Show ALL Forums
Posted In Forum:

Home   login   MyForums  
 
 Author Thread: Do men or women remember their best lovers more?
 BigDaddyJinx
Joined: 11/4/2006
Msg: 32 (view)
 
Do men or women remember their best lovers more?
Posted: 2/16/2012 6:10:58 PM

Assuming that most of us have encountered a few really great lovers before... do you think it would be men who remember them the most, or women who remember them the most...

Well Church, I can't speak for all men - but I know that I remember my best lovers quite vividly and fondly. Sometimes, it's like I'm still there in that moment.

Years have passed, and it's still as clear to me as if it happened only yesterday. Same goes with the horrid ones...they never seem to go away.

There have even been times where I'd quietly wish I *could* just forget, even if just for a little while...because it complicates my current sexual activity from time to time. Can't help but compare...know what I mean? It's frustrating for me. But it happens, and chances are high that we're all guilty of it on occasion, so I don't sweat it as much as I used to.
 BigDaddyJinx
Joined: 11/4/2006
Msg: 111 (view)
 
Big vaginas-fact or fallacy?
Posted: 2/16/2012 6:05:52 PM

Is this true? Are there really vaginas that are loose?

LMAO. Alrighty, even though I know full well that you're just trolling...I'll bite.

Yes it's true. Just like a penis can be too curved, too small, too big, too wide, not wide enough, not long enough, too narrow here and not there (and so on), a vag can have it's own difficulties. This includes the infamous "pickle down a hallway" issue.

Sadly though, most women will decry this as just a silly rumor made up by teeny-tiny males that are just embarrassed about their equipment. They will live in their sweet land of denial evermore.

Truth is - it's real. There are a LOT of women out there that are just far too damn "loose" for the man to experience ANY sort of pleasure while having sex with them. And the man can't just coyly bring this subject up - nope. A woman will lose her s%*t if you even dare to suggest that she's too loose. Kinda like the old "Does this dress make me look fat?" conundrum. Bad idea to tell her the dress has nothing to do with it...

I digress.

Just like whimpering males who will pout and cry when they find out their junk just ain't up to snuff, women too will pout and piss and moan if they discover that their equipment needs a tune-up. Best advice is to never address the situation. If her naughty bits just don't allow for you to experience any pleasure whatsoever...just bounce. Don't explain why. Don't bring up her canyon. Just say that it's not gonna work, and leave the responsibility of truth (and the impending blunt force trauma) to the next man in line.

I've been with some loose goose types...I just disappear. First and only time I ever broached the subject, I had anything that wasn't nailed down thrown at my head. I learned enough to just split should it ever happen again. And it will. Especially as they age. Women will just naturally loosen with age. At least in my experience.
 BigDaddyJinx
Joined: 11/4/2006
Msg: 45 (view)
 
Sex without tits!
Posted: 2/16/2012 5:51:58 PM

I used to date a girl who never took her shirt off!
I was ok with that because she was a really nice person, and i didnt want to be pushy!
How common is that ?

More common than you'd ever care to believe. Kinda like how common it is for adolescent males to shower with their underwear still on after gym class...


Would you have sex with no tits " activity" ?

Yes I would, and I have many times in the past. It gets annoying if it is persistent, but I have found that this is not the case all the time. Some of them I have dated/had sex with will come out of their insecurity eventually (or after some prodding). Others will just never get over their insecurity, which will lead me to get bored with their crap, and then it's done anyways.

One thing I'd like to point out however...at least in MY experience, it had less to do with a lack of tits, and a lot more to do with tummy blubber or stretch marks or whatever other perceived imperfection they had in their waistline/stomach area. The ones I've been with who have kept their shirts on had at least a handful of tit...so I knew it wasn't because they felt lacking in that department. They all lamented their midriffs though...

Take that for what it's worth.
 BigDaddyJinx
Joined: 11/4/2006
Msg: 228 (view)
 
Kids Paternity (DNA) test - Do it secretly or inform the wife?
Posted: 11/16/2010 2:28:00 PM

He has one ball, and I have a lazy ovary! In what twisted world does that create a baby? It's like the Special Olympics of conception.
~ Miranda, Sex In The City


OP -- After reading your post, that was the first thing that came to my mind. That quote from the show. Maybe just to say that it *could* be possible to have underachieving sperm and still get someone preggers. Granted, it came from Hollywood...but there are cases in real life where this happens as well.

So there's at least the chance that despite his condition, he could've caused a pregnancy.

However, much like the quote from the show suggests...this is RARE. In my mind at least, so rare that if I were your friend, I would be compelled to get a DNA test done ASAP.


My question here is: How would you approach it?

Well...we all know that there's no delicate way to approach the subject, and an almost certainty that she'll lose her s$#t when he even suggests it...but the fact remains that if it were ME...*I* would approach it as an adult. I'd explain my "condition" to her, and suggest that this ain't to suggest that she had been cheating, BUT let's face facts...I have a "condition", so I need to know before I'm saddled with raising someone else's **stard offspring.

Knowing me, I'd actually reference that quote I used to add some levity to the discussion. Just to try and ease tensions.

If she has nothing to hide, she'd be only too happy to help ME ease my mind considering my "condition".
 BigDaddyJinx
Joined: 11/4/2006
Msg: 753 (view)
 
Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 11/16/2010 12:54:11 PM
Holy snap...who resurrected this fossil of a thread?


I do find it interesting that both genders in this thread have something in common … when it comes to talking about divorce and child custody it’s all about financial support and a whole lot less about emotional support. I think money is what drives a wedge between divorced parents and leaves some children without 2 parents working together to provide for their needs … both financially and emotionally.

Errant -- For the last 15-20 years it has more or less *always* been about financial back-end, as opposed to emotional back-end. Pound out the numbers, and you'd likely find the odds are staggering in favor of bitter divorces over amicable ones. Especially if there is money on the line. Moreso if there's a significant dollar value involved.

This is just the way the world has become. A living, breathing mockery of itself.

"Values" is a word reserved for shopping these days. Good value...great value. But pertaining to oneself? Nope. Not in this world. There are the "few and far betweeners" out there that can still exemplify the word "values", but as I said...they are few and far between. Pound for pound, people abandoned values for the bottom line. How this or that can personally enrich themselves. Considering divorce as the precursor...of course it can personally enrich one party well over the other.

That creates a severe disparity. This is what men and women seem to be plugging on about is their notions of that disparity and what it entails. Some have opted to look through the rose colored glasses while pleading poverty...others have opted to see things as they are. The disparity is there, as is the gender bias.

Prenups are the only way to function in the "me me me all about me" generation. Not a lot can be done to shed the financial butchery that takes place where CS is concerned, but there are some States and I heard even Canadian provinces that are taking steps to sharpen the focus of CS and not make it so broad and all-consuming. "Caps" if you will.

