Show ALL Forums
Posted In Forum:

Home   login   MyForums  
 
 Author Thread: Can we construct a global egalitarian society? - Part 1 - currency
 verityone
Joined: 10/23/2008
Msg: 99 (view)
 
Can we construct a global egalitarian society? - Part 1 - currency
Posted: 4/3/2010 11:41:00 PM
You were talking about people 'earning' money, not man 'inventing' currency.

Thanks for telling me what I meant, but that isn't what I meant. ... .

Ya, sure.
Whatever you say...

I was talking about creating a new currency, not people earning money

It's a stupid idea.
That won't solve a single problem, if you understood economics and deficits.

Having lots of physical assets, paper or liquid assets, IS being wealthy.

THAT is the fallacy I intend to expose.

You would succeed around the same time you figure out how to grow feathers, so you can fly south for the winter, for free...

"Wealth" is quite simply what people define and perceive it to be.

Ask 100 people (who haven't been dropped on their heads numerous times during infancy) to define 'wealth', and get back to us with the results.

You can have the BEST idea in the world, in your head, and be starving.

True

So you do know what year it is...

I don't know what world you live in.

a free one where survival doesn't entail "earning your keep"

So you live in your mom's basement?
Or are you on social assistance?

You're being obtuse again.
Or ignorant.

I like to think I was being "cute"

I was talking about how you were chosing to be ignorant to reality.

but the question was a legitimate one.

So was mine when I was wondering what world you live in.

Money is only a symbol

No.
You've already been proven completely wrong.
It's a token in a closed loop (quid pro quo) system.

unless you can eat Gold, or make clothing or shelter out of it, it isn't good for much except being yellow & shiny.

Don't be obtuse.
You could say the same about crude oil, and it would be just as stupid a claim.

Aside from relatively minor industrial applications, gold as capital has very little value.

That's neither here, nor there.
It has a value as a 'commodity', and is traded for 'money'.

Economics 101.

The only reason I might ever want gold is as a store of universally PERCEIVED value, which can be easily exchanged for things of REAL value.

Ok Einstein, why don't you tell us exactly HOW you would go about accumulating gold?
I'm all ears...

Your discussion is a fallacy based on a false premise, and conflating different topics due to miscomprehension.

....How can an open discussion be a fallacy in and of itself?...It can't.

Because it's entirely rhetorical. It's not based on sound reasoning, or even proper comprehension.
Your ideas are moot.
N/A.

That's how.

I'd say the greater likelihood is that you don't yet know what I'm talking about.

Why don't you 'show me the money!"...and put your 'money' where your mouth is...

Try reading the thread again and telling me what you think it was about. I "proved" something in it. Can you tell me what it was?

If I honestly told you, they'd ban me...
 verityone
Joined: 10/23/2008
Msg: 130 (view)
 
Why does the guy always have to initiate the date and relationship? or at least most of the time?
Posted: 4/3/2010 7:05:54 PM
It doesn't work like that in my world.
'Leader' type females do not sit passively, like the 'follower' types. That's why they stand out.
I'm the leader type. I approach people that I find appealing. Those women that are the 'leader' type stand out in stark contrast to the 'follower' type.
It's not even a close comparison.

But surely the women you approach would have beaten you to it and approached you first, no?

Not generally, no.
Most women are very timid, in initiating, in comparison to me.
Even if they do, the majority become intimidated, and I discount them (nowadays), since I learned how much better a relationship is with an Alpha type female.

I don't believe two 'leaders' can be in one relationship together

Of course they can.
It's called a "Power Couple".

there would be too much of an imbalance there....

There isn't, at all, when you have mutual respect for each other.
You both have similar objectives.
The 'imbalance' happens when one tries to dominate another, or when one turns out to be much weaker than the other.
Difference of objectives.

The female ‘Leader’ is generally attracted to strong male ‘leaders’…

And vice versa.
Because they don't want to get stuck with a weaker one than them.

the Male leader most often than not is attracted to the Female follower…

Based on the number of women who want to "wear the pants in the outfit", and arbitrate everything from sex, to whether or not she stays at work, to how the kids are raised, to china patterns, to drapes, and whose inlaws they'll visit during the holidays, I'd say you're dead wrong about that.

The two male and female followers are both attracted to the leaders

And that leaves the 'leaders' in the stronger position.
I already know that.

which leaves the strong female leader single…look around, is it any wonder that the majority of single women happen to be the successful ones?

No, it's not.
Which is why there are quite a few to choose from.
They don't 'need' a man, or a 'husband'.
Which is great.
A relationship with them, is based entirely on them 'wanting' to be with someone, instead of 'needing' to be with someone.
Which is why I've found that relationships with them, are exceptionally better than the 'follower' types. Those end up being 'parent/child' relationships. Where every little thing that upsets their world, becomes your problem as well.
They're a liability.
I'd experienced that when I was much younger, then was lucky enough to have a number of relationships with 'leader' types. There's no going back for me.
'Follower' types are like a donkey, or a mule. That's a good way for me to describe them.
Not interested in a 'donkey'.
Give me a tigress anyday... raaarrrr....
 verityone
Joined: 10/23/2008
Msg: 209 (view)
 
I Define Physics As Believing Things On Faith
Posted: 4/3/2010 6:00:10 PM
Exactly what about quantum mechanics is sorcery? The reason quantum theory exists is because classical theory is not capable of explaining what is observed.

^^^Very interesting.


The innermost you and its Experience is (from your point of view) the ultimate reality


and


I suggest that the innermost "I", and its Experience, is the fundamental fact.


And then


This world is a possibility world, and any one particular indivuality-experience/world interaction is one of infinitely many instances of Experience.

That possibility world and its details has a lower order of reality than Experience itself.
You watch a movie. The story in the movie isn't real. It has a lower order of reality than the reality in which you're watching the movie.

Oh, snore....

A pointed question is asked, and you segue into a bunch of convoluted evangelistic cult type based rhetoric, that is meant to imply that if we were to have observed the 911 attacks, on TV, that it is not considered to be as real or objective as if we were victims of it.

Just how inebriated or dimwitted do you estimate one would need to be, for any of that post of yours to sound logical in comparing scientific observation of the physical world from a "lower order of reality".

There's ONLY reality.

Not greater, or lesser realities.

There's simply R E A L I T Y.

THEN..... there's "misconception", and there's "speculation" of R E A L I T Y.

The Ultimate Reality isn't a set of elements. It's unitary.



"R E A L I T Y" is ALL encompassing.

It EVEN includes endless, mindless drivel...

Here's my criticism of Materialism:

None of which change a thing about what is actually real.
Period.
Stop.

As for the possibility worlds, if someone asks why they are, I answer that it goes without saying that there are infinitely many possibilities for ways that a world could be.

You claim possibilities merely on your speculation, and fuzzy logic.
That's your argument.

You're not actually debating against anything science has proven.
You can dream up anything you wish, and claim that it's possible.

Like the universe is one big fart.

I suggest that ultimate reality without experience would be meaningless.

That's a meaningless suggestion...

So, what other ultimate reality could there meaningfully be?

The only one that exists?
You know.....the ALL encompassing one!

What you are saying is that if it can't be empirically observed through the scientific method then it is immaterial (or "meaningless" as Logical Positivists would say).

Nope.
Science doesn't do that.
It will merely consider it speculative.
Not immaterial.

Which again proves my point that your logic is circularYou assume X and then use that very assumption to claim that Y (which is inconsistent with X) cannot be proven .

False verdict.

You've proven nothing of the sort. And appealed to yourself as an authority to arrive at that determination, so that you can keep lecturing others, AS an authority.

Strawman.

Classic

Nice try though...
 verityone
Joined: 10/23/2008
Msg: 123 (view)
 
Why does the guy always have to initiate the date and relationship? or at least most of the time?
Posted: 4/3/2010 2:54:23 PM
Women want to be respected by men, and treasured, but they don't want to demonstrate their 'strengths'?

I think that goes both ways, though.

That doesn't make sense to the question I posed.
You said that women want a man to demonstrate their 'leadership' qualities, yet behave as 'followers'.
My question to you was, how does a woman think that a man (who seeks a woman that has 'leadership' qualities) is supposed to recognize her as a 'leader' type, if she sits passively, like all the 'follower' types?

Kinda like demonstrating only that you're shy, yet boasting that you're bold and brazen.

It doesn't work like that in my world.
'Leader' type females do not sit passively, like the 'follower' types. That's why they stand out.
I'm the leader type. I approach people that I find appealing. Those women that are the 'leader' type stand out in stark contrast to the 'follower' type.
It's not even a close comparison.

So many threads to date, about "men needing to feel needed", and didn't you already state that men were natural problem solvers?

Most men are natural problem solvers.
As far as men "needing to be needed"....I'm not one of those.
The thought of that makes me cringe.
I've only wanted a woman, to want me as much as a I want her.
Her "needing" me, would make her a burden, and a responsibility to me.

That's a co-dependency.

"the answer" is not simple, the reasons should be obvious.

What's obvious to me is that the dating and relationship game is rigged to benefit the female sex

Nothing is 'rigged'.
If it were, I'd never have had the majority of relationships I've had with women.
I was too stupid to play their 'games'.

The 'game' is simply a numbers game.
Meet enough people, and you'll come across good matches for you, and who think you're a good match for them.

Some people just learn to deal with how they go about things in a way that makes rejection less likely

Any man who "learns" to do things this way finds very quickly he won't get dates or sex

That's non sequitur.
Makes no sense.

I can attract and repel people, very simply by how I interact with them, and be completely authentic as a person, while doing it.
It's simply about being multi-faceted.

Nope, they're just platitudes, ...anecdotal ones.


They're just chastising someone who asked a reasonable question.

So?
Why should that stop someone?
I can't tell you how many times someone had called me a ________, and then gone on to become quite fond of me.
If things like that stop someone, all that proves is that they're easily stopped...
 verityone
Joined: 10/23/2008
Msg: 511 (view)
 
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 4/3/2010 1:53:21 PM
Because there are uncountable things existing in the universe that science has not yet accounted for ; nor probably EVER will.

How could you POSSIBLY assert that, without being scientific?

So if you have no believe in anything other than what is known by science , You

are very blind INDEED !

That's an absolutely inane verdict.
If I don't believe in something that YOU claim exists, but cannot demonsrate, the absolute conclusion is that I am BLIND?

Give your head a big shake.

Not to mention, there is no scientific explanation yet, that makes any sense of how

the universe came into existence.

There many proven facts of how the universe originated, and how it has evolved.
Your failure to understand the complexities of it, are hardly grounds to undermine the validity of their proof so far, and the newer theories which keep being confirmed.

You textbook boys are blind to the reality that is going on around you every day.

That's an extraordinary claim.
Extraordinary proof is required in order to substantiate that claim.
It need not be complex.
A simple demonstration will do.

We await...

SS (science says) 1 Matter cannot be created nor destroyed.

SS 2 All existing things increase in entropy.

SS 3 In the past or perhaps, ' In the beginning', there was nothing. (before the 'big bang' or whatever)

SS Suddenly..............against all the laws of physics ............. there was matter.

Then that matter........... against all the laws of physics .......... became more matter...etc.

What sort of ridiculous thinking and hypocrisy is thi,s coming from such , may I say,

those who think they are learned, but are really more blind than the rest.

Please demonstrate the origins of how everything around us began, that disprove scientific claims.

Then you would have some credibility as having an expert opinion.

We await...

An example of this ......... all the silly scientific belief in a big bang theory , for a start.

There is not one spec or one atom or anything anywhere in the universe that is

evidence for the big bang theory.

It is a theory only, there is no concrete proof yet, of such a thing.

Interesting.

You sound sure of yourself.

Based on what concrete evidence? Please tell us where we can see a demonstration of the truth about the origins of the universe.

What's got me is, how can people with supposed wisdom be so ignorant of their own ignorance.

We have incredible knowledge of what surrounds us.
Much more than the ignorant prophets and story tellers from millenia ago, that would habitually condemn to execution those whose work illustrated how priests and religion were lying.
Although the numbers are dying, there are still people, to this day, who firmly believe in the ignorant concepts and theories from a people who lived in an isolated world, and had zero knowledge of virtually everything around them, yet tried to convince everyone, that they had the ultimate knowledge given to them by a source that has never demonstrated itself, yet attribute everything to it.

