Show ALL Forums
Posted In Forum:

Home   login   MyForums  
 
 Author Thread: Do you read profiles (fellas)?
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 49 (view)
 
Do you read profiles (fellas)?
Posted: 11/22/2014 5:42:29 AM
It's really only the low bar of meatheads who glide on past reading the profile and they're best suited to those who don't put anything on their profiles. That way the party girls stick with the sleazoids and intelligent people can date each other.

It's really a red flag on the women who select suitors that clearly glide on past reading anything in their profiles, as clearly they specifically select suitors they can feel superior to. And that's a bad character trait full of trouble.
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 20 (view)
 
Too keen, too soon
Posted: 11/22/2014 5:36:26 AM
A big red flag for me is anyone who looks past that sort of behaviour like it never happened.

See, the way it works is the person who tolerates that sort of behaviour in others, tends to practise it themselves.
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 25 (view)
 
Sex drive of men over 40
Posted: 11/13/2014 12:36:22 AM
Some threads are like everything everybody has ever learned about anyone just gets thrown out the window and we all start fresh over with no knowledge of anything ever even though we're all many years up on knowing a little.

Satisfying sex isn't mechanical.
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 18 (view)
 
Clueless/dense moments
Posted: 11/13/2014 12:30:13 AM
I have an uncanny knack of zeroing on a hot babe's hangups with surface thoughts whenever I try to flirt back. It just happens, it's like whatever she spends day to day trying not to think about, it's the very first thing I say the very first time we speak. You can guess the ending.
No idea why that is. It's a skill. I hate it.
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 379 (view)
 
Is It Rape If She Consents and Changes Her Mind During the Act?
Posted: 11/8/2014 5:15:19 PM
As far as things like "why can't we stamp out rape, why is it allowed to happen?"

It comes down to the simple realities. To put in a more male orientated context, prison rape. Most guys would be completely adverse and initially claim they could never allow this to happen to them. Then if they go to prison are confronted with the reality that nobody else is going to disallow this from happening to them, and much of the time they're not going to get any say in it either.
Confronting? This is the rape issue. Something you can't allow for yourself, something you can't do anything about by definition.

Now a person could assume, oh that's because prisoners in the prison system deserve bad things happening to them, that's why it happens in prisons.
But that's the same as the rape victim assumption that the victim is always blamed and there is still misogyny in our culture. It's just the natural assumption of the victim, guilt. Neither assumptions are true.
Rape is just as illegal in prisons as it is in supermarkets.

What it comes down to is the simple reality. What you can physically prevent. Crime you can't. You can prosecute it, but you're smoking your own stash if you think the federal war on terror is going to stamp crime out everywhere using telepathic evidence of guilty intentions.

Crime and violence is a human constant. Guaranteed to happen. With that in mind, the more concerned you are, the more you need to do, not everyone else. You're the one who loses when you lose. You don't want to get raped, don't get in prison, and don't go wandering around central park at midnight drunk and stoned in a miniskirt.

If it happens, either way the bad person will be prosecuted, or you'll be blamed for the whole thing, depending how the evidence plays out. But the point is what you do when you didn't want bad things to happen. That's the point.
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 378 (view)
 
Is It Rape If She Consents and Changes Her Mind During the Act?
Posted: 11/8/2014 5:03:54 PM
Statistically around 80% of rape charges are proved false accusations in court. I think any sweeping generalizations don't apply to any rape case. There are frame ups that look just like brutal premeditation, and vicious sexual violence concealed among orgies of evidence leading in every direction. The more serious the crime, the more evolved and adaptable you need a circumstantial criminal justice system, the less you need mediaeval philosophies and sweeping generalizations.
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 33 (view)
 
Length of time to have sex
Posted: 11/8/2014 4:48:29 PM
Well in our defence, when we guys say 3-4 hours love making it's more like 3 3/4 hours of harassing women for sex and a few minutes of hitting it and high fiving yourself. We just tend to regard all the groping and begging as foreplay.
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 14 (view)
 
Is Calling a Woman That Scary?
Posted: 11/8/2014 4:34:33 PM
Perhaps don't focus on the phone as a proxy to move towards meeting, but keep focused on moving towards the meeting conversationally.

If the phone becomes a proxy through which you organize your life that's okay, but some people specifically dealbreak on iphone obsession.

ie. if you wanted to move towards meeting curtly, then instead of focusing on presenting your phone number for direct contact, you might start with moving conversationally towards meeting using site based messages first. It's what they're designed for: screening.
The whole idea of date sites isn't the same as introduction agencies, it's partly to provide a secure messaging system which doesn't threaten anyone's personal security as strangers. Personal emails contain trojans. Unsolicited phone numbers contain phantom charges. Date site messaging systems are so that you can screen a new contact in a safe environment with no security threat and decide if you want to meet them.

Make sense?

"Here's a really cool place just down the road from you we could meet at for a late lunch..."
is a much more relaxing message than,
"Look, let's get this thing off the computer screen, my phone number is XXX-XXXX."
I mean you start wondering, do I need to stop at the ATM and chemist first, should I wear a nametag in case she forgets my name, should I wear a bulletproof vest?

I mean if you gave your number in conjunction with a meet, like "If you get lost my number is xxxx just ask for candy and press three", that would totally make sense until you thought about it.
But just out of the blue, hey here's my number oh by the way I'm a real profile honest. Well it's just disconcerting.
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 17 (view)
 
New teacher, sparing time to date?
Posted: 11/8/2014 4:08:12 PM
If you were a teacher at cool school you'd already be so stoned the original post would have you talking to yourself answering your own questions, which even a straight edge high on mango juice could probably accomplish.

