Show ALL Forums
Posted In Forum:

Home   login   MyForums  
 
 Author Thread: Specific question about time travel, i did google.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 5 (view)
 
Specific question about time travel, i did google.
Posted: 5/25/2018 9:23:15 PM
Well, I don't claim to know or understand it all much more than many others for sure, but this is an interest of mine and I definitely have some ideas, so I'll make my contribution. Warning: A lot of jibber jabber ahead.

Firstly, I'll tell what I think time IS. Whatever we think that time is...is what makes it hard to understand other things if we're misunderstanding what it even is. I don't know that I'm right, but this is what I personally have the most confidence in - lacking much real scientific knowledge on it.

Also, my idea of what time is apparently can't be "matched up" with what's going on in the quantum realm. But things in the quantum realm are pretty weird and not necessarily all worked out anyway - It's been suggested that I'm wrong because of this. However, I do feel that even if we could have a better answer based on quantum truths, what I think is going on is still true - Kind of in that way that molecules still exist and do what they do even though the deeper realities are atoms and then protons, neutrons, and electrons (but that's not a good analogy). It might just be that what we think of when we say "time" is emergent and only shows up above a certain scale, and that's why it's weird when we look at the quantum realm. Whatever the deeper truth is, I think it still helps to think of time in the way I'm going to explain.

I'm sure that you've heard that energy is always transforming into different forms. Ok so...I speak of it as "things HAPPENING". Things happen. All happenings. Events. What's going on when we have an event, or when something happens? Anything at all - you thinking, you breathing, the light coming from your lamp, rain falling. Every tiny or big event.

No matter what the events are, there is one thing that they all have in common. None of them could exist without it. And that is energy transforming into other forms (and/or energy moving from higher states to lower states?). One could say that all events are just different manifestations of just one thing - energy flowing through different forms.

It is my belief that this is what time is. Our EXPERIENCE or PERCEPTION of energy transforming...things "happening"...we label as "time". The "passage of time".

If there were no energy transformations of any kind at all...everything would be "frozen", in every way. Nothing would happen. Time "wouldn't exist". Time would be "standing still".

Now...a stumbling block here can be thinking of things in terms of "systems". A given system. A particular system is an arbitrary assignment. A clock is a system, smaller parts of the clock are their own systems, the groups of molecules making those parts are systems, your room that the clock is in is a system, your body is a system, the planet is a system, the solar system as a whole is a system.

A clock is no more of a measurement of time than the earth going around the sun is. Or the rotation of the earth making the sun rise and set for us, making a day. Or a burning stick of incense used to mark time in ancient china.

Any system can be said to be having time...but only IT'S time. It's OWN time. And that's it. The clock isn't indicating any kind of "universal time", we only use clocks coordinated with each other so that we can organize and coordinate our own activities. But that's it.

I said that our experience of time is our perception of energy transforming. But there's also the matter of the RATE at which energy transforms. The speed of it. Rate measured how? Of which system? Compared to what? That's also an arbitrary assignment. Depends on what we happen to be talking about or want to look at. But within ourselves...our biological organism...whatever the rate is or is based on at a given moment, we're PERCEIVING that energy is transforming - that "time is passing".

Ok, so...to put this part shortly...there are different factors which can cause the RATE of energy transformation to change or be different from one system to another. The speed of one system's energy transformation...it's time...can change COMPARED TO another system. Take two identical clocks, running at the same speed...and impose one or some of these factors, and you'll get a difference in the speed by which the clocks run COMPARED TO EACH OTHER.

Or do this with two humans. And they'll "age" at different rates.

So consider that you keep one clock or human as part of the whole universe as one system...but impose one of these factors to the other clock or human...compared to whatever "time" is for the rest of the universe, the "time" for the second clock or human will be different. Time will pass at a different rate. The second human's time will pass slower, so that it will seem to that human that he has traveled forward in time. Because he indeed has. To him, everything else's energy transformation has went by faster. More things have happened than they would have otherwise...COMPARED to him.

This is why forward time travel already happens, constantly and everywhere, although in normally unnoticeable amounts. Because that's what it would mean to say "travel forward in time". To travel forward in time, you'd basically be slowing down your own system in every way at every level...so that everything else can "go by" faster...until you are at a future point in time "sooner" than you would otherwise be relative to how much time you experienced yourself.

