that
you consider women to be 'somethings'? I wonder.
>
> A man's minimum requirements in a partner are usually a function
> of what sort of women his experience with women has conditioned
> him to expect he can attract.
And they couldn't possibly be what he actually likes, could they? How
narrow and shallow you are. Does it help to project this on others?
>
> A man who can attract height:weight proportionate 20-something
> women will ignore any hints or overt interest from a 40-something
> overweight woman. (If anyone has counterexamples now would be a
> good time to post them.)
Not being over 40 yet, and not knowing very many women over 40 who are not
already married, I cannot help you there. But I an sure that if anyone else
has examples, you would reject them out of hand because, in the words from
the movie with Jack Nicholson, "YOU CAN'T HANDLE HANDLE TRUTH!"
> Since most men are insufficiently attractive to women to attract
> many HWP 20-something, most are willing to settle for women of
> lower quality.
>
> If you're happy with rejects, then keep pounding down the
> doughnuts. If, on the other hand, you'd like to attract better
> men, get your gluttony under control.
>
> I don't presume to tell you what you like. If you're happy to
> settle, if that works for you, then don't change your behavior.
>
Meeting nice, smart, hardworking, intellegent men, who may or may not meet
the GQ standard is not setteling. Its real life. Too bad that you are too
shallow to appreciate it.
> > > I simply have no problem at all attracting
> > > guys. And for some reason they are all falling love. I don't ever
> > > recall that happening to me when I was in my 20's
>
> Rauni, your constant assertions of your availability and alleged
> quality are consistent with my hypothesis that you are compensating
> for your declining ability to attract men by advertising your
> availability more aggressively. And what better way to reach an
> unparalleled concentration of rejects than to advertise your wares
> on soc.singles.
>
I have not been reading this group long, but I have never seen Rauni make a
post asking to meet anyone.
> Notice that none of the alleged HWP 20-something women posting
> here feel a need to trumpet their sexual market value. All an
> attractive woman needs to do is give us one photo (see:
> GoddessBaybee) and she can skip all the commentary and vigorous
> assertions. Men only have to look at the photo and we are convinced.
> No need for any Jedi mind tricks.
There is no such thing as sexual marke value. This is a bogus piece of
crap made up by shallow men to explain their shallowness. Why does it not
surprise me YOU believe in it?
> Before you knee jerk and say "What about Brenda?" note that
> accusing Brenda of applying your strategy is not exactly the
> way to refute my hypothesis. At least when Brenda does it she's
> advertising a well-maintained product.
<insert klaxon alarm here> DOUBLE STANDARD ALERT!! DOUBLE STANDARD ALERT!!
DANGER DANGER!!
<insert klaxon alarm here>
snip
Goodgirl
--
"You can't depend on your eyes when your imagination
is out of focus."
Mark Twain, 1835 - 1910
Jim Ledford
> Well actually I have been emailing his stuff to the guys I am dating.
> It has been a source of amusement
you sent to them your picture?
Stuart O. Bronstein
Shawn Pickrell wrote:
> Stuart O. Bronstein <sab...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > Kthulah wrote:
> >> dmo...@mfm.com (The Danimal) wrote
>
> >> > 3. An unattractive person who notices you is bothersome.
>
> > Only if you're an idiot.
>
> obviously you have not heard a group of 16-25 year old
> women dissing a guy who has the temerity to like one of
> them while committing the similar sin of being unattractive.
Women are just as capable of being stupidly superficial as men are. I
know a woman who married a guy because he was just *sooooo* cute. She
worked for years while he was a perpetual student. He took money she
made and spent it on other women. But she refused to believe it for
years - she thought they were in love because she still, after 20 years,
found him so cute.
> if i were to touch some girl on the back and make a highly
> pointed compliment about her dress, she would likely
> squirm away. she would be less likely to do so if (fill
> in favourite famous person of your choice here) were to
> do so.
> > Flattery (which, to me, means phony compliments) is seldom beneficial.
> > But sometimes some people either can't tell the difference, or choose
> > not to tell the difference. that still doesn't make it any better to
> > do.
>
> did i tell you that suit makes you look distinguished? ;-)
Actually, that's something that's fun to do on the phone. I'll
sometimes say, "My, that's a nice outfit you're wearing today." She'll
feel great about it for a second, and then realize we're on the phone
and laugh. Can be very effective.
Stu
Brenda Lee
>
> Shawn Pickrell wrote:
> > Stuart O. Bronstein <sab...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > Kthulah wrote:
> > >> dmo...@mfm.com (The Danimal) wrote
> >
> > >> > 3. An unattractive person who notices you is bothersome.
> >
> > > Only if you're an idiot.
> >
> > obviously you have not heard a group of 16-25 year old
> > women dissing a guy who has the temerity to like one of
> > them while committing the similar sin of being unattractive.
>
> Women are just as capable of being stupidly superficial as men are. I
> know a woman who married a guy because he was just *sooooo* cute. She
> worked for years while he was a perpetual student. He took money she
> made and spent it on other women. But she refused to believe it for
> years - she thought they were in love because she still, after 20 years,
> found him so cute.
I think people throw that word love around very haphazardly. IMO. I
rea ver that it means different things to different people but in order
for two people to 'be in love' their definitions of love must be in
alignment.
Can you love someone you don't even like?
Is love without lust friendship?
>
> > if i were to touch some girl on the back and make a highly
> > pointed compliment about her dress, she would likely
> > squirm away. she would be less likely to do so if (fill
> > in favourite famous person of your choice here) were to
> > do so.
>
> > > Flattery (which, to me, means phony compliments) is seldom beneficial.
> > > But sometimes some people either can't tell the difference, or choose
> > > not to tell the difference. that still doesn't make it any better to
> > > do.
All flattery is not phony. I look to the person to determine the
authenticity of the compliment.
> >
> > did i tell you that suit makes you look distinguished? ;-)
>
> Actually, that's something that's fun to do on the phone. I'll
> sometimes say, "My, that's a nice outfit you're wearing today." She'll
> feel great about it for a second, and then realize we're on the phone
> and laugh. Can be very effective.
That is pretty funny! :)
BrendaLee
ps
that was very nice of you to send me that stuff..
a 100% genuine thank you...
>
> Stu
--
BrendaLee
Lady DreamCatcher
--------------------
http://www.cocreator.com/ehmka/
-------------------------------------
brendalee makes the world better by her presence in it.
~~jackie 'anakin' tokeman~~
brendalee, you complete me
~~jackie 'anakin' tokeman
actually her (brendalee's) kind heart is a weapon more powerful than
the combined hate of the entire degenerate freak mafia.
seriously."
~~jackie 'anakin' tokeman
brendalee is beautiful, feminine, and sweet. she is a woman who embraces
being a woman instead of doing an incompetent job of being a man.
~~jackie 'anakin' tokeman
all your brilliance cubed can never equal the power of just one of
brenda's
soft kisses
~~jackie 'anakin' tokeman
Those who think they have no time for bodily exercise will, sooner or
later, have to find time for illness.
~~Edward Stanley, Earl of Derby, 1873
Brenda Lee
>
> Shawn Pickrell wrote:
> > Stuart O. Bronstein <sab...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > Kthulah wrote:
> > >> dmo...@mfm.com (The Danimal) wrote
> >
> > >> > 3. An unattractive person who notices you is bothersome.
> >
> > > Only if you're an idiot.
> >
> > obviously you have not heard a group of 16-25 year old
> > women dissing a guy who has the temerity to like one of
> > them while committing the similar sin of being unattractive.
>
> Women are just as capable of being stupidly superficial as men are. I
> know a woman who married a guy because he was just *sooooo* cute. She
> worked for years while he was a perpetual student. He took money she
> made and spent it on other women. But she refused to believe it for
> years - she thought they were in love because she still, after 20 years,
> found him so cute.
I think people throw that word love around very haphazardly. IMO. I
realize that it means different things to different people but in order
for two people to 'be in love' their definitions of love must be in
alignment.
Can you love someone you don't even like?
Is love without lust friendship?
>
> > if i were to touch some girl on the back and make a highly
> > pointed compliment about her dress, she would likely
> > squirm away. she would be less likely to do so if (fill
> > in favourite famous person of your choice here) were to
> > do so.
>
> > > Flattery (which, to me, means phony compliments) is seldom beneficial.
> > > But sometimes some people either can't tell the difference, or choose
> > > not to tell the difference. that still doesn't make it any better to
> > > do.
All flattery is not phony. I look to the person to determine the
authenticity of the compliment.
> >
> > did i tell you that suit makes you look distinguished? ;-)
>
> Actually, that's something that's fun to do on the phone. I'll
> sometimes say, "My, that's a nice outfit you're wearing today." She'll
> feel great about it for a second, and then realize we're on the phone
> and laugh. Can be very effective.
That is pretty funny! :)
NR
"foodgirl" <kiss...@hotmail.com>oinked in message
news:ubj8j83...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "The Danimal" <dmo...@mfm.com> wrote in message
> news:cac1ad88.02041...@posting.google.com...
> > Jim Ledford <jim...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:<3CB804D1...@bellsouth.net>...
> > > jeanette rauni runyon wrote:
> > >
> > > > Kthulah wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >If I could explain why I don't lack for love or lust, even though I
> am
> > > > >not physically "perfect", and thought you or most others watching,
> > > > >would have a clue of what I was talking about, I would try...but it's
> > > > >one of those things that, being difficult enough to explain as it is,
> > > > >would be like an alien language to you.
> >
> > Why? I never said gluttons can't get laid. If that were true
> > the world wouldn't be overrun with them.
>
> How would that be?
Family environment (ie collective gluttony and sloth).
> I thought obesity wasn't a question of genitics?
We are all genetically programmed to accumulate adipose tissue when there
is a positive calorie balance. If I wanted to do so, I could bloat myself
up like a hawg too.
>
> >
> > I merely said gluttons have to settle for partners who
> > themselves are generally unable to attract any non-gluttons,
> > but generally would prefer to.
> >
> > Speaking of difficult things to explain: who will be the first
> > fat woman posting here who shows she can read?
>
> We all can. You just prefer to pretend we can't so you don't have to admit
> when you have been proven shallow.
Danimal is correct.
>
> >
> > No matter how many dozens of times I explain that it's not about
> > whether you can score but who you are scoring with (and who
> > your partners are getting rejected by), some glutton takes a
> > break from munching doughnuts and """refutes""" my claim
> > by demonstrating her endless capacity to misread.
>
> Just because you 'explain' something does not mean said explaination has
> anything to do with anyones reality than yours. That you refuse to even try
> to see the world through any eyes but your own is telling indeed. Try
> taking the bias colored glasses off once in a while - it could be a real eye
> opener, if your brain can handle the input, that is.
You are in denial of your own dismal existence. Of course, you don't know
any better. Your family life growing up must've been hell.
>
> >
> > > > No kidding. If the world was really according to Dan I would not be
> > > > dating as much as I do.
> >
> > As women get older, they tend to compensate for their declining
> > physical attractiveness by pursuing men more aggressively.
>
> This is news to me. I have never pursued anyone. Its not in my nature to
> do so.
You have stated that your sole source for dates is chat lines. What
exactly are you pursuing calling chat lines if it's not men?
>
> >This strategy tends to work well for a while because most men who aren't
> > already fucking something better will be receptive to just about
> > any woman who meets their bare minimum requirements.
>
> MY, MY, MY!!! What a telling comment. Do the women in your life know that
> you consider women to be 'somethings'? I wonder.
You write like someone who has never had a serious relationship.
>
> >
> > A man's minimum requirements in a partner are usually a function
> > of what sort of women his experience with women has conditioned
> > him to expect he can attract.
>
> And they couldn't possibly be what he actually likes, could they? How
> narrow and shallow you are. Does it help to project this on others?
How many men have liked you enough to pursue a serious relationship with
you?
>
> >
> > A man who can attract height:weight proportionate 20-something
> > women will ignore any hints or overt interest from a 40-something
> > overweight woman. (If anyone has counterexamples now would be a
> > good time to post them.)
>
> Not being over 40 yet, and not knowing very many women over 40 who are not
> already married, I cannot help you there. But I an sure that if anyone else
> has examples, you would reject them out of hand because, in the words from
> the movie with Jack Nicholson, "YOU CAN'T HANDLE HANDLE TRUTH!"
*tapping foot*
>
> > Since most men are insufficiently attractive to women to attract
> > many HWP 20-something, most are willing to settle for women of
> > lower quality.
> >
> > If you're happy with rejects, then keep pounding down the
> > doughnuts. If, on the other hand, you'd like to attract better
> > men, get your gluttony under control.
> >
> > I don't presume to tell you what you like. If you're happy to
> > settle, if that works for you, then don't change your behavior.
> >
>
> Meeting nice, smart, hardworking, intellegent men, who may or may not meet
> the GQ standard is not setteling. Its real life. Too bad that you are too
> shallow to appreciate it.
You meet your men, per your previous admissions, solely through chat lines.
You have also stated that you have fucked married men that you have met
through this medium. I have *never* known a guy who would pay $1.95/up per
minute to use a chat line when they get laid by conventional means. That's
a lot of dough! IOW, men that use chat lines are losers and have no choice
but to pay for their low SMV. It's like people with crummy credit having
to pay usurious interest rates to buy a beater to get back and forth to
work in. That have no choice if they want a car.
You, foodgirl, have been unable to attract men through conventional means
because you have preferred to deform your body through gluttony and sloth.
Per your own admission, you never had a date until you were 29. The
benefit for you of the chat lines is that your potential partners must make
arrangements with you sight unseen.
>
> > > > I simply have no problem at all attracting
> > > > guys. And for some reason they are all falling love. I don't ever
> > > > recall that happening to me when I was in my 20's
> >
> > Rauni, your constant assertions of your availability and alleged
> > quality are consistent with my hypothesis that you are compensating
> > for your declining ability to attract men by advertising your
> > availability more aggressively. And what better way to reach an
> > unparalleled concentration of rejects than to advertise your wares
> > on soc.singles.
> >
>
> I have not been reading this group long, but I have never seen Rauni make a
> post asking to meet anyone.
Selective reading on your part.
