Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

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

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

Thank you!

          

Show ALL Forums
Posted In Forum:

Home   login   MyForums  
 
 Author Thread: Am i turning off girls i like when i do this?
 MolderA
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 1 (view)
 
Am i turning off girls i like when i do this?
Posted: 3/9/2010 3:36:53 PM
I have a bit of social anxiety. It's not completely inhibitive i just get embarassed easily and have trouble meeting new people (especially girls) but once i get to know people it doesnt effect me at all. Anyway, whenever i'm looking at a girl i like, every now and then she'll look back and make eye contact. As per usual with me, i panick and my eyes try to quickly find something else to look at. Even though i like the girl, i kind of feel like getting caught on the spot at the moment.

So i'll get uncomfortable and shift around a lot and panickly have my eyes looking everywhere else trying to make it look like my eyes were just wondering. Would that seem offensive or put off a girl who likes me? (I'm sure a girl who doesnt would pay no mind to what i was doing regardless). It is something i'm trying to get over, since establishing eye contact is a vital way of establishing that you're interested in a girl. I just have some serious trouble maintaining that eye contact without feeling...i dont know, nervous? I'm wondering how that would make the girl feel?
 MolderA
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 240 (view)
 
Ever feel like your going to be alone forever?
Posted: 3/9/2010 2:47:34 PM
I do feel like it some times, and it is a horrible feeling for me personally. Some people find consolidation in personal success or glory, but that's not who i am. I find no meaning in career or academic success. I never have, i never will. It's not that i dont have ambition, it's just that my ambition lies elsewhere. I grew up in a very traditional family, and i love my family very much. One of the things i've grown up to want very much is a family of my own. What i strive to be in the future is a good husband and father. Not a fighter pilot or an astronaught or any of those other things.

So i find no comfort in focusing on singular, individual activities. Everything from entertainment to academic activities feel pointless and worthless without someone to share it all with. And personally, i do not want to wait until my best years are over before i start a family.

And i'm not picky. I mean, i have limits, clearly i'll only date a woman i'm attracted to, but i'm not holding out for a super-model. Clearly (in this part of the country) however, women hold much stricter standards(Although i'd like to think i'm atleast decent looking, so maybe i'm just too shy...).

A bigger problem is society has changed, ESPECIALLY on this side of the country (Oregon...i...hate...oregon). There are no family oriented women on this side of the country, hell i'd be lucky to even find someone that shares even a small amount of my values and aspirations. Today, in a great sense of irony, society has become focused on individual success, on "Making a mark on the world". And yet, this is possibly the worst era to have that attitude. This is not 2000 BC where a single person could rise and become emperor, or through a single battle or economic movement change the entire course of human destiny. The world does not work like that anymore. If you have the right connections and genetics you'll be destined for great things, but otherwise, all that we do and say will be swept together with the things that 6 billion others say and do. All we can aspire to do is to spread our legacy through our future children and make the most of the lives we have.

And so i'm stuck where i feel like i'll never meet a woman who shares my beliefs, my values, or who want's to be with me. I feel alone, not just on a small scale but on a larger scale as well - Almost as if i'm a man without a country. As if society has moved beyond the era of family values and into the era of personal glory and conquest. And i find this extremely disheartening and depressing.

I just try to hang on with the hope that there is a girl out there someone waiting for me... I mean, what else can we do? I certainly don't plan to give up. I'm not going out without a fight. These forums certainly dont help though, i find them extremely depressing and even mroe disheartening lol... sorry for the rant though. I like writing, what can i say...
 MolderA
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 20 (view)
 
Do women in Oregon ever mail first
Posted: 2/28/2010 3:44:47 PM
I really dont think they do. Atleast not in small cities. I'm sure they do in big cities, but that's probably just numbers at work. There's a hell of a lot larger pool of women in bigger cities. Here in K-Falls, finding single girls my age is hard enough, single girls i find attractive(and i'm not that picky) that will even look back at me is even harder. It doesnt help that i have a bit of social anxiety (it doesnt mean i dont like socializing, it means i'm bad at meeting new people. Once i know someone, i can talk their ears off).

I'm starting to get the feeling i'm not the most attractive person. Or i'm not likeable. Or something. Surely something is turning off every girl in this city i've ever liked...

But i digress... If you're an attractive person in a big city, good odds to get contacted first. Otherwise, if you're like me....good luck. Meh...
 MolderA
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 46 (view)
 
couple arrested for not tipping.,,
Posted: 12/27/2009 9:42:56 AM
Why are tips being treated like an Income? If you're not making proper wages through your normal income, is that not an issue with the Employer, not the customers? It seems to me, servers are pushing the issue down onto the consumer, by creating this arbitrary set of rules for tipping, when they should be complaining to their employers to properly pay them and stop levying extra fines/taxes on them. A tip is NOT an income. It is a gift. It is a "Hey, you did a great job". It is NOT suppose to be something you get for just doing your job. If you arent getting enough money, instead of saying "People should tip/ tip more" servers should be organizing and saying "EMPLOYERS should stop ripping us off!". It seems to me that some of these people are getting ripped off by their employers, and buying their BS excuses that its the consumers fault. So here we are, in the 21'st century, with an arbitrary set of useless tipping etiquette that completley robs the very purpose of Tips, and instead treats it like an extra bill for customers. Why not actually go all the way, and just charge extra for the food, and raise your employee's income? Same damn thing, no controversy, and tips become just that - tips.
 MolderA
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 43 (view)
 
couple arrested for not tipping.,,
Posted: 12/26/2009 2:53:15 PM
This is why i dont go to fancy restaurants. I only go to Fast Food places. I'm not rich, i'm poor(going to college off student loans). The last thing i want to deal with is government regulation of tipping and obscure tipping etiquette that i probably couldnt afford in the first place. Easier to just get a cheeseburger and a pepsi at Jack in the Box...
 MolderA
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 13 (view)
 
failed ltr vs divorce
Posted: 12/25/2009 10:41:15 PM

MolderA - You make some very good points however it seems your assumption is everyone who wants a commitment is willing to get married. But there are some people who don't believe in marriage at all, yet their ltr lasts till death literally does them part. How would you rate those relationships?

