Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Dating Experiences  > The "my place" date      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Arlo_Troutman
Joined: 6/25/2013
Msg: 156
The my place datePage 8 of 8    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8)

I beg to differ. A "need" to what? You're defining the word "need" to Only Mean Immediate Survival.


(WIP) Exactly, yes. If you go without it does it compromise living?


The difference is between quality of life, and quantity of life. To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, "The life without a regular leg-over, is a life not worth living."...
 WomanInProgress
Joined: 10/16/2005
Msg: 157
The my place date
Posted: 9/23/2013 8:57:05 AM
The need/want thing only comes up for me when someone drags out the word "need" to justify having to have a romantic relationship in order to - um whatever it's supposed to be useful for, I can never figure out what people "need" one for when I see these conversations. Hey, I can say I need ice cream to justify sticking my face into a tub of it - but at the end of the day it won't ruin my life to never eat it anymore - it can only be a want for me based on the fact that's it's not a basic requirement for happiness or survival.

While it's nice to have someone romantic in your life when it occurs - it's not dire not to have this going on. It may be dire to have no people of any sort in your life - but not having a date isn't the equivalent of having no people at all in your life - unless it helps your argument to go after it relentlessly, of course.

The difference is between quality of life, and quantity of life. To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, "The life without a regular leg-over, is a life not worth living."...

That's subjective to what Jefferson meant, and what you might consider a "leg over"...a richer life can be lived in many ways only one of which might be dating/involvement. The literal sense of having a leg over is one way to look at it though, I guess.

OT - I still don't want someone at my place until I know for sure he's not bent on forcing me to give him continued access to it.
 Cynderella
Joined: 3/8/2007
Msg: 158
view profile
History
The my place date
Posted: 9/23/2013 11:21:05 AM
If the person asking was trusted with good intention...hell ya.
Unless he owned a pig farm...I have to draw the line somewhere.
 Arlo_Troutman
Joined: 6/25/2013
Msg: 159
The my place date
Posted: 9/23/2013 4:50:32 PM

(AT) The difference is between quality of life, and quantity of life. To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, "The life without a regular leg-over, is a life not worth living."...


(WIP) That's subjective to what Jefferson meant


So?


... and what you might consider a "leg over"...


I think the term "leg-over" is pretty straight-forward...


a richer life can be lived in many ways only one of which might be dating/involvement.


If *I* consider having a leg-over to be an essential part of a quality life, why does it stick in your craw so? This is what bothers me -- this insistence that some people have on delineating what a quality life is, and the condescending attitude of, "Well, I don't understand it, so therefore it's not important...", and thinking that they've successfully disarmed the sexual urge among others, by reminding them that there are other things to life than sex.


Hey, I can say I need ice cream to justify sticking my face into a tub of it - but at the end of the day it won't ruin my life to never eat it anymore - it can only be a want for me based on the fact that's it's not a basic requirement for happiness or survival.


It's not a requirement for you. Now, repeat after me: "There are about 7 billion other people on this planet, some of whom may have different values than I do!"

Look, if a person is starving, they don't wanna hear about wonderful operas, or artistic masterpieces, or abso-fvcking-lutely fantastic adventure vacations. Those things, while part of the human experience, do absolutely *NOTHING* to address the hunger. Only *FOOD* will do that...

I feel my IQ dropping just for having to explain this...
 WomanInProgress
Joined: 10/16/2005
Msg: 160
The my place date
Posted: 9/23/2013 7:05:53 PM

If *I* consider having a leg-over to be an essential part of a quality life, why does it stick in your craw so?

It doesn't.

This is what bothers me -- this insistence that some people have on delineating what a quality life is, and the condescending attitude of, "Well, I don't understand it, so therefore it's not important...", and thinking that they've successfully disarmed the sexual urge among others, by reminding them that there are other things to life than sex.

I understand following your private parts around, and I don't even argue it - I just don't see it as a need. It's a desire - and that's fine. Making it a necessity is a way to justify hunting it down at all costs. Why justify it?

It's not a requirement for you. Now, repeat after me: "There are about 7 billion other people on this planet, some of whom may have different values than I do!"

I don't know anyone who's died from lack of ice cream intake. If I missed a news article somewhere, please post it so I can read it and stand corrected. I doubt no one's died (directly) from lack of sex either - I'm sure some have ended life based on the idea that it was something they couldn't live without based on something they learned somewhere...but that would be a choice, not a result. Beyond that, I don't argue the fact that different people may see things differently to suit their individual wants and justify seeking them out to the point where they become more important than everything else...that's humanity.

Look, if a person is starving, they don't wanna hear about wonderful operas, or artistic masterpieces, or abso-fvcking-lutely fantastic adventure vacations. Those things, while part of the human experience, do absolutely *NOTHING* to address the hunger. Only *FOOD* will do that...

Food is a basic need, and would trump things like music and art so on this we agree. I'm not talking about anything else but basic needs. I don't think sex or romantic involvement is one of them - in fact, I'd put that with the art and opera as less important than food. Once all basic needs are satisfied, sex may be a nice thing to try and keep as part of your life and it may enhance life, but addressing it as a need is another thing entirely. Going without it sometimes won't kill ya.
 Confident-Realist
Joined: 2/8/2004
Msg: 161
The my place date
Posted: 9/23/2013 7:29:53 PM

Exactly, yes. If you go without it does it compromise living?