This is also why backwards time travel isn't possible. It's a totally different kind of thing. It's not simply a "reverse" or "opposite" concept as forwards time travel.

There is no "place" to go to. There's nothing there. And no way to get there if there was.

To go forward in time, there doesn't have to be some place or pre-existing point in time waiting for you to go to. Because that's not what you're doing when you travel forward in time. To go forward, you're just pushing "pause" on yourself for a bit while everything else keeps going normally.

But the universe, nor any part of it, isn't somehow progressing to some backwards point. However it's progressing...is what we just happen to call the forward arrow of time. Whatever state things were in at some point in the past...is no longer. That state no longer exists. We've done moved past it.

The only way that you could travel backwards in time is to somehow re-set...rewind...all matter and energy in the universe to the place and state that it was in at that point in previous time that you want to get to...yet not affect yourself at all. And of course that just ain't gonna happen. In other words, you'd have to remake or recreate everything the way that it was before, but stay the same yourself. And that's just a weird notion automatically.

Why do we "remember" the past, but not the future? Because however things were in the past...actually WERE. Whatever's gonna happen in the future...hasn't yet happened. The previous state of things in the past...previous events, etc...left consequences. Results. Of some kind or another. For our brains, it's "memories". For records that we keep in books, an event caused us to write something down about it...and it's that simple. Whatever is going to happen in the future...hasn't happened yet so it can't have any kind of cause-and-effect results. No evidence. No memory. No record.

Ok that's it. This is officially the end of this post.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 1232 (view)
 
cheapskates gonna be cheap
Posted: 5/25/2018 6:50:39 PM
Ok...um...it's not that I'm trying to get attention. I'm not. It's not that I feel left out or ain't getting any recognition...

...but, it's just weird to me that few, if no one, are even thinking about the angle to all of this that I explained; Are not even trying to see that what the argument deteriorates into might not be applicable or relevant much of the time. I don't care if anyone agrees or disagrees with me...but I expected at least SOME interest and intelligent attempts at considering my framework for thinking about it a little more than I've seen so far.

Was it because my post a while back was just too long? TLDR? I'd hate to think it's as simple as people being more willing to read a thousand posts totaling much more length than my one post...than reading my one post.

Sure, many of you might really consider this all a matter of equality and finances. But...almost everybody? No way. I'm pretty sure that many are of the same mindset as what I elucidated, but just don't realize it. You have to put a handle on a more accurate understanding and not get tricked into the wrong argument.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 710 (view)
 
Guns a right but healthcare a privelage?
Posted: 5/25/2018 6:09:09 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9U4Ha9HQvMo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pwom49awRKg
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 10 (view)
 
Vagina unsettles me
Posted: 5/25/2018 6:03:00 PM
I, as a straight man, experiment with my c0ck often.

I used to think...eww, its gross. But not no more.

Ooh, yea. Oh wow.

Experiment with your straight c0ck today. Unless it's a bit curved. In that case, experiment with it anyway.

Then go experiment with some pune--tane. You might stop thinking that it's gross. You might start thinking...ooh, yea.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 1200 (view)
 
This ain't the dollar store
Posted: 5/24/2018 5:42:25 PM
It's so amazing how shit like this just goes on and on. Mother ****ing retards. Eewww.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 73 (view)
 
THE great equilizer for us old farts?
Posted: 5/24/2018 5:30:47 PM
btw, inicia, do you have a few tokes before you post anything??
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 267 (view)
 
Hawkings was wrong about the non-existence of God.
Posted: 5/24/2018 3:36:28 AM
Dave of Indiana, you should educate yourself a little more on what Evolution is. Your ideas about it are outdated. And don't rely so much on what you see in a t.v. show or simpleton interpretations of what you hear on that show.

Really. Opinions like this which keep popping up are like people stuck in an Alchemy understanding and criticizing Chemistry, talking about lead-into-gold and earth air fire water and phlogiston theory.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 707 (view)
 
Sitting, kneeling or hiding out in the lockeroom during our anthem
Posted: 5/24/2018 3:16:05 AM
What a trip. A 15 yard penalty for not standing during the anthem. This should be interesting.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 236 (view)
 
How Many Ladies Use Sex Toys
Posted: 5/24/2018 2:59:43 AM
Hehe...my theory is just that I can cum pretty hard and produce a lot from stimulating that which is designed to experience the particular sensations in question the most. My dealywhacker. If one knows what they're doing. Learn all about the main item instead of going somewhere else for it when it's right there already.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 6 (view)
 
Vagina unsettles me
Posted: 5/21/2018 2:53:34 AM

Yo. I'm 22, I'm a virgin and all that


When you aren't ready, you aren't ready

I just wouldn't worry about it much. Don't force it. Why people worry so much about having sex, being a virgin, or being comfortable with sex at such young ages...is beyond me. My god who cares. Don't stress yourself over something like this.