If a couple doesn't believe in putting their commitment in writting in the first place does that make it less of a commitment? Could we possibly say that those people have a red flag saying that they're not willing to commit ever? In that perspective wouldn't looking at how many ltr's they've been in say something about whether they are capable of committing thus making them someone you wouldn't want to start a relationship with?


Whatever their reasons, i think someone who never wants to get married legitimately brings up the point of not being willing to commit. Its not like you have to go through all the fancy traditions to get married, and i think it speaks something of one's character if they are unwilling to ever make an official, written "Commitment", as, personally, i think that says they always want the option open to be able to "walk away" if things go sour. And, in a sense, that's also where Failed LTR's can have a play in how a person percieves you.

If you've gone 40 years and never gotten married, but you've never gotten past dating so you've never had an LTR, then i wouldnt think it says much about you other than you've had a bad string of luck. If you have 10 failed LTR's then it brings up the question if maybe you have some latent fear of commitment. However, given the nature of LTR's and their whole purpose of testing compatibility, it doesnt speak nearly as much as a Divorce does. As i said, an LTR is not a commitment, and the majority of people who are in LTR's, i think statisticly, most certainly believe in Marriage. Those who dont, i think, as i stated before, have some form of commitment issues, wether they want to admit it or not. They are conciously refusing to make any form of official, legally binding commitment with a person.

However i believe those people are in the minority, so by and large the amount of Failed LTR's may have little significance unless the person has a significant amount over a prolonged period of their life. And a person could probably ask from the get-go if the person believes in Marriage (i think that's an important thing to know before getting into any serious relationship) so after such knowledge they can they apply what they know of their previous LTR's depending upon their answer for their own personal risk assessment. But by and Large, a Divorce is far more major than an LTR, for the reasons i listed in my previous post. But i'm not completely degredating the recognition of LTR's, i'm just saying they dont say nearly as much, especially given the nature of what an LTR is as opposed to the nature of what Marriage is.
 MolderA
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 7 (view)
 
failed ltr vs divorce
Posted: 12/24/2009 1:25:33 PM
Though i have no relationship experience whatsoever in any way shape or form, i think i can still post an opinion from a...outside perspective. A Long Term Relationship failing is far different than a Marriage failing. a LTR is not a commitment. You've met someone, and you're going through the lengthy process of gauging wether this person is the right person to spend the rest of your life with. Clearly, if they never get married, they never got to that point. Whereas a Divorcee either got married before reaching that point, or they got to that point, made the commitment of marriage, and then either didnt put in the effort to save the marriage, or "Changed their feelings" about the person they were with. Either way that does not present itself a positive. You either made a commitment before you were ready, or you have inconsistent feelings.

Now, i do understand however, that a divorce is not always a 2 way deal. Sometimes one person is more than willing to work to improve their marriage, but the other just up and throws in the towel or the other person really misrepresented themselves before getting marriage, however the whole point of a ltr is to learn all you need to before making said commitment. However, if you have multiple divorces, then it tends to present the idea that maybe you are the one at issue. Again, though, there remains the possibility that you just got hit with bad luck multiple times and were more than willing to work to improve things but the other person wasnt, but once the number goes past 3-4 i think one has a right to "wonder". And as i made the distinguishment earlier, this is far different than a non-marriage LTR where the whole purpose is to find out of you're compatible for marriage. Most people are bound to have multiple failed LTR's where after enough time traits or aspects were revealed about a person that they didnt like. A marriage is a commitment, i know some people try to shrug that off these days but the way i see it, if you're not willing to treat marriage as a commitment, why get married at all?

I think people have a right to know if you've been divorced, so they can personally assess for themselves if they are willing to invest their emotions in someone who has gone all the way to the commitment of marriage and for one reason or another could not keep said commitment. Best way to put it, it's a form of risk assessment. Someone being divorced may say something about how they view marriage and about their own personality, especially if they've been divorced multiple times.
 MolderA
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 36 (view)
 
Why are we still single
Posted: 12/18/2009 6:53:22 AM
I'm alone because i'm undesireable, not because i choose to be. I can make all the excuses in the world but the only one that matters is the truth: Women dont find me desireable emotionally or physicly. It is the only explanation for 22 years straight of not a single girlfriend, despite my numerous attempts to change it(and my recent desperation of trying to internet)....
 MolderA
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 15 (view)
 
Child's Drawing
Posted: 12/17/2009 5:50:07 AM
And I wonder... if the child drew a picture of Santa Claus opening fire with an AK-47 from the chimney and this same action was taken, would we even have heard about it at all? Are we looking again at media manipulation WANTING us to believe the school is acting on a socio-political agenda rather than out of concern?