It's ok though. The rumours have persisted too long, and people are coming to their senses, and no longer living in fear of prophets, which are in the minority.

We just ignore them.

Nature has a way of eradicating mental illness.

It's called "intelligence".

You mention a 10,000 ft. decent as truth to your claims of scientific objectivity.
Did you research that? I did a Google search and quickly found three people that survived falls of over 20,000 ft. There are several others that have survived falls from lesser heights.

And there would be an objective scientific explanation of the anomalies surrounding those survivals.

The height is irrelevant once terminal velocity is reached, and yet these people survived.

Terminal velocity due to gravity is not necessary to generate sufficient deceleration upon colliding with a surface (the ground, for example) to create the impact rate (G forces) to cause death.
Kinectic energy quadruples with the doubling of velocity. The rate of deceleration from a velocity is what determines the rate of impact (G Force).
The shorter the rate of deceleration before rest( ie: hitting the ground during a fall) the higher the impact (G force), the longer rate of deceleration before rest (ie: hitting a pile of cardboard boxes during a fall) the lower the impact (G force), despite the velocity at the time of impact being the same, in both examples.

Duration of G Force is also an important consideration, which is variable.

As little as 30 g's of impact can cause death, if the duration is long, and concentrated to a critical area.
Impacts of over 300 G's (spikes ie: short durations) have been survived by humans countless times.

The results of these falls were subjective.

Patently false.

Your opinions of them, are completely subjective. Hence your objective (sic) conclusion, based on your (faith) fallacious reasoning.

You're simply not objective (scientific) enough.
 verityone
Joined: 10/23/2008
Msg: 116 (view)
 
Why does the guy always have to initiate the date and relationship? or at least most of the time?
Posted: 4/2/2010 4:59:56 PM
Because I think a lot of women still appreciate a man who can take charge. Not every time

That's NO different than men.

Not every time, and not every woman.

That's NO different than men.

Perhaps not even "taking charge" in the way most people view that concept, but just being CAPABLE. Capable not just in relationships, but in life in general.

Men want that too.

who's capable of dealing with problems as they arise, who's capable of handling things when life doesn't always turn out like one expects

Men want that too.

who's just capable in general. It's a very attractive quality in a... partner, IMO.

Men want that too.

Which leads us right back to the beginning, and the OP.

Women want to be respected by men, and treasured, but they don't want to demonstrate their 'strengths'?
 verityone
Joined: 10/23/2008
Msg: 112 (view)
 
Why does the guy always have to initiate the date and relationship? or at least most of the time?
Posted: 4/2/2010 3:57:17 PM
Why does the guy always have to initiate the date and relationship?

To avoid problems.

Because men are problem solvers, and they develop adaptive behaviour to solving problems, which becomes characteristic of them, which defines their character and habits.

The problems they like to avoid, are that they overwhelming majority of women, aren't very good at establishing relationships themselves, without relying on men to take the actions, in order to do that.

Everything from, a man having to ask and take a woman out (who wants to be asked and wants to be taken out), all the way to a man having to ask and marry a woman (who wants to be asked and wants to be married).

or at least most of the time?

Because that's how it is "most of the time" in initiating "dating and relationships".

They don't have trouble 'destroying' those things, and 'getting' and 'taking' those things that a man was responsible for.

Like 'destroying' a relationship, and 'taking' a man to the cleaners, after 'getting' a divorce...
 verityone
Joined: 10/23/2008
Msg: 276 (view)
 
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 4/2/2010 11:41:13 AM

Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?

Religion claims things that cannot demonstrate themselves to be real.

Religion is in direct conflict with reality.

End of story...
 verityone
Joined: 10/23/2008
Msg: 80 (view)
 
Can we construct a global egalitarian society? - Part 1 - currency
Posted: 4/2/2010 11:34:10 AM
People don't create money.

I think people had to create money as a means to exchange of goods & services, didn't they?

Don't be obtuse.

You were talking about people 'earning' money, not man 'inventing' currency.

since most people fallaciously equate money with wealth

Patently false.
Having lots of physical assets, paper or liquid assets, IS being wealthy.

You can have the BEST idea in the world, in your head, and be starving.

I don't know what world you live in.

If they already have the goods & services, why would they give those up in exchange for something as worthless as "money"?

You're being obtuse again.
Or ignorant.

One of the two. Or both.

Basic economics is incredibly simple to understand.

1- Money is traded (quid pro quo) for a product or service. It's a substitute representative method of trade.
A car dealer is not interested in 'trading' 85000 bushels of apples for a Cadillac.
2- They stopped making pennies from copper, because the 'copper' was worth more than the penny 'represented' in 'trading'.
You could 'sell' the metal the penny was made out of, and get more than a 'penny', in currency. Talk about a 'free lunch'...lol


(re: currency & production costs) Two different topics.

...Neither of which is terribly important with respect to the discussion, but thanks for your input.

Free of charge...

Your discussion is a fallacy based on a false premise, and conflating different topics due to miscomprehension.

that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

You're speaking philosophically, and idealistically, and trying to equate that to currency assigned to goods and services.
Get real.

And BTW, we are NOT created equal.

And THAT can be measured, and scaled.
 verityone
Joined: 10/23/2008
Msg: 6 (view)
 
Science Centre credibility takes a hit
Posted: 4/2/2010 11:16:18 AM

Why is everybody so up in arms about this? It's not a big deal...

It looks as though this Harry Potter deal is going to help fund the Centre.

+1

It's called marketing.

The same concept as the 'loss leader' in a grocery store. Advertise eggs and milk on sale at cost, and people will come in for milk and eggs.....and leave with $120.00 worth of groceries...

Or bringing a woman chocolate and flowers, while all the guy wants to do is boink her.

Same concept.

Lure them in, one way, for the purposes of another.
 verityone
Joined: 10/23/2008
Msg: 78 (view)
 
Can we construct a global egalitarian society? - Part 1 - currency
Posted: 4/2/2010 10:36:15 AM
Rather than wail about how were all going to starve if the banks don't loosen up a bit and save us, I'm kinda looking forward to the coming hard times as a means of weaning us off the bankers' teat. It is my hope that we will instead take economic control away from the banks, and even from the national governments..

Your understanding of 'banking' is that they're the only method of financing, which is completely fallacious.
They're simply the most common, and 'cheapest' method of financing.

put it in the hands of those who really create the money in the first place...people.

People don't create money.
They convert ideas and labour into GDP and services, which get 'exchanged' for 'money'.

As far as having a global currency, we already have a global currency.
Gold is the same 'price' everywhere, on a given day. It is simply converted into each currency's method of scale.( X amount of Euros, X amount of US dollars, X amount of Yen, ect...)*

Once we've determined whether or not this (or a similar) idea is workable, we can then move on to the next thread, which will probably be incorporating altruistic and egalitaran principles into the economic structure.

You confusing the topic of currency with 'pay scale', which is relative to the country the GDP is produced in.

That's got nothing at all to do with 'money'.

That's got to do with 'burdened' labour rates, and cost of manufacturing (or producing).**

* = Currency
**= Cost of labour+Cost to produce

Two different topics.
 verityone
Joined: 10/23/2008
Msg: 58 (view)
 
What exactly is space?
Posted: 4/2/2010 10:14:03 AM
In a vacume not even light can be there without the help of a particle to reflect upon.

That's non sequitur.

Essentially you're trying to tell us that light can only travel along a conductor.
Which does not even make sense in the example you describe, because you're saying it travels along a broken path of particle to particle, without a conductor in between them.

Think of night time. At night we see the moon because the sun is reflected on it.

We see the light that is refracted (bounced off the moon).

If the sun did not reflect upon it we would not be able to see the moon.

Light travels in a vector (unless it is bent by a gravitational force).
The light that is travelling towards earth in a vector, is illuminating the other side of the globe, as we have rotated axially away from the sun, and are into "night".

The light is still travelling towards the earth in a vector.

The light we see reflected off the moon is travelling towards us in a vector. Rather than absorb the light (from the sun) it has redirected it towards us, thus becoming the 'source' of the light (refracted from the sun) we see.

At the end of the day, all you've described is that light is refracted.
You have NOT illustrated that light requires 'particles' or a conductor to get from point A, to point B.

Electromagnetic waves and radiation travel through the vacuum of space without a conductor, at frequencies below those of 'visible' light.
 verityone
Joined: 10/23/2008
Msg: 21 (view)
 
if its really the end, is it supposed to hurt this much?
Posted: 4/1/2010 4:11:42 PM
He isn't perfect and neither am I but we are not terrible awful people. And this may seem childish but I know and he knows it too that nowhere on this lifetime are we going to find what we had together in each other.

If that's truly the case, then, what most people will tell you about it getting easier as time goes on, is wrong, because there's more than just the initial shock, and absence that will affect you.
The initial pain might not be as sharp, over time, but the realization that you might never find someone like them, will be a constant, and can become magnified over time.

How you deal with that, is whether or not, it causes you additional pain.

And am I being immature If I trully believe our marriage is worth saving to refuse to break down and ask for him to give our marriage a chance?

Being immature is letting something you really care for, just walk away.
Particularly if you could erase some of the reasons why they walked away in the first place.

I can't even imagine the shame and pain and and anger if I put my heart and hope out there and he said no.

It's called false pride. It's called ego.
The fear of revealing how vulnerable you are, can also prevent you from demonstrating to them, how much they really mean to you.

I hate feeling this weak and pathetic...

You're not.
Love is simply overpowering.
Bigger men(sic) than you, have fallen, before.

Why is it so painful to be without him?

It's called despair.
Because you loved him with everything you had, and now he's gone. The feeling is often that you lost everything.
The feelings can be very similar, almost indistinguishable, from bereavement.

Okay, I can sleep now I think. I wish i hadn't called because now he will forever think I can't now nor ever be happy without him. Time will prove him wrong but it annoys me. I like annoyance and anger, much better than pain.

Now you're bitter, and you think that'll get you through.
You wouldn't be the first to think that.

And it might be my anger that makes me feel just the slightest pleasure at knowing that if it took my first husband years to forget me and even if I was only a yr with him, it will take him the rest of his life to try and find a woman like me, that loves him like I do. And I am at this moment in time okay with that.

Then savour this time, because it might not last long...
You wouldn't be the first to make that mistake, of thinking they couldn't find someone to 'love' them as 'good' (good enough to leave you over) as you.

You might think your situation is unique, OP.

But it's not.

IMO, you're well on the road to being bitter and angry...
 verityone
Joined: 10/23/2008
Msg: 18 (view)
 
Twenty minutes and five dollars ..What?????
Posted: 4/1/2010 3:31:16 PM

My question.........
Has anyone just" thrown the money down and run" so to speak or

Not exactly.
But I have had some meets where I just wanted to keep walking right past them when I saw them in the flesh, to be honest.

Has anyone ever had a shorter meet than 20 minutes and why????

I've had some weird dates. Really weird.
One was a late dinner with a lawyer. We originally planned on going to a R&B club, that we both were familiar with, but while talking on the phone before going out, decided to grab a bite first.
She even picked the restaurant, as it was one of her favorites, and she knew everyone there.
We started off with drinks, and great conversation, and there was really good chemistry.
The trouble started ,when the food arrived...
She was very self conscious about anyone look at her, while she put food in her mouth. She would cover her mouth with her hand, every time she put her fork in her mouth, then apologize everytime she did, for being so self conscious.
We had a nice enough time, and she was a knockout, but I think she simply embarrassed herself too much.

It was funny. Strangest thing I ever saw, on a date.
And one of the shortest ones. As soon as dinner was over, she asked if it was OK if we called it a night.

20 minutes and I had had enough. I literally was going to explode myself . YES it was that tense. I have been on some coffee/ tea meets in my time but NEVER have I not been able to make 30 minutes with someone. I called the waiter over and handed her a five.
He said thanks and we walked out after "nice to meet yous" were exchanged.

