Show ALL Forums
Posted In Forum:

Home   login   MyForums  
 Author Thread: Herpes Dating
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 69 (view)
Herpes Dating
Posted: 1/13/2018 6:18:51 AM
A "higher class of people"....


Oh yes. Didn't you know?

Germs and viruses are VERY class conscious. They NEVER infect anyone who wears a Prada tie, or Gucci shoes.
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 22 (view)
smothering/clingy man
Posted: 1/9/2018 5:41:43 AM
BadGirlinOregon- "It is 3 am and I just got home from the hospital. I took him to the hospital because he has diabetes and his blood sugar was extremely high"

I thought so, more than two decades in nursing has given me good instincts, which is why I said............

"The GP will order blood work, if they don't, go see another one that will. It's key to his mental and physical health that both of you know which levels are ok and which are not, because some are not going to be ok."

You aren't seeing the Forrest for the trees, because you are both stressed.

PLEASE, read this, it will explain much of what is going on. Once you read it, you will get a much better picture of how his health is directly related to what is happening.

EXCELLENT example of what I did a horrible job of trying to get at earlier:

to solve any problem, it is essential to find out what the actual problem is.

Since I experienced my own episode of having a (now ex) spouse declare that I had to find more friends to hang out with, to solve what she was upset with me about, I keyed in too much on that error. I forgot about depression, especially physiologically triggered depression, which is ironic since it's one of my own challenges.
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 6 (view)
smothering/clingy man
Posted: 1/6/2018 9:53:05 AM
My advice as a fellow male in my sixties, is:

go on hurting him.

It's not that I or anyone else likes being disappointed, it's that this is the kind of lesson or personal growth or coming to understand, that people can only do from within themselves. And the only way TO learn, is through having reality match the truth about each person.

What he has to do, is to recognize how much of his urge to be with you isn't really about you, per se. Maybe it's deep hunger, built up over the time he spent alone before, maybe it's due to a previous person pretending to like him, but just using him...heck, maybe it's a part of "sixty-itis," where he wants to get his childhood fantasies all done before he's really too old.
As for friends, many women don't know or refuse to understand this, but more men DON'T hang around with buddies after the teen years are over, than do. Understandable, since the commercials we are pelted with all insist that guys act like they are high school sophomores for their entire lives.

Anyway. Set yourself a reasonable deadline. Like, a year, perhaps. Part of being male, seems to be that old two-sided coin thing, where if we are aggressive enough to take action to be with you, we are also likely to be stubborn enough to refuse to understand a word you say until someone hits us in the face with a two-by-four. If he still refuses to adjust to reality after that amount of time, he wont ever, and you'll have to decide whether you want to accept the unending fusses he makes, or declare an end to the experiment.

The only specific warning I'd give you, again based on me, is do NOT try to come up with HIS solution for him. Whatever your thinking is, will only solve what your problem would be, if you were doing as he is doing. If he's a fairly normal male, telling him what to do in any detail, is likely to make him rebellious rather than grateful.
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 2 (view)
Answer this Is it better to ask for foregiveness than to Ask for Permission
Posted: 1/5/2018 3:45:45 AM
The trickiest thing about wise sayings and anecdotes like this, is that a person has to have the background experiences that supports them, before they can see the insight clearly.

This one is probably something many of us should do more often, but not as a panacea.
For example, it doesn't work too well with the temptation to have an affair.
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 14 (view)
A friend in Need
Posted: 1/2/2018 4:20:50 AM
I think there is something missing from the story here. It doesn't make sense to me logically, quite. Have any or all of these friends PREVIOUSLY given gifts to you? If it suddenly went from yes to no simultaneously for all of them, that would be a surprise.

The thing I personally have always hated about Christmas, has been the people who thought that gift giving was an obligation. A task to be performed by rote, so that they could be checked off of each other's list each year. Over time, I reached the point where I would rather get nothing, than get a pile of stuff from people who had no idea what I wanted or needed, and who were only shoving something in a box with my name on it to be able to say that they did.

So while I completely understand your emotions about this, I think you may be keying in too strongly on the exact details about gifts.
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 5 (view)
Is my Boyfriend gay and in denial or am i paranoid?
Posted: 1/2/2018 4:02:04 AM
Okay, I made it through the entire paragraph-free wall of text.

The biggest problem I see with your reasoning, is that you are only aware of two possible sexual orientations. That's why you keep lurching back to "is he gay?" whenever something comes up that shows he isn't the version of heterosexual that you were expecting or hoping for.

You don't need to assign him a category or a label. All you need to do, is to decide if whatever he IS, is what you want. From everything you've said hear, it sounds as though the answer is "no."
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 5 (view)
why do i get messages from guys that want to give me for nothing in return?
Posted: 12/28/2017 4:54:14 AM
Actually, I saw this kind of behavior LONG before the ability to scam people online was even envisioned.

Yes, it's probably true that most people who do this are scammers, especially online.

But there is also a fairly common behavior that I've seen lots of males do, where they do what appears to be the same thing, but they are actually a way.

It all comes from the childhood lesson most people misunderstand (when they are three), where parents and other adults try to get them to see that "behaving nice" makes more people do what you want them to, or at least treat YOU well. The subtle difference between "be nice to get the best chance of others being nice," and "be nice because then others HAVE TO BE nice," is often completely missed by children, and lots of those children make it well into adulthood without correcting their mistake.

In short, SOME guys really do think on the surface of their own mind, that they want to give you things (money, free labor around the house, change your flat tire, take you to expensive places and pay for it, time putting up with you ranting about some other guy), and get nothing in return. They THINK they want that, because what they really want, is to be awarded the title of "wonderful guy," and not because they actually are annoyed that they have all this excess time and money that you are helping them dispose of. But since they got confused as a kid, and never bothered to think things through and correct themselves later, they continue to lie TO THEMSELVES about it all.

You are right to turn everyone's offers of largess away, not just because that protects you from the outright scammers, but also because accepting gifts from even the ones fooling themselves, will be an annoying experience for both of you. He'll get his hopes up,and you'll feel all the time, that the money or whatever you receive, has a sort of social goo all over it, that makes the whole experience unpleasant.
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 14 (view)
Perhaps It's Time To Put 'Justinelle' In Perspective
Posted: 12/28/2017 4:42:38 AM
General observation about this debate:

we DO have the option to recognize that it is BOTH true that the US has not always behaved honorably, AND that North Korea is a dangerous mess, due to it's obviously mentally unstable leadership.

Kind of like, we can BOTH recognize that some politicians in the US like to use Russia and Putin as "bogeymen" to win petty local victories, AND see that Putin is very dangerous, and really is working to undermine Europe and the US interests all over the world.
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 4 (view)
Are There Sexual Assault Double Standards?
Posted: 12/28/2017 4:36:47 AM
More than anything else, what needs to be recognized, is that you can't treat EVERYBODY as though they are one kind of person.

Yeah, it's true that no matter what we set up to protect innocent victims, some schnook is going to use it to take unfair advantage, and pretend to be one of the victims when they really are not. But if you declare that you are therefore going to ride roughshod over all the victims, just to make sure no fake ones sneak in, you're making yourself into the worst kind of dishonorable, lazy, self-destructive fool that there is.

