Asking women out while they're at work. Okay or not okay? chat & forums.

Posted In Forum:

Home

MyForums

Show ALL Forums

Author

Thread: Asking women out while they're at work. Okay or not okay?

littleaudrey

Joined: 1/17/2008

Msg: 9 (view)

Asking women out while they're at work. Okay or not okay? Posted: 10/16/2009 11:23:52 PM
If she likes you, it'll be a turn-on. If she doesn't, it'll be an intrusion. Never have I been so happily engrossed in my job (any job, whether I liked it, needed it, or not) that I would have been offended if a cute guy asked for my phone number. Where it gets annoying is when a guy you don't like hounds you at work. So as long as you're not that guy, ask away for numbers and dates.

littleaudrey

Joined: 1/17/2008

Msg: 2 (view)

What to do when you seem 'intimidating' on first meet Posted: 10/16/2009 11:21:56 PM
I'm sorry, you may well be smarter and wittier than the average guy (hey, I'm not saying you're not) but the fact that you even say that shows that you're arrogant. If you go around the world believing you're better than other people, you will intimidate weak people and anger or offend confident people. This is true even if you ARE better than other people. Even if you're a celebrity or a proven genius. If you really are witty, smart, handsome, thoughtful, and kind, you will most easily find a great woman to love you if you act as though you never noticed. Notice her wonderful traits and let her notice yours.

littleaudrey

Joined: 1/17/2008

Msg: 65 (view)

When do guys grow up Posted: 10/16/2009 11:08:51 PM
Mid-twenties are often a hard time for men and women to come together. Often, you will have women tentatively looking at a "future" and men still interested in living it up in the last days of youth. I have often said that I thought a good age difference would be a woman at 25 and a man at 30 because I think that's when men might start to think that maybe they won't live forever and maybe they do want a wife and kids and maybe they should get serious. I was on this and other sites often at age 22 and I quickly discovered that, while I was only interested in relationships with future potential, that the guys my age really weren't as much. I found that a four or five year age difference leveled out the field a little better and yielded more serious and mature candidates, but a lot of guys in their late 20s are babies too, so you really just have to get lucky. You can often decipher who is a grown man and who is an infant from clues in their profiles. Grown men, for example, don't put questionnaires in their profiles, nor do they use words like "holla", nor do they post three photos of them swilling cheap beer. Someone who writes a lot about looks (either yours or theirs) in their profile is probably also a baby.

littleaudrey

Joined: 1/17/2008

Msg: 147 (view)

Why some women don't like receiving oral Posted: 10/16/2009 11:00:32 PM
I don't like it for a few reasons. One is that I have a small clitoris. Women's clits are different sizes. Some are huge, almost like a tiny penis, and some are so small you can barely see them. I'm the latter. Small clits are a lot more sensitive to touch than bigger ones; thusly, tongue stimulation may be too much for these women, as it is for me. It feels so intense that it's just uncomfortable for the most part. Another is that several partners I had in my past complained of the smell and refused to give me oral. Since those partners, I have had other partners who have begged me to let them give me oral, but I think I may just have a hangup about it now.

littleaudrey

Joined: 1/17/2008

Msg: 84 (view)

Straight men and Anal play - yay or nay? Posted: 10/16/2009 10:57:16 PM
My husband loves it. He likes (very very light) finger play and some licking. He would never, ever go any farther than that though.

littleaudrey

Joined: 1/17/2008

Msg: 104 (view)

Dating a 27 yo girl for several months but she won't have sex Posted: 10/16/2009 10:52:01 PM
I think someone who isn't ready to have sex at age 27 is a little odd, but if you care about this person, talk to her about it one last time before deciding to walk away. A couple needs to be on the same page about something like this.

littleaudrey

Joined: 1/17/2008

Msg: 414 (view)

Why a virgin? Posted: 10/16/2009 10:47:35 PM
Weird. In these modern times, it seems like most people think it's a little weird if you haven't had sex by the age of, say, 18. No, honestly, over half of the people I knew in freshman year of college (not me) were virgins. That includes guys. We were 18. By 21, it seemed that everyone had done it already. Or, in the case of a few guys, really wanted to do it but hadn't gotten the chance. I'm a married 25 year old now. My husband and I have talked about this subject. I consider him a fairly typical guy in regards to what he likes/wants/will accept/desires/whatever in a woman. He has said that men fantasize about sleeping with virgins but few expect to marry them anymore, outside of religious communities. He said he expected that a woman my age would probably have slept with four or five guys before marrying. In my post-college, married-mom twenties, I have met one virgin, a 27 year old girl who was waiting for marriage, a girlfriend of one of my husband's friends. They'd been dating for two and a half year. Nobody was saying, "That guy is so lucky that he's going to marry a virgin." Instead, people thought it was strange and weird. Another person I knew (actually, a couple) was so religious that they didn't even kiss until their wedding day. Some people thought that was sweet. I thought it was weird. But people think all different things. In the old days, when people married in their late teens/early-twenties, it was reasonable to hope your wife would be a virgin (or at least only had sex with you before the wedding). Today, now that people are marrying later, it no longer seems so reasonable to expect a 32 year old new bride to be pure and chaste.

littleaudrey

Joined: 1/17/2008

Msg: 97 (view)

Should People in a Comitted Relationship Share there things with each other Posted: 10/16/2009 10:34:32 PM
In a committed relationship, if you can't share your car with me, why should I share my life with you? I've always thought that separate bank accounts for married people are terrible and show a lack of trust and a lack of interest in fully meshing your lives together. Others might disagree; I really don't care. I am married, we share everything, and we are the best of friends. I feel that squabbling over things and keeping finances/things/stuff/etc separate cheapens a relationship. Maybe it works for some people, but I would run far, far away.

littleaudrey

Joined: 1/17/2008

Msg: 87 (view)

Is being clingy a personality type or a flaw to be corrected? Posted: 10/16/2009 10:31:01 PM
If you think you might be codependent (when clingy-ness messes with your life so much that it's a psychological problem), look up Codependents Anonymous; they can possibly help. Many people with diagnosed social anxiety are codependent. I am one of them. I can tell you as a clingy person that I've been in relationships with other clingy people and been in relationships with independent types, and the latter has never, ever worked. I know, because of the way I am (hard-wired or changeable, whichever) that I needed someone with that trait/flaw. Someone with a "healthy" sense of boundaries (ie, going out with friends frequently, having a full life away from the relationship, not "needing" me in the same way I "need" him....well, that relationship is doomed. You either need to change being clingy (which isn't easy) or you need to date other clingy people. Rarely does a relationship work in which one partner is independent and the other clingy.

littleaudrey

Joined: 1/17/2008

Msg: 121 (view)