I had another weird date that struck me as extremely odd, as well. It was with a woman who was 5 yrs older than me, who had emailed me first.
We had spoken on the phone about half a dozen times, and had great conversations.
Really easy conversations, touching on all kinds of topics, and lotsa humour.
She was very friendly, and easy going. She even called me one night when her sister was over, and had me on speaker phone, and the three of us had a blast. It was great.
We finally were able to meet, about 2 weeks after we began chatting.

We decided to meet on a patio, down by the lake. We arrived at almost the exact same time. She had just got a seat, when I arrived. We spotted each other immediately.
She commented immediately that she was relieved that I looked just like my pictures. I though she looked even better in real life.
We were both smiling and looking right into each others eyes.
The attraction was there, on both sides. There was no doubt.
Her other comment, was that I looked much younger than my age. She even asked, "Are you sure you're___?"

She was nowhere near as talkative as she had been on the phone. She just kept sitting there with a big grin on her face, and answering short, "yes" "no" or "uh huh" answers.
I noticed that she was not talking much, so I made sure not to be the only one talking.

She didn't seem to be nervous, so I said that I was glad that she didn't appear to be nervous, to which she replied NO, that she was not the type to get nervous on dates.

But,.....she did come out of the blue, on 2 or 3 more occasions during the evening (which lasted about 2 1/2 hrs), and tell me I looked much younger than my age, and asked if I was sure that her being 5 yrs older, was never going to be a problem.
She also asked if I had ever dated anyone that was that much older than me.

Even though we gotten along so well on the phone, and had a great first date, she never called, or emailed again, after that night.

Looking back, I realized that she had asked me the same question, when we first began chatting on the phone. She was concerned if I had a problem dating an 'older' woman.

I think there are many reasons why people can behave in bizarre ways, when out on a date, with someone they've never met in the flesh.

I think in your case, OP, you look quite a bit younger than your age. That may have something to do with how men might behave when you first meet. Particularly if they're your age, or older.

Which is why I always tried to meet people as soon as we began chatting. It weeds out people with issues, and doesn't allow for a long buildup of anticipation, before actually meeting, and getting comfortable around each other.
 verityone
Joined: 10/23/2008
Msg: 447 (view)
 
What if Prostitution was Legal?
Posted: 4/1/2010 1:23:14 PM

We would probably be swamped with TV advertizing. There would be a Hooker Channel on cable.

We have legal prostitutes in Toronto. They're called 'escorts'. We also have massage parlors, which are essentially women paid to service men, sexually.

Both have been around for years.

Neither make the 'radar' much, in terms of general society, around here.
 verityone
Joined: 10/23/2008
Msg: 106 (view)
 
He does everything FOR ME.
Posted: 4/1/2010 10:33:58 AM
Scorecarding. I rest my case. Anyone who mentally lists what they think they do and matches it for what they get in return is unhealthy to date (or have to deal with, frankly).

A good relationship doesn't keep score, period.

Really?
Then how does one come to the conclusion that the relationship was unbalanced?

He does everything FOR ME.

Too funny.
He does tooooooooooooo much for me!

Some people just look for something to complain about.

Quick, you better pull out the preemptive breakup, before someone else finds him, and get him to do everything for THEM...


One wonders if the guy had a cold,demanding, performance oriented "martyr" mother who withheld love and affection,only doling it out as "reward" for exceptionally good behavior, performance, achievement?

Ya.
How did he turn out that way, anyways?
Doesn't he know that men are supposed to sit on the couch all night, drink beer, and fiddle with the remote, only want sex, while the little 'lady' does the 24/7 job of being the 'homemaker'?....
 verityone
Joined: 10/23/2008
Msg: 503 (view)
 
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 3/31/2010 2:27:11 PM
the general public does need faith ... [a trust in other people] ... to believe in science.

Strawman.
That's a different topic.

The 'general' public is right in the middle of the Bell curve. They rely on things, more intelligent people don't have a need for, because they don't lack the understanding of less intelligent people.

But that's not the topic.

The topic IS whether or NOT it takes faith to believe in science.

Which IS a false premise, to begin with.

That's a FACT.

Scientific fact is the absolute truth, in black and white.

Again ... as stated in previous parts of this post ....

Statements and claims, are far from truths.

I thought everyone, knew that..

now grow up ... and stop being so self centered.

You're not the boss of me...

 verityone
Joined: 10/23/2008
Msg: 177 (view)
 
I Define Physics As Believing Things On Faith
Posted: 3/31/2010 1:32:43 PM
1- There is only reality.
"Reality" is ALL encompassing.
It includes EVERYTHING that exists for 'real'.

Ok, good enough. The question is, what does it consist of?

Everything that's in it.

The Materialist says that it consists of this physical universe.

Correct.
They're stating a FACT.

I've told why there's a strong case for doubting that.

Based on what?
Speculation upon speculation, upon speculation, upon speculation....(ad nauseum)

Your position seems to imply that that is the only genuine reality. I don't disagree with that.

That's the smartest thing you've said to date, in this thread.



"Real" has two distinct meanings. One meaning is "genuine".... The other meaning for real is a bit vague

Patently False.

Dictionary definition:

re·al1 /'ri?l, ril/ Show Spelled[ree-uhl, reel] Show
–adjective
1.true; not merely ostensible, nominal, or apparent: the real reason for an act.
2.existing or occurring as fact; actual rather than imaginary, ideal, or fictitious: a story taken from real life.
3.being an actual thing; having objective existence; not imaginary: The events you will see in the film are real and not just made up.
4.being actually such; not merely so-called: a real victory.
5.genuine; not counterfeit, artificial, or imitation; authentic: a real antique; a real diamond; real silk.
6.unfeigned or sincere: real sympathy; a real friend.
7.Informal. absolute; complete; utter: She's a real brain.
8.Philosophy.
a.existent or pertaining to the existent as opposed to the nonexistent.
b.actual as opposed to possible or potential.
c.independent of experience as opposed to phenomenal or apparent.

Different people have different notions of what is absolutely real.

That's their problem, if they want to equivocate.

My personal opinion is that, in the context of this life in this world: Our lives, this world, its events, and what is important in this life, is absolutely real. In a broader context, I'd only call the ulitmate reality absolutely real. But that's purely an opinion, about something that's purely a matter of opinion.

Ultimately, what the reality is....
that this is a troll post, and a personal blog...
and that you want to argue and hope to find people that will accept and agree with your equivocations.

That's not based on a 'faith' that I have, it's been demonstrated over and over to be 100% R E A L.

Datz the fac, jack...
 verityone
Joined: 10/23/2008
Msg: 501 (view)
 
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 3/31/2010 1:07:24 PM
If you want to debate semantics


Sure it's semantics, yet what exactly are the three of you debating?

Objectively?
We're helping.
We're correcting, and clarifying, inside of an fallacious argument, based on misconceptions.

Subjectively?
Amusing ourselves, and passing time...

Occum's razor, is grossly overused on this site

One cannot abuse Occam's Razor, if one wants to be objective.

and most applications are incorrect.

Opinion.
Not fact.

Take the simplest definition of the word.

Strawman.
Very few words have only 1 interpretation or meaning.

(You left out #1 on your post ole bean.)

#1 was what you had quoted.

Theoretically science strives for complete objectivity,

Patently false.

Science is a simple objective method which is KNOWN to demonstrate 100%CERTAINTY.
Period.
Stop.

It's an equation that outputs CERTAINTY.

but three things put a hitch in that giddy up.

No.

1. Humans are conducting the experiments and humans are inherently subjective.

The scientific method removes human interpretation, in the exact same way mathematics does.
2+2=4
No matter how you slice it.

2. The human species uses science as a tool to help them define reality.

In order to be 100% certain.
You're just repeating what you've been shown, numerous times, yet you still contradict yourself.

3. Science's empirical methodology has a built in program for adaptation and change.

No.
In science, the only reality is FACT that have demonstrated themselves to be 100% accurate.
Just like math.
Everything else is theory.

I'm just warming up.

Let me know when you're ready...
 verityone
Joined: 10/23/2008
Msg: 201 (view)
 
Oral Sex Disgusts Me
Posted: 3/31/2010 10:04:50 AM

Nope, just cannot agree with this.
Most mature adults have gotten passed the superficial ideas of "prettier is sexier".
"Sexy" comes from within. The packaging is just a visual plus.
I cannot even imagine any aspect of sex holding less appeal as I get older.....when the
exact opposite has been happening over the last few years.
I may have looked better in my 20's.......but my sexuality has blossomed in my 40's.
I am far more in tune with myself.......and with my partner.
I have learned that every single inch of the body can be an erogenous zone.

I have to agree with this, and add that my level of arousal, is directly proportional to the cerebral maturity of a woman, while becoming less proportional to physical perfection.
 verityone
Joined: 10/23/2008
Msg: 88 (view)
 
Is wanting someone that's available selfish and demanding?
Posted: 3/31/2010 4:18:25 AM
Is wanting someone that's available selfish and demanding?

1- No.
2- As evidenced by being with someone who's similar to you.
3- Who says being selfish and demanding is always negative?
4- Who says being willing to wait for what you want, vs what you can get, is being 'selfish' and 'demanding'?
 verityone
Joined: 10/23/2008
Msg: 146 (view)
 
What do girls mean when they say their last relationship was all about sex?
Posted: 3/31/2010 3:41:22 AM
Let me rephrase...you can become emotionally close to someone BEFORE you have sex, and it just gets better once you do ( hopefully)...

Then you're doing it wrong, if your primary focus is to become closer.

There's two ways to reach an objective.
1- Efficiently
2- Inefficiently

The way to get emotionally closer to someone exponentially faster, the more intimate you become with them. When you share everything there is to share about yourself.
Being that sex is the most distiguishing feature that separates friends from lovers, the equation to becoming emotionally closer, is quite simple.

I don't understand why people 'cling' to sex like they're going to lose something for ever, if it doesn't turn into anything more than just sex.

Sex is, simply sex.
It's something that occurs between people.
Sex is not love. Love is not sex. Sex is not a relationship. A relationship is not sex.

It's just sex.

Not being willing to share in sex, till a relationship is secured, is considering sex as an investment, and therefore a currency.


1- Don't share emotions with their lovers.
2- More importantly, prefer no emotions to be involved

Nothing is ever absolute

Then why did you speak in such absolutes?

and I don't always remember to qualify ( I actually think it unnecessary, any smart person knows it can't possibly apply to everyone)..

Don't put the onus on others to expect to take you seriously, when you keep disqualifying things you say, when there's nothing absolute, in your absolute views.
and stereotype people based soley on your distorted perceptions.

however, of all the men I have talked to online who were interested in intimate encounters ( and in three and a half years there have been many)...every single one of them said the reason they wanted it was because there were no emotional attachments/expectations..

Strawman.

You keep speaking in simile, and changing the topic.

The "topic" of yours I responded to, was "no emotions involved DURING sex"*, and your distaste about that.

Now you've changed the topic of "no emotions involved DURING sex", and attempted to falsely accuse people interested in casual sex of " no emotional attachments/ expectations"** of being guilty of wanting "no emotions involved DURING sex"*.

* = emotionless (heartless) sex.
** = a relationship.

Stop changing the topic.


Then those who 'wait' are not offering anything special, in comparison to others.

Come on Verity...you know me well enough by now to know I don't think I'm any more special or better than anyone..male or female...

Why are you defending yourself to me, after my comment, which wasn't directed at anyone?
And just for the record, it seems as if you do actually think there is something unique (special) about you, that you seem frustrated about other people not giving you a special consideration, for your personal discomforts.

I do what I think is best for me...

So?
Are you wanting people to sympathize?
I'm trying to talk in general terms, not about you personally, nor do I want people to sympathize with me.


I just can't think of one good reason to deny myself (and someone who desires me sexually, and who I'm incredibly sexually attracted to) the pleasure of sex.
Not one.

Well, then you do what works for you....

Oh goody.
I've got the approval I was seeking...

Not...

If you're going to comment, I'd prefer a general comment or statement, not a personal one.

Those are all great things...and I know you want to believe anyone who isn't gung ho about plain plain pleasure seeking

Strawman.

You're changing the topic (again), from * to**.