Long gone are the days when people married for love. True love. It's all about how one can be enriched after-the-fact nowadays...with or without child. Spend the day in a family Court room and you'll see.
 BigDaddyJinx
Joined: 11/4/2006
Msg: 38 (view)
 
is it a sickness?
Posted: 4/9/2010 9:52:42 AM

is there a medical term for this?

OP -- Yes by gum there IS a medical term for it!!

It's called "Excuse-itis".

It's what happens when people refuse to assume any personal responsibility or personal accountability for their choices and actions. They will try as hard as they can to slap a medical issue to it so they can defer any personal accountability...by saying "I have (such and such) illness".

Excuses.

That's all they are.
 BigDaddyJinx
Joined: 11/4/2006
Msg: 4 (view)
 
Different kind of double standard
Posted: 4/9/2010 9:46:14 AM
OP -- First and foremost, personally speaking it'd be a frosty Friday in Hell before I'd "check in" with my SO on my whereabouts. She ain't my warden, and I ain't her parolee.

Secondly, men AND women do the perceived "double standard" thing you mentioned because they have a nagging, whining, pouting, insecure SO to deal with and they will not be *allowed* to do as they please should they tell the truth.

It really is just that simple.

If a man or woman has to lie about where they're going, it ALWAYS means they are pandering to their SO and their rampant insecurities.

Those people I tend to avoid like the have the AIDS. I have no time for the insecure. I'm an adult and I'll do what I want, when I want, as long as it's legal and doesn't involve bodily harm along the way. My SO doesn't like it? Then I replace her like I'd replace a pair of dirty old shoes.

Just sayin'.
 BigDaddyJinx
Joined: 11/4/2006
Msg: 2 (view)
 
We Want to See Your Face...The new Burqa law in Quebec
Posted: 4/5/2010 10:29:01 AM
I for one am glad to hear this kind of news. I consider myself rather indifferent when it comes to how Family X wants to live their lives in OUR country...but when they consistently try to use their "religion card" here...it disgusts me to no immediate end. Makes me wanna adopt my OWN religion and start putting up obstacles that would allow me my own religious freedoms that would in all ways circumvent proper, fair and reasonable etiquette especially regarding safety and security in relation to services provided or requested.

Oddly enough, despite the fact there are a reported 25 people in ALL of Quebec that have the face covered, that this would still be an issue. There are 25 of them, and how many hundreds of thousands of "us"? If we can do it, so can they. They can leave their "God" at the door and toe the line...or they can get on the first thing smokin' back to whatever 3rd world country they may have come from.

It's about time that the "religion card" was smacked down HARD and deliberate. For too long now it has been a running gag, and it's about time that nonsense came to an end. Hopefully this will be the flagship turning point that will see all other provinces follow suit in short order.

We ALL have rights here. The "religion card" shouldn't be held above those rights at ANY time for ANY reason.

'Nuff said.
 BigDaddyJinx
Joined: 11/4/2006
Msg: 11 (view)
 
Any okay way to encourage a guy to buff up?
Posted: 4/5/2010 10:02:02 AM
OP -- You're right...this is exactly like the "How do I ask my girlfriend to lose weight politely?" quandary.

And both will fail.

Kinda irks me that people want a "project" man or woman in their life. Sickens me, actually. If you like them enough to be seen with them, and associate with them, and cavort naked with them...why the "project" I wonder? People suck. You either like these people as-is, where-is...or you don't.

If you want a "project" man or woman...go back to playing with dolls.

Just sayin'.
 BigDaddyJinx
Joined: 11/4/2006
Msg: 50 (view)
 
their last relationship was with someone who was married...deal breaker?
Posted: 4/5/2010 9:04:19 AM

I'd find someone with the kind of unyielding judgmental dogmatism expressed in some of the replies here more intrinsically offputting than someone who'd been involved in another person's extramarital activities.

So you condone cheating, because judging that harshly otherwise is merely "dogmatic"...

Gotcha.

All clear now.

 BigDaddyJinx
Joined: 11/4/2006
Msg: 4 (view)
 
Been too long to contact casual hookup? How to do it with tact?
Posted: 4/4/2010 8:13:31 PM
^^^
Yea...what Msg 2 said.

 BigDaddyJinx
Joined: 11/4/2006
Msg: 44 (view)
 
their last relationship was with someone who was married...deal breaker?
Posted: 4/4/2010 8:05:20 PM

So lets say you are dating someone and find out that their in last relationship they were the mistress or man-toy(??) of someone who was married. Would this be a deal breaker for you or would you continue seeing said person?

OP -- Total deal breaker for me. WAY big time.

Seriously...does this question even need to be asked? I mean, really? One that says "Whatever" or "No big deal" would suggest to me that they have little to no moral fiber at all, and not really that much of a human being to begin with.

If they just got out of a relationship where they were the "other man/woman" then what does that say about their character? Aside from the glaringly obvious, which would be that they have no character. If they were the "other person", then they have no morals and you can certainly expect that they'll better deal YOU sooner than later.

Especially if they tell you that they've "changed" since then...
 BigDaddyJinx
Joined: 11/4/2006
Msg: 77 (view)
 
Caught her shoplifting
Posted: 3/25/2010 5:52:36 PM
OP -- Perhaps you should remove her label and put it on a newer and smarter model and trade up yourself

She saves a buck...you'll save a nightmare.

GO TEAM!!
 BigDaddyJinx
Joined: 11/4/2006
Msg: 52 (view)
 
Wedding jitters or is she a little crazy?
Posted: 3/25/2010 5:47:07 PM

Seems to me you're about to marry a very insecure control freak. I'm surprised it hasn't shown up till now, or maybe it's always been there and you overlooked it.

+ 1

OP -- Dude...really? She freaks out because of "What up D?"? Man, I pity you but if you marry her I can't feel any pity for that mistake.

Personally, I'd consider you a tool if you marry this control freak who clearly has deep DEEP seated insecurity issues that she hides with her "intuition".

RED ALERT doesn't even begin to describe it.

She fails.

So will you if you go through with it. I'd give you 6-9 months MAX.
 BigDaddyJinx
Joined: 11/4/2006
Msg: 326 (view)
 
When should the woman offer to pay?
Posted: 3/19/2010 11:23:05 AM

It's not so much about the amount of money as it is the idea of having to pay at all. The status quo is in women's favor, which is why so many can be comfortable with the tired "whoever asks should pay" idea.

There is a serious lack of women that will ask. Just look at how long that thread is that's called "is it true that the woman should not pursue the man." There is so much diatribe about being "old fashioned" or "shy." I call bullsh!t on both accounts. There are plenty of men who are shy, but they don't get the benefit of the doubt, and women who claim to be old fashioned are only old fashioned in the ways that suit them.

I also call bullshit on both accounts. I have for quite a while now actually.

They say if THEY ask then they'll pay. Sounds all good on paper. Yet most of those that say that are the same ones that are also saying they will not pursue a man because they're "old fashioned" and believe that the man should do all the heavy lifting. So really, put that all together...

