REGISTER
|
MAIL/PROFILE
|
HELP
|
NOW ONLINE
|
SEARCH
|
RATING
| FORUMS |
SUCCESS STORIES
Posted In Forum:
All Forums
Alabama
Alaska
Alberta
Arizona
Arkansas
Art/Music
Ask A Girl
Ask A Guy
Australia
British Columbia
Broken Hearts
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Dating & Love Advice
Dating Experiences
Dating Sites
Delaware
District Of Columbia
Event Hosts forum
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Health & Fitness
Humor
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Introductions
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Manitoba
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Brunswick
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
Newfoundland
News/Current Events
North Carolina
North Dakota
Nova Scotia
Off Topic
Ohio
Oklahoma
Ontario
Oregon
Over 30
Over 45
Pennsylvania
Plentyoffish Get Togethers
Plentyoffish Site/Suggestions/Help
Poems And Quotes
Politics
Prince Edward Island
Profile Reviews
Quebec
Recipes & Cooking
Relationships
Religion/Supernatural
Rhode Island
Saskatchewan
Science/Philosophy
Sex and Dating
Single Parents
South Carolina
South Dakota
Sports
Stories/creative writing
Technology and computers
Tennessee
Testimonials
Texas
Uk Forums
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Volunteer Moderators Only
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Home
login
MyForums
Show ALL Forums
Author
Thread: Of Fakes and Flakes...
pygalgia
Joined:
10/28/2005
Msg:
35 (
view
)
Of Fakes and Flakes...
Posted:
10/9/2009 10:13:28 AM
Yup. I agree with most -- lose the restrictions like "no photo, no friendship, no dating" etc. Some of the sweetest (and nicest looking) guys I've met over the years had no photo or had posted a really horrid one. And I have many times been pleasantly surprised when someone outside my usual parameters for age, interests and background turned out to be very compatible. Most people don't want to vetted like they were applying for a job when someone considers meeting them. And "chemistry" (especially as we grow older, wiser, more cautious and more individualized) can truly occur slowly. My most passionate relationships since I turned 40 were with the most unexpected guys including one I went out with 3 times (because he insisted and I had nothing better to do) though I didn't find him that attractive. Somehow during the 4th date (when I intended to tell him I didn't think there was any point in continuing to see each other) lightning struck and I fell for him like a ton of bricks (I was sober, incidentally). So glad we had that 4th date, which lead to many others and some lovely memories. Still waters can run deep. Step out of your comfort zone and you might be pleasantly surprised.
Making platonic friends isn't a bad idea either. Friends have friends -- I've personally matched up several couples through folks I met on-line. I often meet a guy for a casual date, realize we don't click but think "hmm, great guy and he would be perfect for my friend X" and give them each other's phone numbers. Treat this as a social network rather than as a catalog shopping mall for romance and you'll have better results.
Plus, bear in mind that the first few months for almost any reasonably attractive woman on an dating site are what I call "wading through the swamp." There is a whole cadre of compulsive male "browsers" who systematically hone in on any new women who appear on the site. You are essentially the "fresh meat on the counter". Some of these guys are really good -- you would never guess reading what seems like a truly personal contact from them that it is a pre-written generic e-mail they have sent (and will continue to send) to dozens of women. To continue the "fish in the sea" analogy, they are drift-netters, going for saturation to maximize the potential catch. In most cases they will not have read your profile at all (they save that for later, if you are one of the percentage who have actually responded). At best they will have quickly scanned it for a few key words. I've persuaded a number of my female friends to switch to POF and we always get a good laugh out of the same block of local and out-of-town guys sending them the same pre-packaged e-mails that I got when I first signed on here 4 years ago. Some of these men are nearly legendary -- maybe POF should have a "Hall of Fame" (or shame?) sort of like the "Best of Craigslist" to recognize these compulsive overachievers.
And you have to watch that your specific "requirements" list doesn't backfire: I used to have in my profile that I would rather have a root canal than have to watch a NASCAR event, go to a casino or listen to country music. Putting that in my profile TRIPLED the number of hits I got from good old boys whose lives revolved around those activities -- they just spotted "NASCAR...casino...C & W" and figured I was a good ole girl too.
I find it best to regard a site like POF as like a giant party you walk into, mostly full of strangers. Cruising the forums is like wandering around and eavesdropping on conversations -- it's a great way to find people (male or female) whose perspectives resonate with you. If you participate, you WILL attract attention, good and bad, so watch how you come across (I've been guilty myself of being overly cranky on forums -- a bad idea.) And flirting with strangers is good practice.
Hang in there.
pygalgia
Joined:
10/28/2005
Msg:
62 (
view
)
Which date left you laughing
Posted:
10/3/2009 8:20:31 AM
I was 18 and had just started living in the dorms at university in my home town. It was summer session with not many people on campus so I was bored and lonely. A few months before I had been working in the "ladies' accessories" department of a department store when two long-haired, outrageously dressed guys showed up at the counter. Turned out they were in a rock band getting ready to go on tour and one of them wanted a bunch a long, flashy scarves. I sold them a whole bag while the shorter, blonde one (a real cutie) flirted with me. I hadn't thought much about the incident until I got a call at the dorm (this was back before cell phones when all the students on one floor shared a couple of pay phones) from a guy saying "Remember me, the rocker who bought the scarves from you? Wanna go out?" Turned out he had tracked me down through the store by telling them he was an old school friend of mine. I was thrilled and agreed to meet him on the steps of the student union that evening, where he said he would pick me up in his red convertible. I dressed in my best hippie girl duds, black bellbottoms, suede boots and lots of scarves and beads and sat on the steps waiting.
My date was late but meanwhile a very cute fellow student came by and sat next to me and introduced himself. We hit it off and he invited me to go get a coffee -- told him I was so sorry but was waiting for a date, but.....just as I was about to ask him for a phone number so we could get together some other time I realized his gaze had turned toward the curb and he had this look of shock. I turned to look myself and saw this enormous red low rider Cadillac approaching, at least I think it was red because it was almost completely covered with bumper stickers with slogans like "F**k the Pigs", "Revolution Now", "All riders pay: A*s or Grass" as well as flaming skulls and naked women, etc. The finishing touch was the naked plastic baby doll impaled on the antenna. Leaning out of the drivers window was this hulking, scowling guy with waist length black hair, a bristling moustache, a large scar on his cheek and a gold ring in his nose, dressed almost entirely in black leather. "Hey, College Boy, get away from my date!" he yelled as he sprang out of the car, and my new friend jumped up and scurried away. Too dumbstruck to react, I let this apparition steer me into the passenger seat.
I realized too late that this was NOT the cute blonde guy I had been focusing on back in the store, but his large sullen buddy who had been standing behind him during the transaction. It turned out my "date" ("just call me Dirty Dave") was the band's "security chief" (i.e. chief roadie) and told me proudly he was a former member of the Hell's Angels. He proceeded to drag me through a tour of the wild underbelly of the city: biker bars, topless joints, after-hours clubs -- it felt like a Fellini movie. I was seriously underage and had never even tasted a beer. I don't think I said anything more than " uh, nice to meet you" during the whole night as he introduced me to an endless string of fellow bikers, tattooed thugs, pimps, drag queens and strippers boozing it up and snorting coke (I managed to discreetly avoid ingesting anything but a couple glasses of 7-Up). I couldn't have said anything if I had wanted to because he kept up a constant rap about his life and his run-ins with the law and the price on his head and the unruly fans he had to "stomp" when the band was on tour.
I just sort of went on stunned "deer in the headlights" automatic pilot, looking for a chance to flee before he offered me up for a gang bang or traded me for drugs or something but we were in such rough neighborhoods that seemed risky. After about 4 hours of this I finally convinced him I wasn't feeling well and got him to drive me home. Surprisingly, he was quite the gentleman and never got physical with me. However, as he dropped me off he said he wanted to see me again and hoped I didn't have any other boyfriends because then he'd have to "stomp them." He started calling me daily after that but I had left a note on the dorm phone for anyone answering to say I wasn't there. After two weeks (and increasing irritation of my dorm mates) I took his call, disguising my voice with a Spanish accent as "her roommate, Maria" and told him I had transferred to another school in Alaska! I never ran into that cute student from the Student Union steps again.
I was terrified at the time, but actually laugh now whenever I remember that "adventure".
pygalgia
Joined:
10/28/2005
Msg:
13 (
view
)
Shades, Shorts and I got to dress Funky?
Posted:
7/11/2009 10:12:57 PM
Oh, shoot. Missed the chance to give some wardrobe advice before your party! Also, happy belated birthday, fellow Cancerian (mine was 2 weeks ago).
I sang in a couple of bands back in my late teens, early 20's including backup with one that played "funk-a-delic" (a hybrid of R & B, rock and dance grooves with a dash of modern jazz and spacey wierdness -- the grand-daddy of artists like Prince.) I acted as sort of unofficial costume designer for our stage outfits. Classic "funk" get-up would be hot pants (the term back then for short shorts, usually worn low on the hips with a wide, large-buckled belt), a wild geometric print shirt in bright colors with an oversized collar or ruffles, knee high boots or platform heels, some kind of vest, wacky oversized shades (think Elton John) and/or trailing colorful scarves. Anything paisley or leopard print or fringed suede would qualify too. Or imagine a drag queen on Star Trek (or Beyonce Knowles character's outfits in the last Austin Powers movie) and you get the picture.
Anyway, I trust you pulled together something "funky" for the party tonight and hope it was a blast.
As to your question on the etymology of "funky" - yes, there is one form of it that is used to denote something foul-smelling but it's pronounced "faaahwn-kee" (spoken with the first syllable drawn out and the nose wrinkled up as in disgust) rather than "funk-ee"
pygalgia
Joined:
10/28/2005
Msg:
242 (
view
)
Hassle free dating
Posted:
7/9/2009 12:53:18 PM
Ah, before the mods intervene and justifiably "kill" this overly personalized thread, I will bow out.
Yes, Ren, you are "right" -- I'm one of those hopelessly uptight and controlling, not to mention man-hating, prudes who makes dating a tiresome "hassle" for God-fearing red-blooded men like yourself.
And "love at first sight" is truly the only valid paradigm for pairing off. All those late-blooming couples I know are obviously delusional. I should be grateful that my parents never realized the mistake they had made before concieving me.
I concede to your superior wisdom.
pygalgia
Joined:
10/28/2005
Msg:
241 (
view
)
Hassle free dating
Posted:
7/9/2009 12:44:40 PM
The whole point of the OP is that to date someone, who thinks "her way" is the "way it's going to be", about the whole dating process, just creates hassles.
So how is it that "if I'm not immediately turned on by you won't deserve a second date because I know I could NEVER feel attracted to you if it doesn't happen right away for me" doesn't qualify as "YOUR way" and "the way it's going to be"? Who's "controlling" and "unilateral" in that case?
I'm hardly a buttoned-up prude and have no problem telling a man I find him very attractive and appealing when we first meet. But I also make it clear (as would most women and many men), if he presses for physical contact before I am comfortable with it, that I want to wait. And by "comfortable" I mean in all senses of the word -- I have a strong libido but have learned through experience that letting it prematurely set the pace has generally turned out badly. I know that the "little head" can have a powerful overriding influence over the "big head" for men too, so I feel a certain responsibility to step up and set the brakes a bit for both our benefits. In fact, that is not just because I may feel uncomfortable -- I have learned that many men who seem eager to jump into a sexual relationship have more difficulty dealing with the emotional and intimate consequences of it than I do. I think there is a tendency for some guys, especially ones who've only been single a little while or who have not had a partner for some time, to overestimate their readiness to embark on a sexual relationship. Kudos to you if you have no problems performing and and retaining your emotional equilibrium in starting a new affair. All of your middle-aged brothers are not so fortunate. My cautiousness takes their possible responses into account. There are few more unhappy and awkward situations than having to try to salve the self-punishing ego of a man you don't know that well when your seemingly ardent lover becomes embarassed and defensive because he can't follow through on a seduction due to physical frailty or nerves. Often you are damned if you do or don't -- the more gentle and understanding you are, the more humiliated the guy will feel. Why risk that?
