| FORUMS |
Show ALL Forums
Posted In Forum:
Ask A Girl
Ask A Guy
Dating & Love Advice
District Of Columbia
Event Hosts forum
Health & Fitness
Plentyoffish Get Togethers
Poems And Quotes
Prince Edward Island
Recipes & Cooking
Sex and Dating
Technology and computers
Volunteer Moderators Only
Thread: deleted conversations, in your inbox?
deleted conversations, in your inbox?
Posted: 6/23/2013 10:51:52 AM
Something similar happened to me mid-conversation.
My phone app said I had a message from someone with whom I was exchanging emails--I was at work when I saw the notification, so I couldn't check the message until I got home. When I got home I got on my computer (I prefer to use the pc rather than my phone) and noticed her new message, and our whole conversation, were no where in my inbox. I grabbed my phone to verify the notice, and when I clicked on it, the app took me to blank conversation--no messages at all, nor her profile picture.
I did a username search and it came up "User closed account"...I thought if that happened, the conversation wasn't deleted? Now I'm wondering if her last message (that I never got to read) was to inform me she was deleting her account and possibly giving me an alternate method of reaching her...I'll never know unless she comes back to this site.
I'm wondering if there's a difference when deleting an account by phone app, or through the website, when it comes to what happens to the conversations? Some of her typos made me think she was communicating through her phone.
Posted: 6/1/2013 1:14:08 AM
Markus, I support you brother!! Don't listen to the haters! Age restrictions work just fine for me. When I message a younger lady, I don't have to worry about half (or more) her inbox being full of nude pics and harassing messages from old creeps. Really, if all these young women were so much into older guys, then why aren't the old guys inboxes being filled with messages from young women? I think I've seen maybe, two young women complain about the age restrictions so far. All you clowns on here think you're the next Michael Douglas who's going to pick up his own Catherine Zeta Jones. Yeah right!!! Totally delusional. To all these old guys whining, just try to be a young woman on here, constantly getting harassed and getting sent nude pics by old fogeys. Really, try putting yourselves in their shoes. Good job Markus! Keep cleaning up POF!!!!!
Men have ruined online dating for other men. Guys who know how to create a good profile, photos, and messages, those are the men hurt by the creeps, losers, and thugs on here. We can't even connect to the women we want to talk to because of all these clowns taking up space in women's inboxes.
I guess you're saying that you are one of the "good" guys on PoF, but didn't the moderator warn someone, not too many posts ago, about calling people names? You're not the only one I've seen using the word "creeps" or "creepy" in this thread, but you've added "haters", "losers", and "thugs"...and lastly "clowns". You might attempt to justify this by saying you're generalizing, and not referring to anyone in particular, but you made this last post in response to someone else's post, and hinted that there's a real possibility that his issues are of his own doing...
They need to go, plain and simple. If age restrictions and private images are seriously getting in your way of finding a date on here, then maybe you need to rethink some things about your profile and how you interact with women on here.
When I read your response, the irony was rather amusing--someone could say to you..."If women receiving email from other men, is seriously getting in your way of finding a date on here, then maybe you need to rethink some things about your profile and how you interact with women on here.". Now, how helpful does that sound to you? Have you considered that the reason you can't "connect" with some women, is simply because they're not interested in you? Maybe it has nothing to do with their inboxes. Let me ask you this...have you ever been in a conversation with a woman on here that complained about how her inbox gets flooded? I have, so it tells me that even with a flooded inbox, she managed to wade through it all and respond to some emails. If I never get a response, I don't blame the population of her inbox, I just figure I wasn't her type and move on.
As for the topic at hand...
Age restrictions, or whatever else restrictions/filters the site puts in place, will reduce the amount of emails to some extent, but that doesn't really clean up a site's image--those within each others' age ranges could, and probably still will, use the site to "hook up"--and they don't have to talk dirty to make that a reality. The site creator made the site what it was--no one forced him to have "Intimate Encounters" as a selection for intent, or to allow married people--or to make a phone app that doesn't implement email filters--he did this himself. He purposefully created a site with broad appeal--maybe because that's what gets "clicks. That's why his baby has the image it does (to be honest, I never knew PoF had a bad reputation until all of these changes were announced)...trying to shift blame to others, is human--just like the poster I quoted earlier. If there's a problem that needs to be fixed, work the problem (ie the phone app), and try not to point fingers. After all, it could easily be argued, given the evidence, that the only rehabilitation this site needs, should be focused on who runs it.
Some have speculated that perhaps the owner is looking to sell PoF, or maybe he's missing out on lucrative advertising due to the site's less than wholesome image...I don't really understand how all of that works--given the changes and reasons he outlined in his email--can someone explain this to me? Who would be looking to advertise, to the "online dating demographic", that would be put-off by...well, online daters of varying circumstances and intentions? Or who would be looking to buy an online dating site, that would say letting people outside of +/-14 years contact each other, is a deal breaker?...wouldn't the buyer have the power to make whatever changes they deemed necessary anyway? I might be missing something...
In short the vast majority of people will not be impacted. This is because the vast majority of people are not going around spamming women saying "let's have sex tonight". I can't change POF alone, I need your help to get the word out there that POF is all about relationships!
In the above quote, from the email I received, Markus states "I can't change PoF alone..." but that's exactly what he's done...better or worse remains to be seen.
Hindsight being 20/20 and all...I would like to ask Markus if he thinks it would have been better to have proposed changes--and why he felt they were necessary--but gave the members of the PoF community time to offer feedback and suggestions, before implementing them? I ask this because some of the suggestions from this thread seem very reasonable, and were probably doable in a timely manner...meaning the hemorrhaging would've been kept to a minimum (ie members rage quitting before changes could take effect). And if it wasn't about people quitting, but was really just about those "2% of men" that were using their mobile phones for hook-up/"let's have sex tonight" emails--was that sufficient enough reason to enact these new changes so abruptly?
I'm not saying you (Markus) won't or can't still take the suggestions offered in this thread into consideration...I guess I'm wondering if you do or don't see a problem with how this all occurred?
Is it now acceptable to date more than one person?
