|
|
|
|
|
| Age range you are looking for. What's that say about you?
Posted: 5/11/2009 10:27:55 PM | in reply to your remark about hate speech, gender orientation and religion and ethnicity are specifically protected regarding non- discrimination.......Therefore we have these specifically proactive federal laws.
In hiring practices, membership to organizations that receive public funds, etc. Not on the op/ed page.
If Wes said he wasn't going to hire someone who is gay because gay people don't contribute anything worthwhile, then he would be breaking a law. If he advocated violence or oppression, then he would be breaking the law. But, he didn't do either of those things (well, not to gay people, but he certainly openly advocates oppression of women.) There is no law that says an idiot can't say stupid stuff if it's only in the context of opinion.
And any personally directed attack, which this is just one example, is equally prohibited by the same token that we all deserve protection from local tyrants that write their own rules.
Prohibited by whom and protected by whom? The moderators of this board, or federal courts? Yeah, it's a TOS violation, but there is no actual "law" being broken.
I understand any unwelcome contact regardless of genders involved can be adressed under sexual harassment laws..
On this board??? It's a dating site. Unless someone turns into a stalker, an identity thief, con artist or sex offender specifically banned from this kind of interaction, then there are no "sexual harassment laws" governing forums on a website.
even unwelcome joking around designed to mock or belittle..Sure its a broad definition, and I for one am all for protections. Again, I think the guidelines are there to release liability on the part of the website so they can say, we prohibit that..whether they do or not.
Eh, probably. It's a good faith effort to let people know they're expected to play nice and that, if they don't, you can't sue the creators of the board because anyone can come and go with free will and it's not like you HAVE TO subject yourself to anything you don't like.
As for "protections," I'm of two minds. First, is that we're all adults here and we are responsible for looking after our own selves. This means taking responsibility, not only for what we say, but for whether or not we participate in something that we don't like. No one makes anyone come here. No one forces anyone else to read anything. We CHOOSE to participate and read. Being insulted, disgusted and morally offended does not give anyone the right to censor anyone else.
However, there are obvious issues which must require "protections," i.e. violence, threats, fraud, stalking, etc. These are things which take away another's choice and should not be tolerated.
Hate is wrong, sure, but some hate is also illegal
Hate is immoral, not illegal. It's the actions motivated by hate that are illegal. I hate ignorant, Bible-banging, misogynist, attention-whores who get off on tearing other people down in order to build themselves up, but that's not illegal. Now, if I suggested beating the crap out of such a one with a baseball bat, then THAT would be illegal.  | |
|
| Age range you are looking for. What's that say about you?
Posted: 5/11/2009 10:44:13 PM |
So why haven't you jumped in when someone like the beaver assaulted "fat" women?
Dude, you were the one who created an entire thread devoted to putting women down for being overweight and using the justification that it was because they were going against God's plan by not being hot and submissive for you.
Now, you're gonna keep throwing the spotlight on Da Beav in order to make yourself look more palatable in your latest incarnation?? Please. He's practically a kid, with no real life experience with actual "women" (high school and college girls barely count) and he's just voicing (badly) a personal preference, so it's easy to dismiss his chest thumping because he hasn't learned any better yet.
You go out of your way to start a whole thread to accuse women of going against the Will of God by being fat, for no other reason than that He created Eve "with a shapely figure to get Adam's juices going." You're more than twice that kid's age and you still don't have any more sense than that. Sheesh. | |
|
| Age range you are looking for. What's that say about you?
Posted: 5/12/2009 9:29:08 AM | N you and the few others took what I said in that other thread and inferred plenty of things that I, in fact, did not say, and did not mean. There were even some other people that jumped in there on my behalf in that regard. But you don't look at exactly what it is I said, and in what context. You read your interpretation, from your fem background into all of it.
Now, getting this thread back on track- I don't know if it was you or someone else that said my asking the question about a person's age range specified saying anything about them. Then went on to say that my question and viewpoint said a lot about me. Yes, it did. It said that I'm not afraid to think certain things, and wonder certain things, and then ask others opinions of their thoughts. I guess in a perfect world, everybodies opinions would be the same and no one like me would be curious about others opinions or have a need to know, because I would know what their opinions were already.
