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: Who bears responsibility for permanent birth control?
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 39 (view)
Who bears responsibility for permanent birth control?
Posted: 4/10/2014 1:01:46 PM
This is a multifaceted question really as a woman having her tubes tied or a man having a vasectomy isnt "just" birth control.

Who buys condoms, whether the woman takes the pill and if youre lobotomised who instigates the pull out manoeuvre are "birth control" and as such can be discussed by pretty much any two (or more) people planning on having sex regularly or even once if one is having a hiccup of some sort

On the broader issue I have always believed that the person with the biggest risk would have to be retarded if they didnt take 100% of the responsibility for their own body. So for a woman to try and pass the buck under normal circumstances to a man who cant get pregnant and doesnt have to stay around if he doesnt want to if SHE gets pregnant is just a tad irresponsible really

Thats not to say men shouldnt also take their own precautions not only as a back up, but also because there are women who will deliberately get pregnant whilst claiming to be taking precautions for a variety of reasons

And a man too lazy to not trust the woman he is sleeping with or her birth control methods must also be lobotomised

More specifically here though her reasons for not wanting to procreate are reasonable ones. But what if in a year she is dating somebody else? And someone else a year after that? And so on and so forth, does she expect any and all men she sleeps with to do this when the root of the problem isnt actually a shared one, but is genetically just limited to her.

So from a purely logical perspective it would make more sense for HER to have been snipped the moment she decided she wouldnt want to have a child with "anyone" ever

On the flip side though, and because people can sometimes be romantic optimists it could also be said that "if" you think you will be with her for ever and ever and ever (you get the drift) then because its soooo much easier for a man to be done it could be wondered why you didnt volunteer to have such a non intrusive thing done to stop her worrying each time you have sex, you remove the risk and to mean that the women you (I am guessing here) thought you loved having to go through a more invasive proceedure

And with that worry removed from her mind the sex might have gotten better too btw

The one thing that does stand out is how much of your focus is on "if I found myself single again"

Obviously thats a possibility, not denying that, but it does seem perhaps a bit too prevalent in your deliberations so either you arent quite that sure about how solid that relationship was or you had more interest in having kids than perhaps you even realised yourself

If kids are something you cant rule out then I would say the entire relationship needed to be re evaluated and possibly ended
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 32 (view)
War with Iran is imminent
Posted: 4/7/2012 12:09:37 PM
Controlling currency is the main reason that germany was forced into starting WW2

After the jewish banks caused their hyperinflation and jewish millionaires tried to buy up germanys main assets while its currency was worthless germany then took back control of their banks and reintroduced a gold backed currency rather than the fractional reserve system the west tried to impose on it. This made germany a rapidly increasing financial stregnth in wirld trade markets and the international bankers had their envoys lobbying like mad to get the US and UK to start a war with germany under the guise that if they didnt their own standards of living and financial security would be decimated

If you look at all the previous invasions we tend to enforce our western banking model onto countries which then leaves them crippled with debt and having to pay interest to create extra currency thereafter which pretty much proves that its not really even the US or UK governments wanting to have these wars although our military manufacturers obviously benefit from them greatly

But the bankers themselves are the ones who benefit the most as they then have a new country whos currency they now control and whose resources and policy they now have influence over

War INC. PLC isnt much more than a marketing arm for international banking families via their franchise managers at the head of each country they already own and control
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 114 (view)
Taken In Hand Relationship
Posted: 3/14/2012 2:51:11 AM
Isnt the idea of "sharing decisions" a bit of a misnomer?

However you dress it up if two people have different views on something its unlikely they will ever truly "share" the final decision, at best some form of compromise will occur

Which often isnt the "best" decision, but is just the one that lets both people feel some sense of victory or inclusion.

The best relationships I have seen tend to be ones where each person has their areas of responsibility where their word is final and the other, although allowed "input" doesnt go off into a childish huffy puff if theyre input is ignored either

This same mechanism works at every level of social interaction, business, government and infact in every type of organisation where any decisions need to be made

If you look at a football team, every person involved in that team doesnt try to equally share attacking, defending, midfield, goalkeeping and managing the team do they?

Nope, that would be nuts, and they would never stop trying to "share" every decision.

What happens instead is that each person is responsible for the things theyre best suited for and they share the overlaps, nothing more

Thats what makes for a winning team, and although theres only two members a relationship is SUPPOSED to be a team too
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 17 (view)
Why does'nt she text me first?
Posted: 3/14/2012 2:33:47 AM
You seem far too in touch with your feminine side, are you sure she isnt actually gay and thats why shes attracted to you?

Because this kind of inane adolescant manipulative insecurity feeding ego stroking game playing nonsense is normally a female thing
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 98 (view)
Refusal to have unprotected sex.
Posted: 3/13/2012 2:56:39 PM
Its both ridiculous and pathetic for a woman to have any issue whatsoever with a man not wanting to splooge in her fun tunnel considering the legal implications of doing so

And a woman who does make a big deal about this really just comes across as though they were looking to either trap someone into an unwanted fatherhood and/or 18 years worth of child support

I do accept that for many, if not most women theres an added sensation as well as psychological enhancements to sex that come with the mixing of bodily fluids but its time women yanked their heads out of the mills and boon/fairy tale nonsense and into the reality that being honest they have asked for anyway

The ONLY time a man should be having unprotected sex with a woman is when he specifically wants a child. Doing so at any other time at all irrespective of the seriousness of the relationship and he's a fool. And if she cant see that he should really be considering finding a new partner who has more common sense and less of a spoilt little princess outlook
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 92 (view)
Wearing the burka in the UK.
Posted: 3/13/2012 2:44:25 PM
As theres so many single mothers living on benefits and the government is looking to cut the benefits bill by any means possible they might see sharia law as a cheap way to cut down the numbers of female benefit claimants lol

Drastic times and all that
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 104 (view)
Taken In Hand Relationship
Posted: 3/13/2012 2:29:38 PM
I find it a bit laughable that we majoratively claim to be tolerant of some very varied types of relationships and yet so many people seem to baulk at what many and I am sure some anthropologists included would see as one of the more natural forms of relationship

Even where its not spoken and agreed on many couples straight or gay have this exact arrangement anyway

Many hetro couples have practically the complete opposite where the woman rules the roost and the bloke is like a neutered wuss