Are there double standards in the world? Yup, everywhere you look. But again, so what? Are you going to throw EVERYONE into the garbage can, because one or two fail to think clearly?

Solution I found a long time ago: old fashioned personal honor.

YOU know when you are treating another person in a way that you wouldn't tolerate if it were done to you.

So stop doing that.
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 24 (view)
Boken-hearted - just need a shoulder for a bit....
Posted: 12/25/2017 5:37:12 AM
All sympathies of course. It's no fun to have someone appear to like you, then summarily eject you from their life like that.

I do want to mention at least one other possible explanation for it, which I have seen a few times now.

Lots of people who are hungry for a real love relationship, suffer a problem with themselves, where their own desires interfere with their own perceptions. Another phrase people more commonly use for that, is "falling in love."

If someone does "fall in love," and thus become blinded by the fun of that, and the hopes that they are finally at the end of the romance rainbow, they come to be in danger of a secondary affliction: something I call "precipicitis." This is the very common experience or phenomenon, where someone is sure they want to do something, right up to the moment they are about to do it, and then panic and run away instead. It's easiest to see when what the person wants to do, is jump from a REAL precipice, as in sky diving or base jumping, but it's the same thing if they think they are sure they want to link themselves (as in marriage) to someone else for the rest of their lives.

A LOT of people experience this panic right before taking their wedding vows, and it's well recognized when that happens, but not as obvious in other situations. Basically, it's possible that this guy had a "pecipicitis" panic moment while he was off by himself, thinking about everything, and suddenly realized for some reason that the woman, Kittyfab, really did have long term visions of life with him. In that moment, he was suddenly aware that when HE had said "I love you" earlier, that that had been more because that was the thing to say at that time, given that he was following a script he wasn't even aware of, in his "in love/crush" fantasy. And now the REAL him, had to own up for that, and he wasn't sure whether he really DID have forever love, or if it was really just a short term crush after all.

And what do you do, when you suddenly fear that you have inadvertently been lying to everyone, including yourself? Many people make up a cover story, and the run and hide in embarrassment. That's what this reads like to me.
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 9 (view)
Dinner Dates - One & Done - Feasable...?
Posted: 12/24/2017 7:32:36 AM questions to everyone here:
Do you think women would accept a one-time-only dinner date?
Does it sound creepy?
Is there a way to avoid that and have good dinner-only dates?
What pitfalls could I encounter?

The biggest problem I can see, is one you seem to have passed over without noticing:

you are looking for hit it and quit it conversation dates, in places where most people are looking for something else, almost the opposite.

I obviously can't speak for the females, but I know that if the genders were reversed, that I wouldn't be interested in arranging a formal meet up with someone, no matter whether they paid for everything or not, just to provide them with personal entertainment for an evening. I'm trying to guide my own life forward, and though I am fine with helping others along the way, the amount of investment required for your dinner date scenarios is a bit much.

After all, meeting up for dinner and conversation, doesn't just involve the time required to eat and chat. It requires advance scheduling, including travel time and parking and the costs of all that; it requires effort in choice of appropriate dress, which might be simple for people who have 100% nice clothes, but isn't for me; there's the time to get home again. And most of all, there is the overall pointlessness of the whole experience. Not that I wouldn't enjoy a good conversation from someone like you, who has many times here shown an excellent grasp of humanity, but in the framework of an entire evenings structured enterprise, that's not enough for me.

Personally, I have already had my fill of being a guy who an otherwise wonderful woman decides to use as a "healing companion" for a while, and then drop.

What I would suggest instead, is that you look in your area for social groups of some kind, which are usually made up of people who are there for the activity, or even for exactly what you are describing: fun chat over dinner with no expectations of anything more. I'm lucky in my area to have found exactly that. A group of people of various ages who arrange to meet up in the evenings for "happy hour," at various local restaurants. They get together and just eat, drink and chat. The attendees change from week to week. You can ntry and start such a group yourself, if you don't find one.
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 12 (view)
Posted: 12/12/2017 4:47:32 AM
Was she cheating? Really? Did she "have a boyfriend?" Really?

What I'm asking is, was this a case of someone saying they were single, because they were not married, and not living with someone else, but were dating you and someone else as part of deciding who to get serious with? If so, no cheating occurred. You were the one who made the mistake in how you viewed what was going on. Did you ask before getting sexual, whether or not she was dedicated to dating one person at a time, or was following a plan of dating multiple people? Again, if you didn't get a commitment from her before hand, then she wasn't cheating.

And if you burst into the guy's life to get revenge for your disappointment at not being the one and only, you might well cause them to have a bad time of things, but that's about all.

Actual cheaters are vile human beings, who damage everyone they fool into caring about them. However, they are never going to be caused to "straighten up and fly right" by someone punishing them, as you propose. If they cared in that way, then they wouldn't have cheated to begin with.
Just leave, and learn from your own mistakes, how not to get emotionally attached to someone who actually isn't available.
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 4 (view)
not getting reciprocated pleasure
Posted: 12/12/2017 4:27:46 AM
Oh,my my.

No. There has not been a sea change in the sexual behavior of all men.

No. It is not true that all men change from being caring sexual partners to being purely self-centered jerks at the age of thirty.

No. It is not true that all the men who were so much fun when you were twenty, were just faking it due to social pressure.

Yes. Since not all men are identical, if this happens EVERY TIME you are with one, then the common factor is you; or more specifically, either your method of choosing sexual partners is causing this result, or your behavior during your encounters is inadvertently encouraging it.
I have to make some complete guesses, since I know nothing about you as a person. For example, the presentation here, which is all I have to go on (your profile adds nothing), describes sexual exchanges which come about very rapidly, and very often, shifting from one man to the next frequently. Someone who behaves that way, is very likely to appear to each new man, to be themselves callous about the individual they are with, and that can result in the man deciding to be entirely self-centered as a reaction. Or, it can be as simple and logical, as that the guy recognizes from how fast you jumped into sex, that you are likely to move on to someone else quickly as well, and therefore he should get everything he can from you as soon as possible.

Another possibility, is that your selection process for your partners, is based on erroneous logic, or mistaken analysis on your part. I've seen this occur with many people. For example, someone wants a mate who is they select mates who appear to them to be strong, and don't realize that they are actually choosing mates who are something else that resembles strong. It is fairly common for a person who is rude to service personnel, such as wait staff in restaurants and sales people in stores, to appear to be strong and confident, when they are actually just self-centered jerks, for example. In really bad cases, it's common for someone seeking strength, to confuse a willingness to commit violent acts, with strength, and then end up being abused themselves.
It could be something on the subtle side, such as that you are choosing to move to sex with mates who behave in contrary ways, as one of your measures of their rebellious independence and willingness to try new things. It backfires, because they are just as rebellious towards you, and following your detailed sexual instructions, as they are towards the rest of the world. So again, what attracts you to them to begin with, is what causes you to be frustrated by them.

