Show ALL Forums
Posted In Forum:

Home   login   MyForums  
 Author Thread: Help! Stuck between 2 guys... Needs advice!
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 7 (view)
Help! Stuck between 2 guys... Needs advice!
Posted: 6/12/2018 4:24:22 AM
I would suggest that the solution to your situation lies within.

That is, stop looking at, and trying to analyze the two GUYS, and look at your own reasons for your own confusion; and your own reactions to each of them.

For example, for each guy, you have listed things that they do to entertain you, and nice things they have done for you, as though they are submitting "bids" for your affection. You have hinted that you enjoy everything each has done for you, but I get the impression that you might have fallen into a common subconscious thinking error, which is that you are OBLIGATED by other peoples' actions, to choose them, or to give them time from your life.

Bring your own REASONING about them out into the open in front of yourself, by writing it all down, so that you can look at it from a less biased point of view.

I also see some other things, because they aren't present: a big one, is that I don't see you saying that you actively WANT either guy. As a guy. I'm not talking physical attraction here, I'm talking about wanting them to be THE person in your life. I only see a hint that you want SOMEONE to be that.

Another sort of trick you can try, is to try imagining that each of them is the person who you wake up with every day, and with whom you perform all the MUNDANE things we all have to do. Which guy do you most want to ask to empty the garbage? Which guy do you want to argue with over things you disagree about? That sort of thing.

In any case, stop trying to decide based on how nice and good and kind the GUYS are, and look more at what you personally want, and why.
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 2 (view)
Refuses to let me lower upper age limit in search
Posted: 6/9/2018 12:49:04 PM
Nope. You are incorrect, that you SHOULD be allowed to look for what you want.

All dating and similar social sites have their own limits. This one used to be owned by a guy who decided that he would prevent very old people from chasing very young ones, and vice versa. He built those limits into the software here, and after this site was purchased from him by Match, they failed to reverse any of those limitations.

Sorry, but you're stuck with the limits as they are.

Of course, since Match also bought other dating sites, and then dismantled them entirely, it's possible they will destroy this one as well, and try to drive you into their for-pay-only site.
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 9 (view)
Has #Metoo invaded online dating?
Posted: 6/8/2018 3:38:17 PM
This is impressive. OP managed to get the Me Too movement entirely wrong, while demonstrating directly, most of the attitudes and illogical thinking that led to the movement coming alive.

Oh, and by the way, using the old middle-school style trick of claiming to NOT be reprehensible, while openly BEING reprehensible, was hilarious.

A bit clumsy in execution, though. You're not supposed to use the word "I" when you are trying to say what you are really thinking, as you deny thinking it. That gives a plotter away completely every time.

It reminds me of an old 1943 Elmer Fudd/Daffy Duck cartoon, where a fellow duck is pretending to show Daffy what he's NOT allowed to do during a boxing match, by doing it to Elmer.
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 3 (view)
Specific question about time travel, i did google.
Posted: 5/22/2018 4:08:27 AM
Time is among the least well understood aspects of our existence. It is less well known than the cause of gravity, which is also unknown.

We know various things which result in apparent changes in gravity, and in how time seems to pass, but these understandings are limited to various resulting effects, rather than making it clear what gravity or time actually ARE.

Really, the idea of TRAVELING through time, comes as a result of imagining time to be a fourth DIMENSION, similar in concept to the way we visualize height, width, and depth as being the first three dimensions. Since we know that we can travel in each and in all of those other dimensions, once we declare time to be a dimension, we presume that we can travel in that one as well.

But really, there is no evidence that time fits as in as a DIMENSION in that sense, at all. Time, like gravity, seems to be more like a resulting phenomenon, a sort of "side effect" of something else, rather than existing as a thing, in and of itself. Just as gravity appears to be a "side effect" of mass, time may also be a "side effect" of the way we perceive other aspects of the universe, and also not a thing, in and of itself.
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 10 (view)
Any old excuse to not meet.
Posted: 5/19/2018 6:35:48 AM
I think you, and most everyone else in this thread, are making the same mistake I've watched people make on dating aps since I started here years ago. It's the same mistake I saw people make before the invention of the internet, too.

First of all, you don't think of this dating and mating process sequentially, like it always ACTUALLY happens, you think of it as happening all at once, and then complain when human beings don't act as though they simultaneously experience the ENTIRE relationship in the first moment they see your picture.