Should I Be Able to Accept My Husband Smoking Pot? Posted: 10/16/2009 10:24:42 PM
When substances are involved, people can get irrational. I'm married to a former drug addict. He has been clean and sober for years, now. Through being with him, I've learned a lot about drug addiction. Pot is not considered physically addictive, but someone can get mixed up with it just the same and have a hard time extricating themselves. The "fun" is addictive; the laughing and spacing out and socializing....that's the part of it that draws a person in and leads them to crave it. Personally, I would not leave someone over a drug problem unless the drug was harder (meth, crack, coke, heroin, et al) and leading them to harm me or my daughter. This man you're in a relationship with has a void in his life, I would guess; people who don't feel a void somewhere usually don't feel the need to use drugs. You need to find out why he's so adamant that he needs to smoke pot. What does it add to his life? Usually, after some reflection, even the most ardent pothead will see, in a period of sobriety, that pot diminishes their life, not enhances it. It robs you of money and makes you lazy and tired. It can give you a headache and make you fat. It messes with your short-term memory and will start to mess with your long-term memory if you smoke it enough. I've met a bunch of people who have smoked pot for thirty years or more, and they are usually not a pretty sight. And as a former hippie from VT, I'm not unfamiliar with the life of a pothead myself. I'm glad to have left it behind, because I feel a lot better without that "fun".

littleaudrey

Joined: 1/17/2008

Msg: 49 (view)

Would this bother you and should I talk to him about it? Posted: 10/16/2009 10:12:00 PM
I wouldn't be able to put up with it. Find someone else before you get too emotionally tangled up; you don't deserve to be someone's second choice, especially when he still sees his first choice around.

littleaudrey

Joined: 1/17/2008

Msg: 116 (view)

Roses or chocolates? Posted: 10/16/2009 10:10:15 PM
I would prefer chocolates because we can share them in front of a movie or TV show....flowers are pretty but they get brown so fast and if you're not much for flower-pressing, they just turn into a mess and are gone.

littleaudrey

Joined: 1/17/2008

Msg: 114 (view)

Spending $30,000 or more on a wedding. Posted: 10/16/2009 10:08:14 PM
When I married, my parents spent around 40k on my wedding. I was pregnant and would much rather have the money, but that wasn't the choice. The choice was either have a big wedding and put on a parade for my mom's friends, or not have a wedding (and not have the money). What came along with that is that my mom planned every detail of the wedding, including the flowers and the cake. My taste was written off as "tacky", as were the flowers I liked, the cake frosting I liked, and the guest party favors I liked. I didn't even choose the cake topper. I lucked out on the dress because I happened to pick one on my own that met with Mom's approval. It was so bad that my mother-in-law told my husband that if I wanted even one say in the wedding, I would need to prepare for battle with my mother and fight her for it. As I was six months pregnant and sick as heck, I chose the meek way and rolled over. I would have much rather paid for the wedding myself and had a barbecue with my own friends. I would have much rather had the 40k the wedding cost in a bank account. But the choice wasn't there. I hate people (brides) who invest too much into a wedding. Part of that is because I genuinely believe it's materialistic, but I am sure the other part is that I resent the memories I have of barfing into a paper bag and laying in bed instead of choosing my dainty little napkin rings and playing a role at a wedding that reflected nothing of myself (my cake was white with rosebuds; I'm a hot pink and orange kind of soul). The staff at the bride dress store told my mother and MIL that I was the best bride they'd had in a long time because I was happy with my dress, I was kind and friendly to everyone, and I wasn't cruel and rude to the store personnel. Just because someone is getting married does not give them a license to be a nasty jerk.

littleaudrey

Joined: 1/17/2008

Msg: 64 (view)

whats up with the NO DRAMA on profiles Posted: 9/3/2009 7:06:30 PM
I don't know if this has been covered, but I have noticed in my friends and romantic relationships that people who say "no drama" are, themselves, drama llamas. They are drawn to drama. They surround themselves with friends who fight, partners who cheat, people who backbite and gossip. Time after time, they find their relationships are too complicated and attempt to distance themselves from it by saying "No drama", not even realizing that they've invited the drama into their own lives. "No baggage" to me means that you're immature and not ready for a real relationship because, hello, we ALL have baggage! We have sick parents, kids, ex-wives/husbands, broken hearts, annoying friends, medical bills, crummy apartments, whatever. That's life. If you can't take someone with baggage, you shouldn't probably be looking for a mate.

littleaudrey

Joined: 1/17/2008

Msg: 26 (view)

peeking on dateing sites Posted: 9/3/2009 7:02:01 PM
I would be very mad and stay away from him until I was certain he had suffered enough to never speak to the woman again. And if he didn't suffer from the loss of being with you, he isn't the one for you.

littleaudrey

Joined: 1/17/2008

Msg: 265 (view)

How important is it for your partner to be physically fit or in shape Posted: 6/11/2009 5:20:25 PM
I am a woman. It is not important to me at all, really. I think physical attraction is important but my view of what is attractive is broad, not confined to a certain height/weight ratio. I happen to find larger men the most attractive, but I have also found skinny men attractive. Looks fade, anyway.

littleaudrey

Joined: 1/17/2008

Msg: 202 (view)

How do YOU handle rejection? Posted: 12/5/2008 6:53:08 AM
People are different. Some say they appreciate a rejection so they don't sit around and wait for an email that never comes. Others would be crushed to receive a "no thanks" email and would prefer no answer at all. Either way, the message is clear; at least with no reply, you can tell your ego that maybe they just don't check the site anymore or they already found someone else, or they might just be intimidated by your obvious charm and good looks. With a "no thanks" email, there's no rationalizing it away. For shyer folks or people with a middling self-esteem, a rejection email can really hurt. I never got a "no thanks" message from sending a first contact, but I was ignored a few times. Ultimately, through trial and error, I was able to determine who would be a good match for me and who I would be a good match for, and I found my husband that way. I think a lot of hurt and anger comes from not understanding the playing field. Keep your expectations real and decide what matters most to you. Many people might ignore someone online who is bald or a bit overweight or too skinny or too short, but if they'd give that person a chance, they might find a kindred spirit. Just remember--if you are the one who is too bald/overweight/short/skinny, only contacting people who are physically flawless might not yield the best results.

littleaudrey

Joined: 1/17/2008

Msg: 2350 (view)

Internet dating: sucks for guys, good for women. Posted: 12/5/2008 6:34:24 AM
It is harder for guys; men outnumber women on most sites, and some women put up profiles with little intent on corresponding with anyone. In college, me and some friends put up profiles solely to see who would get the most replies, as an example. But for every woman who has found a match online, there is a guy who has found a match online. Because there are more men actively looking, there will be more men who end up match-less. However, it may balance out a bit more if you look at intent. There are a lot of guys looking for just a booty call online, or maybe just cybersex. To weed them out takes time and effort and even getting fooled from time to time. I met a lot of guys online when I was single. Some just wanted sex, and my time was wasted because they weren't honest about that. Perhaps the number of women with inactive profiles online equals the amount of guys looking solely for sex, leaving the amount of people of both genders looking for a real relationship fairly even, but those stats would be impossible to find out decisively.