Man asks = he pays
Woman asks = she pays
Woman never asks because she is "old fashioned" = she will not ask
= Man will always be paying

It's easy enough for a woman to say that if SHE asks SHE will pay...but when we see them in that thread about who pursues whom, we can see that this means they will never ask. So what does that mean? It means that the man will ALWAYS be paying. Because gee, the wimmins are "too shy" or "old fashioned" to be doing much in the form of asking.

Gak. What spew. FAIL

I don't care WHO asks. TWO people are working (in theory at least) so TWO people should be floating the bill equally, or at least paying for their expenses (in the case where he orders a steak and she, a salad but wants to split 50/50? Unreasonable). TWO people have the means so there should be no discussion about who pays based on who asked. TWO adults wanna get to know each other better, so BOTH will be paying each and every time unless one wants to "treat" on occasion OF THEIR OWN ACCORD.

The end.

Period.

Full stop.
 BigDaddyJinx
Joined: 11/4/2006
Msg: 24 (view)
 
Is it true that a man's interest can be rekindled after it has been lost?
Posted: 3/19/2010 10:54:44 AM

I was seeing this guy for about 4 months but it was long distance. We really liked eachother and everything was going great, he came to visit me, met my family, friends, etc. However, somewhere down the road I became a bit depressed and started depending on him for my happiness (i.e. through clinginess and insecurity). I know this is a turnoff for a man. And basically I pushed this guy out of my life because I was scared and insecure at the time.

OP -- Well then you can rule out ever rekindling ANYTHING with this one. A friendship perhaps, but little more than that. The behavior you mentioned is a killer and men won't be so easy to look the other way if she comes back.

You'll now be compartmentalized as "damaged goods" from here on. Believe it. After so short a time to get to the "Stage 5 Clinger" stage, a man will not forget that. You can swear up and down on a stack of Bibles taller than you that you're different now or that you've changed, but all he will remember is the Stage 5 Clinger and he will not likely tread that ground again.

If it were just time, or distance, or schedules that parted you two, then I'd say you have a glimmer of hope for sure. With a Stage 5 Clinger...not a chance.

Sorry.
 BigDaddyJinx
Joined: 11/4/2006
Msg: 59 (view)
 
getting increasingly irritable with my gf
Posted: 3/19/2010 10:32:36 AM

OP your[sic] 23....and you've been with a girl a year and a half and considering marriage?
You're already experiencing slight sexual incompatibility...this could be a trainwreck. What's the rush? Take your time, build some more find out if she is the right one...because obviously you're reaching a certain level of frustration this early on into a relationship that isn't a good sign.

+1

OP, you're a KID. 23 years of age. Is this a race? You trying to prove something to someone? Where's the fire, really?

After reading your post, it's clear to at least me that you are a trainwreck waiting to happen. If you're already getting the little annoyances under your skin, and you're just engaged...what do you expect the marriage will be like? Remember, you can always back out of a marriage with little to no harm done...not so much with a marriage. You really wanna risk losing your shirt over issues you already KNOW exist by going ahead with the marriage anyways at this point?

Tell your woman that you think it's best if the two of you get to a counsellor to hash out your little annoyances, and believe me, she will have some for you so be sure you understand that going in. Also tell her that until they get resolved, you're gonna postpone the "big day" and no, that's non negotiable. Plunge full steam ahead right now and I can almost guarantee you you'll barely make it a year if you're lucky. 'Cept now you'll be looking at a VERY costly divorce and not just a mere breakup.

Proceed with caution, man.
 BigDaddyJinx
Joined: 11/4/2006
Msg: 13 (view)
 
Windows 98 hard drive on an XP machine - both IDE
Posted: 3/18/2010 11:06:22 PM
OP -- Here's some things to consider:

>> if the Win 98 HDD came from an OEM (HP/Compaq/Dell/IBM/etc) then chances are the jumper on the back end of the HDD has been set to either CS (cable select) or from that gen, I'd say Master, specifically. Most OEM's started using CS around the time Win 2000 was released. Prior to that *most* adopted the stringent Master/Slave setting

>> if this came from an OEM system as I suspect it did, the jumpers are likely set to Master and NOT CS, so they'd have to be changed to CS or Slave OR...

>> if your system supports 2 IDE ribbons (which most would as IDE 1 and IDE 2) then you *may* see a vacant slot for the second IDE ribbon. Therefore, leave the HDD jumper as-is and buy a $1 IDE ribbon (80 pin) and connect it to the secondary source and then attach the Win 98 HDD as the primary drive on THAT ribbon

If you take a look at the HDD itself, standard drives *should* have a standard config for the brand/manufacturer. For example, if it is a Maxtor HDD then the pinouts are as follows:

http://www.seagate.com/staticfiles/images/support/en/us/mxo_ata_jumpers_rev.jpg


Take a look at that pic, and compare it to the pinouts on YOUR Win 98 drive. You'll likely need a jumper tool or just a pair of very long fingernails/tweezers to gently and carefully take the jumper cap OFF then reseat it according to the diagram.

MASTER if you wanna make it a standalone on the SECONDARY (IDE 2) cable. SLAVE or CS if you wanna attach it to the PRIMARY (IDE 1) cable.

Good luck.
 BigDaddyJinx
Joined: 11/4/2006
Msg: 29 (view)
 
Obama signs anti-smoking law
Posted: 3/18/2010 10:27:01 PM
You know, this is hilarious to me. I have always thought so. The Governments of thw world rake in BILLIONS of dollars a year in "sin taxes" from cigarette sales alone, and now they wanna try to curb it all? Try to eliminate it, suggesting that they spend oh so much money on medical aid for the smokers?

Uh huh.

Yea, last time I checked...they spend as much or MORE on fatties of the world. Yea, I said it. Obesity and heart disease and the link that joins them is hardly news. Heart disease is on the rise and cancer related deaths is about on par. For a short while there (between 2002-2005 ballpark) cancer deaths surpassed those of heart disease (non cancer related), but that was short lived. With less and less smoking these days due to draconian laws that have been imposed almost globally...this just leads the way for less "sin taxes" from them, HIGHER taxation for YOU (the non smoker) and oh wait...here come the fatties that are occupying as much as or more than their share of medical aid.

So what's the real source of healthcare woes? Smokers?

Hardly.

Fatties. Plain and simple. And guess what...there's gonna be far more fatties out there in the next decade than there ever could be in smokers, and you know what THAT means? Yea, MORE cost to give them medical aid while they still preach that smokers are hogging all the healthcare resources. All because the Govs are far too afraid of their own shadow to stand in front of the world and say "Hey listen fatties - enough is enough. We're gonna crack down on your tubby asses!!" For them it's just easier to toss out the red herrings and have people pay attention to cancer related expenses and deaths while cleverly ignoring the fatties.

But some of us, like myself, can see right through their thin veil of subterfuge.