Sending messages online is probably a lot better than inadvertently flirting with female students because the back of your mind is all geared towards wanting some sweet and nasty.
Send the messages, leave your students alone.
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 41 (view)
 
What do you like about your self?
Posted: 11/8/2014 3:56:08 PM
I like the way I usually have good clarity day to day, so can approach tasks with some degree of competence and pick things up easily. I like having a strong sense of self discipline since that usually brings a degree of authority at least as far as running my own show goes, which I like to do.
I like the way I feel about women, I like the way the ones I find tremendously attractive coincides with the ones whose personalities I adore or admire. My eyes have matured, when I was younger it didn't go that way, often I was most attracted to women I was least likely to get along with. Very glad that matured with a few finger burns.
Physically I guess I like being at least average, I was a very small build in school and wanted to be bigger. Average build is okay, it feels big to me still. I've worked most of my life so I like the way I'm much stronger than I look. I built a good resource of fitness when I was in my twenties being so heavily into martial arts for that whole decade. I was doing jumping spinning kicks over my head and the works, doesn't make you tough but it does make you fit and that's good a few years on when you still feel fit and competitive among 30-something workmates. Won't be kicking over my head anymore but I've got a good habit of squirming my way out of workplace accidents.
I like the way my hair is brown but my beard is red, and I like having blue eyes.
Those are some plain things I like about myself I guess.
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 23 (view)
 
Social Life
Posted: 11/8/2014 3:27:17 PM
Oh yes I'm an expert at having a midlife crisis and handled it in the tried and proven method.
I bought/made a fast car.


Now that women also have midlife crises these days I suppose we're going to see Barbies doing 150mph in corvettes all over the place. It's not the worst of it though. For some reason you get an urge to wear hawaiian shirts and slippers, which for women is like putting rollers in their hair. It's scary.
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 28 (view)
 
hitting the cervix during sex
Posted: 11/4/2014 7:47:35 PM
I like going deep and breathing together and things like that, combining sex with intimacy, but I rarely hit the cervix. The two women that did were really grinding away trying to achieve that result so I'd have to assume they prefer it that way, I was almost like a bystander those times anyway tbqh (it was awesome). Now, I really enjoy sex, so I can't really say if one particular sensation stands out from all the rest as far as enjoyment goes, but you're aware you're brushing up against something. Generally you get plenty of guidence about how shallow/deep she prefers things, I mean it's pretty hard having regular sex if you can't tune into what your partner enjoys or finds discomfort with, how would you keep it up if it was just like masturbation? Nah you have to tune into your partner if you'd like to keep them.
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 76 (view)
 
Lying about being off from work
Posted: 11/3/2014 1:13:26 PM
I thought women slapped you when you did things like that to them. It's not pleasant and that's why you don't do them.
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 24 (view)
 
Does no experience prior dating leave me at a disadvantage?
Posted: 11/3/2014 12:58:56 PM
Example: when I finished a flight model for a warbird in a flight sim mod expansion, I felt pretty buff and was socially extrovert for weeks. Once that happens you stop and go, hang on a minute, do these constructive things I think are cool, and you feel right with the world, and naturally confident moving around amongst its other population.
That feeling based on merits is natural confidence. Some technique to act more confident out of the box, that's a sales pitch, it's fake confidence, literally a con.

Method 1 you earn your confidence, it's natural, it's a whole new place to be in.
Method 2 you learn to lie so well you can suspend your own disbelief at your own lies. This is how you fake confidence. Tell yourself you're the toughest guy in the room, crap like that, obvious delusion, say it with conviction and suspend your disbelief of your own lie, you look confident. Except to anyone streetwise, then you look like lunch.
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 23 (view)
 
Does no experience prior dating leave me at a disadvantage?
Posted: 11/3/2014 12:48:55 PM
Old school fix: get off your butt and do some work until you figure it out. Schoolwork or work work doesn't matter, just work until you figure it out. Train your mind to think logically isntead of neurotically with action. When eventually you'll figure it all out, it's because you changed. It's the way you look at things differently with different lifestyles.
When yours says mamas boy, man up and mature your concsciousness, do it with work. It's how men have been doing it since forever.
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 18 (view)
 
Why is it harder for some people to stay faithful than others?
Posted: 10/21/2014 9:53:35 PM
What do old people always say to young people? Follow your heart.

Not follow your brain, not stick to your decisions, those are things young people say to other young people.

Ever thought why older people are always saying that to young people?
They've been there and seen the aftermath and learned the truth?
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 17 (view)
 
Why is it harder for some people to stay faithful than others?
Posted: 10/21/2014 9:50:45 PM

I don't understand where you're coming from because I've never been tempted to cheat in my life.

I also don't get how you (general you meaning people who feel the same) can simultaneously expect a relationship and act like you're single. You have to decide which is more important to you, because trying to walk the tightrope is going to end up in some very hurt feelings for your partners. And that's a very disgusting thing to put another human being through; nobody else should suffer for trusting you just because you can't figure your sh*t out.


I'll help. An intellectual decision to be in a committed relationship is obligation, not desire. Desire has more stamina, just that simple.
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 14 (view)
 
Why is it harder for some people to stay faithful than others?
Posted: 10/21/2014 9:45:17 PM
Anyone who fights themselves can only lose. Even if you win, you lose.

At the moment your "autopilot" would do you injustice to your life, yes? If you just acted on "autopilot", without thinking, you would find regret.

That is actually a pretty serious situation for anyone quite intelligent.

I, for example, absolutely rely upon a very well cultivated "autopilot" to always do the right thing even if for some reason I'm complacent consciously and lose perspective.
When I micromanage my activities I'm more likely to give myself moral issues than I am when I let it run on "autopilot" basically. That's the ideal situation, a proverbial "angel on your shoulder". Takes years to cultivate your autopilot like this, meditation, good morality in thought/word/deed, strict self imposed rules for long periods, but eventually you construct this totally fantastic autopilot that just knows how to run things in your own life without you even trying or thinking about it anymore. You can make snap decisions as good as delayed and deeply thought ones.
Maybe that's what the authoritarian discipline in some fundie religions is trying to achieve, hell if I know.