littleaudrey

Joined: 1/17/2008

Msg: 134 (view)

religion in a relationship...deal breaker? Posted: 12/5/2008 6:27:38 AM
Secondly, it ALWAYS comes down to 'why won't you go to church with me? just once? It's not going to kill you...' See, they want me to respect their beliefs, but they don't respect my right to NOT believe. If you were a Jew and he was a Christian and he expected you to occasionally attend his services and show him that respect, you would have every right in the world to ask that he attend your services with you. That is a fair compromise. With atheism, there is no cut and dried compromise like that. There are no atheist services that your SO can attend with you in exchange for you attending Christian services with him. There is a huge difference between giving someone an ultimatium of "either join my religion or we're through" and asking your SO to come to services with you becuase you want to share that part of yourself with them. Neither person should be in a relationship where they feel pressure to change. That includes big things like religion and political leanings and smaller things like style of dress, hobbies, and friends. Those things make up who we are, the big and the small, and even if your partner doesn't like or agree with everything that you're interested in, they need to respect them and maybe sometimes try to appreciate that they are a part of the person that they love. I have been angry during parts of my life at intolerant beliefs. My father, a Protestant Deacon, openly laughs at Quakerism and calls it a "tree huggers" religion. Many atheists and agnostics have been made to feel marginalized by believers and so, as a result, have a dim view of religion. My husband is a religious Christian, though, and he is open-minded. He has taught me the same thing that my atheist Jewish grandfather used to say years ago: You must separate the belief from the believer. I don't think believing in God makes a person intolerant; it is how you translate that into daily life. Some people use their belief to understand others and practice kindness above all else. Others use their belief as a weapon to exclude and attack others. Either way, it isn't really about the belief or the God or the church; it is about the person.

littleaudrey

Joined: 1/17/2008

Msg: 129 (view)

religion in a relationship...deal breaker? Posted: 12/4/2008 7:23:10 AM
I'm a fairly hardcore atheist, and my husband is a Christian (we met online in 2007 and got married in September). When we were first dating, we would talk lightly about religion; he identified as a former Catholic (raised) and I as a nonbeliever. As time went on, these "light, bantering" discussions got a bit more heated, and I began to realize that religion mattered to him more than I initially thought. As we got more serious, he asked if I wouldn't mind going to church with him one weekday morning. It was something that brought solace to him to go, and he wanted to share that with me. It was a no-strings attached thing; he knew I was an atheist and our relationship didn't hinge on me going; he just wanted to share something of himself with me. I went. In spite of not believing in God and in spite of having severe social/political problems with Catholicism in particular, I went to the Catholic church with him. I kneeled and said prayers and listened to a sermon. Did I get anything out of it? Absolutely, but it didn't have anything to do with God. I felt good that I'd done something with him that mattered to him and I felt good that he wanted to share it with me. We also attended a Bible sing-along at some point after we were already engaged. It mattered to him and he mattered to me, so I went. Yes, I felt odd being at religious services, and felt that I didn't belong there, but he was happy that I was there and I fellowshipped with other people and just enjoyed taking part in something new and different. There was never any pressure for me to believe in God, not from him. He respected my views and even read a Christopher Hitchens book that I bought for him, an anthology of essays about theism/atheism and different author's viewpoints (Twain and Dante, amongst others). He loved the book. We weren't married in a church, but a pastor spoke a blessing at the wedding. It was more for the benefit of my husband's family, who are devoutly religious. We're now having a baby. See, this is where religious disagreements can get messy for people. He felt uncomfortable raising our daughter as nothing, feeling that we should at least give her a religious foundation to either accept or reject as she grew older, and I, still hurting from having members of my family force me to attend Catholic and Protestant services as a child in spite of my developing views against it, felt that we shouldn't impose religious beliefs on anyone, including our child, and that we should just let her do what she wanted in terms of religion. We sort of ignored the subject for awhile, not really wanting to touch it, but then I remembered Quakerism. As a child, I developed a respect for the Friends. I felt their social values (peace, community, kindness, respect for nature, freedom of thought) meshed exactly with mine, and while considered a derivative of Christianity, was a group that expressly welcomed people of differing thoughts and opinions. I had gone to Quaker meetings as a child at a Quaker summer camp I went to, and there were devout Christians there, a lot of Jews, people who believed in Native American spirituality, and a lot of agnostics. I researched it and brought it up to my husband. He was thrilled--here was a religious community that we could both attend, one that celebrated different viewpoints, one that was agreeable to both of our (liberal) social convictions. One that would give our daughter a religious community to learn in and give her the tools to formulate her own opinions in, one that would not tell us what to think but show us how to make up our own minds. It was a wonderful compromise for our family. Now, we both feel good about the subject of religion and how we're going to raise our daughter. It was a compromise that required no sacrifice from either one of us, and that we're both equally interested in, he as a believer and me as a non-believer. I believe that if two people really love each other, very few things are insurmountable. In fact, I was excited about dating people with different beliefs from my own because I wanted to learn, debate and discuss. It's no fun when everyone agrees on everything, even if its easier. I've dated Christians, Jews, atheists, even a Bahai, and I never had any problems with any of them--because they didn't care to change me and I didn't care to change them. I wouldn't want to convert for someone. I would want to be with someone who could respect my religious beliefs, even if disagreeing with them, but that is a two-way street. It does not hurt you to go to a service of a religion that you disagree with if it makes your mate feel good to have you there. Look at it as a possible learning experience. Of course, this only works if you are both open-minded and don't have expectations of changing the other (either by "saving" them or otherwise). One caveat is that to some people, religion is their life. They may want to be with someone who can share their afterlife with them, and an athiest or a person of another religion might not fit the bill. Others are dead-set on raising a child in their religion, and a compromise like Quakerism wouldn't work. I've also met atheists that will only date other atheists because they've had negative experiences with believers. I think it is all about what you want out of life, and whether you can meld that with what your date wants, and what you can both accept from the other.

littleaudrey

Joined: 1/17/2008

Msg: 9 (view)

Elizabeth Dole: Lying Trash. Posted: 10/30/2008 5:59:43 AM
I was offended by that ad because I'm an atheist. It bothers me that that word is now considered a slur; just because I don't believe in God means I'm not a good person? What a crock.

littleaudrey

Joined: 1/17/2008

Msg: 764 (view)

Over for Mccain? Posted: 10/30/2008 5:57:38 AM
Someone said they're embarrassed to tell people they're a Republican, and I've read a bit about that recently in other venues. There isn't anything wrong with being a Republican; I'm a leftist Democrat who thinks even Barack comes across as too centrist in some of his views, but there are still Republicans that I like and respect. Chuck Hagel, Christopher Hitchens, Colin Powell all come to mind at this second. I've read all of Hitchens' books, love Hagel's reputation for bipartisanship, and was moved to tears by Powell's recent endorsement of Obama. I don't really believe in voting strictly on party lines (I'm a registered Green, technically, although I plan to switch to the Democrats shortly). I think each candidate should be taken on their own merits, regardless of party ties, and I don't think voting for a third party candidate is a waste of a vote (although, someone living in a swing state should think long and hard about the implications a third party vote might have, for either of the two major candidates, and consider the possible role Nader might have played in 2000--although I'd have voted for Nader that year if I was old enough to vote). I think if you're socially conservative, the McCain/Palin ticket is for you. Fiscal conservatives, maybe not so much--Barr would probably be a better choice. Anyone thinking about voting for Nader, go to his website. Like I said, I'm registered as a Green Party member and registered for that party when Nader had been the recent candidate for them, loved the guy, still think he's extremely principled. Nader doesn't dislike Barack Obama; there's a lot of material on his website that points to that. I don't think Nader is running because he finds a lot of fault with Obama, I think at this point, he's running because he finds fault with a two-party system, like many people do, but if you read between the lines on his website, there's a willingness there to work with the Democratic Party (or a plea that they will work with him). As a Jewish American, I feel affronted at McCain's pandering to this community. Let us vote because we're informed about the issues--don't scare our grandparents into voting for you based on lies and fearmongering. And charges of socialism/Marxism/communism are hurting McCain in the older Jewish community; my own grandfather was blacklisted once upon a time. Those "anti-American" charges ruined a lot of lives once upon a time, and the Jewish community was particularly hit hard by that. Do not think you will win votes in this community by reviving McCarthyism. Also, deriding higher education and community organizing are not selling points within the Jewish community--shouting, "Barack hates Israel" in our faces is an affront to us, as well (see Ed Koch, who voted for Bush in recent years, and his recent political activities for more insight on what the McCain campaign is doing wrong regarding Jewish Americans). Anyway, the polls are sure to tighten in McCain's favor somewhat; Barack will not win by a large margin, and this will be no landslide. Barack will most likely win by under 5 points. Last minute scare tactics (Bill Ayres, the PLO thing, perhaps the ghost of Jeremiah Wright) haven't really worked so far, especially when we're worried about the economy. I don't care about Bill Ayres or Liddy or Wright or Keating 5 or either candidate's ties to the PLO--I do care about the economy, ending this war, bringing our troops home, job creation, Roe v. Wade, early childhood education, improving public schools, stem-cell research, the environment, and so on and so on. Also, as Al Gore will tell you, watch the Electoral College, not the national polls. Barack will probably win both in the end (the popular vote and the electoral votes), but in the end, the EC is what matters. Barack has a few roads to victory; McCain has only one or two. He will not win all the states Bush won (IA and NM, for example, are solidly Democratic now), and so he may try to flip some blue states (PA seems to be his path right now). But PA is consistantly polling in the low double-digits, high single digits, for Obama. That doesn't look good for McCain at all, if that's the way he's trying to win. I don't think we'll be up all night on Election Day, but I don't think this will be a landslide, either.