Posted: 9/18/2012 11:52:57 AM
There's nothing wrong with dating one person at a time--if you're like me, you are exclusive by nature. While you're getting to know someone through emails, phone calls, etc...you might want to bring up the subject before going out with them. Use some of the lame advice and cliched responses you've received to your advantage...Ask them "true or false...when it comes to dating, you don't want to put all of your eggs in one basket?"--Or simply ask them if they only date exclusively--however you ask, the trick is to not sound as though you want a particular response, because that's the one they'll most likely give you if they're a "player".
Sometimes--and I'm guilty of this myself--we make the mistake of assuming someone is focussing their attentions solely on us, as we are with them...and usually it was because everything we had learned about them, pointed to them being the type of person that doesn't treat people like parts on the assembly line.
I think people fool themselves with semantics--ie "dating" and "relationship"--like only a "relationship" can be considered exclusive--as long as you're only "dating"...well, anything goes! It's a math problem--it doesn't add up...just ask yourselves this (I'm a geek, but try to follow me here): You have the capability to switch between two parallel universes where EVERYTHING is EXACTLY the same, EXCEPT for ONE thing...in one universe, the person you are completely crazy about, is a serial dater--and in the other universe, they only date exclusively...in both universes they ask you out, but here's the catch--once you choose, you are stuck in that universe. Remember, this person is THE ONE that you've always imagined yourself with--which universe would you choose?
Unless you're into dating as a competitive sport--I'd guess that most people would choose the "exclusive" universe. I might be wrong, but feeling the way I do is part of the reason I only give one person at a time that kind of attention.
Whatever you do, "do you" and don't worry about "scaring off" the serial daters--YOU DIDN'T "GO WRONG"--quite the opposite, in my opinion.
heaven- a punishment or a reward...
Posted: 4/17/2010 4:24:13 PM
sorry, I have no idea what's in someone's heart, so I'm not qualified to make that call. If he's there, I'm sure it would be because he really accepted Christ into his heart, and I doubt anyone there will be asking to leave because he's there.
but from a grasshopper's perspective....
heaven- a punishment or a reward...
Posted: 4/17/2010 3:57:41 PM
In reading the old Testament of the Bible, that God is more like the guy on the lawnmower spraying pesticides in his wake. God smote around 33,000,000 because they were pestilence. Nice guy.
Without checking your sources, because it doesn't matter to me if they are right or wrong, do you know what I find funny? When some people read something like that, they think "Yeah! There's your LOVING God!!! Give me a break!", but when I read something like that, two thoughts occur to me: 1.) I'm thankful there's a New Covenant and 2.) I'm glad I'm on HIS side!!! LOL
but from a grasshopper's perspective....
heaven- a punishment or a reward...
Posted: 4/17/2010 9:19:52 AM
Understanding God, can it be done? Do grasshoppers understand us? Imagine this:
Big tall blades of grass, a gentle breeze, and all the little insects partying together...everything is great. They have no idea it's time for you to cut the grass. Further more, why the heck are you cutting the grass?...that's what they eat! They have no understanding that this is your backyard. You are too big for them to perceive accurately, and the lawnmower is just a loud vibrating death dealing storm...it's horrible!
One day a grasshopper comes along that can communicate with you. He tells you this horrible story, and you explain it to him: I own this house, and this is my backyard. When the grass gets too tall, my kids can't play in the yard because there could be ants, snakes, spiders, etc--and they won't be able to see them in time. Plus keeping a neat lawn adds value to my home. The grasshopper has no idea how killing them, and chopping off their food supply, adds value to anything--but he does understand you wanting to protect your children. So he makes the case that his kind won't harm your kids, so why do so many of them have to perish? You tell him to tell his fellow grasshoppers, that when the grass get to a certain height, they should leave the yard, and they will be spared. He tells his fellow grasshoppers, in fact he tells all the insects, some believe him even though there's no proof. Others believe the storm can't be predicted, it just happens.
So when the grass reaches a certain height, he and a few others leave the yard. They return much later to see the grass has tripled in height! Those that left, turn to the grasshopper and ask what gives? We left, barely had enough eat, and nothing happened! He warns them that the grass is too tall, and he turns to leave--this time, fewer follow him. They return again, much later, and notice the grass is even taller! Those that stayed are laughing, and tell them everything is great! There hasn't been a storm in ages! The grasshopper says the grass is too tall and leaves, with fewer still following.
Of course the next time they return, they see nothing but destruction as far as their insect eyes can see. The survivors tell the story of a different type of storm that moved faster and covered more ground--it was louder, and it was deadlier. Then came the sickness, insects just dropping dead! This story made the previous storm look like a gentle breeze!
When the grasshopper asks you what happened? You tell him the kids were away at camp. He has no idea what you're talking about. You tell him you got a new 60" riding mower you wanted to really put through it's paces....again he's clueless. You tell him that when you cut the tall grass you noticed your yard was infested with creepy crawlies, so you had to bring out the insecticide...the what?
He finally tells you that nothing you are saying makes sense, or justifies the horrors he's seen in the aftermath. You try to explain to him that his world and your world are completely different, and not much of anything you say will make sense to him, but there's only a couple of things he needs to know...and they are:
One) It's your backyard
Two) The grass is too tall.
Being a Christian, I sometimes feel like the grasshopper, but mostly I feel like the kids that play in the backyard.
When I start contemplating things like Heaven and Hell--and yes I believe in both--I try to move beyond the grasshopper's world.
Think about this: On Earth, we are biological beings. We like sex, food, drugs (alcohol), etc. We don't like pain, suffering, illness, etc. What happens when we are stripped of our biological wants and whatnot?
In Heaven, what if being a spirit is completely different? What if every step we take on those golden streets, feels like an orgasm to the spirit? What if every song we sing in praise, makes us drunk and happy? ..and it's forever. I think I can live with that!
And then there's Hell...What if our spirits can never become accustomed to the pain and agony? ...and it's forever. I think I'll go with the other option!
Collective Punishment Over Same-Sex Prom Date
Posted: 3/14/2010 2:36:07 PM
As it would not be socially acceptable for anyone, gay or straight, to actually have sex at the prom, this argument doesn't really hold up as a good reason for two students to go "together" to the prom.