No one EVER (no one sane, anyway) so much as says "hi" in the street, because they already know that they want to meet for a date, and explore your life with you.

And even more important to realize that that, no one goes out looking for a mate, only after they know exactly how to do it successfully and logically, because the only way TO know that, is if they've done it, and are already IN a forever relationship.

People say hello, BOTH to make first contact, AND to get a sense of their OWN fears and concerns about you. And to FIND OUT if they really want to follow through with something serious. Getting to know someone, especially remotely like this, is like wandering through a building we've never been in before, and trying to figure out if we even want to be here at all. We change AS WE WANDER. And so does our sense of the other person. Just as walking down strange hallways sometimes makes you change your mind about how soon to leave the building, the same kind of "well, but wait a minute" sense can happen in OLD.

If you DO find the people here who have a determined plan and a schedule to meet up with you, and process their "data" about you in a professional and forthright way, you'll also likely find that they will process you right on through and out the door, for the same reason. What you're asking for, is people who don't think twice, and don't even think at all about YOU, or about themselves, past that they like what they see in your photo, and the few lines of text you put in your "profile."

People change over time. That's what caused most of us to be single and looking in the first place. It's nonsense to demand that people who lost someone already, know every detail in advance of what makes for a good relationship.
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 8 (view)
How far would you go?
Posted: 5/13/2018 12:58:30 PM
I can't answer for you. I know that whenever I see "allergic to cats or dogs" in a profile, that I personally move on.

On the other hand, my own father is allergic to cats, AND suffers from asthma. He spent his entire adult life with my mother, who always liked having cats around. That was a marriage that lasted over sixty years. He outlived her.
So it depends.

I have heard various people claim that they were so perfectly matched that everything was wonderful for them all the time. Sounds great. Most of them hadn't been together very long, though, so I wonder if it's just that they were still enjoying the "in love" phase, followed by romanticizing everything.

I myself long ago gave up on ever finding that level of perfection, even for a short time. All of my relationships, within my families and outside of them, have had problems. Frankly, although I stay away from people who feel the need to say they have allergies to animals that I know I will have around me, I wouldn't put the same restriction on myself, unless the allergy was very bad. Because I know what I can and can't handle, and sniffles isn't a big deal.

Things like medical concerns are far less important to me, than character ones. I know all too well from my experiences, that the most fabulous lover, who was perfectly matched in lifestyle and other such ways, can be the absolutely most destructive person for me to be around, if they have fundamental character or moral issues.
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 2 (view)
Any expectations of who would be attracted to you?
Posted: 4/25/2018 4:13:04 PM
I have definite ideas about who would NOT be attracted to me, or find me to have potential as a mate. I rarely find anyone who I am at all sure WOULD be attracted.

Suggestion for you to consider for what you're seeing, is to recognize a very common set of dynamics on the other end. The guy side.
Specifically, from what I've observed, it is actually very RARE that guys use LOGIC to decide who a good match would be, before making contact. At least, not the kind of logic you are talking about.

Obviously, there are a batch of online guys who just use the splatter-shot technique. Spam as many people as they can get away with doing, and cross their fingers (or other appendages).

But the ones who actually do think and calculate things, might look less for compatibility, and more for susceptibility. That is, they write to anyone who they have the impression will give them a shot, rather than trying to noodle through whether or not it would make any sense at all to do so.
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 3 (view)
Kinkiness in dating/relationships
Posted: 4/24/2018 7:18:40 PM

How early is too early to be starting kinky stuff during sex play generally?
What do you consider as kinky?
Is it indicative of something "not good" if you start kinky stuff early in?
Or is it fine if both people are comfortable with the pace and everything?
What do you usually put off the table as an option early in? Most things or some or?

This is a very interesting subject area to me, because it is the most intimate and possibly the most risky of the touchiest aspects of trying to find a mate.

I think what makes it hard to answer that collection of questions, is that they are interconnected. The answers to each of them, change the answers to the others, depending on all sorts of timing and personal history or background things.

I think the simplest (ideal) situations, where both (or all, in the case of multiples) people are into the same things for the same reasons, that the answers are basically that it doesn't matter. If you and the other person are on the same "kink" page, doing whatever you do is unlikely to throw things off.