And theres every imagineable variant in between

Except in most cases its not discussed. agreed upon and the balance of power is often sought deviously, manipulatively and serrupticiously and as shown on these forums often from before the first date has even taken place

So a couple who proactively and openly knows and expresses exactly what they want from a partner and then seeks to find a match for that rather than someone who is incompatible then tries to manipulate them into what they REALLY wanted is ahead of the game from the outset

It doesnt matter what they want, whether others agree with it or not or whether an outside would like the arrangement. To me the far more imporant thing here is the person being described seems to know what they want and is openly pursuing it in very specific detail

Shame more people cant be equally as open and honest about what they want, expect and are prepared to offer to equally specific extents. I think that would massively reduce the amount of whingey whiney poor me threads on this place as well as the amount of short lived and disasterous relationships
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 15 (view)
Would you be interested..??
Posted: 3/9/2012 11:37:06 AM
She sounds like a fun sort for a fun based dalliance, but too flaky for anything serious

And its nothing at all like a woman who likes different types of men lol, how silly is that considering that she probably DOES like "different sorts of men" AND women, probably different types of women too just top it off

Trying to keep the analogy within one gender what might work is her being like a woman who likes totally opposite types of men at different times

So it really doesnt matter what you do, if youre not the type she is in the mood for then you might as well just leave
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 5 (view)
Date rape, how do we change people's opinions?
Posted: 3/9/2012 11:30:42 AM
Actually as stupid as a sex contract might sound its actually far stupider than that anyway. Because not only is it a worthless piece of paper anyway as a woman cant give precursive consent, and would infact need to be giving continuous consent throughout the entire bumping of the uglies as she could have lost interest at any point, and from then on, even if she didnt give any clear or noticeable indication of having lost interest then youre effectively committing rape in some peoples eyes which highlights just how stupid this topic becomes

If anything I would have expected fathers to be the ones trying to lobby for the nonsensical changes in policy and the feminists to be the ones fighting against them due to them portraying women as feeble minded fragile creatures who dont quite have the "smarts" to be out in the grown up world of sex like men do etc....

I think power and control are far more relevant with this topic than rape

If the problem was anywhere near as real as its portrayed then maybe the age of consent for women should be raised to 25, the age at which they can drink should be 25 also and it should perhaps be made illegal for the parents of a woman to leave their child alone with a member of the opposite sex until theyre married

if we REALLY want to protect women from what is allegedly SUCH a pandemic those are the kinds of measures we need to take

We should perhaps also consider making it illegal to drink and be female

After all, we dont prosecute the person a drunk driver runs over do we?

And if women are so incapable of cognitive coherance or informed consent then it should be made a crime to be drunk in charge of a vagina surely?

And if they keep doing it then remove their license to fornicate

After all, men we are led to believe are completely and totally in charge of all their faculties when drunk, its only women who are (allegedly) on a par with 8 year olds when they drink.

So women should and must surely know this? So by knowing theyre female and drinking nonetheless theyre no better than drunk drivers really and should be penalised (lol) to the fullest extent of the law (roughly from behind)
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 5 (view)
Romantic gestures.
Posted: 3/9/2012 3:45:16 AM
Lets suppose that they do infact work for a moment, what does that mean?

Basically, it means that someone who really wasnt interested in you was pursuaded to change their mind NOT based on getting you know you better, but by you making a large and some would say subservient, desperate gesture

As opposed to just finding someone who would want to be with you JUST as much as you want to be with them.........better surely?
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 12 (view)
Positive Discrimination in the Workplace?
Posted: 3/9/2012 3:14:34 AM
Discimination is discrimination, putting the word "positive" in front of it only hides that glaringly obvious fact for the really uberly retarded morons, the people who get all their thoughts an opinions from the daily media and the people who will benefit from the discrimination

Positive discrimination doesnt in most cases aid "equality" infact it works against any form of actual equality by ignoring actual worth and value and instead focusing on averages.

As an example, if two men applied for a job and one had taken 10 years out of working, had two kids to look after therefore meaning they would be far more likely to be off work, couldnt work nights, weekends, at short notice or away from home whilst the other person had 10 years more experience and was far more flexible to work when and if needed outside of normal hours it would be perfectly acceptable to pay the childless man more money because his increased flexibility WILL mean he presents far more value to a company than the less flexible man

But the moment the single parent isnt a man it becomes sexist??? WTF lol

Equality, ACTUAL equality would focus purely on the value of the individual to the employee. So their flexibility, availablility, experience, work ethic, social commitments etc would all be relevant irrespective of their gender.

The only time gender "should" be relevant is where an employer could face a financial loss due to gender

What is often claimed to be "discrimination" is quite commonly just a reflection of drive and devotion to a job. People putting in long hours and being rewarded because of that. As most employers I know promote based on merit not gender as the aim is to make as much money as possible

So trying to "shame" companies into promoting to create some utopian balance actually takes away equality and fairness in the public sector by removing the rewards for dedication and replacing a percentage of that with rewards for being the right gender, the right colour of having the right type of disability.

Because for quite a while now it has been illegal to discriminate against a variety of subsets of society even where those groups would potentially mean you were getting far less employee value for your money

but as if that isnt enough inequality in the workplace you then have positive discrimination too which seems ironically to only be applied to predominantly white workplaces or predminantly male work enviroments

Heck, the government is even talking about creating a fund to encourage employers to hire disabled workers instead of able bodied ones which I am sure will also be dressed up and claimed to be "equality" based too I'm sure

This kind of stuff is bound to happen in a socially minded socialist valued societ to some extent which I accept to SOME extent as being part of the down side to constantly lowering bars to the lowest common denominator to suit politican ends

But can we at least drop the feeble pretence that it has anything to do with equality, fairness or any of the other psuedo buzz words bandied around and just be honest that its a way to give less valuable and/or less productive people jobs that they dont actualluy deserve so that we can claim to have some statistical distribution across all the "convenient" facets of society

When we also have "positive discrimination" striving to have equal representation on dustbin rounds, in sewerage workers and in businesses where ethnic minorities or women make up all of the employees then and ONLY then will it have any right to be linked to the term "equality"

For now though its just squeaky wheel politics trying to sure up certain groups of voters by giving them preferential treatment
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 11 (view)
Insurance companies and unfair treatment of unemployed
Posted: 3/9/2012 2:36:12 AM
Some people seem to think that insurance is a public service lol

The "aim" with insurance is to pay out as infrequently as possible, ideally you never have anybody make a claim. Or to try and engineer a situation where a person only ever gets to make one claim ever

This is part of the reason that its mor expensive with many companies to have just third party or third party fire and theft policies than it is to have fully comprehensive

because with comprehensive there are more things you "might" claim for, all of which will then either reduce your no claims discount or will increase your premiums when you do

So on average making the fully comp policy the cheapest actually increases profits by decimating peoples no claims discount, increasing their policies and making people far less likely to ever make a claim unless they have absolutely no other choice for fear of premiums increasing

As for different types of "people on benefits" so what?