But I do know what it was like when I was young and had a kinda hard-ass life, having to constantly second-guess myself on everything just not to wind up somewhere a person might not come back from. And the difference between living like that, and living in a way where it's almost like your own subconscious is a guardian angel looking out for you making all the right decisions without even your input, it's vast.

What I do know is you can't fight yourself. You can try, but you won't sustain it. You either fix your disparity with your heart, or you will splinter eventually and take down whatever collatoral is around you at the time. Cheat on your devoted husband whilst there's 3 children under 10 at home, something like that. Not what you want to do, but there will be a point you just can't control the uncontrollable. It's not up to you some things that happen in your life even by your own hand.
Some decisions are always up to your autopilot, that's just how it is.
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 12 (view)
 
Why is it harder for some people to stay faithful than others?
Posted: 10/21/2014 9:18:38 PM
On genetically predisposed behaviour, Oxford and Cambridge did an exhaustive eight year study to prove genetic predisposition at the most fundamental level and proved the opposite. They used dog breeds cultivated for behavioural traits but kept in a closed environment and found no distinct genetic predispositions between any breeds, all dogs basically act like each other until they are exposed socially where physical differences between them garner behavioural tendencies.

In the world of medical research no conclusive evidence of behavioural disposition in genetics has ever been sound, the results are entirely ambiguous.
It is however a very popular premise in many schools of clinical psychology. That maybe more related to the methodology of clinical diagnoses than actual genetic predisposition.

The most likely conclusion is that behaviour is elective and wont circumstantial. Behavioural tendencies are likely genetic only via proxy, not directly like some sort of mind controlling pogram buried in your hard drive.
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 10 (view)
 
Why is it harder for some people to stay faithful than others?
Posted: 10/21/2014 9:05:15 PM
Any thoughts? You're really hot. You talk Russian, that's also really hot. Not very relevent I guess.

Topically,
The wandering heart generally has to be settled before you'll every truly settle into a permanent monogamy without doing yourself an injustice you'll regret down the track, when you married via obligation and subsequently divorced when you got to know yourself as a friend rather than a foe. If this happens, you wind up right back where you were in your twenties, but you'll be in your forties or fifties and short on time to find what you were really looking for.

That's why it's upsetting to hear from your partner. It means they don't belong here.
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 11 (view)
 
I don't kiss till the third date
Posted: 10/21/2014 8:57:04 PM
Well if the first kiss is planned to such precision I'm guessing your future boyfriend doesn't get a lot of voice in when you're getting married and pregnant too...
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 86 (view)
 
morals vs
Posted: 10/18/2014 8:32:14 PM

For me, it would depend on the issue. How important is it?

I've come to believe most of the things I argued about in my life didn't matter.

I'm at a point now of just wanting to get past a problem rather than win an argument.

As I said though, it depends on how important the issue is to the safety of our relationship.


A good, rational answer, probably reflected in some other previous posts too (I just clicked to the last page).

Important things are important, things like ego not so much.
"Yeah I won that argument", when you're alone at night isn't the greatest consolation in the world. Whilst sticking with someone who demands you burn your own moral bridges isn't any better.

Being yourself can sometimes be the worst thing you can do if you don't know how to self govern. Other times it can be the most necessary element in an individual's survival instinct for keeping it together in a society of human communities you want to remain well adjusted and approachable within.

So it depends on the issue. How important is it? etc.
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 85 (view)
 
The Downside of Being Attracted to Younger Men
Posted: 10/18/2014 8:24:37 PM
I'll wear a schoolboy outfit if you let me play with your boobs?
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 20 (view)
 
How do you know when it's over?
Posted: 10/18/2014 8:20:39 PM
^^ too general. That happens when you just cut someone off in traffic.
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 18 (view)
 
How do you know when it's over?
Posted: 10/18/2014 8:01:07 PM
How do you know when it's over?


There's a gang of bikers waiting for you when you get home.

He left flowers at your door with venomous snakes in them.

She re-registered her phone number as a pay-per-minute service call and put you on hold.

He replaced the engine in your car while you were sleeping with a turtle.

Federal police raid your house on a terrorist suspect warrant from an anonymous tip.

Several vagrants have erected tents in your front yard due to a posted sign that reads "free accommodation to the unemployed".

Someone broke into your house and tie dyed all your business suits.

You get three weeks of text messages from random people asking if you'll really give anyone a headjob.

You begin receiving replies from prison inmates to letters you've never sent.

Sometime during breakup sex she gave you a sedative and you wake up in a third world, highly conservative country with a punitive legal system, a dead busboy and bag of drugs in your room, and knocking at the door.
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 21 (view)
 
Should I go to the party that his ex will be there too?
Posted: 10/10/2014 6:38:15 PM
FYI imho your hubby's sister considers your marriage rushed and wants to turn up the heat, probably prefers his ex as a better wifey material for him, and is trying to smoke you out of the kitchen. But invulnerability is always the best defence. Sounds like yours was a whirlwind romance followed by a sudden marriage in the total space of time you can probably count in weeks. It's reasonable his family might be concerned but it's untouchable if you're rock solid together and that's what this is about. So be rock solid together. An ex is no challenge. Be nice. It'll scare the pants off him if you actually get along well and he'll be the one keeping you two apart.