For me, the biggest first hurdle, is what the other person thinks of as "kink," and why. I remember as a very VERY young man, coming to the understanding that many people at least CLAIMED to think that anything other than missionary position coitus was "kinky." As many do, I suspect, I gradually discovered that different people think different things are kink or non-kink. And on top of that, some people are into "kinky" stuff because they directly enjoy the "kink" itself, and some get off on the feeling that they are tweaking the noses of unseen authorities by doing whatever it is.

Okay, the questions:
"Is it indicative of something "not good" if you start kinky stuff early in? "

It certainly can be. But not because it IS "kink." What can make it "not good," is WHY you go for your "kink" early. It's the same reason why having sex of any kind can be too soon: because you think of the other person as being a thing, rather than as being a person you hope to be involved with as an equal. I remember one girl, again a very long time back (college), with whom I indulged in some intimacy very quickly (which was fine back then), and it was fine until she asked me to hurt her during the act. For me personally, that put me off tremendously, at that time in my life. Mainly because I got the instant understanding that it really didn't matter to her that it was me there with her, at all.

"Or is it fine if both people are comfortable with the pace and everything? "

Since I don't support the vast majority of so-called universal moralities, this is axiomatic. Right is right, as far as I'm concerned. I'm certainly less likely now, to try to move very quickly with someone, than I was as a kid. But that's because I know now how much more complicated people are, than I realized back in the day, not because I think there's anything inherently wrong with speed to intimacy.

"How early is too early to be starting kinky stuff during sex play generally? "

I think this depends on a plethora of little things. It's akin to asking how soon is okay to share computer passwords. Or door keys. Whenever everything else feels comfortable and right, this will likely work too.

I think the biggest trick I run into, is what the other person thinks of as "kink." My ex-wife, I unfortunately discovered long after we were married, thought at least sometimes, that all sorts of things qualified as bad "kink," because they symbolized something she felt, I don't know, righteous about. Things we did when just getting together, became off-limits later, because instead of meaning that we enjoyed each other in all sorts of ways, they symbolized that I wasn't properly "respectful" towards her, or something. I stil don't know for sure, for reasons I wont go into here.

"What do you consider as kinky? "

Trickiest question to answer of all of these. Since "kinky" in this series of questions, seems to refer to "stuff people do for a bit of extra fun," as opposed to "bad things which everyone should disapprove of or oppose," I think almost everything can be "kinky." Heck, maybe there are three basic categories: 1, stuff that I don't think twice about, and assume almost everyone takes in stride (like kissing in various ways, and the more common sexual positions and activities that show up in R rated films); 2, stuff that is still fine with most people, even though they don't want to do it (such as having sex in places where most people don't commonly do it, such as on the stairs at home, or in almost public places outside and so on); and finally, 3, stuff that lots of people get very upset about, such as inflicting serious pain, and other acts of real blood-letting violence, including entirely involuntary sexual acts (i.e. actual rape, as opposed to symbolic).

I don't think I'd want to apply the term "kink" to the third category, because I think of "kink" as being more or less fun stuff.
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 4 (view)
A philosophical question: Are we born free or slaves?
Posted: 4/12/2018 3:53:21 AM
I think different words (and hence, different concepts) would be more accurate.

Instead of "free or slaves," recognize that we are born with a range of human characteristics, both limited and enhanced by DNA and circumstances, and that there are CONSEQUENCES to what decisions and choices we make.

You don't lack freedom of choice. It's just that with choice, comes consequence.

Thus, you are free to do as you like, but some actions may have more unpleasant "after effects" than others.

You don't HAVE to cater to the society you are in. But when you don't, you might not retain their cooperation.
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 5 (view)
I hate to ask a political question but
Posted: 4/10/2018 3:54:32 AM
I originally set out to be an Historian, which meant that I spent years studying the past, and how people make decisions, and what they tend to do and say. All of that comes into play when I am deciding on a vote.

Over the years, I have tried a number of strategies to choose who I vote for. So, apparently, has the rest of the bulk of the voting Americans. I and we collectively, seem ot have tried basing our votes on everything from overall likability, to various kinds of "gotcha!" scandal mongering.

One factor in particular that has come to be important to me over time, has been that of the candidates knowledge of and experience working with the MECHANISMS of government. This is because I have seen overall, that the less knowledge they have about such things, the less likely they are once in office, to be able to put their ideas into action, without screwing up something else that should be left alone.