We are talking about insurance not social counselling. Who would pay the cost of a trained assessor to visit each unemployed potential tenant to figure out what "type" of unemployed person they are before setting the rate?

thats just totally nuts, so the ONLY viable option is to identify a risk and apply it to the entire subset equally

Its ironic though that people didnt complain about this type of thing when it worked in their favour like car insurance costs for women drivers

But do complain about statistical analysis when it doesnt work in their favour like women being paid less in the work place due to offering lower value to an employer

All I can say is if people think THIS is rough wait till the government has finished privatising the health service and personal health insurance companies start to apply their rules lol

This will seem like the epitomy of fairness by comparison
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 32 (view)
Wearing the burka in the UK.
Posted: 3/5/2012 2:58:52 PM
I think France has the right idea and that approach should have been used to set the standard policy across europe

If someone wants to play ninja dress up in the bedroom of the confines of their own home thats their choice. But in society at large they should have to fit in with the society not expect that society to bend to suit them

After all, covering up ISNT a requirement of Islam at all, just dressing modestly.

I suppose a compromise would be that you could wear a full burka if the bit that covers your face was made out of a recent print of your face

At least then they could have them printed with a smiley face, frowny face, an I couldnt be bothered doing my hair and makeup face and an "I'm on my period so talk to me at your peril" face so people would have some idea of their facial expressions
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 2 (view)
Date rape, how do we change people's opinions?
Posted: 3/5/2012 2:27:02 PM
I think that perhaps the wrong, and definitely the laziest message is being sent out here really, but as its an annexe to the topic of rape I didnt really expect to see any rationality or balanced reason lol

This campaign is basically saying that women are feeble minded creatures incapable of rational thought, decision making and much like very small children lack the capability for being responsible for their choices and actions

Whereas boys of the same age are evil sex maniacs who are completely 1o0% in charge of their faculties and possess a maturity and ability for rational decision making far in excess of their chronological age

Therefore when sexual congress between two teenagers occurs obviously the poor unwilling female was outwitted, duped and subtley forced into rutting like a rabbit by the evil hypnotic male

As for changes, the last few proposed changes to the rape law are to say the least totally misandrist nonsense that should have been laughed out of the commons instantly but scarily were not

What would be a good change is some sexual equality though

As someone else mentioned niether party should be named until a trial has ended and a verdict delivered. Anonimoty should be applied equally.

Same with sentencing, a false rape accuser should get the exact same sentence the person they accused would have gotten if convicted.

And rather tha stiffening up some of the definitions to increasee prosecutions perhaps some nationwide adverts explaining concepts such as personal responsibility would be just as useful to try and cut down on the amount of women who as mentioned shag like a horndog after drinking their weight in alcohol then either just cant remember it or cry rape the next morning

If a man of the same age had done the exact same thing most people of both genders would look at them like they were insane. And yet where two equally drunken people have consentual sex we ONLY see the man as being in the wrong

So, if women arent deserving of equality where drinking is concerned then perhaps they should be banned from drinking in the first place to protect them from themselves?

Maybe the legal age for drinking for women should be raised to 25 or thereabouts. or they should only be allowed to drink in a women only enviroment to remove the risk of them wanting to rub one off on the nearest equally drunken bloke?

I personally think the law is already perfectly sufficient, And in some areas like anonimoty already too excessive

Is someone is forced its rape, if someone is drugged (without consent) its rape I dont think many people would disagree with that

But once you start moving into the realms of bad decision making, stupidity, spontinaeity and irresponsibility with a sexist/misandrist skewed agenda you arent seeking to prosecute more "rapists" youre just finding new ways to make more instances of mutually consentual sex become a rape conviction

I know some do seem to think that all men are rapists and that all hetrosexual sex is rape to varying degrees.

And there has been a LOT of lobbying over the last couple of decades to make it be classed as rape even if a woman goes out, gets herself drunk deliberately, hits on an equally drunk man, initiates sex

That isnt rape, its two drunken people having drunken sex.

Two equally stupid people admittedly, but to try and claim that one of those people is guilty of a crime and the other isnt youre on a very slipperly slope that feminists have been trying to push the legal profession down for the last 30-40 years
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 48 (view)
Jobs and working...slave labour
Posted: 3/5/2012 5:04:55 AM
If the government wants to "help" these people back to work by padding out their CVs then why isnt it 40 hour college weeks theyre being "forced" into doing??

Because theres no such thing as a shortage of people to stack shelves or pick up litter as practically anyone can do that

Infact smarter countries prefer their own population to do the better jobs whilst immigrants do the more menial tasks, but we seem to be making less and less training state funded even in business sectors where we have shortages meaning those jobs are more likely to be filled by immigrants leaving the existing residents the menial tasks

Is this some form of inverse nationalism?

I think if these 8 week courses gave people the chance to try plumbing, electrical installation, bricklaying, roofing, plastering, cooking, painting and decorating and other actual "trades" it would be far better recieved by pretty much everyone

Plus long term would be far better for the economy as a whole in the long term

But all that seems to be of interest here is the short term and benefitting large companies, not the unemployed nor the tax payers

Not sure if anyone else has noticed but theres also a LOT of news pieces relating to the "thickness" of uk citizens which is subtly supportive of exploiting people to stack shelves as it creates a sense that theres just zillions of dumbos floating around who can probably only just barely manage enough intellect to stack shelves never mind anything more complex which I dont think is accidental
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 207 (view)
What is evil?
Posted: 3/5/2012 4:44:54 AM

If oil, gas, water were publicly owned by all than you have a really big problem. Who rations it? Who decides how much there is to ration out to you. What if you have 4 kids? Does your allocation get upgraded? Who does the accounting? It is a wholly ridiculous system and basically promises the allocation of all existing resources to the current living generation...