I'm not discussing sport f___ing**.
I'm discussing having intimacy, and sex with someone I have no intentions of being in a LT relationship with*.
It doesn't mean I don't have feelings (even strong feelings) for the person, before, during, or after sex.

I think it's important to mention that I need more than just to "like" him to want to have sex with him..

Being that sexual arousal and experience is all in your mind, that doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever.
I'm the exact opposite. And I know a lot of people are just like me.

People who are extremely passionate.
They emotionally behave in ways that are completely predictable AND (at the very same time) unpredictable.
It becomes (therefore) logical, that they would behave that way, because of their emotions, that are void of (you guessed it...) logic.
Because their actions can cause them harm, and they'll (often) risk everything, to pursue what they feel most passionate about.

For me, intimacy with a woman, is one of those things.

I can think of a lot of women who I could want to have sex with, who I can't stand for more than a minute.
Like my ex, for example.
I loved her, and I loved having sex with her.
I can't stand her now, but if she were here, I would still love it, if we had sex.

I can think of a lot of people who have vivid sexual fantasies about people they have zero personal interaction with, and intimate knowledge of.

"Needing" to like someone, or be close, or emotionally bonded to someone, in order to have sex, is an urban legend.
Unless you've got issues. Then it's merely a symptom...

I have "liked" almost every man I've had a first date with, ...and I'm not holding off for a commitment..I have never done that, and don't plan to start..

Then all I can think of is
1- You're not sexually attracted to them, enough
2- Sex is not as much a priority for you
3- You're afraid of something


So as long as you're in the position of power, the guy is a villian for wanting to have sex with you? *


I never said guys were villians in general**..

Another strawman.
Another simile.

Don't insert "guys" into another (new)topic, because the (original) topic included the word "guys" and change the (new)topic entirely.
I'm talking *
You're talking **
I didn't ask you about your thoughts about guys 'in general' **being villians.
I asked about the specific guys (you are referring to) you are saying are wanting sex from you.*

Unravelling strawmen, is a COMPLETE waste of another's time...

I said guys who push/pressure/demand are unpleasant and a turn off...

A women who is sexually attractive to a man, but turns out to have intimacy issues, control issues, and to be non sexual, is unpleasant, a turn off, and a complete waste of time.



I like having sex, and having it with someone I'm incredibly sexually attracted to. That's completely emotional.
Going against my feelings is when I feel bad, as well as find it to be irrational.


IMO, sex, and sexual attraction, in itself ,is not about emotion, but physiological drives..

100% disagree.
I don't want to have sex with a woman because I'm 'horny'. I haven't been 'horny' since puberty.
I want a particular woman, because she arouses me, and others don't, in the way she arouses me.
Not because I have an 'itch' to scratch, and am looking for what you term a 'sperm receptacle', which is about the most emotionally disturbed way I've ever heard any woman ever describe a man orgasming and ejaculating during intercourse, as if they were defecating.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, as is foulness.

it's physical..doesn't even require feelings...

You're projecting.
Speculating.
All in your mind.
You're not having sex with these people.
You couldn't possible know what their feelings or emotions during sex, are.

I'm not going against any feelings...I'm following them...

You're disqualifying and contradicting yourself (once) again.


quote from zangie : ARRGGGH...look, this isn't about whether I like sex or not..it's about the fact that I get emotionally attached to men I have sex with..the degree of this attachment varies..but, it is always there, I can't make it go away, trust me, I have tried..knowing this, I avoid caual sex...


You said you want to avoid developing strong feelings, and getting attached, in case things don't become more permanent, and now you are doing a 180 and claiming that you are not going against any feelings, but following them.

There is not a shred of consistency, from comment to comment.


The word is "inconsistent" not worthless. "Worthless" is a value judgment, "inconsistent" is a logic judgment

Inconsistent is a negative...

No.
It's an observation.

get tired of beating my head against a wall to get acknowledgment that both ways have merit...How do I rationally explain an irrational behavior? I admit it isn't rational...

In that case, what you are looking for, is called 'sympathy'.


It's not about you. I didn't respond to your post because you made it clear that I cannot understand you, or the behavior of women rationally.


I don't think it is that you can't...I just get the feeling that a lot of men don't want to...

What?
Sympathize?
It can only be that, since you don't feel misunderstood...

they think their way is infinitely better/ more useful

What's more useful better or than being objective and rational?
Subjective and irrational?


You just illustrated that you override your feelings of desire with "analysis".


I think you misunderstand what situations I'm talking about..

Hardly.
Even though what you post is incredibly convoluted and contradictory, when you break it down, and filter out what doesn't make sense, the bottom line is there.

It seems the bottom line is, you don't enjoy sex enough, to have it just for it's own merit, and want it to be an 'investment' that yields something other than sex.


Ughhhh.....I don't know how you develop a deeper closeness without having sex.
All you have is a friendship.



I see this. For example, the person I was going to marry I was close to them but our sex life was horrible. So there was a missing element in our closeness and our relationship suffered due to it. Had our sex life been good? Our relationship would have been lasting because that means we would have been communicating.

Ironically, there are people who would try and turn that into "It was all about the sex"...


And btw...I know a lot of men, and some women, who don' t have to like you to have sex with you...

Of course.
I've had FWB's.

You have had friends who you don't like?

No.
I said I have had FWB's.
Who happen to not have the absolute requirement, to like someone, in order to want to have sex with them.

Seems rather masochistic.

Because you drew an erroneous conclusion, to begin with.

Perhaps you meant you've had FB's.

No.


Exclusivity is all I'll offer

Even to your FB's?

To anyone I'm involved with sexually, yes.
I don't have more than one lover at a time.

I'm not interested in much more than a physical relationship, nowadays. My life is pretty full, and I really don't "need" a woman, or a relationship. Not that I ever did.

If not, that is distastful to most mainstream daters.

I know that.
Why are you lecturing me about something I don't do?

If so, why is she only a FB?

Simple.
Because it's not a relationship that includes more elements, that would not be possible.
An FWB for me, would be a woman who I find incredibly physically and sexually appealing.
I'm more selective than that, for a committed relationship.
There's also that and I might not be all that she is wanting, either. I'm not offering much, compared to other men.
Not everyone could live with me, and not everyone would be someone I could live with.
But the purpose of an FWB is something else.

It's about being content, with something that, in and of itself, is rare and unique.

know this is going to make even less sense to you...but...if someone criticizes my opinions/beliefs/actions..I assume they mean they are wrong..

To them, yes.

is not criticism meaning you don't approve?

Generally, yes.

in this case...are you not saying that because I am not able to address it in the way that makes sense to you

That only means you didn't explain it properly, or that it simply isn't something they feel is rational.

I do it differently...then it is wrong?

Depends.
It's very possible.

If you have any insights on how I overcome that..I'm all ears...if it's constructive, at any rate..

Too loaded a question.
Your question isn't specific enough.
You've listed a number of things, that you could overcome.

If it's sympathy and acceptance, I'd recommend you do like I do, and not even care about them, or want them.
How one goes about that, I haven't the foggiest notion...

Every once in a while I’ll read something that really stands out for me…this is one of those. Very deep, romantic, emotional and human.

That's what being passionate about intimacy is all about, n'est ce pas?...

She’s fvcked other guys that made her feel like the above. You just don’t do it for her.

That's the bottom line.
She's become sexually, closed off.
Not a good sign.
That kind of damage, often, runs deeper than just the topic of sex.

Elaboration: she does not mind being with a guy who only wants her for sex but you are not him. From you she wants some kind of payment. I believe she is not going to be able to get, or hang onto, guys that seek passion, sincerity.

Exactly.
Either she's not passionate about intimacy (or never was), or she hopes that being intimate will yield her more than just intimacy, which is silly.
 verityone
Joined: 10/23/2008
Msg: 49 (view)
 
What do you deem as a useless/pointless invention?
Posted: 3/31/2010 1:14:08 AM
Okay, seriously, bottled friggin' water! Are you kidding me? You see, most people have this device in their house for obtaining water. It's called a "faucet!" And a reuseable receptacle. It' s called a "glass." (making 'quotation fingers' here).

One thing I'll give 'em though...marketing GENIUS!

Spell E V I A N backwards...
 verityone
Joined: 10/23/2008
Msg: 498 (view)
 
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 3/31/2010 1:08:36 AM
Seems like alot of people get excited when the word faith comes up, like it automatically implies a religious connotation.

Faith is the 'buzzword' for believing in things that are not proven to have any actual viability, like religion, astrology, serendipity, superstition, spirits, illusions, talking to the dead, reincarnation, the afterlife, etc...

Why don't we also use Mr. Ockham's razor when applying an understanding of the word faith

It's impossible to do that with words, because of synonyms.

Sure, Faith can be implied religiously, but the meaning of the word Faith "is the confident belief or trust in the truth or trustworthiness of a person, concept or thing."

That comes from Wikipedia.

The fallacy of your claim is that "faith" is predominently synonymous with (from the dictionary):

2.belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3.belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4.belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5.a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6.the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7.the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8.Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.

I'm thinking they're using trust and faith synonymously

Regardless, it's a false premise.
Trust/faith, are subjective feelings. Not objective observations.

Science is a simple equation that is 100% reliable, for substantiating facts.
It's a go/no go, failsafe. Purely objective.

There's NO trust, or faith, or anything of the sort required to be put into the equation, as it has NO bearings on the outcomes of a scientific test.

Whadda you think?

Not your best work, to date...
 verityone
Joined: 10/23/2008
Msg: 495 (view)
 
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 3/30/2010 1:29:44 PM

It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.

There's NO faith is science.
Science is the antithesis of faith.
The only time you rely on faith, is when you're unsure that something is going to work as hoped, or don't believe that it will.
You can have trust (not faith) in someone else who claims to understand, or sees something you don't, or choose NOT to trust them.

I've been told this before, and have heard numerous other explain they've been told the same thing before.

People will use rhetoric, when they have nothing else of value, to demonstrate.

Facts speak for themselves.
They're simply attacking people you cannot convince, and putting the onus on them to convince themselves, when they aren't convinced.

Accussing people of not understanding what is impossible, is a paradox. A null hypothesis.

Why do you think a large amount of creationists believe that to accept science and reasoning as the truth is to be something also considered based on "faith"?

Because they're equivocating, with semantics as a base to create false premises, in order to be able to draw parallels, where none would have been possible beforehand.

Basically, if you can't convince people, confuse them.
It's no different than lies. The more intricate the lie, the more difficult they become to be disproven. At which time, it becomes more economical to simply accept the lie as a truth.

Science is a 'tool'. A simple formula that humans employ to substantiate existence, and reliability of understanding, employing Occam's razor.
Taking things to their most simple equations.

Religion does not do that. It fails at substantiating it's own basis.
The existence of a god is simply a 'chicken and egg' paradox.

If there is a single being that created everything, then who created him? Where would he have originated from, if he was responsible for everything.

You cannot 'father' yourself.
 verityone
Joined: 10/23/2008
Msg: 17 (view)
 
What exactly is space?
Posted: 3/30/2010 8:43:11 AM
What exactly is space?

Distance.

There's constrained distance, and infinite distance. Infinity.
 verityone
Joined: 10/23/2008
Msg: 132 (view)
 
What do girls mean when they say their last relationship was all about sex?
Posted: 3/30/2010 8:18:57 AM
you can become emotionally closer and never have sex...but, you no longer have a boy/girl relationship if sex isn't a part of it..

That doesn't make any sense, whatsoever...

And what percentage of people claim they prefer no emotions to be involved??

I don't know the percentages, but, if you look at the intimate encounter lists compared to the others...I'd say it's pretty large...at least online...they go on for pages...

And how did you arrive at the conclusion that those seek intimate encounters:
1- Don't share emotions with their lovers.
2- More importantly, prefer no emotions to be involved?

Correlation, does not equal causation.
You've essentially not proven anything, other than you used circular reasoning to stereotype people who are seeking intimate encounters, as people who prefer no emotions to be involved.

It doesn't make it sound like one possesses any more profound level of "feelings" because they choose to 'wait'.

I agree with you here...

Then those who 'wait' are not offering anything special, in comparison to others.