littleaudrey

Joined: 1/17/2008

Msg: 102 (view)

Buying the presidency? Posted: 10/30/2008 5:21:06 AM
I don't think Barack has "bought" the presidency; if anyone's bought it, it's the small donors who contributed to his campaign, the regular people like me who gave what they could afford. I make 25k a year after taxes and gave $100 dollars. My husband was a student at the time he donated and gave $25 dollars. Donating that money made us feel so great; it made us feel like we were a part of the campaign. When McCain goes on and on about all those unverified credit card donations online, it makes me annoyed because he's trying to taint the small donor contributions like mine, and it also reeks of sour grapes. I think grassroots campaigns like Barack's are what should really count. I think it's more honorable to raise your own money from your supporters. And by the way, McCain can use money from donors; they just can't give it to him directly. They can give it to the RNC, who can in turn use it for the McCain campaign if they choose to. It's not our fault that the RNC has such little faith in their candidate and his veep that they're distancing themselves from them. Maybe if McCain had chosen a better VP who appealed more to centrists and undecideds (or at least had some knowledge of national/foreign affairs...at all) and if he had stuck to his promise to run a clean campaign, he would still have a chance.

littleaudrey

Joined: 1/17/2008

Msg: 415 (view)

eHarmony...STAY AWAY FROM THIS SITE!!! Posted: 9/25/2008 1:22:33 PM
Wow, eHarmony wouldn't even give me a chance to let them screw me. I was one of the "20 percent" unmatchable folks, based on that two hour questionnaire I filled out. I made the mistake of being bluntly honest on the questionnaire, thinking it really would help them find me compatible matches. I said yes, I am a smoker, and yes, I am an atheist and yes, I tend to take more than I give, and so on and so on. When they rejected me, I was annoyed. Just for fun, I went back and filled out the questionnaire as a robot would. Christian non-smoker, healthy lifestyle, drinks socially, likes walks on the beach, always honest and kind, healthy sexual attitudes but won't jump into bed with just anyone, demure and sweet and giving and perfect and so on and so on. Obviously, the second questionnaire accepted me. I ended up at Match.com instead and met someone as imperfect as myself and married him last Saturday. Ironically, he'd wavered between eHarmony and Match himself but chose Match because it was cheaper. For me, sites that allow you to contact whoever you want and vice versa are better. I don't like having only a limited number of choices. I had great luck on Match, but more than a few people told me not to bother with it because they hadn't had any luck at all. I think that online dating is part chance, part perseverence. I met fifteen guys before meeting the one I married. I felt like giving up but could never quite bring myself to turn off the screen for good. It paid off for me.

littleaudrey

Joined: 1/17/2008

Msg: 58 (view)

Obama picks Joe Biden for VP Posted: 8/23/2008 9:50:35 AM
I've read some articles that think McCain's attack ads on Biden's criticism of Obama will backfire, because it will show the swing vote that Obama is willing to surround himself with both people who agree and disagree with him--a refreshing idea in a politician. I was shocked when I found out the veep pick was Biden. I was still thinking it would be Kaine from VA or Hillary. I read some things about Biden, and I think he is a great choice. For instance, I read that he takes the Amtrak commuter train to work every day. Small things like that are important to me because I'm tired of having these elite, billionaire politicians who are so out of touch with American life that they say the economy isn't doing that bad and don't even know what the price of gas is. I also would like some family men in office. As a young wife with a husband and baby, it doesn't impress me to have someone in office who traded in his wife for a younger model. A widower (Biden) and a young father (Obama) seem more able to represent the kind of family values that are important to young families like us.

littleaudrey

Joined: 1/17/2008

Msg: 237 (view)

Looking at younger women / girls. Posted: 8/13/2008 10:03:53 AM
It's not really the looking at younger girls thing that is wrong here. It's the horrible way the man in your anecdote speaks to his wife and the fact that he openly looks at other females, PERIOD, knowing that she is there looking at him. The fact that the "other females" here are only 16 is only the icing on this jerk's cake.

littleaudrey

Joined: 1/17/2008

Msg: 51 (view)

Does No Car Mean No Action? Posted: 8/13/2008 10:00:28 AM
I'm 24 and female and I don't have a driver's license. I also don't live in a major metro area--I live in the suburbs of New York, an hour from Manhattan, in an area where you need to drive to survive and public transit, while probably better than in most places, is still really lacking and involves a lot of walking and back-tracking if you intend to use it on a daily basis. I don't drive for a few reasons, none of them great. I failed my road test twice in high school and got discouraged. I lived in a small town in Vermont for five years during college and post-college where a car wasn't necessary because you could walk everywhere. And for some reason, I'm afraid of driving. Can't tell you why, because I don't really get it. Everyone drives. People with the brain cells of an ameoba drive. But I don't. I was lousy when I was learning and afraid now. While I was dating, the fact that I did not drive was not much of an issue to most anyone. I suspect a few guys who lived far-ish drifted away because of me not driving (a guy who lived an hour and a half from me stopped emailing me when he found out that I don't drive, even though I offered to navigate the buses so that he would not have to drive the whole way). But most guys could have cared less. I'm now engaged to someone I met, and he doesn't care that I don't drive and didn't care when we first met. He likes driving and likes the fact that me not driving afforded us more time to spend together (like a shared commute in the mornings and afternoons to our separate offices). Due to me not driving, I started looking in the VERY local area, for the convenience of myself and potential dates. I had the best times with guys who lived within 15 miles of my house; me driving was a non-issue with guys who lived that close. I found that if they lived farther, it was more of an issue.

littleaudrey

Joined: 1/17/2008

Msg: 51 (view)