>
> > Notice that none of the alleged HWP 20-something women posting
> > here feel a need to trumpet their sexual market value. All an
> > attractive woman needs to do is give us one photo (see:
> > GoddessBaybee) and she can skip all the commentary and vigorous
> > assertions. Men only have to look at the photo and we are convinced.
> > No need for any Jedi mind tricks.
>
> There is no such thing as sexual marke value. This is a bogus piece of
> crap made up by shallow men to explain their shallowness. Why does it not
> surprise me YOU believe in it?
You are a classic case study of SMV, you're just too stupid to realize it.
NR
Fat, drunken and haggard is no way to go through life.
http://www.hotornot.com/r/?eid=REAUEU&key=QEE
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iQA/AwUBPLnHyDL3IlvsWvnjEQLLoACePo8rsmHVeXj9XifKyvaGxd4edW4AoOxa
JUbMcQAz11ywi/GDHtWYvHbY
=s/vy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
g0rt
> > > 2. An attractive person who notices you is charming.
>
> So far, so good.
>
>
> Only if you're an idiot.
>
> > > feel bothered when it happens.
>
> Could you translate that into English?
stale bread crusts are like cheesy poofs to a starving woman.
> > > Supporting anecdote: when I flatter GoddessBaybee she doesn't
> > > react as favorably as when I flatter women older than 40.
>
> Flattery (which, to me, means phony compliments) is seldom beneficial.
> But sometimes some people either can't tell the difference, or choose
> not to tell the difference. that still doesn't make it any better to
> do.
so it's best to just tell fat women they're ugly.
right?
> > > Steve Chaney has the power to make an obese woman's day by
> > > saying something nice to her.
>
> Funny thing I discovered - if you treat people like they're beautiful,
> most of them actually become beautiful (if you didn't perceive them that
> way already).
have you ever tried this with a pus-dripping leper?
what about hitler? would it have worked on hitler?
jackie 'anakin' tokeman
(this is a test)
chaney: i've got some fudge hidden up my ass - you want some?
vald: yeah right - i'm not falling for that one again.
i have always thought the actions of men the best interpreters of thier
thoughts.
- john locke
la n.
Stuart O. Bronstein <sab...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:3CB9B8D9...@sbcglobal.net...
It's interesting - this concept of "flattery". Sometimes it is indeed
phoney. Sometimes "flattery" can be depicted in other ways. I
could say that Dan flatters me with lots of attention, albeit for the
most part, with negative attention, as he makes post after post
directed towards my person, trying to "put me in my place."
However, he has overtly flattered with GoddessBaybee with the
hopes of achieving a positive effect, i.e. perhaps - at the very
least - a future cyberdate.
Dan appears to be hurting by GoddessBaybee's indifference to
his overtures, and he attributes it to (a) their great age
difference, and/or (b) the fact that he sports a monk's toupee.
Having studied the posting habits of Baybee over the past
while, though, I would say that those are *not* factors. She
is more than likely turned off by his cruel remarks about
old people ("shacks of shit" he has called them), fat people,
women over 40, women who are not very beautiful. She
has absorbed the "beeg peecture" of Dan and likely finds
it distasteful. And her self-esteem and self-awareness and
her values are prolly highly enough developed that she
neither craves Dan's flattery nor feels the need to stroke his
ego. She has a lot of class, imho.
As I have said, Dan gets himself into trouble by thinking out
loud. Butt he seems to have fired me as his Love Advisor.
Now, note to Goddess: I have rented the video of the week,
the "Ghost" movie. I had every intention of watching it today
to join in on the week's discussion. However, I just received a
call from some friends from out of town who said they want to
come to visit. Ergo, I shall be firing up the BBQ for the time
time this year. Prolly, in the canadian tradition, beer will be
involved. And I won't be able to watch the movie today. I
have it for a week, though, and I'll watch it for sure.
la n.
Kthulah
I used to read it until it became overly repititious. Because I don't
have a problem with his preferences, just the assumption that his are
the standard, it isn't really a problem for me to address them.
The touchy part arises in the actually informing him of what is the
most sexually attractive set of features to most men in the world.
I'm aware of these things because it is, partly, my job to be. I've
been an adult webmaster for 5 and 1/2 years, and I know what sells
best. Before that, I knew quite a few prostitutes and former
prostitutes, and grew up in, let's just say, not the best family
situation.
So I know what most men want. I just have no desire to be that, sell
that, or promote that as a healthy outlet for one's lusts.
I call his speculations naive, because he fails to take anything into
consideration but the looks of adults. He makes it a moral question,
when the truth is that morality has nothing to do with it. What most
men want would be immoral to pursue, and if there's settling going on,
that settling starts based on virginity, and age over 16, not age over
40.
~Kthulah
NR
"<Rauntard>" <jen...@newsguy.com$> oinked in message
news:up9jbucob6g0uhgc6...@4ax.com...
>
>The only person who is unable to read is Dan. He asserts that I am
>going out with men of poor quality. I say I am not, but because I am
>50 and my BMI is 25 rather than 17 it must be true.
<SNIP>
>I am not sure what he means by pursing. I have an ad up.
IOW, you are unable to secure dates by conventional means.
Thank you for conceding Dan's point.
NR
Fat, drunken and haggard is no way to go through life.
http://www.hotornot.com/r/?eid=REAUEU&key=QEE
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iQA/AwUBPLnZOTL3IlvsWvnjEQINLACfW1/Y2JWvPlbDRU8rMLEE/w3V5xsAn2/y
zfVMi6izPmFwxZ+sD8R44SY0
=9DA7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
g0rt
> stu eeped:
> > Funny thing I discovered - if you treat people like they're beautiful,
> > most of them actually become beautiful (if you didn't perceive them that
> > way already).
>
> low as to not be a factor. i.e. this is where i branch
> from dan and the hardcore smv acceptors.
nonsense. 28% of american women are over the age of 45. no amount of happy
happy joy joy talk will make most of them beautiful.
needless to say, the same goes for the ever bloating percentage of them who
are obese or worse.
jackie 'anakin' tokeman
g0rt
> I call his speculations naive, because he fails to take anything into
> consideration but the looks of adults. He makes it a moral question,
> when the truth is that morality has nothing to do with it. What most
> men want would be immoral to pursue, and if there's settling going on,
> that settling starts based on virginity, and age over 16, not age over
> 40.
there are legal reasons why american men in some states can't go on record
re: thier lust for 16 year old girls.
or:
heh
g0rt
> "The Danimal" <dmo...@mfm.com> wrote in message
> news:cac1ad88.02041...@posting.google.com...
> > Jim Ledford <jim...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:<3CB804D1...@bellsouth.net>...
> > > jeanette rauni runyon wrote:
> > >
> > > > Kthulah wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >If I could explain why I don't lack for love or lust, even though I
> am
> > > > >not physically "perfect", and thought you or most others watching,
> > > > >would have a clue of what I was talking about, I would try...but it's
> > > > >one of those things that, being difficult enough to explain as it is,
> > > > >would be like an alien language to you.
> >
> > Why? I never said gluttons can't get laid. If that were true
> > the world wouldn't be overrun with them.
>
this is a good point.
there is no evidence that the present rise in obesity is the result of
genetics, and much evidence that it is the product of culture and
environment.
> > I merely said gluttons have to settle for partners who
> > themselves are generally unable to attract any non-gluttons,
> > but generally would prefer to.
> >
> > Speaking of difficult things to explain: who will be the first
> > fat woman posting here who shows she can read?
>
> We all can. You just prefer to pretend we can't so you don't have to admit
> when you have been proven shallow.
he doesn't have to be 'proven shallow' (as losers reckon shallow)
he revels in it.
hth
> > No matter how many dozens of times I explain that it's not about
> > whether you can score but who you are scoring with (and who
> > your partners are getting rejected by), some glutton takes a
> > break from munching doughnuts and """refutes""" my claim
> > by demonstrating her endless capacity to misread.
>
> Just because you 'explain' something does not mean said explaination has
> anything to do with anyones reality than yours.
says the bloated pig freak who will fuck any warmblooded featherless biped
who accepts her chatline comeons.
> That you refuse to even try
> to see the world through any eyes but your own is telling indeed.
you value eating what makes you feel good more than you value pleasing
men.
am i close?
> Try
> taking the bias colored glasses off once in a while - it could be a real eye
> opener, if your brain can handle the input, that is.
you write like a loser.
> > > > No kidding. If the world was really according to Dan I would not be
> > > > dating as much as I do.
> >
> > As women get older, they tend to compensate for their declining
> > physical attractiveness by pursuing men more aggressively.
>
> This is news to me. I have never pursued anyone. Its not in my nature to
> do so.
what are you doing on those chatlines full of desperate chaneys then?
> >This strategy tends to work well for a while because most men who aren't
> > already fucking something better will be receptive to just about
> > any woman who meets their bare minimum requirements.
>
> MY, MY, MY!!! What a telling comment. Do the women in your life know that
> you consider women to be 'somethings'? I wonder.
dan is on record believing that in sexual relationships it is imperative
that one never, ever tell the comprehensive truth.
> > A man's minimum requirements in a partner are usually a function
> > of what sort of women his experience with women has conditioned
> > him to expect he can attract.
>
> And they couldn't possibly be what he actually likes, could they?
how many guys with slovenly wives were collecting pictorials of rosie
o'donnell, camryn mannheim, and rosanne barr before they roped thier sow?
> How
> narrow and shallow you are. Does it help to project this on others?
men talk to each other.
hth
> > A man who can attract height:weight proportionate 20-something
> > women will ignore any hints or overt interest from a 40-something
> > overweight woman. (If anyone has counterexamples now would be a
> > good time to post them.)
>
> Not being over 40 yet, and not knowing very many women over 40 who are not
> already married, I cannot help you there. But I an sure that if anyone else
> has examples, you would reject them out of hand because, in the words from
> the movie with Jack Nicholson, "YOU CAN'T HANDLE HANDLE TRUTH!"
describe the longest relationship you've ever had.
include height, weight, age, annual income, hairline, dicksize, and whether
he was a nerd.
> > Since most men are insufficiently attractive to women to attract
> > many HWP 20-something, most are willing to settle for women of
> > lower quality.
> >
> > If you're happy with rejects, then keep pounding down the
> > doughnuts. If, on the other hand, you'd like to attract better
> > men, get your gluttony under control.
> >
> > I don't presume to tell you what you like. If you're happy to
> > settle, if that works for you, then don't change your behavior.
>
> Meeting nice, smart, hardworking, intellegent men, who may or may not meet
> the GQ standard is not setteling.
i notice that description could easily apply to balding geeks.
what's up with that?
> Its real life. Too bad that you are too
> shallow to appreciate it.
in real life all the guys i know who could attract hwp chicks are with hwp
chicks.
every last one of the fatty fuckers has absolutely no choice in the matter.
well, aside from celibacy of course.
> > > > I simply have no problem at all attracting
> > > > guys. And for some reason they are all falling love. I don't ever
> > > > recall that happening to me when I was in my 20's
> >
> > Rauni, your constant assertions of your availability and alleged
> > quality are consistent with my hypothesis that you are compensating
> > for your declining ability to attract men by advertising your
> > availability more aggressively. And what better way to reach an
> > unparalleled concentration of rejects than to advertise your wares
> > on soc.singles.
>
> I have not been reading this group long, but I have never seen Rauni make a
> post asking to meet anyone.
she has, however, stated that she fucks grossly obese men.
> > Notice that none of the alleged HWP 20-something women posting
> > here feel a need to trumpet their sexual market value. All an
> > attractive woman needs to do is give us one photo (see:
> > GoddessBaybee) and she can skip all the commentary and vigorous
> > assertions. Men only have to look at the photo and we are convinced.
> > No need for any Jedi mind tricks.
>
> There is no such thing as sexual marke value.
why, if that is the case, are some women able to exchange sex for so much
more money than others?
> This is a bogus piece of
> crap made up by shallow men to explain their shallowness. Why does it not
> surprise me YOU believe in it?
why are you so upset when men express thier desire for hwp women?
> > Before you knee jerk and say "What about Brenda?" note that
> > accusing Brenda of applying your strategy is not exactly the
> > way to refute my hypothesis. At least when Brenda does it she's
> > advertising a well-maintained product.
>
> <insert klaxon alarm here> DOUBLE STANDARD ALERT!! DOUBLE STANDARD ALERT!!
> DANGER DANGER!!
> <insert klaxon alarm here>
compare and contrast:
bloated, bitchy, slovenly kuntulah
slender, sweet, lovely brendalee
but if you can't see it
take my word
for guys
there is a difference
g0rt
> On 12 Apr 2002 11:25:42 -0700, kth...@shoggoth.net (Kthulah) wrote:
>
> >
> >If I could explain why I don't lack for love or lust, even though I am
> >not physically "perfect", and thought you or most others watching,
> >would have a clue of what I was talking about, I would try...but it's
> >one of those things that, being difficult enough to explain as it is,
> >would be like an alien language to you.
>
> guys. And for some reason they are all falling love. I don't ever
> recall that happening to me when I was in my 20's
telling
gort
> "<Rauntard>" <jen...@newsguy.com$> oinked in message
> news:up9jbucob6g0uhgc6...@4ax.com...
> >
> >The only person who is unable to read is Dan. He asserts that I am
> >going out with men of poor quality. I say I am not, but because I am
> >50 and my BMI is 25 rather than 17 it must be true.
> <SNIP>
> >I am not sure what he means by pursing. I have an ad up.
>
> IOW, you are unable to secure dates by conventional means.
i missed that bit.
good catch.
kim
Not unless someone interesting responds.
Kim
WhistleStop
> is a positive calorie balance. If I wanted to do so, I could bloat myself
> up like a hawg too.
Then why couldn't my friend Renee ever gain any weight while we were in high
school when she ate everything like there was no tomorrow? A bunch of us
tried to 'coach' her, watching her stuff herself to the gills trying to have
boobs and a butt, all to no avail. She kept her flat chest, bony butt and
knees until she died in a car accident at the age of 29. May she rest in
peace.
> > > Speaking of difficult things to explain: who will be the first
> > > fat woman posting here who shows she can read?
