Ladies. Dating hint to the wise - lose the cat chat & forums.

Show ALL Forums

Posted In Forum:

Home

MyForums

Author

Thread: Ladies. Dating hint to the wise - lose the cat

dawn1114

Joined: 2/27/2006

Msg: 201 (view)

Ladies. Dating hint to the wise - lose the cat Posted: 8/6/2010 9:10:41 PM
I just had an uncontrollable urge to change my profile photo.

dawn1114

Joined: 2/27/2006

Msg: 101 (view)

is waiting till marriage for sex dead? Posted: 7/22/2010 11:00:14 PM
Is waiting till marriage for sex dead? Of course it isn't. There are about seven billion people on the planet, and a significant number of them adhere to various religious tenants or have personal reasons that call for not having sex until marriage. There are likely four or five BILLION people who believe that's the correct moral path, and of those, there are probably a BILLION or so people who actually act on it. Not enough? A billion or so? Really? The rest of us either don't think it's a moral/ethical issue to wait for marriage until having sex, or don't believe in the construct of marriage at all. Still, no-sexers-until-marriage conservatively have a pool of one billion-plus possible mutual no-sexers. For heaven's sake, what's the problem? Just pick one and get on with, um, stuff.

dawn1114

Joined: 2/27/2006

Msg: 27 (view)

I'm not that big into reality TV, most of it's like a train wreck, but it IS TV. Posted: 6/29/2010 6:19:31 AM
Does Myth Busters count as reality TV? I like Myth Busters.

dawn1114

Joined: 2/27/2006

Msg: 240 (view)

Why do lots of women find it so stimulating to give a blowjob? Posted: 6/23/2010 6:53:48 AM
I do not understand after reading all this crap why you ladies continue to do this crap. You say you read "this crap," but I can't see how that's possible. Some women are saying they find it arousing and pleasurable to give a blowjob and that's why we continue to do it. How can you not understand that? Why does it make you angry that other women get pleasure from something just because you don't enjoy it? That's very confusing to me.

dawn1114

Joined: 2/27/2006

Msg: 207 (view)

battling mid life bulge! Posted: 6/10/2010 7:16:01 PM
My whole point in this thing is, she's a size 9, she's not overweight or obese. She's on the small average size. That depends on how tall she is. I also wonder if the sizes are different in the U.S. and Canada. I can't remember how tall she was, but I remember she was American. I know sizes are smaller in the U.K., so maybe they're smaller in the U.S., too. For me (I'm five-four), a Canadian Size 9 is definately bordering on upper-average/overweight, because you also have to take into account how weight is distributed on an individual's body. I never gain weight proportionately like some people do - it's always just on my waist and belly, which is the least healthy place to carry extra weight. Maybe she was also like that. And she wants to do this to get a man. I agree that that's an emotionally feeble reason for wanting to lose weight, especially considering it's obviously a fallacy that all men prefer very thin women. As for advice, if she really wanted advice she shouldn't be asking people on a dating site, she should be talking to a nutrition expert, doctor, fitness instructor, etc. She needs to find information to fit her and her body, not what worked/didn't work for me, you, the waitress at the cafe, or her dry cleaner. The forums section of the site isn't just for "dating," though. People ask for advice and comments about all kinds of non-dating (or peripheral) topics: cars, home-buying, pets, jobs, science, politics, religion. In her case, the topic was a combination.

dawn1114

Joined: 2/27/2006

Msg: 205 (view)

battling mid life bulge! Posted: 6/10/2010 5:01:41 PM
We have families, other responsibilities, and no time for the gym on a regular basis. I'd much rather spend a lovely evening having dinner with friends or jumping on my motorcycle to take advantage of an evening ride. I don't see it as an either/or thing. Except for people who have some kind of extreme situation, I don't see how there can't be room for regular physical activity (it doesn't have to be the gym) AND more sedate socializing. I do what I can. Most of us do what we can. I don't need experts, mirrors, forumites, friends, neighbours, etc. telling me what to do with my friggin life. I learned to live my life instead of worrying about it so much. Well, that's fair enough. For you. But the person who started this thread did ask for comments and advice on the topic.

dawn1114

Joined: 2/27/2006

Msg: 5 (view)

Opposite personalities, does it work? Posted: 6/10/2010 4:49:04 PM
Well, I don't know if I'd call myself a wallflower (that's someone who's shy and uncomfortable in social situations, which I'm not), but I'm definately an introvert who was with a social butterfly for 25 years. He wasn't simply gregarious, he was a genuinely friendly and good-natured guy and his circle of friends were the same. Only the most anti-social personality wouldn't have bloomed a bit in that atmosphere. Mind you, he also learned to appreciate my ways, as well. We both stayed opposites for the most part, but there was blurring at the edges. I socialized more than I naturally would have (and enjoyed it), and he took to craving a bit of solitude now and then.

dawn1114

Joined: 2/27/2006

Msg: 37 (view)

Nutrition and Milk: Are we getting the facts about the substance that Does the body Good Posted: 6/10/2010 5:41:25 AM
Is there another species on this earth that drinks the milk of another animal? Cats.

dawn1114

Joined: 2/27/2006

Msg: 42 (view)