…yo.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 67 (view)
 
What is stupid?
Posted: 5/21/2018 2:16:04 AM

creating factions and separating


...christan european patriarchy has greatly effected our system...The dinosaurs are dying and fighting like hell ...

One ugly foolish problem with some 'movements for change' is that they've created a lot of strawmen. They've portrayed things of the past a bit inaccurately. And celebrated their victories over strawmen.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 78 (view)
 
Any expectations of who would be attracted to you?
Posted: 5/21/2018 2:01:47 AM
You don't ask for much...hehe...
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 125 (view)
 
Why so many physically unattractive men on here??
Posted: 5/18/2018 7:28:21 PM
Well, it's just that some of this isn't tweaked quite right:

If you want to test the other person’s first impression, you’d better try to make a good first impression yourself

I don't think that you should have a hang-up about the "first impression" anyway. You better get to know each other better than a simple first-impression. You don't "test" a first impression, do you? What's that mean? Or do you?

I believe that if you don’t see it as a test, you’ll be more successful. Why not just be yourself?

These are not mutually exclusive things. Be yourself, yes. If not, then you're being dishonest. Of course be yourself. But this has nothing to do with whether or not some dates are like a test or job interview or whatever. It's also not intrinsically meaningful to say that you'll be more successful if you don't think of it as a test. Whether or not you think of it that way has nothing to do with it...unless of course it's because you have enough understanding to be aware that it IS "like" a job interview or test, which would correlate with an ability to conduct aspects of a date properly and productively...

...if you think that "being natural" or "being yourself" is opposite of understanding that it IS "like" a job interview or test, well that's just nonsensical.

People who don’t give a flying fvck about impressing other people are often successful. A good book I’d recommend on this subject is the New York Times’ best seller “The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck: A Counterintuitive Approach to Living a Good Life” by Mark Manson.

Things like this are just sideways-assed ways to trick people into being secure in who they are and "being themselves" when they don't have the damned sense to do so without reading a book that uses some sideways-assed trick to make it's readers be secure and be themselves.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 223 (view)
 
Oprah Winfrey for President
Posted: 5/18/2018 7:03:36 PM
See? Much of what you said here ^ is straight-up dishonest. Disingenuous. That's the REAL problem...people in any camp not being honest and intelligent. As if the whole point...of various people in all camps of any issue...is to stoke the fire and throw folks off-center.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 121 (view)
 
CLEAVAGE
Posted: 5/18/2018 6:47:17 PM
((coma_white ) Oh hell. Is this place still this damned stupid??

I do read profiles but i look at photos first

I think that people misinterpret what this means: We want to know information in both areas. But, using the visual avenue (some pics) provides a lot of info quickly...while going by the written (or spoken) word requires more time to assimilate.

The pic is right there - instant info. Even if you read the words...either before looking at the pic or afterwards. In real-life...you want information in both areas. You have requirements or standards in both areas. But you can't look at a person and instantly "see" all of the words that would describe who they are 'as a person' or all of the words that they'd say to you about who they are. So, guess what...you first look at them and get that information. And, depending on who YOU are and what you're after, you do or don't want to find out the rest...which is conventionally acquired by interacting with them and talking with them - like on first dates, or first messaging.

Imagine if it were the other way around - if somehow magically you could look at a person and instantly know a lot about their character...but in order to know what they LOOKED like, you had to exchange a lot of words in a spoken or written language, spending a lot of time doing so. Then we'd be arguing all of the time in some forum about the phenomena of instantly knowing a person's character and personality but problems arising from trying to find out what they looked like via exchanging a LOT of written or spoken linguistics.

The trouble with a vagina is it presses on the penis and the semen doesn't flow as well and doesn't give the same satisfaction.
Rubbing the penis on the breasts is much better as there is no restriction of the semen at orgasm.
I much prefer breast sex to vaginal sex.