It amazes me what some people do with a simple straight-forward discussion. | |
|
| Age range you are looking for. What's that say about you?
Posted: 5/12/2009 10:32:16 AM | Wow, you tap dance better than Fred Astaire.
Isn't it interesting that when you change your profile name (and get in trouble with the moderators,) it becomes darn near impossible to track your history of previous posts because they aren't listed under your new name and many of them (including an entire thread) have been removed for offensive content. Hiding from and lying about your past postings doesn't change anything.
Now, what was it you were saying about "straight-forward discussion?" Hypocrisy, thy name is Wes!  | |
|
| |
| Age range you are looking for. What's that say about you?
Posted: 5/12/2009 5:03:24 PM | My understanding of hate speech and harassment is that its both equally illegal behavior. Its illegal anywhere. Here at home or in public or private..Website or bathroom wall...Is this hate speech? Pretty clear the intention. Who knows..Hate speech is different from antidiscrimination. Two entirely different forms of illegal behavior. I dont know the prescise guidelines. Dont pretend to, but Im not ready to take your point.
And the more you know about law the less sure of these precise legal issues because you see all manner of inconsistencies. The courts are wild as the websites (almost)..as illogical and subject to bias, subjectivity and pressure of the moment...Dont look too close! They will hear a cause when reporters are watching with great pretense of PC interest and then hammer someone in the interests of a power structure when the doors are closed.
And you say that you cant sue...
Thats clearly incorrect. I can sue you for having dark hair if I am foolish enough to try. I can indeed sue the website if someone defames me and they take no action to suspend that activity. I posted on a site years ago and a flaming crusader began attacking me and they shut down the site, precisely because it was defamatory. Their funds could have been sought in damages..They began using a screened log-in to deny permission to out of control nutzos. There were warnings that didnt work, then finally they took action to stop it. They didnt care about ME but themselves. (and/or if they did, that wasnt their reason for acting)
My point about sexual harassment laws is that they dont apply just between male and females but to any unwanted contact. My feeling is that harassment anywhere is the same, in the workplace the employer becomes liable, in housing and in public other parties are liable, and on a website ultimately the site operators. Yes, its all nebulous, subjective and ridiculously impossible to enforce. The priniciple is that we all deserve protections from bullies and not to be victimized. Sidewalk, schoolroom or online..
The guideline, No Ad Homenim attacks, (harassment) is enforced (or not) for more than reasons of civility. Of course it happens every day. Sometimes it gets prosecuted. Harassment and stalking are cause for damages anywhere they occur. Legal enforcement online is not prevalent because its impracticable, just too ridiculously unenforceable. And yet even porn sites are very careful to avoid certain things that could produce prosecution. Images of rape which might suggest mysoginist hate behavior, or suggestions of underage participants..and no, I dont beleive in censorship. But that doesnt mean certain expressions should not be, and are not prohibited. And sure the moral and legal issues are different..Thats why we specifically have categories for hate crimes where the punishments are far different for very similar actions. Law is brought to bear against overwhelming streams of hateful energy that has been historically repented of collectively. At least officially..its a crude tool.
If I beat up a neighbor thats one thing, but if I do it for certain reasons it brings a whole different level of prosecution to bear. To totally beat this to death no, HATE ITSELF is not illegal, but verbal expressions of hate are speech, hate speech ..more than just the intrinsic hate. Again, who knows, but I do believe clear hate speech is not protected by the first ammendment but the reverse, specifically prohibited. And even citing the statute would tell little about the law which is determined in fact only by its enforcement. Whats written matters little compared to what is practiced.