In short, from a logic-only point of view, the possibilities are that either all men ARE selfish jerks for whatever reason, or you are actively choosing the more selfish ones as partners, by mistake.
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 3 (view)
The Mid Terms and 2020
Posted: 12/10/2017 2:19:23 PM
Right at this moment, despite Trump's polls being the worst of any sitting President, I don't see anyone of real stature on the Democrats side. And worse, they appear to be copying the Republicans of the last decade or so, and are waiting for their opponents to self destruct, rather than working on alternative programs for the country. That kind of strategy contributed to Republican losses in the past, as voters generally seem to prefer someone who wants to try SOMETHING, even if it sounds like a horrible and sloppy idea.

So I expect the 2018 elections to be inconsequential, that is, that some more Democrats will win, but Congress wont change hands; and in 2020, if nothing changes, Trump will be able to cruise to a relatively easy victory. Unless the economy collapses again.

Anyone who knows me, knows that I have no great love or support for Trump. I thought that Nixon could never be equaled for paranoid ranting, and that Bush the second, would never be equaled in the amount of destruction suffered by the US during his term. However, I think Trump may best them both, in a negative way.

The Republicans will not win because the majority actually like them, they will win because the Democrats continue to offer no alternatives.
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 5 (view)
Sexists to face tougher sentences under plans to make misogyny a hate crime
Posted: 12/8/2017 4:58:42 AM
I find it to be a terrible shame, that one fad or rush to judgment, is countered by an opposite sided fad and rush to judgment.

This mess is nearly identical to what I watch go on forty years ago. One group finally protesting abuses, after decades of silence; another group latching on to the protests, pretending to support them, while actually just wanting to make personal gains from the fights that follow; another group fighting back by declaring that ALL the accusations are false, and actually championing the real trouble-makers who started it all; and finally (I expect) everything eventually quiets down and nothing is fixed, and things go back to the way they were again.

Misogyny isn't the central problem. The structural support of abuse as a normal way of life, by whoever the people in power are, is the problem.
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 19 (view)
Raising kids to be gender neutral
Posted: 12/5/2017 5:12:04 AM
The main concern I have about this kind of thing, is that it can jump right past the most immediate concerns, and thereby make a mess of things. KJ521 touched on what I'm referring to, albeit rather succinctly.

Basically, it comes down to the fact that I think what children MOST need, are parents to deal with them as their children, and not as "test subjects," or as things to be trained into being pleasing in the future.

The biggest confusions I experienced as a child, were the direct result of adults expecting my moment to moment behavior to demonstrate that I personally INTENDED to turn into the kind of ADULT that they wanted me to be. They didn't connect with me as I was at that moment.

If this "gender neutral" upbringing is conducted by constantly artificially offering the child choices that they can't understand, the child will sense that the parent is NOT BEING REAL WITH THEM. I know, because I could tell that when I was a child. And since I of course, didn't have the perspective and experience needed to understand why the adult wasn't being real with me, I was often terrified that I was supposed to know things already that I had no clue about.

In short, it's actually the identical mistake to assume that children are NOT a specific gender while they are children, as it is to assume that they ARE. Either way, the parent is blinding themselves to what they need to learn about their child, and they are artificially confusing the child themselves in the process.
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 9 (view)
local government
Posted: 12/5/2017 4:50:07 AM
I have never done as you have, though I would be open to it.
However, I have observed a lot of people who did so, or who did other similar things.

My main suggestion, is to treat your new position as a personally owned business, essentially. What I mean by that, is that unless your council position has established hour and specific duties (which most such tasks do not), then you, as the "business" owner, need to set up the boundaries for yourself. Make sure that you establish hours during which you are the officer, and hours during which you are not, so that you can continue to perform whatever family duties you have as well. This is the same as any small business owner, who has to discipline themselves NOT to think they have to attend to business 24 x 7.

Do you already have a firm understanding of what you are empowered to do in your new position? Are your duties specified? That's an obvious first task to make sure of. I would myself make sure to either write such things out for myself, or find where someone else already has, and keep those as guidelines to refer to often. This is important, as a way to give yourself the sense that you ARE doing your job, and doing it well. If you aren't clear on exactly what your job is, that's psychologically burdensome.

Establishing boundaries with constituents is based on that first step. Just as we who run private businesses and do want to please our customers, nevertheless have to set specific limits as to what behavior we will tolerate from them, as well as to establish in advance, what we will and wont do in exchange for their patronage, so too, in order to deal with voters, you need to know in advance, what you can and can't do for them, and what you do and do not have to put up with from them. Educating people who are upset, is one of the basic tasks that people in business have to learn to perform.
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 3 (view)
A question of etiquette...
Posted: 12/3/2017 4:09:28 PM
Suggestion: there is such a thing as "nominal gifts."
For birthdays, a card. For holidays, something small and meaningless and cheap, which recognizes the holiday, and the initial acquaintanceship, but nothing more.

I've known some people who actually had what you could call "standard meaningless gifts" that they used in an almost business-like fashion for such situations.
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 10 (view)
do you guys know what this means
Posted: 11/30/2017 4:31:37 AM
"I don't know why he looks at me" means she doesn't know why you look at her.

The fact that you stare at a lot of walls and that she mistakes that for you staring at her, is her issue to deal with.
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 10 (view)
Who is winning the culture war?
Posted: 11/25/2017 10:41:00 AM
Wow. So much to disagree or take issue within the opening post.
"The liberal toolkit used to depend upon empiricism, freedom of thought, the scientific method and education whether formal or informal. All have been largely abandoned in favor of conservatism."

This says that conservatism opposes all those things. By this statement, you are accusing conservatism of being opposed to empiricism, scientific method, education, and freedom of thought. Is that what you meant to say?

If instead, you think you see non-conservative applying conservative-style tactics to their efforts, that might be true, but you are in error if you think that that is anything new or that it indicates that the "other side" has decided to stop pushing for it's goals. Rather like noting that both sides in a war, use bombs and guns and so on, and claim that therefore one side has surrendered (despite the ongoing carnage).

"Even justice, once sacred to both liberals and conservatives, is in decay and you can't blame conservatives for that."

Nonsense. Again, the idea of justice has been used (and abused) by EVERYONE throughout the history of human kind. In most recent times, there is ample evidence to support that BOTH "sides" which you focus on, have actively played games with justice, excusing their side for the same elements and behaviors they decry as sacredly wrong, when the other "side" does it. The idea that "conservatives" have clean hands in that is absurd.

" Hypocrisy is not and never has been important to conservatives. Conservatives believe that all idols have clay feet. Pointing out imperfections in imperfect beings is a "well, duh?" observation. The only real reason that they do the same to liberals is retaliation. They don't have strong feelings about it beyond partisan warfare."

This is just bizarre. Beyond nonsense. What you have declared with this, is that conservatives have no principles whatsoever. None.
I differ rather strongly with that contention, and I suspect that most real conservatives would object as well.

Overall, I look at the general idea you have presented, that there has been a "culture war" going on between exactly two sides, and that "your side" is winning, and I observe that you are entirely mistaken.

I come from a History background, primarily, and in that study, when one approaches it without bias, it is easily seen that there's no such thing in reality, as a "culture war" of the kind you speak. Yes, there are thousands of people who have used the term "culture war" seriously over the eons, and many of them were very serious, and were trying to point out real things that were going on. However, in reality, the idea of an identifiable "culture" is entirely a matter of point of view. Especially when you try to parse it out based on politics, rather than on national origin.