Oooh...I dunno...the breast always seemed to smooth to me - no texture and too soft, so no stimulation. I can't feel a thing when fucking boobies. Does the inside of a yum-yum have more? Seems that way to me - not really more texture or friction or whatever...but it just that squeezes me more in my experience and maybe you ain't getting squeezed enough (?).

And I don't know what the hell you mean by semen-restriction or semen-flow...at orgasm, ain't nothing restricting the flow of my semen. The flow of semen is a result of orgasm...and orgasm happens because of stimulation.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 102 (view)
 
Never been married suddenly at 50 you wanna marry someone REALLY
Posted: 5/18/2018 6:23:19 PM

Speaking as an old boot who never ended up settling down till my late 20s

[sarcasm] Oh jezus...yer late 20's...such an old age for "never settling down till". [/sarcasm]


Nature would probably favour the wanderer for genes as he would get around more women spreading his seed further and having more kids. Yet both types have survived.

The non-wanderer has survived because, via the other half of natural selection - the woman, there have always been enough women who have their heads screwed on right and pick the proper path to travel down.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 1083 (view)
 
Grown men don’t need approval to go Dutch
Posted: 5/18/2018 5:37:28 PM
Wow. Things always get so out of whack.

I'ma try this again, even if it helps only one person who pays attention:


...who pays for first dates is not a matter of equal financial burden or equal gender treatment. Conversations about it deteriorate into that, because they're not 'getting' it, but it's about something else. This correlates with what someone's after, and that's why it applies to some but not others because different people are looking for different things. However some of the ones that this does apply to don't realize it and that's why they have difficulty:

For people who want a serious long term relationship with mutual interest and a 'deeper connection'...and they're not looking for something wherein one person 'takes care of' the other or is a housewife or househusband...or neither is any form of male or female chauvinist...or aren't treating gender-relations or dating as power-plays...the first few dates should be for the purpose of getting to know each other in those initial areas. You decide to go on some first dates because you have an interest...you see a possibility, but of course you don't know. You're not trying to 'win' the other, or impress them, or 'make them like you'. Neither of you have decided prematurely that you already want the other...you're going on the first few dates to find out. You've made no foregone conclusions. You're not putting the cart before the horse. You go on first dates to begin finding out, both of you...not going on those first dates because you think that you already know when you don't even know each other yet. That is, if any kind of logic and honesty are at play.

So, both people are interested - because a situation wherein one isn't really interested and the other is...doesn't make any sense and should be an insult to the one to even go on a date. You shouldn't agree to a first date if you're not really interested and the other is there to 'win you'. It shouldn't even matter who asked who...they asked you because they're asking if you're interested - interested in finding out the possibility, interested in finding a relationship with someone. When you agree to go on a first date, that's what you're agreeing to in an unspoken way...if not, then you're being dishonest or deceptive.

And if both people are there on the first few dates for this reason, not having made any foregone conclusions about each other...there is no basis for the ritual of one paying for the other. It's in fact bizarre. To do so implies exactly the opposite of what I've described here. It implies that you're there for some other reason, or are lying somewhere. It may seem like it's not a 'big deal', and in real life practice it often isn't...it doesn't have to all go down this way literally. But it's still important to know what the other's mindset is. It's an important step in finding out about them and their intentions - which, again, is the whole point of the first few dates. Even that $2 coffee...isn't about the little-ole 2 bucks, and isn't about being petty and keeping score. It's about finding out what kind of person you are and what you're after...what's your purpose in going on the first dates with someone. It's about whether or not you have the expectation of the other paying, and how it does or doesn't change how you see the other person for wanting to go completely dutch. This tiny thing, right at the very beginning, can reveal a lot about who you are and what you're looking for. People who value and are looking for this kind of real relationship are keen to tune into this.

And all of the catch-phrases and counter-remarks against how this works...is just from some women basically being players, dishonest and manipulative, even if they themselves don't realize it. They know, even if unconsciously, that there will always be men who cater to the idea of always paying on first dates because those men know that is their in-road to dating that woman when she's refused by others for this. And of course those men will continue to legitimize this wrong thinking and those women will continue to do this way...on and on and on. Never having the spine and strength to see how they're sabotaging themselves.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 321 (view)
 
You're gonna get friend zoned
Posted: 5/18/2018 5:23:29 PM

Wanting a "successful" man isn't shallow, its smart. Back when I was young and stupid I thought "love" and attraction were enough. Now I've learned stability is just as important. By this I mean, a guy must have a decent education (at least a high school diploma), a good employment history, and must be standing on his own two feet (be able to pay his own basic living expenses) and he shouldn't be in trouble with the law. If a guy doesn't have these things, it would be dumb to get into a serious relationship with him.