Are pay dating sites worth it? Posted: 8/4/2008 2:03:59 PM
Yes they are, and I am proof. I am engaged to someone I met on Match and we're having a baby. I had no luck here or any other site. Match had a good selection of people and the sheer cost of the site eliminated many "sex trolls" (men looking for sex who populate free sites). And I met my life's love on Match. POF is better for friends/hookups/casual dating. Match attracts more serious people and I would say that it was the best money I ever spent in my life!

littleaudrey

Joined: 1/17/2008

Msg: 171 (view)

He brought his Fanny with him... Posted: 8/4/2008 2:00:47 PM
The only people I see wearing fanny packs are elderly or disabled. I'd be embarrassed and turned off if a date showed up with a fanny pack, but probably wouldn't have the chutzpah to say anything about it.

littleaudrey

Joined: 1/17/2008

Msg: 232 (view)

Wally-Mart SUX Posted: 7/29/2008 11:53:16 AM
These employees made a CHOICE to interview there. and frankly, they seem quite happy (at least they're friendly and helpful). HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Okay, I'm done now. I worked at Wal-Mart for two years. I have a bachelor's degree in sociology and due to the basic fact that the economy sucks, I found myself using my grand knowledge of Marxian thought to fold clothes, page people to the fitting room, and ring up customers reeking of fecal matter. Literally. Anyway, you get three unpaid absences a calendar year at Wal-Mart. That means you can be absent three times. For every absence you accrue past that, you get written up. They call them "coachings" at Wal-Mart. I guess it goes with the smiley-face decor. Now, I work at a major newspaper. I make a good salary. I have health benefits to die for, two paid weeks of vacation a year, one paid week of illness a year, three paid "mental health" days, and so on and so on and so on. At Wal-Mart, I had no insurance because I could not afford it. Most of my fellow employees had rotting teeth. The worst part about working there is that people treat you like garbage. It's so easy to forget, now that I have a "real" job where people treat me with dignity. Not at Wal-Mart. Customers coming in and asking if you speak English. The people whose rotten children knock over displays and then tell their kids, "Don't pick that up, that's what those employees are paid to do." Welfare recipients looking down their nose at you because you're the only people they feel they can do that to. I went to college. My manager had barely graduated high school and was a year younger than me. It was insulting to my dignity, but I had no choice. Sure, I "chose" to interview there. I "chose" to accept a job there. But the other choice would have been homelessness or public assistance. The only people who'd call taking a job like that a "choice" are people who've never really been faced with that before.

littleaudrey

Joined: 1/17/2008

Msg: 50 (view)

Just an Honest Question...Do guys find intelligence and independance a turn off? Posted: 7/19/2008 9:51:33 AM
A lot of men find intelligence a turnoff if you are smarter than them. If you are smart, but not as smart as them, they love that. LOVE that. Once you hit the point of being smarter than them, many are threatened and become vaguely antagonistic. Independence, they usually like, mostly because many men are wary of gold-diggers and it relieves them of that worry if they see that you make do for yourself.

littleaudrey

Joined: 1/17/2008

Msg: 80 (view)

CAN YOU CLAIM TO BE INTELLIGENT IF YOU DO THINGS THAT DAMAGE YOUR BODY Posted: 7/19/2008 9:41:46 AM
CAN YOU CLAIM TO BE INTELLIGENT IF YOU DO THINGS THAT DAMAGE YOUR BODY Of course you can. In fact, studies have shown that teenagers with IQs in the gifted range (125+) are at very high risk for drug abuse. Why? Because intelligence often breeds depression. I know this from experience. People with high IQs are often at a much elevated risk of suicide, which I mention only because it is part of "damaging your body". I knew a 14 year old boy with an IQ at about 148. He spent every night getting drunk off the gin in his parents' private bar. I knew a boy who spent his entire high school career stoned and not coming to class. He scored over a 1700 on the SATs. He only went to take the test out of boredom. When he saw how good he did, he decided to apply to college on a whim. He was accepted at every school he applied to. I'm in MENSA and I've been known to chain-smoke cigarettes, drink too much, and developed a nearly debilitating fixation on marijuana in college. I spent college covered in vomit and too sick to go to class because of substance problems--yet still made the dean's list. I eventually gave up cigarettes and drugs because I got married and am having a baby. They don't interest me like they used to, and I'm happy now being sober--but the fact that I had drug problems and smoked cigarettes doesn't make me less intelligent. Intelligent people often do those things out of boredom. The world doesn't challenge them, and drugs are a break from the drudgery. Also, a lot of intelligent people are socially inept; drugs and alcohol can help with that. Also, as previously mentioned, some use drugs/alcohol to alleviate depression. Here are some people who are smart. They also smoked. It didn't stop them from being smart. It also didn't stop them from leaving their footprint on the world. Many are from another generation and another time; however, it was recognized, even in Mark Twain's day, for instance, that smoking might be bad for you, and anti-smoking groups were active and vocal. Albert Einstein smoked. Thomas Alva Edison smoked. Alexander Graham Bell smoked. Edwin Hubble smoked. Sigmund Freud smoked. Winston Churchill smoked. Franklin Roosevelt smoked. John F. Kennedy smoked. George Orwell smoked. Oscar Wilde smoked. Jean-Paul Sartre smoked. J.R.R. Tolkien smoked. Mark Twain smoked. Albert Camus smoked. C.S. Lewis smoked. John Lennon smoked. Vincent Van Gogh smoked. Alfred Hitchcock smoked. Claude Monet smoked. Pablo Picasso smoked. Then, there's: Elizabeth Barrett Browning, the opium addict. Lenny Bruce, the heroin addict. William S. Burroughs, a cocaine and heroin addict. Lewis Caroll, lover of magic mushrooms. Grover Cleveland, who had used cocaine. Dali, the painter who loved hashish. Charles****ns, the opium addict. Arthur Conan Doyle also loved his opium. Thomas Alva Edison, the chain-smoker, also liked cocaine. Ben Franklin dabbled in marijuana and opium. Sigmund Freud, the cokehead. Ken Kesey did everything. Picasso, "The smell of opium is the least stupid smell in the world." Jules Verne was a cokehead. I don't believe people who do harm to their body are stupid; I believe that you need to put yourself in the place of another to judge them fairly. I don't believe any of the people I've listed are stupid. Nor am I. In fact, the only stupid thing here is judging another's intelligence by how they care for their body, when there's no correllation.

littleaudrey

Joined: 1/17/2008

Msg: 26 (view)

Women And Children First Posted: 7/16/2008 7:23:25 AM
You'd have better luck finding younger women or older women who don't want kids. Women under thirty don't feel the infamous clock yet, and so aren't nuts about it. Women over 40 are generally done with kids. Women in their 30s (especially those who are childless) are feeling the push to have kids. They don't have a lot of time. If they want children, choose a man who doesn't, and end up staying with him for a few years, they will possibly never be able to have children. They have a small window, and expecting them to waste time on someone who doesn't want kids isn't fair, since it could rob them of having kids forever. I think you're just looking at the wrong age group, and you're probably a bit too old for the 20-somethings, so I'd concentrate on dating women in their 40s if I were you.

littleaudrey

Joined: 1/17/2008

Msg: 161 (view)