Your birth name ... does it match your personality? Posted: 5/29/2010 2:37:13 AM
I have an unusual situation. My birth "first" name was unilaterally "anglicized" by my kindergarten teacher at about the same time my dad legally changed our last name. My parents put the anglo version of my name on the official papers (as a minor I was included). So I'm "officially" and casual-socially and professionaly one name, and my family and closest friends call me my "real" name (including a variety of derivatives, adding to the mayhem). I like them all, to be honest, but it can tend to be a bit confusing. I still feel like I'm (birth name) rather than (official name), though. So I guess that answers that: yes, my name(s) match my personality in that it all makes sense to me, but not to many others.

dawn1114

Joined: 2/27/2006

Msg: 54 (view)

Do you like to be satisfied or horny when you go out? Posted: 5/28/2010 9:09:44 PM
I don't quite get the premise of the question. If you're in a horny mood, doesn't masturbating and climaxing before you go out just make you more horny in the bigger scheme of things? Oh, I know, not for a few minutes, but by the time you get ready, get to the dance club, start socializing and dancing, the satisfaction of a climax a couple of hours ago would be long over and the general horniness of a horny day would have returned. Wouldn't it?

dawn1114

Joined: 2/27/2006

Msg: 418 (view)

Men-does it bother you if a woman's legs are not shaved? Posted: 5/28/2010 8:10:30 PM
Here's a question for those men who are going on about the joys of a "natural" woman. What if a particular woman NATURALLY has little or no hair? I'm opening myself up for insults as a freak of nature here, but the few hairs I have on my legs and underarms come off when I shower with a loofa.But, it's natural. It's obvious to me that a certain percentage of women naturally have little or no body hair, just like some men. I understand being attracted to hairy women (or men, for the women who find that attractive), but it's not an across-the-board "natural" thing and it's a bit disconcerting to constantly hear it described as such.

dawn1114

Joined: 2/27/2006

Msg: 498 (view)

The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law? Posted: 5/28/2010 8:41:33 AM
Actually where you live in Nova Soctia, you were also required to prove your citizenship to get a DL. Here are the requirements for first timers... I concede, since those are the rules now. Maybe it was even so back when I got my licence, but I honestly don't remember needing any proof of citizenship (keep in mind that was about 35 years ago, so I could be wrong). Still, it doesn't alter my point that there's no law REQUIRING me to have a driver's licence, much less have it to show (unless I'm driving a car, of course), or any other ID. Not having it can allow others to decide if they want to grant me private or public services, obviously, but I can still be a legal entity on the street with no ID in my pocket or purse.

dawn1114

Joined: 2/27/2006

Msg: 494 (view)

The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law? Posted: 5/27/2010 10:54:45 PM
/\ /\ /\ Mea culpa. I just looked it up, and you DO need to be a citizen to have a provincial health card (though for the life of me, I can't remember having to PROVE my citizenship when I applied for and recieved the thing - I filled out some papers - maybe used my SIN, I can't remember - and got it). I still stand by my contention that it's perfectly LEGAL for me to walk around without any ID that proves citizenship. Obviously, it's a reasonable legal imperative to require a driver's licence when driving a car, etc., but that's not the same thing.

dawn1114

Joined: 2/27/2006

Msg: 493 (view)

The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law? Posted: 5/27/2010 9:51:37 PM
Really? You don't have a driver's license? No social insurance number? No government issued ID card of any kind? You'd better hurry to renew your passport then because after its been expired for a year you have to go through the whole process again. Yes, of course I have a driver's licence (but I know at least a handful of citizens who don't, for one reason or another). And of course I also have a Social Insurance Number that I can parrot and write on my tax returns, etc. (I've had it for yonks, so it's engrained), but, no, I don't have an actual piece of paper or card. There's no law that I know of that requires me to have a piece of paper or card. I know it's an ordeal to renew my passport, because I've misplaced my PAPER birth cirtificate. I'm going to Toronto this summer and will stand in line at the birth registry, even if it takes all day. That's not my point. I can't enter another country without it (because it's a privilege), but I also can't be PUNISHED here, because I don't have it. But the vast vast vast majority of citizens do have some form of acceptable id. It would be really hard to exist without it. Not having it has been upheld in court as a valid reason to pursue further investigations. You should really look into getting some id. Acceptable ID? What's that, in the "proof of citizenship" realm? My driver's licence? Nope, not proof of citizenship. Non citizens can have DLs. My SIN? Holy cow. I'll eat my keyboard on the bet that 99 out of 100 people I'd ask on the street DON'T have a SIN card on their person. We know our "number," and it drops into place in the few circumstances when it's legally required, but we don't walk around with SIN cards. It's actually illegal for anyone other than the tax department or social services (if a claim is being made) to demand a SIN number. I do carry my provincial health card in my wallet, along with my driver's licence, but that's because I don't want to cause needless work for poor ER frontliners in the event that I'm creamed by a bus one day. I seriously doubt it would be an "acceptable" ID in the context we're talking about, though. And I wouldn't be breaking any law walking around without them. It would be inconsiderate of me, but not illegal. So this "acceptable" ID you're talking about isn't what I perceive as "acceptable" ID in the situation we're talking about on this thread. None of my ID "proves" I'm a citizen. Off with my head.

dawn1114

Joined: 2/27/2006

Msg: 490 (view)