I'm quite puzzled that you seem to agree with me on this (both people being truly "ready") yet still want to demonize me as some sort of up-tight cold fish.
Makes me suspect you just like to argue and to be "right" all the time. And anything that doesn't happen the way YOU prefer it is "controlling" and "wrong."
pygalgia
Joined:
10/28/2005
Msg:
236 (
view
)
Hassle free dating
Posted:
7/9/2009 10:48:02 AM
This is not a contest. Nonetheless, in hindsight, I mispoke in claiming 40 years of singlehood -- there was a 10 year childless marriage in there, which ended in part because I eventually realized as we entered our mid-thirties that my partner was not emotionally, morally or financially reliable enough to be a decent father.
And holding back on becoming sexually involved with an attractive new person until you have a better understanding of their character and motives is hardly a "controlling" or "external notion". There is a huge difference between being "controlling" and exercising reasonable "self-control". And my sense of caution arises from deeply internal self-respect and earned wisdom, nothing "external" about it. In addition, though I have always had a healthy and uninhibited enthusiasm for sex, I have found as I get older that being physical with a new person too soon feels awkward and off-putting -- I enjoy it much more if I wait until I am familiarly comfortable with a partner.
pygalgia
Joined:
10/28/2005
Msg:
233 (
view
)
Hassle free dating
Posted:
7/9/2009 9:38:38 AM
Once that sparkle of sexual novelty has subsided you really do find out if you are truly suited for one another.. This can in fact be the most beautiful part of the relationship because you have fallen even more deeply in love and formed a bond that goes way way beyond just the physical..
Oh, I absolutely agree that is the best of all possible worlds! However, I think in our age group that becomes more statistically rare. Individuals who are psychologically mature and healthy enough to negotiate that evolving period of waning "romance" and build the bond beyond the physical are going to tend to have found themselves long term partnerships or marriage and be out of the pool, right?
What remains is a larger proportion of the fickle and the impatient, those who are chronically unable or unwilling to move into the deeper level of self-revelation and vulnerability that is required to form the deeper connection with a person once they are no longer a novel and provocative mystery (particularly when other "fresh" novelties are available.)
pygalgia
Joined:
10/28/2005
Msg:
229 (
view
)
Hassle free dating
Posted:
7/9/2009 9:25:11 AM
And before someone calls me a hypocrite because I admitted to having had a string of 18 month relationships in the past: yes, I experienced that and recognized the sources of the pattern. I used to fall for rapid infatuation and lived to tell about it. I also learned that the really satisfying relationships, the ones I still recall with pleasure and that had a deep positive impact on my emotional growth, were the ones that evolved slowly. That's why I hold back now if there is an immediate urgency of attraction to a new person. Unfortunately, this means I have fewer relationships because there are so many men like the OP who quickly lose interest if there is not a lightning strike of rapport or I appear reticent.
To me, that cycle of infatuation and collapse is like trying to staunch your hunger by grabbing food off the shelf based on how colorful the packages are and bolting it down, only to find the contents are tasteless or make you ill. These days, I take time to read the ingredients, so to speak.
pygalgia
Joined:
10/28/2005
Msg:
227 (
view
)
Hassle free dating
Posted:
7/9/2009 9:10:27 AM
Attraction and desire are there, or they aren't, and that grand passion has never, for anyone I know, come "over time".
Just because you have never known anyone for whom that occurred does not, as you seem adamant to insist, mean it does not happen. It has happened for me and for many people I have known over the years, including my own parents. My grandmothers fixed up my parents on a date and they could not stand each other. My dad thought my mother was a pretty airhead with a sharp tongue and she thought he was an arrogant sarcastic jerk. He went off the WWII and she to junior college and a job in commercial art. When he came home after the war mom had become good friends with his sister. At first he ignored her, but as he gradually got to see what a bright and adventurous woman she was and realized that, like him, she longed to flee their backward little town and see the world, she began to look better and better to him. He started acting less pompous and began courting her and though she was a little suspicious they started spending time together, he introduced her to jazz which she loved and in time they fell madly in love. One of my best friends has been passionately married for over 30 years to a guy she knew well platonically in high school and college (he actually had dated a friend of hers for a while). They had both recently broken up with a partner in their mid-twenties and ended up talking one night for hours and fell in love. I could provide other examples but I think I've made the point.
What some folks seem unwilling to accept is that it is as much (or more) what point you are at in your own emotional life that makes the other person attractive at that particular moment. Someone who seemed not a "fit" one day can suddenly be exactly what you need another. And if you stay open to the possibilities instead of quickly rejecting someone because there is not an immediate gut reacti0n, people can and do fall in love gradually or even precipitously after they have known each other for a while.
Not that I am holding out any hope of persuading Ren Man to accept an alternate perspective -- it's clear he'll be stickin' to his guns no matter what. Works for him. But I wonder how his prospects may be affected by future dates reviewing his forum posts, though perhaps there are plenty of women out there who are happy to invest their time and heart in the prospect of an affair with a man with a history of burning out in 18 months. Most that I know would not be, myself included.
pygalgia
Joined:
10/28/2005
Msg:
219 (
view
)
Hassle free dating
Posted:
7/9/2009 7:57:04 AM
Hmm, the 18-month relationship. I've had quite a few of those over 40 years as a single. In fact, I would say that was the mean length for most of them and I have noticed that pattern among many friends. It seems to be sort of a magic number -- at least in my experience it was when my boyfriends' eyes began to wander and/or they began to chafe at the prospect of "commitment." I admit, in a few cases I was the one who ended it at that milestone. I think the first 6 months of a coupling tends to be the "honeymoon" phase where you tend to shut out realities and other people, then you gradually settle into a practical routine over the next year, getting familiar with the nuts and bolts of each other's lives and having to deal with their character peculiarities without the radiant gloss of fresh infatuation. That's the critical period when you realize whether or not you've chosen well or been blinded by pheromones. To paraphrase what Catsmeow has wisely stated earlier: easy in, easy out. Those luscious lips, strong arms and tender canoodlings eventually can't compensate for such later-revealed realities as chronic tardiness, spendthrift habits, annoying relatives, reactionary political views, questionable hygiene and, most fatal of all, resistance by one or both parties to shifting gears and growing emotionally in the relationship once the sparkle of sexual novelty has subsided.
pygalgia
Joined:
10/28/2005
Msg:
199 (
view
)
Hassle free dating
Posted:
7/8/2009 2:28:37 PM
Catsmeow: I actually had written a POF testimonial a couple of years ago for a male friend I've known for several years (whom I originally met on-line at a site for solo travelers to find trip partners, before either of us enrolled on POF.) He has reported since that my endorsement greatly enhanced the probability of women he wrote to writing back or contacting him themselves. It hasn't led to a relationship for him yet, but that is due to his own complex baggage. He promised several times to write one for me but never did so (he has trouble following through on things -- I've wondered if I should add an addendum to my testimonial about that....)
Discussing the trials and dead-ends of internet dating with several friends one night, I only half-jokingly suggested that someone should come up with a round-robin (or pyramid scheme) dating program. You would get matched up with a person and after the first date you either had the choice to see them a second time OR you would have to fix them up with someone else you knew. They would have to do the same if they did not choose to see you again. If someone rejected more than 5 people in a row on the first date they would then have to provide TWO alternate dates for the next person they rejected, etc. Who knows, it might work?
pygalgia
Joined:
10/28/2005
Msg:
195 (
view
)
Hassle free dating
Posted:
7/8/2009 2:13:48 PM
Sorry, SoldierB, you look like a prime candidate but I don't have any female friends in your neck of the woods (nor any who would be likely to relocate there, I'm afraid.)
By the way, you might want to correct that little typo in your "interests" box. I believe the rope handling activity you favor is "rappelling" (I used to teach basic rock climbing). I don't really think you want to be "repelling" anyone except mosquitos and rattlesnakes, right?
pygalgia
Joined:
10/28/2005
Msg:
191 (
view
)
Hassle free dating
Posted:
7/8/2009 1:48:06 PM
Speaking of the "social matrix" that I mentioned in my rant as missing from self-inflicted blind dating -- lack of that is also an unfortunate obstacle to actually building and sustaining a relationship once you've found a mutually attractive "stranger."
Per example -- say, 20 years ago, you (a single person) went to a large wedding. At the reception you start chatting with a pleasant man or woman, and find they are also single and seem a nice prospect. Before you approach them for a date you could likely find out a little bit about them from friends or relatives you know among the other guests. Then, once you've had a first date, even if it seemed to go well but you were unsure how the other person felt, you could check in with the folks you had in common and get some third party feedback. You could even have possibly arranged a double date with people you both knew so that you would have felt more relaxed with each other. And as you continued to build a relationship there would be those other people around that you could socialize with and continue to get feedback on how it was going. There is no better way to get a read on someone's character than to see how they interact with other people. Obviously, if this new partner of yours was connected by blood or friendship to others in your wider social circle you would also be more motivated to treat them with respect and common dignity because you would suffer negative blowback if you acted like a jerk.
Unfortunately, the common model these days is to connect with a total stranger and try to create a relationship within the hot-box of near-total social isolation.
I try to do my part to ease this. I often meet and befriend men through the on-line personals who turn out to be really great guys, though the two of us don't click. In a number of cases I have recommended them to other single women friends who have differing tastes from mine. This has resulted in several successful match-ups so it seems I have pretty good "yenta" skills.
Even once they start dating I stay involved, giving them feedback: "Sally, I heard from Joe that you guys went out last weekend -- sounds like he is really excited about you," or "Joe, don't be put off that Sally didn't call you back right away -- I talked to her yesterday and they've got her on overtime this week but she says she's really hoping to see you again soon." I figure we all need all the help we can get in finding our way in the confusing jungle of intimacy -- it shouldn't have to be such a solitary struggle.
One of these "fix-ups" of mine lasted 10 years, another almost 2 years and several 3 to 6 months.
Now if I could only get one of my friends to do the same for me! *sigh*
pygalgia
Joined:
10/28/2005
Msg:
188 (
view
)
Hassle free dating
Posted:
7/8/2009 12:15:54 PM
Methinks "Ren Man" doth protest too much.
The poster (moi) to whom he is directing his oblique condemnation never categorized men as "wrong" when and if any of them trended towards taking a "leadership role" within a couple. I was attempting to account for some of the conflicts that can arise between middle-aged individuals trying to negotiate a relationship, a point that other posters had raised. My background and academic training are in Anthropology and I have also had a long career in an overwhelmingly male-dominated field (engineering and construction) in which I have often been the ONLY woman involved at any level of an entire project. Having been in the position of having to manage large numbers of diverse people, I find it useful to understand as best I can the motivation and cultural backgrounds of the people I'm dealing with as well as how the "culture" and communication styles of any particular interpersonal situation function. This perrspective has served me well -- through understanding the people I'm working with and/or managing (rather than trying to force them into some artificially imposed behavioral structure) I have always been able to inspire individuals to do their best work and to create an atmosphere where there is good group communication and productive and harmonious group effort. I admire and respect virtually all of the hundreds of men I have worked with and I believe most of them would say the same of me. I have conscientiously never used my gender as a foil, an excuse or a justification to advance myself or receive any privileged status. However, I do believe that being female has enabled me to listen to people more attentively than most male managers are able to do and also to see the bigger picture, understanding what really motivates people to be successful and how the larger patterns of social interaction and group dynamics can work for and against successful collaboration.