Traditional vs. Emergent Dating Etiquette and Beliefs. Posted: 7/16/2008 7:19:37 AM
I've heard men say that they no longer act gentlmanly b/c they've been cursed out by a woman. I've got to ask the women here: have you ever yelled at a guy for holding a door open for you? I'm starting to think this is an urban legend created by men who are jerks. Nothing makes me angrier when I see a pregnant woman standing and no one is getting up for her. If you were a man who was yelled at by a woman, the woman in question is an ass and is no way speaking for my gender. Good point; I've never yelled at a man for holding a door for me. In fact, I'm always touched that some chivalry still does exist. I'm 24, and guys from my generation have yet to grow into their manners, apparently. My father's an old-fashioned guy from the old neighborhood. Won't sit while ladies are standing. Holds doors for young foxes and old bags alike. Would give up his seat, waits until ladies have entered an elevator before stepping inside. My fiance is the same way, and I'm lucky to have found a guy my age who treats women with courtesy and respect. A lot of girls my age (early 20s) look towards dating older men (guys in their 30s) because the older guys have better manners with us. They act like they are lucky to be with us. They don't sit there like idiots and allow us to pay for them. They hold doors and take our coats. If I hadn't found a nice guy my own age, I'd have gone for a guy in his 30s--everyone (even my parents) was telling me to do that. About the pregnant thing, I am pregnant and huge. I have had people push past me in stores, male and female. Nobody's ever given me a seat. Someone opened a door into me once. Not even other women are kind to me about it. It's gotten to the point where I don't even want to leave my house because I never feel up to braving the outside world, heh.

littleaudrey

Joined: 1/17/2008

Msg: 55 (view)

Starting to get turned off with shaved women Posted: 7/15/2008 12:54:09 PM
Now that I'm pregnant, I don't shave. I like it much, much better. My fiance likes it, too; he just hadn't given it a chance before.

littleaudrey

Joined: 1/17/2008

Msg: 62 (view)

Big and bold girls Posted: 7/15/2008 12:51:19 PM
I think occasionally, men might do that, but really, most men are so visual that they wouldn't be able to tolerate being with a woman they found physically repulsive. And, to the men who think that's true, think again. I am 240 pounds. I was 240 pounds years ago when I married a handsome guy who loved me. One of us got bored and cheated. It wasn't him.

littleaudrey

Joined: 1/17/2008

Msg: 184 (view)

Of which astrological sign are most divorced people? Posted: 7/15/2008 12:46:57 PM
My ex-husband is a Leo; he was 23 when we divorced. I'm an Aries and divorced. Aries are hedonistic, I suppose, and not really known for loyalty.

littleaudrey

Joined: 1/17/2008

Msg: 50 (view)

Intelligence, Smart => Have a lot of money and good job? Posted: 7/13/2008 9:31:48 AM
Well, I'm 24 and I'm here. There don't seem to be many girls my age around these boards PERIOD, except maybe in the Sex and Dating forums. But whatever. In my opinion, most people do not really care about "smart". Most people, I have found, do not even really know what "smart" means. And as a result, everyone's definition of "smart" is different. To some people, basic literacy is a sign of intelligence. To some, a logical and mathematical mind is indicative of intelligence. To others, a linguistic/verbal/non-linear way of thinking is "smarter". To others, "smart" has to do with your lifestyle--whether or not you have common sense, for example. Some say drug usage is an indication that someone isn't smart, but in reality, none of that has anything to do with intelligence, particularly drug use. Actually, many smart people use drugs to relieve depression, a common problem among people with high IQs. And to others, "smart" is about IQ and IQ alone. If you're over a certain level, you're smart. If not, you're not. Now, most people's profiles on here and other sites will mention that intelligence of potential dates is important to them, but I don't really think this is true. People care about compatibility, and intelligence seems to be a new euphemism for that. They want someone who understands them and relates to them on their level. And very, very few people consider themselves dumb (or even..gasp.."average"). And so they assume that their "perfect person" must be intelligent--because, of course, they themselves are intelligent in their 0wn minds. But, OP, it isn't just the ladies who'll reject a smart guy for a good-looking/rich/charismatic one. Men are even worse; many say they want a smart women, but believe me, I doubt most do. Men weren't as nice to me when I beat them in debates or told jokes they didn't get. But they loved me when I laughed at their jokes and nodded excitedly at their inane political ideas. Women, at least, often like when a man is brilliant. Most men, however, can't appreciate it when a woman is smarter than them and it makes them feel threatened.

littleaudrey

Joined: 1/17/2008

Msg: 15 (view)

Child support as a weapon? Would you date a girl with drama like this? Posted: 7/13/2008 8:51:56 AM
and of course the single, bitter mothers all jump head first in... I'm actually a non-bitter, married mother. But thanks for assuming. If he isn't financially supporting the child, then he is a piece of crap, a piece of crap you let knock you up. so he OBVIOUSLY wasnt that bad. So, you can TAKE HIM TO COURT LIKE EVERY OTHER NORMAL HUMAN BEING WOULD. Um, this doesn't quite make sense, but let me try to interpret it. Because the woman let the man "knock her up", he can't be a "piece of crap"? I don't understand your logic. Apparently, neither did the people grading the LSAT. Instead of spewing vitriolic rants about single moms, why don't you just not date them and save yourself and others the hassle? You have to be a fairly compassionate person to date someone who has a sensitive situation of parenting alone, and I don't think that person is you.

littleaudrey

Joined: 1/17/2008

Msg: 10 (view)

Child support as a weapon? Would you date a girl with drama like this? Posted: 7/13/2008 7:24:08 AM
Do you consider a mother who threatens to not allow the father to see the children if he doesn't give her X amount of money a chid abuser? No. In fact, I think your post unfairly villainizes single mothers while making their ex-husbands out to be the victims. I would say when there is a victim in divorce situations (other than the child), it is usually not the man. For EVERY woman who gets your "80 grand" a year in child support, there are likely 50+ on welfare who can't find their exes and likely would get nothing out of them anyway, being that it's unlikely that most of these men make salaries comparable to 50 Cent. (Hint: I took the LSAT too. If you want to pass next time, don't back up your arguments with rap stars. They don't like that.) If the woman is making ends meet, sure, asking for more money is greedy, but to call it child abuse is trivializing real child abuse. And no, I would not call someone I was seeing out on their custody/child support problems. It's not my business, it's rude, and the only person in the wrong in this situation is you.

littleaudrey

Joined: 1/17/2008

Msg: 733 (view)