It's not difficult to understand that all other things being equal, dating someone you are not on the same wavelength, doesn't have any appeal, nor does it offer much in terms of appeal, or future promise, by comparison.

I am not looking for guarantees, just possibilities, reasonably risk free ones...not totally, just common sense reasonably...I know how I respond to things, just following my heart...

That's a contradiction.

Compared with my personal experiences with women, and how they become incredibly sexually aroused with kissing, and caressing, and how easily they can orgasm without even intercourse, it contradicts the claims of other women.


This is a good time to point out: my feelings are part of the pleasure/experience...what can I say...the more intense my feelings for the guy, no matter how talented he is...the better I enjoy it...and the more I sense he feels for me also affects it...the physical feeling is different..really...

You're going on a tangent.
I was talking about people who don't have hangups with enjoying sex with a partner they're not as deeply connected with.
For some people, lust, attraction, sexuality, and sensuality, are the top criteria, placed waaaaaaaay above feeling warm and fuzzy, and worries about whether or not a committed relationship will result, from being intimate.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone whose arousal and enjoyment isn't heightened when deeper feelings for a lover, are involved. In which case, your response is about as moot as saying, "I love feeling loved".

I prefer having sex with a woman. Whether I love her, or not. Telling me that people who have chosen to have sex very early on in a relationship, is void of emotion, only tells me that some people have emotional barriers and sexual hangups.
Sorry.
To tell me that masturbation is any kind of preferred substitute for making love with a living breathing human, is completely irrational to me.

Who said anything about early..I was talking right away as not being good for me..

I wasn't responding to anything you wrote. I was speaking in general, from all the stories of women who hold out from sex with a man, they like, or even dump one who wants to have sex with her (apparently because she's "uncomfortable) and then go home and sexually pleasure herself with an 'inanimate object'.

Makes no sense to me, whatsoever.

But, logically, they want sexual pleasure, but won't have it, until they feel certain that they've secured a 'commitment'.
She's not having sex because she's feeling sexual, or because she's sexually attracted to the man, in comparison to being attracted to the idea of a commitment.

In which case, sex becomes a 'reward' for the man's obedience.

And again..I never said any such thing...I think , in my case, I'm just willing to deal with it's drawbacks until the right guy comes along..it doesn't kill me...lol...

You can deny yourself any pleasure you like, to achieve whatever it is that you value more than sexual pleasure with a person.

I just can't think of one good reason to deny myself (and someone who desires me sexually, and who I'm incredibly sexually attracted to) the pleasure of sex.
Not one.

Not regarding that statement in particular, but, generally as to my view here: well, there you go..I believe emotion and rational are, by definition..polar opposites, no?..lol..

What's that got to do with anything I said?
I like having sex, and having it with someone I'm incredibly sexually attracted to. That's completely emotional.
Going against my feelings is when I feel bad, as well as find it to be irrational.

My emotions are a big part of who I am...that means that they affect all of me..including desire..besides the fact that I am also capable of setting it aside until it FEELS right..

You just illustrated that you override your feelings of desire with "analysis".
So which is your "guide"?
It seems clear to me, that it's 'analysis'.

Not me. Not when it comes to sex. It's all about how I 'feel' about her.

don't know how else to put it..emotionally driven..not physically driven...I have sex when it feels right..I don't think about it or rationalize it , I trust my feelings in this case...they are pretty accurate..because when I ignore them..bad things happen...when I try to be logical about it...I end up feeling really bad...I gave up trying that way...

That's a complete non sequitur.
Contradictions all over the place.

Personally, I just go by what I 'feel'. If I'm feeling it, It's game on. If not, I just move on.

3. THE ONE... He is the guy who the minute you look at him, he makes you instantly think of sex. your heart beats a little faster, you imagine running your fingers down his beautifully muscled arms, you want to pull him close to you and savor every minute.
You say to yourself, who the heck cares about an emotional involvement. You just want him and want him now.

dreamcatcher.....I always knew you were holding out....

Well, though this can be true..it doesn't explain the plethora of people who can have sex with a someone regularly and for long periods of time...and never form an emotional bond...doesn't explain FWB"S or FB's either does it?

FWB's have been explained to death, on the forums.
It's simply people who are sexually attracted to one another, who realize they're not a good fit with, for a long term relationship, and simply immerse themselves in having the great sex, instead of the.....alternatives.

His desire isn't the problem..his way of presenting it, or his attitude, or his motives are ...I think it is dictation when men insist that they want sex now..or else..when they try to threaten ( or guilt) you into what they want

So as long as you're in the position of power, the guy is a villian for wanting to have sex with you?

It's not worth any guys time, to feel guilty, for being warm blooded, for any relationship, to be quite honest. Even at the onset.
Not in any of my experiences. I'd rather hold out for a woman who wants to tear my clothes off. Or just stick to a FWB.
Not for one who'll desire a relationship with me, yet arbitrate sex between us, then go home, and diddle herself.

" YOU MUST NOT LIKE SEX THEN"...when all they want to talk about , or , know about, is sex...when they obviously don't like me enough to respect my concerns/boundaries/comfort levels...

Then you, and the men you date, are different. You also seem to put your needs above theirs, and more than likely, feel that as long as your in control, the relationship is 'balanced', when in reality, it's tilted in your favour.
Interesting...
I never bring up the topic of sex with women, and I always wait to see where a woman will lead, then I'll judge. It never takes long. Often on the very first call, innuendo will happen, which may, or may not evolve into more talk.
With or without her though, I'll have sex with someone, whenever the mood strikes me. I would never let someone I'm not having sex with, arbitrate anything, much less, whether I have sex or not.

I prefer having sex with a woman. Whether I love her, or not.


Whether you love her or not... this attitude is why many women are looking for a bond with a partner before getting intimate.

You're projecting.
Many women prefer having sex with someone they're dating casually, or while exploring the possibility of a committed relationship.
You can do that, you know.
Live in the moment, and take your chances you might get 'hurt'.

Some women don't want casual sex

So?
Moot point.
Some women, not only are willing to, but want to have sex casually.

The best way to avoid being used this way is to not have sex

Strawman.

People don't get used for sex.
They participate in having sex.

If you're getting 'used', you're doing it wrong, or you're being forced.

I happen to believe you do not "make love" with someone you barely know. You fvck.

Thanks for the confession.
You and I are different.

I love the act of making love to a woman, and nothing I do, changes from day 1, to day 1000, except learn more about each other's bodies and preferences.

You make love with someone with whom you have an emotional connection.

Speak for yourself, not everyone else.
Not all women are created equal.

If women were to have sex with every man on the first night who when we meet we are sexually attracted to and THINK we LIKE (while not even knowing them) . We'd be wracking up our numbers only to be discared because we're not Take Home To Mom, material due to being promiscuous.

And men are immune to "promiscuity" bias?
Puhleeeze...

I can see the eyes rolling now if a woman was to reveal something like: "I've had 100 partners but it's all good because I liked them all".. Please!

And what would your eyes be doing if the man you're dating revealed he had slept with 100 women?
Would you jump at the chance to give him a prize?...
Puhleeeeze...

Get real you logical sexual thinkers..

I'm as real as overly emotional sexual thinkers....

We are not men and we ARE NOT afforded the freedom to fvck indiscimanently like men.

Who exactly is impinging on your freedoms to fvck any way to want?

Do none of you actually read what you say in other forums about relagating most all of your first night sex partners to fb status..

Where have any of us posted that confession?

And, please don't give me the b/s that those that you did relagate to fb's was because they didn't have anything else to offer you.. it's pretty hard for them to offer you anything else when all you'll allow them to offer you, is the sex.

I guess it's never occured to you, that women are the ones who are initiating divorce moreso than men, and that they're not in any hurry to 'shack up' again.

The older I get, the more there seem to be.

Stop the crazy talk you're not even being logical about it, really!

I reject your allegation.
I'm logical, and telling you the truth about my perspectives, and about my experiences.
Your personal feelings about what I say, are not going to alter what I say.

ARGGGH...look, this isn't about whether I like sex or not..it's about the fact that I get emotionally attached to men I have sex with.....because this emotional upset far outweighs any sexual pleasure...thus, it isn't a pleasurable experience for me...no amount of physical pleasure makes up for being hurt...they aren't the same thing...I need both my emotional side and my physical side addressed...they are CONNECTED...

I'm not sure why you'd think that it wasn't ever abundantly clear why women are reluctant to have sex before they're assured they won't get cut off from having more.
Do you think it's some secret, or that men can't figure out that some women are that afraid of getting hurt?

I avoid caual sex, or men who are just interested in sperm receptacles...

What does that mean?.
Can you describe what a woman is doing to not enjoy sex, and feel that she is a receptacle?
Is the similarity to man, to feel like he's a woman's dildo, or sperminator?

On the one hand, people can enjoy sex, then on the other, be disgusted at themselves while having sex?
How can someone objectify themselves that way?
What is that, all about?
Seriously?


And btw...I know a lot of men, and some women, who don' t have to like you to have sex with you...

Of course.
I've had FWB's.

and really, do you know if someone likes you when you first meet them? Really
?

Why do I need to only associate with those who will fall head over heels in love with me?
There's lot of benefits to having all the perks of a relationship, and remaining autonomous. As a matter of fact, I'd say there's virtually no woman, right now that could convince me of giving up my freedom and autonomy for. Not for love, or money.
As much as I was happy in my last LTR, and would have preferred that it didn't end, I'm happier (overall) about the rest of my life. Exclusivity is all I'll offer, and that won't change anytime soon. Maybe never.
 verityone
Joined: 10/23/2008
Msg: 172 (view)
 
I Define Physics As Believing Things On Faith
Posted: 3/29/2010 10:13:47 PM
I Define Physics As Believing Things On Faith

That's your problem.

There are 'facts', and there are 'theories'.
Facts, are built upon facts.
Theories are built upon speculation (and/or stem from facts).

If you believe that the physical universe is all of reality, then you believe that it's the ulitmate reality.

I'm immune to rhetoric, false premises, and false dichotomies. It's an occupational hazard, being an objectivist...

You're trying to rely on the paradox of the null hypothesis, which all pseudo intellects rely on, in lieu of anything to demonstrate, outside of mountains of "theories" and "speculations", built on a foundation of "theories" and "speculations"...

There are two possibilities:

1. There is an ultimate reality
2. There is, instead, an infinite hierarchy of realities, each subsumed by the next.

Patently false.
There is but 1 'reality'.


Take your pick.

The fundamental starting place.

There is only "A".
Not "A" and "B".
Stop distorting things, in order to keep up your circular argument.

Let's break this down, clearly.

1- There is only reality.
"Reality" is ALL encompassing.
It includes EVERYTHING that exists for 'real'.
Period.
Stop.
An "ultimate" reality, is a false dichotomy, because it asserts there is a "minor", and "major", "lesser', or "greater" reality.
Real is real.
Not, less real/more real.

JUST real.

2- ALL of the physical (material) universe is part of "reality". This matter can be observed, measured, studied, quantified and demonstrated to be real.

3- Scientists, and physicists test (material and quantifiable) things to be sure they are, what they believe they are to be.
When it becomes 'fact', they state it as such. Until this time, everything they 'know' is prefaced with " what we suspect is the truth (reality)".
Pure and simple.
Concise.
Nothing convoluted about that.

4- "Materialism" is based on #3, and ignores anything that involves 'mysticism', or 'theology'.

Looking at it another way, I told why it's possible to infer ...

I've 'looked' at much of what you 'believe' is possible to infer.
It's just your 'personal' views and perspectives, none of which I find worth even contemplating.

I would have to buy into your argument. It seems that one is arguing metaphysics with metaphysics. Neither are provable and as such pointless.

In that case, you simply misinterpret the true meaning of metaphysics.

The only things that are certain, are those that demonstrate themselves to exist.



...and what is certain is our Experience.

As for the "reality" of ulitmate reality: From my definition of it there either is one, or there is that infinite hierarchy I spoke of.

Talk is cheap.
He's talking about what certainties that can be demonstrated, which = A, and you counter with referring to your own conjecture, ( which is NOT a demonstrated certainty) which =B.
You're quoting others, and simply going off on a tangent, and talking out loud.
Monologuing...