Again, the "propagation of the species" holds little relevance in the context of a prom date. They're not recruiting people into being gay, they simply want to go to the prom as each other's dates.
People are making out as if these girls were planning to have sex on the dancefloor or something.
That's why I said the argument would come down to sex ultimately...
Why is it wrong for two girls to pair up as dates to the prom?
It might look like we are endorsing or promoting the homosexual lifestyle.
What's wrong with that?
We don't want to give that impression.
Why don't you want to give that impression?
Because many feel it's wrong.
How is the homosexual lifestyle wrong?
etc etc...blah blah blah...the heart of the matter is reached eventually, and it's about sex. Nevermind the fact that as you pointed out, "sex" shouldn't be happening at the prom, straight or gay.
Oral sex, something a lot of people have quite regularly serve no reproductive purpose at all. Anal, same deal. What purpose does kissing serve? you never hear anyone complain about any of this as long as it's not same sex partners doing it. Unless you're against anyone gay or straight doing any of these things you can't really argue why it shouldn't be accepted without being a hypocrite
What I was saying was that although the pairing of male/female, male/male, and female/female can all be gratifying, only one of those can perpetuate our species, and so at it's most basic form, it can not be argued as wrong...the other two might be argued as equally gratifying, but if too prevalent in society, could hinder propagation.
I think gay opposition always comes down to sex. If gay sex was equal in all aspects, meaning both men and women could naturally bare offspring from the act, the idea of same-sex couples probably wouldn't be considered taboo...or wouldn't be anymore taboo than interracial dating.
Collective Punishment Over Same-Sex Prom Date
Posted: 3/14/2010 6:56:28 AM
You're not getting it. My example was not about banning blacks from the prom, it was about banning racially mixed couples. SAME as banning same-sex dates. "We don't want black dates at the prom because we're after a traditional atmosphere. And since we don't HAVE to give you a prom, we can make up abritrary discriminatory rules like that, and pull the plug if you don't like it."
Since you've clarified that you're comparing interracial dates and same sex dates, let me ask you this--are you comparing apples to apples?
interracial dating...a white boy can't bring his black girlfriend to the prom. The reason for this would always be reduced down to race or racism no matter how it's argued...trying to stay "racially pure"--like mixing with another race is contamination, and not in a good way...if there is such a thing lol. That implies there's something inherently wrong about that race, but how does one argue it's wrong to be white, or it's wrong to be black? We can't logically debate the morality of simply being black or white because it's not a matter of morality.
same-sex dating...a girl can't take her girfriend to the prom. The reason for this would always be reduced down to the act of sex itself, no matter how it's argued. To some, because the act of sex between male and female serves the purpose of procreation, it's considered naturally necessary, and therefore the "right" thing to do, with the added bonus of being very gratifying in other ways--however, the act of sex between female and female or male and male, does not perpetuate the species, and thus it's considered to be doing it "wrong", yet it too is very gratifying in other ways. Some would argue that because both sex acts can be very gratifying, they are equal. While others might concede that gratification is the driving motivation behind sex, they feel that does not make them equal, nor deserving of the same consideration in society...the debate goes on.
Although we can see some similarities in the fight against racism, it's not the same thing. We know racism is wrong period, however the morality of certain sex acts and the effect they have on society, continues to be debated...I believe that's at the heart of a lot of gay opposition.
When change to tradition is proposed, everything comes into play...be it logical reasoning, or plain ole closed-minded bigotry. Sometimes the results could go either way, it could be beneficial, detrimental, or even a wash...a non-issue. Time will tell.
Making changes to allow interracial dates is beneficial or a non-issue, but is only felt to be a detriment to those that hold to racist beliefs. Those beliefs could've come from religious teachings, parents, or anywhere--ultimately, if it boils down to the color of skin, it's racist.
Making changes to allow same-sex dates can be beneficial or a non-issue, but could also be considered detrimental to those that are homophobic and non-homophobic. Most homophobia centers around the gratification part I'd wager, if they can't identify with it, it's wrong. However, even a gay person could argue that if homosexual pairing were considered equal, it might have a detrimental effect on the propagation of our species...the window is there, however unlikey--the slope might not be slippery, but why start down it?...btw I stole that argument from a gay guy lol.
When she brought it to the school's attention, If the community was behind her, I doubt there would be a problem making changes to the "memo"--if the school officials acted against the community's wishes, that's what elections are for. If she made her intentions known throughout the community, and the citizens overwhelmingly voiced their concerns that she was being disruptive, they may have stuck to their guns and enforced the rules. It looks like they simply opted out of the fight before it began, and will let the community throw whatever type of prom it wants.
The truth is, anytime tradition is challenged, the line could be drawn somewhere. I don't know just how formal their prom is, but I'm guessing that had she and her girlfriend just gone together--wearing traditional prom dresses--there wouldn't have been a problem. It was probably the tuxedo that made them feel she simply wanted to make a statement, and they weren't going to provide the arena.
If everyone else's dates are white, would wanting to bring a black date be asking for "special treatment"? She's not saying she is the ONLY one who should be able to bring a same-sex date. Therefore- not asking for special treatment.
If the rule was "whites only", then yes, being allowed to have a black date would be "special treatment" if everyone else had to follow the rules. What you are really saying is she's asking that they remove the same-sex restriction.
The way things are going, a lot of traditions could be considered discrimination. Want a "daddy & daughter dance" at your school? A "Sadie Hawkins dance"?...well ya better not be too attached to how things "used to be" LOL.
Collective Punishment Over Same-Sex Prom Date
Posted: 3/14/2010 12:04:40 AM
What? You just described a rule banning blacks from the prom, as far as I can tell, gays weren't banned from the prom, they had to follow the same guidelines as everybody else. If she were straight, and wanted to bring her straight girlfriend while wearing a tux, I'd say that was a against the rules the memo outlined also.
You said she's not asking for "special treatment", but then you said "she's asking to bring her partner to the prom like everybody else is/was." So if everybody else's "partner" is of the opposite sex, and her's is not, then she is asking for "special treatment" by definition.