My humble understanding of protections are that hate speech specifically is illegal. So is unwanted contact. Its harassment and in fact the online abuse between kids on myspace and other chat sites is producing court cases. So I dont think your proclaimations of black and white are so clear. One time a kid could say to a teacher, "youre dead I hate you, and all would laugh. "Now they detain, investigate and suspend for that. Since clearly its not always idle threats. The laws havent changed, but enforcement has these wild swings in judgement and application of power. At one time you could be charged for espousing communism...please dont try to hold the legal definitions up as a consistent guideline. They arent. The law alternates between errors on the side of extremes, it seems. But they have swung back to defend where formerly they ignored murder and rape and atrocity because it was only a woman or indian or black and they were "asking for it"..Yet still legal action is no more consistent or just than it ever was, but mainly an exercise of power.
Spam is actually illegal, sure its rampant. (Say you cant sue?? One might)I know a fellow who won hundreds of thousands in an anti-spam lawsuit. Bought a home with the money. His partner at the time is a member here I did some remodel work for. I got paid with some of that money. Don't be sure what one cant sue for.
Whether any judge would ever grant damages is entirely anyones guess due to pollitical pressures at the moment. But the website wants to avoid any chance of being found liable. They have money and need to clarify damaging behavior is not condoned by them. The guidelines I read just refer to any unlawful behavior as a fallback blanket rule, so hate speech doesnt have to specifically be prohibited. I havent studied it, but at this point I sill feel my positions are well taken..
On the other hand Wills remark is probably laughably innocent compared to anything truly qualified as hate speech. I have a no tolerance policy and prefer to identify it as what it is, the same as bashing and defamation of larger varieties and connected to the same sources..This is the myth of the dangerous world and strong father and all the attendant abuses where the real danger IS the stong father, not the hobgoblins he invents to justify his tyranny. George Lakhoffs book idea.
Anyone wants adress my comment, that would be the substance. Not quibbling over what is or isnt speech or just hate or actionable or not actionable..This gets at why my remark about Gay culture drew Will out and exposed who he is, the center of his energy and not any lines he may overstep. Those specifics really matter very little compared to understanding what it all arises from. | |
|
| Age range you are looking for. What's that say about you?
Posted: 5/12/2009 5:22:41 PM | | wolf with a tirade like that last one, you ought to be a politician or a preacher. Either way, you'd put your audience to sleep. Amazing stuff. Have you written it in book form? You already have several chapters here to get you started if you haven't. | |
|
| Age range you are looking for. What's that say about you?
Posted: 5/12/2009 8:33:07 PM | No, its about this book:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech
here you go..hate speech is subject to certain prohibitions, not protections. And its not hate itself but speech motivated by hate, just like discrimination is action motivated by hate. Just to be ridiculously precise. Who cares about the example.
The real subject of my interest is George Lakoff's idea about the myths that generate these compelling feelings of safety versus hate, why our blood boils when confronted with contradictions to the beliefs we have and why we tend to make wild statments about peoples sanity, powerful judgements about the loyalty and value of those with differing views. Its a great suggestion explaining why our reactions are so personally slanted according to predictable patterns. Its a study of why conservative and liberal beliefs seem so deeply and personally mutually exclusive.
Lakoff suggests its because our ideas arise from imaginary but vivid myths we believe which produce these black and white world views of good and evil that are each oversimplified. His idea explains why someone who believes that we need a strong father who is older and wiser and protects his children from a dangerous world, using the mythical enemies to consolidate power in his home through the fear that justifies his authority..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Lakoff
The happy hippie who is the opposite end of the spectrum and believes in free love and living from the inside out and diversity and nurture is a believer in a safe world myth that sees the strong father as a tyrant. This view believes in investing resources in music and art and gardens and schools, less in technology and more in human potential.
The strong father/dangerous world myth is associated with cultures of conquest that might be called imperialist and which have abused native people and converted cultures to the dominant methods of farming and 'clothed the natives' and taught writing and eradicated native languages.. It has a class system, neoclassical culture..patriarchal and intolerant. This is a very competitive culture that can wipe out more peaceful cultures very quickly, Roman Empire, Gengis Kahn, British Empire. The term "Great Nation" is perfect..