Define fat woman. <giggles>
*****thinking....wonder what criteria this bozo uses, weight, measurements,
jiggle factor, build, bulk, etc. ad nauseam.*****
The Danimal
>
> FOODgirl oinked:
> > "The Danimal" <dmo...@mfm.com> wrote in message
> > news:cac1ad88.02041...@posting.google.com...
> > > Jim Ledford <jim...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> > news:<3CB804D1...@bellsouth.net>...
> > > > jeanette rauni runyon wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Kthulah wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >If I could explain why I don't lack for love or lust, even though I am
> > > > > >not physically "perfect", and thought you or most others watching,
> > > > > >would have a clue of what I was talking about, I would try...but it's
> > > > > >one of those things that, being difficult enough to explain as it is,
> > > > > >would be like an alien language to you.
> > >
> > > Why? I never said gluttons can't get laid. If that were true
> > > the world wouldn't be overrun with them.
> >
> > How would that be? I thought obesity wasn't a question of genitics?
If being overweight guaranteed a lifetime of celibacy I think a
lot more people would figure out a way to push away from the table.
There are two ways to interpret my claim:
1. I might have been saying something about the offspring of gluttons.
2. I might have been saying something about the immediate incentive
gluttons might have to push away from the table.
Evidently the feedback is not that strong. People can put on a few
pounds and they're still able to fuck something.
> this is a good point.
> there is no evidence that the present rise in obesity is the result of
> genetics, and much evidence that it is the product of culture and
> environment.
You're talking about the overall rise in obesity. However, not everyone
has gained the same amount of weight. The culture has changed, the
gene pool has changed very little, but the *distribution of genes*
within the changed culture probably has something to do with
*who is getting fat* in this culture.
People are getting taller, too, on average, and the increase is probably
due to culture (specifically: more calories and protein for the kiddies).
Nonetheless it is clear that genes strongly influence who is taller
or shorter than the average height.
And speaking of culture, parents are part of a child's environment.
If the kids grow up with parents who use food in particular ways,
the children might have a higher chance of learning to use food
similarly. Like having parents who smoke, drink, gamble, break
traffic laws, whatever.
But of course within the same family there can be siblings who
are overweight while others are at ideal weights.
> > > I merely said gluttons have to settle for partners who
> > > themselves are generally unable to attract any non-gluttons,
> > > but generally would prefer to.
> > >
> > > Speaking of difficult things to explain: who will be the first
> > > fat woman posting here who shows she can read?
> >
> > We all can. You just prefer to pretend we can't so you don't have to admit
> > when you have been proven shallow.
>
> he doesn't have to be 'proven shallow' (as losers reckon shallow)
> he revels in it.
> hth
I revel in it when I get the chance.
> > > No matter how many dozens of times I explain that it's not about
> > > whether you can score but who you are scoring with (and who
> > > your partners are getting rejected by), some glutton takes a
> > > break from munching doughnuts and """refutes""" my claim
> > > by demonstrating her endless capacity to misread.
> >
> > Just because you 'explain' something does not mean said explaination has
> > anything to do with anyones reality than yours.
>
> says the bloated pig freak who will fuck any warmblooded featherless biped
> who accepts her chatline comeons.
Rauni also boasts of her feminine prowess. I wonder how the
men who are currently falling in love with Rauni compare to God's
gift to women, our highly trained killing machine Vlad. Is Rauni
scoring highly coveted prize specimens like him? Or is she doing
even better?
Ladies, here's how to tell if your man is worth more than shit.
Do you have to constantly keep an eye on him at parties and
actively discourage other women from hitting on him? Or is he
pretty safe for you to let out on his own recognizance?
> > That you refuse to even try
> > to see the world through any eyes but your own is telling indeed.
>
> you value eating what makes you feel good more than you value pleasing
> men.
> am i close?
I don't understand how a woman who claims to love men can purposely
ignore what men want.
> > Try
> > taking the bias colored glasses off once in a while - it could be a real eye
> > opener, if your brain can handle the input, that is.
>
> you write like a loser.
The funny thing is that every woman has her own criteria for men
and she never questions her criteria.
> > > > > No kidding. If the world was really according to Dan I would not be
> > > > > dating as much as I do.
> > >
> > > As women get older, they tend to compensate for their declining
> > > physical attractiveness by pursuing men more aggressively.
> >
> > This is news to me. I have never pursued anyone. Its not in my nature to
> > do so.
>
> what are you doing on those chatlines full of desperate chaneys then?
There are ways women can aggressively broadcast their availability
while still preserving plausible deniability, at least in their own
minds.
> > >This strategy tends to work well for a while because most men who aren't
> > > already fucking something better will be receptive to just about
> > > any woman who meets their bare minimum requirements.
> >
> > MY, MY, MY!!! What a telling comment. Do the women in your life know that
> > you consider women to be 'somethings'? I wonder.
>
> dan is on record believing that in sexual relationships it is imperative
> that one never, ever tell the comprehensive truth.
Actually I can imagine a hypothetical partner who could handle the
complete truth. I just haven't met her. For starters, she would
need to already know more about sociobiology than I do before we
had our first conversation. There is a problem when you are the one
who teaches another person something. That person will tend to
"imprint" the knowledge with your identity. That means you get
blamed for any emotional disturbance she experiences as a result
of learning new truth.
Most men instinctively agree with me, which is why so many women
complain that their men won't open up and share their inner feelings.
Actually it's probably more of a learned response. Men discover
pretty early in the game that the more they open up to women the
more they get punished for it.
I don't think most women could handle knowing how men really think.
When I reveal a few hints here the result is mass hysteria.
> > > A man's minimum requirements in a partner are usually a function
> > > of what sort of women his experience with women has conditioned
> > > him to expect he can attract.
> >
> > And they couldn't possibly be what he actually likes, could they?
Most men can't attract women who come close to being everything
they want.
> how many guys with slovenly wives were collecting pictorials of rosie
> o'donnell, camryn mannheim, and rosanne barr before they roped thier sow?
None that I know.
> > How
> > narrow and shallow you are. Does it help to project this on others?
>
> men talk to each other.
> hth
Hey, if I ever meet a man who convinces me he considers obese women
to be ideally attractive I will marvel but I won't try to talk him
out of his sexual orientation. Whatever people want is what they want.
Sexual orientation is very resistant to change.
It's just that until now I've never met such a man. Every man I've
ever discussed it with appears to mostly agree with me on who the
most attractive women are. We might quibble on the exact ordering
at the top but I've never met a guy who ranks Camryn Mannheim anywhere
near #1.
Speaking of the sow, it's interesting to watch _The Practice_ and
try to measure the SMV gradient they set up by putting Camryn on
screen at the same time as Lara Flynn Boyle (or even better, the
hottest woman on the show: the secretary chick in their office).
Putting Camryn next to some hot chick produces such an SMV gradient
that it starts to distort the fabric of space. I notice first the
small, then the heavy objects in the room creeping toward the set
and getting sucked in. My watch begins running backward. Mysterious
lights begin flashing in the windows. I sense an odd roaring sound.
Then I notice something poking up through my chair---perhaps an
alien anal probe? But just in time they cut to commercial, everything
falls to the floor, and my cat looks very worried.
> > > A man who can attract height:weight proportionate 20-something
> > > women will ignore any hints or overt interest from a 40-something
> > > overweight woman. (If anyone has counterexamples now would be a
> > > good time to post them.)
> >
> > Not being over 40 yet, and not knowing very many women over 40 who are not
> > already married, I cannot help you there. But I an sure that if anyone else
> > has examples, you would reject them out of hand because, in the words from
> > the movie with Jack Nicholson, "YOU CAN'T HANDLE HANDLE TRUTH!"
>
> describe the longest relationship you've ever had.
> include height, weight, age, annual income, hairline, dicksize, and whether
> he was a nerd.
And could he beat up Vlad?
> > > Since most men are insufficiently attractive to women to attract
> > > many HWP 20-something, most are willing to settle for women of
> > > lower quality.
> > >
> > > If you're happy with rejects, then keep pounding down the
> > > doughnuts. If, on the other hand, you'd like to attract better
> > > men, get your gluttony under control.
> > >
> > > I don't presume to tell you what you like. If you're happy to
> > > settle, if that works for you, then don't change your behavior.
> >
> > Meeting nice, smart, hardworking, intellegent men, who may or may not meet
> > the GQ standard is not setteling.
But can they spell?
> i notice that description could easily apply to balding geeks.
> what's up with that?
What's up with the "may or may not" waffling on the GQ standard?
Has Goodgirl attracted any men who do meet it?
> > Its real life. Too bad that you are too
> > shallow to appreciate it.
>
> in real life all the guys i know who could attract hwp chicks are with hwp
> chicks.
Same for all the guys I know who could attract height:weight
proportionate chicks.
> every last one of the fatty fuckers has absolutely no choice in the matter.
> well, aside from celibacy of course.
That pattern holds as well for all the guys I know who are with
fat chicks. None of them appear to have any prospects at all with
slender women. And I've heard some of them complaining about it.
> > > > > I simply have no problem at all attracting
> > > > > guys. And for some reason they are all falling love. I don't ever
> > > > > recall that happening to me when I was in my 20's
> > >
> > > Rauni, your constant assertions of your availability and alleged
> > > quality are consistent with my hypothesis that you are compensating
> > > for your declining ability to attract men by advertising your
> > > availability more aggressively. And what better way to reach an
> > > unparalleled concentration of rejects than to advertise your wares
> > > on soc.singles.
> >
> > I have not been reading this group long, but I have never seen Rauni make a
> > post asking to meet anyone.
>
> she has, however, stated that she fucks grossly obese men.
So to Rauni Vlad would be a catch.
> > > Notice that none of the alleged HWP 20-something women posting
> > > here feel a need to trumpet their sexual market value. All an
> > > attractive woman needs to do is give us one photo (see:
> > > GoddessBaybee) and she can skip all the commentary and vigorous
> > > assertions. Men only have to look at the photo and we are convinced.
> > > No need for any Jedi mind tricks.
> >
> > There is no such thing as sexual marke value.
>
> why, if that is the case, are some women able to exchange sex for so much
> more money than others?
Indeed, and a select few can get the money for a smile.
> > This is a bogus piece of
> > crap made up by shallow men to explain their shallowness.
Actually the sexual market in its current form as it applies to women
is largely the result of what you call the "shallowness" of men. That
is to say, the preference trends shared by a majority of men determine
which women have the greatest sexual market value.
I am neither proud of nor ashamed of my "shallowness." It's simply a
part of who I am. I certainly didn't choose it. If I had a choice, I
think I would choose to have the capacity to be exactly as happy
without sex as I can be with it. That way I could avoid all the costs
of pursuing it (most of the cost being, of course, the need to struggle
past all the competition for the top prizes).
Picture the humble dung beetle. It's happiest when it finds a nice
warm, moist, stanky turd. Any person who can be genuinely happy with
someone else's garbage will certainly never have to worry about
running short.
> > Why does it not
> > surprise me YOU believe in it?
>
> why are you so upset when men express thier desire for hwp women?
Could it be that all is not well in Fatopia?
> > > Before you knee jerk and say "What about Brenda?" note that
> > > accusing Brenda of applying your strategy is not exactly the
> > > way to refute my hypothesis. At least when Brenda does it she's
> > > advertising a well-maintained product.
> >
> > <insert klaxon alarm here> DOUBLE STANDARD ALERT!! DOUBLE STANDARD ALERT!!
> > DANGER DANGER!!
> > <insert klaxon alarm here>
Well, there is the damage from smoking and tanning. Which will
worsen over time.
But for men it appears the worst thing a woman can to her ability
to give men pleasure is to gain a lot of weight, at least among
the common hazards.
> compare and contrast:
> bloated, bitchy, slovenly kuntulah
> slender, sweet, lovely brendalee
>
> but if you can't see it
> take my word
> for guys
> there is a difference
> jackie 'anakin' tokeman
That's evident even here in soc.singles. There's always some new guy
wandering through who sees Brenda's pictures and notices her sweet
disposition through her articles and voices his approval. How many
guys are hitting on Kthulah here?
-- the Danimal
turtoni
> >Does anybody actually read the garbage he spouts?
>
> Not unless someone interesting responds.
dan often writes interesting, honest and blunt articles.
you on the other hand...
turtoni - and he's an acquired taste :P
Lady Veteran
>dmo...@mfm.com (The Danimal) wrote in message news:<cac1ad88.02041...@posting.google.com>...
>> Jim Ledford <jim...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<3CB804D1...@bellsouth.net>...
>> > jeanette rauni runyon wrote:
>> >
>> > > Kthulah wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >If I could explain why I don't lack for love or lust, even though I am
>> > > >not physically "perfect", and thought you or most others watching,
>> > > >would have a clue of what I was talking about, I would try...but it's
>> > > >one of those things that, being difficult enough to explain as it is,
>> > > >would be like an alien language to you.
>>
>> Why? I never said gluttons can't get laid. If that were true
>> the world wouldn't be overrun with them.
>>
>> I merely said gluttons have to settle for partners who
>> themselves are generally unable to attract any non-gluttons,
>> but generally would prefer to.
>
>
>In other words, you're claiming to be psychic (again).
>
>
>> Speaking of difficult things to explain: who will be the first
>> fat woman posting here who shows she can read?
><brev.>
>
>
>It's not that we can't read. It's just that you seem to be very
>misinformed, and very few people are willing to take the step to tell
>you the truth. So some talk around the issues, but stop short of a
>crucial point, mainly because they're not certain of the statistics on
>certain things.
>
>I am aware of the statistics, and I am unwilling to correct you. So
>while you find whatever excuses to express your dislike for fat women
>(again) and use baseless speculation to do it (again), I sit here and
>give a grim chuckle, and only respond occasionally to let you know
>that it's okay to have your preferences. You don't really need to
>justify them. I can't speak for others, but to me, it's almost cute
>that you are so naive.
>
>
>~Kthulah
He is awfully redundant, isn't he? Reminds me of cancer boy.
Bobbi
------------------------------------------------------
"Now I want you to remember that no bastard ever won
a war by dying for his country. You won it by making
the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."
General George S. Patton May 31, 1944
----------------------------------------------------
Official Phoney Veteran Buster
http://www.phonyveterans.com
-----------------------------------------
Wanna Punch an Idiot?
www.slugme.0catch.com
--------------------------------------
You don't love a woman because she is beautiful,
but she is beautiful because you love her.