I've seen two opposite results, when a candidate wins, who isn't experienced enough. Some are ineffectual, like Jimmy Carter, others are so insistent on getting what they want in spite of the mechanisms of the government opposing them, that they break laws, trample on justice, and generally destroy the unity of the country, such as Richard Nixon and Donald Trump have done. Although Nixon was a bit of an anomaly in this, since he had extensive experience (which is why I supported him in the first election he won). In Nixon's case, his essential character betrayed him, just as Trump's essential character betrays him as well: they both base most of their actions on built up resentment and self-righteousness, making it "okay for them" to ignore the laws of the land, and to attack legal-living fellow Americans.

I've tried voting AGAINST someone, and found that unsatisfying. But many times, such as the last Election, I didn't have the option to vote FOR anyone, because I so disliked ALL of the people running. I tried "protest" votes, selecting so-called "third party" people, without actually wanting them to win, and I found that to be a bad idea. I only did that once, and regretted it instantly.

Because of my extensive knowledge of political history, I CAN make use of the political advertising each candidate uses, even when it's so obviously biased and full of nonsense as it usually is. Because the ads that a candidate puts out, regardless of the claims they make, show us what the candidate THINKS OF US. If the candidate plays standard pandering games, pretending to love country, the flag, and mom and apple pie, it means they think we are all simple-minded boobs who they can use to accomplish whatever personal wishes they have. If they put out ads attacking half of us, it means they are paranoid, and will treat any concerns we have, with hostility instead of with careful logical consideration.
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 2 (view)
Not having much luck here? Maybe BICitis is to blame.
Posted: 4/8/2018 6:34:58 AM

Whittling your own list can only help you improve your odds can't it?

An oft asked question, and the same answer still applies:

Nope. Statistics don't apply in mate hunting. They just don't. Especially in this area.

If you try out a lot more people who you already don't like, you will NOT increase your chance of finding someone who you DO like.
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 16 (view)
Facts Don't Care About Your Feelings
Posted: 3/31/2018 7:04:39 AM
No point in discussing anything with someone who believes that anyone who supports good manners, is a "lefty."
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 3 (view)
What is stupid?
Posted: 3/27/2018 7:43:00 PM
If you want to explore this seriously, you need to start by recognizing that intelligence is an EXTREMELY complicated area. Not only are there all sorts of gradations of intelligence, but it's very difficult to measure, subject to inhibition by various means (i.e. drugs, exhaustion, physical defect), and so on.

Plus, when you talk about stupidity, there are at least two main definitions of that word. One is the strict idea that an entity is INCAPABLE OF LEARNING. The other is the more common usage of it in casual society, where it means anything from "I disagree with you," to "that's not considered stylish right now," to "I want to sabotage your right to be heard at all," and so on.
Mostly, it's a casual insult, without a definite meaning.

You also strayed into the area of people who are clearly just as "intelligent" as everyone else, but seem to be determined to ignore their own minds, and do things or say things that make no sense at all.

Huge subject area.
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 16 (view)
psychedelics as the origins of religion
Posted: 3/27/2018 6:17:54 PM
Neeah, I'm not buying it.

Doesn't make any historical sense at all.

What DOES make sense, is that the origin of religion is the common every day human effort to try to figure out how stuff works, to try to make life easier.

That's it, really. That's why there are so many different religions: everybody came to different conclusions about the same stuff.

And religions are historically a lot like large snowballs rolling down a hill. They pick up whatever random stuff they roll over along the way, and grow and change as more stuff happens.

The world seems pretty damn magical, if you don't know anything about modern science, long before and entirely without psychedelic hallucinations.

One of my own old fun ideas about how gods were first invented, involves envisioning a classic cave man era family, late in the evening, with the head of the family trying desperately to get some sleep, in spite of noisy energetic kids. After he's too tired to actually get up and box their ears for the third or fourth time, and they howl again, he shouts to them that a giant invisible being is going to punish them if they don't shut the hell up and let him sleep. When that worked, he started to add onto the idea as needed, to get all sorts of other stuff done.

Somewhere along the line, someone did get hallucinations by chance, and there was already a well established set of ideas about magic beings and so on, so the very logical people dealing with it all, just added that into the mix as best as they could.
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 3 (view)
Why would my ex girlfriend agree to coffee and not follow through
Posted: 3/18/2018 12:28:04 PM
This is something I've actually seen many times. Humans are fascinating, in that they often do things in a sort of a CONCEPTUAL way, without even realizing it, and I think this kind of act, or non-act, is that kind of behavior.