Oh well heck...that kinda changes some of the discussions that have taken place on this topic which refer to this: If by "successful" you just mean a high school diploma and able to keep a job that doesn't have to be really high-wage and doesn't have a propensity towards criminality...well hell, that just changes things. Usually the implications of "successful"' are a bit higher. If this is all that you mean...who the hell you been finding in men??

You shouldn't even be arguing for this then. When people argue for wanting "successful", they don't mean that ^. All you're saying is that you want a man who isn't a criminal, has a job, and has a HS diploma. Geez.

I hope enough people here even know what "propensity" means without having to google it. Yes, with only a HS diploma, I know the word "propensity". And other words too (concepts, that is).
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 219 (view)
 
Oprah Winfrey for President
Posted: 5/18/2018 5:12:09 PM
I'm not the one who focused on, or referred to, celebrity status. So your question to me, or response to my post, makes no sense.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 123 (view)
 
Why so many physically unattractive men on here??
Posted: 5/18/2018 5:07:09 PM

No, the onset of a relationship is not a test. It’s getting to know each other to see if you have compatible personalities and mutual attraction. If you want to test people go ahead, but just be aware that they can also test you.

In other words, yes, "getting to know each other to see if you have compatible personalities and mutual attraction"...is a "test". That's what that means. Some people just don't want to think of it that way. It's like when, in some discussions in here in the past, some would label a perception as "treating it as a job interview"...when it really is always an interview in some way...people just get hung up on, unproductively or dishonestly, what they want to call it. They want to do what needs to be done, but duck out from under an inapplicable stigma.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 231 (view)
 
How Many Ladies Use Sex Toys
Posted: 5/18/2018 4:53:30 PM
Sorry to ask the question yet again, but:

I've never had anal sex without inserting a plug first and don't care to try.

This makes it sound like it's needed. But you say some of both...it's fun you say, but is it required for some reason?

I ain't never done a woman in the butt...but if for some odd reason I ever do, I figure this will prepare me a bit with some info I don't yet have.

----

A man's prostate? Ok, I guess it does something, if people say so. I just don't see a need or have the interest. I have a dilly-wacker that gets stimulated just fine...hehe...

Yea, sure, I'd maybe be open to it if a woman really wanted to...but it's just that she gets nothing from it physically - she'd just be using something on me, and it'd just be for me except her liking knowing what's happening mentally, but I don't really care for it so don't see a point. Otherwise, I already have something that does the job for me - my dilly-wacker.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 83 (view)
 
What the heck is up with men wearing women's underwear?
Posted: 5/18/2018 4:42:53 PM
(Since 2 of the last 10 posts are yours you can not post to this thread
In order to maintain the highest quality forums you are restricted to having no more then 2 of the last 10 posts on a thread)

How do y'all do that anyway?!
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 226 (view)
 
How Many Ladies Use Sex Toys
Posted: 5/17/2018 3:58:06 PM
But I mean...for extra fun, or because it's needed?
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 215 (view)
 
Oprah Winfrey for President
Posted: 5/17/2018 3:56:17 PM
Does no one realize how bizarre it is that people think it was crazy to have Trump as president...yet are wanting Oprah as president??
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 224 (view)
 
How Many Ladies Use Sex Toys
Posted: 5/17/2018 3:47:12 PM
I don't understand the buttplug, btw. What's that for??
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 81 (view)
 
What the heck is up with men wearing women's underwear?
Posted: 5/17/2018 3:38:54 PM
I guess for a woman who really likes men...likes his package...seeing it in some panties might be a new erotic presentation.