-Anon.
----------------------------------------------
There is only one tactical principle which is not
subject to change. It is, "To use the means at hand
to inflict the maximum amount of wounds, death, and
destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of
time."
- GEN George S Patton, Jr, AUS
----------------------------------------------------
Lady Veteran
wrote:
>On Sun, 14 Apr 2002 12:59:52 GMT, "Stuart O. Bronstein"
><sab...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Kthulah wrote:
>>> dmo...@mfm.com (The Danimal) wrote
>>
>>> > Speaking of difficult things to explain: who will be the first
>>> > fat woman posting here who shows she can read?
>>> <brev.>
>>>
>>> It's not that we can't read. It's just that you seem to be very
>>> misinformed, and very few people are willing to take the step to tell
>>> you the truth.
>>
>>Does anybody actually read the garbage he spouts?
>>
>>Stu
>
>Well actually I have been emailing his stuff to the guys I am dating.
>It has been a source of amusement
LOL!!!!!
I recommended he see "Cross of Iron" because he seems to think that
women were born to do a Monica Lewinsky on him when he pleases.....
Details provided on request..
Lady Veteran
You can't even catch a cold cancer boy...Go crawl back into your hole.
Take the $3 queer with you.
NR
On Mon, 15 Apr 2002, "WhistleStop" <San...@Rail.way> wrote:
>
>> We are all genetically programmed to accumulate adipose tissue when there
>> is a positive calorie balance. If I wanted to do so, I could bloat myself
>> up like a hawg too.
>
>Then why couldn't my friend Renee ever gain any weight while we were in high
>school when she ate everything like there was no tomorrow?
Because Renee was not experiencing a positive calorie balance.
> A bunch of us
>tried to 'coach' her, watching her stuff herself to the gills trying to have
>boobs and a butt, all to no avail.
Did you ever consider that Renee might have been purging?
> She kept her flat chest, bony butt and
>knees until she died in a car accident at the age of 29. May she rest in
>peace.
Renee is now worm food.
NR
Fat, drunken and haggard is no way to go through life.
http://www.hotornot.com/r/?eid=REAUEU&key=QEE
>
>> > > Speaking of difficult things to explain: who will be the first
>> > > fat woman posting here who shows she can read?
>
>Define fat woman. <giggles>
>
>*****thinking....wonder what criteria this bozo uses, weight, measurements,
>jiggle factor, build, bulk, etc. ad nauseam.*****
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iQA/AwUBPLpfDDL3IlvsWvnjEQJcvgCgsTb83mlAfJX3LBjt6XmcBeTs/gsAnAlI
H3XK5FEOE8ItWwFxeluwLQIq
=+Jy4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Markku Jantunen
>I am neither proud of nor ashamed of my "shallowness." It's simply a
>part of who I am. I certainly didn't choose it. If I had a choice, I
>think I would choose to have the capacity to be exactly as happy
>without sex as I can be with it. That way I could avoid all the costs
>of pursuing it (most of the cost being, of course, the need to struggle
>past all the competition for the top prizes).
>Picture the humble dung beetle. It's happiest when it finds a nice
>warm, moist, stanky turd. Any person who can be genuinely happy with
>someone else's garbage will certainly never have to worry about
>running short.
Given that you use that analogy, why not choose to have the capacity
to genuinely enjoy fucking fat women?
- mj
--
"Lihasmassa on naisia ja lapsia varten!" - Tuomo Salo
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~msj/
Uncle Davey
"Kthulah" <kth...@shoggoth.net> wrote in message
news:5f8d41bb.02041...@posting.google.com...
> "Uncle Davey" <no...@jose.com> wrote in message
news:<3cb6ed9a$1...@news.ptt.ru>...
> > "Kthulah" <kth...@shoggoth.net> wrote in message
> > news:5f8d41bb.02041...@posting.google.com...
> > > "faith" <ha...@nanar.stebe> wrote in message
> > news:<a94p1g$s3k$0...@pita.alt.net>...
> > > > "The Danimal" <dmo...@mfm.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:cac1ad88.02041...@posting.google.com...
> > > > > GoddessBaybee sexually attractive.
> > > > >
> > > > > -- the Danimal
> > > >
> > > > there is a country where men like their women fat.
> > > > glad i don't live there.
> > >
> > >
> > > Again, I have trouble keeping with the going vendettas, so a related,
> > > but not too personal question comes to mind:
> > >
> > > When your looks are gone, what else will you have to offer?
> >
> > You tell me.
>
>
> As in what will I have, or what will you have?
>
> I wouldn't know about you.
>
> With me, it's obvious. I'd tell you, but it's not something easily
> put to words. It's like a force of nature.
>
> If I could explain why I don't lack for love or lust, even though I am
> not physically "perfect", and thought you or most others watching,
> would have a clue of what I was talking about, I would try...but it's
> one of those things that, being difficult enough to explain as it is,
> would be like an alien language to you.
>
> am me.
Well then I expect that Faith is herself as well, then. In those terms.
And I hope that answers your earlier question.
Uncle Davey
mo hammed
> On Sun, 14 Apr 2002 23:06:00 +0200 (CEST), gort <go...@ix.mil> wrote:
>
> You can't even catch a cold cancer boy...
yet you can't seem to wriggle free of my net.
wazzapwiddat b?
The Danimal
> dmo...@mfm.com (The Danimal) writes:
>
> >I am neither proud of nor ashamed of my "shallowness." It's simply a
> >part of who I am. I certainly didn't choose it. If I had a choice, I
> >think I would choose to have the capacity to be exactly as happy
> >without sex as I can be with it. That way I could avoid all the costs
> >of pursuing it (most of the cost being, of course, the need to struggle
> >past all the competition for the top prizes).
>
> >Picture the humble dung beetle. It's happiest when it finds a nice
> >warm, moist, stanky turd. Any person who can be genuinely happy with
> >someone else's garbage will certainly never have to worry about
> >running short.
>
> Given that you use that analogy, why not choose to have the capacity
> to genuinely enjoy fucking fat women?
Because having no need is better than needing something.
It's like having a car that runs on cheap fuel vs. a car that
never needs refueling. Even if someone is giving fuel away you
still have to get it or handle it.
I mentioned the dung beetle because it has no choice about what it wants.
From a practical standpoint dung does not appear to be a very good food
source because no animal much larger than a dung beetle is able to
subsist solely on it. Larger animals need to avoid dung because it's
an efficient vector for parasites.
The dung beetle itself would be better off if it did not have
to eat.
There would be costs associated with having a need for obese women.
Can you list some?
-- the Danimal
hey hey heeeeeey
twinkies.
lots of twinkies.
Kthulah
> > >stu:
> > >Does anybody actually read the garbage he spouts?
> >
> > minh souphanousinphone:
> > Not unless someone interesting responds.
>
> dan often writes interesting, honest and blunt articles.
Honest and blunt, I'll give ya...but interesting...
I guess that depends on why and whether you've actually read some of
his works here. I'm not sure if you like what he's saying, so much as
you like that he sometimes seems to be condemning people you don't
like.
Thing is, though, all except the extremely sensitive understand, by
now, that Dan doesn't say the things he does to hurt people. He says
what he says because that is his opinion about the topics at hand. He
just has less reason than most other people would have, for pulling
punches about it.
From my POV, he's just a little slow on figuring out the usefulness of
a knarly branch.
> you on the other hand...
>
> turtoni - and he's an acquired taste :P
::giggle::
~Kthulah
Markku Jantunen
>> Given that you use that analogy, why not choose to have the capacity
>> to genuinely enjoy fucking fat women?
>Because having no need is better than needing something.
Do you believe the ultimate state of happiness is the wirehead
sort of happiness? (It's possible to electrically stimulate certain
cell groups in the mesolimbic system to produce extatic happiness.)
Why not accumulate enough wealth to live off during the rest of one's
remaing days while wired into a divice giving electrical impulses into
the appropriate neural circuits?
>There would be costs associated with having a need for obese women.
>Can you list some?
Obviously costs associated. :)
Shawn Pickrell
> Women are just as capable of being stupidly superficial as men are. I
> know a woman who married a guy because he was just *sooooo* cute. She
> worked for years while he was a perpetual student. He took money she
> made and spent it on other women. But she refused to believe it for
> years - she thought they were in love because she still, after 20 years,
> found him so cute.
he must have been very cute then.
--
... Shawn Pickrell, the Majority Stockholder of All Usenet
Stockholders may contact me at shawn_p...@yahoo.com
Shawn Pickrell
> Having studied the posting habits of Baybee over the past
> while, though, I would say that those are *not* factors. She
> is more than likely turned off by his cruel remarks about
> old people ("shacks of shit" he has called them), fat people,
> women over 40, women who are not very beautiful. She
> has absorbed the "beeg peecture" of Dan and likely finds
> it distasteful. And her self-esteem and self-awareness and
> her values are prolly highly enough developed that she
> neither craves Dan's flattery nor feels the need to stroke his
> ego. She has a lot of class, imho.
dan's flattery is merely one of many.
if he were the only one it would be noticed more.
fwiw, she seems to be smart enough to recognise that she may
one day fall into several of dan's least preferred classes,
and therefore has a reasonable fear that she might get traded
in at age 40 for two 20's.
Kthulah
Perhaps...but perhaps not.
Because faith was on your team's side, what she showed of herself was
beneficial to your stated cause. However, since the previous sides
and arguments have been revealed as a cover for the real issues, which
mainly revolved around personal vendettas, none of the negativity that
has been thrown around is a truly credible display of who any of the
participants are, except the capacity they have for negativity. Since
most of what she's said here in the past few months has either been
negative, or stroking other negative people on her side, I still have
yet to see who the real faith is.
So I wouldn't know if she is being herself. I asked the question as a
way of opening that door. She can choose whether or not to walk
through it.
I cannot assume that she has ever asked herself the question before.
She has asked me, in the past, to be more honest. She said,
basically, that she felt I wasn't taking her seriously, and brought
irrelevant issues into conversations, as a way of pushing people away,
without just telling them to fuck off.
I disagree with her about my motives, but I do take other people's
feelings into account, whenever I'm going to bother addressing them.
So this time, I thought that instead of trying hard to focus on issues
that aren't really worth discussing, in my opinion, I'd do the honest
thing and give the play by play of why I felt a particular issue was
going nowhere but negative, and bring up something related, but more
important...something that would stimulate maximum discussion, and
minimal initial stupidity.
> And I hope that answers your earlier question.
It might have, if I was simpleminded and willing to believe that just
because someone was mean to me, that they are a totally bad person.
I've figured out, by now, that I put some folks on the defensive, and
that not everybody is going to react well to that. Hell, I don't
always react well to being challenged. I get over it faster than
many, perhaps, but, well, you know. You've saw me in action for
months of wasted reasoning.
I am not content to see people as one dimensional, unless I am sure
that the one side is all they wish to display. I figure that the
least they deserve is a chance...depends on how important I am to
them, and I don't expect or even want to be important to everyone.
Still, since I'm here, I might as well. I have nothing to lose from
it. My beliefs don't change based on who I'm friendly with.
~Kthulah
Shawn Pickrell
> kuntulah wrote:
>> I call his speculations naive, because he fails to take anything into
>> consideration but the looks of adults. He makes it a moral question,
>> when the truth is that morality has nothing to do with it. What most
>> men want would be immoral to pursue, and if there's settling going on,
>> that settling starts based on virginity, and age over 16, not age over
>> 40.
> there are legal reasons why american men in some states can't go on record
> re: thier lust for 16 year old girls.
i had believed going on record about it was legal.
it was the procuring of a willing 16 year old girl that is the illegal bit.
The Danimal
> > We are all genetically programmed to accumulate adipose tissue when there
> > is a positive calorie balance. If I wanted to do so, I could bloat myself
> > up like a hawg too.
>
> Then why couldn't my friend Renee ever gain any weight while we were in high
> school when she ate everything like there was no tomorrow? A bunch of us
> tried to 'coach' her, watching her stuff herself to the gills trying to have
> boobs and a butt, all to no avail. She kept her flat chest, bony butt and
> knees until she died in a car accident at the age of 29. May she rest in
> peace.
If Renee was trying to get fatter and did not the most likely
cause would be incompetent coaching. Aside from the possibility
NR mentioned (purging) Renee may have been taking in few
enough calories during her time away from her "coaches" to allow
her body to burn off the excess calories she took in while the
coaching staff was watching her stuff herself to the gills. The
only way to be sure would have been to keep accurate records.
A person could eat one massive meal every other day and look like
a glutton to anybody who observed him or her eating those meals, but
averaged over time the "glutton" might be eating normally if
he or she ate very little otherwise.
Accurately accounting for one's energy balance is essential for
anyone who is trying to gain or lose weight and is having difficulty
reaching their goal. The necessary accounting work is not easy.
The subject must accurately record every calorie he or she takes
in and expends. This requires more knowledge than the average
person has. To be *really* accurate the subject would need to sit
in a whole-body calorimeter to determine resting metabolic rate,
and it would also help to collect the subject's feces and burn them
in a bomb calorimeter to determine how many calories the subject
is losing that way. Dried dung is a common fuel source in poor
countries; it burns reasonably well, and the calories it contains
represent food calories that bypassed digestion and metabolism.
It's possible that some people shit a lot more than others, and
this could enable the copious shitters to eat more food before
gaining weight. Conversely, people who shit very little might
gain weight more readily.
However, all the discussion about "reach implements" on these fora
suggests that obese people are probably shitting about normally.
You presented no data on Renee's energy balance. Do you have any?
Or are you relying solely on your subjective impression from
observing her occasionally?
If Renee was athletic or did physical labor on the job this
could greatly increase her energy expenditure.
For example, bicyling consumes about 50 kcal per mile, depending
on rider weight, type of bike, terrain, road or trail conditions,
weather, drafting, speed, etc. Almost every serious bicyclist has
ridden at least 100 miles in one day. On such a day the bicyclist
must eat approximately 7000 kcal to maintain bodyweight. Most
people have difficulty eating that much food in a day, which is
why seriously high-volume endurance exercise almost always produces
weight loss even combined with unrestricted eating. (Note that
bicycling is probably the easiest way for most people to get
into the seriously high-volume endurance range. To burn an
equivalent number of calories by running would destroy the
feet, knees, and hips of the average person. Indoor exercise
machines---forget it. Almost nobody has the psychological strength
necessary to stay on them for six hours at a crack, whereas a
six hour bicycle ride with a group of friends on real roads is
a great pleasure.)