The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law? Posted: 5/27/2010 8:11:52 PM
The "Gestapo" wasn't asking people for papers in THAT place, in THAT time, either. This is one of the things that makes me shake as I write, because of the sheer lack of understanding of how these things happen. There actually weren't enough "Gestapo" to be on the streets asking for papers. Ordinary (NOT EVIL) law-enforcement and military people whose brains were swimming with conflicting codes and laws and regulations and imperatives and personal morals/ethics were doing the "asking for papers." And ordinary (NOT EVIL) "legal" people acquiesced, and allowed themselves to be cowed. I think it was mostly ordinary citizens who "denounced" people for being jewish or Polish or whatever that had the Gestapo running around like crazy. Really, papers weren't even necessary. Just an informant with a grudge against you. But it's the old movie cliche that keeps the evil Gestapo officer asking for zee papers that we have here. You are incorrect. The "denouncements" only became an issue in the latter days, because they weren't necessary in the early days. The betrayals only happened once the natural human tendancy of denial (including among the victims) could no longer stand, and people began going deep underground in a scramble to survive. Because even pre-Nazi, it was already a documentation culture. The Nazis just super-sized the "papers" concept. The Communists latched onto that particular fascist trait because, heaven help us, it was "efficient." I have no papers at hand that "prove" I'm a Canadian citizen (the government has them, obviously, in the form of my birth record, but until I renew my expired passport, I do not). Nor, I suspect, do a sizeable percentage of natural-born U.S. citizens (I'll repeat something I said earlier in this thread about an article I read that said a majority of Americans have never even had a passport). If the world went topsy-turvy here, and I was caught up in some sort of sweep and had to show "proof of citizenship," I'd be in jail at least until I could get someone to go to the registry of births in my home province and get a copy of my "papers." I know it sounds Sky Is Falling-ish. Bunch of people thought that, too, in 1933. Not so much in 1940-41, though.

dawn1114

Joined: 2/27/2006

Msg: 13 (view)

Wide screen Posted: 5/25/2010 10:36:43 PM
changing my screen zoom level to 75% pretty much fixes the issue for me... Changing mine to 90 per cent fixed it for me. No scrolling required, and type size is readable.

dawn1114

Joined: 2/27/2006

Msg: 474 (view)

The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law? Posted: 5/25/2010 9:51:56 PM
The Gestapo isn't going to ask anyone for "papers" ... The "Gestapo" wasn't asking people for papers in THAT place, in THAT time, either. This is one of the things that makes me shake as I write, because of the sheer lack of understanding of how these things happen. There actually weren't enough "Gestapo" to be on the streets asking for papers. Ordinary (NOT EVIL) law-enforcement and military people whose brains were swimming with conflicting codes and laws and regulations and imperatives and personal morals/ethics were doing the "asking for papers." And ordinary (NOT EVIL) "legal" people acquiesced, and allowed themselves to be cowed. It's spirit-killing for everyone involved. The askers. The "legal," eyes-down, papers-out passives. The "illegal" gets. There has to be another way. There really HAS to be another way. Geeze.

dawn1114

Joined: 2/27/2006

Msg: 323 (view)

Smarter ladies have worse sex Posted: 5/24/2010 7:00:57 PM
Point One: The OP says the survey was conducted by a German "lifestyle" magazine. Now, obviously there are different levels of journalistic/research ability even in "lifestyle" magazines, but I'd like to point out that not only does Germany have what is possibly the last, great magazine publishing cultures in the West, but that that very fact means it also spews out an incredible number of notoriously vapid offerings. I've read German magazines that make Cosmo seem like high philosophy. OK, I'm exaggerating, but they're certainly no better than Cosmo and that ilk. Point Two: The above being said, it would be helpful to know more details about that specific magazine and the details of the survey. It could be from the German version of Psychology Today or Scientific American, or Walrus, for all we know, which would put its study in a different perspective. Point Three: I'm both shocked and amused by the number of women who are basically saying, "I'm smart and I climax, so the survey must be wrong." What? A smart person would know that individual experience doesn't negate a statistical reality. The smartest/most educated woman in the world could also be the most orgasmic at any given point in time, but that doesn't mean that statistically (again, if this were a legitimate sexuality study) smarter/more educated women are less so than their counterparts. Point Four: I'm neither particularly smart nor stupid and I'm not highly educated, nor am I uneducated, so I have no personal axe to grind on this issue. Some of the responses just made me shake my head a bit. Especially from a couple of self-proclaimed smarties who suggested dumb "bimbos" might be fibbing about things for self-aggrandizing purposes. Please. Check your mirrors.

dawn1114

Joined: 2/27/2006

Msg: 35 (view)

What defines a fetish? Posted: 5/22/2010 4:57:46 PM
I'm a bit mystified why this question is generating such heated responses. The OP obviously knows the textbook definition of a sexual fetish, but was curious why so many seemingly literate and intelligent people (on these threads, on this site) veer off into illogical "personal" definitions of it. I've noticed it, too. I've seen posts in which people talk about having, let's say, a "fetish" for garters/stockings. But the context makes it quite evident that they are turned on by certain women wearing garters/stockings, in specific situations. Someone with a true fetish for garters/stockings would be turned on by the object (the garters/stockings), NOT by woman IN garters/stockings. There wouldn't even have to be a woman in the room/house/neighbourhood/continent. The fabric and its constitution ARE the turn on. OK, I'm going to ask a question here that may open me to ridicule from some, but what the heck. I don't have any specific sexual fetishes, and to my knowledge I've also not had a lover who has had a fetish, but just for future, possible reference: if a person DOES have a sexual fetish, does that limit their sexual pleasure? I mean, let's say, a man has a foot fetish (that seems to be one of the most common), does he NEED to either have feet involved in EVERY encounter, or perhaps fantasize about them, to have a pleasant/satisfying experience? Or can someone who has a fetish ALSO enjoy experiences without their fetish coming into play? I'd really like to know. I could engage with someone who has a fetish (depending on what it is), for example, but I'm quite sure I'd get bored with it if it became a requirement, in every encounter.