I know that was a long digression which perhaps may seem to have no relevance here, but I think it does. Besides being personally involved, as a single person, in the milieu of internet dating, I am fascinated by the "brave new world" of social, psychological, emotional and cultural change that it has opened up for the millions of people who are in this "game" with me. I really want to understand it, what it does to people, how to help them and myself get what we need and want out of it. It IS completely relevant to consider what the cultural norms may have been during a person's upbringing when you are trying to understand how they view themselves, the opposite sex and the roles two people may play in a relationship. It is a fact that most Westerners born between 1945 and 1965 were overwhelmingly more likely to come from families where the father worked and "ruled the roost" while the mother stayed home and was responsible for child care and the household. This wasn't "wrong", it was just the way things were at that point in time -- nonetheless, it did have an impact on how both boys and girls viewed themselves and projected their respective futures. Even those of us who broke free from that pattern and realized there were other choices for how we would live our lives (even that we could choose that traditional one if it suited us well) could not help but be influenced deeply by having grown up in that atmosphere. In many ways, I believe it has been hardest for men born before 1960 to negotiate that vast cultural shift, having been raised to the model of male dominance and female cooperation. Most, to their credit, have learned to respect and appreciate the autonomy and individual accomplishments of women but among these many are still unsure of how to negotiate intimacy with a woman who is also their peer or even may be more successful than they are. I am not "bashing" these men at all -- I feel for their confusion and the shortage of new "cultural traditions" that would help them deal with this. I fully acknowledge that there are those of my gender who make things worse, with contrarian agendas of "political correctness", vague expectations and game playing. I try very hard not to be one of those. On the other hand, I so often find that men my age and older seem to have a harder time relating to me as "feminine" than younger men I have been involved with, that I have to think it has to do with the older guys' engrained mind-set (from the 50's and 60's) of what a women "should" be like. We are all creatures of the world we grew up in -- nothing "wrong" or "right" about that, it simply helps our understanding of each other to have some recognition of each other's perspectives and background.
When I say that I feel sadness and compassion for the many confused and fragile souls I encounter in the process of on-line dating, I mean it. I truly don't think there has been enough attention paid by social psychologists and mental health researchers to either the positive and the negative patterns that are arising in the realm of such a major cultural phenomenon. The whole paradigm of choosing a "mate" has changed drastically. It now occurs for many people in what is essentially a vacuum, interacting with strangers completely outside of the normal social matrix through which humans have coupled for tens of thousands of years. Negotiating this new playing field without rules is a struggle for most people.
The "blind date" used to be something to dread for the most part, though at least in "the old days" that date was typically at least arranged by someone who knew both parties personally to some extent. Today, we have a huge percentage of the adult population repeatedly setting THEMSELVES up on completely blind dates! I really don't believe that either culture nor personal psychology has had a chance to catch up with and adjust to this massive shift in interpersonal dealings.
Seemingly minor "cultural traditions" -- such as basic courtesies (saying "please" and "thank you"), following through on commitments, not being nosey with a stranger, graciously keeping personal information candid, being introduced to new people through the buffer of mutual acquaintances -- have always been the lubricants that allowed people to peacefully and comfortably coexist in and expand their social networks. These commonly practiced "standards" also served to protect individuals from feeling awkward and helped override our instinctive mammalian impulse of fear towards the strange and unfamiliar. A good bit of that safety net is gone now.
And I think the lack of a set of commonly accepted "rituals of decency" in this brave new world is one of the factors that makes it such a hassle for many people. Outright deception, failure to follow through on promised communications, no-shows at arranged rendezvous, rude personal remarks, abrupt disappearances, sexual aggressiveness, serial cheating and vindictive reactions to even the most gracious deflections of interest seem to be par for the course in internet dating to a much greater extent than in the "real world" of social interactions. So the venue favors those (the self-assured or the masochistic) with the stomach for such behavioral horrors while those of us who may be sensitive, introspective, shy and/or mild-mannered retreat to the sidelines.
pygalgia
Joined:
10/28/2005
Msg:
177 (
view
)
Hassle free dating
Posted:
7/7/2009 3:05:37 PM
That's why my "observations" were specifically about "men recently divorced from decades-long marriages."
Yes, younger men and men who have been on their own for a while tend to be more willing to be egalitarian in the relationship. Also, men who grew up after 1965 were more likely to have mothers who entered the workplace and also entered the workplace themselves when things were not so gender polarized as they were in the 50's and 60's. So I have found they are not as peckish about a woman having professional obligations that may sometimes intrude on her free time with a beau. (a bit of a digression, but I still find that most younger people express shocked disbelief when I tell them how well inot the 1970's, the classified "help wanted" ads in US newspapers segregated employment listings by "help wanted: male" and "help wanted: female" the latter naught but shopgilsl, waitresses, nurses and teachers, and it was completely legal to deny a jobseeker even an application, let alone an interview if they did not match the posted gender. ) I mentioned that just to make a point that there are still men over 50 who tend to retain traces of that old cultural paradigm of a woman being somewhat of a convenient domestic appliance. :-)
pygalgia
Joined:
10/28/2005
Msg:
174 (
view
)
Hassle free dating
Posted:
7/7/2009 12:06:58 PM
Leona touches on a good point -- the notion of a woman being reluctant to "accommodate" the inclusion of a man in her life. While I recognize that many of us can be guilty of that lack of flexibility and openess (especially when we reach middle age and are so buried to our axles in the professional and personal grooves we've worn ourselves into), there is also the unsettling phenomenon of the aging divorced or widowed man who is seeking (as my mom used to say) "a nurse and a purse" -- a woman to be their loyal caretaker.
I have learned to be leery of recently divorced men who have come from decades long marriages. The speed with which some of them expect a new woman to perform "in loco uxoris" ("in place of wife", for those of you lucky enough to have escaped forced Latin classes in sedondary school) can be truly dazzling. One of my favorites (true story!) : a female friend of mine had her third date with a new flame end up in a passionate night of romance in his house. When they awoke Sunday morning, she took a shower and emerged to find he was dressed and had stripped the sheets from the bed. He announced that he was going to go out and bring back some hot bagels for their breakfast and meanwhile, she could take the sheets and towels to the cellar and wash them with ("while you're at it, OK?...") the rest of the dirty laundry that was on the floor down there. Wow, what a romantic............
Needless to say, by the time he got back he had to eat those bagels by his lonesome.
Think about it -- middle-aged women are more likely to have either children still at home, or grandchildren with whom they are involved, also are less likely to have as flexible a work schedule as men who have enjoyed continuous 30 or 40 year careers enabled by having enjoyed a stay-at-home wife for most of their lives. And many have left marriages where they tired of being expected to wait on a man. Though I'm not much affected by this disparity, having supported myself since high sch0ol and never having had children, I am surprised to find a lot of men who are unable to be as reasonably flexible with my time and adaptable to my interests as I am to theirs. For that reason I started to look for retired or semi-retired men, thinking they would have more agreeable and accessible schedules for activities, only to find that most expected ME to come to visit them (if they lived at some distance) or adapt to their hours and daily schedule. In some cases this was due to owning a dog (it seems like 99% of single middle-aged men own one or more dogs -- I love dogs but don't own one myself because it does prove restrictive to travel and recreational options when you live alone and have one.) In other cases it just seemed that the men were so accustomed to being the driving wheel in a family, with a subordinate partner ("the little woman/wife") covering the details in the background, that they can't let go of that "leadership" role.
pygalgia
Joined:
10/28/2005
Msg:
168 (
view
)
Hassle free dating
Posted:
7/7/2009 9:25:14 AM
rearguard said "your reported experience would cause me to conclude that many have tried, but you have beat them all off based on something or other in your own mind."
I did have had 3 fairly enduring relationships evolve during that 20 year period. In one case, despite a deep connection, the personal obligations that enforced an impractical geographic distance necessitated breaking it off. In the case of the other two, both of my partners became increasingly distant and uncommunicative and moved on to new women (whom they met on the internet.)
Unfortunately, this seems to be a common pattern (and better a topic for a new thread.) Real intimacy and maintaining a committed relationship with another person is not always fun and games -- even between the most compatible and passionate couple it will sometimes require effort and resolving conflicts to reach a deeper connection. But, more and more, it seems that people (and especially men, who tend, as a rule, to be more challenged and averse to talking out emotional issues) are unwilling to make that effort to work things through -- why bother, when it is easier to just dump the problematic situation you are in and move on to and start afresh with one of the thousands of shiny new faces you can call up on line?
My personal observations are that the pool of older singles contains a disproportionate number of the emotionally walking wounded. I have observed that men do not rebound from divorce and romantic disappointment as readily as women, perhaps because cultural behavior in our society does not encourage them to be supportive of each other nor as self-analytical as women are enculturated to be. This is why I try to be compassionate and tolerant of the enormous amount of defensiveness and self-delusion that underlies the intimacy phobia of most men that I meet and attempt to connect with.
Naturally, I have my own mid-life baggage, but prior to this 20 year cycle of dating roulette I did not find it particularly difficult to cultivate intimate long-term partners (close monogamous couplings of several years or more). I don't think I've really changed that much -- what has changed is that the pool of men my age has been drained of most that were willing and able to commit (they are married or in happy couples) and what remains is the chronically detached, the bitter, the traumatized and the socially inept (I exclude recent widowers from this list, naturally). In addition, they have little motivation to change their ways or opportunities to learn from experience since the internet pool allows them to move on as soon as a woman shows signs of becoming "dangerously" emotional or presses them to reveal their own emotional vulnerability and needs.
A friend of mine, a brilliant and compassionate professional counselor (male, by the way) framed the mechanism of real love this way; "You can admire other people for their assets and strengths but you can only really love them for their vulnerabilities and by revealing your own."
pygalgia
Joined:
10/28/2005
Msg:
142 (
view
)
Dating much more pragmatic as we age
Posted:
7/7/2009 12:18:08 AM
I make no apologies for being as I am. Either a woman "turns me on" initially, or she doesnt. If she doesn't, then nothing else matters.
Then you might as well keep making hay with as many pretty women as you can snare until you are too decrepit to attract the ones that appeal to you any more.
OK, you've made your point: Lust at first sight is THE deal breaker for you. That being the case, you could really have nothing useful to contribute to a discussion on pragmatism in dating since you clearly don't believe in it.
pygalgia
Joined:
10/28/2005
Msg:
163 (
view
)
Hassle free dating
Posted:
7/7/2009 12:00:07 AM
Ren said "The truth is that most men in their later 40s and 50s no longer have a "conquest" mentality. Most men by this age have a fairly well established "self identity", and don't need a false external validation to know who they are."
Interesting that he posits this theory as "the truth" since he is typically so averse to forum posters who are "self-proclaimed experts" who "make sweeping statements." Hey, Ren, how many "men their later 40s and 50s" have YOU dated to have gathered this valuable information on their alleged emotional maturity and mental health?
You may indeed yourself be some god's gift to the single middle-aged woman (provided, as your posts delineate, that she falls within the 99th percentile of physical attractiveness) but I am here to tell you that few (certainly not "most") men in that age range who populate internet dating sites are absent the "conquest mentality" nor are they in possession of a "well established self identity"
I have dated variously off and on through personal ads on and off the Internet over a 20 year period in two diverse major metropolitan areas, correpsponding with and meeting dozens of men between their mid-30's and their early 60's. Even though my selection criteria are fairly careful I have encountered a dismayingly large proportion of emotionally damaged, sexually conflicted and psychologically insecure men. In fact, I have found MOST (not all -- most) of the men I've met seemed to fall into one of three categories of intimacy phobics: aversive browsers who meet hundreds of women for one date only and never initiate a second date with any of them, let alone any physical contact; compulsive serialists who quickly meet, bed and discard as many women as they can (often to evidently reassure themselves of their "manhood" and bolster their shaky sense of self) and (last, but not least) romantic perfectionists with such a high level of self-delusional entitlement that no flesh-and-blood woman can hope to match their ideal algorithm.