Note that Hollywood stars who have been slender all their lives
routinely pork up when they have to play a fatter character.
In interviews they all say they used the same method to get
fatter: eating more and exercising less.
It worked for Sylvester Stallone (he gained 40 pounds of fat
for his role in Cop Land)...it can work for anybody who can
keep their food down, whether they like the results or not.
> > > > Speaking of difficult things to explain: who will be the first
> > > > fat woman posting here who shows she can read?
Note that this quote is now completely out of context, which in
itself supports the premise of my rhetorical question.
In a few days, like clockwork, another fat woman will allege that
I claimed fat women can't get laid. She will cite no message ID
because I never made any such claim.
> Define fat woman. <giggles>
BMI > 25, unless she can do chin-ups. A woman with a high BMI
who can do chin-ups would be carrying an exceptionally high amount
of muscle. I have never seen a woman with BMI > 25 perform one
chin-up (even slender women typically have difficulty performing
chin-ups, so for a woman of stocky build to do it she would have
to be extremely muscular for a woman). There might be some stocky
female strength athletes who can, but this probably doesn't apply
to anyone reading this message. If any stocky women reading this
are able to do chin-ups I'd be interested in hearing about it.
> *****thinking....wonder what criteria this bozo uses, weight, measurements,
> jiggle factor, build, bulk, etc. ad nauseam.*****
Speaking of nauseum that's pretty much the criterion most men use
to determine when a woman is too fat.
I'd imagine most women apply a similar criterion to men. For example,
every woman I've polled on the subject responded with groans of nausea
when I ask her if she had any sexual fantasies about Fat Bastard after
watching Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me. If any women reading
this are currently lusting after Fat Bastard now would be a good time
to share your opinion.
Digression: "nausea" comes from the Greek and Latin words for "boat"
and "sailor." The word "nautical" derives similarly. Nausea, originally
meaning seasickness, is the sensation many people experience when they
first go out on rough water.
Bodyfat is slightly less dense than bone and muscle. Therefore fat
people float better. So it all ties together in a Kevin Bacon
six-degrees kind of way.
-- the Danimal
Brenda Lee
>
> The Danimal wrote:
>
> > Jim Ledford wrote:
> > > jeanette rauni runyon wrote:
> > > > Kthulah wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >not physically "perfect", and thought you or most others watching,
> > > > >would have a clue of what I was talking about, I would try...but it's
> > > > >one of those things that, being difficult enough to explain as it is,
> > > > >would be like an alien language to you.
> >
> > the world wouldn't be overrun with them.
> >
> > I merely said gluttons have to settle for partners who
> > themselves are generally unable to attract any non-gluttons,
> > but generally would prefer to.
> >
> > fat woman posting here who shows she can read?
> >
> > whether you can score but who you are scoring with (and who
> > your partners are getting rejected by), some glutton takes a
> > break from munching doughnuts and """refutes""" my claim
> > by demonstrating her endless capacity to misread.
> >
> > > > dating as much as I do.
> >
> > As women get older, they tend to compensate for their declining
> > physical attractiveness by pursuing men more aggressively.
>
>
> > This
> > strategy tends to work well for a while because most men who aren't
> > already fucking something better will be receptive to just about
> > any woman who meets their bare minimum requirements.
>
> to pick, choose, accept and reject.
>
> > A man's minimum requirements in a partner are usually a function
> > of what sort of women his experience with women has conditioned
> > him to expect he can attract.
> >
> > women will ignore any hints or overt interest from a 40-something
> > good time to post them.)
> >
> > Since most men are insufficiently attractive to women to attract
> > many HWP 20-something, most are willing to settle for women of
> > lower quality.
> >
> > If you're happy with rejects, then keep pounding down the
> > doughnuts. If, on the other hand, you'd like to attract better
> > men, get your gluttony under control.
>
>
> > I don't presume to tell you what you like. If you're happy to
> > settle, if that works for you, then don't change your behavior.
> >
> > > > guys. And for some reason they are all falling love. I don't ever
> > > > recall that happening to me when I was in my 20's
> >
> > Rauni, your constant assertions of your availability and alleged
> > quality are consistent with my hypothesis that you are compensating
> > for your declining ability to attract men by advertising your
> > availability more aggressively. And what better way to reach an
> > unparalleled concentration of rejects than to advertise your wares
> > on soc.singles.
> >
> > here feel a need to trumpet their sexual market value. All an
> > attractive woman needs to do is give us one photo (see:
> > GoddessBaybee) and she can skip all the commentary and vigorous
> > assertions. Men only have to look at the photo and we are convinced.
> > No need for any Jedi mind tricks.
> >
> > accusing Brenda of applying your strategy is not exactly the
> > way to refute my hypothesis. At least when Brenda does it she's
> > advertising a well-maintained product.
>
product?
business?
Heh....where's the love.. Where's the flesh and blood and ......and....
and....
ohhhhhh
flips you both a cheek and struts off...
>
> Jim
>
> > > of all the reports from Dan that I have seen and read
> > > none of them took into account the incredible popularity
> > > of women who suck.
> >
> > Are there women who won't?
Yes. From what I hear quite a few...
hee hee
BrendaLee (gotta run.. here comes the sun!!!!)
> >
> > -- the Danimal
--
BrendaLee
Lady DreamCatcher
--------------------
http://www.cocreator.com/ehmka/
-------------------------------------
brendalee makes the world better by her presence in it.
~~jackie 'anakin' tokeman~~
brendalee, you complete me
~~jackie 'anakin' tokeman
actually her (brendalee's) kind heart is a weapon more powerful than
the combined hate of the entire degenerate freak mafia.
seriously."
~~jackie 'anakin' tokeman
brendalee is beautiful, feminine, and sweet. she is a woman who embraces
being a woman instead of doing an incompetent job of being a man.
~~jackie 'anakin' tokeman
all your brilliance cubed can never equal the power of just one of
brenda's
soft kisses
~~jackie 'anakin' tokeman
Those who think they have no time for bodily exercise will, sooner or
later, have to find time for illness.
~~Edward Stanley, Earl of Derby, 1873
Kthulah
There are people in this world who successfully manage not to need but
the bare minimum to survive, and are quite happy with it. They are
called Sadhus.
Although it is helpful, it is not neccessary to be a part of any
"religious" order, in order to practice as a Sadhu. One need not even
believe in a deity. Once you make your vow, and attempt to keep it,
you will probably attract some attention, because of the power you're
packing, which will be more temptation to break your vows. So, the
best way, according to most I've read about, is to begin with mental
training.
Then, you can decide whether or not it will be neccessary to be
castrated, so that your physical urges do not interrupt your mental
goals, and others won't bother you about it. It does more than take
away the desire for sex.
It may seem extreme, but that is only because it is rare for
westerners to go that route. Usually, for westerners, this sort of
deprivation is about suffering for a god, rather than coming to a
place where one has no needs, which is one feature of self awareness.
The lack of needs...puts a whole different spin on this thing. I
believe that the fat vs. skinny thing is a distraction that you should
let go, if you wish to progress in your goals. Rather than wallowing
in the chances of your getting something that you think you need, and
wouldn't be happy without, decreasing with age; you should be taking
into account that you are now moving past the householder age of life
anyway, and that householder needs in whatever size or shape, may be
inappropriate for you.
~Kthulah
Brock Hannibal
Heh. It's a good thing that I can read really quickly.
--
Brock
"All right, so I'll go to the Stardust Ballroom.
I'll put on a blue suit, and I'll go. And you know
what I'm gonna get for my trouble? Heartache. A big
night of heartache."--Ernest Borgnine as "Marty"
Jim Ledford
> turtoni wrote:
> > > >stu:
> > > >Does anybody actually read the garbage he spouts?
> > >
> > > minh souphanousinphone:
> > > Not unless someone interesting responds.
> >
> > dan often writes interesting, honest and blunt articles.
> >
> > you on the other hand...
> >
> > turtoni - and he's an acquired taste :P
>
> Heh. It's a good thing that I can read really quickly.
>
> --
> Brock
Brock, did you complete the evan woodhead sped reading
class and get the certificate? after I got mine people
came from everywhere to hear me read real fast. now I
want to go back and take the evan woodhead sped writing
class.
Jim :)
PS: a very nice day today
turtoni
>>>>Does anybody actually read the garbage he spouts?
>>>minh souphanousinphone:
>>>Not unless someone interesting responds.
>>turtoni:
>>dan often writes interesting, honest and blunt articles.
> Kthulah wrote:
> Honest and blunt, I'll give ya...but interesting...
he has a lot more interesting things to say than most posters by far, imo.
> I guess that depends on why and whether you've actually read some of
> his works here. I'm not sure if you like what he's saying, so much as
> you like that he sometimes seems to be condemning people you don't like.
in my mind it's a little more complex than that.
> Thing is, though, all except the extremely sensitive understand, by
> now, that Dan doesn't say the things he does to hurt people.
i'm not so sure about that. i'm sure he sometimes likes to do that as
much as anybody else. for example i've noticed he has been using much
stronger language in respect to the overweight when it probably isn't
necessary.
> He says what he says because that is his opinion about the topics at hand.
> He just has less reason than most other people would have, for pulling
> punches about it.
which makes for a more interesting read?
> From my POV, he's just a little slow on figuring out the usefulness of
> a knarly branch.
turtoni - i'm not sure what you mean?
turtoni
Brock Hannibal wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Apr 2002, turtoni wrote:
>
>
>>>>stu:
>>>>Does anybody actually read the garbage he spouts?
>>>>
>>>minh souphanousinphone:
>>>Not unless someone interesting responds.
>>>
>>dan often writes interesting, honest and blunt articles.
>>
>>you on the other hand...
>>
>>turtoni - and he's an acquired taste :P
>>
>
> Heh. It's a good thing that I can read really quickly.
dan's output is also very impressive. i'm guessing he just bangs out his
articles and doesn't spend a great deal of time putting them together
and even so they're often very nicely put and well thought out. but
enough about this because jeem will start to accuse me of being a bumlooker.
turtoni - and i know he likes doing that.
The Danimal
>
> dmo...@mfm.com (The Danimal) writes:
>
> >> Given that you use that analogy, why not choose to have the capacity
> >> to genuinely enjoy fucking fat women?
>
> >Because having no need is better than needing something.
>
> sort of happiness?
What we perceive as "happiness" must be some sort of pattern (or
family of patterns) of nervous activity in the brain. As long as the
pattern is right the brain probably doesn't care where it comes from.
> (It's possible to electrically stimulate certain
> cell groups in the mesolimbic system to produce extatic happiness.)
Has anyone done this on humans? I've only heard about experiments
on rats. Rats have simpler brains than humans and may be able to
get their freak on with simpler stimuli. And you can't really be
sure if a rat is "happy." You can only observe that it selects
the stimulus when it can. In humans there are plenty of compulsions
that don't really provide pleasure. Such as Bobbi's compulsion to
keep reading Jackie.
Humans probably need more than just happiness. Even though sex
feels great, after a while you want to get up and go do something
else which isn't really more fun. Not even most drug users want
to stay stoned 24/7.
Suppose Halle Berry fell in love with you. After you stabilized
from the first few weeks how many times per day would you want sex
with her? I think in the long run 1/day to 3/day would be enough.
You'd eventually gravitate back to doing other things.
Ever notice that even if the work you get paid to do isn't
constantly gratifying, sometimes you still feel urges to attack
some project when you are feeling inspired? What's that all about?
I think this kind of urge will be hard to satisfy with an electrode.
The human brain needs rich and variable stimuli. Of course the
wirehead could get that if he was jacked into a sufficiently
complex virtual reality. It would take some real CPU power to
provide it, though.
> Why not accumulate enough wealth to live off during the rest of one's
> remaing days
an excellent idea no matter what
> while wired into a divice giving electrical impulses into
> the appropriate neural circuits?
It's far from clear that this is practical or that a human could
live long that way. You'd basically have to disconnect your
motor neurons to avoid jerking your body about in response to
the stimuli, which would mean you would be completely paralyzed.
And of course running wires through the skin not to mention
the skull would present a risk of infection.
There will probably be less invasive methods of producing similar
results. I'm thinking our normal sense organs are capable of
sending some pretty good messages to the brain. It would make
sense to explore that first before trying anything more drastic.
> >There would be costs associated with having a need for obese women.
> >Can you list some?
>
> Obviously costs associated. :)
Jim Ledford's doughnut profiteering isn't pulling wealth out of
thin air.
-- the Danimal
Jim Ledford
> > on Sun, 14 Apr 2002 12:57:51 GMT Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:
> > > Flattery (which, to me, means phony compliments) is seldom beneficial.
> > > But sometimes some people either can't tell the difference, or choose
> > > not to tell the difference. that still doesn't make it any better to
> > > do.
[snip]
> Actually, that's something that's fun to do on the phone. I'll
> sometimes say, "My, that's a nice outfit you're wearing today." She'll
> feel great about it for a second, and then realize we're on the phone
> and laugh. Can be very effective.
>
> Stu
it don't take you very long to go full circle. these phony compliments
you pass over the phone to someone when you have no idea what they are
wearing, are they also seldom beneficial?
faith
>
>
> Brock Hannibal wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 15 Apr 2002, turtoni wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>>stu:
> >>>>Does anybody actually read the garbage he spouts?
> >>>>
> >>>minh souphanousinphone:
> >>>Not unless someone interesting responds.
> >>>
> >>dan often writes interesting, honest and blunt articles.
> >>
> >>you on the other hand...
> >>
> >>turtoni - and he's an acquired taste :P
> >>
> >
> > Heh. It's a good thing that I can read really quickly.
>
>
> dan's output is also very impressive. i'm guessing he just bangs out
his
> articles and doesn't spend a great deal of time putting them together
> and even so they're often very nicely put and well thought out. but
> enough about this because jeem will start to accuse me of being a
bumlooker.