There IS no such thing as a "conservative culture" or as a "liberal culture." There just isn't . It is possible to see differences in approach and in belief and in what people think of as important, in ways that you can decide to associate with "conservatism" or with "liberalism", within and identifiable actual culture that you can find.

As for the idea that one "side"or the other is "winning," that's nonsense as well. EVERYONE is changing at the same time, in reaction to everyone else. When I was a child, growing up in Virginia, it was entirely normal that everything was racially segregated. That's no longer the case. Back then, it was said that the "conservatives" wanted to keep segregation,and that only "liberals" wanted it ended. Since it's over, does that mean that "liberalism" triumphed? Culturally? Back in the 1970's, a certain small number of people wanted to get everyone to believe that everyone on earth was already wonderful and that we should be giving and trusting of everyone. That small group was said to be "liberals." They eventually discovered that people are not actually all wonderful, and that some people will take unfair and even abusive advantage, if you give them pretty much anything. Does that mean that "conservatism" won? Culturally?

Some recreational drugs have been recognized to be no where near as harmful or dangerous as the government once said they were. Others have been found to be far worse. Who won that set of discoveries? Smoking in public was once thought to be a near sacred expression of personal freedom. Now it's seen as an imposition on everyone else around you. Is that a "conservative" victory, or a "liberal" one?

Right now, the idea that people should be allowed to ignore the laws of the land if they disagree with them for political or religious reasons, seems to be on the rise. Is that a "conservative" movement, or a "liberal" one? The laws being challenged, are more often labeled as being "liberal" laws, so that suggests that "conservatism" is opposed to the rule of law itself. When one "side" seems to completely desert a once cherished principle, does that mean that the other "side" won? I would say no.
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 2 (view)
Someone threatening to post my pictures on porn sites
Posted: 11/22/2017 2:41:00 PM
You can report him to POF (no promise of a reaction). If you know who he is, you can file a police report.

What pictures can he post of you elsewhere? Your profile pic? No one will notice.

Frankly, it sounds like typical "magical" bluster. He has no ability to carry out any threats.
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 14 (view)
America Matters
Posted: 11/18/2017 2:17:37 PM
Though I'm for human rights, the state, particularly if as benign and fair as the U S A, should have such too. As things are out-of-kilter and in-favour of vocal sectaries, a better balance ought to be struck. The government of Cuba or Iran is not relenting; China is gaining power; Russia is as mischievous and threatening as ever; and North Korea and Venezuela are getting nastier. Therefore, I'm encouraged that President Trump's administration appears to be giving serious consideration to reviving Ronald Reagan's 'star wars' system. And setting it up would be money-well-spent, for it would greatly strengthen the U S A against its opponents and promote technological developments and stimulate 'hard' science at a time when the latter seems to be stuck in the Nineteen-Seventies. After all, all the funding of or speculation on the existence of 'black holes', 'dark' energy, 'dark' matter, the 'multiverse' and 'string theory' is getting us nowhere, no?
The Foodstamp·consuming, cannabis- or 'student·loan'-taking masses live in a world that's sustained mainly by its enormous momentum. However, they must be informed that it is besieged: and, cannot last for long.

Hmm. Well, you have so many things wrong here, it's difficult to address them all.

Though you claim to support "human rights," you give every indication of the near complete opposite. The idea that "America" as a nation has "human rights" which need to override the rights of it's own citizens, is particularly absurd.

And your idea that Trump is acting in a POSITIVE way to see to the defense of the US against Russia and China, requires that everyone hide their ears and eyes under dark objects and ignore the fact that he has behaved exactly the opposite of that since before taking office.

And once again, we see that you stopped paying attention to the real world back in about 1985, because you still think that
"foodstamp consuming" people and so on are a huge part of the nation and it's finances, when they have NEVER been such.

Finally, the list of scientific inquiries you decry as "getting us no where," are actually where all the greatest modern advances in fundamental science are being made, and that isn't happening in the US. Because the Republican Party decided that it was the party of Zero Science, about a decade back or so, because the scientists of the entire world, are against them on things like climate change.
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 5 (view)
Posted: 11/6/2017 9:16:12 PM
Actually, having been reading people's profiles and comments for a long time now, I have come to the general conclusion that what most people mean by "no drama," is that they don't want you to show up in the middle of THEIR lives, and expect them to fix or have to deal with whatever problems or anxieties or fears that you acquired from your previous romantic adventures.

Therefore, if you are still pining for the one who got away, or are still recovering from your divorce, or are still angry at the guy who dumped you after you spent money on him...and you expect your next relationship to erase all that, or to answer for it, then they'd prefer that you don't get in touch.
Another way to put it would be something like "I'm looking for someone who is ready to relate in a mature manner, right from the beginning, without prejudices getting in the way."
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 2 (view)
she's sick and asks to reconfirm
Posted: 11/4/2017 6:44:47 AM
What dating is for, is to find such things out.

The one thing you DON'T want to do, is to guess and calculate, and worst of all, make decisions about YOURSELF, based on what you imagine the other person is or isn't doing or thinking.

Do what it is that YOU want to do, and let them decide on what they want to do based on what THEY want.

If you each stick to that, and you end up spending time together as a result, then you have something real to make further decisions about.

If not, your dating process has been successful, in that you learned that you and the other person aren't "on the same page" about enough to make a go of things.
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 21 (view)
Has my partner created unrealistic boundaries with the opposite sex?
Posted: 10/24/2017 3:18:53 PM

I had a come to Jesus talk with my boyfriend & said the emotionally close daily friendships with others had to stop OR the relationship had to end. I made it clear that my male friends are important to me and I understand him having female friends but this is too much.

He told me he has now established boundaries for himself:

- he will not reach out to female friends more than once every 3 months (!)
- he will not seek attention from women or instigate contact with them unless they contact him first
- he said 'I have not spoken to another woman since you left'

I personally would miss my male friends if I didn't speak to them for 1/4 of the year. Obviously this daily texting had become something of an addiction for my boyfriend - filling in a gap during a stressful work day (he has just changed jobs and is much happier). When he quit smoking years ago he went cold turkey so maybe this is his method.

But I'm trying to establish boundaries for the future and I don't feel his are realistic. What do you think?

Sorry, late to the discussion on this one.
Anyway, just have a thought or so to toss in.

My observation, is that from a problem-solving point of view, neither you OR your soon to be live in BF are "being realistic."

You came up with your idea of getting him to set new boundaries, without even now, finding out why he has been doing as he has. You simply noted that he chatted online with other women more than you wanted, and told him to stop doing that. You aren't even clear on why YOU don't like it, instead, you've used one of the modern fad accusation cover-stories, declaring that he is "addicted" to this behavior.

On his side, his "solution" is sort of logically based on what you told him to do (i.e. not spend as much time talking to other women), but like yours, he completely ignores what he was doing before and why, and so his "solution" of communicating with the same women about the same things remains as before...he just plans on doing it in a more spaced-out fashion.