WOW, I havent checked but I am kind of suspecting youre an american as figuring out something so simple related to alternative forms of resource distribution seem to have you so confused

Its odd you seem to struggle with such "wacky" concepts being put into practise in the real world considering that they ARE infact already in practise around the globe

Many arab states share the profit from their oil sales equally between all citizens without it causing the collapse of society, infact surprisingly enough its done in the exact same way that any other company functions, all that is different is the amount of shareholders really. Everything else operates exactly the same and if they want some of the "resource" they just buy it like everybody else does

Which is also exactly what happens when its only a few people that own a company, they also buy that resource like anyone else too

So rather than some hard to fathom out of this world idea its the exact same thing that happens now, but instead of just a few people getting very rich from the sale of the resource the entire countries population has an equal share of the profits because the oil belongs to the "country" as a whole, not just to one or two individuals

And that same model would work equally well for gas, electricity, water and even telecoms too, infact practically any basic national service or utility whilst still fitting in perfectly within a capitalistic society

The only thing that is missing is the unlimited aspect of the greed within the structure

But not wanting to dwell on this specific example, the relevance is that where a much better, fairrer and "gooder" (lol) framework is not only possible but works perfectly already surely choosing a system that has no limits and due to nothing but greed targets all the benefits of a natural resource to a very small amount of people could be quite easily deemed "evil" unless we redefine it as being a necessary and unnavoidable part of living in a capitalist society

Or perhaps in this instance "evil" could be the act of trying to portray the impression that you can "either" have capitalism in a totally unrestricted form "or" comminism/socialism to its most extreme level and that anything between the two isnt an option and is infact impossible

Evil, its a very subjective thing
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 202 (view)
What is evil?
Posted: 3/4/2012 3:05:13 PM

I agree that capitalism is the best way to create class mobility and to blur the lines enough that even someone from the poorest background can work to achieve even the highest of status.

I think this is far more like putting forward playing the national lottery as a way of becoming rich, as many of the mechanisms in place pro actively keep the poor people poor and the rich rich making transitions from one to the other ridiculously rare

It also dangles an illusionary carrot that distracts from the fact that the "poorest" level in any society is proactively set by the rich. So it can be set at ANY level.

Some of what we class as "evil" is greed. I have never once heard that private / personal ownership is evil. In terms of an individual’s distinction private ownership is a key aspect.

Private and personal ownership is kind of necessary to have greed, as you have to have some form of economic commodity that can be hoarded by individuals which requires private and personal ownership

Imagine if natural oil, gas and water was classed as being equally "owned" by all the inhabitants of the country it belonged to? So people would either get to buy it at cost price, or in the case of oil and gas would get an equal share of the profits from its sale

Yet in countries like the UK and US the rights to it are owned and individuals make the profit from selling it to everyone else

In other countries though thats not the case and all national citizens get a share of oil profits as it is deemed to be a resource the "country" owns, not individual people

I do not understand your third point here. I think you just said capitalism as an ideology should be reviewed for its necessity in replacing what was evil... actually I have no idea :) Can you run by that point again?

I didnt word it well, but might not do much better this time lol

What I was saying is that if we deem capitalism to be such a super ideology that is a necessity then all the "evil" that happens as a result of capitalist regimes should also then just be accepted as being par for the course (rather than evil)

More of a

"cant make an omelette without breaking eggs" type thing, but more along the lines of

"you cant allow excessive and unlimited wealth and then get tetchy about mass poverty, starvation, illness, crime, persecution, infringements of human rights, elitism or anything else that happens as a bi product of capitalism"

Dunno if thats clearer

But not saying it replaces anything, but that the evil that comes as part of the package with capitalism would need to not be classed as "evil" but just as being a part of capitalism as you cant really have unlimited wealth at one end of a spectrum without unlimited poverty and suffering at the other.
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 8 (view)
Significant other
Posted: 3/4/2012 2:44:11 PM
Thats a fairly negative outlook really

You "could" meet a partner at work, in a pub or club, whilst out doing a shared activity with friends and during practically any activity you do as part of your daily life

So unless you were also forbidding your partner from doing anything and everything else too then them being on here is hardly such a big deal really

If theyre not happy enough or fulfilled enough with you to want to be exclusive then unless you lock them up they WILL cheat somwhere, and far more probably via their work or social life than a place like this

Either way though, it wouldnt be the site that was at fault, but the relationship
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 25 (view)
Are you exclusive when you date?
Posted: 3/4/2012 2:27:06 PM
This is one of those areas where it tends to get very "cloudy" due to the variety of different perspectives and the people who selectively alter perspectives to suit their own requirements and where specific and detailed definitions are extremely important because of how varied peoples personal definitions will be

Personally I class "dating" as being a bit of a null concept tbh

If I'm getting to know somebody and arent sleeping with them then its platonic, so I cant really see any reason why I wouldnt also be seeing other people on a similar level

If on the otherhand I wanted to be sleeping with somebody then it would be "exclusive" from then on for me irrespective of whether it turned into a casual dalliance or a serious relationship.

The idea of "monogamous platonic relationship" is one that I am fairly sure must be a female concept initially even though modern women also seem to find the idea to be pretty ridiculous too. And the entire topic of exclusivity isnt relevant in the slightest until sex is on the horizon because until its pretty much guaranteed you both want to have sex with each other you might never develop more than a platonic friendship, and what loon expects platonic exclusivity?
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 200 (view)
What is evil?
Posted: 3/4/2012 2:16:14 PM

Do gooders....

At least they are trying, in their own way, Mike.

Perhaps working in a soup kitchen is a way to offer kindness to one person at a time.

Better than sneering at them and thinking themselves superior.

Or doing nothing.

Is it though? Or is that just what you have been conditioned to believe in order to perpetuate a particular societal ideology and balance of wealth?