You asked if I'd take a dude as my "romantic" date--I don't know if they cared if it was "romantic" or not, some people might have gone as friends. Maybe they were more concerned with providing a traditional type of atmosphere. We understand that the prom is supposed to be romantic, but maybe what she failed to realize is that schools aren't required to host proms, it's a tradition, and most traditional events come with all sorts of rules...which is probably why I don't care for them LOL. Ever heard of the "Sadie Hawkins dance"? It's a traditional dance where female students invite male students. It was never meant to be discriminatory, but it could be viewed that way today if the school wanted to hold to that tradition.
Collective Punishment Over Same-Sex Prom Date
Posted: 3/13/2010 10:38:46 PM
OK I must be missing something...where is the discrimination? On what grounds are they suing? From the little information I've read in this thread, it sounds like everyone received the same set of rules. The dress code and opposite sex date rule applied to everyone correct?
I haven't read anything that said gays weren't allowed to attend the prom, they just had to follow the same guidelines...right? She wanted to wear a tux and escort her girlfriend to the event...clearly that was against the guidelines in the memo. It sounds like she made it known that she planned on violating the rules. Maybe she got the memo, and went to the school officials asking that she be allowed to wear a tux and escort her girfriend, they said "no it's against the rules", and she said "but we're gay"...now they could have made an exception, but that WOULD have been discrimination, treating them differently because they're gay. The other alternative would be to drop those rules for everybody, but let's face it, they're kids and kids need rules...I remember being a kid, "give us an inch...heck don't even "give" us an inch, we'll TAKE the inch and the mile if grown ups aren't alert". So they're being made to do things according to rules they don't want to follow, that sucks, and it's going to keep on sucking as they go through life...doesn't matter what sexual orientation they are.
So all I'm hearing in this thread, is that a lot of people disagree with the rules, but it's not discrimination. No one has total freedom of expression, although we sometimes pretend that's the case with situations like these. I feel if the rules are changed, it should be according to the standards of that community. If she wants to change the rules, maybe she should gather support from friends, family, and citizens in the community to petition the school board to change the rules. Maybe if they see the community is behind her, they'd make some changes to the rules.
When it's all said in done, the real question is this "why would she want to even go to the prom if she feels stifled by the rules?" That's the part I can't wrap my head around. If the school held an event that said I had to wear a speedo to attend, I'd decline LOL.
Health Care Cost Increases
Posted: 2/6/2010 5:17:37 PM
I wish people would stop using "I don't want the government in charge of my healthcare" as an excuse for not wanting Universal Healthcare Coverage. The government is already in control of your healthcare--more than you or insurance companies. Ever heard of the FDA? FEMA? CDC? etc...you're control (freedom), is an illusion. The current control flow chart goes like this: Government>Insurance Companies>you....So please, knock it off.
The government is, and always will be "in your healthcare". The only quetions you have to ask yourself are:
What would I rather--or better yet--what can I better live with? A system that profits, and is thus motivated to deny claims? Or a system where people I don't like, or don't contribute as much, benefit as much as I?
That's it people...it's simplicity...it's you--what can you live with? Some people would rather someone take 99% of their earnings if it meant no child would be denied a life saving operation. Others would deem it a necessary casualty of the system for those children to die.
I'm an independent conservative, and I have been disgusted by both factions. It's like this is a team sport--if their team is for it, I'm against it. When did fighting UHC become a conservative cause?...what, just because some talking head said so, we're against it? That's never been enough for me, I don't want to hear just the cons, give me the pros too...if you can't argue both sides of it, you're not being objective.
People act like being conservative means we're against all government programs, and although I might not like them all, it's a case by case determination. You've all made excellent arguments, pro and con--honestly I don't pay much attention to those that think taking on UHC, is the same as embracing a totally socialist government, but if that's what they fear will happen, more power to them. I've heard the debates, and in the end, I'd rather my taxes be raised (con), if it meant not having to worry about claims being denied or receiving a bankrupting bill (pro)--even if I never use the system and illegal aliens do (con) lol. Again, this is my take on Universal Healthcare, and Universal Healthcare only--it's not meant to infer any support to other government run programs, or possible future programs...it's a case by case thing.
Why do people lie?
Posted: 11/18/2009 11:51:31 AM
A lot of lies probably stem from pride.
...and of course some people live in denial, so they lie to themselves as much as they lie to others.
As imperfect beings, we have the ability to change our minds. That adds another twist--what was true one day, isn't the next. Example: Two people from different religions fall for each other. She tells him she doesn't care about his religious beliefs because she loves him. Later she learns more about his religious practices, and she does have a problem with it...she never thought it would be a problem until it was--no happy ending--and now he sees her as nothing but a liar.
When people fail to live up to our expectations, even if they set the bar for our expectations, it's natural to question their true intentions. You can call that being dishonest, but it's somewhat forgivable. However, when someone tells me something they know to be untrue just so they make a good impression (be it their age, marital status, etc)...I can't let that slide.
sexual issues with single mother of 15 year old
Posted: 11/18/2009 10:57:36 AM
I have to disagree with Malley somewhat. I don't think it's a matter of privacy.
It's one thing to have your lady move in with you, that might add a little stress and anxiety--but you have to multiply that times 1000 by adding a teenager--especially when it's not your kid. So it's possible you're being overwhelmed by new responsibilities.
Now you might be looking at the situation from his point of view: You moved him and his mother into your house, but you're not married to her. Is he thinking you're being disrespectful by having sex with his mother when he's home? His being there constantly reminds you that what ever you do, it's being judged through the eyes of her son--are you making a good impression? These are thoughts that might be rattling around in your head--it's called a conscience.
I don't doubt that you have strong feelings for his mother, but maybe he puts you in touch with a part of you that thinks it's wrong. He may not have any problems whatsoever with the situation, but his presence still nags at your conscience. When he's gone, you start feeling a bit relieved, and she stops being "his mother" and becomes your lady...until he returns.
My advice: If you're planning on marrying her, do it sooner rather than later. That might alleviate the guilt you might be feeling. If that's really not in the picture, then it's probably best that you all not live together.
Actress Heather Graham star of PoliticalAction Campaign
Posted: 11/12/2009 9:56:51 AM
I would discuss this with you, but a simple "LOL" seems more appropriate...so:
11 yo girl gives birth...on her wedding day!