Let the real show begin (Obama VS McCain) What are your thoughts Posted: 7/10/2008 6:08:35 PM
I read that McCain is having a difficult time finding a platform. He's not religious enough (or pushing a religious enough agenda) for the evangelicals, who don't like him. He's not "hard right" enough for the hard right of the party, and they don't like him. He could possibly play well with Reagan Democrats and unhappy Hillary people, but two problems: 1) are they big enough to carry him? and 2) Although he, himself is a moderate/soft Republican, he's portraying himself as more conservative to win over his party, and Obama's very presence makes him look more conservative to the American public. This could hurt him with people who still view themselves as primarily Democratic. Latinos (technically, a "sort of" swing group) don't seem to like him all that much for issues relating to the war and to illegal immigration. (And it doesn't help that Hispanic leaders like Bill Richardson are in the Obama camp). Catholics favor him over Obama, but by a surprisingly low margin. I think it's about ten percent, which is a lead, yes, but not as much of a lead as he should have, if voting trends in the past are any clue. He has ignored the youth vote (under 25ers) mostly, which is probably sound, as he fares extremely poorly with them (and the same with the black vote). However, as a member of the "youth vote" myself, I am keenly aware that he is not talking to me when he gives speeches; he's talking to my grandmother. It makes me like him less. Part of Obama's appeal is that he's reached out to people like me who have gotten used to being ignored by politicians because they're either part of a small voting bloc (Native Americans, as an example) or because they're part of a historically low-voter turnout bloc (young people and blacks). McCain has not done the same, which is part of the reason few people are energized about his candidacy. He's not made people feel important, not made people feel a part of the process. He's not doing that great with Jews, but Republicans rarely do. Jews are a small voting bloc, but they're always extremely involved, vocal, and always (always) always always vote. Having the Jewish vote only helps a politician, and I think Bloomberg's speech helped Obama in the Jewish community (my granny is a lost cause, but that's another story). Women favor Obama by a higher amount than expected, factoring in angry Hillary supporters who are voting McCain, Nader, or not at all (most of whom are women). McCain has not played well with women on the issue of the war (women support the war by a lesser margin than men do) and obvious issues of reproductive rights and other issues that affect women (the fair wage act). White men favor McCain, but not as much as they "should". The only group McCain blows Obama out of the water in is the senior citizen group, to my knowledge. Blocs he should have by a landslide, he doesn't. He's never been the darling of his party, has always been viewed as a sort of "he'll do" type of person. This election was no different. He wasn't picked because he was great. He was picked because he wasn't the worst choice. This is especially clear when seeing what kinds of states are on the table. VIRGINIA? That was a gimme to former Republican candidates. The fact that that state is south of the Mason-Dixon and Obama is black should have helped sew that one right up for McCain, but it hasn't. That's a problem for them, and a big one at that. It's also indicative of changing trends and voting groups and ideals. I think a major part of his candidacy's problem is that he is viewed in relation to Obama. When I talk to people about Obama, their eyes light up. People talk about his education reform, his anti-war stance, his community service ideas. They talk about how much they love him and how great he is. When I talk to people about McCain, they talk about how bad Obama is. Rarely, does anyone go on and on about what a stellar candidate McCain is; instead, they talk about why they don't like Obama. That's not good news; a candidate's supporters should be talking about their candidate on his own merits, not solely in relation to the other candidate. Another problem that McCain has is that he needs to attack Obama to win votes--but he can't do that. The Republican party is divided on that issue. Some say "bring out the guns" and want McCain to run Obama's name through the mud. Others (Mike Huckabee comes to mind) warn that that's the surest way to lose. Obama is well-liked as a human being by a lot of people. To smear someone like him isn't wise, but what is McCain supposed to do? He'll look like a bully if he attacks Obama--and in this election, "playing nice" seems to be what Americans want to see. It seems like McCain is fighting an uphill battle and struggling to find both relevance in today's society and struggling to find a platform. He's floundered with every step, his campaign workers being shuffled around and interchanging, he can't be "too mean" to Obama, but a faction of his party is demanding that he do that (and is even putting out ads of their own smearing Obama, which McCain's own campaign is trying to put an end to because it reflects on McCain himself). He can't be "too nice" to Obama, either, because he needs to find a way to sully him somehow or he will lose. He is also in the tenuous position of being the underdog (which Americans love) but being SEEN as not-the-underdog. That's bad; the underdog label only works if people view you as an underdog. If you're the underdog and people think you're on top, well, then you got a problem. I read news articles on the election every day. I look at four different major news sites daily and read everything I can on each candidate. I know what Obama stands for, but I can't tell about McCain. To me, a liberal, he seems the same as Bush. Many of his supporters say that isn't true, but I don't see the difference.

littleaudrey

Joined: 1/17/2008

Msg: 16 (view)

Second time around-how does it make you feel? Posted: 7/9/2008 7:22:57 AM
It's happened to me, and I've done it to others. Usually, people come back with a lame excuse about being busy or having family issues or work issues, but sometimes the truth comes out. One guy I went out with once dropped off the face of the earth. I was more confused than hurt; I could tell he thought I was cute and that we'd had fun together. Months later, he emailed me to apologize. Said that a girl at his office whom he'd had a crush on for months suddenly returned his feelings. Said it didn't work out with her, that he had liked me and had thought I was cute, was upset with himself for not coming clean to me, for just disappearing on me. He asked me to dinner. I would have gone if in those few months, I hadn't gotten engaged and pregnant. He was an okay guy, more or less my type (which means the world to us "weirdos" out there who never seem to find anyone of their type). Anyway. I've rabbited on others too, mostly guys I felt nothing for, just contacting them again after "better" options didn't pan out, or just out of sheer boredom. Some were receptive. Most knew they were being used for entertainment and pretty much ignored me. It happens. I'd say that if you really like the person who has resurfaced, give him or her another chance. If they do it again, that's the end of it.

littleaudrey

Joined: 1/17/2008

Msg: 36 (view)

Traditional vs. Emergent Dating Etiquette and Beliefs. Posted: 7/7/2008 1:23:04 PM
If you expect traditional gender roles on a date, that should not be exclusive. Yes, you get to be wined and dined in the beginning. But please don't start crying "women's lib" when you're the one who has to leave your career for a baby, the one who has a meal on the stove every night, the one who has to vacuum and cook and clean. I am a traditional woman. I expect to be treated like a traditional lady on a date, and am insulted by the thought of going dutch. However, that does not end there for me. For most women, it probably does. Weed them out and do yourself a favor; there is nothing more disgusting than a woman who picks and chooses faux-feminist battles.

littleaudrey

Joined: 1/17/2008

Msg: 31 (view)

Intelligence, Smart => Have a lot of money and good job? Posted: 7/7/2008 12:15:37 PM
It depends on who you are talking to. When I say that I want an intelligent guy, it means someone who can beat me in Scrabble (or at least give me a run for my money). Someone who can deftly poke holes in my political arguments and make me angry (but also excite me). Someone who prefers theological debate to football, someone who knows that educated doesn't equal smart. Someone who finds society both annoying and hilarious, someone who has to work REALLY hard to keep derision out of his voice when talking about society. Someone who defines himself by his oddity, who always has a book with him, who has interests that ensnare his attention like photography or poetry or jigsaw puzzles. But I am not the average girl, and my definition of intelligent is based on my own. The average girl thinks "intelligent" means able to tell jokes that make her laugh (probably stolen from a Will Ferrell skit), being a good dancer, and knowing things like what the difference between a Democrat and a Republican is. Literacy optional. If the girl seems smart in her profile, her standards of smart are probably higher than someone who doesn't seem so bright, that's all. Intelligence isn't something most women actively seem to want, or if they do, it usually isn't a "top three" priority; it's just become the norm to put it in your profile. People say "intelligent" to mean "someone like me", most of the time. They want someone who can talk to them, someone on their level. Someone who understands their jokes, someone with similar goals, values, and thoughts. Someone "too smart" wouldn't be much fun, and neither would someone "not smart enough". So much of our personalities are based on intelligence, and things like IQ (hotly contested, I know, but move on) have been shown to determine things like what job someone will have, what religious beliefs they have, what kind of friends they have, their values, morals, and interests. All those things are likely at least tenuously (or directly) connected to intelligence. That's my two cents, I guess. God, I'm long-winded sometimes.