The safe world/nurturing family myth sees diversity as a resource and does not impose its value system on subject people and allows them to retain original culture and traditions. It subscribes to a nature friendly practice that is embracing of balance rather than dominance and finds power through character development rather than in strong outward control. This sort of culture might be typical of old Tibet and it causes a society to be rather naive and defenseless against enemies and easily plundered and destroyed. Its rather defenseless against treachery and lying and tends to make sucker deals and lose its resources to the more aggressive cultures.
The first myth sees progress as linear and the second recognizes that everything is cyclical, the first about dominance, the second about balance.
Lakoffs idea is that our attachment to these differing myths is a very emotional vision that generates our idea of good and evil and personal safety, and thats why our
opinions about these things are so emotional. These myths create a compelling picture in our mind. They have a physical palpability that is strongly motivating and arousing.
If you think this explanation is convoluted, try Lakhoff, he is a terrible writer and has co-authors for all his books. Chomsky is ten times as smart and thinks Lakoff is clueless in general, but its a very interesting idea! Certainly explains a lot about the world I grew up in and the people I know.
Its all about trying to improve the species, ours, by coming out of the caves into something worthy of the name, civilization. | |
|
| |
| |
| Age range you are looking for. What's that say about you?
Posted: 5/13/2009 10:27:33 AM | Victims only need identified by race or gender when their traditional abusers are around. Thats why they threw out OJs conviction based on identifying the cops as bigots. Yes, its unjust. Convicting him would tie into an entire tradition of injustice far beyond any small, specific crime at this one single point he was so likley guilty of..a tradition involving systematic destruction of countless lives..lynching and rape and torture and so on..Thats why I clarify that law is a crude baseball bat that goes from letting people who killed blacks or gays off only a decade ago, now to erring the other way, prosecuting hate crime with overzealousness..and yes, mostly for show.
I didnt identify them as gays, you did. I identified them as alternative, like the OP's non traditional couple with a younger man, for comparison. And pointed out their value in asserting the value of diversity being a welcome favor to us all. And again this ties in with a myth of a safe world concept that values children and nurture above conquest and which competes with the one requireing a cop on every streetcorner, and a dominant male in every home..It invites us in the words of Rodney King, to all just get along. I find value in that even if Rodney King was a known criminal. So, Kurt Vonnegut was a felon..There are reasons. My comment about gays isnt about them, its about me, and the value I personally find in those I know. Thats why your attack on them IS an attack on me.
If you attacked OJ Id probably agree hes a lost soul, but the real danger in that picture is the mark furhman who institutionalizes his personal lostness..Thats the one who needs put out of business. And indeed OJ took care of his need to go to jail in the end, as I felt he would. The race, gay, woman.. card has its place..only because of the bigger picture. And maybe Obamas ethnicity is a bit of the medicine that helped heal Germany (or was it Austria) when they had a Jewish chancellor for the next several terms after WWII. And it was the best leadership they ever had.
And yes they need defended because like Jews in germany theyre traditionally at risk from overwhelming negative energy, the history of atrocity demands it. Thats why hate laws exist..And to deny that reality of hate history is like denying the Jewish holocaust. And sure, affirmative action produces injustices. But I dont defend them because theyre gay but because theyre people (a hundred? now who is overreacting- I listed six) that I care about who specifically as I think of each one has done a lifetime or two more work to contribute to their communities than anyone I know, partly to clarify like say the Tuskeegee airmen or the Japaneese troops that fought so heroically in WWII or the code talkers, what an awesome contribution they offer, not as gays, natives or blacks but as human beings.
See, this is why for a generation Blacks ate at Chineese restaurants and allied with Jews in the anti-defamation leagues and why half the indians are very likely to be half Irish, persecuted people understand one another. And the harold and maude couple would be supported in an integrated church, for example, where otherwise no, they would be frowned on by those with a typically dinasaur world view..cave man if you will.