Basically, you have both been performing your breakup, in a sort of stumbling, step by step way. On her end, was the initiation of random short conversations every few days, as HER emotions were winding down. In the same way, you wound yourself down, by deleting her from social media.

The final agreement to meet up, which wasn't followed up on, was really just TALK of meeting up. You weren't specific about a when and where (at least you don't say you were), and she didn't come back with specifics either, she just made general positive noises about it.

Really, what you were both CONCEPTUALLY doing in that last conversation, was agreeing to part calmly on mostly friendly terms. Leaving things with a vague invitation given and accepted to coffee and chat, is kind of like one of you saying "I'll see you around?" And the other saying "absolutely, friend!" before you each go your separate ways.

It would be wrong of you, I think, to attack HER for not "following through," when it was YOU who came up with the not-entirely specific idea to get coffee sometime. After all, you didn't follow up either.

Any chance this is YOU conceptually continuing the breakup process yourself? Did you REALLY feel the need to "catch up?" Or was this really just another wind-down walk-through?
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 14 (view)
Entitlement and boundaries
Posted: 3/4/2018 3:38:05 PM
One other element in all this that I forgot to mention, is that we are all dynamic, ever changing beings, in a dynamic, ever changing world.
That means that even with promises and entitlements and all our communication and learning skills, we ALSO have to be prepared to change our own mind, we also have to be prepared to adjust when others change THEIR minds.

While that doesn't alter the meaning of a promise, it does mean that sometimes we need to renegotiate.

Now. How MUCH we need to be prepared to renegotiate, is tricky. Some people will expect or demand that their mate be willing and ready to accept any change, to the point where making a promise is meaningless. I had to deal a long time ago with someone who wanted to completely change the rules between us, while still adamantly declaring that everything they ever said to me was still true. They were defending their past selves, while wanting to follow the desires of their present selves. That exchange was what taught me not to MAKE promises of certain kinds. Mainly, not to bother to promise the future, when all I really meant, was whatever was in my mind now.
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 13 (view)
Casual sex and dating...
Posted: 3/3/2018 11:43:12 AM
My entire allegedly adult life, I have been reading and hearing about how "easy it is to get sex." Never found that to be the case myself. No doubt due to my many defects.

All my life, I've been hearing people blame the inability to find a marital partner on the ease of getting sex. I've never seen that to be the case, even for the people who WERE having sex all the time with various people.

The reason why it's hard to find a person to be married to, in my opinion, is that marriage is extremely hard to "do." And more and more people don't want to "do it." Or, they want to "do it" for the wrong reasons.

Anyway. Back in college, I saw that it was the thing to do, to have sex with multiple people, and for that sex to be "casual." So I tried to do that. I not only had to work ten times harder than everyone around me to arrange it, I didn't enjoy it at all. The sex was sometimes okay, but I rapidly found that for me, it mattered a LOT that I did or didn't care about the other person. I guess I was born conservative or something.

Anyway, no, since college, I completely discarded the idea of even attempting to arrange a casual sex relationship. And no, if I were considering someone, and I found they were having sex with others as they dated me, I would end things promptly. Not because I disapprove of such behavior per se, rather because I already know from previous experience, that someone who thinks that way, isn't a good match for me. So there's no point to try to convince them to switch to me.
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 5 (view)
Why I think it's important to look for these specific qualities in a potential partner:
Posted: 2/26/2018 3:53:12 AM
I think you need to take things down a notch or two.

While your heading words (creativity, intelligence and so on) are nice enough, many of your explanations about each one are so energized, that they overrun any realistic application to a human being or a relationship. Overall, this reminds me of the sort of things I heard many a young person eagerly say when they were just entering college, and just beginning to enjoy challenging the greater part of the society they were just beginning to comprehend. And so they went way overboard in the challenges.

I agree that almost all of these named qualities are nice elements, but you go too far with many of them. Take "ideals/purpose" in particular.

A lot of people tend to tell potential partners to "accept me for who I am." This is something I often challenge individuals' perceptions on because it makes me wonder if they have ideals and goals for themselves; and whether or not they are constantly striving to become better individuals.