>
jeem wood be right.
faith [100%]
The Danimal
> There are people in this world who successfully manage not to need but
> the bare minimum to survive, and are quite happy with it. They are
> called Sadhus.
Do any of them molest children?
> Although it is helpful, it is not neccessary to be a part of any
> "religious" order, in order to practice as a Sadhu. One need not even
> believe in a deity. Once you make your vow, and attempt to keep it,
A person with no need does not need to "attempt" to keep the vow
of celibacy. If effort is necessary to resist the desires of the
flesh then the need is still quite alive and kicking.
> you will probably attract some attention, because of the power you're
> packing, which will be more temptation to break your vows.
I have noticed that when I'm out with my drunkard friends they
sometimes offer me free beers in an attempt to get me to drink.
If I took a vow of celibacy would hot chicks then try to get me
to break it, like they did for Josh Hartnett?
> So, the
> best way, according to most I've read about, is to begin with mental
> training.
If mental training is necessary to counter an urge then the need
has not gone away.
> Then, you can decide whether or not it will be neccessary to be
> castrated, so that your physical urges do not interrupt your mental
> goals, and others won't bother you about it. It does more than take
> away the desire for sex.
Castration does not always work, because some men produce
enough testosterone from (if I recall correctly) their adrenal
glands to sustain libido. Castration also has many side effects
because the body uses its limited variety of hormones to control
hundreds of different physiological processes (this is an
example of opportunistic design typical of evolved creatures).
> It may seem extreme,
What? Mutilation? Extreme? Who could imagine.
Does pushing away from the table seem extreme to you? Just thought
I'd check your baseline definition of "extreme."
> but that is only because it is rare for
> westerners to go that route. Usually, for westerners, this sort of
> deprivation is about suffering for a god, rather than coming to a
> place where one has no needs, which is one feature of self awareness.
Actually if I just manage to live long enough I'll probably
come to the place of having no need for sex. My need for sex
today is not what it was when I was 18 years old, and if the
trend continues in another 200 years I'll be a fully
realized sadhu.
> The lack of needs...puts a whole different spin on this thing. I
> believe that the fat vs. skinny thing is a distraction that you should
> let go, if you wish to progress in your goals.
Actually I give it no thought in ordinary life because I have
almost no interaction with fat women that could lead to dating.
Most women aren't aggressive enough to purse men who
completely ignore them (and vice versa---a man usually won't
pursue a woman who completely ignores him from the beginning, unless
he's a rapist). Since I ignore fat women when I'm looking for a date
they basically aren't an issue for me. The worst I might get is when
a fat woman drops some comment about her availability loudly enough
to be sure I overheard it. I simply ignore it and that's usually the
end of it.
The only place I encounter assertive fat people is on Usenet.
Reminding them of their place is, I suppose, something of a
"distraction" but it's no worse than any other form of time
wasting on Usenet.
> Rather than wallowing
> in the chances of your getting something that you think you need, and
> wouldn't be happy without, decreasing with age;
Has there ever been a day when you considered what men want to
be as legitimate as what you want?
> you should be taking
> into account that you are now moving past the householder age of life
> anyway, and that householder needs in whatever size or shape, may be
> inappropriate for you.
For a woman whose entire approach to life is to disregard what other
people consider appropriate for her it's odd that you'd invoke
the judgement of other (unnamed) people to rule on what is
inappropriate for me.
You do realize, of course, that you are riffing on your own concept
of the theme: "Know your place, Dan."
-- the Danimal, and I do
faith
>
> "Kthulah" <kth...@shoggoth.net> wrote in message
> news:5f8d41bb.02041...@posting.google.com...
> > "Uncle Davey" <no...@jose.com> wrote in message
> news:<3cb6ed9a$1...@news.ptt.ru>...
> > > "Kthulah" <kth...@shoggoth.net> wrote in message
> > > news:5f8d41bb.02041...@posting.google.com...
> > > > "faith" <ha...@nanar.stebe> wrote in message
> > > news:<a94p1g$s3k$0...@pita.alt.net>...
> > > > > "The Danimal" <dmo...@mfm.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:cac1ad88.02041...@posting.google.com...
> > > > > > ...name a country where a majority of men would not find
> > > > > > GoddessBaybee sexually attractive.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -- the Danimal
> > > > >
> > > > > there is a country where men like their women fat.
> > > > > glad i don't live there.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Again, I have trouble keeping with the going vendettas, so a
related,
> > > > but not too personal question comes to mind:
> > > >
> > > > When your looks are gone, what else will you have to offer?
> > >
keeping on topic with the comment i made in this thread
[there is a country where men like their women fat. glad i
don't live there]....i am in control of my looks so far as my
weight goes, and therefore will never lose the figure i have
maintained all of my adult life [excluding pregnancies]
unless i choose to.
faith
> > > You tell me.
> >
> >
> > As in what will I have, or what will you have?
> >
> > I wouldn't know about you.
> >
> > With me, it's obvious. I'd tell you, but it's not something easily
> > put to words. It's like a force of nature.
> >
> > If I could explain why I don't lack for love or lust, even though I
am
> > not physically "perfect", and thought you or most others watching,
> > would have a clue of what I was talking about, I would try...but
it's
> > one of those things that, being difficult enough to explain as it
is,
> > would be like an alien language to you.
> >
> > It's easier to explain my "technique", if one could call it that. I
> > am me.
>
> Well then I expect that Faith is herself as well, then. In those
terms.
>
> And I hope that answers your earlier question.
>
.
Brenda Lee
>
> Kthulah wrote:
> > There are people in this world who successfully manage not to need but
> > the bare minimum to survive, and are quite happy with it. They are
> > called Sadhus.
>
> Do any of them molest children?
>
> > Although it is helpful, it is not neccessary to be a part of any
> > "religious" order, in order to practice as a Sadhu. One need not even
> > believe in a deity. Once you make your vow, and attempt to keep it,
>
> A person with no need does not need to "attempt" to keep the vow
> of celibacy. If effort is necessary to resist the desires of the
> flesh then the need is still quite alive and kicking.
>
> > you will probably attract some attention, because of the power you're
> > packing, which will be more temptation to break your vows.
>
> I have noticed that when I'm out with my drunkard friends they
> sometimes offer me free beers in an attempt to get me to drink.
>
> If I took a vow of celibacy would hot chicks then try to get me
> to break it, like they did for Josh Hartnett?
I enjoyed that movie. And Josh well he is a cutie.. 100%. He makes a
nice tent too..
blushing whooo hoooo!
BrendaLee
Crash Street Kidd
>
>>>>>stu:
>>>>>Does anybody actually read the garbage he spouts?
>
>
>>>>minh souphanousinphone:
>>>>Not unless someone interesting responds.
>
>
>>>turtoni:
>>>dan often writes interesting, honest and blunt articles.
>
>
>> Kthulah wrote:
>> Honest and blunt, I'll give ya...but interesting...
>
>
>he has a lot more interesting things to say than most posters by far, imo.
Yes, to you speculations on replacing your hagged out lumberjack
with a porn simulation of a real woman would seem interesting.
Crash Street Kidd
Lady Veteran
<m...@thirdbrain.org> wrote:
>fat smelly hairy lazy glutton oinked:
>> On Sun, 14 Apr 2002 23:06:00 +0200 (CEST), gort <go...@ix.mil> wrote:
>>
>> You can't even catch a cold cancer boy...
>
>yet you can't seem to wriggle free of my net.
>wazzapwiddat b?
> jackie 'anakin' tokeman
>
and you chemo is making you delusional...you are on MY
turf...remember?
Now...who has who. you worthless fuck??
Bobbi
------------------------------------------------------
"Now I want you to remember that no bastard ever won
a war by dying for his country. You won it by making
the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."
General George S. Patton May 31, 1944
----------------------------------------------------
Official Phoney Veteran Buster
http://www.phonyveterans.com
-----------------------------------------
Wanna Punch an Idiot?
www.slugme.0catch.com
--------------------------------------
You don't love a woman because she is beautiful,
but she is beautiful because you love her.
-Anon.
----------------------------------------------
There is only one tactical principle which is not
subject to change. It is, "To use the means at hand
to inflict the maximum amount of wounds, death, and
destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of
time."
- GEN George S Patton, Jr, AUS
----------------------------------------------------
Kthulah
> > There are people in this world who successfully manage not to need but
> > the bare minimum to survive, and are quite happy with it. They are
> > called Sadhus.
>
> Do any of them molest children?
I can see that you don't really want to discuss this with me, probably
because I am unattractive to you. Perhaps Brenda will explain it to
you. Six of one, half a dozen of the other...as long as someone does,
I think you can benefit from the knowledge.
~Kthulah
Markku Jantunen
>Accurately accounting for one's energy balance is essential for
>anyone who is trying to gain or lose weight and is having difficulty
>reaching their goal. The necessary accounting work is not easy.
>The subject must accurately record every calorie he or she takes
>in and expends. This requires more knowledge than the average
>person has. To be *really* accurate the subject would need to sit
>in a whole-body calorimeter to determine resting metabolic rate,
>and it would also help to collect the subject's feces and burn them
>in a bomb calorimeter to determine how many calories the subject
>is losing that way. Dried dung is a common fuel source in poor
>countries; it burns reasonably well, and the calories it contains
>represent food calories that bypassed digestion and metabolism.
>It's possible that some people shit a lot more than others, and
>this could enable the copious shitters to eat more food before
>gaining weight. Conversely, people who shit very little might
>gain weight more readily.
There isn't much difference in the energy efficiency of digestion
between different people.
See the interview of Dr. Rudolph L. Leibel in Scientific American
at http://www.sciam.com/interview/0896leibel.html.
"SA: Is their no variance in the amounts of nutrients that people
excrete?
RL: That's an interesting question, and we have actually looked at
this by collecting all of the stool production of all of these
patients for periods of eight days while they are doing this. There is
no significant variation in the amount of absorption of these
calories, no matter what plateau you're at. When you hear the results
of this study, you might assume that if a person gains 10 percent of
their body weight, they are going to lose more calories in their
stool. But that's just not so.
SA: So everyone has a digestive system of essentially equal
efficiency?
RL: Yes. Obesity or the lack thereof is not the result of variation in
the variation of food absorption. I can absolutely assure you of that,
having done the experiments the hard way. The very hard way. That
possibility is out."
Kthulah
> >>>>stu:
> >>>>Does anybody actually read the garbage he spouts?
>
>
> >>>minh souphanousinphone:
> >>>Not unless someone interesting responds.
>
>
> >>turtoni:
> >>dan often writes interesting, honest and blunt articles.
>
>
> > Kthulah wrote:
> > Honest and blunt, I'll give ya...but interesting...
>
>
> he has a lot more interesting things to say than most posters by far, imo.
More interesting than the endless flamewars, but less interesting than
you, when you're not insulting people.
> > I guess that depends on why and whether you've actually read some of
> > his works here. I'm not sure if you like what he's saying, so much as
> > you like that he sometimes seems to be condemning people you don't like.
>
>
> in my mind it's a little more complex than that.
Please explain it to me, because I don't get it. You seem to take
things alot more personally than I do...unless I'm mistaking the
vendetta reactions for actual sensitivity, which I could well be.
> > Thing is, though, all except the extremely sensitive understand, by
> > now, that Dan doesn't say the things he does to hurt people.
>
>
> i'm not so sure about that. i'm sure he sometimes likes to do that as
> much as anybody else. for example i've noticed he has been using much
> stronger language in respect to the overweight when it probably isn't
> necessary.
It is neccessary, if one considers that he seems to feel imposed upon
by the existence of fat people who don't hate themselves. Much like I
didn't encounter any fat bashing directed towards me, until Usenet,
perhaps he never knew how fat people felt about themselves until
Usenet. Those who met his expectations, based on his previous
assumptions, he doesn't seem to have much of a problem with. Those
who probably surprised him, he does seem to have a problem with.
Once I got over the surprise, laughter, and creeped-out-ness about the
fat bashing, and the lengths it went to, I was fine...but some people
don't get over things so easily. Until he does, we can expect him to
be railing against reality, and feeling imposed upon by people who
aren't offering, and who he has the option to ignore...assuming that
he is in control of his actions, that is.
> > He says what he says because that is his opinion about the topics at hand.
>
> > He just has less reason than most other people would have, for pulling
> > punches about it.
>
>
> which makes for a more interesting read?
...until it becomes repititious.
> > From my POV, he's just a little slow on figuring out the usefulness of
> > a knarly branch.
>
>
> turtoni - i'm not sure what you mean?
A shepherd uses a knarly branch, sometimes, to guide the sheep. If
someone is truly interested in promoting weight loss, then they figure
out the most effective way of doing that. Since weight loss and being
thin is trendy right now, and probably will be for some time, it
doesn't really take a whole lot to convince people to do it, or to at
least say they are. Everything around them, almost, is telling them
that they need to be skinnier.
So if someone is fat bashing regularly, then they have taken on the
role of conformity enforcer, regardless of whether they would prefer
skinny people naturally, or whether they were programmed to do so.
When one takes on the role of one of society's conformity enforcers, I
believe they should take on that role responsibly.
My non conformity does not mean that I have no use for others to
conform. If everyone was awake, it would make sorting and exploiting
them more difficult.
~Kthulah
Markku Jantunen
>> >Because having no need is better than needing something.
>>
>> Do you believe the ultimate state of happiness is the wirehead
>> sort of happiness?
>What we perceive as "happiness" must be some sort of pattern (or
>family of patterns) of nervous activity in the brain. As long as the
>pattern is right the brain probably doesn't care where it comes from.
Exactly. What we perceive as happiness or pleasure is quite specific
nervous activity at specific areas in the brain.
>> (It's possible to electrically stimulate certain cell groups in the
>> mesolimbic system to produce extatic happiness.)
>Has anyone done this on humans? I've only heard about experiments
>on rats. Rats have simpler brains than humans and may be able to
>get their freak on with simpler stimuli. And you can't really be
>sure if a rat is "happy." You can only observe that it selects
>the stimulus when it can. In humans there are plenty of compulsions
>that don't really provide pleasure. Such as Bobbi's compulsion to
>keep reading Jackie.