In other words, matter is the only substance.


You meaning there isn't clear, because substance and matter are considered the same thing.

Here, let me help.

Matter is all that has been substantiated.

There's nothing 'mystical' about it.

Material things are the only things that....actually matter...

To the Materialist, matter and its physics is all of reality

Strawman.

A Materialist is a scientific purist. It's a disciplined, analystic method of observing things, from an objectivist (atheist) standpoint.
Purely academic.
Even religious people do it.
There isn't a religious person on earth, who isn't an atheist, as well.

So get off this philosophy thread.

Get lost.

The only things that are certain, are those that demonstrate themselves to exist.


...and what is certain is our Experience.

Nice try.
But no.
Our 'experiences' and 'observations', can be completely false.
Humans are prone to error, which is why we employ a formula (science) that removes the possibility of subjective interpretation.


The physyical universe is one of many possible configurations of a large and complicated physical system.

That's merely speculation (AFAIK).

As for the "reality" of ulitmate reality: From my definition of it there either is one, or there is that infinite hierarchy I spoke of.

That's ALL merely speculative.
I can speculate that the universe is a fart. And that would be equal to your speculation.

The ultimate reality woudn't be arbitrary.


Yes it is.

It is? Ok, I won't ask you to prove that, because it's a subject not usually amenable to proof.

It is provable by empirical evidence all around us.
Unless you want to believe that a flat tire, or your electricity being cut off for not paying the bill, is 'destiny', or pre ordained...

You catch on fast. I've been saying, from the start, that science says nothing about ultimate reality.

What one says, doesn't matter much, in reality
All that matters is what one can demonstrate.

Talk is, and always has been, 'cheap'.
It's where the expressions "All show, and no go", and "All sizzle, and no steak", and "Show me, don't tell me", come from...
 verityone
Joined: 10/23/2008
Msg: 239 (view)
 
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 3/29/2010 12:32:26 AM
we need that balance the science/materialistic world and the faith/spiritualistic world

Really?
That is an one extraordinary statement.

Please explain why there is a need for a faith in a god (deity or divinity of some other nature).

I don't see any animals assembling for mass, and building shrines. Or are just 'some' of "gods creations" meant to be blissfully ignorant?

I don't see them going to war with each other and killing millions of each other over their 'faiths and beliefs' derived from their so called 'knowledge' of what 'god' tells them is the proper way to live.

I see them co-existing infinitely more harmoniously alongside their own species, in comparison to 'men' ( the ones purported to made in 'his' own image).

Debate that one...

as a religious/spiritual person it is most frustrating when science asks for proof

Why would it be frustrating that people question that which seems preposterous?

then ignores or discounts the physical, emotional, spiritual proof given on the behalf of faith

There is no actual evidence. Only conjecture, and rumour.
Hearsay.

now and throughout history as recorded in the bible...

Because biblical accounts of history, and their accounts of divinity, contradict one another.
Yet all claim the same thing.

The truth...

Which of course, is impossible, that they're ALL right.

If they were ALL right, it would be a paradox.
 verityone
Joined: 10/23/2008
Msg: 234 (view)
 
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 3/28/2010 11:51:54 PM
You do know the majority of your machines created using science were derived from studying things in nature right?

For example?

You can keep your anti god and anti faith thoughts...

Whoa there pardner...
Let's not put the cart before the horse, shall we?

"Anti" god, would indicate that there is a (factual) god, that one is against.
As such, there is only a persistent RUMOUR of there being a such a thing.

But your right to do so stops at the point of you telling others what they should have for thoughts.

Not any more than a religious person being so arrogant and presumtuous as to speak of a rumoured divinity, with such certainty and ardent fervor, and who'll react with the utmost indignance and outrage when the veracity of their claims are called into question.

I'd venture a guess to as to what most people would think, if an adult where to be as adamant in the existence of tooth fairy, or santa claus, or having been abducted by aliens, as some individuals seem to be in god.
Aliens, tooth fairies, and santa claus, by comparison to an omnipotent being (who created all of reality with his own two hands, and must have materialized himself in order to do that, and is solely responsible for all things unexplainable in mother nature) are much more probable, in terms of 'feasibility'.

I mean, really, seriously, list all the things that 'god' is rumoured to be (not only responsible for creating, and for having physically created, along with), managing and in control of.

And I'm supposed to buy all that, without any physical 'evidence'?

Sorry, that ain't gonna happen.

My mother would have thought I was gullible, and incapable of preventing myself of being taken advantage of, and would have never let me out of the house till I demonstrated (scientifically ) that I was capable of proper extrapolation methods.

God bless her...
 verityone
Joined: 10/23/2008
Msg: 169 (view)
 
Met a nice guy, he has a girfriend. Is it wrong to ask him out for coffee?
Posted: 3/28/2010 10:14:50 PM
verityone its a little difficult to discuss this with you if you are going to be so condescending.

Ad hominem.

Spare me your scolding. I've not attempted to 'characterize' you personally.

You've done nothing but get off topic and focus on attempting to malign me and condescend to me with your 'experience'.

verityone,
did you know that you have the same attitude a player has?

i tended bar on and off for many years and witnessed this m.o. repeatedly with established players........i just thought you might like to know if you were not aware. that knowledge may come in handy for you someday.


you don't know if i was an employee in the bar or owned the hotel chain etc...

The salient point is I had many more years dealing with "the public" than your attempt at bolstering your opinions with having "tended bar on and off for many years", which does not add any more credibility to your characterizations of what you deem constitutes a 'player'.

do you literally want to compare our world travel to see who knows more?

Not really.
I haven't even touched on the fact that I'm European decent, lived in 3 of the largest cities in Canada, and spent much time working and staying in the (among others) largest city in the US, read and write 3 languages, and have travelled abroad extensively.
Add to that, 2 years of psychology in college, where my intent was the field of criminal pathology.
And that I own 3 companies, (and currently have stake in 5 others) and that I'm a member of two large boards of trade, in a megacity of over 5 million people, go regularly on business trips, and excursions, and meet more people in a month, than many will meet, in years.

No, I'm not really that interested in your 'who knows more'.

Just where you feel your comments towards me are appropriate, on topic, and on what grounds you have to feel you have some knowledge that's particulary noteworthy on why asking an individual out for a coffee, while they have a girlfriend, should be frowned upon...

What I have a problem with on here is that most of the examples people are providing to let the OP know it is okay are bar situations or situations where one met the person in question in public and didn't know beforehand that they were attached.

In that scenario, it changes slightly. The person doing the "picking up" is not aware at first that the other is committed to someone.

That is a totally different situation and I've done that before, but backed off when I knew they were with someone. Now. If down the road, I see this guy a lot and find out he is no longer with the girl? Sure. But when I know beforehand?

I'm really not that selfish that I need to do that.

You're projecting.
There's no real selfishness, or disrespect in making friends with individuals.

You might feel guilt when you've attempted to 'make a friend' with someone who is involved, but that's your issue.
I don't have that issue, nor do I see a problem NOT having any issue with it.

My interest in meeting people, is because I'm interested in meeting them, and getting to know them, and if I have a reason to want to continue getting to know them.

I really don't understand this whole "off limits" mentality that many people have surrounding people who are one half of a couple.

We accept the 'friends' someone has made prior to our involvement with them. Why should making friends 'cease' after our involvement with them?

In the scenario I talked about with my friendship with a married woman, if the husband was to tell me that he did not want me to be friends with his wife, I'd tell him I was sorry her felt that way, and decline any further discussion, for the simple fact that his wife, likes me, and he should take up his ill feelings about me, with her.
I'm friends with an individual who happens to like me, and I like her. She's also an individual who happens to be married.
We're two individuals, who have become friends, and like being friends.
She doesn't have any problem with it, and I don't have any problem with it.

If her husband has a problem with it, he would be best to explain to her, why he might have a problem with it, and then answer as to whether or not he would have the same problem if his wife's friend was a woman, instead of a man.

I'm not going to walk around on eggshells, and "prequalify" people as friends based on whether or not they're "involved".

In the instance of my friend, if she were to become separated, I would definitely want to become more than just friends with her, but that would have happened if she was single, and it could happen if I met her on the day she became separated.

Quite frankly, it makes no difference. One way or the other, this woman could "find" a man who would be attracted to her, if she was looking for one.
She didn't 'look' for me. We met because I introduced myself to her, and we became friends.
I never made any sexual advances to her. No harm, no foul.

As far as the OP is concerned, there's nothing wrong with her asking the guy out for a coffee.
Compared to the guy going out to a bar with his buddies, getting liquored up, and meeting liquored up women, this is exponentially more benign.
 verityone
Joined: 10/23/2008
Msg: 132 (view)
 
Science doesn't support Materialism or contradict the alternatives
Posted: 3/28/2010 9:22:28 PM

Talking about science and philosophy is like comparing apples to aardvarks. Philosophy is only about principles and ideals. Science is about the nuts and bolts of experimentation and observation. We can talk about first principles when it comes to science. However, just because someone says that a particular philosophy holds the position that "ultimate reality" is the material on which its based, science remains open to the possibility that it might be something else. Say, energy, for instance.


But that's not to say he said it was the only explanation. Just the one we can experiment with and observe.


Metaphysics isn't accessible to laboratory experiments because metaphysics is philosophy. As for materialism believing in an "arbitrary" ultimate reality, well, first of all you're presuming to speak for a philosophy you disagree with. So your argument is going to be largely biased in favour of your own view.

In the simile of the darkened room, think of it as our universe. Even if our eyes adapt a bit to the dark, such as we are able to gain a bit more information, we still have a long way toward understanding everything about that room. It's decor. It's textures. How far it extends. We could sit and philosophize about it all day. Or we can go about trying to get information about it. Again, perhaps we can get hints of other "rooms." That's science.

Brilliant post.
It also succinctly outlines the the entire strawman of the OP, while still pointing out that the mystics don't have a leg to stand on, in debating the creationist position.
 verityone
Joined: 10/23/2008
Msg: 210 (view)
 
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 3/28/2010 2:40:21 PM
verityone, get yourself an attitude correction and change the tone of your postings if you ever expect me to reply to you again - because I am not about to allow you to start a flame war in here.

And just to educate the ignorant, using common phraseology such as "bleeding Jesus" does not make a Christian any more than wearing a crucifix as a fashion accessory does.

Ad hominem.

Flaming.

False accusation (I never made the assumption you were Christian).


Irony...

if you ever expect me to reply to you again - because I am not about to allow you to start a flame war in here.

Replying to my rebuttals is not required on your part.

I'm happy to let them stand, as if they were incontestible.
 verityone
Joined: 10/23/2008
Msg: 30 (view)
 
What do you deem as a useless/pointless invention?
Posted: 3/28/2010 2:38:26 PM

Facebook/MySpace. :)

Twitter is exponentially more useless.

What about those virtually "farms" that I hear about, on Facebook? Where you grow virtual crops?

Almost did my head in, when I heard about that.
 verityone
Joined: 10/23/2008
Msg: 206 (view)
 
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 3/28/2010 2:32:02 PM
As lions lack the ability for abstract thought and complex verbal communication, all a young lion can learn from watching is how to bring a prey down, aka "hunting technique".

That's a subjective claim.
How have you arrived at the firm conclusion that they lack an ability for abstract thought, or communication?
Lions do hunt in packs.
Explain to me, how they can coordinate that amongst a group.

The decision itself when to hunt and how much energy to invest in said activity can by principle not be discussed amongst lions, as they lack the ability for such abstract communications.

Another subjective claim, which is entirely debatable.

It thus must be genetically inherited knowledge that enables

Circular reasoning.
"Without this, it must be that".
"This is the same as that, therefore that is this".

Weak. Very weak...

The rest of your post is way to ranting

Ad hominem.

Lighten up. It's called sarcasm.

It's also quite ironic for you to attack me, when I'm not the one to start off my posts with :

" Oh bleeding Jesus, what do you think tells the Lion what food is good and which one isn't? "

and also accuses me of things I've never claimed, to be worth replying to.

I'll remove the sarcasm, because it troubles you so.