Cancer costs ain't killin' us...fatties are. And there will be a whole new generation of them on the way shortly. Anyone seen the child obesity rates in the last few years? See a trend there? An alarming one? Yea, I saw it too. Odd that the Govs won't acknowledge it beyond a quickie press junket though. Odd that they will continually FAIL to address the rampant and escalating issue with tending to the fatties out there that are REALLY costing the healthcare system far more than the cancer crowd.

People like me though...we call spades, spades. We know the shit from the shovel. We can see quite clearly what the rest around us choose to ignore or divert our attentions from. FAT is costing us billions and billions...and dammit, it's gonna cost even more as soon as the next batch hits puberty. Back when I was kid, we had the "token fatty". Always at least one among us. Nowadays, it's the "token twig". The standalone thin one among a herd of fatties. Quite a culture shock for people of my generation, believe me. But then again, we didn't have multiple gaming consoles...and online courses...and telecommuting...and cellular phones...and the interwebs...no, we actually WENT AND PLAYED OUTSIDE...IN THAT BIG YELLOW DOT CALLED THE SUN. Yea, we exercised. Got lots of it.

What do kids today do?

Nothing. Zip. Nada. Exercise to them is the 5 feet from the couch to the fridge. Forearms like Popeye due to the supreme manual dexterity they have amassed for themselves handling and manhandling controller after controller, and ability to type damn near 100+ WPM...but the rest of them? Wow. They're in shape though I guess...round is a shape, right?

This smoking crapola that was unveiled is just the next in the sock puppet theater we see daily trying to divert our eyes from the real issue...fatties that are sucking our healthcare system dry quicker than they can bone a full chicken or cram a whole roast down their gullets.

Advice?

Back AWAY from the buffet. Put DOWN the Twinkies and HoHo's. Proceed to your nearest salad bar and eat til you pass out. Put DOWN the gaming controller. Disconnect the interwebs. Turn the cellular off. GO OUTSIDE. MOVE AROUND. GET SOME F*CKING FRESH AIR AND SUNSHINE.

Yea.

JMO
 BigDaddyJinx
Joined: 11/4/2006
Msg: 55 (view)
 
Why risk losing EVERYTHING?
Posted: 3/18/2010 9:49:22 PM

Because each and every one of the people who do this sort of thing really and truly believe that THEY will never get caught. Getting caught is for other people.

+1

Yep, I see it that way too. They think that somehow they are so special that they will "never get caught" because that only happens to "other, less savvy" people. But certainly not them. No, because they're "special".

And like with all the rest...they get caught. Then comes the apologies, the "I must have a sex addiction" bullshit, and/or the "It only happened once/won't happen again/you know I love you/it was an accident/etc" nonsense.

Cheaters are shit. They're scum. Snakes are higher on the food chain than they are. I have more respect for the gum on the bottom of my shoe than I have for those types. Even that bug that is now splashed along my windshield is considered damn well heroic next to a cheater.

NEVER a "reason" to cheat. NEVER any valid argument to cheat. NEVER will it be able to be justified.

Cheaters are useless people who failed at life.

Their selfishness is reprehensible. Completely unforgivable. They ain't worth the powder to blow them to Hell.

They "risk" everything for some sick fetish with power, a thrill, adrenaline, and that risk factor itself. The allure of possibly being caught. That, and to feed and keep feeding their massive and generally self-inflated egos that are taller than the Chrysler building.

JMO
 BigDaddyJinx
Joined: 11/4/2006
Msg: 97 (view)
 
Just broke up because the sex was bad
Posted: 3/18/2010 6:21:00 AM

BDJ, many (I'd even go as far as to say most) women need to be turned on mentally in order to be turned on physically. One of the differences between men and women.

OP -- Took you 3 weeks just to come up with this rebuttal? LMAO. I posted that on Feb 28 :P heh

You don't have to try and sell me on the "women are different than men" spiel...I'm only too aware of that fact.

I digress


As such, for a woman, yeah, love and trust do generally make for better sex. This doesn't mean that that's ALL that is required but it helps.

Well then is it ANY surprise why so many women complain about "bad" sex? With such sophomoric mentalities and unrealistic expectations thrust upon the simplest of acts (see: sex), is it ANY wonder why so many of these women who are like minded by equating love/trust/etc with "better sex" are so often so disappointed?

Yea, I just said that.

My guess would be that if more women would spend less time putting equations together for the "better sex" and stopped heaping expectations and caveats on sex, that they'd find themselves enjoying it more. Simply put, by equating love/trust/etc with "better sex" is the quickest way to end up with "bad" sex, because there's far too many out there (see: males) that understand sex and love are mutually exclusive and don't walk hand in hand except in fairytales and romance novels.

If a woman...ANY woman truly "needs" trust/love/etc to achieve "better sex"...then quite simply, they're doing it wrong to begin with.

JMO
 BigDaddyJinx
Joined: 11/4/2006
Msg: 23 (view)
 
Bidets- would you use them?
Posted: 3/13/2010 6:00:21 PM

Bidets- would you use them?

OP -- If I had no other alternative, then yea...obviously. As a matter of personal choice - not at all.
 BigDaddyJinx
Joined: 11/4/2006
Msg: 275 (view)
 
When should the woman offer to pay?
Posted: 3/12/2010 9:02:19 PM

Alpha's lead organizations, foster teamwork, lead with vision and yes at times are meaner than snakes. They also recognize the abilities and shortcomings of others, utilize the one and eliminate the latter, by encouragement or by culling them out.

Yep. It's also called being a business owner. Of which I am. Of which I exceed at. And it affords me the luxury of firing clients that are too stupid for their own good.

Leaders. It's what we are. Leadership comes as natural to us as breathing does to the rest.

There's a pipe, people. Smoke it. Bask in it. REVEL in it.

heh

 BigDaddyJinx
Joined: 11/4/2006
Msg: 192 (view)
 
Never been married, no kids. Is this a red flag?
Posted: 3/12/2010 8:54:32 PM

It's a shame there aren't statistics on broken engagements. Or can we count broken engagements/LTRs as divorces?

I had 1.5 broken engagements...I'm slightly ahead of the curve LOL. Lucky for me that's as close to divorce as I'll get
 BigDaddyJinx
Joined: 11/4/2006
Msg: 4 (view)
 
How many others here are trying to have a relationship with a dead body?
Posted: 3/12/2010 8:47:58 PM
OP -- This phenomenon is commonly referred to as "the starfish".

And yes, I've experienced it before. Few times actually. Hated it each time.
 BigDaddyJinx
Joined: 11/4/2006
Msg: 2 (view)
 
entering in text to veryify i am a human and not a spammer
Posted: 3/12/2010 6:04:34 PM
I tried from 3 diff computers on diff networks to make sure it was not a cookies issue , but, still nothing.

With any luck at all...your EMPLOYER, who PAYS YOU TO WORK WHEN AT THE JOB SITE, has a filter that prevents cookies from sites like this.