If a child drew a picture of Santa Claus opening fire with an AK-47, i would give him a gold star and an A+ on the project for creativity. I'm 22 so i still freshly remember being a kid. We watched all the action/adventure movies of the era, and i dont think i knew a single boy in elementry who didnt draw some variation of stick figures with various automatic rifles opening fire on eachother accross the paper. Its merely an expression of creativity in the form of Action. What boy didnt have action figures fully loaded to the teeth in weapons, rocket launchers, and grenades? Or have water pistols and rifles? Or even lasertag! Our schools are getting overly sensitive and restrictive. As they say, anyone who sacrifices a little bit of freedom to gain a little bit of security deserves neither and will lose both.



If a child grows to high school and brings a gun to school and opens fire in the cafeteria at lunch then it's discovered that years earlier that he/she drew pictures depicting violence that should have set off alarms where the attack might have been averted by getting the child help but was ignored, everyone would be screaming "Whh?!?" and the school district loses again.


You're assuming a correlation where possibly there is none. There are millions of boys who have action figures ripping off eachothers heads, that doesnt mean they're going to shoot up a school. That kid might have shot up the school because of stress, bullies, getting rejected by all the girls and growing resentment against the school, etc. etc.
 MolderA
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 140 (view)
 
Independent Women
Posted: 12/17/2009 5:35:35 AM
I think you misread outdoor guy. I'm not the one who said that, the one i called out was the guy who said that.
 MolderA
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 17 (view)
 
Girls with geek-like interests...do they even exist?
Posted: 12/16/2009 1:32:12 AM
I'll say this - As far as looks concerned, i'm not looking for a supermodel. Obviously, i have limits, but a girl with a belly or a few extra pounds isnt going to scare me running. Personally, i find the modern supermodel anorexia look a turnoff anyway.. And i think you get the wrong idea about me. Just because i like Sci-fi/Astronomy/games, doesnt mean i spend all day in a basement. Infact, i dont live in a basement at all...but the point is, i actually prefer to get outside as much as possible. I get stir crazy real easily, and games are fun for an hour or so, and then they get tiring.

Infact, i prefer to spend as much time with friends and family as i can. Its a pitty so many of my friends have moved out. I was just wondering if there are other girls out there with interests like mine because i prefer to atleast have one interest of mine that i can discuss and share with a girl i like and know she'll enjoy it just as much as i do. That's not to say i'm not willing to share in a girl's own interests...i'd just wish there to be a common interest we could enjoy together..
 MolderA
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 1 (view)
 
Girls with geek-like interests...do they even exist?
Posted: 12/13/2009 7:47:27 AM
One thing i've come to notice rather rapidly, atleast from my personal experience, is that women hate anything that has to do with space. Science fiction, Star Trek, Astronomy. And those are my 3 favorite things in life. Plus video games. And Star Wars. And the History Channel. I hate how whenever i'm out with friends, i can never keep interested in a conversation with any girls i like because it has absolutely nothing to do with anything i like. And lord forbid i initiate a conversation, because people will find excuses to pee 37 times and eventually outright not come back.

Its funny, i have a wide-range of topics i'm interested in having intellectual conversations in. And i dont mean witty comments and one-off jokes. I mean actual conversations. Politics, History, Science, Astronomy, Science Fiction, Video Games, Sports(huge fan of the Portland Trail Blazers), stuff like that. But those are all things women seem to hate. So i literally have nothing in common with the girls i speak to. I can get them to laugh and smile, because i have a great sense of humor, i just can't actually hold a normal conversation with them. Cause nothing we say interests the other.

There's nothing sadder than when the only things in common with the people you hang out with are "World Experience" type deals. You know, bills, debt, school, bad weather. Essentially the things you complain about are all you can talk about because the things that bring a smile to your face dont interest the other person one iota. Are there girls my age out there who have...less than convential interests? Where are the Girl Gamers i keep hearing about? The Space Enthusiasts? The Sci-fi lovers? Do they exist? Because my ability to ever have a date hinges on them existing. A Girl doesnt need to like everything i do, but they clearly must have atleast SOME interest in Something i like. And so far, i havent met a single one who does. Not a single girlfriend because of it.

Of course, it doesnt help that this is an insanely small town in south-east oregon with a population of 20,000 with more interest in country music and pickup-trucks than the finer details between a Yellow Main Sequence Star and a Red giant. Or the motivations of the American Revolution. Or the Differences between a Sovereign Class starship and a Galaxy class Starship (lol :P).
 MolderA
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 123 (view)
 
Roman Polanski Arrested
Posted: 12/13/2009 4:07:57 AM
There are two types of science, natural science and social science. You are completely overlooking social science. You are also completely overlooking the probability that over more than 10,000 years there has been some evolution and we are neither biologically nor psychologically the same as was primitive man


We are still homosapien, there has been nothing to suggest that we have evolved beyond that. Especially since we all still have homosapien instincts used for living in the wild. For instance, the instinct to want to bash your boss's head in or kill your coworker in a fit of rage while daydreaming is not as uncommon as some might want to pretend, atleast for men. That's part of our hunter instinct. To kill those we percieve as a threat or as being a stressor. The INSTINCT is there, but our social and our own personal programming prevent us from acting it out. Then again, a good portion of men STILL act out on this aggression. Its called Murder. Infact, the fact we have standing armies across entire nations willing to slaughter millions of others if they are ever declared a threat will attest to that. Being willing to kill to protect our own is a very basic instinct, drawn out to a national level.