dawn1114

Joined: 2/27/2006

Msg: 29 (view)

To many lovers yes or no Posted: 5/22/2010 4:12:36 PM
To(o) many lovers yes or no Me, personally? No. Not too many lovers. Just the right number of lovers, in fact. Whether I never have another, or have a bunch more before I croak, I suspect I'll feel the same way. Do guys or gals believe there is a limit? Well, sure, of course there are personal limits. It's not a specific number, though. I believe it's a matter of when an individual wishes they'd not had this lover or that lover, it has crossed a sort of limit.

dawn1114

Joined: 2/27/2006

Msg: 380 (view)

Can a guy be friends with an ex-girlfriend? Posted: 5/19/2010 11:56:30 PM
Can a guy be friends with an ex-girlfriend? I'm finding it difficult to put this question into perspective of older people and what I'd feel NOW about this, considering "exes" would likely be people who were more serious and long-term relationships. I'm quite sure, however, I'd take it on a case by case basis. I do know that my guy remained friends with a few of his "exes" throughout our relationship without it causing a single negative thought in me, but that would be what I'd call an unusual circumstance. We got together when we were quite young (we were both 20), but before that he lived in a fairly isolated, rural community and had dated girls in the neighbourhood. Obviously, they weren't serious, long-term relationships, but I got to know them over the years, as OUR relationship progressed. Heck, we couldn't go to his mom's or brother's or sisters' houses for a family thing without one or two of his "exes" - and their hubbies/babies and later grandbabies - also dropping in. It's a VERY friendly, intertwined little community. I'm still friendly (though not what I'd describe as "friends") with at least a couple of women who were my guy's "exes," and he's been dead, now, going on seven years. I see them a few times a year when I visit the "outlaws" - ha! - or just around town. Overall, I really believe this issue depends more on the strength and seriousness of the NEW relationship than on the old one.

dawn1114

Joined: 2/27/2006

Msg: 120 (view)

Blowjob buddy Posted: 5/18/2010 8:56:22 PM
Giving and receiving needs to be in all areas of your relationship, including sexually, or your relationship will eventually die.While giving to those we love is a wonderful feeling if it is never reciprocated resentment builds.Anyone who would put up with always being the giver in the relationship has something mentally wrong with them.You need to give love to get love. What are you going on about? The situation described in the OP obviously isn't a traditional "relationship" as defined by the POF love and romance brigade; it's some sort of purely sexual liason that doesn't register with the majority of people. But it's still possible the blow-job giver is having her specific "needs" fulfilled. And of course it's possible there some sort of emotional/mental problem involved (a previous poster described a troubled woman who acted this way), but honestly, how is that different from many traditional relationships? Have you read some of the messed up stuff people do and think on these threads? Sick can range from the most extreme kinky to the blandest of vanilla, and so can mental/emotional stability. \/\/\/ No, I respond to posts on threads that interest me. If what a specific poster says prompts a response, it's either because they say something interesting (to me) or something I disagree with and wish to offer my opinion. I do my best to respond to the words on the screen, not make comments about the person making the post. Thinking it's personal is incorrect.

dawn1114

Joined: 2/27/2006

Msg: 64 (view)

Single sexuality - how to deal with lack of Posted: 5/18/2010 2:57:43 PM
Why don't some of you divorce victims clue her in on the long range effects of divorce on her and the children first...maybe you can help save her marriage. Regardless of her question, this should have a higher priority. That would require one to be busybody who is comfortable lecturing people on things about which they didn't ask.

dawn1114

Joined: 2/27/2006

Msg: 49 (view)

Sexual desire outside of a relationship is NORMAL...not a medical condition! Posted: 5/18/2010 9:21:29 AM
The girl is asking how to deal with not having sex while single because that's the choice she made... She'd rather be with someone she cares for deeply, and she's asking how to deal with this untill she finds this someone. Yet you people insist on basically calling her weird for this, showing how her logic is 'flawed', and insisting it's ok to be a whore... WTF? I agree with most of this comment, but "ok to be a whore"? Wow. Who said anything about being a whore? Some people ignored the "dealing with it" question and suggested she find someone to have sex with. Having sex isn't being a whore, for heaven's sake. My opinion is, OP, is that it's not logical or particularly healthy to try to rid yourself of your sexual feelings, even if you decide not to act on them. What's wrong with just enjoying the feeling and carrying on with other things at the same time? We can enjoy the thought of lots of things, including sensory things like food or the feel of rich material, without eating something we shouldn't be eating - right now - or buying a silk dress that we don't need (or can't afford) - right now. Trying to "not like/want" something is kind of odd, to me. Liking/wanting it, but deciding "not now" is what sensible adults do when the situation/timing isn't right.

dawn1114

Joined: 2/27/2006

Msg: 363 (view)