For me the biggest "hassle" associated with dating (or at least, attempting to date) is to have my time continually wasted arranging doomed and pointless "meet-ups" with men who either unwilling or unable to make any sort of real connection.
Lest you dismiss me as a bitter gender "warrior", let me say that I report my observations on this parade of dysfunctional sad-sacks with a great deal of compassion and sorrow. And I would wager many women of "un age certaine", like myself, would report a similar experience and reaction (forgive my mangled Francais, catsmeow.)
I try very hard to be patient, cheerful, tolerant, hopeful and encouraging as I meet each new prospect, but the repetitive stream of fragile and defensive male egos gets really wearying after a while.
So, Ren, if you know any of those men with "well-established self identit(ies)" who have outgrown the "conquest mentality", please send them my way!
pygalgia
Joined:
10/28/2005
Msg:
140 (
view
)
Dating much more pragmatic as we age
Posted:
7/6/2009 10:29:39 PM
I'm still detecting a bit of defensiveness and blinders from some participants in this exchange regarding the point I have been trying to make. I never said "friends first" nor am I fatuous enough to think that one could somehow automatically cultivate a passionate relationship by some formula of spending a certain amount of time with any given person. My point is that a deep passionate attraction, sexual and/or emotional, CAN develop BEYOND a first encounter. To my mind, insisting that you would only pursue a relationship with someone to if you were IMMEDIATELY attracted to them is just as narrow-minded and apt to miss a great opportunity as would be insisting that the "friends first" model was the only option.
Did none of you who rejected my proposition read my report of having fallen deeply in lust with a man on the third date after being completely unimpressed with him on dates #1 and #2? And I (and, judging from other posts, others) have fallen for people that we knew for a while as casual friends.
I am NOT advising that one should pursue a paradigm of interminably dating individuals, no matter how "nice", to whom one feels no attraction, in some vain hope that familiarity and pragmaticism will foster some eventual spark. Not at all. But I still hold to my guns that many people are way too hasty to categorically reject a new person upon first encounter, particularly when that first encounter is something as socially awkward and stressful as a self-inflicted blind date. Indeed, if I had only allowed myself to enter into relationships with men I found attractive and charming when I first met them, I would have missed out on all (but one) of the most exciting and memorable romances of my life, which developed with men who seemed shy, ordinary, uninteresting or even obnoxious when I first met them. And, in retrospect, all (save that one) of the men that I was immediately attracted to, turned out to be quite disappointing. Result: I try be both patient (to give any guy more than one shot before deciding if there's a chance something could develop) AND practical ( by being cautious when a guy seems too good to be true on the first date.)
But I realize that for many people (and a larger proportion of men) initial unequivocal physical attraction is the overriding (and in some cases, ONLY) selection consideration for a potential partner.
My simple premise is that there are some extremely attractive people whose qualities may not be immediately evident -- you could call them "buried treasure". The lowest hanging fruit isn't always the sweetest.
pygalgia
Joined:
10/28/2005
Msg:
123 (
view
)
Dating much more pragmatic as we age
Posted:
7/2/2009 9:38:04 AM
Sorry you had such a negative "visceral response" to my post, Ren, but if you re-read it (dare I say, patiently?) you will note that I am careful to not declare any absolutes. I stand by my statement that a headlong dive into an affair with a stranger is "risky" and definitely more so than with someone you have taken some time to get to know better. But stating it has a higher "risk" is NOT the same as saying it is guaranteed to fail or cause damage. Anything undertaken precipitously and in the sway of more emotion than rationality is naturally going to have more of an element of danger and a lower potential for success.
I've no doubt there are successful couples of long standing who "fell" for each other at first sight, but I maintain that this is a rare and serendipitous event. Unfortunately, some people are so attached to that rare event as an unequivocal model for the only sort of relationship they will consider that they waste a tremendous amount of their own and other people's time and emotional energy chasing it. The pursuit of infatuation does trigger the same biochemical reactions in the brain that gambling and even pharmacological addictions trigger -- this may be harmless to some people yet cause persistent problems for others.
Yes, I admit I have a bias in my view of romantic processes, as do we all. My statements reflect what I have observed in the experiences of those around me as well as myself and even, to some extent, what I have garnered from the reports of other participants on POF forums. I was not attacking you or anyone personally, but was only commenting on a phenomenon that I and many others have noticed. Read the book "I Love You, Let's Meet" for a journalistic report on internet dating with some troubling case studies.
I am almost tempted to ascribe your strong reaction to my opinions to a bit of guilty defensiveness.
But I won't.
pygalgia
Joined:
10/28/2005
Msg:
120 (
view
)
Dating much more pragmatic as we age
Posted:
7/2/2009 8:35:46 AM
Maybe the OP would have caused fewer conflicts (and headaches) if the point was more about being "patient" than "pragmatic." As I touched on in my previous post, I think we over-45's could be more successful in developing potential relationships if we did not tend to be so quick to dismiss the people we meet because of a lack of immediate rapport and/or physical infatuation.
Having been a confidante of a fair number of middle-aged single women AND men who are struggling to find emotional intimacy, I have observed that the more a individual is "in love with love", so to speak, the higher their level of frustration, failure and loneliness. By people "in love with love", I mean those who are holding out for that "lightning strike" or "soulmate" reaction of instant attraction to a new person. Dark Knight (with his "headache") is a classic case. I won't deny that sort of spontaneous lust is a heady rush, but in terms of relationships, it is fundamentally equivalent to junk food, or even just "junk" as in psychoactive drugs.
Indulging oneself headlong in an affair that is triggered by a subconscious visceral response may feel great at the outset but the long-term consequences for emotional health are quite risky. Countless psychological studies have demonstrated that people often tend to be most attracted on a deep subconscious level to partners who exhibit those traits of our parents that were most damaging to us as children or the traits of previous lovers who caused emotional wounds to us. The human organism seems to possess an instinctive (and almost masochistic) drive to re-enact the circumstances which hurt us the most, perhaps in a primitive attempt to resolve that buried damage. Going through repetitive cycles of rapid infatuation and rapid disillusionment has parallels with habitual drug use or binge eating and has (at least I believe) a negative cumulative affect on a person's emotional health and psychological well-being.
On the other hand, being more patient when meeting a new potential partner, getting a feel for their character, motives and history as well as allowing them to develop a real appreciation of the soul and spirit within yourself is equivalent to eating a healthy diet or taking vitamins. True, vitamins and good food don't tend to give one the immediate rush of intoxicating exhilaration that snorting a hit of amphetamines or guzzling a liter of caffeine and sugar laced soda provide, but 6 months down the road, which "diet" is going to make you feel really great?
Getting back to the "love junkies" -- I know a whole lot of them and they are a sad lot. Unfortunately, the phenomenon of on-line dating, with it's seemingly endless source of potential "fixes" appears to have enabled a growing epidemic of sufferers. You would think they would learn something from their repeated failures to connect, but most seem determined to stick to their blind pursuit of the immediate thrill and refuse to believe that it is possible to develop deep and profound feelings for another person unless they have an instant reaction to them. This inherent lack of patience effectively blocks them from having the best chance of connecting with someone who is truly compatible and with the best prospect of being an emotionally healthy partner for them in the long term.
Again, what may have worked in our twenties does not work in our 40's and 50's. As I mentioned before, younger people are more malleable and, as a group, more similar to each other than differing. Two young people starting a relationship simply based on immediate slam-bang attraction have a much higher probability of adapting to each other and growing together, situationally and emotionally. We older folks have far more baggage and complexity -- our habits are more entrenched; our personalities are more individuated and fixed; and we are more firmly welded to our philosophies, affiliations and lifestyle patterns. Even someone's sleeping habits and whether or not they are puntual can have a huge impact on whether or not you can achieve a mutually healthy relationship with them. What this means is that the quantity of potentially conflicting traits is much higher between two older people than between two 20-somethings, including many that are non-negotiable "deal-breakers." Another factor is simply the obvious statistic that the "still waters who run deep" -- people who would be really great partners but who may be initially shy, awkward, low-key or otherwise harder to read -- are going to tend to be a larger percentage of the older singles, since they are so often overlooked or prematurely rejected in the dating cycle, while the more outgoing, flirtatious or emotionally needy types will be selected out of the singles population because they attract partners more easily.
I can't help but be reminded of an old episode of the TV comedy "Frasier" wherein the main character discovers that he and his new female station director have a powerful instantaneous sexual attraction (5 minutes after meeting they are going at in on her desk.) Caught up in the heady swoon of infatuation, he spontaneously invites her to join him in a whirlwind trip to New York City. The last scene is of them in the cab to the airport with her excitedly listing all of her passions -- the musical "Cats", reading cheesy pulp novels, watching pro sports, eating at chain restaurants -- while snobbish Frasier's happy face gradually dissolves into a glassy-eyed mask of despair as he realizes he not only has absolutely nothing in common with this woman but is becoming totally turned off by her lack of sophistication.
While it is true that you can't "force" yourself to fall in love (or lust) with someone just because of a pragmatic match, it is truly possible, even preferable, to develop a powerful bond of emotional attraction and even an infatuated sexual desire for someone who does not impress you that much when you first meet them.
I can honestly state that my most passionate romances were with men that I barely noticed at first, even (in one case) that I truly disliked when I first met. In fact, the hardest I ever "fell" for a man was one I had dated twice, without feeling much attraction at all and only went out with him the third time because he offered me a ticket to see a band I liked. I intended to tell him I was not interested in seeing him any more at the end of the evening, instead some strange light switch went on in my head (well, maybe farther down than that) and I suddenly found him irresistible. I still get a buzz recalling that affair. I've also experienced long time platonic friendships unexpectedly heating up. On the other hand, thinking back, I cannot recall that any guy to whom I felt an immediate gut attraction turning out to be anything but a dissappointment.
I also believe a lot of attraction has more to do with our own state of readiness and vulnerability at any particular time, rather than any inherent desirability of the other person. A person of whom you think "no way!" today could feel like an "oh yes!" next month.
Result, I try to stay open-minded and patient when I meet someone new and not reject them out-of-hand, no matter what my reaction is at the outset. Of course, the problem is, most men (and they admit this) won't bother seeing a woman again if they don't feel an immediate attraction on the first date (I admit I am one of those people who is NOT a naturally alluring and persuasive first date so I get few second dates.)
I'd be interested to hear from the folks posting to this forum if they have ever had the experience of finding themselves attracted to someone later after first dismissing them as unappealing.
pygalgia
Joined:
10/28/2005
Msg:
112 (
view
)
Dating much more pragmatic as we age
Posted:
7/1/2009 12:35:44 PM
I was just sharing an exchange about this with a male friend on POF a few months ago, reflecting on how easy it was to meet, mate and move on when we were all young and half-formed, all almost interchangeably smooth, sleek, flexible and cute with few quirks and little individual complexity. Now that we're older, with worn-in habits and battle scars of experience, buried to our axles in whatever location or situation we've adapted ourselves to, we are more individual and different from each other -- that sense of "perfect" compatibility is harder to come by and neither we nor our potential partners are as free to drop all expectations and responsibilities and dive headlong into romance. When we were young, all we needed was mutual physical attraction and to maybe like the same music and we were instantly "compatible". And, of course, most of us existed in fluid environments populated by a variety of real-life potential partners we could check out within a social matrix before we approached them. Now we are stuck with trying to fix ourselves up with total strangers electronically (and who doesn't despise a "blind date"?? Was there ever a more stressful way to meet someone??)
I believe that "love at first sight" is only a realistic paradigm for the young, that as we become older and uniquely distinctive (as well as more wary and wounded from past relationships), we need more time and familiarity to gain a sense of a new and strange person and to open to our own emotional potential with them. As I've gotten older I have found that it is possible to fall in love with someone who does not impress you on the first and even second and third date. Unfortunately, most people still tend to reject potential partners within the first few minutes of meeting in person. If I had not restrained my own impulse to do that on several occasions, I would have missed some incredibly satisfying relationships that developed by hanging in there.