Neither of you has addressed the reality, which is that both of you have preconceived ideas about what A relationship living together is supposed to consist of, but you haven't looked closely at your own visions details, and made the necessary adjustments to your own life goals and activities, so that your way of behaving together actually make sense.

Since you seem to be upset about the fact that these relationships exist at all, why would him cutting back on how much time he spends on them solve what you are upset about?

Another thought... if the reason why you ARE upset about them, is that you think he should WANT TO be focusing that time and attention on you, then it makes no sense for you to FORCE him to do so. That would defeat that purpose.

So I suggest you both invest time in figuring out what each of you are doing and why, and THEN come up with a plan for changes.
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 20 (view)
Ex bf called me saying he wanted me back
Posted: 10/24/2017 4:29:05 AM
I have found that overall, people do what they want to do. That is, if you ask why someone did something, the answer will always be "because they wanted to," on some level.

However, it is ALSO true, that people only rarely do what they want, after carefully working out a thorough plan, that takes into account who they are, and who everyone else is. So, if you ask WHY did he/she do whatever, as in "what was their crafty long term plan, how does this fit into their master design?" You'll end up confusing yourself almost every time.

I had my worst ex ever, contact me out of the blue, several times after our permanent break. She never did it to try to get back together, that was never a possibility from either side. But years after she did as she did, I worked out what was really going on each time. Each time she reconnected, it was in order to advance her PLAN OF THE MOMENT. And had nothing at all to do with our past, per se. In her case, it was because her entire life, consisted of imagining dramatically important backstories were behind everything that happened (thus making herself very important to the world).

My part in her script, in each of the times she contacted me after the final split, was to perform somehow, in a way that fit what her particular drama was all about THEN. The first time, I later realized, she wanted to perform a scene where the two ex lovers came back together to reminisce over the good times (she brought along pictures to provide the new backstory for the scene) , and then stage a formal, more "adult," less painful version of the breakup scene. Essentially, she got back in touch because she wanted to REPAIR AND REPLACE HER OWN MEMORIES of what had happened, with new ones, that fit whatever it was she was trying to portray in her current life.

She also called again a few years later still, to tell me she was getting married. That was an even stranger call (no face to face meet), because she had by then, conjured up an even MORE dramatic false memory of our past together, blending it with some romance novel she might have read. I was clearly supposed to play the part of the Great Pining Ex Lover Never To Be, who needed to be gracefully fended away from trying to follow her into her new married life. I later worked out, that what she was probably doing was writing a new version of her past, which she was telling to her soon too be husband, in order to draw HIM in as some sort of combination rescuer, and Lover of Destiny. I felt like an old cast member, who had received new script pages from the director, telling me that my character had been rewritten from my being Dudley Do-right, to my being the star-crossed villain all along. I went along with it, of course, even though I only halfway sensed what she was up to, because it was clear that I didn't have to do anything more than say "okay" when she told me an entirely made-up, new version of the past. My character was being "killed off," so I wouldn't have to learn any more lines.

From what I've seen watching other people's lives, when an ex calls from out of the blue to say they want you back, it's because IN THAT MOMENT, they want back the version of you that they had fantasized up since you left. Not you as you are, and not to be with them as THEY actually are. Often, they awaken enough from their own self-written imagination during the process, such that they switch from living up to whatever they said to get back in touch, to pursuing some immediate pleasure. Instant old-flame sex perhaps, or to repeat the fun of dumping you all over again, this time with them as the master, and you as the foolish, pitiful slave to love, crawling back to them. Many times, they don't realize that's what they are doing, until they actually deliver the needed lines.

Hence why YOU are often confused. You think their actions make no sense, because they in fact, make no sense.
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 20 (view)
Sheer dumb luck...
Posted: 10/22/2017 7:46:23 AM
I agree with your assessment completely, 6jelly.

Yes, of course, "luck favors the prepared." But you have to be LUCKY enough to recognize in advance what to prepare FOR, don't you?

And yes, your chances increase with every "lottery ticket" you buy, so to speak. But it takes LUCK to have the money to SPEND on lottery tickets, and it takes LUCK to chance to live somewhere that has lotteries.

And "timing" is indeed one of the many "everythings" we all have to remember, but it's not preparation or work that results in your timing being right, it's chance.

The reason why lots of people go into intense rejection mode at the suggestion that it's really ultimately all luck, is due to several things. Ego is a big one. People want to think well of themselves, and if they accept how much luck is involved, their ego takes a hit. As well, lots of people DO work very VERY hard, to try to prepare themselves, to better themselves, and so on, and it feels as though you are telling them the work was wasted when you say that it's STILL a matter of luck, after all that. And of course, some people are opposed to recognizing the role of luck, because it smacks of predestination and control by some external power, and lots of us are seriously opposed to that.

But in the end, it will help anyone a great deal, if they ADMIT TO REALITY. And reality is, that there is an element of serendipity in all things at all times.

Believing there is not, is what leads to some of the most self-destructive behaviors that otherwise good people indulge in. Think luck plays no part? You might end up at the end of the alley labeled "racists and other prejudiced people enter here." Or you might become one of the lost souls who are shackled by resentment, because they KNOW they did everything "right," and they KNOW that they put all the required work in and more, and still have no one. Or very bad even in victory, you might well fail to truly appreciate and be grateful for the person who does love you, and that error is likely to drive that love away again.

Luck. Sheer dumb luck.

And by the way, you know how some people say that trusting to luck gets you nowhere? They missed a trick with that. If you COUNT ON LUCK, then it stops being LUCK. It's now an EXPECTATION. It's not "luck," it's your PLAN.

So I say bravo, accept that it IS always a matter of luck. Recognizing that, will help you be appropriately grateful, appropriately humble, appropriately alert, and more.
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 21 (view)
Dating someone who is your ex's enemy by religion and culture
Posted: 10/22/2017 6:21:36 AM

^^^The new guy has not expressed hatred toward my ex at all. I am having trouble figuring out if dating someone who potentially could be my ex's enemy if they both lived back in their country is proper.

I would gently suggest that what you are actually doing, is trying to deal with a situation that you are personally uncomfortable with, and are having trouble deciding for your own self, because you have some external loyalties and dedications, which appear to you to be in conflict with what your personal desires are. So you are hoping that the decision can be made FOR you, by some overall social "rule."

Essentially, I think that you have come to focus on the wrong detail of your situation, as a decision point. You think that the reason why you feel uncomfortable about the new guy, is because of his religious/cultural antagonisms towards your ex, but since you are already philosophically convinced that it is wrong to reject someone for their beliefs, you are don't feel justified in dumping him for that reason alone.

Hence the way you asked the question. I think that your real concern is something more detailed. Perhaps, since you DO continue to have necessary involvement with your ex, because of your child, you fear that the religious differences will either result in future conflicts and friction in your life, or even more concerning, that there will be a fight over how your child is raised. The new guy, if he becomes your mate, will have an influence over how your child is raised religiously, and that will be a problem FOR THE CHILD.

So this is really a PRACTICAL PROBLEM. You need to be able to raise your child in a way that does not cause him or her to be alienated from their father, and this situation has the potential to do that.