It's the sister it sounds like you might want to avoid getting too chummy with. I'm guessing things you say to her will come back completely out of context through him. Watch that.
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 20 (view)
 
Should I go to the party that his ex will be there too?
Posted: 10/10/2014 6:31:45 PM
Why not just put on your best lingerie, a sexy dress, wrap your husband around your little finger and say bring it on biatch! And enjoy the party. Just don't be catty or the chivalry in hubby has to back her instead of you.
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 33 (view)
 
Why the hell do I never get any replies to my POF messages?
Posted: 10/10/2014 6:24:28 PM
As for why aren't you getting any replies, I had a look at my sister's account inbox. Unfortunately (sic) for her she's a bit of a hottie even if I do say so as a brother, got no problem saying so, and believe me, I kid you not, in three days flat her inbox was well beyond the amount of messages any person could possibly read let alone reply to. I'm talking dozens within hours, every few hours, and they just build up, and keep building up. She tried clicking on the ones that superficially stood out at least but even that was beyond her in short order and she gave up and quit the site. Just too swamped with scores of desperate men all wanting to date hotties, it's like walking into a room and being pack-tackled by a football team.

So that'd be why feller. Ask around the women, they'll tell you.
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 32 (view)
 
Why the hell do I never get any replies to my POF messages?
Posted: 10/10/2014 6:16:51 PM

Join the Military. Buff up. Get Tough. Get Paid. Travel the world and boink exotic babes.

Problem solved.


That's actually the smart play, about making lemonaide from lemons. Don't whine about the world from a hole in the ground, argue with it from a position of strength ;)

You're shooting yourself in the foot if you delude a bunch of blame for your loneliness and then the one that came to fix it all for you gets chased away by the fictional baggage you've adopted in the meantime.
A lot of adulthood is about patience in the face of adversity. Truth be told, everyone gets their highs and lows and character is what you do about the lows.
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 28 (view)
 
Religion into the bliss of insanity
Posted: 10/10/2014 8:22:48 AM
Here's an example of political relevence to this kind of logic test wrt Australian interests.

Our parliament has been on the anti-terrorist legislative kick lately. But if we allow this hypothesis of terrorist activity within Australia to be a falsifiable hypothesis, and consider the inverse, that there is no terrorist conspiracy to unveil and prosecute in Australia: nothing changes. No evidence suggests otherwise, nothing in either direction. There are no terrorist attacks in Australia, has never been. Nobody is swerving to avoid IED's on the way to work, there are no military bases being car-bombed. Nothing. The assertion fails the logic test of falsifiable hypotheses...and we're allowing reduced freedoms (dramatically) upon its basis? Yeah something's wrong with this picture.

Police, want to reduce speed zones again...and again, and again. Speed is a contributing factor in road fatalities. But if we look at observation in nature we'll find in smash repairs industry many clients are repeat clients. Many of the same drivers have repeated collisions under a variety of conditions. The disparity is enough at onset to assert the hypothesis of speed in relation to road toll is conditionally falsifiable. We maybe don't want police in a position of absolutist legislative authority.

You see how this logic test is important, and works? Little things become big things if you don't think right on the little things, like the way you word something when it becomes policy. Religion versus atheism could be seen as a microcosm of this mechanic, it could very well be a case of meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 27 (view)
 
Religion into the bliss of insanity
Posted: 10/10/2014 8:05:09 AM
Just to be clear, the current standard of scientific method is thus:

You must begin with a falsifiable hypothesis.
You must show testable results of reproducible experimentation, and/or observation in nature, subject to peer review.

So if someone says there is a god and you say there is not a god, you both failed the very first rule of scientific method.
If someone says I believe in god and you say there is no god, you are the only one who failed the first rule.
You see how this works? It's a logic test. It doesn't actually matter which one fails the test, it's about identifying idiots so you can keep them out of legislative bodies, or put them in one if you want that kind of world.
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 26 (view)
 
Religion into the bliss of insanity
Posted: 10/10/2014 7:58:24 AM
My agnosticism is wholly due to a strict self discipline to adhere literally to the scientific method, under which is categorically stated all hypotheses are falsifiable, ergo any absolute statement lacking absolute evidence and carefully worded to represent only the evidence itself, without conclusion is strictly unscientific and fails the simple logic test.

Any supernatural assertion, no matter how infantile or ridiculous cannot be tested by very definition. It is I whom are the bigger man to say, of course it's possible under the given condition. A space dragon could fart universes if it has the special powers of not being constrained by any physically observed constraints in observation of nature. How realistic you think it is just doesn't come into it, they worded it right, and a no is arrogance and ego, not very scientific.

The very premise of divinity is supernatural in nature. So any answer other than being absolutely possible (under the elicited condition), is personal and unscientific.

Now get over yourselves on that point, then start telling religious people about how morally wrong they are in other ways. Because you're hardly a shining role model if you can't even manage that. Put simply: people who think wrong can't tell others they think wrong.
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 22 (view)
 
Recently turned 30, are women ageist?
Posted: 10/10/2014 7:33:13 AM
All proxies to a lack of social success are self fulfilling prophecies.

Due to diversity alone there is no such thing as a recipe of social success or social failure. There is only wax and wane. The most politically incorrect ape has more available acquaintences on any given day than the most perfect alpha pretty boy, all the guidelines to social success are a sales pitch about selling you something else.

Just do what you do as you do it. Some days you're all alone, never be lonely. Others you're swamped with comaraderie but might find it irritating. Socialisation is the greatest gift we have, it happens all by itself, no matter what you do, and all your concerns and disconcertination are exactly 100% self delusion. But don't even worry so much about that, economic systems are structured on the latent tendency to self delude, otherwise we'd never have put clothes on and built cities.
It's all theatre, don't take it so seriously. It happens by itself and when it doesn't, you're just arrogant thinking that's anything but perfectly normal and perfectly common.
You're not a god basically, no there is no hand waving to command the humans to dance, dance like puppets. Your life is the same as everybody else's.