Christ...doesn't anyone actually WORK at work anymore?!
 BigDaddyJinx
Joined: 11/4/2006
Msg: 25 (view)
 
Should I be running at this point?
Posted: 3/12/2010 5:54:45 PM

Does any of this sound like its worth it? Shes by far the most attractive woman I've dated in a while. But its a lot to put up with and to work on. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Dude...you picked her for her appearance. You got what you deserved. You're about as deep as a teaspoon.

Keep flexin' champ...someone will be impressed sooner or later...

FAIL

 BigDaddyJinx
Joined: 11/4/2006
Msg: 272 (view)
 
When should the woman offer to pay?
Posted: 3/12/2010 5:09:21 PM

and PS to these guys that claim to be Alpha men
that think women don't need to spend money
to look good for them....I'd bet you'd be singing a different tune if
your 9 or 9.5 or even 10 showed up without her usual hairdo, manicure,
make up or outfits.... you'd be wondering where the heck your girlfriend
went. People like to look good. And people like to be seen with people
that look good. Who the heck do you think you're kidding?

OMG thanks for that bit of hilarity!

First off, ALL Alpha male here and lemme tell ya...I KNOW women don't need to spend money to look good for ME...because I KNOW that *I* have sweet f*ck all to do with their choice to be "done up". They look good for THEMSELVES. Who are YOU kidding?! If they were single, would they let themselves go? Pfffft! As if, Cliff. YOU know...THEY know...*I* know...we ALL know that they will spend their money to look good on THEIR terms A-L-O-N-E. The male has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with their choice to be "done up", or plain Jane. So get off that train in a hurry 'cause really, no one is naive enough to buy-in.

Least of all yours truly.

And where it pertains to the 9 or 9.5 showing up "undone"...again, GET REAL...if she basks in THAT kinda fakeness then she was never really there to begin with, and her 9 or 9.5 was all a ruse anyways. Probably the most important reason why at least THIS Alpha prefers those that don't feel they have to "fake it up" to garner attention. You know...the ones that are a 9 or 9.5 with as little as eyeliner and lip gloss. The ones that won't use their uber-fakeness "expenses" as a reason or cop out for not contributing to the date.

Yea...THEM.

And believe me hunny...they exist. My social circle is rife with them. Those that are only a 9 or 9.5 via artificial means simply do not exist in my social circle, and they will never EVER exist in it. They would be shunned like lepers if they even tried. The ones that are a 9.5 and drop to a mere 9 (or the 9 to an 8.5) when the simple lip gloss and eyeliner come off...yea, my circle is rife with them.

Man, I love my life.
 BigDaddyJinx
Joined: 11/4/2006
Msg: 8 (view)
 
Why are 2nd marriages even more doomed to failure than the 1st
Posted: 3/12/2010 3:24:50 PM

I keep hearing about statistics that 2nd marriages have an even bigger failure rate than 1st marriages. Why is this?

OP -- This is because those that married and divorced once already were naive enough to try it again.

And again.

And again.

(insert "Insanity is defined as..." here)
 BigDaddyJinx
Joined: 11/4/2006
Msg: 13 (view)
 
Committed??? I'm confused..
Posted: 3/12/2010 3:22:18 PM
OP -- You seem to have "committed" and "smothering/clingy" mixed up. Committed implies that there is no other in their life. It does NOT imply "Expect all my free time to be spent with you".

People still have actual lives outside of the relationship.

One party generally tends to overlook that simplest of notions.

Make friends. Don't "reserve" your Fridays and Saturdays for them unless there are plans ahead of time. If you are alone those nights, it's because of unrealistic expectations. AKA you did it to yourself.

Enjoy.
 BigDaddyJinx
Joined: 11/4/2006
Msg: 40 (view)
 
But I Still Love You...
Posted: 3/12/2010 11:18:02 AM

When a long-term relationship ends, why do some women make it clear that "they still love and care for you" when you both realize that you will not be involved in each others lives?

It's their way of pulling the "It's not you, it's me" crap. A way to pacify themselves that if they end up having just made the most horrible mistake they ever made, they can still sleep at night. That, and if they DO realize that they just made the most horrible mistake EVER...the "but I still love you" can be used as a jumping off point to try and get another chance later on. May work, may not, but it stands to be the ice breaker in any talk of reconciliation.

"I've been thinking about it and realized that I can't truly be happy with anyone else but you...because I still love you and care for you, and I never stopped."
(translated from)
"I still have issues with you. Issues I have not resolved. I still don't like (this and that) about you, but the losers I found after you were far worse than you ever were, so I'm choosing the lesser of two evils. I want the Devil I DO know instead of the Devil I don't."

That's usually how it begins lol.
 BigDaddyJinx
Joined: 11/4/2006
Msg: 16 (view)
 
Would you marry a woman because she is VERY MUCH IN LOVE with you?
Posted: 3/12/2010 11:10:40 AM
OP -- Let's take a look at your post about your buddy...


He said he would marry her because he wouldn't be able to find anyone who loves him more than she does.
[snip]
I think he does love her a lot but he's not really in love with her, otherwise he would have married her by now.

Ok, so he has convinced himself that there'd be "no one else" that could love him the way she loves him. Fair enough. We have all said that at one time or another (provided that we had a relationship lol). But in YOUR mind, if this love was that strong he'd have married her by now? What makes you say such a thing? Is there a contest? A race? How about he get himself settled with her first instead of the classic "He'd/She'd have married her/him by now" routine. If anything, it appears at least to me that he basks in her love for him and KNOWS how she feels, but this is "not enough" beyond mere mating/making babies. What is said next explains that...


He really wants to have children and a family, yet he is still sleeping around with other women and still single.

See, when stuff like the above gets fleshed out, we see that it appears as though he's keeping her affections close at hand and on standby while he sows his wild oats. Almost like he sees her as a suitable baby maker, but not a suitable LTR. In THIS aspect, I'd have to suggest that if I were wrong...he'd have been WITH her at the very least LOOOOOOONG before now. So to me, in my opinion, he wants to get his snaps and when he's finished plowing the proverbial fields and has plucked all the cootch he can handle...he'll "settle" for "Ms Baby Maker". That just comes off as so very rank to me. If he were my buddy, he'd be told to shit or get off the pot...but do NOT keep her pining until YOU are ready to "settle" for making babies with her. Either DO IT or cut her loose so she can live her own life. If she's "good enough" to make babies with, then she should be good enough to go after RIGHT NOW.

Make sense?

If I were you, I'd sit my boy down and have a heart to heart with him and maybe expose this rationale to him that he may very well be unaware of. Perhaps he doesn't even realize himself what kind of situation he is presenting to the world. Maybe a good "talking to" will snap him out of it? Seriously...if he knows he wants a family, and knows that she is so smitten with him that all he'd have to do is ASK...what the f*ck is he waiting for? Engraved invitation perhaps?


Can you marry someone just because their love is the best on offer? what if you want children, does that make any difference in your decision making?