I've only heard anecdotes but the underlying neural architecture
of pain and pleasure similar in all mammals. It is among the
phylogenetically oldest areas of the brain. To simplify things,
between our sense organs and the peasure/pain centers of the brain
there is complex circuitry (the neocortex) that accounts for our
"needing complex stimuli".
>Humans probably need more than just happiness. Even though sex
>feels great, after a while you want to get up and go do something
>else which isn't really more fun. Not even most drug users want
>to stay stoned 24/7.
>Suppose Halle Berry fell in love with you. After you stabilized
>from the first few weeks how many times per day would you want sex
>with her? I think in the long run 1/day to 3/day would be enough.
>You'd eventually gravitate back to doing other things.
This is precisely because the brain has negative (chemical) feedback
mechanisms to prevent one from feeling happy all the time.
After all, we're survival machines at our genes' disposal. The
hedonistic treadmill has helped our genes survive in the past.
>> while wired into a divice giving electrical impulses into
>> the appropriate neural circuits?
>It's far from clear that this is practical or that a human could
>live long that way. You'd basically have to disconnect your
>motor neurons to avoid jerking your body about in response to
>the stimuli, which would mean you would be completely paralyzed.
>And of course running wires through the skin not to mention
>the skull would present a risk of infection.
>There will probably be less invasive methods of producing similar
>results. I'm thinking our normal sense organs are capable of
>sending some pretty good messages to the brain. It would make
>sense to explore that first before trying anything more drastic.
You're right. But without meddling with the negative feedback
mechanisms in the brain to some extent it will be difficult to
raise the baseline level of happiness people can experience. People
tend to grow tired of everything.
>Jim Ledford's doughnut profiteering isn't pulling wealth out of thin
>air.
Anyway, having the ability to get the same amount of pleasure from an
average woman than from an ideally attractive woman would be great to
have.
Actually, I think love drugs might be on the market before any of the
kind of sophisticated virtual reality or robotics you have spoken of
as a solution to the current massive lack of high quality sex the
majority of people suffer from.
Kthulah
Looks are about more than the neck down. Besides, even at the same
weight, your body won't look the same as you do now, in 10 years. If
you're concerned about that, then it would be a good idea, if you're
not doing it already, to add resistance training to your regime.
Still, the question was what you will have to offer when your looks
are gone. Perhaps I should have worded it as, "What would you have to
offer if your looks were to go?"
Let's say that something completely out of your control happened. We
won't even use weight as an example...
What if you were in a car accident, and your face and body became
horribly burned? Would you be able to face the world, despite knowing
that most people around you would not consider you physically
attractive anymore?
What aspects of your personality, including your sexuality, would you
expect to shine through, despite your appearance?
~Kthulah
Kthulah
> In soc.singles g0rt <go...@vast-robot-army.mil> wrote:
> > kuntulah wrote:
> >> I call his speculations naive, because he fails to take anything into
> >> consideration but the looks of adults. He makes it a moral question,
> >> when the truth is that morality has nothing to do with it. What most
> >> men want would be immoral to pursue, and if there's settling going on,
> >> that settling starts based on virginity, and age over 16, not age over
> >> 40.
>
> > there are legal reasons why american men in some states can't go on record
> > re: thier lust for 16 year old girls.
>
> i had believed going on record about it was legal.
>
> it was the procuring of a willing 16 year old girl that is the illegal bit.
As far as I know, it's legal in most places in the U.S. and abroad, to
say that one prefers their partners whatever age, so long as they
wouldn't be interpreted as soliciting minors. The problem is that if
you were to say it, because of the paranoia about it, you may be seen
as not just sick, but potentially abusive.
Despite my history, I don't have the same illusions that most people
do. My grandmother had her first child at the age of 13, conceived in
a consensual relationship with a man in his 20's. Back then, it was
pretty common, and by the time a girl was 13, she was usually well
prepped for her future role as wife and mother...and generally, being
a wife and mother was all there was for her to look forward to.
Nowadays, that is usually not the case, but regardless of the current
social situation, men's desires overall, haven't changed much since
prehistory. Even though girls in the west are generally being trained
more for the workforce, than for breeding, men still consider them
best looking when they are "fresh".
There are quite a few who even prefer them pre-pubescent, but
generally within or just barely past puberty is the preferred range.
That is generally the stage of only subtly rounded hips, perky
breasts, and very little hair...and this is why mainstream models are
required to look that way.
When having children was important, the optimal breeder body was
fashionable, but since westerners are having fewer children, it's not
such a big deal to look sturdy anymore. Men want to look at their
fantasy, not what is actually practical, and though this view is
unpopular, I believe it is women who guide the cultural programming
that tells them what their fantasy should be.
To me, the trend towards the thin/hairless/perky combo, is symptomatic
of man becoming honest with himself. It is his confession of his true
desires. On the flipside, women in the west don't want to be required
to have a bunch of babies when they get married, so they help promote
the non breeder body ideal, whether they wish to look like that or
not.
...but that's just my view from the outside.
~Kthulah
Steve Thompson
Quoting Kthulah (kth...@shoggoth.net):
> Shawn Pickrell <sp6...@corgi.bna.com> wrote in message news:<a9etmr$42d$3...@dosa.alt.net>...
> > In soc.singles g0rt <go...@vast-robot-army.mil> wrote:
> > > kuntulah wrote:
> > >> I call his speculations naive, because he fails to take anything into
> > >> consideration but the looks of adults. He makes it a moral question,
> > >> when the truth is that morality has nothing to do with it. What most
> > >> men want would be immoral to pursue, and if there's settling going on,
> > >> that settling starts based on virginity, and age over 16, not age over
> > >> 40.
> >
> > > there are legal reasons why american men in some states can't go on record
> > > re: thier lust for 16 year old girls.
> >
> > i had believed going on record about it was legal.
> >
> > it was the procuring of a willing 16 year old girl that is the illegal bit.
Well, that depends. The white slavery market is still frowned upon, so if
that happens to be the context of the record, then it is no wonder that
some might be reticent to voice their true opinion. But otherwise, it would
depend on the maturity of the people involved.
Regards,
Steve
--
The Judge was [sic].
--
Include "35da3c9e079dcf68ec3a608e8c0a47f6" somewhere in your
message if you reply via email.
looke
> In article <3CB804D1...@bellsouth.net>, chubby chaser Jim Ledford says...
> >
> >jeanette rauni runyon wrote:
> >
> >> Kthulah wrote:
> >>
> >> >not physically "perfect", and thought you or most others watching,
> >> >would have a clue of what I was talking about, I would try...but it's
> >> >one of those things that, being difficult enough to explain as it is,
> >> >would be like an alien language to you.
> >>
> >> guys. And for some reason they are all falling love. I don't ever
> >> recall that happening to me when I was in my 20's
> >
> >
> >none of them took into account the incredible popularity
> >of women who suck.
>
how's the divorce going, chubs?
jackie 'anakin' tokeman
chaney: i've got some fudge hidden up my ass - you want some?
vald: yeah right - i'm not falling for that one again.
i have always thought the actions of men the best interpreters of thier
thoughts.
- john locke
Goodgirl
> >
> > FOODgirl oinked:
> > > "The Danimal" <dmo...@mfm.com> wrote in message
> > > news:cac1ad88.02041...@posting.google.com...
> > > news:<3CB804D1...@bellsouth.net>...
> > > > > jeanette rauni runyon wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Kthulah wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >If I could explain why I don't lack for love or lust, even
though I am
> > > > > > >not physically "perfect", and thought you or most others
watching,
> > > > > > >would have a clue of what I was talking about, I would
try...but it's
> > > > > > >one of those things that, being difficult enough to explain as
it is,
> > > > > > >would be like an alien language to you.
> > > >
> > > > the world wouldn't be overrun with them.
> > >
>
> If being overweight guaranteed a lifetime of celibacy I think a
> lot more people would figure out a way to push away from the table.
>
> There are two ways to interpret my claim:
>
> 1. I might have been saying something about the offspring of gluttons.
> 2. I might have been saying something about the immediate incentive
> gluttons might have to push away from the table.
There is a third way too. An inability to make up your mind.
>
> Evidently the feedback is not that strong. People can put on a few
> pounds and they're still able to fuck something.
>
there you go again. I guess its not just women you objectify.
> > this is a good point.
> > there is no evidence that the present rise in obesity is the result of
> > genetics, and much evidence that it is the product of culture and
> > environment.
>
> You're talking about the overall rise in obesity. However, not everyone
> has gained the same amount of weight. The culture has changed, the
> gene pool has changed very little, but the *distribution of genes*
> within the changed culture probably has something to do with
> *who is getting fat* in this culture.
>
> People are getting taller, too, on average, and the increase is probably
> due to culture (specifically: more calories and protein for the kiddies).
> Nonetheless it is clear that genes strongly influence who is taller
> or shorter than the average height.
>
> And speaking of culture, parents are part of a child's environment.
> If the kids grow up with parents who use food in particular ways,
> the children might have a higher chance of learning to use food
> similarly. Like having parents who smoke, drink, gamble, break
> traffic laws, whatever.
>
> But of course within the same family there can be siblings who
> are overweight while others are at ideal weights.
there is no such thing as an ideal weight, at least not one that can be
applied to more than one individual. From experiance, I know my ideal
weight is 175, which would still have the likes of you calling me nasty
names. So whats the point of going through all the suffering, if nothing
really changes?
BTW, do you realize that jackie wrote the part you just responded to here,
not me?
>
> > > > I merely said gluttons have to settle for partners who
> > > > themselves are generally unable to attract any non-gluttons,
> > > > but generally would prefer to.
> > > >
> > > > Speaking of difficult things to explain: who will be the first
> > > > fat woman posting here who shows she can read?
> > >
> > > We all can. You just prefer to pretend we can't so you don't have to
admit
> > > when you have been proven shallow.
> >
> > he doesn't have to be 'proven shallow' (as losers reckon shallow)
> > he revels in it.
> > hth
>
> I revel in it when I get the chance.
Why am I not suprised.
>
> > > > No matter how many dozens of times I explain that it's not about
> > > > whether you can score but who you are scoring with (and who
> > > > your partners are getting rejected by), some glutton takes a
> > > > break from munching doughnuts and """refutes""" my claim
> > > > by demonstrating her endless capacity to misread.
> > >
> > > Just because you 'explain' something does not mean said explaination
has
> > > anything to do with anyones reality than yours.
> >
> > says the bloated pig freak who will fuck any warmblooded featherless
biped
> > who accepts her chatline comeons.
>
> Rauni also boasts of her feminine prowess. I wonder how the
> men who are currently falling in love with Rauni compare to God's
> gift to women, our highly trained killing machine Vlad. Is Rauni
> scoring highly coveted prize specimens like him? Or is she doing
> even better?
And what evidence would you accept? none, I am sure. You simply couldn't
acknowledge anything that upsets your carfully constructed world view.
> Ladies, here's how to tell if your man is worth more than shit.
> Do you have to constantly keep an eye on him at parties and
> actively discourage other women from hitting on him? Or is he
> pretty safe for you to let out on his own recognizance?
>
Actually, for me this wouldn't be a problem.
> > > That you refuse to even try
> > > to see the world through any eyes but your own is telling indeed.
> >
> > you value eating what makes you feel good more than you value pleasing
> > men.
> > am i close?
>
> I don't understand how a woman who claims to love men can purposely
> ignore what men want.
you misspelled what you, i.e a shallow cretin, wants. Just as jackie is
not, neither are you the measure of all men (thank God)
> > > Try
> > > taking the bias colored glasses off once in a while - it could be a
real eye
> > > opener, if your brain can handle the input, that is.
> >
> > you write like a loser.
>
> The funny thing is that every woman has her own criteria for men
> and she never questions her criteria.
>
why should we - you never question yours?
> > > > > > No kidding. If the world was really according to Dan I would not
be
> > > > > > dating as much as I do.
> > > >
> > > > As women get older, they tend to compensate for their declining
> > > > physical attractiveness by pursuing men more aggressively.
> > >
> > > This is news to me. I have never pursued anyone. Its not in my
nature to
> > > do so.
> >
> > what are you doing on those chatlines full of desperate chaneys then?
>
> There are ways women can aggressively broadcast their availability
> while still preserving plausible deniability, at least in their own
> minds.
And what would you find acceptable then? Why is a 20 year old hot babe
going to the clubs wearing a revealing outfit NOT aggressively broadcasting,
but me leaving the house is? Chatlines are fast becoming the way many
people find others to hang out with, especially for people like me, who
don't drink and avoid nightspots.
>
> > > >This strategy tends to work well for a while because most men who
aren't
> > > > already fucking something better will be receptive to just about
> > > > any woman who meets their bare minimum requirements.
> > >
> > > MY, MY, MY!!! What a telling comment. Do the women in your life know
that
> > > you consider women to be 'somethings'? I wonder.
> >
> > dan is on record believing that in sexual relationships it is imperative
> > that one never, ever tell the comprehensive truth.
>
> Actually I can imagine a hypothetical partner who could handle the
> complete truth. I just haven't met her. For starters, she would
> need to already know more about sociobiology than I do before we
> had our first conversation. There is a problem when you are the one
> who teaches another person something. That person will tend to
> "imprint" the knowledge with your identity. That means you get
> blamed for any emotional disturbance she experiences as a result
> of learning new truth.
>
> Most men instinctively agree with me, which is why so many women
> complain that their men won't open up and share their inner feelings.
> Actually it's probably more of a learned response. Men discover
> pretty early in the game that the more they open up to women the
> more they get punished for it.
>
> I don't think most women could handle knowing how men really think.
> When I reveal a few hints here the result is mass hysteria.
>
Don't flatter yourself. you do not represent most men.
> > > > A man's minimum requirements in a partner are usually a function
> > > > of what sort of women his experience with women has conditioned
> > > > him to expect he can attract.
> > >
> > > And they couldn't possibly be what he actually likes, could they?
>
> Most men can't attract women who come close to being everything they want.
>
Keep think that if it makes you feel better.
> > how many guys with slovenly wives were collecting pictorials of rosie
> > o'donnell, camryn mannheim, and rosanne barr before they roped thier
sow?
>
> None that I know.
>
> > > How
> > > narrow and shallow you are. Does it help to project this on others?