You don't need to do anything for social success, including being sexually accosted by underwear models, other than just remain healthy and well adjusted in every other area of your life. Have the time a degree of social success goes unnoticed by the very person experiencing it simply because they're all stuffed up inside their own heads and can't see the forest for the trees. Got loneliness? Do more as an altruist to salve your boredom because that's boredom.
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 26 (view)
 
Should I do what my mum did so my dates like me for my personality??
Posted: 10/10/2014 7:10:12 AM
Hi Polly. Sounds like your only fundamental lacking is a simple little rule you learn as you get older about self confidence.
1. you always have your own opinion, even if you don't quite know what it is yet.
2. if you are unsure or undecided about some suggestion or decision: the answer is no.

Unsure is a no. The only time you give a yes is when it's a definite yes. That's actually the difference between yes and no.
People think no is the definite answer, which is ignorance. It's easy to make someone pick a yes if they're not sure and think no should be definite. No isn't definite, yes is definite.

You're welcome.
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 17 (view)
 
Thanks for reading - not sure what path to take :(
Posted: 10/4/2014 5:29:07 PM
Sounds like a perfectly normal 20-something youthood, discovering yourself and who you like, these things take time.

Follow your heart but just try to really listen to it. The only great mistakes are the ones we regret, the only things we truly regret is not doing what we wanted to do.

Try this mental exercise: picture no matter what you did, it worked out terrible. Whichever one you chose, they both left you. So now, which would you rather spend those last doomed moments with. That's the path of least regret.
Then what you do is be hopeful it doesn't work out bad. But what you really wanted, was always what you really wanted. The trick is just uncovering it from all the other stuff that gets piled onto young peoples' lives.

It's when you're middle aged and really know yourself you can decide big things off the top of your head. Everyone stuffed it up all the time when young. So just pick the best loser to be a true winner, assume everything is a loser. It's the falsehood that something is a winner that leads people astray.
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 32 (view)
 
POF Guy of My Dreams - Has a Horrible Dog
Posted: 10/4/2014 5:14:32 PM
A human being is far more an apex predator than a dog. Dogs might want to test this or be anxious and frustrated in the face of this, but instinctively they know it as long as you do. They only become a real problem when they're about your weight or close to and have emotional problems, which unfortunately means the threat level is high enough to demand a readiness to immediately respond lethally, sad but true, getting maimed by some dog isn't a worthy ambition for a human. 90% of dogs however, even relatively vicious ones can be readily cowed with little more than physical determination and emotional commitment, and they only need this show of force once or twice to get the idea.

ie. treat a snappy or persistant dog like a naughty child, escalate force until it backs down, rinse and repeat and dog is trained, at least in regards to hanging around you. Now you can give it treats.

The owner has obviously never set appropriate boundaries and the dog is confused. If you do intent sticking around, put its head straight on how it's going to be from now on. With finality. Owner doesn't like it, he can tell you to go. Then you're not walking away from a relationship because of a dog, you're walking away because the other person was an idiot.
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 31 (view)
 
Psychotic or Logical
Posted: 4/12/2013 4:31:59 PM
csam,

Pathology is the study of disease, whereby a patient condition is distressing to the patient (from pathos meaning suffering).

Concise definition of psychopathy, coined in the mid-19th century is disease of the mind.
As a medical diagnoses the assertion was that a treatable biological or genetic condition was directly resulting aberrant behaviour, the corroberative assertion that descriptors include the patient's lack of an innate facility for empathy and other "normal social behaviour" but this was never a definition of psychopathy as tickle_me_pank posted in his ignorant tirade competing with my earlier clarification of terms, it was just a presumption so used by psychotherapists like Freud as a descriptor or "symptom".

Concise definition of sociopathy is social illness, of which antisocial personality disorder is a condition. It is the assertion that pathological criminal or violent behaviour is wilfully endeavoured by the patient usings means of creative self justification, primarily by blaming his victims for his behaviour towards them.

As I mentioned earlier, in medical science sociopathy has largely replaced psychopathy as the behavioural condition behind criminal insanity. However in criminal psychology things are still a little more old school.
In either case much in terms of physical evidence relating to behavioural and psychological conditions are a chicken and egg argument. Changes in brain activity maybe due to the behavioural condition, or may have caused the condition, however current neurological research shows that brain activity is amorphous and adaptive so it is most likely that when a person exercises antisocial behaviour for an extended period, their brain activity changes to suit, not the other way around. Thus sociopathy is more likely than psychopathy for the same conditions.
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 8 (view)
 
downgrading to lower education or profession on profile
Posted: 4/12/2013 2:54:58 AM
Well everything changes depending where you stand doesn't it?

You might be surprised to discover many "self made people" with higher education and professional, high income earning employment were facilitated by socio-economic background, despite claims of "doing it on my own" it's just not the same thing as being born under an overpass to primary authorities/caregivers that have the IQ of autistic children and the demeanour of silverback gorillas to impress their world views on kids now is it? So no it doesn't come down to how bright that kid is.

And then there is one plain disparity in an industrialist democracy clearly shown flagrantly in commercial media/marketing whereby it is far more uncommon for men to have the present choice of sexualisation opportunities as enhanced tool usage or construction to achieve personal goals. Being flirty at work is far more likely to get you up on charges than it is to put your boss in a good mood everytime you walk into the room. Acting stupid just inspires people to call you an ***hole, not take care of whatever you don't want to do for you.

Then you have competitive social cultural memes in americanised communities whereby confidence is more highly valued than perceived vulnerability, self image more highly valued than interdependence, pandering more highly valued than cooperative responsibility.

So in some cases what you wind up with is "educated, professional women" which think they're intimidating. People don't walk away from intimidating, all the badboy and trashy girl relationships in the universe should tell you that. They walk away from people they think are ***holes, but can't be bothered rowing in a barbed wire canoe to explain how and why said person is an ***hole.

If you're successful, the most important character trait you can have is humility, not arrogance. And that doesn't mean giving to amnesty international, it means how you treat the guy in the corner store, in fact how you think of him which although you can't see it, determines how he feels treated.