The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law? Posted: 5/17/2010 8:56:03 PM
Nobushlover suggested there is a difference between providing ID and providing proof of citizenship indicating he was confused on what the actual law requires. It requires a driver's license, not the spookier sounding "papers". You don't have to be a "citizen" to have a driver's license ... Not to mention there is no requirement for a citizen to HAVE a driver's licence. Nor is there is a requirement for a citizen to have a passport. There is also no requirement for a citizen to have a birth certificate or SIN card (birth info is registered, of course, but that, and HAVING a SIN number, isn't the same as having a "card" in the physical sense). Not having those things can prevent you from doing some things, and make life easier when trying to do some things, but that's where it stops. Even the health cards, which they really, REALLY want you to have when accessing health care, isn't, in fact, a legal requirement. It's rude and selfish to not have it (other than in an emergency situation, of course), because it's a waste of time for someone in a system that's very expensive anyway to have to look it up, but they will do it. They'll rightly roll their eyes, maybe, but they'll do it.

dawn1114

Joined: 2/27/2006

Msg: 115 (view)

Blowjob buddy Posted: 5/17/2010 6:57:18 PM
Why would anyone want to give oral without receiving it as well? To me I would wonder what was wrong with such a person.Why do they want to get another person off yet not have that person get them off as well? Maybe it's a long-standing fantasy for that particular woman, and she's picked this particular guy to live it out. It could be she's climaxing during the oral sex or maybe just using the encounters during masturbation. She could also only be this way with this particular fantasy guy, and likes to receive oral (not to mention kissing/intimacy and full sex) with other lovers in other situations. It would be confusing for the recipient, but overall it just sounds like an kink that's, granted, likely quite rare, but not really all that eyebrow-raising compared to some things I've heard about.

dawn1114

Joined: 2/27/2006

Msg: 282 (view)

Women with multiple cats - sign of mental illness? Posted: 5/17/2010 4:59:20 PM
Post 280, ha ha ha! Octo-crazy! I think a lot of it depends on the household, and where it is. We always had two or three or four cats and two or three dogs when I was growing up (not to mention constant foster pets waiting to find a home), but it was also a house when it was a rare event indeed when there wasn't SOMEBODY at home (one house, three generations), and it was located in that sweet spot on the edge of city and country. Three or more cats in a small city apartment with a solo human could well be a "tipping point," as that poster so humourously said. And I live in a small city apartment with three cats, so mea culpa. In my crazy cat lady defence, they came here with me from our big house in the country (where they more than earned their keep) after my guy died. They were older cats then, and I fully expected to lose them in a couple of years. Six years later, they're fat geriatric city cats who seem to be ignoring the grim reaper. Two of them are 17, and one is 20 or so (he was a stray, so we never knew exactly how old he was besides an educated guess), and they're all going strong. Silly cats. They don't cost all that much money. They don't seem to mind spending time without human company (I do leave CBC Radio One on for them when I go out, though - ha!). They've never had expensive health issues, and I wouldn't prolong their lives with expensive and (frankly ridiculous) treatments at this point. They do sometimes try to sit on my lap at the same time, however. More cats than laps can be irritating for the lap involved.

dawn1114

Joined: 2/27/2006

Msg: 350 (view)

The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law? Posted: 5/16/2010 6:33:13 PM
And not all are even mixed; some are literally of nearly pure Amerindian descent (sometimes depending on where in Mexico they come from, etc); Spanish-speaking Catholics only as a result of historical conquest basically. The appearance which I'm trying to point out, would be basically like these people here: Ah, I see. I guess my idea of "looking" Mexican because I have dark hair and brown skin doesn't apply. I should have realized that. The people in those photos have quite similar facial features to some native people from the North. It twigged a memory about seeing a stand-up comedian doing a routine about touring in the U.S. When people asked where he was from, and he said Nunavut, they'd ask if that was in Mexico or South America. It doesn't alter my opinion about the mentality behind the issue, though I'm veering toward it being more racial than simple ethnic cleansing. Which makes it just as despicable, of course, but not quite as mysterious as it was previously to me.

dawn1114

Joined: 2/27/2006

Msg: 347 (view)

The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law? Posted: 5/16/2010 1:04:18 PM
what the police in AZ (IMO) will be on the lookout for will be a stereotypically Mexican or central American "mestizo"-type of appearance (which is often the appearance of many of the undocumented workers, and which most of us here do not share IMO)..... OK, this I know nothing about. Is it a type of clothing? It can't simply be that, but I'm at a loss about what it could be.

dawn1114

Joined: 2/27/2006

Msg: 343 (view)

The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law? Posted: 5/15/2010 9:30:00 PM
Arizona will lose on this one ... in many ways. I believe, this, too. Arizona, oddly enough, has always been one of the places in the U.S. I've wanted to visit (Grand Canyon, obviously, but I also have a (possibly romantisized) affinity for the wide-open sky and harsh desert beauty and maverick population idea. I hope that this is, in fact, mostly a vocal and powerful minority running amok situation. I still might go, some day, and obviously being a tourist I'd have my passport at hand. But I'd be mighty tempted, I'll admit, if I WAS there and happened to be hanging around with a bunch of "Mexican"-looking people during a round-up (and since, as I said, I could pass for Latino even in a Canadian late-summer, I'd be even browner during a visit to a southern U.S. region), to dig in my heels and go to jail with them. Obviously, once they did a body or venue search and found my passport, it would become irrelevant, but I'd still like to think I'd have the guts to at least go into the holding pen with the others. Ethnic cleansing is even more diabolical, in my opinion, than outright racism, which can be refuted by logic and science. For heavens sake, Mexicans are the same RACE as the most racist of white Americans, after all. Holy cow. It reminds me of the Tutsis and Hutus of the Rwandan genocide. We look at these things dispassionately in the context of geo-politics and era (including my parents, who left the country of their birth and citizenship via cattle-car, because they were the "wrong" ethnicity of the day), but to see and accept it happening NOW is mind-boggling to me. Wake up. If you're not next, your kids or grandkids might be.