> >
> > men talk to each other.
> > hth
>
> Hey, if I ever meet a man who convinces me he considers obese women
> to be ideally attractive I will marvel but I won't try to talk him
> out of his sexual orientation. Whatever people want is what they want.
> Sexual orientation is very resistant to change.
>
> It's just that until now I've never met such a man. Every man I've
> ever discussed it with appears to mostly agree with me on who the
> most attractive women are. We might quibble on the exact ordering
> at the top but I've never met a guy who ranks Camryn Mannheim anywhere
> near #1.
>
> Speaking of the sow, it's interesting to watch _The Practice_ and
> try to measure the SMV gradient they set up by putting Camryn on
> screen at the same time as Lara Flynn Boyle (or even better, the
> hottest woman on the show: the secretary chick in their office).
> Putting Camryn next to some hot chick produces such an SMV gradient
> that it starts to distort the fabric of space. I notice first the
> small, then the heavy objects in the room creeping toward the set
> and getting sucked in. My watch begins running backward. Mysterious
> lights begin flashing in the windows. I sense an odd roaring sound.
> Then I notice something poking up through my chair---perhaps an
> alien anal probe? But just in time they cut to commercial, everything
> falls to the floor, and my cat looks very worried.
>
> > > > A man who can attract height:weight proportionate 20-something
> > > > women will ignore any hints or overt interest from a 40-something
> > > > overweight woman. (If anyone has counterexamples now would be a
> > > > good time to post them.)
> > >
> > > Not being over 40 yet, and not knowing very many women over 40 who are
not
> > > already married, I cannot help you there. But I an sure that if
anyone else
> > > has examples, you would reject them out of hand because, in the words
from
> > > the movie with Jack Nicholson, "YOU CAN'T HANDLE HANDLE TRUTH!"
> >
> > describe the longest relationship you've ever had.
> > include height, weight, age, annual income, hairline, dicksize, and
whether
> > he was a nerd.
>
> And could he beat up Vlad?
>
and what does any of that have to do with anything? I have already made it
clear that I am not into relationships. I have had several friends that I
see, but I do not consider these relationships in that they are only casual
sex and conversation. Friends. I want no more than that, I value my
privacy too much. I could have such a relationship with at least 2
different guys right now. I like things as they are.
Why is this ok for a man, but when I say it, I have to be lying?
> > > > Since most men are insufficiently attractive to women to attract
> > > > many HWP 20-something, most are willing to settle for women of
> > > > lower quality.
> > > >
> > > > If you're happy with rejects, then keep pounding down the
> > > > doughnuts. If, on the other hand, you'd like to attract better
> > > > men, get your gluttony under control.
> > > >
> > > > I don't presume to tell you what you like. If you're happy to
> > > > settle, if that works for you, then don't change your behavior.
> > >
> > > Meeting nice, smart, hardworking, intellegent men, who may or may not
meet
> > > the GQ standard is not setteling.
>
> But can they spell?
Blame Outlook Express.
>
> > i notice that description could easily apply to balding geeks.
> > what's up with that?
>
> What's up with the "may or may not" waffling on the GQ standard?
> Has Goodgirl attracted any men who do meet it?
Several.
snip
> > > There is no such thing as sexual marke value.
> >
> > why, if that is the case, are some women able to exchange sex for so
much
> > more money than others?
>
> Indeed, and a select few can get the money for a smile.
prostitution is illegal and is not what we were discussing.
>
> > > This is a bogus piece of
> > > crap made up by shallow men to explain their shallowness.
>
> Actually the sexual market in its current form as it applies to women
> is largely the result of what you call the "shallowness" of men. That
> is to say, the preference trends shared by a majority of men determine
> which women have the greatest sexual market value.
>
> I am neither proud of nor ashamed of my "shallowness." It's simply a
> part of who I am. I certainly didn't choose it. If I had a choice, I
> think I would choose to have the capacity to be exactly as happy
> without sex as I can be with it. That way I could avoid all the costs
> of pursuing it (most of the cost being, of course, the need to struggle
> past all the competition for the top prizes).
Bull. All behavior is a choice.
snip
> > > > Before you knee jerk and say "What about Brenda?" note that
> > > > accusing Brenda of applying your strategy is not exactly the
> > > > way to refute my hypothesis. At least when Brenda does it she's
> > > > advertising a well-maintained product.
> > >
> > > <insert klaxon alarm here> DOUBLE STANDARD ALERT!! DOUBLE STANDARD
ALERT!!
> > > DANGER DANGER!!
> > > <insert klaxon alarm here>
>
> Well, there is the damage from smoking and tanning. Which will
> worsen over time.
>
> But for men it appears the worst thing a woman can to her ability
> to give men pleasure is to gain a lot of weight, at least among
> the common hazards.
>
> > compare and contrast:
> > bloated, bitchy, slovenly kuntulah
> > slender, sweet, lovely brendalee
> >
> > but if you can't see it
> > take my word
> > for guys
> > there is a difference
> > jackie 'anakin' tokeman
>
> That's evident even here in soc.singles. There's always some new guy
> wandering through who sees Brenda's pictures and notices her sweet
> disposition through her articles and voices his approval. How many
> guys are hitting on Kthulah here?
I wouldn't know. And you would ingnore any evidence anyway.
Goodgirl
--
The average American woman stands 5'4", weighs 140 lbs, and wears a size 14.
looky here
> In soc.singles g0rt <go...@vast-robot-army.mil> wrote:
> > kuntulah wrote:
> >> I call his speculations naive, because he fails to take anything into
> >> consideration but the looks of adults. He makes it a moral question,
> >> when the truth is that morality has nothing to do with it. What most
> >> men want would be immoral to pursue, and if there's settling going on,
> >> that settling starts based on virginity, and age over 16, not age over
> >> 40.
>
> > there are legal reasons why american men in some states can't go on record
> > re: thier lust for 16 year old girls.
>
> i had believed going on record about it was legal.
make enough enemies
and nothing is legal
best,
faith
"Kthulah" <kth...@shoggoth.net> wrote in message
news:5f8d41bb.02041...@posting.google.com...
> "faith" <ha...@nanar.stebe> wrote in message
news:<a9fa3s$67n$0...@pita.alt.net>...
> > "Uncle Davey" <no...@jose.com> wrote in message
> > news:3cbaa6d3$6...@news.ptt.ru...
> > > "Kthulah" <kth...@shoggoth.net> wrote in message
> > > news:5f8d41bb.02041...@posting.google.com...
> > > > "Uncle Davey" <no...@jose.com> wrote in message
> > news:<3cb6ed9a$1...@news.ptt.ru>...
> > > > > "Kthulah" <kth...@shoggoth.net> wrote in message
news:5f8d41bb.02041...@posting.google.com...
> > > > > > "faith" <ha...@nanar.stebe> wrote in message
> > news:<a94p1g$s3k$0...@pita.alt.net>...
> > > > > > > "The Danimal" <dmo...@mfm.com> wrote in message
news:cac1ad88.02041...@posting.google.com...
> > > > > > > > ...name a country where a majority of men would not find
> > > > > > > > GoddessBaybee sexually attractive.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -- the Danimal
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > there is a country where men like their women fat.
> > > > > > > glad i don't live there.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > keeping on topic with the comment i made in this thread
> > [there is a country where men like their women fat. glad i
> > don't live there]....i am in control of my looks so far as my
> > weight goes, and therefore will never lose the figure i have
> > maintained all of my adult life [excluding pregnancies]
> > unless i choose to.
> >
> weight, your body won't look the same as you do now, in 10 years. If
> you're concerned about that, then it would be a good idea, if you're
> not doing it already, to add resistance training to your regime.
>
my work and hobbies involve physical activity - walking, hiking,
climbing, lifting, bending. i also take care of my health - calcium
supplements, and i'm careful about what i eat since my mother
and elder sister are both type II diabetics.
> Still, the question was what you will have to offer when your looks
> are gone. Perhaps I should have worded it as, "What would you have
to> offer if your looks were to go?"
>
> Let's say that something completely out of your control happened. We
> won't even use weight as an example...
>
> What if you were in a car accident, and your face and body became
> horribly burned? Would you be able to face the world, despite knowing
> that most people around you would not consider you physically
> attractive anymore?
>
> What aspects of your personality, including your sexuality, would you
> expect to shine through, despite your appearance?
>
since i haven't been horribly burned in an auto accident
it's irrelevant so far as my life goes now. should your
scenario become reality in my future, i'll deal with it
if it happens. so far as what i have to offer, certain
parts of my life aren't open for discussion in soc.singles.
faith
faith
looky here
> cora wrote:
> > I'm planting a bug in his ear about maybe not rushing into his occupation
> > just this minute, but keeping his part-time J and taking some time off...like
> > we could travel or something. I can get time off. We have resources.
>
> Read "The Millionaire Next Door."
and what are the odds that a twentysomething hottie will take the advice
in that book?
rhetorical
this, by the way, is the major problem with the 'cash in on hsmv while it's
hot' plan. most girls just blow the blowjob money on vacations, drugs, cars,
drugs, vacations, drugs and partays.
see: ginger lynn
doh!
on the other hand, i'm told annette haven managed to marry a rich fan.
but then, she always was something special.
Crash Street Kidd
You certainly don't have to worry about your boobs sagging.
>> Looks are about more than the neck down.
Are you trying to be cruel? :-)
>>Besides, even at the same
>> weight, your body won't look the same as you do now, in 10 years. If
>> you're concerned about that, then it would be a good idea, if you're
>> not doing it already, to add resistance training to your regime.
>>
>
>my work and hobbies involve physical activity - walking, hiking,
>climbing, lifting, bending. i also take care of my health - calcium
>supplements,
They are a waste of money if you are eating right and often even
if you aren't.
>and i'm careful about what i eat since my mother
>and elder sister are both type II diabetics.
You don't have to be fat to be a diabetic. hth.
>> Still, the question was what you will have to offer when your looks
>> are gone.
Too late. That has already happened.
>> Perhaps I should have worded it as, "What would you have
>to> offer if your looks were to go?"
This is something she has to deal with every day. Since the
pictures that are circulating of her are very old this is
something that she has had to deal with for a very long time.
>>
>> Let's say that something completely out of your control happened. We
>> won't even use weight as an example...
>>
>> What if you were in a car accident, and your face and body became
>> horribly burned? Would you be able to face the world, despite knowing
>> that most people around you would not consider you physically
>> attractive anymore?
>>
>> What aspects of your personality, including your sexuality, would you
>> expect to shine through, despite your appearance?
>>
>
>since i haven't been horribly burned in an auto accident
What did happen to your face, then? Was it always like that?
It does explain your bitterness and jealousy.
Did you know that several of the guys you threw yourself at
still talk to Ondrea on a semiregular basis? Phone conversations
even.
>it's irrelevant so far as my life goes now. should your
>scenario become reality in my future, i'll deal with it
>if it happens. so far as what i have to offer, certain
>parts of my life aren't open for discussion in soc.singles.
Your insanity, your depression, your lack of a uterus,
your need for a nick such as Leigh to admit your reliance
on Viagra to get men ready... What is left to discuss?
Crash Street Kidd
>
>faith
>
>
>faith
Is there an echo in here?
Shawn Pickrell
> Quoting Kthulah (kth...@shoggoth.net):
>> Shawn Pickrell <sp6...@corgi.bna.com> wrote in message news:<a9etmr$42d$3...@dosa.alt.net>...
>> > In soc.singles g0rt <go...@vast-robot-army.mil> wrote:
>> > > kuntulah wrote:
>> > >> I call his speculations naive, because he fails to take anything into
>> > >> consideration but the looks of adults. He makes it a moral question,
>> > >> when the truth is that morality has nothing to do with it. What most
>> > >> men want would be immoral to pursue, and if there's settling going on,
>> > >> that settling starts based on virginity, and age over 16, not age over
>> > >> 40.
>> >
>> > > there are legal reasons why american men in some states can't go on record
>> > > re: thier lust for 16 year old girls.
>> >
>> > i had believed going on record about it was legal.
>> >
>> > it was the procuring of a willing 16 year old girl that is the illegal bit.
> Well, that depends. The white slavery market is still frowned upon, so if
> that happens to be the context of the record, then it is no wonder that
> some might be reticent to voice their true opinion. But otherwise, it would
> depend on the maturity of the people involved.
last i checked female slavery was frowned upon.
it also wasn't willing.
--
... Shawn Pickrell, the Majority Stockholder of All Usenet
Stockholders may contact me at shawn_p...@yahoo.com
Shawn Pickrell
> shawn wrote:
>> In soc.singles g0rt <go...@vast-robot-army.mil> wrote:
>> > kuntulah wrote:
>> >> I call his speculations naive, because he fails to take anything into
>> >> consideration but the looks of adults. He makes it a moral question,
>> >> when the truth is that morality has nothing to do with it. What most
>> >> men want would be immoral to pursue, and if there's settling going on,
>> >> that settling starts based on virginity, and age over 16, not age over
>> >> 40.
>>
>> > there are legal reasons why american men in some states can't go on record
>> > re: thier lust for 16 year old girls.
>>
>> i had believed going on record about it was legal.
> make enough enemies
> and nothing is legal
frowned upon yes.
to become illegal requires either blood enemies or lots of enemies.
both would help.
Shawn Pickrell
>> cora wrote:
>> > I'm planting a bug in his ear about maybe not rushing into his occupation
>> > just this minute, but keeping his part-time J and taking some time off...like
>> > we could travel or something. I can get time off. We have resources.
>>
>> Read "The Millionaire Next Door."
> and what are the odds that a twentysomething hottie will take the advice
> in that book?
> rhetorical
it depends. something might click by the end of her 20s, and her
husband may be wise enough to have squirreled a bit away over the years.
i don't know whether her husband-to-be shares her expensive tastes.
> this, by the way, is the major problem with the 'cash in on hsmv while it's
> hot' plan. most girls just blow the blowjob money on vacations, drugs, cars,
> drugs, vacations, drugs and partays.
> see: ginger lynn
> doh!
> on the other hand, i'm told annette haven managed to marry a rich fan.
> but then, she always was something special.
a few of them pick up useful skillz while they are raking in the dough.