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1438&bih=606&ei=kgT-WuyrFKqPjwSByYfACw&q=cock+in+panties&oq=cock+in+panties&gs_l=img.12...2853.5912.0.8843.20.10.2.8.0.0.156.1238.0j9.9.0....0...1ac.1.64.img..2.9.1000...0j0i10k1.0.s8vG7v-X3nA
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 1062 (view)
 
Grown men don’t need approval to go Dutch
Posted: 5/17/2018 12:33:02 AM
I found it interesting that I went on the most dates from here while I was homeless and jobless once. And they weren't bad dates or bad women either. I also didn't get the impression that they were trying to be a sugar mamma. In fact one of them was of lower income.

a reasonably attractive woman has to carry an umbrella out every day to deflect the d!ck downpour.

Hahahahaha!!! Dick downpour....hahahahahaha!!!!
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 102 (view)
 
Why so many physically unattractive men on here??
Posted: 5/17/2018 12:16:17 AM

Most women come on this site to get serious relationships. Many lose faith and resign themselves to flings. When you constantly get sent messages asking for a hookup or when you enter so many conversations online only to realize the guy is just interesting in sexting, you lose faith in men in general and lower your expectations.

I bet a great portion of this is because many of the females here aren't doing anything - they're expecting the males to search, and message.

A great many of them have this experience because what they write in their profile and the pics that they take reflects particular aspects of real-world dating mindsets...and some aspects of real-world dating mindsets have been inappropriate, impractical, and outdated for a while. Attitudes and approaches that don't make that much sense and shouldn't be expected to produce the results that the people in question are expecting.

For example...just to mention the cleavage thing, since this is a current topic among us. Anybody have a number on how many profiles showcase cleavage in their pics or the sexy body disproportionately...say in the written section something like "just ask" or "will fill this out later" or "nobody reads these anyway"...and the owner of that profile wants a serious relationship and no flings?

But btw...referring back to the above quoted...most women? How do we know that? Also, if a woman resigns herself to flings, especially with the excuse just being some frustrating experiences with an online dating site...then she doesn't deserve a damned serious relationship anyway. Would seem like she never really wanted one in the first place.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 78 (view)
 
What the heck is up with men wearing women's underwear?
Posted: 5/17/2018 12:00:05 AM

honestly most guys look better in womens underwear than women do

That's a new one on me. How would that be possible? Can't picture it.

But:

What the heck is up with men wearing women's underwear?

What the heck is up with women being able to wear our stuff...wear anything practically...but we men can't wear women's stuff? Carry a purse or wear a woman's underwear and everybody has a riot and loses their minds.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 114 (view)
 
CLEAVAGE
Posted: 5/16/2018 10:54:05 AM

I think you're talking about what makes you inclined to enter a long term relationship with someone, not what triggers attraction

No, what I think I'm talking about is what triggers attraction. As I said.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out which one the man will be more aroused by.

Apparently it does take a rocket scientist. I wouldn't be more aroused by the good looking woman dressed scantily. As I said.

If I find out about the better looking woman's character, and I like it, then I'll be attracted. If the non-attractive woman does have character that I like, would I be attracted to her? No. As you'll guess. But these points remain true.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 702 (view)
 
Sitting, kneeling or hiding out in the lockeroom during our anthem
Posted: 5/16/2018 10:45:44 AM
Heck, almost everyone is an immigrant. Even "native americans".
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 128 (view)
 
Attractive Qualities
Posted: 5/16/2018 4:20:09 AM
A lot of the things mentioned on a topic like this...not all...is what I call personality traits: Being shy vs extroverted, laughs a lot or doesn't, etc. But I look at things in the realm of what I call character more: Her interpersonal relationship ethics, Her values and opinions on certain things, how she views the opposite gender and relationships and what she's after in dating, how her mind operates.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 69 (view)
 
Any expectations of who would be attracted to you?
Posted: 5/16/2018 4:13:18 AM
IgorFrankensteen:

it is actually very RARE that guys use LOGIC to decide who a good match would be, before making contact


But the ones who actually do think and calculate things, might look less for compatibility, and more for susceptibility. That is, they write to anyone who they have the impression will give them a shot, rather than trying to noodle through whether or not it would make any sense at all to do so.

Hhmm...not for me. And I don't know if I'd say that this is RARE.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 112 (view)
 
CLEAVAGE
Posted: 5/16/2018 3:47:44 AM


I disagree. Depends on who you're talking about.
I'm talking about attraction. Men are aroused solely by a woman's appearance and flirtatious behaviour. Liking the same bands, movies and books is nice but it doesn't cause sexual arousal or compensate for not being attractive.

Again, it depends on who you're talking about. When you say "men"...you're assuming "most", or saying that something is almost intrinsic or universal. This is far from true.