Because our very own government supports the complete opposite as a means of obtaining its own way elsewhere by using sanctions to cause starvation, illness and drought as a means to make a population rise up against its government even though that government is who is directly responsible for their suffering so they topple a dictator

At home though where have variations in living standards not that different to many dictatorships, and worse standards of living compared to some we do the total opposite and encourage the provision of basic sustainence to the poorest

So just flipping the coin for a moment here. Many would quite effectively argue that we and infact most western "democracies" (PMSL) are in reality pretty totalitarian dictatorships nowadays where the actual dictators arent even members of the elected governments anymore

So the encouragement of people to provide services like soup kitchens although "nice" are from that perspective a means of helping to perpetuate a dictatorship and the poverty and greed it sustains by means of avoiding uprising and conflict

So in from that perspective and in comparison to what we try to instigate on foriegn soil what we do at home is "evil" as it maintains the oppressive regime

Many things people have done in times of war and conflict have been carried out under the belief they were "good" but after the fact have been deemed evil by others, the people who committed the acts and even by the people and governments who ordered them to do them

So perhaps the only real answer to this is capitalism

Because pretty much all of what we class as "evil" have their roots in concepts like greed and private/personal ownership

And if we then still think that capitalism is a needed ideology then what was "evil" then by default needs to be changed to a necessary aspect of life and not so much of a big deal anymore
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 1263 (view)
Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?
Posted: 3/3/2012 5:40:54 AM
If aliens arent real how come ALF had his own TV show eh?
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 10 (view)
Politics and current issues. Why bother?
Posted: 3/3/2012 5:29:48 AM
I take a passing interest in politics purely so its their next step towards slavery wont be as much of a surprise

But I genuinely believe that people in the industrialised nations have allowed things to go too far, and that nothing that is "likely" to happen could change things or even noticeably slow the rate of change

But just because something cant be changed doesnt mean its not worth discussing
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 609 (view)
Kids Paternity (DNA) test - Do it secretly or inform the wife?
Posted: 3/3/2012 5:13:34 AM
In some government trials as high as 33% of kids couldnt possibly have been fathered by their "alleged' fathers and that was purely based on blood groups so the number would have been higher when verified by a paternity test

Realistically paternity tests SHOULD be compulsory at birth to remove the need for the father to have to seek verification as its a fairly no win situation much of the time even though in todays socieity its nothing short of a reasonable thing to want to verify, no more extreme than getting sexual health tests

What does need to be factored in is that women who know their partner isnt the father or suspect theres a pretty good chance they arent dont tend to be brimming over with honesty or openness about the fact, especially if their partner is the main earner in the household.

And even ones who know 100% that a child is their partners dont tend to be very realistic nor rational where something like a paternity test is concerned even when they know the suspected rates of paternity fraud

Personally I think ALL men should have paternity tests done on all of their offspring whether they have doubts or not.

Because trusting a partner and having no doubts about their faithfulness doesnt really have much of a link to whether or not they are faithfull same as suspecting someone isnt faithfull doesnt always mean your suspicions are right either

VVVV thats kinda silly and a pretty vapid excuse tbh.

For THOSE people you could either forego it, or better still just keep it secretive in those cases.

But to be fair if theyre soooooo dangerous would the outcome of a test REALLY make any difference?

Infact them ACTUALLY knowing paternity rather than dwelling on supposition could actually remove risk in some cases. But for the other 99.999999999999% of people it wouldnt make any difference
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 16 (view)
Jobs and working...slave labour
Posted: 3/2/2012 2:59:46 PM
I think the three main things with this subject are

1. a company doesnt magically have extra man hours of work that needs doing whenever a free employee can be found. Each hour worked by a "free" unemployed person is an hour less that one of their existing employees gets paid for doing. So these people arent improving the jobs situation, theyre actually reducing peoples hours which in turn means less money floating around the economy. Multiply that by MILLIONS of hours x the minimum wage and you have a majorly negative economic influence but a huge bonus for the shareholders

2. We have far more people than jobs, and the government is still unwilling to limit the influx of immigrants. So exactly what jobs are these people being "prepped" for? Infact if there was a steady enough supply of the unemployed companies could reduce its existing workforce quite dramatically and replace those previously paid manhours with free temps. So this scheme is far more likely to increase unemployment than reduce it

3. Its supposed to be about cutting the welfare budget. problem there though is that the government is paying a small fortune to private companies many of which are brand new shiny ones started up to take advantage of this new cash cow by MPs friends and relatives. So the real purpose isnt to get anyone into work, but I suspect is just to create new ways of getting tax payers money into the bank accounts of the well off by circulating the unemployed through pointless schemes at a high cost but with the added benefit of a percentage failing to jump through every hoop and being left with nothing to live on for varying periods of time

The A4E scandal shows clearly what the real point of these schemes are, and finding people jobs really doesnt feature in the slightest
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 14 (view)
Males becoming extinct??
Posted: 3/2/2012 2:45:15 PM
That might also explain why the average dress size keeps increasing too.

Maybe its not just the bovines that it fattens up
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 99 (view)
Can thoughts influence things on a molecular level ?
Posted: 3/2/2012 2:43:33 PM

Obviously it doesn't work too well or quantum physicists would all be dreamin up an island full a hotties with a cold beer in each hand and no more quantum physics would be gettin done

Actually, quantum physicists would probably be far more likely to be dreamin up a computer with a photon based core design and lifetimes totally free unlimited download terabit internet speeds accompanied with free passwords to all porn sites and an unlimited supply of kleenexs

If thought can affect subatomic particles though it would mean that sub atomic particles might also be able to alter thought too which could explain several things like mass hallucinations, group thinking and collective consciousness and perhaps many things that are classed as "supernatural" with our current lack of scientific knowledge

Heck, maybe this is what led to the myths and legends of alchemy and magic and we're only just rediscovering the mechanisms that made them possible

Pick a muon, any muon but dont tell me which one, now I'll shuffle them and.......
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 139 (view)
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 3/2/2012 4:42:16 AM
That would be the optiverse which is where all the optimists live innit?
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 10 (view)
Males becoming extinct??
Posted: 3/2/2012 4:40:46 AM
This was laughable feminazi psuedo science when it WAS being claimed that men would become "extinct" and isnt any better now that its being subtley exposed for the pile of tosh it origionally was

Nature itself isnt really going to spawn a species that cant survive so even if there had been any actual "science" behind this what should have been of far more concern was what possible chemicals, additives or pollutants might have been causing any shift in birth figures

And as scientists have practically no understanding whatsoever of what drives nature or evolution and seems to prefer clinging to utopian or unrealistic ideologies instead then

After all, we havent lived in caves or had to hunt for food for eons, so theres going to be a LOT of genetic information that has been redundant that can go. Plus we are one of the most adaptable creatures on the planet. So whos to say that we arent due a major change in gender ratios due to changes in society