The only way I know of to decide about such things, is to recognize and accept that this is your challenge to deal with, and then decide whether or not you are willing to take the natural ensuing problems on or not. In other words, you don't need to decide if this is "proper" or not; you need to decide that whether it is or is not, if you want to deal with it, and if you want to put your child through it.
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 11 (view)
Asking someone if they are dating
Posted: 10/22/2017 5:35:01 AM
Okay, no one answered your question yet, so I will.

Your question is: " What's a good way to ask a girl if she's seeing someone else without it being awkward and do suggest asking her that by message now or in person when I see her?"

You should ask specifically and directly. Not because that "works" as a technique to get into a woman's nether regions, but because it is the only reliable way to get a direct and accurate answer.

And I would also suggest that you ask in person, rather than while texting, because the mindset people are in when texting or otherwise playing with cell phones, is not conducive to serious answers, and IS conducive to answering in a way that allows them to get on with whatever they are MOSTLY attending to while playing with you on the phone on the side.

And I would be as direct as possible, since you clearly want your interaction with her to be as specific as possible. So specify what kind of relationship you are after with her (not in sexual detail, that's idiocy incarnate), and ask her what her overall interests and intentions are. If you phrase it well enough that she can choose either friendship or romance without suffering condemnation, you are more likely to get an accurate answer.

You will NOT increase your chances with her by being coy, or by trying to trick her into revealing her goals, you will only draw out the amount of time it takes to figure them out, and worse, if she IS the honest type, you will more likely drive her to decide that you are NOT so.
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 45 (view)
Are Things Really THAT Bad Out There?
Posted: 10/22/2017 5:20:38 AM
Perhaps I have a love of the study of History because it is in my nature to find pleasure in recognizing patterns and assembling wisdom, and perhaps the other way around, or both. I suspect the latter.

In application here, it means that I see an element that even my now favorite posters (such as Pig and Aint) seem not to appreciate.

That is, that existence is not MAGICAL, it is MECHANICAL. And all mechanical things, are constantly interactive.

What I mean by that rather high level overview, is that what does or doesn't happen to us as we interact with others, is intrinsically linked to how we go about doing so. Your approach and your own preestablished notions, will always have an effect on your results.

The single greatest danger in this dating and mating aspect of life, is that if you deal with humans as though they are part of a mass ( as though they are sheep to be shorn, or coup to be counted, or worst of all, dating-coach-specified-automatons to be triggered and steered), this approach attitude will tend to CAUSE the results that you are trying to avoid.

I have been a machine service technician of one sort or another for most of my life, and that shows up in my viewpoints as well. I learned from machines, and from people, that ALL mechanisms are designed with specific results in mind, but that the choices made in designing any mechanism, will often result in unintended, but designed-in "side effects" that those of us who have to try to fix them, have to accept and understand.

Example, in a machine with warning indicators built in, there are always limits to what the indicators can tell you. A printer with a paper jam will never tell you WHY the paper stopped, and many times it wont even be able to tell you WHERE it stopped, it can only tell you THAT it stopped.

Same thing with people. Our society is interactive, and is constantly feeding us with "warning indications" and how to interpret them; however, those "warning indications" are like the ones in machines, so if you want to do more than throw up your hands and call in a technician, you need to keep in mind, that you may only be seeing the most recent FAD INSTIGATED messages. Right now it is a fad to explain everything as narcissism, so there appears to be a narcissism epidemic, and some people are scrambling to explain why, by pointing to cell phones and "cut and run" dating strategies. But people really haven't actually changed over the eons, and certainly haven't changed THAT much, THAT recently. All there is to the narcissism fad, is renaming what used to be called selfishness, short-term goal pursuit, and general thoughtlessness, with a more clinical and therefore magically insidious-sounding label.

And here is one of my base Wise Sayings as relates to all this: Don't get over-focused on the CAUSES of what you decry; because it is your SOLUTION that you will have to live with from now on, and your SOLUTION can and will likely cause it's own problems. Case in point: the very popular idea that since life is short, you should NEVER let someone take their time to meet up with you in person, and you should NEVER wait for a person to get to know you before moving to the next stage of relating. Using impatience as a solution to dithering DOES appear to work, in that once you make that your policy, you will be able to look back and see few if any instances where you spent many hours on someone without ever progressing to body to body mate experiments. However, the natural mechanical result of choosing that solution, inherently means that the people who you DO spend your efforts on, will of necessity be the "leap as close to instantly" kind of people, and will ALSO be the "lets try this as an experiment and not even think about the long term" kind as well.
And you will very likely as a natural result, come to believe that there is now a dramatic increase in the world, of people who only seek short term relationships, based on instant gratification...but it's because that is what YOU DECIDED TO MAKE YOUR OWN CRITERIA.
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 6 (view)
Dating with Autoimmune disease
Posted: 10/14/2017 10:01:52 AM
The dynamic in this is a very important and fundamental one, which if you can grasp it, will help you cope, regardless of your limits or abilities.

It is all a matter of actions, choices, and the naturally and chance occurring consequences of those actions and choices.

If you choose NOT to reveal your diagnosis in your profile, and you want to find more than moment to moment entertainment connections with others, you are insuring that you will have to give each person you find you are attracted enough to, a "talk" about it. You have to accept the invariable "reveal" embarrassments and discomforts, as a part of delaying notice.

If you reveal yourself in advance in your profile, you risk driving off people who might decide you are worth the trouble, AND (as someone pointed out) you attract some rather unsavory opportunistic people, which you will have to get used to turning away after discovering that they are such.

As with all of life, as I have found at least, it isn't a matter of finding and doing the right things in the right way, and reaping the rewards. It's instead, a learning and guessing process, in which you make choices and accept consequences, and hope that you can arrange the most pleasant and tolerable consequences that you can manage.

The kind of future mate you are looking for, is someone who does exactly that. Who isn't looking for a perfect specimen or model mate of some kind, but who is looking for someone like you, including your difficulties. The natural consequences that go along with seeking such a mate, if that's what you want, is to accept that your possibilities will be more limited, and your search more difficult, including in the need to deal with the conundrum of the MS reveal timing.
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 2 (view)
Abortion Congressman Caught in Abortion Hypocrisy
Posted: 10/6/2017 4:36:09 AM
Yep. It seems that its ALWAYS a mistake to try to claim that YOUR side has all the "moral" people on it. Especially when there's big money to be made by pretending to lead a moral cause.
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 2 (view)
On Drama
Posted: 10/6/2017 4:30:18 AM
What I see as the great irony of the "NO DRAMA!" fad or movement, aside from the fact that people who put that prominently in their profiles are being overdramatic by doing so... is precisely because it's entirely illogical to try to get everyone to "self-police" such a concern.

All that is accomplished with me, for example, when I come across that statement, is that the person in question isn't interested in a RELATIONSHIP, they just want to hire a cheap entertainer. After all, real life happens, all by itself. "Drama," which usually refers to pretty much anything that a person has negative emotions or is distracted about, can come into a person's life at any time.