Posted: 11/2/2009 6:41:37 PM
ok, first of all...WOW...11 years old!!!??? That's starting young...like he second day of puberty! And on that note: You know what's really funny? Mother Nature(God) dictates when our bodies are ready for reproduction (ie age of maturity for having babies), and then we pass laws against it...ummm, how do we pass laws against nature itself????
We're a pretty arrogant species LOL
...and I like how we use "emotional/mental maturity" as a reason for these laws...as if such a thing exists. What we're really talking about is wisdom, which is accumulated over a lifetime, but isn't measurable.
I say keep it simple--you can have kids when you are able to take care those kids...ie have a job, and your own place. I don't know too many 11 year olds with steady income and their own place, but maybe the 19 year old does?...I admit I didn't read the story--and no, I don't have any kids--and yes, if I did, I would prefer them to never ever have sex until after I'm dead...just tell me the stork brought my grandbabies--ignorance is bliss LOL
Did I completly screw myself in dating because I don't drink?
Posted: 9/13/2009 5:32:34 AM
I think if a woman drinks, she may be more inclined to want a man that also drinks...what's funny is that isn't necessarily the case with men--some men that drink don't want their women to drink.../shrug.
I never really set out to stop drinking. I stopped drinking shortly after moving to Texas--not because I had some sort of issue, but because everywhere you go here, its a loooong drive!!!!...and I ABSOLUTELY refuse to drink and drive, no matter how small the amount. Not only that, but I won't ride in a vehicle if the driver has had any alcohol either...it's just not worth it. The thing is, even if I'm at home drinking, I don't know when I might need to get somewhere in a hurry, and unfortunately, alcohol supposedly affects the very part of the brain that would allow me to make a proper assessment of my ability to drive. With that in mind, I never had another drink and don't plan on it.
I had a girlfriend that begged me to drink with her once...it was funny! She's sitting at the table by herself with her coolers begging me to have some--I joked "aren't we a little too old for peer pressure?"LOL she was mad. I went back to watching tv while she kept asking "you're really going to make me drink alone?"...I'm sorry but I still LOL when I think about that!!!!
Unfortunately, a lot of what the OP said has happened to people--many of us may know, or have even been close to some. I know I've had friends in my life that have experienced everything he mentioned. It's hard not to be judgmental, to a certain degree, of those that drink when you know what it can lead to, but you have to remember we all live in glass houses. If you really don't want to worry about this particular issue, the easiest thing would be to find a woman that shares your concerns about alcohol--because otherwise, a woman that drinks, could feel like she's being judged...or worse, she could judge you for not drinking.
It's difficult for us non-drinkers to fathom how women wouldn't be all over us for that fact alone LOL. It's just we hear about drunk boyfriends and husbands and fathers--all the horror stories--and we think, women would sooooo appreciate not ever having to worry about that!!!!...right? Well, let me tell you--women are curious creatures!!!!LOL I had a woman( just a friend) tell me she didn't like the schedule her husband worked because it allowed for a lot of off-time. During those days she complained he'd drink too much! So when his schedule changed, it cut down on his drinking--she was somewhat relieved. This same woman once asked me if I drink. When I said no, she asked "not at all?" I said "nope"...she looked at me like she was shocked and felt sorry for me...her response was "OMG, then what do you do for fun!?" Of course I had to ask her "what the bleep does drinking have to do with my ability to have fun????" I'm already silly and goofy, but I'm an introvert so I'm not inclined to go out a lot anyway--but even when I do, I have fun without drinking. You'd think that because her husband was prone to passing out from drinking too much, she'd say "hey, good for you!!!"
So through my own experiences, I've reached these conclusions: Some women want their men to drink and be that "guy" you see in the beer commercials--you know those good looking guys that are in full possession of their mental faculties--they're having fun, joking around, being witty, charming, and all that good stuff--all while holding a beer (they never drink in the commercials)...and the beer companies take credit for the behavior exhibited by their actors. The irony being that, if they were actually drinking, they probably wouldn't look so good LOL. Why? Because--and I'm just assuming here--most people that drink, want to be affected in some way by the alcohol. Unfortunately for us guys, we get a buzz and it usually makes us act like complete morons...we don't know when we go from funny to moron--of course we still think we're being funny and charming--but that's why we need women to drink--that way, they think we're still being funny and charming too!!!! LOL
I'm going to stop rambling...eventually--so I'll just say this to the OP...don't worry about the women that are turned off when you tell them you don't drink. Do what I do when people look at me funny--have fun with them. Here, you can use one of my favorites: When you tell her you don't drink and she gives you a funny "uh oh" look, just raise your hands in a defensive gesture and say "I know what you're thinking, but don't worry...I smoke crack, so I'm a lot of fun!!!!"
Does being nice & complementing women work anymore?
Posted: 9/2/2009 1:05:50 AM
Gwendolyn2009 and WomanInProgress, I hope you two ladies don't mind my trespassing(wink), but I was curious after reading your comments, so I glanced at your pages.
I enjoy and appreciate true compliments (notice the correct spelling), but I disdain and dislike flattery.
Many of the "compliments" I get from men on POF are of the latter type. They are specifically aimed to appeal to my vanity.
Ok, I took a look at your page. You enjoy and appreciate true compliments. I would say I love your hair, and you look adorable in those purple boots. I just complimented you in a way that might appeal to your vanity, but what do I want? It could be that I don't see many women wearing their hair that long, and I love long hair(true story). Also, because I don't go out often, I don't see many women wearing purple boots(again true story). I might have told you these things because I'm hoping you will reciprocate...fishing for a compliment in return. Maybe I'm seeking a sexual encounter.
Actually all of those things could be true: I like her hair--shes looks cute in purple boots--I hope she tells me she likes my pics too--dare I dream about making love to her? It all starts with an email, and hopefully a reply. When does the compliment become flattery? Answer: it doesn't.
Flattery can be defined as excessive or insincere praise--in this context we'll add with the intention of getting a response. If you think your hair is just a big ole mess, and you look ridiculous in purple boots, then all you might get out of my compliment is "he's trying too hard". If you think I'm the tastiest thing you've ever come across, you might be willing to humor me--even if you disdain and dislike flattery--but if you are not attracted to me, then it doesn't really matter if it was a true compliment or just flattery.