When someone walks away from you don't think "I'm intimidating" try "wonder if I seemed offensive to them?" Like when you hear hooves, don't think zebras, think horsies.
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 61 (view)
 
Bipolar: Detectable During Dating?
Posted: 4/11/2013 2:28:00 AM
By definition a psychological condition is a pathological variation from normal (subjective) behaviour, and therein lay the rub. The life of clinicians is particularly difficult with behavioural disorders, the primary determining factor as listed among internationally recognised swiss conventions of mental competency of a physical nature is patient distress.
Let me say that again, the primary determining factor of a psychiatric condition, psychological or behavioural disorder is patient distress. It is prelimenary to all other qualifiers of any kind, it is the difference between eccentric and pathological.

Here is where mundane sociology and clinical psychology clash head to head. On the one hand why would one assume a variation of normal behaviour would be normally encountered, it's a logical fallacy. On the other hand neuroses is a valid condition whereby you don't have a condition but act like you do. How's that for a logical fallacy. And ultimately the wont, desire, belief or need to have a condition is the primary qualifier that one exists in strictest medical terms. Biochemistry and brain function are wholly subjective and a chicken and egg argument in neuroscience.

It is logically sound to assert that any regional culture which attains a common pro rata behavioural variation redefines normalcy in medical terms.

If so many americans have ADHD and bipolar disorder, they are no longer disorders but cultural memes.
So maybe weening out people which are prone to psychological conditions is as easy as determining how easily they are led by the nose with popular media as opposed to being intellectually competent.
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 6 (view)
 
Psychotic or Logical
Posted: 4/10/2013 3:09:08 PM
I don't know if you're a psychopath, but you certainly show all the symptoms of a person who is used to solving problems in a sterile environment based solely on numbers and binary logic.


Well actually first of all the clinical world is firmly in two camps regarding "psychopathy", an inherited or physiologically aberrant behavioural disposition. Many have replaced the term with the more contemporary one "sociopathy", which is the disassociation of behavioural responsibility to that of the victim. In terms of associated behavioural instances (eg. eating babies) the terms are interchangeable and depend entirely on which camp the clinician or criminal psychologist personally leans towards.

ie. it is no longer presumed the stereotypical serial killer grew up with an innate desire to torture animals for example, but that as a violent criminal he pathologically holds his victims responsible for his desire to cause them harm.

And as it turns out it is much easier to understand a sociopathic rationale than it is to comprehend the very concept of the psychopathic one, which of itself infers the latter is an old world fiction (with its roots in the days of psychiatry when lobotomies were lawfully practised medical treatment).



As to the question/exercise it is a thoroughly subjective social sciences tool with no relevance to clinical neuroscience and very arguable value of any kind. In the hopeless either/or argument both answers are objectively amoral and both are subjectively moral, but there is no immoral response and no objectively moral response from the limited choices given.

The protagonist is not directly responsible for the impending accident nor any possible result, but they are directly responsible for deaths only if they elect to intervene, however this responsibility results in a lesser collatoral than inaction.
Since either choice is inherently amoral, if viewed as a train driver company policy and lawful action are an employment duty under the condition, which is to cause the least amount of collatoral from the bad choices.
When viewed as a passenger or a bystander however, the lawful action is to act lawfully, ie. it is illegal to commit murder even if you personally believe it will result in a lesser harm than failing to commit murder.

So the two scenarios are different. One is a train driver amorally performing his lawful duties to cause less collatoral with few choices. The second is a bystander amorally performing his citizenship responsibilities of remaining lawful rather than personally deciding when it is okay to be a violent criminal.

Thus the logical fallacy of psychopathy as a clinical diagnosis is shown: the goalposts are set by regional legal culture and not by physical medical evidence even where some neurological condition maybe observed in violent criminals (a chicken and egg argument that doesn't support genetic predisposition).
No "psychopathy gene" has ever been identified, the assertion is unfounded but sociopathy is clearly understood rationale.

And in either scenario if you just do what is lawfully required, you do not qualify as a sociopath by definition.
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 33 (view)
 
Clingy?
Posted: 4/8/2013 11:41:41 PM
*mental note: stop messaging women that you want to sniff their hair*
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 61 (view)
 
Bacon Hater! Worst/funniest date evah!
Posted: 4/8/2013 11:29:04 PM
OP, how did you miss all the regular sane guys in the world who'd be moved and appreciative of just some time with a lady and her kind smile and perhaps innocuous touch, in order to go on a date with an obnoxious arsehole? Do you find it difficult to identify one from the other at a glance? Pretty much anyone could give some pointers...

So I don't get it. That's clearly what you wanted if you sought and found it when there is so much else available all the time anywhere.
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 139 (view)
 
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 4/6/2013 10:32:58 PM

Concerning matter (as opposed to but not excluding energy), everything is made of the different elements. The different kinds of atoms. An element is according to what atom it is. An atom is made of subatomic particles. Protons, neutrons, and electrons. They are defined by different configurations of these subatomic particles. These particles are in turn made of quarks. It's a proton, neutron, or electron depending on the configuration of quarks. All the different elements/atoms, except one kind, were/are manufactured within stars. That one element is, was, hydrogen. The first stars were nothing but. And at that time there were no other elements, until stars began making them through nuclear fusion. I think that the best way to think about this is that hydrogen is just the default configuration that subatomic particles come together as, before and without anything affecting things otherwise. But so, what might be beyond this, beyond quarks, and "where" might it all "come from"?


Just a minor correction I'd make here, more of a clarification really not in any way contradicting the general points.
When using this particular context (cosmological modelling) it's best not to think of subatomic particles as particles or even refer to them as such. Best referred to in this context specifically, as wavefunctions or wave-particle duality for prosperity sake. They act like a wave and function like a particle, in reality they don't really exist as classical-but-very-small-objects themselves as the pre-QM models supposed, the disparity between quantum and macroscopic scales in theoretical physics is bound in this essence.
They are for all intents and purposes, infitesimal properties without substance but nevertheless may define substance by imposition of mass and the various quantized fields (EM, strong force, weak force).