I happen to like women, and in the puritan culture I was raised in, thats not really even allowed, no one can really like anything, pleasure is frowned on in general. Yet theyre all hooked on pie! Gravy and Pie, me oh my...because they cant enjoy other pleasures. So thats partly why I like any alternative type, it gives me permission to be who I am. 'safe world' not a devil under every rock. And the conservative strong father we usually find has his hand in everyones pants! The Great Santini and American Beauty..Cleaning out the cookie jar himself while claiming to be its protector..Isnt that just what happened in international banking! The Regan legacy of corruption on top of corruption, all while this Marlborough man watched out for us.
All the while saving us from terrorists who 'therapy will not work on them' because basically they arent human. 'They hate freedom.' And its all clearly of this emotional construct of a dangerous world we must control and dominate.
Again, it all goes back to the conflicts generated by how we see ourselves in this mythical construct our world view is derived from..The gay issue is just one clear illustration. And Im adressing the OP's real question while youre playing pinochle in the bottom of the boat..looking at the finger Im using to point out the much larger patterns far larger than either one of us in history.
If that makes me a preacher its about time someone spoke of the real truth instead of all this god bullshit...beat to death for the last thousand years..pointed out the real Satan and not that imagined enemy under every bush and ethnic, social, cultural and behavioral boogeyman..The fearmonger themselves..
Ever see the movie Brazil? | |
|
| Age range you are looking for. What's that say about you?
Posted: 5/13/2009 11:40:03 AM | I'm tempted to ad Wolffish to the NOLA and Wild equation, making a polyamorous relationship. I'm not sure how well they would all get along, but it would certainly be entertaining. Perhaps they could star in a new reality show on HBO. It would be called
"Big _____" Darn........I can't think of a good word..............help me out people.
(Just to let you know, I'm only making silly, innocent, childish fun of you all. I'm not serious in the least  ) | |
|
| |
| Age range you are looking for. What's that say about you?
Posted: 5/13/2009 12:03:23 PM | We guessed as much..Im passionate thats for sure. But not about anyone here specifically or even myself, but the bigger patterns.
"Menage" is a good term because its French and theyre passionate and also great champions of the democratic ideal. Statue of liberty and all that...Hmm wonder why they chose a femminine image?? Laokoff knows.
I consider my efforts a total failure if I cant inspire anyone to google a compelling thinker like Lakoff or research any of these discussions that have been in the think tanks and spin doctors and shape our future course. A side effect of caring about things is that you learn something. When it comes to that passion I fear that Im simply playing with myself here..all alone.
The original questions second, much more intresting part is this "whats that say about YOU" reflection. And I take that as a collective you meaning all of us..
I find myself searching the forums in vain for really interesting discussions..a few bright spots here and there but with the exception of some enlightening details about sexual behavior, pretty much same ol same wannabes..and wise guys. | |
|
| |
| Age range you are looking for. What's that say about you?
Posted: 5/13/2009 2:39:34 PM | I find myself searching the forums in vain for really interesting discussions..a few bright spots here and there but with the exception of some enlightening details about sexual behavior, pretty much same ol same wannabes..and wise guys.
While at first glance it may appear I am not a very thoughtful person, I actually do, at times, think about such subjects such as: the French vs American concepts of liberty, from their inceptions to the present day. (but that is certainly not a topic that is appropriate for this thread or a site such as POF)
Nor am I immune from becoming frustrated, annoyed and even a bit angry when I see injustice, bigotry and/or an utter lack of reason. But when I read back and forth, up and down, “you said”, “I said”, “why can’t you understand” discussions I chose to find humor in them. I could join the discussion, take a side, and fight the good fight, but at the end of the day I fear such a course would leave me angry, depressed and likely not a very pleasant person to be around. So I make wise @ss remarks and laugh……..it beats taking prozac or jumping off a tall bridge.
A confession about myself: I was born and raised in a part of the country that to this day is largely racist. So, as a young man, I too was racist. It was what I had been taught and took to be “matter of fact” from a young age. Of course, I knew that another segment of the population did not agree with me. I had heard their speeches and sermons a thousand times, in school, on TV, from liberal associates, etc. And many of those speeches and sermons were intelligent, logical and well researched. Despite that, they didn’t change my mind. I simply knew what I knew, and words, no matter how passionately spoken or written, were not going to influence me.