And, admit it, most of us either wear rose-colored glasses about our own comparative desirability or are in a state of aversive panic about aging. If you are freaked out about your own crow's feet and softening waistline, you are hardly apt to be willing to accept it in another person. Rejecting more appropriate partners because one is hoping to attract the affection of someone younger and/or more attractive than yourself is one way to avoid dealing with your own vulnerability and perceived decline.
But there is reasonable "pragmatism" too. As a good friend of mine (suddenly finding himself divorced in late middle age when his wife decided she no longer wished to be married, period) observed: "After 50 you are essentially looking for the person you are going to die with..." Personally, since (based on my ancestry and personal efforts to stay healthy) I have a very good chance of living a long time and being quite hale and active, mentally and physically, I tend to look at a guy's parental history in a way that never would have occurred to me in my 20's or 30's. Though, of course, anyone can be afflicted with illness or infirmity, I would prefer to hedge my bets by choosing a partner who seems to have a better than average chance of being an active companion for as long as possible, well into his 70's. So I am not just looking at the man I see today, but the man I he could be in 10 or 20 years. Also figuring into that is when might he be able to retire and would he be financially able and open to doing a lot of traveling then.
As far as being affected by other people's "pragmatism/pickiness", I find I am at a dating disadvantage right now among my peers because I am fair-complected, have spent a great deal of my life outdoors and chose to not take replacement hormones when I hit menopause (since they apparently triggered cancer in my mother). So, ironically, I appear less "healthy" (as in smooth-skinned) than women my age who have chosen HRT. I have yet to find, in discussing this subject (health projections for potential partners) with men I know, any one who takes this into account. Many also still prefer extremely thin women, and will even tolerate ones who smoke to stay that way, despite the reality that post-menopausally these individuals tend to be at much higher risk for osteoporosis and other debilitating conditions.
Whew, this rant is going on too long -- got work to do............
pygalgia
Joined:
10/28/2005
Msg:
24 (
view
)
Rate New Images - Pictures with two or more people?
Posted:
12/9/2008 8:52:05 AM
The mod whose photo I was criticizing above is "Tickettoride", by the way.
pygalgia
Joined:
10/28/2005
Msg:
23 (
view
)
Rate New Images - Pictures with two or more people?
Posted:
12/9/2008 8:50:37 AM
I recently attempted (twice!) to add a seasonally festive self-portrait photo of myself to my profile lineup. It's a waist to top of head shot of me cross-country skiing, covered with snow, with rosey cheeks and smiling. You can clearly see my mouth, nose and both eyes. I selected it to be my main image and both times the mods ejected it completely from my line-up. Why? I note that this particular moderator (to whom I am posting this reply) is permitted to use a shot of himself in profile with a camera which shows less of his face than this shot of mine does (excuse me, but don't the "rules" prohibit half-face profile shots from being used as a primary?)! And countless people are allowed to use long shots in which their faces are barely detectable.
Come on, POF! I've been a loyal and rule-respecting member of this "community" for over 3 years. Let's be a little more reasonable and consistent.
pygalgia
Joined:
10/28/2005
Msg:
1922 (
view
)
It looks like McCain's VP pick is Sarah Palin
Posted:
9/6/2008 11:05:27 PM
The major policy and governance issues at stake in the coming election here are grave -- anyone who doesn't understand that (and would cast their vote in this election based upon a single domestic issue or a "personality" preference rather than take the time to do an in-depth fact-check on the backgrounds and affiliations of the candidates) is an idiot.
The letter excerpted below was written by a fellow resident of Palin's Alaskan city who knows the candidate personally and knows the details of her political career. I've anonymized it because she requested that it NOT be posted publicly. The writer was brave to do this (and is justly concerned about repercussions.) But, the truth is the truth, and everything stated here is verifiable.
My read on this Veep selection is that, once again (remember 1992?), the RNC believes that the women of America are dumb twits, who are only capable of considering superficial appearances in casting their votes. If the Constitution didn't have restrictions on age, species and inanimate objects, the RNC would have nominated as the Geezer's running mate either a baby, a basket of kittens or a pair of Manolo Blahnik pumps in an attempt to attract the "chick vote."
This is a post in response to the Washington Independent article entitled "The Reform Candidate?" [http://www.washingtonindependent.com/3671/the-reform-candidate]
Dear friends,
So many people have asked me about what I know about Sarah Palin in the last 2 days that I decided to write something up .
You have my permission to forward this to your friends/email contacts with my name and email address attached, but please do not post it on any websites, as there are too many kooks out there . . .
ABOUT SARAH PALIN
I am a resident of Wasilla, Alaska. Everyone here knows Sarah, so it is nothing special to say we are on a first-name basis. Our children have attended the same schools. I attended more City Council meetings during her administration than about 99% of the residents of the city.
She is enormously popular; in every way she's like the most popular girl in middle school. Even men who think she is a poor choice and won't vote for her can't quit smiling when talking about her because she is a "babe".
It is astonishing and almost scary how well she can keep a secret. She kept her most recent pregnancy a secret from her children and parents for seven months.
She is "pro-life". She recently gave birth to a Down's syndrome baby. There is no cover-up involved, here; Trig is her baby.
She is energetic and hardworking. She regularly worked out at the gym.
She is savvy. She doesn't take positions; she just "puts things out there" and if they prove to be popular, then she takes credit.
Her husband works a union job on the North Slope for BP and is a champion snowmobile racer. Todd Palin's kind of job is highly sought-after because of the schedule and high pay. He arranges his work schedule so he can fish for salmon in Bristol Bay for a month or so in summer, but by no stretch of the imagination is fishing their major source of income. Nor has her life-style ever been anything like that of native Alaskans.
Sarah and her whole family are avid hunters.
She's smart.
Her experience is as mayor of a city with a population of about 5,000 (at the time), and less than 2 years as governor of a state with about 670,000 residents.
During her mayoral administration most of the actual work of running this small city was turned over to an administrator. She had been pushed to hire this administrator by party power-brokers after she had gotten herself into some trouble over precipitous firings which had given rise to a recall campaign.
Sarah campaigned in Wasilla as a "fiscal conservative". During her 6 years as Mayor, she increased general government expenditures by over 33%. During those same 6 years the amount of taxes collected by the City increased by 38%. This was during a period of low inflation (1996-2002). She reduced progressive property taxes and increased a regressive sales tax which taxed even food. The tax cuts that she promoted benefited large corporate property owners way more than they benefited residents.
The huge increases in tax revenues during her mayoral administration weren't enough to fund everything on her wish list though, borrowed money was needed, too. She inherited a city with zero debt, but left it with indebtedness of over $22 million. What did Mayor Palin encourage the voters to borrow money for? Was it the infrastructure that she said she supported? The sewage treatment plant that the city lacked? or a new library? No. $1m for a park. $15m-plus for construction of a multi-use sports complex which she rushed through to build on a piece of property that the City didn't even have clear title to, that was still in litigation 7 yrs later--to the delight of the lawyers involved! The sports complex itself is a nice addition to the community but a huge money pit, not the profit-generator she claimed it would be. She also supported bonds for $5.5m for road projects that could have been done in 5-7 yrs without any borrowing.
While Mayor, City Hall was extensively remodeled and her office redecorated more than once.
These are small numbers, but Wasilla is a very small city.
As an oil producer, the high price of oil has created a budget surplus in Alaska. Rather than invest this surplus in technology that will make us energy independent and increase efficiency, as Governor she proposed distribution of this surplus to every individual in the state.
In this time of record state revenues and budget surpluses, she recommended that the state borrow/bond for road projects, even while she proposed distribution of surplus state revenues: spend today's surplus, borrow for needs.
She's not very tolerant of divergent opinions or open to outside ideas or compromise. As Mayor, she fought ideas that weren't generated by her or her staff. Ideas weren't evaluated on their merits, but on the basis of who proposed them.
While Sarah was Mayor of Wasilla she tried to fire our highly respected City Librarian because the Librarian refused to consider removing from the library some books that Sarah wanted removed. City residents rallied to the defense of the City Librarian and against Palin's attempt at out-and-out censorship, so Palin backed down and withdrew her termination letter. People who fought her attempt to oust the Librarian are on her enemies list to this day.
Sarah complained about the "old boy's club" when she first ran for Mayor, so what did she bring Wasilla? A new set of "old boys". Palin fired most of the experienced staff she inherited. At the City and as Governor she hired or elevated new, inexperienced, obscure people, creating a staff totally dependent on her for their jobs and eternally grateful and fiercely loyal--loyal to the point of abusing their power to further her personal agenda, as she has acknowledged happened in the case of pressuring the State's top cop (see below).
As Mayor, Sarah fired Wasilla's Police Chief because he "intimidated" her, she told the press. As Governor, her recent firing of Alaska's top cop has the ring of familiarity about it. He served at her pleasure and she had every legal right to fire him, but it's pretty clear that an important factor in her decision to fire him was because he wouldn't fire her sister's ex-husband, a State Trooper. Under investigation for abuse of power, she has had to admit that more than 2 dozen contacts were made between her staff and family to the person that she later fired, pressuring him to fire her ex-brother-in-law. She tried to replace the man she fired with a man who she knew had been reprimanded for sexual harassment; when this caused a public furor, she withdrew her support.
She has bitten the hand of every person who extended theirs to her in help. The City Council person who personally escorted her around town introducing her to voters when she first ran for Wasilla City Council became one of her first targets when she was later elected Mayor. She abruptly fired her loyal City Administrator; even people who didn't like the guy were stunned by this ruthlessness.
Fear of retribution has kept all of these people from saying anything publicly about her.
When then-Governor Murkowski was handing out political plums, Sarah got the best, Chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission: one of the few jobs not in Juneau and one of the best paid. She had no background in oil & gas issues. Within months of scoring this great job which paid $122,400/yr, she was complaining in the press about the high salary. I was told that she hated that job: the commute, the structured hours, the work. Sarah became aware that a member of this Commission (who was also the State Chair of the Republican Party) engaged in unethical behavior on the job. In a gutsy move which some undoubtedly cautioned her could be political suicide, Sarah solved all her problems in one fell swoop: got out of the job she hated and garnered gobs of media attention as the patron saint of ethics and as a gutsy fighter against the "old boys' club" when she dramatically quit, exposing this man's ethics violations (for which he was fined).
As Mayor, she had her hand stuck out as far as anyone for pork from Senator Ted Stevens. Lately, she has castigated his pork-barrel politics and publicly humiliated him. She only opposed the "bridge to nowhere" after it became clear that it would be unwise not to.
As Governor, she gave the Legislature no direction and budget guidelines, then made a big grandstand display of line-item vetoing projects, calling them pork. Public outcry and further legislative action restored most of these projects--which had been vetoed simply because she was not aware of their importance--but with the unobservant she had gained a reputation as "anti-pork".
She is solidly Republican: no political maverick. The State party leaders hate her because she has bit them in the back and humiliated them. Other members of the party object to her self-description as a fiscal conservative.
Around Wasilla there are people who went to high school with Sarah. They call her "Sarah Barracuda" because of her unbridled ambition and predatory ruthlessness. Before she became so powerful, very ugly stories circulated around town about shenanigans she pulled to be made point guard on the high school basketball team. When Sarah's mother-in-law, a highly respected member of the community and experienced manager, ran for Mayor, Sarah refused to endorse her.
As Governor, she stepped outside of the box and put together of package of legislation known as "AGIA" that forced the oil companies to march to the beat of her drum.