Here it is :

Where do you think the Lion takes the knowledge to calculate the amount of energy any given prey offers it versus the amount of energy it'll take to chase it down and kill it (because if the Lion does not take that into account and keeps exhausting itself in chasing down rabbits all day long, it'll starve to death in no time)

That assumes lions make decisions based on a point of diminishing returns.
There is no scientific evidence to firmly substantiate that claim.
As such, it's merely conjecture.

Its genetic knowledge that tells the Lion when to hunt and when to step back and let it be.

According to circular reasoning, and anecdotal observation.
Not scientific fact.
Sorry.
 verityone
Joined: 10/23/2008
Msg: 381 (view)
 
men, how do you feel when the woman you love tells you she had many [30-...] f- buddies?
Posted: 3/28/2010 1:54:57 PM
I'm not talking about the entire relationship, I'm talking in bed... And as far as I'm concerened, trying to be the best lover is certainly more important than being 2nd best, adeuquate or even worse, bland...

You do realise may of us don't rank lovers right? When I am with someone I am not thinking gee he is only as good as or he is better than or he is not as good as someone else. I am enjoying that experience. If someone asked me who the best lover I have had was, I couldn't tell them because there is not a best. Each one was a unique experience and completely different than anyone else. There is one "worst" though and that only happened once because it was the only truly bad sex I've had.

+1
It's not a competition, in the classic sense of apples to apples.
Although I'm a pure hedonist, I didn't "love" my best lovers more than I did others, nor did the sex from the better "lovers" mean more to me.

I'm much more concerned with how I feel about the person. In, and out of the bedroom.

As for being just another number? After enough people ahead of you, you are a number unless the person radically changes their outlook. And even if they do, can you be sure they won't revert...?

Really? I was monogamous for many years. I am far from monogamous now. If I went into a relationship and reverted, what would I revert to? The thing is, people of integrity and honor don't run around behind their partners back. Since I have integrity and honor and hold myself to a high standard, if I made a commitment to be monogamous, I could be certain I would not cheat. It's not about past behavior, it's about being involved with partners who have integrity.

Another big +1.
I've dated more women, and been intimate with more women, than most women could cope with. But I've never been anything but monogamous in an relationship.
I never went 'back and forth' between women. It was always on to the next.
The number of 'lovers' needn't be significant.
People who have been with 1 lover, over the years, could have have sex thousands and thousands of times.
WTF is the difference, if it those thousands of times, it was divided among 1, 3, 5, 7, or 20 lovers, if they were monogamous?

men, how do you feel when the woman you love tells you she had many [30-...] f- buddies?

With all honesty, I can tell you I've never asked "How many people have you been with?"
And with all honesty, it's been asked of me, very few times, and I was never demanded to answer.
And I wouldn't.
I think it's a stupid, and rude question.
It's none of anyone's business.
I've never been passed over, for not answering the question.

It has NO bearing, on what the quality of our relationship will be. It might in the mind of the person I'm with, but that's part and parcel of their mental state, and nothing I have any control over.

If they make it an issue, it's them that have failed the relationship. As evidenced by others who I was able to have great relationships with.

I was always the same person.
 verityone
Joined: 10/23/2008
Msg: 197 (view)
 
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 3/28/2010 1:23:24 PM
Oh bleeding Jesus, what do you think tells the Lion what food is good and which one isn't?

What it observed it's parents hunting?
Where you going to tell me it was divine intervention?

Where do you think the Lion takes the knowledge to calculate the amount of energy any given prey offers it versus the amount of energy it'll take to chase it down and kill it (because if the Lion does not take that into account and keeps exhausting itself in chasing down rabbits all day long, it'll starve to death in no time)

Are you going to tell me that Lions are bean counters and obsessive compulsives, who use spreadsheets to establish the point of diminishing returns, now? Or that they rely on a divinity to do that 'math' for them, and 'guide' them by sending them 'signals' on what and went to hunt?

Its genetic knowledge that tells the Lion when to hunt and when to step back and let it be.

According to whom?
I've yet to see a signed confession from an literate lion about all this 'evidence' of divine intervention...
 verityone
Joined: 10/23/2008
Msg: 117 (view)
 
What do girls mean when they say their last relationship was all about sex?
Posted: 3/28/2010 1:01:41 PM
To me reading these quotes it is perfectly clear to me. There is consistency.

That's where some of us differ.
I see contradictions and paradoxes, quite often.

Kinda like, "I'm extremely sexual, and I love sex, but not always"
Or "I want to develop a deep closeness first, before we have sex".

Ughhhh.....I don't know how you develop a deeper closeness without having sex.
All you have is a friendship.

They like sex when emotions are involved

That's a banal, emotional appeal for sympathy.
And what percentage of people claim they prefer no emotions to be involved??

It doesn't make it sound like one possesses any more profound level of "feelings" because they choose to 'wait'.
If that were the case, virgins who wait till they're married would be the 'be all, end all' of emotion filled sex.
It would probably kill people, when they finally had sex with them...

They do not like casual sex devoid of emotion

That doesn't follow with many things I've read from women.
Some women report not being able to orgasm with a lover, but to have the best vaginal and clitoral argasms with a vibrator and with masturbation.

Compared with my personal experiences with women, and how they become incredibly sexually aroused with kissing, and caressing, and how easily they can orgasm without even intercourse, it contradicts the claims of other women.

They will resort to self pleasure in the absence of a loving relationship because they like orgasms.

So they prefer sexual pleasure manually, or with inanimate objects, to sharing a sexual experience with a human?

Makes perfect sense to me.

Not to me.
It's cognitive dissonance to me.

What makes perfect sense to me is "If you can't be with the one you love, love the one you're with"

I prefer having sex with a woman. Whether I love her, or not. Telling me that people who have chosen to have sex very early on in a relationship, is void of emotion, only tells me that some people have emotional barriers and sexual hangups.
Sorry.
To tell me that masturbation is any kind of preferred substitute for making love with a living breathing human, is completely irrational to me.

I'm "funny" that way...
 verityone
Joined: 10/23/2008
Msg: 164 (view)
 
Met a nice guy, he has a girfriend. Is it wrong to ask him out for coffee?
Posted: 3/28/2010 12:04:46 PM
it is standard operating procedure for a player to establish early on while dating a woman that he needs the freedom make his "own" friends with women and that it is all good and innocent.

Correlation does not equal causation.
You're stereotyping.
You also parsed my words, and misquoted me, (and alter the context) to create a strawman.

Here is the complete quote (feel free to explain, in detail, how it sounds like a 'player' :

If someone who was with me, had problems with my being social, I'd certainly make every effort to try and alleviate all of her fears, but I would not accept any type of compromise, or curtailing of making friends.
Those kinds of constraints, are not anything I'm willing to do, in exchange for a relationship.
Sorry...


How could that possibly be construed as a 'player' ? Because someone has a strong sense of individuality, and won't give up their autonomy?

Is this tied into that "forsake all others thingy?

i tended bar on and off for many years and witnessed this m.o. repeatedly with established players. they then have the opportunities to be friends of varing degrees with other women. it's classic player behavior. i just thought you might like to know if you were not aware. that knowledge may come in handy for you someday.

It might.
If I just fell off a turnip truck.
I've graduated with much higher honours than having "tended bar on and off for many years".
My family was in the bar, restaurant, and hotel business from when I was a young child. I was also a semi-professional touring musician for 10 years, and have been in business on my own (dealing and travelling globally) for over 15 yrs.
There's very little I haven't witnessed about 'human' behaviour.

I noticed you missed all 4 questions that I previously asked, about elaborating on knowledge of 'players'.

So I'll post again, and give you the opportunity to tell us more of your extensive knowledge of "it's classic player behavior. i just thought you might like to know if you were not aware. that knowledge may come in handy for you someday.

Maybe then we'll have a clearer understanding of why the OP, or anyone else should NOT make friends with people who are in a relationship.


verityone,
did you know that you have the same attitude a player has?


1- You'll have to elaborate on what defines a player.
2- So what?
3- How would you describe my ex (who accepted, and behaved as I did)?
4- How would you describe the married woman I'm going out with tonight?


BTW, I did have my 'date' with my married friend last night. We had a great time. I ended up getting the number of a very attractive woman, whom we met, during our night at the club that we went to.
She didn't seem to be deterred by the fact that I was single, and out alone with a married woman.

What do you think she's 'missing', that you're able to see?
 verityone
Joined: 10/23/2008
Msg: 17 (view)
 
What makes sex good for a man?
Posted: 3/27/2010 12:59:54 PM

Just a quick question....

From a male point of view what makes sexual encounters good, interesting, enjoyable?

How much it lingers with him, after it's over...
 verityone
Joined: 10/23/2008
Msg: 161 (view)
 
Met a nice guy, he has a girfriend. Is it wrong to ask him out for coffee?
Posted: 3/27/2010 12:41:26 PM
verityone,
did you know that you have the same attitude a player has?

1- You'll have to elaborate on what defines a player.
2- So what?
3- How would you describe my ex (who accepted, and behaved as I did)?
4- How would you describe the married woman I'm going out with tonight?

not saying you are one but thats a pretty standard line they give about needing the freedom to start friendships with other women.

Then I fail to understand what you're trying to accomplish, if you are not attempting to cast the aspersion that I'm doing something wrong.
 verityone
Joined: 10/23/2008
Msg: 147 (view)
 
Oral Sex Disgusts Me
Posted: 3/27/2010 11:50:05 AM

I couldn't bring myself to be intimate with him, if I knew he felt this way. IMO, I would feel there was something deeply wrong with him.

I feel the exact same way about women, who are squeemish about oral sex (giving or receiving), in the slightest.
Complete turn off.
Complete dealbreaker.

I don't even remember what age I was, but I'll never forget the first time I went down on a woman. It was right in the middle of intercourse. While having intercourse, the aroma triggered something in me, and I immediately pulled out, and dove in between her legs. It was a complete primal reflex. It's the only way I can describe it.
It was like I discovered a connection with god...and I'm practically an atheist

Need more details, OP. What exactly is it that disgusts you??? How can we offer suggestions if we don't know the deal?

Exactly.
If it's isolated to one woman, there's a possibility that there are things unique to her that turn him off. But if it's across a few women that he's experienced it, the odds are completely stacked that it's got to do with him.

I can honestly say, I've never been with a woman, who was neglectful of her vagina. Not one.

As far as taste, and aroma, it varies with the same woman, from day to day. And never have I found some days to be anything other than immensely appealing.
To me, it's primal urge. There's no way in the world I could overcome it.
In fact, there are times, when I'm disappointed when the taste and aroma are more subtle.

But never once have I ever enjoyed performing oral sex on a female.

That's your problem.
I'll do it even when it becomes painful, because of how much she gets off on it.

I find it to be disgusting and repulsive for some reason.

Then you'll find your lovers getting oral from other men, for that very reason.
Trust me.

Am I the only dude here that feels this way?

Among men who have evolved?
Yes.

Does anyone have any advice for me.

Other than find a woman who doesn't like oral, or get used to getting dumped?
No.

I want to please my woman I just hate performing oral.

Oral sex is just one of a myriad of ways to get her off, but oral is a fundamental one, as well as a 'principle' thing.
The psychology behind taking your lover's genitals, and fluids into your mouth, is impossible to substitute with anything else.

How can I make this be somewhat enjoyable?

All kidding aside, I think there's a possibility that it will happen on it's own.

Perhaps a woman leading by example, will make the difference to you, and you'll find experiencing her orally, is something you'll develop a strong desire for.

A lot of women absolutely love performing oral sex, to the point that they want to perform it, even if intercourse is not going to happen. Oral sex can be (IMO is) more gratifying to the one giving it, than the one receiving it, which the thought of, becomes incredibly arousing to the recipient, to where they want to turn the tables.
Oral sex (IMO) is funny that way...

When I was younger, I had been with women, who were very reluctant to experience cum in their mouth (probably for similar reasons to you, OP), only to then become enamoured with it, and it become of staple of our lovemaking.
 verityone
Joined: 10/23/2008
Msg: 159 (view)
 
Why do guys look and not even say hello?
Posted: 3/27/2010 11:10:33 AM
I know it takes a lot of courage to approach someone you don't know.

No.
It doesn't actually.

Good for you.