Can *I* marry someone just because their love is the best offer? No. Absolutely not. There has to be a REASON I am marrying (and anyone who knows me KNOWS this will never happen anyways lol). But if I were to marry, it would have to be for more than just "love" or the illusion of it. "Love" would be a fantastic foundation to build on, as you have one of the obstacles cleared already...but there simply has to be "more" than JUST love for me to even consider it. I have to have a benefit to the marriage. Something that she offers me that I cannot get anywhere else from anyone else.

And if I want children, yes, of course this will make a difference in my decision. I can even use my past as a reference. My last ex, who was also my fiance, made it clear from GO that she did not ever want kids. If I did, then she suggested I look elsewhere. At the time, I was still very much on the fence so I proceeded. After the first year or so I resigned myself to the notion that there would be no offspring for me. She was my "one" and I knew it would mean giving up kids. I resigned myself to that fact. After we split, my thoughts changed and I found myself open to kids now. Right up until the talk of reconciliation happened. Then I truly had to choose now...I was leaning heavily over on the side of progeny but here is my "one" discussing a reconciliation. I knew then too, that just like before I'd have to resign myself to no kids. I chose to resign myself to that notion again.

And now I am fully over to the "want kids" side. So this would affect any decision I had to make moving forward. Though again, with marriage being ruled out I have now resigned myself to the understanding that any kid(s) I have will be through surrogacy.

But yes, it will impact my decision to be with someone. Chances are it affects everyone the same way.


I personally think if you are not in love in marriage, you are bound to cheat somehow....

Well, I wouldn't be so quick to suggest that. *Something* pushes people to cheat and then they always try to justify it...but I'm not convinced it is SIMPLY because love wasn't there. However, I will go so far as to say that if you enter into a marriage where love was never there, then this may increase the chances of infidelity...but not be the sole cause.

JMO
 BigDaddyJinx
Joined: 11/4/2006
Msg: 46 (view)
 
Pansexuals and dating
Posted: 3/11/2010 10:21:26 PM

omfg if another person feels the need to name and define themselves i will puke...what would you consider me? nerd? hipster?straight? dork? why does everything need a limiting name and category?everyone needs to limit themselves and stick themselves in a box in order to feel part of the club or exclusive of another... this is one of my biggest pet peeves..pansexual is as ridiculous as bisexual,gay or straight definitions. if you are pansexual then you are bisexual plain and simple; now be happy and live your life well...

+1

Despite the OP having fled, I had to chime in.

This is not rocket science. According to the OP, "Pansexuals are attracted to people."

Ok. So who represents "people"? Well we have males and females. Those are "people". Of those people, let's see who THEY like:

Homosexual - likes same sex only
Heterosexual - likes opposite sex only
Bisexual - likes 'em both

So why in the good F*CK did we need a 4th, and utterly REDUNDANT classification? We don't. This is just another weak assed attempt to redefine things that are already in existence. This is in all ways trying to reinvent the wheel, and calling it something else.

"People" are just male or female. They are bi/homo/hetero. There is NO F*CKING NEED for a 4th and utterly ridiculous classification. "People" can only go three ways. They've been covered. So simply put, the above poster nailed it...if you swing BOTH WAYS this makes you BISEXUAL.

Do NOT pretend that gender has nothing to do with it, and you just like "people". If you like BOTH sexes, this makes you B-I-S-E-X-U-A-L. A classification that already exists. Rebranding it is just infantile.

YOU ARE BISEXUAL. COPE. SOAK IT UP. BASK IN IT.

The end.

..."pansexual"...un-f*cking-real.
 BigDaddyJinx
Joined: 11/4/2006
Msg: 28 (view)
 
Showing initial interest and its effect on relationships
Posted: 3/11/2010 10:00:00 PM

They got it their minds that they wanted that particular guy and behaved accordingly.

Yes. This is almost word for word what I was told by my exes that pursued me LOL.

"I saw it. I wanted it. If I waited for you to realize that you wanted me too, someone else woulda got you. Unacceptable."

My exes rule
 BigDaddyJinx
Joined: 11/4/2006
Msg: 7 (view)
 
POF in Lady Gaga video
Posted: 3/11/2010 9:57:47 PM
Ok WOW.

I actually got dumber watching that dreck...

9:30 of my life I'll never get back and IQ points that won't regrow on their own...

FAIL
 BigDaddyJinx
Joined: 11/4/2006
Msg: 14 (view)
 
Showing initial interest and its effect on relationships
Posted: 3/11/2010 7:58:43 PM

I remember reading an article a while back that said relationships where the woman was the first to initiate contact had a higher chance of developing into a long-term relationship, rather than when the man pursued the woman.

OP -- As a man, I can attest to this article as being at least somewhat valid. Of all the relationships I've had, where SHE was the pursuer...they have indeed turned into LTR's and quite successful for their own accords.

Just my $0.02.
 BigDaddyJinx
Joined: 11/4/2006
Msg: 12 (view)
 
Is it inevitable that the passion, intimacy, hot sex fades over time? and if so, what's the solution
Posted: 3/11/2010 4:59:56 PM

Is it inevitable that the passion, intimacy, hot sex fades over time? and if so, what's the solution

Yes it's inevitable...*IF* you are silly enough to pretend that you won't be "one of them" and then can't see the forest for the trees when ya get there.

It's called a self fulfilling inevitability.


1. Is her premise faulty? Is she right or wrong that all the extra spice fades over time to a blah boring relationship?

Her premise is her opinion based on her observations. Opinions are never right or wrong - they are opinions based on evidence personal to the individual. So she is neither right nor wrong per se.


2. Why or why not? In other words, if she's wrong, what is she doing wrong? What can you do to keep it alive? And if she's right, why does that happen?

3. And if she's right, what are you going to do about it? Keep relationships short term (i.e. under 10 years)? Or accept the inevitable?

Let's say her opinion was "wrong". Let's say that this phenomenon has only ever impacted HER, the individual. Then it is up to HER to determine the failing point and threshold and how to combat it. As it would be for any one of us reading this that can relate to the premise she formed. It would be up to the individual to determine what levels of comfort they're willing to accept - and when "bad" REALLY gets so bad that enough is enough.

Now let's say that she's "right". Let's say that this premise is 100% factual and no longer just opinion, and will affect 100% of the population guaranteed.

Again this will boil down to the individual. They will have to be able to determine to themselves when they have reached that stage of the relationship, OR how they proceeded to AVOID that pitfall.

Now most of us here can easily agree that this phenomenon DOES exist and DOES play out more often than not. But if we take a look at our relationships and exclude them from the rest of the planet for just a moment...what is the common denominator? YOU. That's right. So if YOU keep getting into long term relationships or FWB or f*ck buddies or whatever level of relationship, and discover that after a period of time that it fizzles and becomes sexless, loveless, communication-less, or whatever else...what is the common factor? YOU. Just YOU. So we, as that individual, have to assess our relationship and see if there is a pattern that we have overlooked or a point we have ignored and done so consistently that always seem to take us to that stage of failure.