So what it boils down to is this, If you don't believe the compliment, you might perceive it to be flattery. Whatever reasons you have for doubting someone's sincerity, I won't question it.
1. How attractive a man is has nothing to do with how I take a compliment. If he's a stranger and it's a physical compliment, it's going to be taken by me as a means to some other thing....unless he says it in passing and keeps walking. In e-mail it's even more of a silly thing, because a man's assuming you want to hear it. He can't honestly compliment you having never met you and based on a bunch of pictures (tho if he really reads the content, understands it and compliments that he's got a better shot).
I took a look at your pics, now I'm very confused--but I'll get back to that later. Your page made me laugh with that whole "let's just go for friendship, and if I'm feelin you, then more" stuff...you know it doesn't really work that way right? I say that because this is a dating site, they probably want more than friendship if they send you an email...unless it's a straight woman, or a gay man...or they need a DJ for a party LOL--but you do have your profile set as "talk/email", so you can only hope that they keep their expectations in check.
So looking at your pics, are you saying that I have no business commenting on how attractive you are?...you don't want to hear it, just keep it to myself? Reminds me of "the elephant in the room", but we just go on discussing the weather LOL. Okay, maybe if we already know each other, and are good friends, then when I see you've posted pictures, I can compliment you on how gorgeous you look? Otherwise, I'm after something that might be construed as sinister? It all sounds a little too "have my cake and eat it to". Post pictures, so that a guy--that you could be attracted to--knows what you look like and hopefully finds you attractive, but if he compliments you on those pics via his opening email, he may be getting things off on the wrong foot?
I can't comment(compliment) on the pics, but if I read the content, understand it, and then compliment what I've read, I might have a shot--assuming you find me attractive. What if I totally understand it, but don't find it realistic? I could still flatter you by telling you what you want to hear...btw, that's what most guys do when women tell them "I'm not really looking for a date, let's be friends--no pressure--if we make good friends and really click, then maybe more"...his response: "of course, that makes perfect sense".
It's right up there with the messages I get from guys telling me they totally get my profile and agree with my point of view and either have the wrong point of view or don't really have any clue what's there. It's a feeler to try to get a response - any response.
I totally agree with you here. If a guy emails you saying he totally agrees with your point of view, he's more than likely blowing smoke, or totally misunderstood what he read...if he understood it, he should be laughing to himself...jk...mostly LOL.
2. On or offline has nothing to do with a compliment wrapped around an intent. It is what it is. If someone doesn't know me well enough to really compliment something, it's better they don't bother trying. Online might be even less genuine because you aren't even standing in the same room. It's a given if we talk, click, decide to date that you find me attractive, I don't necessarily have to hear about it. I go by what a guy does in the beginning. Most of what he says when he's in "impression" mode goes by the wayside.
No one "tries" to compliment you, they just compliment you. If you're saying their compliment is "trying" to lead to that special "intent", then why wouldn't they bother? Perhaps that intent is to get to know you...the more they know, the more they may like you...if you like them, then that compliment was definitely worth the bother.
You want to go by what a guy does at the beginning, because he'll say anything when in "impression mode"? I have news that many men and women might want to know...In the beginning, people SAY and DO things to win their heart's desire. It's not a bad thing, and your not wanting to be "impressed" isn't a bad thing either--just know that insincerity doesn't just flow from the mouth.
So what have we learned today class? There are some women that aren't "compliment-friendly". In your opening emails, you might try:
"Hi, I'm "name here". I just read your profile, and would like to get to know more about you. When you have the time, take a look at my profile. If you're interested, email me--if not, happy fishing!"
...it's safe, but boring--lacks any personality. Technically, the email itself is a compliment, just not an overly overt one LOL.
keep in mind--no matter what you email them, you are not owed a response...it sucks I know, but such is life. That's why I say have fun with it, and picture it putting a smile on their face :)
Does being nice & complementing women work anymore?
Posted: 8/31/2009 11:36:29 PM
Maybe I'm the only one, but I find the lack of responses funny. I get bored sitting here late at night, so I tend to email a few members from time to time, and most of the time I'm cracking myself up as I write them. When I look in my sent folder and see "read deleted", I might review it and then picture her rolling her eyes and deleting it...it's funny LOL.
Sometimes I wonder if I WANT a response LOL. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a jerk in my emails, but sometimes I just write to compliment a pair of beautiful eyes, an adorable pic, or how funny her profile is--but that doesn't mean I think we're a match. It's one of those "she's gorgeous, funny, and smart-- but..." type situations. Nine out of ten times though, if she's got the eyes, she gets an email.
I think some women are condtitioned to think if you flirt, flatter, and compliment them, you want something from them--or to be with them sexually or whatever. As long as they feel the same way about you, it's all good. If they don't, it's like you are trespassing or something--so if you are going to trespass, at least have fun while you are doing it. I'll dare someone I'm not likely to get a response from, to not respond, just because in my mind I picture them laughing at my ridiculous email.
So stay sincere with compliments, just don't expect them to believe you. Read and comment on their profiles, but don't expect them to be impressed. And last, but not least, do not take yourself too seriously--if you do, then you'll start thinking you deserve a response.
Why do women fall for players?
Posted: 8/20/2009 12:26:48 AM
I have $0.02 to spare, so I'll chime in...
"Player" can mean anything, it depends on the individual experience. Some players don't have to lie, especially when women make the first move. Those are the good looking guys that women throw themselves at, and they take full advantage. A player can even be monogamous, but maybe he lied his way into the relationship as a way to make a "come-up" for example...still a player. However, most people associate the term "player" with womanizing(seducing multiple women while in a relationship). Some players are mostly about the sex--they define their "status" by their score card. Some are in it mostly for the money--they define their "status" by the bling SHE paid for. Whatever the goal, it's usually at "HER" expense.