Monogamy, or even being in relationships has been in sharp decline for a while and more so since the onset of feminism. So realistically we dont "need" an equal ratio of men and women. And something like 5 women per man or more would seem to make more sense in terms of natural balance nowadays as we have no real predators anymore except each other

And if people are that concerned about an inequal balance of genders then as long as we dont globally outlaw infanticide on the basis of gender we can rely on the balance being maintained even if mother nature herself tries to change the ratio
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 29 (view)
Lazy parenting?
Posted: 3/2/2012 3:43:44 AM

One thing I have noticed, it doesnt mean youre going to be a bad adult just because you have had poor parenting. I have a friend whose mother chose her boyfriend over him. He was locked in the shed, beaten and at the age of 14 went into a childrens home

I think that assumption tends to be jumped to far too speedily and tends to be based on exceptions rather than the rule

Yeah somebody having a rough or shoddy upbringing doesnt mean they will turn into the scum of the earth and live a life of raping, plundering, satanic worship, child killings or worse yet become a solicitor or an enviromentalist

But the fact they dont end up a junkie or criminal is hardly the sign of being a good adult.

Where bad parenting really bubbles to the surface is when they "try" to have their own adult relationships, marriages and raise kids

Because they have no idea whatsoever about how to go about it as they didnt have a chance to learn what a decent home life was from their own experiences and parents.

They might have a good idea of what they DONT like, but that in itself doesnt lead people to being any better but quite often just towards a different way of being equally as bad.

Childhood is in effect an apprenticeship for adulthood, and in the same way that actual apprecnticeships worked you cant know what you have never been taught or havent even seen. Which is why we seem to have a steadily diminishing standard of parenting which can then be seen in the steadily decreasing level of standards in kids, adolescants and young adults

Who will then be producing the next generation of more poorly raised kids as they have even less of an idea about being a good parent than their own dismal parent(s) did and the process continues

People often mention the fact that a lot of kids are parented more by their TV than by their actual parents nowadays which sadly it quite true in many cases

But whats even sader is that the TV is often the ONLY place those kids ever get to see decent parenting, any semblance of a healthy family unit or an example of a healthy betrosexual relationship because if they didnt have a TV at all they still wouldnt see any of those things at home
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 7 (view)
Olympic Union Disruption?
Posted: 3/1/2012 1:41:45 PM
I would like to see protests during the olympics and boycotts of all events because before we cut funding to a single hospital, school, library or pensioner the funding to the olympics should have been totally removed and the businesses that will "allegedly" make small fortunes because of the olympics should cough up all monies spent so far along with interest

When the PM can shrug off one of his friends being part of straling 11.5 million pounds of taxpayers money by saying it was bound to happen, and will probably happen a lot more in the years to come I think its clear we have a government so corrupt and with the electorates best interests so far down on their list of priorities that they shouldnt be allowed to complete their full term
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 194 (view)
What is evil?
Posted: 3/1/2012 1:28:05 PM
The thing about people who "do good things" is that they are in many cases evil under the earlier quotes along the lines of "those who see evil but do nothing" type sayings

People go to africa to feed the starving, they work with soup kitchens in the industrialised world in london, new york, paris, milan etc etc, they raise money for much needed dialysis machines, MRI scanners, McMillan nurses, wheelchairs and medicines for war veterans, books for schoolkids

But all of the people doing those "good" things know full well they are doing so in 1% societies where greed is rampant and where the money that SHOULD be paying for those things is being diverted into the bank accounts of people who already have more money than anyone would ever need

But instead of changing THAT they perpetuate the process by trying to solve minor individual things rather than trying to address the root cause.

In many cases they do this through charities which themselves divert as much as 90% of the money raised into the bank accounts of individuals rather than to the cause it was collected for

And also by picking up the slack in underfunded services they create the ability for it to be even MORE underfunded the following year so that more money had to be sought via fund raising

Which kind of makes me wonder how many arent REALLY interested in "good" as a concept, but are simply looking for things to do so they can feel a bit better about themselves in reality. And where the fact it migh help someone else is just a nice bonus

Because without any fund raisers, doo gooders or charities but where all that effort and force of numbers was directed towards changing the root causes themselves rather than plastering over the cracks we would see far more "good" I believe and far less "evil". But instead most of the good is directed and channelled in such a way that it actually helps to perpetuate the so called evil and makes it seem like an unnavoidable "reality of life" rather than something that not only should but actually could be massively removed from society and the globe at large

So how evil are good actions?
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 17 (view)
Lazy parenting?
Posted: 2/29/2012 4:30:39 PM
I think far more parents are lazy nowadays than we realise

Yes theres the obvious candidates who let their kids do what they want and cant be bothered to discipline them when they step out of line

But I would argue that even many parents who might not seem lazy at first glance actually are, and that you dont have to be apathetic to be lazy

What is just as much a case of lazy parenting, and perhaps is even more harmful to the child too is where parents dont provide consistency

Where theyre too "nice" and let rules and regiments slip too often, where they dont stick to enforcing threatened punishments, where theyre too much of a friend and too little of a parent, where they focus more on making life fun rather than having consistency

Although many of those things seem harmless they albeit subtley encourage bad habits and a sense of entitlement which can develop into some extremely negative traits and mindsets later on

Its lazy parenting because although it might seem "hands" on, taking the "fun parent" approach is far far easier to do than being consistent, sticking to your own rules, enforcing those rules and following through on punishments when a child steps out of line

And because it will seem like "good" parenting both to many onlookers and the parent themselves its not only widespread, but tends to go unchallenged for the most part

But how ever much its dressed up the real reason so many drift towards those habits isnt because they believe its a good form of parenting. But because its just a hell of a lot EASIER, and "occassionally" does no harm, but as time goes by the occassions become more and more common until its pretty much the standard regime and only really tends to change back to a less lazy approach if the child severely steps out of line in some way and the parent gets an unnavoidable wake up call

So somebody doesnt have to be slobbing around on the sofa watching tv to be a "lazy" parent, they can be an active hands on parent who just takes the path of least effort/resistance far too often too
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 55 (view)
not above size 12
Posted: 2/28/2012 12:59:01 PM
Size 12 or under is a fairly reasonable expectation for women upto around 5'6 though tbh

The fact that the UK average is between size 14 and 16 isnt really relevant as thats simply a reflection of peoples eating and exercising habits not what their average HEALTHY weight "should" be. Infact women ought to be embarassed about the fact not screaming it from the rooftops.