I know for me, personally, I understand that this phenomenon IS very real and VERY prevalent. If *I* don't want it to get there, then it's up to me to lay that card on the table from day 1 and explain to my mate that if it ever starts heading that way, then we have to have a summit meeting. If that summit meeting fails to produce results, then we split and that will be that. Failure of this sort happens when the couple allows it to happen. I wouldn't want it to happen, so I would take strides to make sure that it doesn't. There are several relationships I know of where they laugh at this premise of failure...and they are just as much in love 10-15 years later as they were during the honeymoon phase. Why? Because they thought it was important enough a facet to devote time and effort to, that's why. They consider it a priority and treat it as such.

Some couples have "the talk" long AFTER the damage has already been done. They failed themselves before they even began. That is on them and them alone. They became a victim of this phenomenon because they allowed themselves to fall prey to it. Or they had "the talk" but in short order they dropped its importance further and further down the scale until it got so "bad" that enough was enough.

In the end - there will be victims and there will be champions. It's up to us, as the component, to decide which camp we wanna be in.

JMO
 BigDaddyJinx
Joined: 11/4/2006
Msg: 35 (view)
 
Why is this even in the constitution.......
Posted: 3/11/2010 4:38:57 PM

Not sure,but the O.P could be referring to the Declaration of Independence which reads in part "That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends,it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it,and to institute new government,laying its foundation on such principle and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."
It then goes on to say " Prudence,indeed,will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer,while evils are sufferable,than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed"

Bottom line,the Founders believed,and rightfully so, that the people have the right to replace a government gone bad,but be careful what you wish for....
It was their intention that the people control the gov't, not the other way around.Wonder what happened?

+1

I concur that the OP had the Constitution and the DOI mixed up.

Even having said that, and as a Non American, the text is pretty clear despite it's age. This comes with the proper planning and execution of carefully selected words. Do it right, and a document that is several hundred years old can be viewed in the same context it was originally written in.

As near as I can tell the context is pretty straightforward...if "the people" feel that their elected or appointed representatives are failing to act in their best interests..."the people" have a right to kick them the f*ck out and have a redo. Impeachment ringing any bells here?

But sadly, as some have already pointed out, "the people" have been slowly trained over generations to be so afraid of their own shadow that they will "tolerate" their current officials rather than take matters into their own hands. That one line from V For Vendetta said it so well in contrast - "People shouldn't be afraid of their Governments - Governments should be afraid of their people".

There's just not enough of "the people" left that have any balls to resist corrupt, meaningless, fruitless, or aimless Government. They'd rather just "tolerate" it until the next election and then just "vote for the other guy" because gee, we JUST voted and oh noes...now we may have to again. People should consider this...is it more damaging to take another few minutes outta your life to overthrow the useless Gov you have if forced to impeach or similar and vote again...or more damaging to "tolerate" it for the full term and then just "vote for the other guy"?

Yea. Think about that.
 BigDaddyJinx
Joined: 11/4/2006
Msg: 12 (view)
 
Collective Punishment Over Same-Sex Prom Date
Posted: 3/11/2010 4:17:27 PM

I bet the little lesbian is licking her chops over the delicious furor she's caused.

The "little lesbian" (<-- pretty ignorant commentary too btw) caused no such thing. The school board caused the furor by denying her her rights.

At least get your facts straight.


If she wanted to go with a girl, just do it, and then deal with the repercussions later (if there ARE any)

Um yea. She INTENDED TO do just that. However, when the board realized that the "little lesbian" wouldn't acquiesce, they decided to take a ham handed approach and cancel the whole damn thing. I could speculate to defer the onus from themselves and try to make it the "little lesbian's" *fault*.

Repercussions were pretty clear in case you missed them.


But by making a big deal out of it (really, who CARES what you wear? tux or dress, it's not the school's business), and ASKING, you are telling them to condone lesbianism, which obviously (to me, anyway) a conservative town in a conservative state is not going to do.

As soon as the ALCU got involved, we all knew it would make headlines. And SHE didn't make a big deal out of it - the board and the State did that all by themselves.

And funny that you would say "condone lesbianism" in such a way...so are you a phobe? Prejudiced much? Bit on the homophobic side are we? She didn't expect them to condone anything except for her civil rights which are protected BY LAW.

Conservative State or not - NO ONE has the right to discriminate.

P-E-R-I-O-D.

Full stop.
 BigDaddyJinx
Joined: 11/4/2006
Msg: 243 (view)
 
When should the woman offer to pay?
Posted: 3/11/2010 4:01:39 PM

Just putting what she said out there:

"Men I'm dating want me to look hot. Having my hair done costs money. Having my nails done costs money. Makeup costs money, perfume costs money... and fashionable clothing costs money. If he wants me to fork out that kind of money to look good for his benefit, he can shout me a meal and some drinks."

Oh please...lol.

Women look good for THEMSELVES. The end.

*message brought to you by the man who's tired of the old "I spend money to look good for you"*
 BigDaddyJinx
Joined: 11/4/2006
Msg: 39 (view)
 
just told the girlfriend I won't stay if she smokes pot
Posted: 3/11/2010 2:28:48 PM

"If you loved me, you'd __________" is just blackmail

Couldn't agree more.

OP -- If this is a stance you have in life, where pot or drugs in general will not be part of your home, then good on you. Just remember though, that we all know there is a 100% chance that you KNEW full well ahead of time she was a chronic. Expecting her to drop it now because she wants to move in with you, and because if she loved you she'd do it...FAIL buddy...hardcore FAIL.

The best response woulda been to let her know that you have respected her right to do as she sees fit with her own life HOWEVER, the pot will not be part of your home. If that changes then you'd consider it, but not before then.

Using the "if you loved me you would" gambit is just FAIL. You blew it.

Kudos for sticking to your guns. Just expect that the way you delivered the "news" will have some repercussions.
 BigDaddyJinx
Joined: 11/4/2006
Msg: 61 (view)
 
Outrageous flirt.
Posted: 3/10/2010 5:06:19 PM

It's a matter of respect and I think it's the insecure person who doesn't think he can do any better who puts up with that crap.

You're entitled to your opinion.
 BigDaddyJinx
Joined: 11/4/2006
Msg: 221 (view)
 
When should the woman offer to pay?
Posted: 3/10/2010 8:12:13 AM

Now it is my opinion that men take it as their responsibility to pay because as a man, it is their role to provide for females.

*YAWN*

My ONLY "responsibility" is myself. I am responsible for my own well being, my own upkeep, and my own priorities. THIS is my role. Last time I checked, women weren't born with pianos tied to their asses, or shackled to appliances...and had two arms, two legs and a heartbeat so therefore perfectly capable of taking care of themselves in equal accord as myself. they were also, at last report, out there in the workforce with us men, which translates into "She has her own damn money".


Especially females they are interested in luring closer... Real men don't cry about buying a date dinner.