dawn1114

Joined: 2/27/2006

Msg: 340 (view)

The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law? Posted: 5/15/2010 7:11:49 PM
/\ /\ /\ Please, think about this a bit more. "Valid ID" is not the same as "proof of citizenship." I have to show my Y membership card to get into the gym/pool, but I didn't need "proof of citizenship" to buy the Y membership. And before that, I checked it out a few times by buying a $12 day pass where they asked for my name and an emergency contact number, but that was it. I have to have a drivers licence/insurance/car registration when driving, but they don't prove citizenship. And yes, some bars here have ID checkers at the door on weekend nights (the bars where the uni kids frequent), but law doesn't REQUIRE you to have one - it simply allows the bar owner not to let you in if you don't. Not to even mention sitting down at a table at a licensed restaurant or pub and ordering food but no booze. Are you honestly saying you're asked for ID to eat a meal? Come on. I told an anecdote early on this thread and I'm going to repeat it, even though I realize it will fall mostly on deaf ears: Both my parents were immigrants who lived under the Nazis and then the Communists. Papers, papers, papers - both regimes were psycho about papers (without even getting into the other stuff). My father loved telling a story about carrying around his "papers" - landed immigrant and then citizenship certificates, passport, maybe some other things - for YEARS and eventually the day came when a cop stopped him and he dug them out and handed them over. The cop didn't quite know what to say, but finally figured out the situation and said: "Buddy, you really should keep these in a safe place somewhere. Your left tail-light is blown out. Get it fixed, eh." Man, he loved this country. As an aside, despite my Central European ethnicity, I have dark hair and skin that gets very brown in the summer, even using sunscreen. I'm sure I could "pass" for Mexican/Latino if push came to shove by late August, most years. Obviously, this "prove yourself" issue isn't applicable here, but if it was, or something similar where I'd have the "look" of a target group, I don't walk around with papers that "prove" I'm a citizen, and don't intend to. I'd go to jail rather than do so. My parents taught me many things. One of them is that psycho regimes are psycho about "papers." Here I stand.

dawn1114

Joined: 2/27/2006

Msg: 194 (view)

Mensa? anyone? Posted: 5/15/2010 4:25:05 PM
So if you want to check it out, you should. I just looked at their home page real quick and they spelled "practice", "practise". I don't know if this is a mistake or who wrote it was English. The homepage says at the bottom that Mensa International is registered in the U.K., so "practise" in that context is the correct spelling.

dawn1114

Joined: 2/27/2006

Msg: 9 (view)

Would the real you step forward. Posted: 5/15/2010 4:17:39 PM
What I say on the forums represents the "real me," but the way I speak in real life isn't quite the same. I sometimes think when I reread old posts that I come across as pompous and humourless. That's my writing style, however, for better or worse.

dawn1114

Joined: 2/27/2006

Msg: 331 (view)

The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law? Posted: 5/15/2010 4:01:17 PM
I would recommend to you to set up back yard amnesty at your house I've suggested that before, but no takers. I beg to differ. I posted on the last page: A smart government would be campaigning both in Mexico and parts of the States that have a Mexican "problem," urging people to come here by the tens of thousands. They would be our salvation, in my opinion. That would include an amnesty of sorts (though not technically, of course, because "illegals" in the U.S. haven't done anything against the law in Canada). But you surely get the drift.

dawn1114

Joined: 2/27/2006

Msg: 71 (view)

blow jobs only? Posted: 5/15/2010 9:43:54 AM
/\ /\ /\ The above post obviously makes no sense, but I was too late to edit. I thought I was on the "Blowjob Buddy" thread, not the "Blow Jobs Only?" thread. Yikes! My apologies.

dawn1114

Joined: 2/27/2006

Msg: 70 (view)

blow jobs only? Posted: 5/15/2010 6:30:20 AM
but, in this type of situation, I think you can sum it all up with the following list of phrases and words: selfish beyond belief user conniving to get what you want exploiter of women Really, I have nothing good to say about a man that thinks like that. If you do not want to meet your partners needs, don't ask for yours to be met either. End of discussion. No, it's not the end of the discussion. These comments don't even remotely apply to the situation described in the OP. Just because you don't understand it, obviously there are women who would get off on having this kind repeat encounter. She might be climaxing herself while giving the blow job, or she might be using it as a fantasy while masturbating other times. It's certainly not the norm, but it's not all that off the scale when it comes to kinks and unusual desires.

dawn1114

Joined: 2/27/2006

Msg: 210 (view)

Who Does All The Work In Bed? Posted: 5/14/2010 8:43:55 AM
However, in my opinion, a woman who is afraid to get her tangled, have her make up smeared or get hot and seaty cannot be a very good sexual partner. Tangled hair, smeared make up and getting hot and sweaty are intrinsic to sex. I agree. But as I said, I think deciding a woman is "afraid" to get tangled and sweaty because they don't do so at the gym isn't necessarily a correct assumption. They could just have discovered after joining the gym that it bores them and so they don't get into it all. That same woman might happily get tangled and sweaty doing some other kind of athletic activity. I'm just postulating here, of course. As I also said, I've never seen people in a gym walking around socializing with their hair and makeup all pristine.