Is "SHE" blameless? I'm finding that more and more, the answer to that question is "NO". When it comes to women dealing with players, I've seen three things happen many times:
1) She has no idea she's dealing with a player, and wouldn't know one if he bit her on the nose. She simply believes whatever a good looking guy tells her. (so innocent)
2) She knows, or strongly suspects he's a player, but thinks that maybe, JUST MAYBE, he will settle down and do right by her. (somewhat naive)
3) She knows he's a player, but doesn't care. She may think all guys will stray, so one's no better than the other, at least her's is "HOT". It's possible she thinks that she can't do any better, or even she deserves the player treatment because she hasn't forgiven herself for something she's done in the past. (rather pathetic)
It's messed up because it happens in that order a lot...it's like women never learn to just trust their instincts--but that's not the worst part. What's worse is when women choose to spend their youth chasing after guys they know are players, and then think a decent man will want them when they're finally ready to give them a try. Those profiles should read "OK I'm done having fun, banging all the hot exciting guys I could, but I'm tired of games and just want someone that's down to earth...etc". Ok, but now she's older and not as hot as she used to be, and probably has kids...ironically making her more of a player target, because now she comes off as needy.../sigh poor thing.
btw, we all know that women can be players too, so much of this could simply be "flipped".
There aren't any "good" players, but there are some pure "EVIL" ones out there, so people guard your vulnerabilities. My weakness is a pair of beautiful eyes, so I try not to stare into them LOL.
Posted: 7/31/2009 11:38:43 AM
A couple of things (sorry if I'm repeating what others have already said):
I keep seeing posts about how Sgt. Crowley warned Mr Gates many times before arresting him for disorderly behavior...as if that was supposed to calm him down--how does that work when it's obvious that Sgt. Crowley was a contributing factor to that behavior? It's like if I have a dog that always barks when it sees strangers. If a visitor comes over and steps into my back yard, I'll get non-stop barking from my dog until the stranger is out of sight...it doesn't matter how many times I tell the dog to shut up, so I'm just going to tell my guest to go inside--problem solved. Sorry that Mr Gates was the dog in that analogy, but you get the point. One of the other officers, if not Crowley himself, should have realised that leaving would restore calm.
At first I thought it was all pride and ego with Mr Gates, but I forgot something very important..."FEAR". Some people believe that as long as you are innocent, you should always cooperate with the cops--I'm one of them, but I know there are some horror stories out there. Unfortunately, the cops have a bad reputation when it comes to dealing with minorities. So a black man seeing a cop on his porch, and that cop telling him to step outside, that equals "horror story" to some. I could see a black man, who is alone and afraid, being loud so that people would pay attention...maybe if the driver was still there, or he had friends over while this was going on, it wouldn't have caused him to over react (assuming the officer didn't think they were all guilty of B&E LOL). After reading his statement in that interview, I can see how a little bit of fear, pride, and ego all contributed to his "conduct".
I'm not going to call the arrest unlawful, although I do agree that it wouldn't stand up in court--especially since the police weren't called out there because Mr Gates was disturbing the peace--in fact, they were a contributing factor, even if unintentionally. I think the motivation behing the arrest was that Mr Gates got under Crowley's skin. Crowley gave a warning thinking that would shut this guy up, but that's a challenge Mr Gates answered. At that point he almost "had to" arrest him...LOL
Some of you are arguing the race angle, defending Crowley, some are arguing the Constitution was violated, defending Gates...why aren't you all laughing by now? Seriously, it's old enough now to be funny. Think about it, Gates causes a commotion to get peoples' attention so that he won't be mistreated by the police, and Crowley forces himself into a situation where he has to arrest Gates on charges he knows won't stand...so they both lose! It's like the story where the woman sells her hair to buy a chain for her husband's watch, but he sells his watch to buy a comb for her beautiful hair--it's tragic, but funny at the same time!!!! LOL
Posted: 7/28/2009 10:38:11 AM
If it's true that Ms Whalen only said she was the one that called, then Crowley has some explaining to do.
"...held a wireless telephone in her hand and told me that it was she who called. She went on to tell me that she observed what appeared to be two black males with backpacks on the porch of 17 Ware Street. She told me that her suspicions were aroused when she observed one of the men wedging his shoulder into the door as if he was trying to force entry..."
I'm more inclined to believe that she did not tell Sgt. Crowley that it was "two black males", because she didn't say that in her 911 call.
I'm not ready to say Officer Crowley is a racist or that he reacted in a racist manner, but like I said earlier, it did appear that those incident reports were doctored to make it look like they handled the situation with nothing but the utmost professionalism. I never believed they were being completely honest...anyone that reads the reports can see they were in collusion. Honestly, I think it happens all the time.
So, here's Sgt, Crowley's mistake: He was being accused of racial profiling by Mr Gates. In his attempt to paint a different picture, he may have falsified his Incident Report. Was it to cover up actual racial profiling as alleged by Mr Gates, or was it to remove the appearance of racial profiling?...there's a difference. If he hadn't added that additional information, knowingly or by accident(got confused, or didn't remember correctly), it would look less like race played a role in his handling of the situation...there's some irony for you LOL
Posted: 7/27/2009 11:12:43 PM
LOL I tried to stay away from this topic also, but there's so much noise I might as well join the chorus.
I don't understand why people are bickering over this trying to defend Crowley, Gates, or Obama.
This is what we know:
A woman, Lucia Whalen, called 911 when she and a neighbor saw 2 men trying to pry open a door.
Officer Crowley responded (first on the scene), and quetioned Ms Whalen.
He then proceeded to investigate, and saw Mr Gates inside the home.
Mr Gates had just gotten home from a trip to China and had trouble with the front door due to a previous break in attempt apparently.
Officer Crowley saw Mr Gates through the door window. At that time he did not know Mr Gates identity.
Officer Crowley asked Mr Gates to step outside before identifying himself, and Mr Gates refused.
After Officer Crowley identified himself, Mr Gates opened the door.
During the Investigation, Mr Gates became uncooperative, aggitated, and started accusing the Police of racial profiling.
Mr Gates was asked to step outside, and was warned that his behavior was becoming disorderly.
Mr Gates apparently didn't respond to the warning, and was placed under arrest for disorderly conduct.
The President was asked his opinion of what happened to Mr Gates at a press conference.
The President admitted he didn't have all the facts, and that Mr Gates is a friend. He also said the police "acted stupidly", and went on to make a statement about the history of law enforcement, as it pertains to minorities.