I very much DO sympathize and understand and agree with the people who have become exhausted by becoming across people who think of relationships more as emotional rest-stops for themselves, than as either adventures or even as companionships within life. But making broad-brush declarations about almost anything, is a sure fire way to do the exact opposite to yourself, of what you THINK you are doing.
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 5 (view)
Movies unwatched
Posted: 10/1/2017 5:53:49 PM

Isn't this similar to the way in which we're effectively conditioned to treasure certain books?

I'm sure it can be, but it certainly isn't for me. I set my OWN standards for what I "should" own copies of, plus, I limit sharply how much I will PAY to have something in my library just to know it's there. I never pay anywhere close to full price for a 'reference film."

And I disagree with the Biaggini quote (or semi-quote). I studied a bit of why we DO teach literature, and why we DO assign some things as being important milestones for people to be aware of, and it's certainly NOT a fraud, by any stretch of the imagination. Now. Any given single work, might not really be as brilliant as some teachers or reviewers or "experts in literature" would have us believe, but that's a separate issue.

Sticking with films as the subject, there are plenty of films I have seen, which are considered classics or are described as pivotal for the history of film-making or story telling, which I recognize to be the most dreadful muck I've had the displeasure to sit through. However, the fact that a film actually IS garbage, often has nothing to do with why it is considered either a classic, or an influential creation of art.
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 2 (view)
Movies unwatched
Posted: 9/30/2017 6:00:47 AM
Well, I sort of do that a little.
I suffer from a couple of "curses." One is probably due to having been born to lower middle class parents who survived the Great Depression. I have to fight off the urge to buy or hold onto things, simply because they are ridiculously inexpensive, and "MIGHT be useful to someone later." The other is more positive, which is that I am a lifetime student of history and human nature, and so I have a very large film collection which includes not only films that I directly like, but also films that I know are historically important or are uniquely popular to OTHER people. I keep them as I would reference material.

For example, I bought a copy of Rocky Horror Picture Show, which I have never watched. I bought it on sale a very long time ago, because of the cult following others indulge in over it. I don't know how many DVD's and blu rays I own, just that it's in the hundreds. I rarely use them for personal entertainment, but I hang on to them just in case.

My "defect" turned out to be a bit lucky in one way. I have a severely handicapped son who can only really enjoy himself, watching films; but he's very picky, and very selective. When he's here, I NEED to have a big library of possibilities in order to please him. And since I'm "defective" in the way that I am, I do.
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 17 (view)
How do you deal with anxiety when it comes to dating?
Posted: 9/30/2017 5:49:27 AM
Nonsense. Women ARE expected to be confident as well. Just in a different way. Women who lack confidence are taunted as everything from wallflowers, to "teases," to drama queens, to prudes, and worse.

Yeah, it was a drag growing up shy, in a society where the mistakes a guy makes socially are amplified the way that they are, but in the end, this is all due to inherent and inherited Human Nature.

Women don't generally call for or go for confident guys, because they all got together and agreed to taunt the shy ones. They do it without realizing that they do it, just as males don't often realize all the real reasons why we do what we do.

If nothing else, recognize that women are daily victimized in vile ways by sociopaths and others who USE the fact that a show of confidence can fool people into doing self-destructive things. And us shy people can't help them, because of our own inherent challenges.
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 45 (view)
What if O.J. didn’t do it?
Posted: 9/30/2017 5:38:29 AM
I don't think you could have picked a more inapplicable platitude to use on O.J. Simpson than "people have served their debt to society."

Simpson has served his time for the ARMED ROBBERY he committed. Nothing else.
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 11 (view)
How do you deal with anxiety when it comes to dating?
Posted: 9/29/2017 12:31:03 PM
There is another approach that you can try.

Use your own "defect" as a tool to succeed.

You over-think things? Fine. Use that. Try to CONTINUE to think through, past the failures that you can foresee. Observe the exact results that you fear will occur.

Then PLAN FOR THOSE RESULTS. If you fear that you will be over eager, and blurt our something embarrassing, fine. Rather than try to hyper-control yourself in the moment and PREVENT such an concurrence, think up a way to explain your foolishness which is honest and positive.

Plan for everything, including how to gracefully extract yourself from a situation where you've "put your foot in it," and need to back away and go elsewhere.

Having a plan for "what to do if," is the best armor against anxiety.
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 20 (view)
Spotting abusers
Posted: 9/29/2017 12:15:51 PM
Yes. There is an excellent way to tell early on, though it may require that you work a bit.
The "tell," as poker players call it, for everyone, is in the REASONS WHY they do whatever it is that they do. Pay attention early on, to every decision they make, and note the REASON behind each decision, no matter how small.

Everyone tends to behave consistently in a basic way on small things, even when they are actively trying to deceive you on larger ones. If a person is impatient and demanding when dealing with physical objects, and even more so, if they are demanding and impatient with service personnel, no matter how polite and gracious they may be with you to start with, they will eventually treat you the exact same way that they do with those other people.
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 26 (view)
Article about when seniors should get married
Posted: 9/27/2017 5:47:14 PM

Let me take marriage out of the discussion, because I was more interested in how fast we should make partnership decisions (my fault for not phrasing the original question well). Should we be making commitment and cohabitation decisions more quickly?

It's functionally the same thing. Once someone moves in with you, changing your mind and getting them out again is a ton of work.

Essentially, my answer to your overall question, no matter how you phrase it, is that serious far reaching decisions do get slightly easier with age and experience, but not THAT easy. So no, no matter what, cohabitation and commitment decisions should NEVER be rushed; should NEVER be made quicker because you are older.

The thing is, although I've learned tons about myself over the years, and lots about other people, one important element has NOT changed; and that is, that the amount of time it takes to get to know someone ELSE well enough to make such a decision about them.
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 15 (view)
Article about when seniors should get married
Posted: 9/23/2017 6:06:40 PM
Yeah, we're much faster at deciding for or against someone. That's just experience and self-knowledge at play.

Don't know why you'd want the article, if the reasoning in it is that awful. Get married in a rush, just because you might change your mind? Sounds like door-to-door sales pressure of the olden days.
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 12 (view)
We moved in and now I am all alone in his house
Posted: 9/19/2017 7:22:53 PM
I don't think talking to a physiologist is likely to help with fears of anything. Hopefully it was a psychiatrist.

Okay. We have a guy who wanted very much to have you move in with him. You expressed a great resistance to it, fear essentially of too much loss of privacy (?) He reassures you verbally. Then you do move in, and he appears to work at staying away from you. He's seeing a "physiologist" to help him with HIS fears about living together.

The math of all that doesn't add up to a guy who wants a live in maid, and certainly not a sex-on-demand scenario. It reminds me more of a sort of mixed collection of social fears all mooshed together, and crossed up with his attempts to "solve" the problems himself.

I've seen lots of people try to "fix" worries in their lives, by going overboard in various ways. The classic that we once saw before society got more open, was a gay person in denial, who would rush to get married to prove to themselves that they weren't really gay. These days, I could easily imagine a guy who is trying hard to both overcome his own fear of intimacy, and to "prove himself" to you, might push harder than HE wants for you to move in; and then afterwards, use your own trepidations as an excuse to give in to his own avoidance behaviors, by saying to himself "I'll not only prove I'm serious about this relationship, I'll prove that she doesn't need to worry about me crowding her too much, by making sure I'm busy elsewhere almost all the time!!!!"
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 2 (view)
What to do with this woman?!
Posted: 9/18/2017 2:36:47 PM
Simple: nothing.