But then life happened to me. I got out into the world and talked to many different kinds of people (not so much about politics and philosophy, but about the mundane simple things all people talk about). And I saw that those around me, who were not racist, were generally happier and had lives that were richer and more fulfilled than my own. It was through their examples, and not through anyone’s words or writing that I changed.
And that is my point. Arguing, statistics, name calling, literary references and $3 words are like fighting a Sherman tank with a bow and arrow. The tank will simply lumber on, not caring whether or not it ran over you. If you want to stop the tank, throw a bar-b-que and offer the crew a beer. They just might just stop the tank and join you.
So, laugh at each other, and don’t forget to laugh at yourself as well. .
(And forgive me I just wrote a sermon………..that would make me a hypocrite, eh?) | |
|
| Age range you are looking for. What's that say about you?
Posted: 5/13/2009 6:15:47 PM | Well, interested people will often have amazing and enlightening exchanges if they get past the accepted attitudes that its all pointless. (Dont want to lapse into chat here.).Of course youre both right and wrong. I dont even know Wes. Just adressing the pattern Ive found really interesting in how it connects emotion with pollitics, bigotry, and also crosses over into issues of love and attachment.
And the same is true of all of us about our individual bigotries..We have many yet but to me its valuable to discover the source and why theyre so compelling. Nobody will get this unless they look at this work. Id have to put the whole book here. I can just quote a point or two to illustrate how relevant it seems, just to me. Ive run smack into my own myths at times and it can be very rude and disturbing. All self inflicted.
I just read a further comment on Lakoffs work which said it was controversial, then largely dismissed in the usual swirl of power struggles and jealousy. As you describe is all business as usual. Sure.
And then it turns out that the guidelines he was teaching, after they all dissed him, looked exactly like the talking points of the Obama campaign that kicked ass. There is a recycling where everyone dissagrees with your efforts and then their next remark shows they were actually listening very closely. Humans are sneaky. Maybe Wes is reading Lakoff right now. Down on his knees repenting his wickedness. (is that funny?- hope so) Come to Jesus brother. Have some watermelon and fried chicken with the brothers. (thin ice now)
And I keep the topic in mind. Thats what Im adressing, not Wes or any comment, but the attidudes they come from ("what does that show about you?")
Wes is chatting here , no I didnt, yes you did...and its not about me, why answer? Not about my words or anything I say except the topic or youre going sideways. (Email me with your direct comments..or not. )And to that point youre right! The barbeque is the best medicine indeed. Twain attacked religious and social bigotry with sarcasm and hillarious parody and still, nobody gets it until they want to. Thats again because of how rooted we are in our myth of choice..literally married to it. It defines our value in our own eyes. Yet some find Twains work worth saving and passing on.
Anyone who works with the bigoted attitudes that we all have discovers changing them is like coughing up a lung. Not easy. Its a foreign language, entering a strange country... to truly think differently.
But you never know who potentially runs across something that connects the dots in their head and wakes them up..Im happy to laugh at myself but hate is not funny in any form. And I have to say that if hate is going by in a tank it DOESNT MATTER if I can stop it or not.
I would much rather be on the right side and loose, than say nothing about things that need denounced. Generations later a thousand dead indians are still speaking about what we dont want to think about..with the voice of silence..When that tank gets to your doorstep you will recall what the indians said, and their arrows will seem less pointless. Then at that point they will be your pointless arrows as well, just before you get crushed, and they will seem very meaningful, effective or not....a sacred flag over your grave, lest we forget...Pointless?? not to you. Not then..especially if you lose.
I find things far too interesting in the patterns they reveal to take anything personally. No, not about to stop a tank and youre wrong about the threesome..I sadly dont care about one Wes, more or less but just using his comments to consider the roots of the tradition he illustrates, the shape of the myth that drives it..