I'm not saying that Society and our own personalities are incapable of controlling and modifying these instincts. They CAN. But its the fact that there is something to MODIFY that is my point. That we all have the programming to be attracted to pubescent women of all ages, but we have to use social pressure and guidelines in order to override this natural instinct. Social Programming. And if its something no-one ever faces or thinks about, its very possible they lack that programming and might find themselves looking at a 13 year old girl (likely one who is more filled out). This is because naturally, men will be biologically drawn towards girls capable of producing children. Our morality and society however allows us to on both a concious and subconcious level block or suppress this attraction. My point, again, though is that there is an attraction being blocked, and thus for some people it can surface. And that they are not physiologically damaged in the brain. It is a normal attraction. They have, for whatever reason, allow themselves to indulge the attraction. Generally this is probably common amongst anti-social types or people who havent experienced social pressure. And when you get older than 13, say highschool Sophomore and up where girls start filling up, then you got an even larger percentage of men who are willing to indulge in this attraction, even though they likely will never act on it.

Edit: By the way, i've never debated this late into the night before. I take no responsibility for anything stupid or innacurate i say, as i am very dreary eyed and tired :P By the way, i feel like i may have sidetracked this post a bit much, my apologies to the OP. I was just trying to make a minor note with regards to the fact that he is not a pedofile (pscyhologically speaking). However. It seems, as evidenced here, a good portion of the population still believes we are all born with what is considered good morals and our genetics are perfectly aligned with our social standards (which they are not. Not even close).
 MolderA
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 122 (view)
 
Roman Polanski Arrested
Posted: 12/13/2009 3:45:39 AM
Like i said, here's a FACT for you: Pheromones cause a sexual biological reaction in men. 13 year old girls emit these same pheromones unless they are late bloomers. Also, men posses the ability to be attracted to girls that age, both because of the pheromone and if they have well developed bodies. Because a long time ago, there was no social taboo of having sex with girls who have just become physicly able to bear children, we evolved to procreate as soon as able. That same biological programming is still present, wether you want to admit it or not. But Like has been stated time and again, our social programming will disregaurd any biological response to a 13 year old, but clearly there are many men who disregaurd such social inhibitions. Thus the term "Jailbait" and the 50,000 men in jail because "I swear i didnt know her age".

The fact of the matter is, it DOESNT matter how many men want to admit it. Most might not even RECOGNIZE it, because of their social programming. That doesnt mean its not there, especially since we have this thing called SCIENCE. Maybe i should have worded it differently. Let's try this. All men have the CAPACITY to be attracted to 13 year old girls. Its not against our nature. We evolved to recognize when a woman was capable of procreating, and being attracted to her. However social programming and free will allows us to control our attractions, and so we form our own preferences. And since nowadays sex with a minor is illegal, we form preferences for girls generally older than 18, however even then MOST men will definetly have a response to a fully figured 16 year old.
 MolderA
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 120 (view)
 
Roman Polanski Arrested
Posted: 12/13/2009 3:18:08 AM

Youth, yes, not children. I am around kids all day every day. I guarantee you, I feel no attraction for 13 year old boys. There is a difference between a young man or woman and a child. A huge difference.


Clearly your social beliefs are more than enough to squash any reaction you might have. Also, its a biological fact that a womans sex preferences are much different than a man, its not unusual for women to look more to older, more mature men. However, women are also NOT exempt for feeling attraction with underage men. Its just largely un-reported and undocumented in most the modern world. Its seen as a good thing if a young boy can score with an older woman. South Park made a very humerous episode in regards to this. But there are still plenty of female teachers getting arrested for attractions with 13+ boys, some younger than that. So clearly, the biological programming is still there, even if most women can ignore it.
 MolderA
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 119 (view)
 
Roman Polanski Arrested
Posted: 12/13/2009 3:11:54 AM
This is different to an 18-year-old having sex with someone two years younger than him. This was a 43-year-old man asserting his power over a 13-year-old girl.
oh i know. I was just stating since we'll crack down on an 18 year old having sex with a gril WELL within his age range, that i find it doubtful people would look kindly on what this guy did regardless of his age. And i'm not sure if it wasnt opportunistic rape. Remember, most rapists see it as a form of entitlement. The old "They were asking for it" argument. They are attempting to assert their power onto other women, generally weak or vulnerable women. But i havent read all of the details yet.


Maybe POF can assign a special font reserved whenever one posts sarcastic remarks so others can recognise them as such? I thought 'pfft' gave it away.


lol sorry, its late for me. 3am.
 MolderA
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 116 (view)
 
Roman Polanski Arrested
Posted: 12/13/2009 3:02:27 AM
PEOPLE are attracted to youth. Youth represents life in abundance. Yes, of course there is a sexual element to it. But MOST men might glance and then realise it is inappropriate. He is looking at a child. And the sexual interest will dissipate.
In the case of Polanski - which is what the topic is about - I urge you to read the transcript - the link is on post 130.
Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be anything *natural* in that sexual encounter. He was a cold and utter b@stard to that kid. He knew exactly what he was doing.


Spot on, i agree completely. I'm glad you finally got what i was saying. The attraction will be there, but its almost immediatly, if not subconciously, disregaurded. Social standards are like programming. As we grow up, we get this programming. And so when any of our hardware quicks come up like that, the programming knows what to do with it. Those will always be there, its a part of the hardware, but the programming is capable of changing, evolving, and adapting to use the hardware in new ways. That's the best analogy i could come up with this late. But you're right, our Social and Moral beliefs we devlope through childhood and religion and our own free will will help us develope and mold our attractions to modern standards, and our natural instincts will often be suppressed. My point was, however, that the natural instincts are still there.