dawn1114

Joined: 2/27/2006

Msg: 318 (view)

The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law? Posted: 5/14/2010 8:23:02 AM
I suppose if the majority of the population were exactly the same age, then perhaps the majority would be old at a set point in time. But the total population is a variety of different ages. Even without any immigrants coming into the country, it would still have a steady growth, increasing the population. With old people being replaced by the younger generation. This is from a Health Canada document: "At the start of this new century, Canada faces significant aging of its population as the proportion of seniors increases more rapidly than all other age groups. In 2001, one Canadian in eight was aged 65 years or over. By 2026, one Canadian in five will have reached age 65. As the “baby boomers” (born between 1946 and 1965) age, the seniors population is expected to reach 6.7 million in 2021 and 9.2 million in 2041 (nearly one in four Canadians). In fact, the growth of the seniors population will account for close to half of the growth of the overall Canadian population in the next four decades." The numbers are even higher for certain provinces (such as the one in which I live, that have small populations, and lower immigration than the national average). A population that has one in four/five being 65 years and older is a not a pretty picture. It's a recipe for disaster.

dawn1114

Joined: 2/27/2006

Msg: 313 (view)

The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law? Posted: 5/13/2010 8:02:12 PM
If we don't slow down, even the legal immigration as it is now, it will turn out to be something like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7WJeqxuOfQ I just watched this vid, and I guess I come to a different conclusion from the facts and numbers used (I'm not Utube savvy enough to find the reference explaining who the speaker is, which would be helpful to know). The "scary" red graph (red, BAD!) of immigrants doesn't scare me. Scarier is the pretty green graph (green, GOOD!)of "replacement 'stock' population" of the 1970s (um - stock? - white, Euro-ethnic baby-boomers, right? Right). I waited and waited for the speaker to address a very important issue that's facing this country (and, again, I'm only making an assumption here, but I think it must be at least similar in the U.S. by virtue of similar demographics): a "stable" replacement of the "stock/traditional immigration" model will result, within the next couple of decades, of close to the MAJORITY of the population being a bunch really OLD people (and I'll be one, if I live, so this is not a slam of oldies). We NEED a huge influx of immigration. Even if the first-gens are strugglers, as the first gens of past "building" immigration waves were, the second- and third-gens will be the engine that runs the economy - including health-care and a social safety net for people like me (geriatric baby boomers, at that point). That is, if they aren't hounded into marginality by both laws and attitudes. And yes, my country isn't being a big sweetheart about immigration, either (we've got the frightened and the angry and the creepy here, too, unfortunately, and they're loud). A smart government would be campaigning both in Mexico and parts of the States that have a Mexican "problem," urging people to come here by the tens of thousands. They would be our salvation, in my opinion.

dawn1114

Joined: 2/27/2006

Msg: 106 (view)

Filming Sexual Encounters! Posted: 5/13/2010 4:27:28 PM
My comment about ending up in legal hot water of course pertained to if it was done without consent. If it were done secretly by one of the participants. Oh. I never thought about one person secretly filming an encounter, so now I understand your comment.

dawn1114

Joined: 2/27/2006

Msg: 30 (view)

Kagan for Supreme Court???? Another Proof, Obama Totally Lost It. Posted: 5/13/2010 4:23:58 PM
Dawn, re-read what you originally typed that's resulted in my answer and yes I FULLY stand by my opinion as there is NOTHING wrong with what I said![/quotes] That's what I said. Of course you should stand by your opinion, as I stand by mine. I respect that, even if I don't agree with your thoughts. I replied again to explain your "generation" assumption was not applicable, because I respond to posts, not posters. I usually have know idea if a poster is 22 or 62. It's still irrelevant to me.

dawn1114

Joined: 2/27/2006

Msg: 23 (view)

Kagan for Supreme Court???? Another Proof, Obama Totally Lost It. Posted: 5/13/2010 11:25:50 AM
You clearly cannot handle the opinions of others. Threatened by the younger generation huh? Your problem! Um, no. Where did that come from? I actually assumed you were middle-aged when I replied to your post. I stand by opinion, as I'm sure you do as well.

dawn1114

Joined: 2/27/2006

Msg: 43 (view)

how many is to many? Posted: 5/13/2010 10:26:12 AM
You made the terms because of your own actions, no one else did, stick all the labels on yourself. Like I said compatibility. To each their own... I believe you're not getting what I'm trying to say in my posts. I use those terms to make a point. My actual behaviour would be an incorrect measure (mostly because I'm a slacker and solitary creature by nature), whereas my outlook would be untenable for certain people who have specific ideas that link sluttiness to numbers, for example.

dawn1114

Joined: 2/27/2006

Msg: 16 (view)

how many is to many? Posted: 5/13/2010 1:17:00 AM
Too high of a number is abnormal and it would make me wonder what the hell is wrong with 'em. If a woman has sex with an abnormally high number of men I'm going to think she's a whore or slut, because well, she is. Sorry, but there is a definition to those words ... I think it's obvious they both have trouble with long term relationships Oh, dear. What about the poor guys who use "numbers" for the definition of "whore/slut" and then end up with a low-number "whore/slut"? And vice-versa, of course, for women. No man who thinks like this would ever be happy with me, for example, even if his "relationship" girlfriends had five times as many lovers as I've had (and they likely have had, from what I gather). Yet, I'm unequivically a slut, slattern, trollop, tramp. I'd be a disaster for any man who thinks along these lines, in other words, no matter my "number" and no matter that I've had one of the most successful long-term relationships of anyone I know. It would be pretty confusing for most people, to be frank. It makes perfect sense to me, though.