Being supportive of someone who is in the process of growing and striving to accomplish new things is nice and positive. But the number one reason why most of us who say "take me as I am" do so, is because we've been through or witnessed countless cases where the other person took us on for what they WANTED us to be, rather than for what we really were. There are few things more depressing and discouraging, than finding that the person who you wish loved you, actually wants someone who LOOKS like you, but is actually someone else. And that's what the over-emphasis you express on "becoming better individuals" entails.
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 2 (view)
The More Gender Equality, the Fewer Women in STEM
Posted: 2/19/2018 4:06:40 AM
Glad to see you aren't another one of those people who have their own intensely prejudiced agenda, made obvious by their use of other people's (such as Rush Limbaugh's) crude and childish name-calling, and therefore ignoring the very studies they pretend to be using to support their prejudices.

Oh wait...
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 3 (view)
Okay Well She Cheated....
Posted: 2/13/2018 4:37:13 AM
I don't know if there's really any completely reliable way to have confidence that someone who has cheated, wont do it again.

One thing that I have seen proven again and again, is that the REASON people give for cheating, seems to be the most important key to recognizing the ones who will or wont do it again.

* anyone who blames other people for their cheating, will cheat again. Whether they blame their mate, or they blame the charmer who they cheat with, doesn't seem to matter. Unless they accept 100% responsibility for their choice, they will do it again and again. If nothing else, because the world has THAT many people willing to facilitate the would-be cheat.

* people have to have a POSITIVE reason to behave themselves well, in any aspect of their lives, or they will be unreliable. That means, that fear of punishment or penalty or even of consequences, will not be enough. They have to WANT to behave well, in order to please THEMSELVES. Even knowing that their mate will be upset if they cheat, and caring about how their mate feels, isn't enough. They have to want to be LOYAL, for the sake of being loyal.

Another rather obnoxious fact to deal with in the age range here, is that the teens and twenties seems to be the portion of any human's life, where they are most likely to not yet actually HAVE a real, personal set of morals or philosophical standards. Instead, they have a mix of things they were told growing up, and things they wish they could get away with, which they are more or less experimenting with. They will repeat various principles by rote memory, so that you can THINK they believe this or that, and they might well think they do too. But it takes time and experience for a person to truly integrate what they believe, into a comprehensive personal philosophy or set of behavioral boundaries, and the teens and twenties are usually much too soon for them to have done so.

In a way, this particular story is something I saw happen over and over again when I was that age, and suffered through myself (of course). Young people made all sorts of brave and forthright-sounding promises and vows to each other, and earnestly believed that they were telling truths, when actually they had yet to have really understood the extent of what they were making vows about. The most common thing I saw, were people who would say with complete conviction, that they loved their official mate with all their heart...and then when they weren't right in front of them, the passion that they had deduced that claim from, would fade and be replaced by whatever passion or sexual attraction they felt for the NEXT person who was right in front of them, and they would suddenly doubt that the first passion was "real love."

So in a way, everyone cheated, and nobody cheated. Everyone was doing "experiments," whether they realized it or not. And it was extremely painful to each other, and often dangerous, but it was pretty much normal human behavior the whole time.

Just another reason why most people need to date for a fairly long time, before they can make or trust any promises they or the other person wants to make to them.
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 20 (view)
Thought I was almost over her
Posted: 2/7/2018 4:30:53 AM

Could be some truth to that Igor. But don't you think both people in a relationship have a fantasy at least to some degree about how that relationship will progress in the early years?
We were at polar opposites when we met, she had been in a 20 year marriage where they shared a house but not a marriage for the last 3 years. I had been in and out of a few relationships that did not last, I did not fall deeply in love in any of them, hence my "failure to sustain relationships".
She was looking for a casual relationship and I was looking for the last relationship, doomed at the start possibly?

Aha. Yeah, that all fits a common pattern. Yes, in a big way, doomed from the start. Mainly because from the sounds of it, when YOU were launching into a concerted effort to finally find your one and only forever mate, SHE was just beginning to look to fulfill her combined desire to have the fun in life that she missed in her failed marriage, while at the same time, getting some emotional revenge on the various symbolic copies of her ex. You would likely have simultaneously made her happy (the wild and marvelous sex) and made her angry (wanting to settle down for another marriage). So her behavior towards you would logically be erratic.