However, it does appear that this had nothing to do with her being a child at all, most likely. From what i'm reading. It seems more like he was an opportunistic rapist looking for an easy rape he thought he could get away with.


Ah, but he is a 'great artiste' in many peoples' eyes, so that makes it okay. Pffft.
maybe among people of his vocation, but among society sex with a minor is one of the biggest taboo's i can think of. In the US an 18 year old will get arrested without question for having sex with an 16-17 year old. One got arrested for having a naked picture of his 16 year old girlfriend on his phone, he being 18 her 16. I highly doubt anyone really see's what he did as ok.


For the record, I am not attracted to 13+ boys. Far-reaching assumption there to state all men. More in reference to yourself I think.
I stopped reading your reply right there. I'll reply when you remove the ad hominem from your response. Feel free to look that one up.
 MolderA
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 25 (view)
 
How do you people stand to live in Portland or any big city?
Posted: 12/13/2009 2:56:11 AM

I completely disagree with Portlanders being all the same. I've lived in various parts of Oregon most of my life. Grew up in McMinnville, where everyone was conservative and white. Lived in Amity, another small white conservative town. Went to College in Eugene where everyone was liberal and white, like P-town was described earlier. Now that I live in Portland there is a diversity of thought, ethnicity, backgrounds, etc. that does not exist anywhere else in this state. I never had any black or hispanic friends before I moved to Portland. Any place I lived, they're weren't any, and having lived in those places, I don't blame them. I know plenty of conservatives in Portland just like plenty of liberals. The difference between the conservatives I know in Portland and the one's I encounter when I go back to visit family in McMinnville, is they actually encounter people in their daily lives with different viewpoints than themselves. They aren't as full of hate and fear as their small town conservative brethren. Of course, compared to places like New York, where there a LOT of immigrants, the diversity of Portland isn't much. But compared to any sleepy little do-nothing town in Oregon, Portland is much more diverse.

I've noticed that in Oregon, the liberal/conservative divide is often reflected in the Ducks/Beavers rivalry. Take the Civil War game. I went to a very lively downtown bar in Portland with a bunch of my fellow Duck alum. The bar was about half and half, and you could easily tell by who cheered when each side scored. In Portland, the rivalry was friendly. I didn't see any fights. I didn't even see anybody, from either team, being overtly disrespectful, spiteful, or violent. It was a remarkably fun night with none of the typical hickish angry testosterone-heavy brovado that is so commonplace in small towns. To digress for a moment, I remember one night years ago in McMinnville, I was beaten up in the parking lot of Sherri's because some hick's girlfriend had just broken up with him. I didn't know him or his girlfriend, but he was pissed off and I was there. That's all the reason he needed. Back to the Ducks/Beavers thing. I was just talking to a guy I know, a fellow Duck, who watched the game in Salem. Guess what happened when the Beavers lost? The bouncer had to stop a group of hicks from roughing him up.

That's why I like the city. People treat people with respect and dignity. People, liberal and conservative, tolerate those that are different from them, they don't try to beat them up.


I agree completely. I was born and raised in portland and i still grew up a pretty far right guy (although i'm pretty libertarian now, atleast in a political sense, my personal beliefs are still prety right winger). One advantage to living in a politically diverse area is your counter-arguments are always sharp as hell. Cause if you are a political person, you're always testing your beliefs against others. Its like sharpening a knife or a wolf keeping his teeth sharp. You know what arguments work and which ones dont, and you're probably always double checking at home so you dont come off as an idiot.

After spending so much time here in KFalls, a lot of my arguments fall short or are out of date because i dont get into many debates out here, and when anyone is talking politics its usually just a bunch of right wingers telling eachother they're right and going "hell yeah". That doesnt provoke critical thinking.

And Portland is definetly more ethnicly diverse. Which is nice. Growing up there, i never formed any prejudice. I had plenty of black, and hispanic best friends growing up. When you grow up like that, you tend to get a little colorblind as far as race is concerned. I feel weird out here in KFalls, almost completely white with a small hispanic population and one black guy.
 MolderA
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 26 (view)
 
Duggers welcome 19th child--3 months early
Posted: 12/13/2009 2:49:14 AM
Nice find Nipoleon. I wonder what the basis of that religious organization is? Clearly half the stories in the bible are about Humans having to choose to do the right thing on their own, not have god come down and tell you. You know the whole free will thing. I dont really remember any lines from either the bible, new testament, or the quaran that states you must keep getting pregnant until you fall over dead. I dont think latter day saints belive that either. I'm a baptist though, and Baptist have a pretty...open belief system regarding religion and science (not including southern baptists...).
 MolderA
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 112 (view)
 
Roman Polanski Arrested
Posted: 12/13/2009 2:42:37 AM

On one hand you keep saying we are exactly the same species we were thousands of years ago, then on the other hand you say that modern people have actually changed and we have elongated childhood and maturation. You can't have it both ways. You cannot separate biology and psychology with this distinct line. It doesn't work.


Except society and biology are NOT linked. Why do you think we have to deal with new issues arised by our modern social standards conflicting with our basic urges? You do know we STILL have flight or fight responses, we still have the urge to hunt, we still have all of our basic sexual desires and urges, EVERYTHING we do EVEN TODAY is based upon things we did as a hunter-gatherer species 10,000 years ago. We are biologically the same. Our brains are structured exactly the same. But with a changed culture likely caused by advancement in education and technology, we are facing new challenges and new mental disorders brought on by the new stressors and challenges.