If you have a bunch of nothing and you could impose an infitesimal variation of this nothing, by definition some kind of charge or quark, property values and not particle descriptions, just a variation of uniformity (brownian motion), then by definition you have the composition of "subatomic particles" or quantized wavefunctions, which themselves are just measurements within a field, given of course there is something to measure in the field, like some mass-energy (the very progenator of spacetime itself).


Might it be that when and where conditions are right in a given region of space, when it's more truly a vacuum, so lacking of any matter or any kind of energy, forces, or energy transduction of any kind, that matter is allowed to 'fizzle' into existence?


Essentially this is what happens if you take Expansion Hypothesis, the Current Model of cosmology (ie. "Big Bang theory"), all the way to a creation story instead of just a cosmological modelling, what you wind up with is what you've arrived at here, referred to as the Black Hole Universe model.
It's reverse engineered by heading the other way to arrive at the beginning. If you follow the math and let the universe die a "heat death" in entropy as an infinite, open, curved spacetime then eventually you have total nothing...except there's a logical fallacy with this.

Because there was something before heat death there remains the potential for something in the intrinsic state of whatever is left of the universe following heat death, it's just the laws of thermodynamics since the universe represents the absolute (open) system of work regarding energy so cannot lose or gain any energy in total, and the very term "universe" means everything, not talking M-branes or other dimensions or anything like this, just plain old classical GR and one universe.

What this translates to in theoretical physics is the virtual particle field, meaning a field which has absolutely nothing but the latent potential for something, or the assertion that virtual particles and antiparticle pairings constantly pop into existence as a default state of the universe and annihilate each other instantly. Just a QM way of saying "nothing, but something is not prohibited by absolutist nothing as some kind of restriction." Even as nothing it is still a field because it once had something, and those somethings are latent in the field, like I said simple thermodynamics.

Okay well here's the thing. If this is true and according to current modelling it must be...but is an unfalsifiable hypothesis so is not dealt with and remains within the realm of philosophy and banter, anyways if this is true then Brownian motion must apply. Brownian motion is an observed phenomenon whereby any uniform field necessarily experiences extreme variation, which at first glance appears to challenge the third law of thermodynamics but in fact adheres to the second law because of the virtual particle field or "information potential" inherently contained in a universe which once at any time contained anything ever in the past. That is not strictly speaking an objective thermodynamic equilibrium, so the second law still applies. Brownian motion does apply.
Thing about Brownian motion is any extreme variation in a field of virtual particles is by definition a particle and antiparticle mismatch, one is created with higher value than the other, spontaneous something from nothing because the information potential is still there. Or, because once was, always must be when talking everything everywhere (1st law thermodynamics).

Now toss in GR. If you have a big nothing and you create anything in it, any kind of significant variation whatsoever you literally define mass-energy, no matter how infitesimal. The GR result, in the absence of any other mass-energy to hold up any shape of spacetime, is a singularity of spacetime folding around the sudden mass-energy...

Big Bang.

Over and over, trillions of years between.
Because when you use the term universe as opposed to multiverse as your model, you're referring to everything everywhere, full stop. So classical mechanics apply. And they work. But again this is unfalsifiable due to the photon veil so it's all just philosophising.
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 46 (view)
 
If you were the other woman - would you want to know?
Posted: 4/6/2013 1:57:56 PM
A lie of omission is one whereby you don't just speak freely or as your conscience dictates, thus you have something to hide.
So if somebody else and not you cheated, why would you have something to hide about it?

If you feel inspired to contact his poontang-on-the-side and inform her, go right ahead. The only adult response for him is to wear the responsibility of his actions and take it in stride. If he couldn't handle getting caught his life lesson is don't do it.
Any other response from him is infantile and can be treated like a child throwing a tantrum. If he gives you any grief make fun of him for being a baby.

But don't contact her with vehement emotion or in a vindictive manner to cause trouble. It should be matter-of-factly purely to inform and then go your separate ways again, otherwise what you're really doing is attacking her, not shining a light on him and she will respond as such.

Of course sometimes the "other woman" is as big an infant as the kid in the cookie jar so it could just add to an annoying experience either way. But hey the trick is just be you in your life and do things as you would do them, then even if it works out bad at least you were being yourself so have no regrets.
It's acting angrier or in some way other than you are as a person normally that leads to regrets, not things working out bad or good but how you handled yourself when you look back.
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 18 (view)
 
Still nervous by the time you have the 3rd date??????
Posted: 4/6/2013 1:32:46 PM
I had a gf who was a conversational dependent and found it exhaustive and unrewarding. I found it was actually significant of her overall development in terms of assertive objectivity as opposed to whimsical subjectivity in world view, and problem solving techniques.

What's more the very same things which attracted her were also the things she despised when her mood is different. How do I make the video work when we're all lovey becomes stop telling me what to do when she's angry. It takes the kind of person who thinks that's how normal relationships should function to consider this a healthy one but I prefer peers to dependents.

What she needs is someone to be codependent with. Complementing each other doesn't mean you make up for her failings, that's one sided. It means her strengths are different but comparable to her spouse's. This isn't a complementary type of relationship for you, it's one where you carry the other person and eventually are the bad guy because you're responsible for all the ups and downs and will be held singly responsible for the downs.

We all need someone no more developed than ourselves, for conscience sake. Yet also as developed as ourselves, for humanity sake.
You're not entitled to relationships, they're not a currency you earn, being alone is actually your default state and anything more is a blessing to be appreciated, but must be honest.