No, that's not the definition of need in general.

For example if you need a specific size wrench to fix something it's not an overall basic need, it's simply a need to fix that thing.

Yes. And it's not a need to fix your shoe. Nor is a need for survival. Need does not mean survival by default, unless otherwise specified. Need means survival unless it's specified about survival. I think you have it backwards.

Do you need some form of sex in order to have children (even scientific)? Yes. Do we need children? Well, not so much. You can want sex and want children and use the desire for children to justify the desire for sex, sure.

But for the well being, whether it be the angle of having children or on a more fundamental level, of what we're built for at the Core -- yes, for many people it's a need for quality of life. Not all, but many.

However I believe we generally need good healthy contact with other humans in order to live a more balanced life.

And we need that as we're social beings, and on the other topic, sexual beings. Some people can have, internally, a decent quality of life with little to no social interaction, while most of us are going to have enough lacking where it's in the negative.

In essence, pertaining to the context of this sub-topic, yes, having some sort of sex within one's lives is a need (for quality of life).
 Madailein
Joined: 6/9/2012
Msg: 162
The my place date
Posted: 9/24/2013 1:23:40 AM

the idea of being in someone's home is a little boring compared to sailing. I rather be outside.~Belle T


For me it depends on the home, its ambiance and the host. Picture a warm spa, moonlight, wine and the sound of the ocean. Quite pleasant with the right host.
I agree with you about the sailing; better to know someone really well before sailing off…like the home date.
 Arlo_Troutman
Joined: 6/25/2013
Msg: 163
The my place date
Posted: 9/25/2013 3:32:46 PM


(AT) Look, if a person is starving, they don't wanna hear about wonderful operas, or artistic masterpieces, or abso-fvcking-lutely fantastic adventure vacations. Those things, while part of the human experience, do absolutely *NOTHING* to address the hunger. Only *FOOD* will do that...


(WIP) Food is a basic need, and would trump things like music and art so on this we agree. I'm not talking about anything else but basic needs.


Your definition of "basic needs" is laughably naive, assuming you really believe it. Being imprisoned 23 hours a day won't kill you -- but it drives people scatty-boo.


I don't think sex or romantic involvement is one of them - in fact, I'd put that with the art and opera as less important than food.


I see that, once again, you are arguing the analogy as if *THAT* is the point under discussion. I used starvation to illustrate a point, but I can see that my efforts were wasted...


Once all basic needs are satisfied, sex may be a nice thing to try and keep as part of your life and it may enhance life, but addressing it as a need is another thing entirely. Going without it sometimes won't kill ya.


Neither will solitary confinement. So, when are you signing up to be penned like an animal?
 WomanInProgress
Joined: 10/16/2005
Msg: 164
The my place date
Posted: 9/30/2013 5:16:10 PM

Neither will solitary confinement. So, when are you signing up to be penned like an animal?

Are you comparing lack of sex to solitary confinement? That would be a bit dramatic, don't you think? I've said before that I believe being away from all of society is something that does threaten your health mentally to some degree and can cause you physical sickness. Going without sex is hardly comparable to being locked away somewhere 23 hours a day without human contact. To say they are alike is dramatizing the situation to suit the perceived need to seek it out.

Seek it out, go after the good feeling, say you want it, that's fine - but to say you "need" it is justification, and is no more urgent than my saying I "need" to eat ice cream.
 Arlo_Troutman
Joined: 6/25/2013
Msg: 165
The my place date
Posted: 10/5/2013 9:48:13 AM


(AT) Neither will solitary confinement. So, when are you signing up to be penned like an animal?


(WIP) Are you comparing lack of sex to solitary confinement?


I am drawing a comparison between lack of sex, which (you allege) is not immediately detrimental to biological functioning, with solitary confinement, which is *ALSO* not immediately detrimental to biological functuioning, but which has a real, acknowledged, and harmful effect on the human psyche. I am using it to demonstrate that your distinction between "need" and "want" is completelty arbitrary.


That would be a bit dramatic, don't you think?


People who have experienced prolonged denial of sex might not think it so dramatic.


I've said before that I believe being away from all of society is something that does threaten your health mentally to some degree and can cause you physical sickness. Going without sex is hardly comparable to being locked away somewhere 23 hours a day without human contact.


Neat: you can trivialize it with your silly ice cream story, but if someone suggests that Lackanookie might be rather more urgent to someone actually *EXPERIENCING* it, you think they're "weird"...
 PrettyBr0wneyed1
Joined: 8/29/2013
Msg: 166
The my place date
Posted: 10/7/2013 4:13:37 PM
I blame those "my place first date" type of chicks on some of the mindset that it's influenced in some men, because they've been afforded to be able to go to some other random chicks place the first time meeting them, so they believe it's acceptable. I just had this conversation with a girlfriend. These chicks are part of what's dysfunctional in dating now. Maybe you're not comfortable when you first are getting to know someone, but that's generally comes with more time, instead of rushing things a long by inviting some stranger in one's residence. I think the assumption on most men's minds when invited to come over so soon is that it's an invitation for sex. As casual as sex is now, of course a man is going to think it's an open invite for sex.
 rissignol
Joined: 9/5/2013
Msg: 167
The my place date
Posted: 10/9/2013 4:34:33 PM
The my place date ... sounds the the title of a Criminal Minds episode.
Show ALL Forums  > Dating Experiences  > The "my place" date