To my way of thinking, people can often be like ballistic missiles in a way. Our past gives us force and direction that we don't directly control, and we follow "trajectories" that are determined by what we are, more than by what we wish we were. Even the most loving and thoughtful "missile" in the world, will still end up heading downrange to where the main thrust of their life sent them, even if they manage to deflect themselves somewhat through personal effort. Most of all, we wont stop trying to get what we think in our center that we need, until either we get it, or become convinced that it isn't possible.
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 14 (view)
Thought I was almost over her
Posted: 2/6/2018 11:57:59 AM
You didn't give any details I could figure out, but I think I can relate at least to the emotional "flow" that you may have gone through with this woman.

The main things I keyed on and felt a reaction to, is where you talked about how unusually wonderful the sex was,and how you repeatedly had to cross your own boundaries in your attempts to please her.

I went through something like that a VERY long time ago, and it was similarly the most involved I've felt, and the most eviscerated.

What I eventually realized in my case, was that what I went through, wasn't real. Both of us THOUGHT it was real at the time, but what actually went on, was that that the woman was living inside a fantasy world for herself, and I was living in a real world, trying to cross over to her version. That's why I could never please her: I was trying to make SENSE of everything, when I didn't know that I was living in someone else's story of the world. She didn't know she WAS following a scripted fantasy, so she couldn't tell me, she just kept expecting me to know my lines, and to know my role in each "episode," and when I repeatedly didn't, she thought I was trying to screw up her life in various ways.

In my case, the only real tragedy, aside from the five years I lost and all the personal pain and indignity, was that after I figured it out, it was clear that I went through it all for absolutely nothing.

Maybe your misadventure was similarly entrancing, but meaningless.
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 4 (view)
Posted: 2/3/2018 5:00:36 PM
Okay, first of all, it's obvious that you cut and pasted this from somewhere else, and posted it here under your own name,without proper attribution (it includes the phrase "In my address, I stressed...").

Next, since the long diatribe contains a series of purely political JUDGMENTS AND OPINIONS, which you provide no supporting evidence for, it's most likely that this is all basically a propaganda attack piece of some kind, rather than a study or an investigation.

Next, every one of your accusations, are based on your source doing ZERO research on what was actually happening in the past, which led to the actions you are declaring to be "imperialist." If there HAD been any research, the attacks would include explanations for why the real reasons for each item, were provably false. Which is not there.

So. Are you another Russian troll? Or are you just a sucker for Russian trolls? Or is there some other propaganda group that you are fronting for?
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 17 (view)
Heartbroken(and it's not what you think)
Posted: 1/22/2018 3:56:51 AM
In the coping and surviving department...

this is the exact reason why many of us have death rituals for those we loved. The rituals are not for the sake of gods, or for the sake of the society around us, they are designed to allow us to participate lovingly in the transition that our friend has made.

I suggest that you fashion a ritual of your own to mark this transition, one that includes resolution as well as continuity for yourself, into the future.
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 21 (view)
Do I need to be more patient in my LDR - or am I right to be cooling off?
Posted: 1/17/2018 7:00:50 PM
Something I've seen happen MANY times, and take a variety of exact forms, is something I like to call a "proximity effect," and sometimes, "precipicitis."

It's a common human emotional phenomenon, where the person thinks some very big change through thoroughly, discusses it with other people even, fantasizes how wonderful it's going to be...

...and then when they get to the point where they actually have to make the first big step, THAT'S when all the fear and worry shows up.

Some people let that sudden burst of fear stop their plans, and they run away. Some hover near the final decision point, reassuring the other person that they are fine, while obviously backing away in confusion.

Lots of people finally take the step. Some don't.

Is there a best way to react to it? Well, as with all human behaviors, it depends on the exact person. But in general, from the various examples I've witnessed, pushing the person who is scared of taking the step away, seems to increase the likelihood that they will give in to the fear and run, while expressing calm confidence in their ultimate value and judgement tends to calm them down again. In particular, it can help to point out that the decision in question isn't actually necessarily permanent and inescapable once it is made.

That means that I would NOT recommend backing away as a strategy to sort of "punish" the nervous person, and I would not recommend it as a way to pretend you don't care, or anything else artificial.

As with so many unpleasant challenges in life, the best course seems to be to decide where you want to go, and with whom, and then start heading that way. If they fail to join up with you, you will still be on your chosen path. If they do, hilarity and fun ensues for all.
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 66 (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.
Show ALL Forums