Like most Alaskans, she favors drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. She has questioned if the loss of sea ice is linked to global warming. She campaigned "as a private citizen" against a state initiaitive that would have either a) protected salmon streams from pollution from mines, or b) tied up in the courts all mining in the state (depending on who you listen to). She has pushed the State's lawsuit against the Dept. of the Interior's decision to list polar bears as threatened species.
McCain is the oldest person to ever run for President; Sarah will be a heartbeat away from being President.
There has to be literally millions of Americans who are more knowledgeable and experienced than she.
However, there's a lot of people who have underestimated her and are regretting it.
CLAIM VS FACT
* "Hockey mom": true for a few years
* "PTA mom": true years ago when her first-born was in elementary school, not since
* "NRA supporter": absolutely true
* social conservative: mixed. Opposes gay marriage, BUT vetoed a bill that would have denied benefits to employees in same-sex relationships (said she did this because it was unconsitutional).
* pro-creationism: mixed. Supports it, BUT did nothing as Governor to promote it.
* "Pro-life": mixed. Knowingly gave birth to a Down's syndrome baby BUT declined to call a special legislative session on some pro-life legislation
* "Experienced": Some high schools have more students than Wasilla has residents. Many cities have more residents than the state of Alaska. No legislative experience other than City Council. Little hands-on supervisory or managerial experience; needed help of a city administrator to run town of about 5,000.
* political maverick: not at all
* gutsy: absolutely!
* open & transparent: ??? Good at keeping secrets. Not good at explaining actions.
* has a developed philosophy of public policy: no
* "a Greenie": no. Turned Wasilla into a wasteland of big box stores and disconnected parking lots. Is pro-drilling off-shore and in ANWR.
* fiscal conservative: not by my definition!
* pro-infrastructure: No. Promoted a sports complex and park in a city without a sewage treatment plant or storm drainage system. Built streets to early 20th century standards.
* pro-tax relief: Lowered taxes for businesses, increased tax burden on residents
* pro-small government: No. Oversaw greatest expansion of city government in Wasilla's history.
* pro-labor/pro-union. No. Just because her husband works union doesn't make her pro-labor. I have seen nothing to support any claim that she is pro-labor/pro-union.
WHY AM I WRITING THIS?
First, I have long believed in the importance of being an informed voter. I am a voter registrar. If you google my name (name deleted at request of writer), you will find references to my participation in local government, education, and PTA/parent organizations.
Secondly, I've always operated in the belief that "Bad things happen when good people stay silent". Few people know as much as I do because few have gone to as many City Council meetings.
Third, I am just a housewife. I don't have a job she can bump me out of. I don't belong to any organization that she can hurt. But, I am no fool; she is immensely popular here, and it is likely that this will cost me somehow in the future: that's life.
Fourth, she has hated me since back in 1996, when I was one of the 100 or so people who rallied to support the City Librarian against Sarah's attempt at censorship.
Fifth, I looked around and realized that everybody else was afraid to say anything because they were somehow vulnerable.
CAVEATS
I am not a statistician. I developed the numbers for the increase in spending & taxation 2 years ago (when Palin was running for Governor) from information supplied to me by the Finance Director of the City of Wasilla, and I can't recall exactly what I adjusted for: did I adjust for inflation? for population increases? Right now, it is impossible for a private person to get any info out of City Hall -- they are swamped. So I can't verify my numbers.
You may have noticed that there are various numbers circulating for the population of Wasilla, ranging from my "about 5,000", up to 9,000. The day Palin's selection was announced a city official told me that the current population is about 7,000. The official 2000 census count was 5,460. I have used about 5,000 because Palin was Mayor from 1996 to 2002, and the city was growing rapidly in the mid-90's.
pygalgia
Joined:
10/28/2005
Msg:
6 (
view
)
US passport renewals (how quick?) and Canada travel
Posted:
9/23/2007 7:16:09 PM
Brandish, if I understand you correctly, you had your birth certificate and a copy of your passport renewal form (even though you did not have the passport yet?) I was wondering about that. I already filled out the on-line renewal form and got the new photos. As I said, I have been hesitant to mail everything in because it would mean surrendering the expired passport til the new one comes back. I wondered if my copy of the application would be acceptable in the interim. But, as others have advised I guess I'm better off just biting the bullet and paying the extra $60 (ouch!) to get it back quickly.
By the way, the "strip-search" episode I encountered at the Niagara Falls crossing happened long before "Homeland Security" -- in fact it was in the 1970's! Even though my friends and I were pretty straight arrows, back in that era young people (college age) were often subjected to unnecessarily overscrupulous searches and temporary detentions due to federal hysteria about the recreational drug trade. We were held for several hours on another occasion at an Ontario/New York crossing when an agent claimed to have found a single cannabis seed under the mounting track of the passenger seat (it looked like a piece of pea gravel to me.) The agents pulled up the carpet in the car and sliced open one of the leather seats and part of the headliner before letting us go with no contraband detected nor charges filed and several hundred dollars worth of damage inflicted on the vehicle (it was an antique Jaguar and, ironically, one reason we had driven to Toronto was to buy parts to restore the car!)
I've had no trouble yet with "Homeland Security" but then I always show up at the airports prepared -- slip-off shoes, passport and driver's license in hand and I don't even bother with toiletries any more (it's easier just to buy travel sizes when I get to my destination.) But then I have not had the opportunity to travel beyond US borders since 2001.
Thanks for the feedback, folks.
pygalgia
Joined:
10/28/2005
Msg:
1 (
view
)
US passport renewals (how quick?) and Canada travel
Posted:
9/23/2007 7:51:00 AM
I'm debating whether to pay that $60 extra "expediting" surcharge to get my just-expired US passport renewed. I have heard horror stories of renewals taking 4 to 7 months yet also heard that some folks who simply paid the $67 renewal got their new passport within less than 6 weeks. Has anyone paid the expediting fee and, if so, how soon did you get your renewal?
Also, I had been thinking of traveling to the Banff Mountain Film Festival in early November -- I understand I could not fly into/out of Calgary w/o a current passport, BUT could I fly to Montana or Seattle, WA, and drive into and out of BC or Alberta if I don't get my renewal back in time for the trip? I realize Canadian customs is not the problem (never has been) but I've had hassles upon return at US customs several times in my life over ludicrous trivialities, like being detained, strip-searched and cavity-checked because some rookie agent using a new test kit erroneously identified one of my companion's prescription allergy meds (in the properly labelled bottle!) as amphetamines -- at least the supervisor apologized to us in that instance (he had been out of the office at a meeting when the "big bust" went down) but not until after we'd endured 4 hours of terror and had our car partially dismantled. For good reason, I am always scrupulous about having evrything in order when I make transborder trips.
Can anyone offer their experiences and advice?
pygalgia
Joined:
10/28/2005
Msg:
18 (
view
)
Iraq war documentary No End in Sight
Posted:
9/13/2007 7:56:25 AM
To get back to the OP (which I posted) -- my intent was not to trigger another thread on the pros and cons of justification for the US involvement in Iraq or to provide a platform for kvetching about politics.
The point of the film (which I still insist that every US voter should see) that I wanted to bring to people's attention is that, whatever the Bush Administration's intentions were, valid or not, the actual execution of the invasion and occupation were conducted in a such an unconscionably inept and blindly irresponsible manner, that chaos and the complete deterioration of the Iraqi political, social and physical infrastructure was virtually guaranteed. As a result, the US faces GREATER insecurity in the long run now than it did before the invasion, since the collapse of any structural integrity to Iraqi society that might have been salvaged through a properly executed operation in Iraq leaves that nation now open to "colonization" by outlaw groups.
And, unlike Afghanistan, which is a largely rural, impoverished nation with a poorly educated population, Iraq has substantial resources, is strategically located, reasonably industrialized and had (at least before Saddam and the subsequent US involvement) a sophisticated, educated and technically competent professional middle class. The bungling of Bush's Iraq agenda must seem like a gift from heaven by groups (such as Al Quaeda) seeking a new geographic base for global recruiting and operations.
pygalgia
Joined:
10/28/2005
Msg:
13 (
view
)
Iraq war documentary No End in Sight
Posted:
9/11/2007 6:36:08 PM
The threat they pose is unacceptable and they should be erased while we still can.. We cannot cede the future and the soul of man to the backward, evil garbage of the Koran.
Gee, that sure sounds pretty emotional, hateful and fearfully passionate (as well as irrational) to me. I take it you're well-acquainted with the Koran and mainstream Muslim thought as well as quite positive that the majority of the civilians dying in Iraq are "Islamic fundamentalists"?
You know, it could be persuasively argued that Christianity is "backward, evil garbage" that poses a "threat to secular, democratic western society". Since you identify yourself as a Christian, would you care to volunteer yourself for systematic purging for the good of the State? And please explain where broad-spectrum genocide fits into your personal version of Christianity? I'm pretty well-acquainted with the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth (who is, by the way, honored by Muslims as a great prophet) and I don't recall anything about mass execution of followers of other faiths.
But, to return to the topic of the OP -- I'd invite you to see the film to expand your evidently somewhat limited understanding of the circumstances surrounding the "war".
The film only reinforced to me what I already knew or, at least, suspected (though even I was shocked by the blatant arrogance and incompetence that was revealed.) I was an anti-war activist during the Viet Nam years, protested against the Senior Bush's first Gulf War and have actively campaigned against Bush Jr. and all of his inept and egregious policies since Day One. I truly believe that Al Gore legitimately won the majority vote in 2000 and am confident that if he had been justly installed in office, with his far superior background in reasonable governance and international diplomacy, the US would not have been plunged into the unmanageable, costly and divisive abyss where we now find ourselves.
Yes, I agree that the US populace let itself be hoodwinked but I see hopeful signs that enough of them have come to their senses and are going to call the perpetrators to account -- I think films like this can only help the process along.
pygalgia
Joined:
10/28/2005
Msg:
9 (
view
)
Iraq war documentary No End in Sight
Posted:
9/11/2007 2:27:24 PM
What has your IQ to do with the topic? Quantity of cerebral capacity does not equate to quality of intellectual content.
The "worst of them," to whom you are being compared, would include anyone whose agenda is primarily genocidal (and "genocide" is the correct term for murdering people because of their religion or ethnic identity.) The "worst of them" would include Al Qaeda, the Janjaweed militias in Darfur, the "ethnic cleansers" on all sides in the Balkan wars, the Nazis and their concentration camps, the Japanese invaders of China During World War II -- even the US government during the 19th century with it's systematic exterminations of native peoples.
Please explain why your attitude is any different from theirs?
And as to your contention that Saddam was some sort of "protection" against Iran, remember that the US promulgated anti-Western sentiment in Iran by supporting the military dictatorship of the Shah as well as arming Iraq. We've meddled in the affairs of all of the Middle Eastern states, strictly for our own benefit, to some extent for decades -- is it any wonder many of their citizens resent us and are so easily swayed by "religious" demagogues ?
pygalgia
Joined:
10/28/2005
Msg:
6 (
view
)
Iraq war documentary No End in Sight
Posted:
9/11/2007 12:10:46 PM
Wow, you really believe that? "We are at war with Islamic fundamentalism."
I'm glad more people don't broadcast that misguided opinion. That's exactly what ideologues like Bin Laden want to hear to justify their attacks on the West as "defensive." Think about what you're saying. The West's complicated involvement in the Middle East is historically economic and strategic, not religious. Promulgating a "religious" agenda is simply an easy way for people in positions of power and influence to radicalize their citizens and manipulate them into doing their dirty work. Kind of like the current administration using their shamelessly phony flag-waving "patriotism" to dupe the American populace into unquestioningly supporting an indefensible war to accomplish their devious political and economic goals (it's about oil fields and influence, not religion.)