Being a country that is on average overweight and getting more unhealthily overweight year by year is niether something to be proud of nor something that people should change their preferences to accomodate

That said though, it generally just seems to be overweight people that go on about that, the ones that arent rarely if ever seem to mention it
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 36 (view)
Men whose parents are supporting them
Posted: 2/28/2012 12:43:45 PM
I know several women who have also moved back in with parents yet they dont seem to be stigmatised in the same way for doing so bizarrely

Of the three men I know living back with their parents though all three are doing so because of supporting an ex who thinks that raising children is a full time job and hasnt worked for years meaning they cant afford to maintain two homes and pay off the debts their exes have run up

So in the same way that people claim that behind every great man theres a great woman, perhaps behind every not so great man is an equally not great woman too

Just sayin.....
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 16 (view)
The Root of Evil?
Posted: 2/28/2012 12:34:12 PM
I think the word "evil" is probably a bit OTT really as well as being highly subjective

But where its at least a reasonably valid description the reasons are likely to be pretty varied

People doing it because they have their own frustrations is a common one, and its common for people to lash out as a form of self punishment too

There will also be people doing it because the person in question reminds them of somene they have an axe to grind with in some way, others wont even realise theyre doing it, or just wont see it as being "nasty" as everyones levels for such things are different and what to one person is just sarcastic banter will to a more fragile person being evil nastiness incarnate

And then theres the detached and sociopathic types who dont do it for any particular reason, but whom just say what they think without really caring how it will be recieved

And of course theres the people who are just like the sociopaths, but are also just saying what they think too

And theres the type of person who gets a kind of ego boost/feel good sort of rise out of making themselves feel better by pointing out how (to them) other people are "less"

Cant think of anymore but I'm sure theres many other reasons too rather than just one

But on the bright side in the world of inane cliches if it wasnt for evil people you wouldnt appreciate the "nice" ones would you? lol

And dont "good" people show how evil they are when they hope that karma will catch up with nasty people to deliver some payback? So how many "nice" people are really just evil ones who lack the plums to actually be nasty once the veneer is peeled away anyhoo?
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 9 (view)
Has the recession/ cost of living caused you to change what you do for entertainment.
Posted: 2/28/2012 12:23:30 PM
I still watch the TV just as much, but to save on electricity I just dont turn it on anymore

And surprisingly its become a more enjoyable pastime now, go figure

I have also started buying my haribo starmix from Homewares as the 225g bags there are 99p as opposed to 200g from asda for £1.09

I've also had to start beating people that I meet over the internet to death as the cost of rohypnol and hunting knives has skyrocketted lately

But we all have to tighten our belts
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 96 (view)
Asking for rent money after 2 weeks? Am i in the wrong?
Posted: 2/27/2012 2:59:57 AM
If you got a refund on the money does that mean you have to give her a refund on the sex now?

How exactly would that work?

Seriously though, I dont think youre "that" thick for helping her out initially as the scenario painted is quite possible and plausible, and you paid the rent directly so its not like it was totally made up to try and get cash for other things directly

But surely the arrangement SHOULD have been that it would be a loan rather than a gift?
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 12 (view)
hatred of webcam
Posted: 2/27/2012 2:48:58 AM
I hate them too and wont even use one to talk to my son who works in China. So apart from two occassions during long distance relationships I've never used one
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 56 (view)
What is shallow?
Posted: 2/27/2012 2:45:30 AM

Lmfao a man that goes for personality lmfao. Im 31 men only go for looks at my age.

This has always been both true and incorrect at the same time and most probably will always remain that way

The reason is that different types of women tend to attract different types of men irrespective of how generally attractive they might be

Two equally attractive women, but where one tends to be extremely attentive to her appearance and the other is more casual about how she looks will attract very different men even though theyre equally attractive

The one who pays a lot of attention to hair, make up, clothes etc will tend to attract men who want to nail a trophy far more readily than the other woman. And men who are looking for a woman who is confident and grounded are far more likely to go for the woman who can get ready in 10 minutes and feels just as comfortable with no makeup or false nails

So it comes back to the old adage of you attract what you project

And not wanting to genralise too much here. but my personal experience has been that womens alternative to the "sports car" has tended to be their body and its "presentation" to some extent. So it is often (but not always) the case that the woman who is overly preened just isnt going have as much "personality" to begin with as its quite commonly going to be the sort of woman who has gotten into the rut of thinking men ONLY want her for her body, so that has been pretty much her entire focus since school so it becomes a kind of self fulfilling prophecy
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 25 (view)
Females and bored behavior during sex.
Posted: 2/27/2012 2:29:00 AM
Its not just a female thing, tbh. The amount of women who think theyre the worlds most adept blow job expert but who in reality,,,, well,,,,, just suck at them is kind of scary really. So I have to admit theres been many many occassions where my mind has been elsewhere during a less than attention grabbing BJ not to mention watching tv on occasion while a woman is rubbing one off in the reverse cowgirl
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 153 (view)
Paying half of the bill for Valentines Day meal
Posted: 2/27/2012 2:06:53 AM
This thread reads too much like the ones about an ORDINARY date, but this is specifically about "valentines day"

Which last time I checked HADNT been changed to "All about the women day" or "spoil a princess so her insecurities are less visible day"

So its not a day for MEN to spoil and treat women, its a day for people of BOTH genders to make vapid shows of devotion to offset their half assed attitude during the rest of the year

So there isnt any "the man should do blah blah blah" nonsense on valentines day, its a two way thing although it does seem that quite a few of the female posters do seem to think its an "all about them day" like they probably do on the other 363 days of the year lol (excluding their partners birthday, which would just be about how nice the present THEY bought him was no doubt)

Although I do think its bizarre for two people to date for three months where one likes to go out and one doesnt

Despite what some are claiming niether is "wrong", its just simply that the two people dont seem very compatible so why flog a dead horse for so long? Good sex would be my first guess tbh
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 171 (view)
What is evil?
Posted: 2/22/2012 1:56:40 PM
Are boob jobs classed as immoral or does it depend on how desperately theyre needed?
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 30 (view)
War with Iran is imminent
Posted: 2/22/2012 1:43:45 PM
On the bright side though, if the world ends in a big mushroom cloud the banks can whistle for any money I owe them and I wont have to worry about taking my library books back


Theres always a silver lining if you look for it
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 5 (view)
SO .......
Posted: 2/22/2012 1:40:30 PM
I'm not even sure if I SHOULD consult the HSE guidance material though

What if I get a paper cut?
What if I strained a muscle lifting it?
Is there a course I should have attented to help be understand the jargon?
What if theres a fire while I'm reading it, is there a special proceedure?
Is it actually safe to read at work or is the title misleading?
Would I need to wear a high vis vest and place a circle of traffic cones around me whilst reading it to avoid a fork lift truck falling on me while I was distracted?