Now this is my opinion:
There was no racism, or racial profiling exhibited by the Police. I say this because besides Mr Gates' accusations, there's no evidence. Although the dispatcher could have asked for more details besides the race of the men, it was apparent the caller did not get a good look at them.
It did bother me that Officer Crowley asked him(Mr Gates) to step outside BEFORE identifying himself as the police. This may have gotten them off on the wrong foot. Once Officer Crowley saw a man inside, he should've immediately identified himself as the police, explained why he was there, and then asked the man to step outside...IMHO it shows professionalism and is respectful behavior. He was in uniform, but that does not identify who he is, and why he's there.
While in the home, I don't know if Officer Crowley said something in a manner that upset Mr Gates. He was there investigating a possible crime in progress, his tone may have been what Mr Gates took offense to--not what he said, but how he said it.
It looks like Mr Gates wasn't in the best of moods, and lashed out at the cops verbally, accusing them of racial profiling. Even went as far as to try to call the chief. I don't know, but at some time other officers arrived on the scene, and if I were he, I would have let one of them take over questioning Mr Gates, because obviously he wasn't able to get through to him.
I think ultimately it became a battle of egos, although the Officer's report would not say that. Looking at the reports from Officers Crowley and Figueroa, I suspect they tried to sell the same story--not to cover up any kind of racist behavior or anything, but to emphasize how professionally they handled the situation...ie Mr Gates' arrest.
How was it a battle of egos? Well, Mr Gates comes off as bit "proud" in my opinion. When dealing with people like that, if you don't show them the respect they think they deserve, they get really defensive and lash out. Cops can be the same way, the uniform demands respect, if you are not willing to show the proper respect, you might get punished--but it doesn't have to be that way, many cops are able to shrug off disrespect. However, just because cops shrug it off sometimes, that doesn't mean they'll do that everytime. I suspect Mr Gates drew the short straw.
So what should have happened? Humility. That goes for all, Including the President--which is what I think he is trying to do by inviting both men to the White House. He's acknowledging that he did not respond appropriately, and is trying to make amends as best a person in his position is allowed--sounds silly to me, but you know politics and all...
Well it looks like Mr Gates didn't handle the situation well at all, and we all agree he should have just cooperated fully, but what could have Sgt. Crowley done better?
This is what I think should have happened:
Officer Crowley identifies himself and why he's there, then asks that he(Mr Gates) step outside with identification. "Sir, I'm Sgt, Crowley from the Cambridge Police Dept. I'm investigating a report of a possible break in progress at this address. Could you step outside and show me some identification?"
As long as Mr Gates complies...let him run his mouth. "I'm sorry for the inconvenience Mr Gates, but I have to follow procedure and conduct a thorough investigation...I'm sure you understand. Is there anyone else in the house?"
After questioning him to satisfaction, and making sure nothing has been overlooked, it should have concluded with "Again, I apologize for the inconvenience Mr Gates...let me write down the information you're asking for, do you need anything else? OK then, we appreciate your cooperation, have a good day."...
It could have been handled, and probably should have been handled that way--even if the whole time Mr Gates was calling them racists and bigots or evil doers and terrorists...heck he could have been screaming to the heavens about being persecuted...still could have been handled better.
To conclude: NOT racism, just police discretion...and accusations out the ying yang from Mr Gates--who, let's face it, probably sees racism everywhere. There was no way the D.A. was going to be able to successfully prosecute Mr Gates under the circumstances, so it was dropped. I think the concerned neighbor, the caller, and the D.A. are the only ones that did everything right. Mr Gates, Sgt Crowley, and President Obama...not so much.
The Big Bang theory surely is the limit case ?
Posted: 7/23/2009 10:36:09 PM
I don't know, but I think we should all be able to agree that there was NEVER a "time" when absolutely NOTHING existed. So SOMETHING has always existed, because common sense, and our best scientific minds will tell you, that you can't get something from nothing. That means that whatever is at the beginning of EVERYTHING, or the "source" if you will, has the power or ability to be self-existing all on its own.
Again, as was mentioned, that's hard for finite beings to grasp.
Women only seeking Christian men
Posted: 7/23/2009 11:03:46 AM
Many profiles I come across state that they only want a "Christian man." I'm not complaining considering I live in the Midwest (aka Bible Belt) after all; it is practically expected. But it is peculiar to find in this day and age, an astonishing number of individuals haven't progressed and realize you can be moral/virtuous without being a Christian. I find it extremely close-minded. Why is the term "Christian" always synonymous with the word "good?" I honestly think you can be moral and respectful without being religious. One would think, especially with the advent of globalization, we would embrace all religions and beliefs. It appears that we have a long way to go.
It might be true that some "Christians", think only Christians are "good" people. I find that strange because the Bible teaches that NONE of us are LOL. I keep seeing people post about how "good" they are, but let's be honest, that's subjective--who are they comparing themselves to? If you're a Christian, you're supposed to compare yourself to Jesus, that means that we're not "good" at all--we simply can't measure up. That's why His sacrifice is so important to us and why we keep trying and yes, sometimes failing, to follow His example.
So when you see a woman state she only wants to date a Christian man, don't read that as she only wants to date a "good, moral, respectful, virtuous, etc" man. She's looking for someone that believes what she believes, so that if things progress towards marriage, she won't have to worry about that being an issue.
Did you know that in a Christian marriage, that the Lord Jesus is the center of the home, around which everything else revolves? Did you know husbands and wives have different roles? These roles are equally important in the eyes of God, but are different. A husband is supposed to love his wife as Christ loved the Church--not only that, but a husband is supposed to take an active leadership role in his family's Christian development. If this is what "she" is expecting from a marriage, what good would it do her to date a "good and moral" person that doesn't share these beliefs? ...LOL and yes I know--we all know--that Christian men often fail to meet these requirements, but again, that's why we need Jesus!
So just like eveyone else has told you, if she's looking for a Christian man, take that as "not a match for you", and move on. LOL trust me, it's equally frustrating for us Christians to see profiles that match what we're looking for, only to find out they're not Christians....sigh
Show ALL Forums