Trust is at zero. That's like no gas in the tank, AND no oil in the engine.

I've got a great looking car in my garage right now, too. No one in the area has a clue how to fix it when it breaks, especially including the manufacturer, so it's going to be towed to the junk pile shortly. Suggest you do the same.
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 7 (view)
Healthcare For All
Posted: 9/18/2017 2:23:43 PM
I agree that some version of universal health care is inevitable, for two reasons:
1. Everyone we compete with has it already, so we cripple our private industry competitively as long as we continue to refuse to do the same;

2. Medical care delivery is one of the elements of human life which DOES NOT FIT the basic requirements of anything which can be successful, using a capitalist competitive free market approach. This is because the profitable PRODUCT of a successful medical situation, is someone who doesn't need the services that the industry best provides.

But I'm sorry, there is no hope at all that doctors will stop being arrogant. This is because the process that people go through to BECOME doctors has been designed to thoroughly ferret out anyone who isn't an arrogant jerk, and flunk them out of the system.

You might as well call for an end to NFL quarterbacks, who think they sit at the right hand of God.
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 10 (view)
Long contact with Ex Gf over breakup (21yo)
Posted: 9/13/2017 5:19:06 AM
This is all primarily the natural and very common result of youth and inexperience. Please note that I am NOT saying that as a condemnation or criticism, but as a simple fact of life. People who are very young, making their first serious attempt at a long-term mate-like relationship, have no other choice but to make the basic mistake, of doing a mix of what they have always heard they are supposed to do in a relationship, and whatever things they happen to want to do one moment to the next, without knowing how to connect it all up into a complete sense of self-with-another.

In short, you are at the beginning of learning about yourself in a new way (as a part of something larger, as opposed to yourself as an individual).

There are answers to the smaller implied question in there, which are fairly simple. Such as, that people can miss each other, without that meaning either that they SHOULD be together, or even that they WANT to be together again. All that "missing" ever really is, is arriving at a moment where you subconsciously anticipated the other being there, and finding that they are not. The sad feeling one gets, is often more a result of the confused sense that either what went before, or what happened up to that moment had not been functionally real, than it is any sort of magical or subconscious verdict that one SHOULD try to get back together again.

Where to go from here? Forward, of course. You can never go back and rewrite the actual past, only the story you tell yourself about it. Your really only have a partial understanding at this point, of how you went wrong in the relationship. You have yet to have become the person who you will be, after you finish learning and changing from all of it. And once you have learned and changed, you wont be the same person you were before, so you and she will have to quite literally begin at the beginning again, and find out if the people who you are NOW, are compatible or not.

And that's an extremely difficult thing to do, when both of you are still in transition from what you were, to what you might or will become. The real reason why it's commonly recommended that you NOT try to go back and rekindle things with a previous lover or mate, especially so soon after a break up, is because neither of you will be able to tell the difference, one moment to the next, who you each are, or who the other person really is, due to having more memories and conclusions about each other built up from what HAS HAPPENED ALREADY, than you have any trust or understanding of how or if either of you has actually changed.
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 8 (view)
Hillary is now blaming Bernie for her loss...and Bernie's reply is...
Posted: 9/13/2017 4:53:39 AM
While I have NEVER been a fan of Hillary Clinton, and I do find her manner of dealing with the world to be obtuse and off-putting, I also find it to be intensely hypocritical how many people seem to enjoy pouncing on small excepts from her post-election-loss comments and writings, with an eye to proclaiming that each individual comment she makes, is the entirety of what she said or thought.

I have yet to see the entire book, and I'm certainly not going to buy a copy, since I really don't CARE why she thinks she lost. However, I have read several excepts, and it's clear that she does NOT entirely blame any single factor for her loss, despite what all who are chirping so flatteringly to each other in forums like this, like to pretend.

The title of this thread is functionally a lie. Yes, she did say that Sanders is ONE of the reasons for her loss. But it is actually TRUE that Sanders is one of the reasons. He was not the ONLY one, and even Clinton, with all of her obvious shortcomings in areas of balance and objectivity, hasn't claimed otherwise. Hence any onlooker who wants to pretend that she's been dodging from one cover story to the next mindlessly, is lying to themselves and others, not to mention wasting valuable time on musings about someone who is no longer a force in politics.

As for the equally made-up self-delusions that Sanders himself has ever portrayed himself as a pure servant of the people without flaw, that's even more of a lie. Again, designed to make people who get off on being derisive without contributing actual thought or clear observation, to enjoy patting each other on the back for spouting vindictive, self-serving nonsense.
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 19 (view)
Image upload privileges revoked
Posted: 9/9/2017 6:38:24 AM
The biggest problem with this site since it was sold to Match, is that there are no longer any humans involved with it. The only partially completed automated systems that the previous owner put in place, accidentally set up a condition wherein a small number of antagonistic people (or one person with multiple profiles) can use the now entirely automated complaint system, to sabotage someone they get mad at.
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 3 (view)
'Having Issues' With 'Issue'
Posted: 9/9/2017 6:28:13 AM
I think the best way to fight back against the obscuring of meaning that results from the common misuse of existing words, isn't to try to fight the vast tidal wave of abuse, it's to calmly call for clarification in each moment of such misuse.

Lots of people, including the ones who are joining in to the misuse, are frustrated at the trouble they are having being understood. Lots of them don't realize that the problems they are having are due more to the way they are expressing themselves, that to the actual ideas that they are trying to voice. By carefully and patiently asking for clarification, you can help them find more accurate words and phrases to use.
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 15 (view)
Are you willing....?
Posted: 9/9/2017 5:46:18 AM

1.Are your standards/preferences reasonable and realistic enough enable the best chance of finding a mate?

1. Mine? yes, absolutely. However, that's a terribly sloppy way to ask. There is only one correct question to ask in this area. And that is, "do you know what your standards and limits of love and care actually are?" If you go after someone to whom you are NOT attracted, and whose life you do NOT enjoy sharing, simply because you "think you can get them," you are being extremely rude and thoughtless towards someone who you are pretending to love. And you are doing it for purely egotistical reasons: to be able to say you have a mate, not to actually be with them.

-Are you willing to risk being single for the rest of your ENTIRE life over your standards/preferences?

Yes, absolutely. Something I learned the extremely painful and difficult way, a very long time ago, is that doing otherwise, GUARANTEES unhappiness and pain. Vastly more pain and unhappiness than being alone and in a state of hunger for love, ever brings.
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 20 (view)
Dating sure has changed , shallow women
Posted: 9/9/2017 5:25:36 AM
Many people think that the word "shallow" means "relatively not deep," as in a body of water or area within a body of water, that one can step in without their socks and trouser legs getting soaked.

However, after years of observation, I've realized that the actual definition of the word "shallow" is, "someone who doesn't want me for real reasons I can't do anything about, who I therefore want to insult, to make my ego feel better."
Show ALL Forums