For instance, we have disorders from being forced to sit down too long, stay inside too long, etc. etc. because we WERE NOT BUILT to sit in an office all day. We were built to hunt, to kill, to lead packs of humans, and to gather food. We are the exact same species, that is why we have the same name, homosapien, we have not evolved into something else yet ( if we evolve again at all). There are a plethora of mental issues derived from modern life conflicting with our basic needs and urges as a species. We have all these modern ideas and rules running through our head slamming into all of our instincts and urges creating a huge mess in every modern humans head. Its why the field of psychology has become so profitable after all..
 MolderA
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 111 (view)
 
Roman Polanski Arrested
Posted: 12/13/2009 2:30:58 AM

At no time did you mention he raped her. Your two posts consisted of his natural biological urge to have sex with a 13-year-old girl. (Of course, you didn't mention whether a 13-year-old girl would have the same biological impulse, but that's irrelevent, isn't it?


considering the context of the post, i figured it was implied. Plus, i wasnt entirely sure on the details. but either way i'm pretty sure i made it clear i was against his actions. As stated, even a willing 13 year old girl is not mentally prepared compared to 13 year old girls of ancient civilizations. My point was, however, that that doesnt mean the physical attraction just disappeared. We are the same species we have been for 10,000 or more years, and we are built to be attracted to young fertile women. 13 year old girls use to be "Fertile Women". They arent anymore. But our bodies dont know that. So our Social training and self control has to counteract that. Usually there isnt a problem, but given the term "jailbait" even exists, clearly attraction to teenagers by older males is not something that has been completely suppressed even today.
 MolderA
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 109 (view)
 
Roman Polanski Arrested
Posted: 12/13/2009 2:26:23 AM
All men are attracted to 13-year-olds? You must be insane to put forward such a preposterous statement. Any statistical evidence? Or just your assumption. I'll give you a cast-iron guarantee if I conducted a straw-poll amongst every single adult male I know in the world (from a pretty wide cross-section of society), not one of them would be of that opinion.


Considering even MEDICAL journals dictate pedophilia as being limited to girls of pre-pubescence, i imagine anyone with an education in health or biology would be of that opinion. Everyone else? Of course not, because why would they admit to something you just said is dictated by society as wrong? There's a difference between having a biological reaction, and seeking someone out. Men have a biological reaction to 13 year old girls, but most probably either ignore it or otherwise disregaurd it because of the social standards they've developed in life. Clearly this guy didnt (or he's just a opportunistic rapist (as in, seeks out someone who'd be easy to rape. Like old people, a drunk girl, or children).



Society has dictated it is wrong because a 13-year-old is a child.


We established this. We've also established society hasnt gone through the genetic DNA structure of humanity and modified our basic urges and reactions. Though we can mentally choose and develop our attractions, that doesnt mean basic urges dissappear alltogether like magic



You can argue this bogus position all you like, the GIRL in question was a CHILD, not developed physically nor emotionally and Polanski took advantage of a gross power imbalance to satisfy his own lust.


I'm pretty sure i never argued that. Infact, the thesis of my statement was that modern girls do not posses anywhere close to the level of maturity and world knowledge necessary to make those kinds of decisions and live a life of parenthood and adulthood similiar to girls of similiar age a long time ago. And stated, clearly, that this is do to the change and evolution of society, and NOT because our biology changed. And then there's the fact that it was against her will (as i've been told), which would make it wrong even if she was 18.


How about jerk, mongrel, **stard, predator or scumbag? More accurate?


YES. It IS more accurate. He is a jerk, a coward, and a POS. By calling him someone who's got some kind of psychological condition you are actually letting him off easy. There was nothing wrong with this guy. He was perfectly normal. He CHOSE to perform what is clearly an evil act - The exploitation of a young and immature girl. Period. That makes him a far worse man than someone with a mental disorder.
 MolderA
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 107 (view)
 
Roman Polanski Arrested
Posted: 12/13/2009 1:57:30 AM

Especially one who said "no" throughout the entire encounter. Who had no idea of what was going on - if you read the transcripts poster #130 keeps referring to ... who felt intimidated, nervous, overwhelmed and overawed by all the movie stars.
I'm glad you feel his sexual desire was appropriate - pity you don't take her wants/needs as seriously


You are clearly and utterly misrepresenting the point i am making. At no point did i say the actions he performed were right, socially or otherwise. However, i did state that his attractions to a post-puberty female were normal, as some here seemed to be acting like it wasnt. Rape isnt legal with 18 year olds either.
 MolderA
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 105 (view)
 
Roman Polanski Arrested
Posted: 12/13/2009 1:49:19 AM
Believe it or not, we've existed for more than 200 years. 10,000 years, give or take a couple millenia, to be exact. Also, i would not use a single persons novels as a detailed collection of statistical facts of a certain Era. And yes, it IS normal and Natural for a man to be sexually attracted to teenagers of all ages. Again they have the same pheromones which would trigger male attraction as any other woman has. Socially its been made a taboo, and we're taught that once you hit 18, having an attraction to a younger female is wrong. Social and Moral standards are different than biological standards, and that is the point i was making.