Fortunately, we are not all "unquestioning."
pygalgia
Joined:
10/28/2005
Msg:
4 (
view
)
Iraq war documentary No End in Sight
Posted:
9/10/2007 7:45:27 PM
The main point that the film underscores is that the Bush administration completely bungled the operation from Day One -- actually "bungled" is too mild a word -- their unbelievable ineptness, ignorance and arrogance were unconscionable. They completely ignored and shut out their own most well-informed military and political experts and advisory panels -- it turns out that the president (sorry, can't bring myself to capitalize the title) did not even read ANY of the detailed reports and recommendations that were prepared -- NOT EVEN SINGLE PAGE SUMMARIES -- before dismissing them.
In my opinion, all of the people at high levels who were ultimately responsible for the policies (or, more precisely, lack of them) that were utilized in Iraq should be removed from office and prosecuted for dereliction of duty, at the very least, if not criminally negligent manslaughter, even high treason. The current absolute chaos in Iraq is directly the fault of their incompetent failure to follow through with a cohesive security and reconstruction plan after the invasion, not some "inevitable religious war."
Anyone who voted for Bush/Cheney should see this film: I believe they will feel ashamed, outraged and betrayed. I've no doubt this administration will go down in history as the one that caused the most lasting damage to the Republic, both at home and in the world.
pygalgia
Joined:
10/28/2005
Msg:
1 (
view
)
Iraq war documentary "No End in Sight"
Posted:
9/10/2007 2:56:42 PM
Last night I saw the documentary film "No End in Sight" about the US administration's actions surrounding the invasion of Iraq and think every US voter should try to see it, regardless of their political orientation. This is not a Michael Moore type hatchet job --mostly it is documentary footage and interviews with highly placed administration officials and members of the military who were directly involved with the planning and operations. The film is restrained but devastating. Hs anyone else here on POF seen it yet? What do you think?
pygalgia
Joined:
10/28/2005
Msg:
118 (
view
)
Attraction in your 50's
Posted:
7/7/2007 11:03:22 AM
Golconda:
After noting your complaint about women not responding to your e-mails I took a look at your profile. Frankly, though you would appear to meet some of my basic parameters (age, shared interests, etc.) for a possible contact (other than location), I doubt that even if you lived nearby I would be inspired to either contact you or respond with much enthusiasm to one of your e-mails because your profile is not only terribly generic but you expend far more effort describing what qualities your potential date should have than you do delineating your own talents and desirable traits. You come off as humorless and boring, maybe even slightly arrogant. You aren't any of those, are you?? Think about that and put some more effort into your profile. A spellcheck run would be prudent as well -- obvious typos suggest carelessness. You need to put your best foot forward in a very competitive environment. You have to know the male to female ratio on POF is against you -- many women (especially those with attractively written, interesting profiles) get dozens of "hits" and messages a week and we are most likely to respond to the ones that are a bit creative or that give us some individualistic insight on the man. "Hi, I'm a tall, handsome, intelligent professional, my friends say I'm great and you should be too" is, honestly, a huge yawn.
Plus (and this is a BIG one) you don't post a photo. I'm sorry, but that "professional discretion" line does not wash. Lack of a publicly posted photo tends to strongly suggest to most women you are married or otherwise involved. Offering to forward a pic in e-mail does nothing to dispel that concern. In this day and age I don't know anyone in any profession who thinks less of any single person for their having posted a respectable (not overtly sexual) profile on a legitimate dating site. Also, most women don't like being put in the position of taking the effort to open communication with a guy only to discover that he is physically unattractive to them -- a "pig in a poke" so to speak. I'm sure you feel the same way -- how many women have you written to who didn't have a photo posted? Zero, right?
Look, you've got this FREE opportunity to post ANYTHING and EVERYTHING about yourself -- make the effort to present yourself in a unique light!! I've actually started e-mail exchanges and even met guys who had the silliest profiles, BUT that silliness told me more about who they were than that generic laundry list you posted. I'm not saying you have to be silly, just be yourself. If you really are that generic, maybe you should play on that more creatively . And you HAVE to post a photo, preferably several. Include some of you doing things you enjoy. You've made yourself too convenient for women to dismiss by being lazily bland (and possibly married.)
pygalgia
Joined:
10/28/2005
Msg:
10 (
view
)
Paleolithic diet
Posted:
7/6/2007 11:12:21 AM
Humans have always been opportunistic omnivores, brilliant at exploiting and utilizing anything available and edible in their environment. The "Paleolithic Diet" might be an interesting fad but, from what I've read of it, it does not accurately reflect the diet of all of our human and hominid ancestors (I consider myself reasonably informed on the topic as I have an academic background in archaeology.) We are finding more and more evidence that early humans did consume a wider variety of wild plant foods than we were previously aware of and that they even began cooking their food at an earlier date than has been commonly accepted til now. The larger problem with modern consumption practices is not so much WHAT we eat but HOW MUCH and how often we eat.
Hunters and gatherers (and evidence increasingly suggests that gathering of plants and small game was far and away more critical than large-game hunting for group nutritional survival) frequently experience cyclic periods of low consumption, even semi-starvation. Many modern research models (generally with animals) have suggested that regular fasting can lead to life extension and overall better health.
Perhaps we should emulate the Paleolithic PATTERNS of consumption more than their alleged menu.
pygalgia
Joined:
10/28/2005
Msg:
22 (
view
)
Significant Cancer BREAKTHROUGH!!!
Posted:
7/6/2007 10:37:36 AM
The clinical trial for dichloroacetate (DCA) referenced in message 18 was for application in neurological conditions, not metastatic cancer. Note that the outcome reinforced the toxicity of the DCA and lead to the conclusion that the damage it inflicted (peripheral neuropathy) outweighed any of it's potential as a treatment option.
The major problem in treating cancer is that you are dealing with a condition in which your own body's cells have gone haywire -- the trick is to destroy those cells without destroying healthy cells which have the same biochemical components and growth processes. Also, there are 100's, if not 1,000's of variants in tumor type. What helps reduce the growth of one type can actually encourage the growth of another. Progress has been made but there is unlikely to be one magic bullet. I do agree with my pathologist friend that more effort and funding should be made available for (1.) getting to the roots of environmental causes and mitigating passive exposure to carcinogens and (2.) exploring more creative options for tumor control than the disastrously debilitating chemotherapy regimens that constitute the bulk of treatments at this point.
Also, countless millions$$ are being wasted in "blame the victim" promotions and this idea that people somehow "deserve" to develop cancer because of lifestyle choices. Avoidance of tobacco, for instance, or excessive UV exposure are one thing, but the increasing list of behaviors or ingestions that supposedly lead to cancer or can prevent it becomes a smokescreen for the increasing rates of incidence and the slow progress in developing and making available efficacious treatments to the general public (not just those who can afford to fly to exclusive and costly clinics.)
pygalgia
Joined:
10/28/2005
Msg:
17 (
view
)
Significant Cancer BREAKTHROUGH!!!
Posted:
7/5/2007 11:05:55 AM
Sorry, folks, but this is truly "too good to be true". I ran it by a local POF friend of mine who is a senior oncology pathologist -- he dismissed it completely, explaining that Dichloroacetate used to be used as a hospital disinfectant until it was determined that it was too toxic to humans.
There are some promising new lines of treament for cancer, particularly in the field of anti-metabolites (in which my friend in involved), but, unfortunately, many cannot be funded because they do not involve patentable drugs and, hence, cannot derive funding (at least in the US) from pharmaceutical companies or from the NIH. If anybody wants the link to my friend's website on cancer research and the political problems funding it, just send me an email.
Believe me, I wish there were better treatment options. Lost my dad to colon/liver cancer when he was 57 and my mom, who initially survived breast cancer 20 years ago, has just had a shocking and abrupt recurrence and is facing a horrible chemo regimen at the age of 80.
pygalgia
Joined:
10/28/2005
Msg:
8 (
view
)
The Military Industrial Complex
Posted:
3/24/2007 12:38:40 AM
I've just started reading Jeremy Scahill's book "Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army." Despite having been previously fairly aware of this "military privatization" phenomenon, I admit I was unprepared for and aghast at the incredible extent of this privatization, particularly the "security contracts" with Blackwater, revealed in this very thorough journalistic report. Every citizen of the US should read this book (and form their own opinions.)
The situation would be bad enough if the ownership of Blackwater was a more mainstream corporate entity -- the fact that it's Erik Prince appalls me. My family is originally from the West Michigan area and I myself worked as an industrial construction manager there for many years -- I am quite familiar with Prince and with the Orthodox Calvinist politico-religious and socioeconomic ideologies of the Christian Reformed Church which dominate that region as well as Prince and Company's ambitions and agenda. I consider myself a culturally tolerant person in the extreme but the Reformed Church (RC) quite frankly, creeps me out -- I am well-read on religious doctrines and personally feel that Calvinism's creeds are among the most grotesque and inhumane perversions of religion and philosophy ever espoused. I have known and done business with individuals of that persuasion (I'm even related to some of them by blood) and find most of them chillingly sanctimonious and hypocritical as well as immovably convinced that they are the sole "chosen" representatives of "righteousness" (all non-RC individuals are predestined to be irrevocably "damned") and therefore not accountable in the end either to government nor to many of the conventionally-held values that serve the common good. They equate their own financial success with "proof" of their God's particular favoritism towards them, regardless of how unethically they may have obtained that wealth, how greedily they hoard it and how questionably they spend it (including "buying" political influence to an attempt to force their reactionary agendas on their countrymen).
The idea that the Federal government has turned over ANY foreign military operations to this bunch is scary -- even worse is that Blackwater's friends in high places continue to strive for legislation that would protect the firm and others like them from any sort of Constitutional constraints or potential legal actions!!
Gee, let's find representatives of, arguably, the most extreme sect of alleged "Christianity" in the nation and write them a blank check (in taxpayers money) for unspecified, unsupervised and unlimited armed "security" operations domestically and abroad. What a great idea! And who needs that silly Constitution, Bill of Rights or Geneva Convention anyway? Wonder what might happen if some politician(s) decided to withdraw these wildly profitable contracts from a bunch of guys with high-tech weaponry and no bureacratic or "moral" accountability? And "God on their side"??
And you don't even want to get me started on Halliburton and their ilk. For that, I refer you to the documentary "Iraq for Sale."
pygalgia
Joined:
10/28/2005
Msg:
37 (
view
)
Hey men! Have YOU tried to avoid falling in love?
Posted:
7/12/2006 12:23:57 PM
Honey, you've got my sympathy -- wish I could offer advice but I'm just as baffled.
Ironically, I've been in a similar position with a guy for 10 months only in this case we've been what any outside observer would classify as "dating" but with no physical/sexual contact. Even without sex to cloud the issue, some men seem to be terrified of (and actively resist) falling in love or even risking the first steps towards it.
My own reluctant Romeo had announced on our 3rd polite (no contact) date that he was not "emotionally attracted" to me but wanted to be "friends." I assumed this was a standard brushoff (and that I'd never see him again) and indicated I was upset by it because I had immediately started to like him when we first met and felt we had real potential. Next thing I know he starts inviting me to do things with him. We live near each other and since last September have seen each other from several times a month to several times a week including movies, live concerts, hiking, cross-country skiing, bicycle trips, kayaking, anti-war marches, going to the ballet, making dinner at each other houses, doing things with his 2 kids or just discussing the meaning of life (and love) over a beer. Sure sounds more like "dating" than simple "friendship" doesn't it?
Sometimes we've spent entire days together. In addition we've swapped hundreds of e-mails, from silly exchanges to multi-page discussions on serious issues. He's everything I've ever wanted in a guy, we are incredibly well-matched and I've developed a deep passion for him but whenever I've brought this up he would remind me that all he feels is "platonic friendship." Meanwhile he is aggressively searching for his "soulmate" by contacting hundreds of women through dating sites, meeting and rejecting dozens of them (he's incredibly, almost unbelievably, picky, though I seem to meet all of his parameters.) He hasn't gotten involved with any women except for a few that he feels are attractive enough to proposition and who will accept his ground rules of "I'd like to have sex with no emotional commitment for a while but I'm still looking elsewhere for my Ms. Right". He often complains to me wistfully about not finding his "perfect match" (uh, hello?) Needless to say, he is leaving a string of broken hearts with this process (which is disturbing to me on both personal and ethical levels.)