dawn1114

Joined: 2/27/2006

Msg: 13 (view)

Kagan for Supreme Court???? Another Proof, Obama Totally Lost It. Posted: 5/13/2010 12:21:26 AM
Women are always secondary... Michaëlle Jean, Sarah Palin, Lady Gaga, Oprah, Madonna, Hazel McCallion, and Hillary Clinton are just some powerful, high profile, intelligent, inspiring women. Holy moley! What? How can you possibily use Ms. Jean's name in the same context as Sarah Palin/Lady Gaga/Oprah/Madonna/Hillary Clinton ? Ms. Jean is a diplomat/statesman. The others are entertainment/politainment figures. Holy cow. This is just so wrong. It would be like listing Nelson Mandela and Jesse Ventura and Brad Pitt that Doc Phil guy as similarly "powerful, high-profile, intelligent, inspiring" men. Individually, I'm sure they're all big ol' sweeties, but they're NOT on the same level. Please. This is embarrassing.

dawn1114

Joined: 2/27/2006

Msg: 11 (view)

how many is to many? Posted: 5/12/2010 11:24:08 PM
It's not a matter of "too many" for me. But I'll I admit I'm often amazed by some comments on these threads about "exes" etc. What? I'm an unrepentant slut, harlot, skank, whore, whatever, and some of these posters obviously have had many more lovers than I've had (or likely will ever have), while simultaneously talking about how they don't have sex unless there are "emotions" invovled. Ha ha ha! Cool. It's very amusing. Too many? I really don't don't know. If a guy my age told me he had had one or two hundred lovers, it would seriously be an eyebrow-raising moment for me. But not for "morality" reasons. Holy cow, don't you work, buddy? How do people - even sluts like me - manage to meet and ultimately "connect" with so many people? I'm a bog-smacked slut, no doubt about it.

dawn1114

Joined: 2/27/2006

Msg: 22 (view)

Saving it until marriage is it really that great? Posted: 5/12/2010 9:19:45 PM
First time honeymoon sex is over-rated. It tends to be disappointing because of lack of experience and a build up of expectations. I don't understand that. I've never yet had "first time" sex that wasn't really, really good. I've seen this said quite a few times. and I just don't get it, to be honest. Man, my personal first-time ever first-time sex was brilliant. 'Course, I did everything WRONG according to the forum wisdom - first date sex that turned into a weedend of sex that turned into a 25-year relationship that ended when the poor, sweet bugger inconsiderately went and croaked on me - so I'm obviously prejudiced. Still, even in my after-life here, first-time sex has been been invariably spectacular. I don't quite get it. I only have "first-time sex" when I'm really, REALLY excited about it. How could it possibly turn out luke-warm? It's not possible.

dawn1114

Joined: 2/27/2006

Msg: 8 (view)

Kagan for Supreme Court???? Another Proof, Obama Totally Lost It. Posted: 5/12/2010 8:58:49 PM
It's like hiring a pitcher for a baseball team because a person learned all the theories about pitching and worked as pitching coach. First hand direct experience as a judge should be a pre-qualification for this position. Obviously not. And by the way, I'm open to believing that an individual who is skilled in the nuances and physicality of the game - hence becomes a coach rather than a player - is also qualified. All brilliant coaches weren't Stanley Cup, Super Bowl, World Cup, World Series players. At least a few of our iconic justices came to the role without being litigators previously (many rode the wave to the top in the courtrooms of the nation, of course, but that's not the point). Some were simply "law" guys/women. I can't see how that would be different in the States. Some are grunts, some are from the ivory tower. A combination on the the top court can't be anything but a good thing, as far as I can see.

dawn1114

Joined: 2/27/2006

Msg: 193 (view)

Everybody Draw Mohammed Day set for May 20th Posted: 5/12/2010 8:34:57 PM
I even think strident atheitists (and I'm an athethist) are big old freaking bores. Just to put things on the table here. Beg pardon of the community. That's atheist, but I was hurried and subsequently missed the time-frame to correct typos. Aye-thee-ist. How embarrassing.

dawn1114

Joined: 2/27/2006

Msg: 6 (view)

Kagan for Supreme Court???? Another Proof, Obama Totally Lost It. Posted: 5/12/2010 7:55:05 PM
Do you think there are no other persons more qualified than her? Do you think there are/were no other persons more (or equally) qualified than anyone who's ever sat on the U.S. Supreme Court bench in any given point in history? I don't get this post (and I'll concede I'll have to do some reading about this specific person you're talking about, because I've never heard of her), but are you actually saying you think female justices "represent" the female population? Really? You think this? Do you also thing the male justices "represent" the male population? How bizarre. I think the male AND female justices represtent the male AND female population. Aren't there only nine justices on the U.S. Supreme Court? If EVERY qualified (on a scale of one to 10) legalist in your country was appointed, you'd have a S. Court with a few thousand people on it, for heaven's sake.

Show ALL Forums