Lakoff is a cognitive linguist, what should one call him? a brain word guy?? They all have 150 IQ's and are convinced their adversaries who are just as smart are all morons. Thats academia, yet things of value come out of it all.
I was emailing one person and each point I made had a couple books behind it, not MY ideas but theirs..
Sure she could contradict each point and in the process what she showed was that twenty researchers could offer her nothing to learn and she could dismiss each very easily. Biology, sociology, anthroplogy and history...oh well.. Interesting that her dissagreements didnt cite one single source or thing that she had learned, just negation after negation..Anybody can offer that. Oh well.
And she was an adjunct prof. So? Some of us feel that education has value. She didnt seem to. Some of us find persuing our questions nearly as compelling as the desire to connect with the opposite sex. Why? Same reason, we like it!
Not trying to "hijack a thread" just stumbled on this connection. I had no idea Wes was mocking me when he said I should write a book. We all should. We could do a lot worse. Also to read one..between barbeques..
What do I know..  | |
|
| |
| Age range you are looking for. What's that say about you?
Posted: 5/13/2009 7:56:24 PM | You want to describe how you escaped the influences of bigotries in your life, that would really be interesting..
Its an open forum...We assume people might volunteer what theyve learned, in whatever way..Happy to hear the whole story! | |
|
| Age range you are looking for. What's that say about you?
Posted: 5/13/2009 9:47:53 PM | Talk about a thread getting off track. I guess the moderators don't pay attention to any of this anymore. The Oregon watch dogs have let down the ball.
Wolf I noticed that the age range you specified was your age or younger. Why?
And how about you Blue? | |
|
| Age range you are looking for. What's that say about you?
Posted: 5/14/2009 9:16:48 AM | I will agree with you on this Wild. This thread has gone seriously off topic.
A long time ago my father suggested to me that one should, as a good general rule, look for a partner who is within 7 years of ones age. How he came up with that figure I'm not certain? I might modify it to plus or minus 10 years. What I do know for certain is that I have little wish or desire to date someone old enough to be my mother or daughter.
I do think it makes life a bit easier if you and your partner have seen and experienced many of the same (for good or bad) historical events, styles, cultural changes, elections, etc. | |
|
| |
| Age range you are looking for. What's that say about you?
Posted: 5/15/2009 8:36:32 AM | Reading all the postings has been interesting and a bit circuitous. Does age range say something? In order to answer that question you would have to be truly honest with yourself and others. I don't think anyone can truly answer the question because we are living in a society consumed by the need for being young. We have all been told to act our age and yet do we? And what is acting our age anymore? Since the 50's, I think our society has been trying to break the traditional molds of 'Leave it to Beaver'. What has been sad for me is that we also have been critical of others and their lifestyles to the point that we don't know what we want for the sake of avoiding criticism. What a shame to be throwing rocks in a glass house. What is hard about the age factor is that we have such extremes in our world today that it is hard to pin down what is right and what is wrong. Back in the old days (before the 1800's), if the statistics are true, a typical marrying age for a woman was 12 years, and for the man 24 years. Folks typically didn't survive back then past 35 so we have a bit of cultural disparity to shake off from our forefathers. This is Euro-Western culture we're talking about...
One posting mentioned that the commonality between someone your same age, or close to just makes more sense because there is more of an understanding of what is going on. Another posting mentioned that the stability in the personality of an older person makes them more attractive. Each to their own decision making I say, and they should not be criticized for their preference. | |
|
| Age range you are looking for. What's that say about you?
Posted: 5/16/2009 8:56:36 PM | I don't know about anyone else, but my ex was 11 years older but decades less mature.
My issue primarily at this point is having someone who can keep up with me, which usually means my age or younger. Sometimes even men 10 years younger have back problems, bad knees...that makes the twenty-somethings very attractive for short-term dating.
For the long haul, for me, intelligence is a huge factor. Nerds come in every age, so you never know. | |
|
| |
|
|
Home
login 
sounds like a match ... 