Its just soooooo complex
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 1 (view)
Dates that NOBODY has paid for?
Posted: 2/22/2012 1:35:27 PM
There seems to be a LOT of threads where people bicker over who does or should pay for dates and a lot of women claim that men paying for dates is some kind of yardstick for them in judging character and that if a man expected them to pay their own way it would mean they wouldnt see them again most of the time

So this got me thinking. If a couple went on dates that just didnt cost anything like walks in the park, visits to free museums, walks along the river etc etc how would that fit in with the evaluation?

Would the lack of dates that actually NEEDED someone to pay be a problem all by itself?

And for the men, would any of you feel "weird" if you werent being expected to pay for stuff?
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 46 (view)
Was i asking for too much?
Posted: 2/22/2012 9:42:09 AM
@ msg 70

Cant believe I missed that

But I guess some people cant let facts get in the way of an off the shelf blow smoke up someones ass hollow meaningless plattitudes response

I remember a thread years ago where an absolutely stunning woman posted about how she had ruined her marriage by cheating and totally regretted doing it etc etc

Half the women posters were telling her she deserved better and a fair few of the men were saying what a wanker her ex was for not wanting her back after she cheated on him lol


Seems for some people if the poster has tits (not moobs, just actual tits) then no matter what they do nothing is ever their fault, they always deserve better and they shouldnt feel guilty

If only life really were so simple
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 17 (view)
What is shallow?
Posted: 2/22/2012 9:18:57 AM
I dont think its shallow at all, I would describe it as being signs of a severe mental health issue that needs urgent treatment personally

The term shallow in a dating context is as far as I'm concerned just the war cry of idiots who feel that nobody should be "allowed"to not want to date them even though practically none of them would consider giving up any of their own personal preferences

Wanting to find a partner physically attractive isnt being "shallow". its called having a degree of standards and self worth. Whereas being prepared to date ANYONE tends to be a sign of utter desperation

Luckily though for people that we enjoy the company of but DONT fancy we dont have to date them to spend time with them or chat to them. Theres this quirky thing called "friendship" which is specifically designed for people that you like but DONT fancy.

For me "shallow" would be the opposite to desperate in this context

As for the specific conversation. I used to deliberately remove my photos when actively dating as it tends to weed out certain types of people that I have little patience with.

But at the same time I would no more want to date someone who I didnt fancy than I would want to be dated by someone who didnt fancy me. What on earth is the point in that?

I also would never consider meeting someone I hadnt seen a photo of if there was even the slightest hint of more than a purely platonic interest.

I think the only reasonable use of the word shallow is where someone is ONLY interested in looks and personality isnt important. But that will tend to be a purely carnal meeting anyway so the fact its based on "shallowness" (well lust is more acurate) is pretty much irrelevant as well as normally being the same for both parties involved

Most of the time both looks AND personality will be important, so the term shallow really isnt relevant in the slightest.
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 45 (view)
Was i asking for too much?
Posted: 2/22/2012 9:04:37 AM
After seeing the photos so many people mentioned I guess the poor guy was getting smothered whether he was with you or not

And more fool him for not realising after a 20 second peek at your profile that his sole purpose on the earth (in your eyes) was going to become your own personal full time ego massager. how dumb is he exactly?

As for the negative posters, notions like "if you cant say something nice etc etc" are for idiots. If you ask a group of people for their opinion theyre quite likely to be honest. And honest doesnt always tend to be "nice"

If you just want supportive plattitudes and to only hear things that you want to hear thats what friends and family are for. Not total strangers. So if you cant handle answers to questions that dont reinforce your self image of how fabulously super you are in every way then throwing questions onto a public forum probably isnt a good idea

If on the other hand it was just as exercise in getting horny men to oggle your profile and flood your box with their deposits (inbox I meant obviously) then I'm sure it was a rip roaring success

Maybe when youre a bit more mature you will have the security and confidence to survive for a whole 24 hours without needing attention and reassurance
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 164 (view)
What is evil?
Posted: 2/22/2012 8:30:38 AM
I think that its a woman who makes the decision to both have and then raise a child. Which is why we have so many single parents in the UK many of whom have never had nor ever wanted a steady partner.

Just a baby

But if youre going to try and directly link those two things then it would kind of put the dampers on women being artificially impregnated because that IS infact nature putting a limit on the population as could also be argued is homosexuality which yields no children as a byproduct

So it seems nature HAS infact put in place some methods that try to limit the population all of which women have then decided to ignore so they can continue to breed when they feel like it

After all its actuallyimpossible for any man to have a child purely of his own volition, pregnancies they can contribute towards 50% of. but a child is 100% the choice of a woman alone

Women are and always have been the only gender able to limit reproduction so isnt it time they stopped passing the buck and took a bit of responsibility for that?

Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 16 (view)
The something isn't right excuse!
Posted: 2/22/2012 8:20:25 AM
I do kind of get where he might be coming from

I've dated women who "on paper" should have been ideal in practically every area. But for some reason it just hasnt felt right.

Sometimes when I have stuck it out on the assumption that maybe it was just a time thing theres been underlying things that were being hidden early on that came out eventually and other times its been a subtle incompatibility that took a while to show itself

So after it happened a few times I ceased wasting any more time on that type of interaction as the curiosity to find out WHY it didnt feel right seemed a bit pointless really as its only the fact that it doesnt feel right that really matters

The problem there though is that you have a really wishy washy excuse for not seeing them again. So it either just comes across as baffling or confusing or they tend to make up excuses that make them feel better like you were only after sex, were married, were a committment phobe and the usual type of ego massaging self delusion

So I really wouldnt worry about it, its better to know something isnt right sooner rather than later
Show ALL Forums