So my contention is that you should ask yourself, in all honesty do you get the distinct impression as you're getting to know this woman that your role in a relationship with her will be carrying her through the relationship? Because those are the ones that typically involve losing your house and the kids later down the track, and thinking you really should've seen this coming from day one.
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 11 (view)
 
Pagan should be a religious choice! =)
Posted: 4/4/2013 1:11:54 AM
The issue at least in Commonwealth nations regarding formally recognised religions is a legislative one. Formal religions qualify for legislative exemptions regarding taxation and community organisation welfare and support groups, so state/regional parliaments are loathe to provide an open welcome mat for anyone who decides their little group of alien conspiracy theorists should qualify for significant tax exemptions and other legislative concessions designed for community welfare organisations, when they're just wackadoos dancing around shrubberies and talking with imaginary dragons on new moons.

Parliament will therefore convene and rule that community sectarian or cultlike organisation like the "church" of scientology or "children of god" are to be regarded as cults and sects so they cannot claim religious exemptions regarding the legislative rules they have to follow. If they operate as a business they must pay taxes as a business. If they function as a community organisation they must obey the same rules a scouting group or other organisation has to observe without claiming religious freedom to say, marry 12 year olds or engage in polygamy.

The US may have similar reasoning. By recognising a loose grouping as a formal religious organisation it maybe subject to certain lawful exemptions to the legislation regular community groups or private functionaries must on the basis of religious freedoms and liberties.

Becaues the rules are different in law, other formal organisations are compelled to call a spade a spade where religious claims are concerned, and an individual making religious claims is just a person saying some stuff, just because they say it is religious doesn't mean it is in a concise and legislatively defined manner. Could just mean you're mentally disturbed, or have an agenda.

And something like "pagan" as a religion is such a loose grouping dungeons and dragons gamers and pedophile rings could very well claim adherence in the argumentation of their personal reasoning. Australian parliaments did recently recognise Wicca as a formal religion, because it is a specific grouping with a coherent belief system which is common to all claimants. But the generalized term "pagan" can mean just about anything anyone says it does, which you kind of recognized in your definition of it in the opening post.
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 2 (view)
 
One more thing
Posted: 4/2/2013 10:02:12 PM
The pages are sorted by most recent log in so you only need to view the first few pages, after that they may not even come to the site anymore but are just old accounts.
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 5 (view)
 
Well here I am
Posted: 4/2/2013 9:50:46 PM
Come to australia and I'll hang out with you dating as a friend, maybe hold hands because you're pretty and seem nice and I think I like you, I don't think you're anal at all but rather a lady, marriage is moving a bit quickly I think, don't you? And sex is really the last thing on my mind but that's because I'm really just picturing things like pulling out a chair for you at a nice place or kissing your hand and things like that.

But one word of advice, don't seek to disassociate sexuality on the side of genuinely interested parties as an undesirable trait because you'll be shooting fish in a barrel. If a guy likes you that won't be far from the surface, if he's a sleaze and it's his only purpose it'll be foremost on his mind, but either way it'll be there so it's a mistake to focus on that as a disqualifier/inverse-qualifier, what you want to do is focus on how interested he is in spending platonic and personality time with you as well as possibly contribute to a little charm between you.

You'd be surprised how many women have stopped messaging with me simply because the conversation got interesting instead of flirty. But I like to think it weeded out the transients.
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 13 (view)
 
Female I met up with had a breakdown
Posted: 4/2/2013 9:32:05 PM
A nervous breakdown is essentially where information is passed in a confused manner through neurological structures due to stress, it's a perfectly healthy response in the same way sinuses protect the brain from damage by shutting it down when there's too much bloodflow. Under extreme stress biochemistry can similarly cause brain damage and so chemical information might be spread across a wider variety of neurological structures so that all sorts of perceptual responses to mundane stimuli are experienced. It sometimes resembles a psychosis in symptoms but is a perfectly healthy response under extreme stress to prevent physical damage. It is nevertheless very distressing to experience, not the least because you might think you've gone insane, where you're really quite healthy and simply under or have been in extreme stress.

The main thing the patient requires is reliable, consistent acceptance to give her time to relax on a subconscious level without feeling as though the experience has ruined her life or burned her bridges. We're not machines and as biological organisms we react to things whether we like it or not. It's just a passing thing and not in any way significant of a genetic aberrance or tendency to psychosis, any person given the right conditions will hallucinate and experience psychotic symptoms purely due to extreme stress. Anyone at all, and it is because they are healthy not because they are unhealthy.

Let her know she can say anything about it and it won't phase you or cause you to judge her. Let her know you empathize and sympathize and at worst her experience is an interesting conversation topic between you rather than an influence upon the way you perceive her as a personality and conscious mind.

It will subside and pass. She will be fine and no less for it, no different for it. Just something that happened once, like skinning a knee. It's really no big deal unless the listener is the one who can't handle it. Some people are paranoid about anything involving psychiatric health, and it's the main cause for stigma towards patients whom are in actual fact, no different than those whom are paranoid towards them.
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 14 (view)
 
She is not satisfied with what I make. Should I continue this relationship?
Posted: 4/2/2013 8:53:36 PM
If I was you I'd rather hang around people with whom I tend to wonder how to come up with a funny remark, or fun venue to go or things to do, rather than someone who makes me wonder how I can be a bigger financial success or feel inadequate about my financial status. It's just depressing and eventually you just get sick of it, you're already unloading a bit here about her, eventually it'll turn into you actually arguing with her instead of complaining to the internet. Nobody likes to be around someone who makes them feel bad.

How you feel around a person is a thermometer of how compatable and appropriate you are together. Inadequacy and conceit doesn't seem real positive to me. The thoughts you've expressed about her on this subject seems to paint in bold strokes to me that she'll be on her way with the first wealthier guy who comes along and lays a sleazy line on her anyway.
She's just one of those people who're in love with money, which psychologically speaking means a narcissist using a proxy and disassociation. Such a person cannot love other people, they love money because they love power because they're possessed by an image in a pool of themselves.
 
Show ALL Forums