And yes, the Maturation process is FAR different that it was many years ago. Just look at studies of many modern tribes and documentation on ancient civilization. One could say that the main reason is that modern civilization simply requires too much knowledge that can not be taught in a 13 year timespan, and thus it takes much longer before people are going out into the real world getting the experience that matures us. There is more to humanity than society, we have biological mechanations that while yes, we CAN control and modify them, as society does on a regular basis, it does not mean that the base and fundamental urges cause by our biology and genetics are irregular or unnatural. Clearly, the man in question chose not to excercise self-control over his baser instincts.

And yes, it does correlate to "modern society". There are trends seen dependant on level of civilization. Marrying off and procreating at the age of puberty is common and normal among less civilized and tribal civilizations (Unless the missionaries have paid them a trip). The past thousand years alone have seen a significant change in society in conjunction with huge changes in Economic and technological complexity. Even then you still see plenty of cultures in the past couple of hundred years where it was NOT uncommon for women of the age of 13+ to be married off. It wasnt as common, but it wasnt illegal either. Our biology has not changed whatsoever, we are still the hunter-gatherer homosapien species of 10,000 years ago with little to no observable biological difference. It is only civilization and society that has evolved and changed in accordance to the requirements of sustaining an advanced civilization. And the finer details of that last statement could probably be debated (That is, do we know if the changes society has made were necessary to sustain the advancements made in government, economics, and technology? I dont know, i certainly havent researched that area thoroughly).

As i said though, when i speak about changes in humanity, i speak so over the course of history regaurding our current biological form, which covers some 10,000 to 20,000 years. And many of the social taboo's of today are a lot more recent than you might think. Again though i must stress that i am NOT condoning his actions. Clearly he lacks the ability to use self-control over his own urges. One would think with his clearly strong survival instinct of not wanting to go to jail, he would have been able to avoid the issue entirely by not having sex with a legally defined minor.
 MolderA
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 33 (view)
 
Christian/Other what does it really mean to those who put it on their profile?
Posted: 12/13/2009 1:01:53 AM

Well, there are a Very Large Number of possible denominations of Christian, and it doesn't make sense to list all of them here on POF.

So, the answer that makes sense to me is that it is the option of choice for a Christian who does not identify specifically with the POF listed options (Catholic, Methodist, Baptist, Lutheran, and Presbeterian).

That is why I chose it. Don't make it so complicated. :)


This is it exactly, i think some people are reading too much into it. Its for those whose denomination is not listed. On other social sites, they dont have christian baptist listed, so i have to pick christian/other because i'm a christian with a denomination that is not listed. Pretty simple. Not all christians think the same, there are many different denominations.
 MolderA
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 104 (view)
 
Roman Polanski Arrested
Posted: 12/13/2009 12:48:58 AM
Agreed. I did not argue the LEGAL definition. However several have acted like he has the psychological condition and i was correcting them. His attractions are perfectly normal, but its still illegal. Modern society, particularly western society, has dictated it and has changed the way humanity transitions from childhood to adulthood. We have, infact, lengthened the maturation process quite a lot, and lowered the expectations on teenagers significantly. 13 year olds are not immature because they are incapable of being mature. Biologically we are perfectly ready and capable of taking on adulthood and parenthood once we reach that age, we evolved that way and our culture a long time ago worked around that.

As time progressed, however, society has raised the bar at which you are considered an adult, and lowered the expectations on those below the bar, allowing immaturity to form as they spend time watching cartoons and dealing with highschool drama. Likely this was done because today education is drawn out over a very long period of time, and since we no longer allow people to live off experience and world knowledge because we shelter people from it, they are incapable of living on their own at the age of 13 because they have not yet been presented the knowledge and life training. Come to think of it, i'd like to read a peer reviewed social study on the evolution of that particular aspect of modern society.

I guess what i'm saying is, its a purely modern social attitude. However, nowadays there IS good reason for the law. Although 13 year olds are not incapable of being mature and making their own decisions, as i said we have changed the way we raise children and the length of the maturation process, so modern 13 year olds no longer have the life experience and education necessary to make their own decisions, and thus we protect them with the law. This is also why teenagers have so much confusion and frustration regaurding sexuality and maturity. Biologically their body is telling them they should be out there, creating and caring for a family of their own, but society has artificially raised the age at which you are allowed to do so even with people your own age, and has restricted and spread out the knowledge experience necessary for them to do so.
 MolderA
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 103 (view)
 
Roman Polanski Arrested
Posted: 12/13/2009 12:24:05 AM
For the record, i'm pretty sure men who are attracted to girls 13+ are not considered pedophiles. As that would be all men. Girls of 13 years of age emit the same pheromones as grown women, and thus they will attract men of all ages. That is because at the age of 13 they are ready for procreation, and the pheromones are there to inform the men biologically of that. Its just illegal to have sex with them because society has dictated it's wrong. Biologically there's nothing wrong to it, so i believe it is...innaccurate to label him with a Psychological condition (in this case, attraction to kids, which would be under 13).

Regardless, it is still illegal to have sex with underage minors. I am just saying that it would be innacurate to say that he has some abnormal attraction that makes him a threat. Clearly, he has perfectly normal attractions (she was 13 at the time, not 4). For the record, i'm not condoning it, but to label him a sicko or wacko is innaccurate. It is hyperbole to the extreme.
 MolderA
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 24 (view)
 
Duggers welcome 19th child--3 months early
Posted: 12/13/2009 12:14:31 AM

Oh geez, their "carbon footprint"?
I guess they are the leading cause of global warming in the United States.
Carbon footprint, Give me a break.