I should mention that he's a brilliant math professor and advanced software engineer (that might give a clue to his M.O., right?) Even while he is involved with these "bed buddies" he continues to seek out my companionship. He evidently speaks highly of me to his friends and has invited me to meet several of them. We've both got very high IQ's and are well-matched athletically, politically, spiritually, etc. and have very similar backgrounds and are of similar relative attractiveness -- wouldn't all of this seem to add up to something promising in the love department??
One would think, but the one time I tried to be physical with him 10 weeks ago (beyond the chaste brotherly hugs he gives me whenever we say good bye) I simply kissed him quickly on the mouth at the end of a 15 hour "date" during which we had done a 35 mile bike ride, cooked dinner together at his place, gone to a movie and taken an evening walk. He had been seeming warmer towards me lately and I thought it might be time to step up to the plate. Instead, my little kiss freaked him out and I got an earful in backlash e-mails where he claimed he had lost sleep for several nights being upset that I seemed to want "romance" (duh) and restating that he had come to the carefully analyzed conclusion (via internal review of his own feelings and scrutiny of my characteristics) that we would never be a "long term match". It was a masterpiece of linear mental masturbation. He had reached this "conclusion" despite admitting that his feelings for me were "deep" and "complex" and that he wanted me as a "life-long friend" and he too had experienced "pangs of attraction" for me (which he had been careful to conceal) -- still he insisted that there is "not enough emotional connection" to consider anything beyond friendship (excuse me for seeming dumb but wouldn't losing sleep for several nights over someone kissing you seem to indicate some kind of emotional connection???) We haven't discussed our little "conflict" since (but still hang out together.)
How the hell can you predict whether you could fall for someone or have a long-term relationship without even taking the first steps towards affection or intimacy with them? I can honestly say that the strongest passions I've had in the past were with the most unexpected people, in some cases guys I had known for years and would never have predicted being moved by until we got involved.
By the way, we are both around 50 and veterans of distressing long-term relationships that did not work out (though he still seems bitter about his and I'm well past mine -- also, having been a "late blooming" shy nerd in his younger days he sometimes seems like he is sort of going on 16 emotionally and socially -- sowing the wild oats most of us got out of our systems in our 20's.) It's a shame -- I think we'd be good together, I love him and like his kids and am ready for a committed partnership. We always have a great time together (provided I don't touch.) Of course, my hopeless attachment to him has pretty much stymied my own efforts to find someone willing to have a real physical and emotional relationship which I dearly want and need. Yeah, yeah, I know I've got to step away from the situation -- working on that lately.
Anyway, sorry for rambling -- besides offloading my own miserable story I was just trying to provide more evidence that men can be irrationally resistant to falling in love even in the most obvious circumstances, with or without sex being involved. I simply can't understand them.
If any guy out there cares to shed light on this phenomenon we're all ears.
Guys: love 'em, can't live with 'em, can't bury 'em under the porch.......
pygalgia
Joined:
10/28/2005
Msg:
34 (
view
)
Why long walks on the beach?
Posted:
7/9/2006 6:47:41 PM
Wow, I'm shocked to hear all of these people talking about actually strolling on sand. The phrase "Long Walks On The Beach" (LWOTB) turns up so consistently and inexplicably (like profiles based in Wyoming) that I decided ages ago that LWOTB (and several other phrases) were just an underground code for the personal writer's secret sexual proclivities. In other words, LWOTB really means "light whipping of the butt*cks."
Even when I lived half an hour from Lake Michigan (along which I often hiked for miles) I never put that cornball phrase in a personal, just on general principles. It's right down at the bottom of the cliche barrel with "candlelight suppers", "intimate moments" and "cuddling by the fireplace." It's like "Pick one from Column A, and one from Column B, now see how boring my profile can be...."
There are tens of thousands of words in the English language and hundreds of thousands of phrases -- why can't people be more imaginative? I will say that many POF'ers DO tend to be more creative than the denizens of other dating sites.
pygalgia
Joined:
10/28/2005
Msg:
4 (
view
)
is female dispassionate greed as destructive (and unacceptable) as male dispassionate lust?
Posted:
6/23/2006 2:16:00 PM
Starstruck,
Best of luck to you in beating RA. A good friend of mine has struggled with it for years and has recently much improved owing to the newer treatments.
Though I realize that the purport of your post is to solicit commentary on what you categorize as "dispassionate greed", I feel more inclined to offer some words of personal advice. You say that you are "new" to the online dating venue. The extreme emotional reaction you report from an unfortunate but extremely brief (several days) on-line exchange of pleasantries does not bode well for your mental and emotional survival in this milieu. A stranger's rudeness, however execrable, does not constitute "abuse". Did you send her money? Did she ask for money? If not, have you simply leapt to the conclusion that her dissappearance is due to "greed"? At the very worst, she was rude, not evil.
Those of us who have participated in on-line socializing for a while have, indeed, gained perspective which you clearly have yet to develop. There are unkind and unfortunate people to be encountered here as well as in "real life." You will also find, in time, many wonderful and incredibly generous people. In fact, several of my closest and dearest real life friends today are folks I never would have met if we had not discovered each other on line. One needs to develop, if not a thick skin, at least some reasonable caution and a balanced outlook. If you expect to react with such pain and sorrow to every evident rejection I would advise you to reconsider participating in a site such as this.
As to condemning people for their needs and desires, it's best for yourself and for them to be forgiving. I don't feel "abused" when a man declines to communicate with me once I've refused his sexual propositions. He wants what he wants and he's welcome to try and find it elsewhere. If your erstwhile "golddigger" seeks a sugar daddy, let her go and find one and don't bother yourself about her -- consider her departure a "good riddance" but don't pre-judge others based on her behavior.
Other people's wierdness is not worth beating yourself up about. So you snagged an ugly "fish" on your line -- just be glad it slipped off your hook before it messed up your boat or bit you, right? Bait the hook and cast again.................
pygalgia
Joined:
10/28/2005
Msg:
3 (
view
)
Skype, free internet phone service...
Posted:
6/20/2006 9:57:13 AM
Nope, no "spyware" - Skype is the real deal. I've used it regularly on my Mac for over a year to talk to folks from Idaho to New Zealand. One thing though, it doesn't work very well with a dial-up modem as it takes a lot of bandwidth so there is a lag. If you've got DSL it's better than talking on the phone -- get a headset or directional mike to avoid feedback from your computer speakers.
pygalgia
Joined:
10/28/2005
Msg:
4 (
view
)
What is the strangest place/way you've ever met someone?:)
Posted:
6/20/2006 9:42:41 AM
We started out by being roped together to climb a mountain. After 15 hours of climbing, surviving a white-out ice storm and assisting in finding and rescuing a lost skier, we got back to the lodge, thawed out, dried out and fell in love. It only lasted 8 months but it was great.
pygalgia
Joined:
10/28/2005
Msg:
62 (
view
)
things in the apartment for female guests
Posted:
6/20/2006 9:34:26 AM
I've got a cheap and (nearly) free way to solve the toiletries dilemma AND maybe impress your guest a bit.
Everybody travels or knows somebody who does, right? And everybody who travels ends up with some of the little bottles of shampoo and bars of soap. Here's what you do, guys (and it works for us ladies, too). Go buy a cheap basket (about the size of a loaf of bread) and a nice hand towel that more or less matches your bathroom decor. Take the old magazines and sweat sox off the back of the toilet tank. Fold the new towel in half and lay it across the top of the tank, place the basket on the towel and fill it with those nice little hotel size bottles of shampoo, conditioner, soap, moisturizer, etc., plus the shower caps. Also, next time you're in an airport shop pick up a couple of those mini-packs of disposable razors/shaving cream and toothbrush/toothpaste and add them.
For the crowning touch, some nicer hotels SELL lightweight cotton robes with the hotel logo on them (now we are going to pay for these, right??) Pick one up and hang it on a hook behind the bathroom door.
Obviously, the classier the hotel, the nicer the products, so you get that bonus of impressing your guest with quality and your "worldliness" (plus it looks casual and practical -- like you put it there for yourself to use).
pygalgia
Joined:
10/28/2005
Msg:
2 (
view
)
Internet chat -- some thoughts
Posted:
6/20/2006 9:16:37 AM
I try to apply phone type courtesies.
If I'm involved in "conversing" with one person and a second person comes on and hails me I will decide which one I'd prefer to focus on and (1.) tell caller #2 that I'm tied up at the moment but ask what's a good time to get back to them (2.) tell caller #1 that a good friend I've been waiting to talk to has just come on but can I get back to them later OR if I feel I can handle both at once I (3.) let both know that there is another person I'm chatting with and give them the option of staying in the chat or chatting later. I'll do the same thing if I'm busy working or "searching" and someone wants to "chat". Same thing if I get a phone call. Chatting does waste a lot of time compared to "real" conversation so I try to be considerate of my time and theirs.
I have never had anyone complain about my being upfront with them -- plus it makes them really happy when I can tell them "I'm all yours" because they can believe it!
pygalgia
Joined:
10/28/2005
Msg:
9 (
view
)
Look at your profile,... a Why dont more people write to me? observation.
Posted:
6/18/2006 9:04:33 AM
I can add another gripe to yours, Erik. I've actually used the "hook these two up" feature a few times (call me "Yenta" -- I'm always trying to fix people up and I've been pretty successful at it over the years, except for myself, unfortunately.) It's frustrating to go to somebody's profile intending to send them a message about another "fish" I think might interest them only to find that I am excluded from contacting them by their restriction settings. Your loss, people!!
You know, I think of POF as like a huge outdoor picnic with thousands of people, a few you know, but most you don't. Being in the forums is like wandering from group to group, eavesdropping on conversations til you find one you want to put your two cents in on or that has people you might like to get to know for one reason or another. I'd say more than half of my favorite friends over the past 12 years are folks I met from on-line contact sites, including this one. These include local people that I now regularly see and do things with and friends who live clear across the country who I've been able to visit on vacation trips.
Just keep your options open and you may be really surprised at what (and who) turns up!
pygalgia
Joined:
10/28/2005
Msg:
172 (
view
)
Sex in the woman mind after 40.
Posted:
6/12/2006 11:57:25 AM
^^^^ Reread my post #157 for an explanation as to why we don't "avail ourselves" of the supposed readily-available "bounty" of willing male partners.
Most women would agree: no sex is better than lousy sex.
pygalgia
Joined:
10/28/2005
Msg:
156 (
view
)
Sex in the woman mind after 40.
Posted:
6/11/2006 11:50:51 AM
Blondblueyed hit the nail on the head. It's not that we obsess about "sex" but about "good sex." When a guy asks me "So, do you like sex?" my reply is always "What kind of sex and with whom?"
Not that some men couldn't report having miserable sex on occasion with a woman, but I truly believe that there is a much wider range between the "best" and the "worst" male sex partner for women. After all, when your partner is usually 4" to 12" taller than you, can be from 20# to 200# heavier and generally stronger, (plus their "equipment" is hard and yours is soft) your experience is going to be more strongly affected by his skill, sensitivity and awareness than his would be if you were inept.
Wouldn't you ladies agree??
pygalgia
Joined:
10/28/2005
Msg:
29 (
view
)
Men's clothing question for women
Posted:
6/10/2006 9:27:08 PM
Any guy with the chutzpah (and sense of humor) to wear a lime green leisure suit and buckle shoes (white, of course, with no socks, or maybe argyle sox?) in public gets my enthusiastic vote!!
Show ALL Forums