*lifts his tail*

Well since I just checked, I'm still a real man ('cause hey, even Geppetto said so)...I can refute that statement. Minus the tears of course. But if by "cry about" you mean to imply "tell her to pay for her own meal" then yes, I do that. And I will continue to do that. Why? Because if men are bankrolling dates and the like to "lure" the women closer...what are the women doing in the meantime to reciprocate their own "lure"?

Just showing up?

Is that it?

*YAWN*


The only place I've ever heard men complain about paying a woman's way is on online dating sites.

Well then my suggestion would be to put down the mouse, push in the keyboard tray, turn off the monitor and get out into the REAL world where you'll hear pretty much more of the same...
 BigDaddyJinx
Joined: 11/4/2006
Msg: 39 (view)
 
Why are some men are all for sex buddies but not girlfriends?
Posted: 3/10/2010 7:59:19 AM

If women stopped 'putting' out in the situation where it is only f**kbuddy...then... men would have to re-think. Women need to stop being a prostitute without the pay!

Ah I see.

So, then it's acceptable and expected that they be a prostitute FOR the pay (dating/courting/etc).

Gotcha. Now it all makes sense. Thanks for clearing that up for us.

 BigDaddyJinx
Joined: 11/4/2006
Msg: 157 (view)
 
Never been married, no kids. Is this a red flag?
Posted: 3/10/2010 7:50:48 AM

I dated a man who was never married/no kids for 12 years and it was wonderful!!!!

Aha!

See ladies...it *can* be done. Dating for 12 years no less!
 BigDaddyJinx
Joined: 11/4/2006
Msg: 33 (view)
 
How to find out penis size
Posted: 3/9/2010 11:57:02 PM

I hope this isn't redundant but I've spent an hour searching threads & wasn't able to find anything relevant.
Here's the situation: a close friend of mine met a guy that she clicks with well but he's a very small guy (short, tiny hands, ect.). She's concerned that his smallness may carry over to um, other areas as well. She's not the type to fool around much before marriage so a "test drive" is out of the question. So, is there any reliable way to determine his size without seeing, feeling or flat out asking?

Ok...there is NO WAY that a 34 year old can be THAT naive?!

No way this question can be legit. Holy Hell.
 BigDaddyJinx
Joined: 11/4/2006
Msg: 119 (view)
 
After A Month She Tells Me She's Pregnant - With Another Man's Child
Posted: 3/9/2010 11:53:51 PM

She responded as most women do in this situation...returning my honest pouring of emotions with expletives and snippy remarks. She begged me to leave, and of course as soon as the door closed, the waterworks ensued.

And yanno what?

None of that should surprise you, or concern you. You're 19. Go out and live your life now. And be glad you dodged a bullet. You may not be so lucky next time.

PS -- Not to be a d!ck...but in Canada, she can still name YOU the baby Daddy and you have only 2 years from the date of birth to have the name removed else YOU will be the baby Daddy forever (biological or not/DNA test or not). So it'd be a good idea to check birth records or similar over the next couple years to make sure. Google it if you don't believe me.
 BigDaddyJinx
Joined: 11/4/2006
Msg: 29 (view)
 
Why are some men are all for sex buddies but not girlfriends?
Posted: 3/9/2010 11:38:58 PM

As has been mentioned sex is the one thing most men really need. When you've been through the ringer so to speak with past GF's or wives freedom is a hard thing to give up. Many guys are independant[sic]. Know how to cook, clean, take care of themselves. GF's bring drama, doing things you don't really want to do, loss of freedom, etc. What better for an independant[sic] guy than get to have that situation. You get the one thing you really need from women, she goes home, you then get to do what you want.

+1 What he said ^^^

OP, it's pretty simple. I'll explain it from a business perspective. A "real" relationship is a what we call a negative or bad ROI (Return On Investment) or ROR (Rate Of Return). A "sex buddy"/FWB is what we call a positive or good ROI/ROR. Don't even get me started on the cost to benefit analysis...

It's a matter of one of the oldest games in the world...gains versus losses.

When you gain more than you lose - this is considered GOOD.
When you lose more than you gain - this is considered BAD.

Seeing as how the adults among us can distinguish the losses in a "real" relationship but no tangible gains...this is BAD. And thusly, the same people can also distinguish the gains in a "sex buddy"/FWB with no tangible losses...so this is GOOD.

So to recap...

All losses + no gains ("real" relationship) = FAIL
All gains + no losses ("sex buddy"/FWB) = WIN

 BigDaddyJinx
Joined: 11/4/2006
Msg: 139 (view)
 
Never been married, no kids. Is this a red flag?
Posted: 3/9/2010 12:46:19 PM

Any fool can get married, and any fool can have children. Neither make one an exceptional person.

+1 with a bullet

I'm not sure where the marrieds, or formerly marrieds and/or those with kids think they have now had some magical endowment placed upon them that separates them from the rest of us common folk. Something about themselves that makes them so much better than the rest of us. I see them as just as big of failures as the rest of us.

They are NOT special.

They are NOT unique.

They do NOT have special powers or endowments.

They are COMMON. Just like us.

Yet that doesn't stop them from asserting that because they are married, have been married (once or even several times), and/or have kids that this makes them a "somebody".

You aren't.

You're a nobody.

Just like the rest of us.

Prove to me that being married past or present, and/or having kids makes you so much more special than the person next to you...or makes you smarter...or faster...or richer...or whatever, and I'll be glad to eat my words and kick my own ass for missing the bus.

But we all know that not one will be able to accomplish that challenge. Reality sucks, eh?
 BigDaddyJinx
Joined: 11/4/2006
Msg: 46 (view)
 
If you had a bad childhood are you still obligated to take care of your parents in old age?
Posted: 3/9/2010 12:36:23 PM
OP -- What's a "bad childhood" anyways? I mean really...ain't this all subjective?

So "bad" is what...making them do their homework, grounding them if they don't, curfews, chores, living on a lean budget while "everyone else" has *whatever* you do NOT, hand-me-down clothes instead of retail labels, walking the dog, cleaning the cat box, no interwebs after 9PM/no consoles after 9PM/etc...

I mean really...what is a "bad" childhood?

Looking above, this is what I have heard people pass off as a "bad" childhood. Add the occasional spanking in there for being unruly and it tops it off. ZOMG you were spanked?! For swearing at your parents?! OH NOES!!!1!!

Ugh

If it was truly a "bad" childhood where you were physically assaulted with lit cigarettes as a form of discipline, or been raped by a sibling or relative and told "it's our little secret", or forced to break the law "just a little" for the family, or otherwise treated poorer than those in Gitmo...then yea, I'd say F*CK YOU to a dying relative. Followed by good riddance.

But if the "bad" childhood is akin to what I have heard all my life passed off as such...then give your head a shake. If that is someone's definition of a "bad" childhood, then they are poor excuses for human beings. And yes, I WOULD feel an obligation to care for the infirm if this was a "bad" as my life got.

JMO
 
Show ALL Forums