Lol. Well, technicly every human exhales about what, 2lbs of CO2 every day? I guess the next step in saving the Earth will be Euthanization of humans if some people get their way :P On the other side, its also been proposed to just sterilize half the worlds population... We live in crazy times...for the record, i support neither :P
 MolderA
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 22 (view)
 
How do you people stand to live in Portland or any big city?
Posted: 12/12/2009 10:54:56 PM
I was born and raised in Portland, and only when i turned 13 did i move out here to Klamath Falls. I can tell you that while Klamath Falls, population 20,000 is certainly more quiet and peaceful, it also isnt better. Some people think the noise is bad in big cities, but just like you get use to sleeping to the noise of birds and distant trains in a small city, you get use to the bustling of cars and noise outside in a big city, and learn to fall asleep to both. When i first moved to KFalls, i couldnt get any sleep because it was way too quiet. Heck, even now i still sleep a lot better when there's noise outside. I can get into a deep sleep if there's a thunderstorm outside.

Sure, its beautiful out here, but there's also nothing to do. Its REALLY hard to meet people out here, and there's very few activities or places to go to meet people here. Whereas in a big city like portland, it probably takes all of 10 minutes to find something to do or someone to hang out with. The downside of course is its always less comfortable out on the streets at night, especially if you live somewhere like the rockwood area, lots of crime there.

Also, Portland in particular is NOT devoid of beautiful sites. Mount Hood is always visible and you have a vista of hills and forests in the distance, plus the river. Plus, going up on one of those hills and overlooking the city blending with the landscape is just as beautiful as anything else you'll see. I guess the best way to put it is you get use to wherever you are raised, but the benefit of big cities above all else is, in my experience, they are much more social and filled with life. I love that feeling of life that eminates from a city, as opposed to the relative lifelessness of small towns like the one i live in now.
 MolderA
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 21 (view)
 
Duggers welcome 19th child--3 months early
Posted: 12/12/2009 10:36:38 PM
You'd rather we form commities that dictate how many children we have? How am i being hypocritical? Please, enlighten us. The liberal ideology is one of government control and assistance. Dictating we do and say what they dictate is the responsible, right, and healthy thing to do. If they can afford to have 19 kids, who am i to stop them? If they can't, then i think they're being irresponsible, but i dont believe the government should bail them out or give them money either or that they should somehow put a plug in the misses vagina and declare it illegal for them to have more kids. Again, part of being a free society is being free to fall and fail.

Because of their jobs and their financial aid through Telivision producers they are able to support this and thus are eating it up. I'm sure if they had a taste of real poverty because of this, they would re-evaluate their goals very quickly.
 MolderA
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 18 (view)
 
Duggers welcome 19th child--3 months early
Posted: 12/12/2009 5:54:56 PM
Itl be a cold day in hell before most americans recognize any global treaty or law that violates the United States constitution. I'm sure the liberals will eat it up though. Just wait til we have the new United Nations Stormtroopers charged with enforcing global laws in every country. Public executions if you have more than 1 child or eat cheeseburgers..

19 children does seem like overkill, but if they can financially and emotionally handle it, i have nothing against them. I hope for the best for them and their children. And i also see nothing wrong with them being devoted for their religion. Afterall, i do believe we live in a free country where we are allowed to believe anything we want to.
 MolderA
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 121 (view)
 
Star Trek-Trekkies-geeks or not?
Posted: 12/12/2009 2:41:48 AM
What's wrong with being a geek? :P. However, i watch the show and dont consider myself a geek. I know a lot about the lore, but thats no different from any other show. I know the difference between a Sovereign class ship and a Galaxy Class ship just because i watch the show. Just like how people memorize various details of other shows. Sci-fi just has more details in the technical area. I dont go to conventions, wear uniforms, or speak Klingon. But i do love the franchise, and have watched most of the series (Voyager and TNG being my favorite, last seasons of DS9 were great also).
 MolderA
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 46 (view)
 
Patriot Act Being Used Against a 16 Year Old Boy!
Posted: 12/12/2009 2:35:45 AM
I will say this to start - I dont support the arrests and raids without warrant allowed by the Patriot Act. I believe we're just as effective when we have to get a warrant, considering if you have anything substantial to show someone might be planning to blow something up, it takes all of 5 minutes to get a warrant.

However, that Aside, i AM a proponent of torture (as has been brought up in this thread). In a situation where we have substantial evidence that Terrorists are planning to bring a nuclear bomb into the country and detonate it, or launch any other type of terrorist attack, we SHOULD be allowed to utilize ALL methods of persuasion to get information to help stop the attack. The fact that the former Bush administration was more than willing to let the Obama Administration release all the info in regards to the torture that was performed goes to show that there was plenty of proof that the Torture succeeded in stopping attacks. The fact that the Democrats and media swept it under the rug and never brought it up again after the republicans demanded they release all the CIA info is further proof of that.

I personally dont see how THAT can be misused. It can only be used in extreme situations and in my scenario, on people apprehended with a warrant. The only reason it has to be done behind the scenes right now is because of a fickle american public who would rather see 5 million new yorkers die than have a single man in gitmo waterboarded. Maybe if our Culture embraced the use of torture in extreme cases, then we could openly debate regulation of it to make sure it is used properly and only when necessary. But alas, we live in a fickle society. America no longer has the public stamina to win any war or use any strategy necessary to win.
 
Show ALL Forums