Obviously..

Give some advice to the men that say they are intimidated by women then..

I did. You parsed my words so that you could shoehorn in a command, to do something I already did.

So am I. I don't have any problems when I go out.

That's not what you said earlier, when you said that you have to summon courage to approach people you don't know.

I would consider it a problem if I had to muster up courage to make new friends, on my own.
 verityone
Joined: 10/23/2008
Msg: 158 (view)
 
Met a nice guy, he has a girfriend. Is it wrong to ask him out for coffee?
Posted: 3/27/2010 11:01:28 AM

OMG...this is seriously a question? You apparently have attachment/relationship issues wanting another woman's man so that he doesn't get attached to you.

You gleaned this much dysfunction in the OP because she would want to have conversation with a man (who happened to have a girlfriend)?

With sooooo many men out there wanting NSA you should offer free-booty-calls and be done with it. It would be no better than you trying to date an attached man. So what if he is nice...aren't most guys at first? A psychiatrist is a good start and clear the cob webs in your head...get some respect for yourself. WTH!

I'd really love to know what you expect out of a committed relationship.

Met a nice guy, he has a girfriend. Is it wrong to ask him out for coffee?

If it was, then who would want to commit to one person?

The answer is that it's not wrong at all, to still make friends with other people.
It's better the devil you know, than the devil you don't.

It's all about trust.

My ex and I, needed to have trust in each other. We were both in business, and had to network with lots and lots of people, collaborate with people, and travel for business. If we didn't have trust, we would have gotten nowhere, fast.
If I was the jealous type, I would not have chosen to be with her. I would have had fits. Everyone found her very attractive, inside and out.
We never had any problems with making friends of the opposite sex, because of the fact that we were such a rare and unique match, and we were very open and shared all of our friendships with others. I'll only speak with absolute certainty about myself, but simply, no one else compared to my ex, and that holds pretty much true, to this day.

I'm actually having a 'tequila night' tonight, with a woman who I met about a year and a half ago, who is married. I introduced myself to her, in a bar, simply because I thought she was exceptionally beautiful (and told her so, right away).
I've run into her many times, and we've always had a great time. It was only after about a half dozen times that we'd socialized before I asked her if she was married. When she said yes, I asked if she had a sister that looked like her, who was single.

One night, her hsuband was with her, and she immediately introduced me to him, and we've all become friends. I make no bones about admitting that my initial interest in her, was because of how attractive I found her. She resembles my ex, tremendously.
I've also told him how great of a person I think his wife is, and that he's a lucky guy to have found her, and that if she had been single, I would have definitely asked her out.

He's also aware that I'm very social, and date a lot, and is able to figure out that if my interest in getting to know her was about getting laid, I would have given up as soon as a found out she was married.

The 'tequila night' thing came about when the 3 of us would party, and I discovered that she has a thing for tequila, and we'd do that together, while her husband would stick to vodka.
The original plan that was that the 3 of us would go out on a Saturday, as it's the only night the 3 of us can pull that off, and her husband got invited by friends to do something else.

It's safer for him, if she's out having a tequila night with me, than if she was with her girlfriends.
No guy is going to spend any time trying to score her with me around, and there's no way I would do anything with her, or let her get away with cheating on him.
I respect both of them too much to be part of anything that would harm their relationship, and they both know that.
In this instance, because he respects and trusts me, I'm like a brother, and it also speaks volumes about his feelings about his wife's character.

If you and your SO, choose each other for the right reasons, there's little to fear in them becoming friends with others.

If someone who was with me, had problems with my being social, I'd certainly make every effort to try and alleviate all of her fears, but I would not accept any type of compromise, or curtailing of making friends.
Those kinds of constraints, are not anything I'm willing to do, in exchange for a relationship.
Sorry...
 verityone
Joined: 10/23/2008
Msg: 157 (view)
 
Why do guys look and not even say hello?
Posted: 3/27/2010 10:14:38 AM
Says a chicken.


Yup, I am...

So you are a chicken, as well.

That response reads more like sour grapes, and an attack about the men one can't seem to attract.


No sour grapes here. I posted this


Basically, you guys are "CHICKEN" afraid of the "NO"..

because I noticed most men were saying that they were intimidated by women.

Then why neglect to include yourself (and all the other women who are intimidated) in the "chicken" category, and sympathize with each other?

Are you that appalled at any group that would have you as a member?

I know it takes a lot of courage to approach someone you don't know.

No.
It doesn't actually.

Don't try and make yourself feel like you're part of the majority, by including everyone else alongside you.

I engage with strangers everywhere I go. I'm friendly, always laughing when I go out, and very social. People go out hoping to have a good time. Be a source of that to them, and you'll make friends everywhere.
 verityone
Joined: 10/23/2008
Msg: 2 (view)
 
What do you deem as a useless/pointless invention?
Posted: 3/26/2010 10:41:23 PM

What do you deem as a useless/pointless invention?

Religion.

Bar none...
 verityone
Joined: 10/23/2008
Msg: 232 (view)
 
Can thoughts influence things on a molecular level ?
Posted: 3/26/2010 5:44:05 PM
i think its allready been proven thro out history, good speaker in plants seed and speaks with passion and belief, will always apeal to the mass, and they follow with out question! focous that intensiy to an object, specifically yep i believe i can be moved, or cause effect.

Well, if you can provide any real evidence for that belief, contact the james randi foundation immediately so you can collect the $1,000,000.00 being offered for such evidence.

No need.

The Mythbuster dudes already debunked the myth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_perception_(paranormal)

And farmers have tried that with crops, and with animals in order to increase their yields, for generations.
It has about the same level of viability as 'wishing and hoping' or 'praying'...


Can thoughts influence things on a molecular level ?

The question is so ambiguous, as to have virtually no meaning, whatsoever...
 verityone
Joined: 10/23/2008
Msg: 105 (view)
 
Science doesn't support Materialism or contradict the alternatives
Posted: 3/26/2010 5:02:12 PM

The Self at our center doesn't die or change in any way, ever. Outside of time.

That's merely a theory. Not a fact.

That is hardly surprising, because I said that the Self is the Ultimate Reality, and that the Ultimate Reality is more fundamental and general than this physical universe, because this physical universe doesn't qualify as ultimate reality.

Rhetoric. Another paradox.

I've never heard of this "Ultimate Reality" you speak of. I'm not even interested in knowing it's origins.
It sounds like a classic hyperbolic literary device, like the "Ultimate Sin".
Meant to bestow an inordinate, or unfathomable level of severity, or authenticity.

Basically, drivel...

But your experience of being exogenist will come to an end eventually, according to the laws and events of this physical world.

According to what 'fact'?
How can you be sure?

Do you have a position about what the ultimate reality is?

Yes.
There is no 'ultimate' reality.

There never was.
Or ever will be.

Not in reality.
It's merely a concept.

The fundamental starting place.

We have no reason (AFAIK) to believe that anything was ever linear, or a vector that begins at a point of origin. That's a physical concept as well.
In math, and geometry, for example, there exists the (circle) loop, and
infinity/perpetuity/eternity which could all be looked at, and perceived to be different examples/views as the same thing.

The chicken/egg paradox.

Looking at it another way, I told why it's possible to infer with certainty an ultimate reality beyond this physical universe, more general and fundamental than this physical universe.

It fails to demonstrate that what one imagines*, has any basis for being possible, much less, a reality.
The only things that are certain, are those that demonstrate themselves to exist.

* This server doesn't have enough bandwidth to list all the things that have been imagined by humans, that have not even a fundamental possibility of being viable, or existing, in the way that they are imagined.

BTW, "imagination" can be traced to it's "physical" origins.
 verityone
Joined: 10/23/2008
Msg: 252 (view)
 
getting increasingly irritable with my gf
Posted: 3/26/2010 2:07:53 PM
The number one factor in me having a terrible day is a lack of sleep. I end up irritable, ****y, whiny, and just an overall unpleasant person. Oh, and the odds of me wanting sex will be next to nothing that entire day.

That's your problem.

This is why I greatly value my sleep and do my best to get at least 6 hours a night. And this is also why my guy values me getting enough sleep.

You mean, you rule the relationship.

If the morning is the only time you aren't getting laid then just let her sleep and pull one off.

Why not do like some of us do, and find someone better?

If you must have morning sex move it to the weekend where you can sleep in and you can also take the time to get her in the mood (poking her in the back with your woody does not count).

You mean make my world revolve around hers?
Thanks for the offer, but they haven't invented the woman who I'd find myself doing that for, when there's so many women who are much more sexual than that.

I'm not typically a morning sex person either, but when there is time for lots of cuddling and kissing and touching.... it is a good morning indeed!

Not all women need to be primed. Which is why my advice to the OP is to dump her.
He obviously believes that this is somehow "normal", and expected, and something that he needs to adapt to, which is the furthest thing from the truth.

Some women are really into sex, and are good to go, no matter what the time and place.

The OP's GF is obviously not a good example of that.
 verityone
Joined: 10/23/2008
Msg: 134 (view)
 
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 3/26/2010 1:19:24 PM
So we are being told that if we throw pieces of a watch in the air enough times, eventually they will all come together, and that proves evolution is true.

I think you're confusing that with the random possibility. Like the old analogy that says if there were an infinite number of monkeys, banging away at an infinite amount of typewriters, that one of them would write Shakespeare's Hamlet.
Or if there was one monkey with an infinite amount of time, at one typewriter he would also accomplish the same, eventually.

But the possibility exists, that he could do it, at the first attempt, as well. Which is the beauty about infinity (it could happen anywhere along the line of infinity), and random possibility.

This is the kind of specious speculation that makes otherwise intelligent people look like fools.

That's not an educated verdict.

It does apply to evolution, as anomalies do occur (regularly), and can affect the development and evolution (or extinction) of a species.
Cross breeding, being one. Mutants breeding (ex: miniature horses). Acclimation, or Acclimatization, like bonsai trees, or how fish in captivity will only mature to a certain size based on the size of their environment.
Mutant strains of viruses, etc...

This is fantasy land material.

Patently false.
It happens everyday.
They're called 'accidents'.

First of all, evolution has no answer for where the atoms came from in the first place

Non sequitur.
Evolution is an occurence.
So is you eating an apple.
I don't expect you eating an apple to explain much, either...

If you believe this, you've got enough blind faith to create your OWN religion.

Patently false.
How do you suppose our language evolves? By divine intervention?
How do you suppose alloys of metal have evolved? Or plastics? By divine intervention?

Who is supposed to have created the pieces of the watch in the first place???

An inventor.
Duh...
Not by divinity, or 'natural randomness'. Unless you want to factor the anomalous mind of the (mortal) creator of the watch, in which case, the monkey probability generator is proven empirically.
Which is how man evolved into being capable of flying, and breathing underwater.

There should be millions of graduated watch fragments of watches in various degrees of becoming full blown watches, among the dinosaur bones, according to this kind of logic.

Patently false.
There is rapid evolution.
You are actually experiencing it right now. Look at the rapid evolution of humans since the dawn of the industrial revolution.
Now try and imagine how small that section of time is, on the macro scale of the age of the universe.

Those who believe this kind of stuff and the other imaginary unprovable harebrained ideas related to evolution, already have their religion. And guess what ... it really DOES contradict legitimate science.

Strawman.
False premise.
Nothing contradicts science. Too many people fail to even fully grasp what science is.
Science is NOT a tenet.

It's merely a method of observation, and quantifying tangibles.

It's not the "method" that fails, it's humans who fail, while attempting to observe and quantify.

Every thing from watches to apple pie must have a creator.

Those things do. And it's been established as fact, through empirical observation.
But if you're using that as a basis for divinity, you're merely using circular reasoning (fuzzy logic) to derive that divinity must be a real consideration.

You still have not demonstrated anything. Simply because something has yet to be fully explained, and understood, only means we haven't observed it.

Kinda like eons ago, thunder was said to be the gods clapping their hands together in anger.
Thunder was completely misunderstood, and attributed to divinity.

Science debunked it. And millions of people are free to not live in fear (of "the gods"), any longer...

Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?

Strawman.
You're substituting "Science" in the place of "Reality".

Nice try though...
 
Show ALL Forums