littleaudrey

Joined: 1/17/2008

Msg: 169 (view)

Does our partner have the right to know? Posted: 7/7/2008 11:59:38 AM
If the man your with ,disclosed that he when to a hooker every thursday after he got paid ,for the last couple years and basically had a new one each time..that wouldnt bother you ????....gimme a break...woudlnt YOU like to know the truth BEFORE you invested 3 years into that guy ? Actually, my fiance admitted that he had a problem with hookers before he met me. He was shy and awkward and felt less bad paying for "companionship" than approaching a girl and saying hello. He was a virgin and felt bad about himself. When he told me, I didn't care. I have social anxiety too, and it made me feel connected with him. I can understand the loneliness. Men often reach out for companionship through sex. The getting off part is secondary, sometimes, to other things. But whatever. Some women would care, some wouldn't. I'd assume older women would care about things like sexual partners more than younger women. In this generation, promiscuity seems to be more the rule. Lately, my magic number (which seemed high as a kite to me in the late 90s) seems dim in comparison to some of the numbers I hear bandied about. But men always seem to care about how many other men have been with their girl. It's chauvenistic, a double standard, and will likely never die. As long as women are women and men are men, one gender's "number" is halved while another's is doubled. I wouldn't use this question as a test of honesty/true character. I slept around in high school because I felt fat, unloved, and ugly. My number from age 18 and on? Probably three. All of whom I loved. Include my reckless teenage years, though, and that number runs up to a lot more than I'll say on a message board. Should a man now believe I'm loose because of stuff I did ten years ago, as an underage kid? I don't think so. I'm not the same person I was at fifteen; is anyone? Also, men are made to feel they have to exaggerate their number to feel wanted and masculine and important. Women are made to feel that they have to lessen theirs in order to feel good about themselves. It isn't a fair question to ask for that reason; people are almost expected to lie about it.

littleaudrey

Joined: 1/17/2008

Msg: 49 (view)

They did it with the ex, so why not with you? Srsly Srs Posted: 7/7/2008 6:32:57 AM
We learn a lot of things from our exes and past relationships. I have done nutty sexual things in my past (a few threesomes) that I would NEVER do again, ever. I love my fiancee to death, but I know that threesomes lead to nothing good and I am no longer nineteen years old. My fiance, I know, thinks the idea of threesomes are hot, but I doubt he'd ever ask me to have one, and if he did, I would say no. I said yes to a past boyfriend, but I regretted it. Just because a woman has done something once (or repeatedly with the same person) does not mean that there's a problem if she chooses not to do it later on. Every relationship is different, and every combination of people is different. Me and my ex-husband used to have wild sex. We would tell each other lurid fantasies, spank each other, and play with lots of sex toys. Sometimes, we did have threesomes. We were crazy. Me and my fiance now have "boring" sex, in comparison. Always missionary. Quick. No fantasies, no toys, no spanking, no threesomes. A little bit of oral. That's it. Guess what? That's what I like. I am not the kinky type; my ex-husband was, and I bent to his will. Now, I feel more equal in my relationship and so we have the kind of sex I like to have--nice, normal, "boring". So it might seem that my kinky ex got more from me, but he got less enjoyment from me in the long run.

littleaudrey

Joined: 1/17/2008

Msg: 153 (view)

Does our partner have the right to know? Posted: 7/7/2008 6:23:00 AM
I think when it comes to RIGHT to know, we are talking things like STDs that could conceivably affect you in the present. I think, as a rule, new monogamous partners should go to the clinic together and get STD tests for everything. Together. That way, it is all laid out on the table and nobody can pretend that they want to know how many people you slept with to "protect" themselves. I asked my boyfriend about former partners because I was curious. The number did not matter to me. It was lower than mine, but still fairly high. He asked me about my number because he was curious. That's all. It is not anyone's right to know how many people you sleep with, but it is their right to know if you are disease-free or not. Things like former marriages fall under "right to know" as well, and certainly kids, but that is because it could affect your present life. Things that could have absolutely no bearing on you whatsoever from your partner's past are not right-to-know things, but are curiosity things.

littleaudrey

Joined: 1/17/2008

Msg: 50 (view)

Can cheating on your partner make your relationship BETTER? Posted: 7/7/2008 6:18:17 AM
Yes, but usually not. An affair destroyed my short-term marriage. We'd been together for five years and were married for two. I had an affair for eight months. My spouse found out and asked me to stop, but I couldn't, like a compulsion. The marriage ended, and I was hurt and regretful. It would have saved us both a lot of pain if I had sat down with him and told him that I felt he didn't love me and wasn't attracted to me, that I was unhappy with our sex life and my libido was gone, that we seemed to run out of things to say to each other, that maybe us getting together at age 18 wasn't such a good idea, that I had so much more living to do, that I wanted to do it with him but that we'd fallen out of love. It would have been easier to go to counseling and see if we could fall in love again. If we had been ten or twenty years older, yeah, maybe the affair could have been viewed as a "wakeup call", but not when we were 22. My mother had an affair on my cold and emotionally distant father. Instead of destroying their 35 year marriage, it was the fire under Dad's butt that propelled him to go to marriage counseling, to take Mom out, and to explore his feelings. Some couples would have divorced over this, but my parents worked it out. It made him realize that he actually loved my mom, when he was in danger of losing her. Most of the time, an affair will destroy a relationship. Sometimes, it won't, and it will make it stronger. I've been in relationships before where I was cheated on, and I've been the cheater. Now, a divorce later, I'm monogamous again and have no more desire for illicit extramarital excitement. I'll take being "old and boring" over "young and polyamorous" any day of the week.

littleaudrey

Joined: 1/17/2008

Msg: 418 (view)

Your Pet or YourRelationship? Posted: 7/7/2008 6:10:01 AM
Depends on how long I've been in the relationship, I guess. If we were at the "moving in" stage, I would probably choose the boyfriend. But it wouldn't be easy and other factors would weigh in. I would not leave a cherished family pet at the pound, for example, and nor would I get rid of an elderly or sick pet who would need the comfort of stability for just a bit longer. Ideally, a family member would likely take the pet (they have done it before). It would hurt me a lot to do this, though, and the boyfriend better have a darn good reason why allergy medicine is out of the question.

littleaudrey

Joined: 1/17/2008

Msg: 654 (view)

Expain the phrase My children are my top priority? Posted: 7/7/2008 6:06:21 AM
I wouldn't respond to a profile with this in it, not because the sentiment turns me off, but because I think writing this in an online profile where you're looking for dates is unintelligent. How can you hope to attract others by informing them right off the bat that they'll never be a priority to you? Anyway, I think the phrase, as trite and unwise as it is to use, just means that if you ask them to choose between you and their kid, they will choose the kid. This could mean in a forever way (as in, asking someone to stop having weekend visits with their child because it cuts in on time with you) or in a daily way (as in, everything always revolves around the kid). I'm pregnant and engaged. If I were single and my baby had been born and I was on here again, I'd mention the child in my profile but probably fleetingly. This isn't really the place to go on and on about your kids. And leave the kids out of the photos, too; anyone can sign up on this or any site, and you don't need to expose a child to unknown danger.

Show ALL Forums