I am definitely not solely aroused or attracted by appearance and flirtatious behavior. And I am definite that I'm not the only man on Earth for whom this is true. The other options which you offer are "Liking the same bands, movies and books"...these don't have such a big impact with me either. Appearance and common interests are of course important...but that's just not the big kahuna.

What is another big factor in arousal or attraction for me? Her character. Who she is. Why she is on a date with me or wants to be. What she's after, and why. Things like her interests or hobbies, or what she looks like...are not the big secret formula.

Yes, I know...people just don't usually think of this when thinking of arousal or attraction for a man. But that's the problem - people's popular perceptions. This isn't new, and it isn't rare. But it's out there and is how a LOT of us men operate.


but women read profiles a lot more than men and they look for indications of personality.

People have really got to stop saying this.

Eh, no. Online dating has changed. It is not 2008 anymore. Profiles don't mean shit, and they shouldn't. They're a sales pitch people stopped believing in years ago. People are making their decisions based primarily on pictures and stats, then they exchange numbers to get the ball rolling quickly. If someone wants to continue going about this the antiquated way, they have every right, but how much would you care to bet they'll still be here months or years from now pissing and moaning about their shitty luck on POF?

And this too. I don't think that a day will come when nobody is trying to write something real in the profile and read what's in others. If there begins to be more of a trend the other way, it would only be for specific places, like pof, and for certain people who get tired of the profiles being useless or didn't care about them in the first place.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 214 (view)
 
How Many Ladies Use Sex Toys
Posted: 5/16/2018 3:32:55 AM
That darned opposable thumb.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 105 (view)
 
hey, don't knock the knockers
Posted: 5/15/2018 4:21:55 PM

When it comes to attraction, men don't care what's on a woman's profile, how much money she makes or what kind of car she drives. All he cares about is what she looks like. That's why the profile pictures with women flaunting their bodies succeed in getting them so much attention. If a guy wants to talk politics or sports, he can phone a friend. On a first date, as much as a guy pretends to be interested in what the woman is saying, he's just picturing her naked and wondering when the clothes will come off. This is every man, from the lowest quality to highest quality. When a man and women finally enter a long term relationship, things like loyalty and intelligence matter a lot more.

I disagree. Depends on who you're talking about.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 99 (view)
 
CLEAVAGE
Posted: 5/15/2018 10:36:14 AM

So basically, yall are saying that the personality present in a man's photo is equivalent to a woman's cleavage shot?
Interesting, but that is still really vague. Can yall whittle it down anymore?

See?

A man showing off his chest or sending you a dicpic comes off as only in it for sex.

...aaaand, the same for a boob shot. See?
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 1026 (view)
 
Pay for your own whine
Posted: 5/15/2018 10:33:09 AM
Here we go again. The topic deteriorates.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 61 (view)
 
What is stupid?
Posted: 5/14/2018 4:37:16 AM

Trump must have some sort of intelligence to get to being president, even if he only applied it to manipulate people or lie to them he still managed to do something most people will never attain. This is an example of the kind of intelligence i don't respect as it's only beneficial to a self.

This is why you shouldn't blindly respect only intellectual capability...nor a person's amount of knowledge or experience. Knowledge, nor intelligence, is no indication of character.

Consider how some criminals, or just plain everyday bad people that you know, are sometimes described as "clever". Or think of themselves as clever. Well...it's not that hard to do "bad things". It's not a matter of being clever. Or intelligent. It's a matter of what kind of person you are. It doesn't take intelligence...it takes a choice to be unethical or immoral in some way.

The fact that Trump, along with all of the inadequacies that're attributed to him, has become president of the U.S. should counter many of the opinions about unequal opportunity and being able to make more of yourself relative to your circumstances if you want to. And if Trump's presidency is attributed to white (male) privilege, then I'd mention the president that we had before that...a half-black one. And even a woman who kinda sorta almost became president as well...

...but then someone will blame this on how these folks are in the upper echelons of financial status and the resultant opportunity. But that's relative to talking about being president of the U.S. - that's a poor comparison. A person can't think that they can't better themselves just because they won't become president or a millionaire business owner. In the context of your life, you can better yourself relative to your circumstances. If you just try to do so. And not whine about things not being exactly the same for everyone.

Again to use the slice-of-pie analogy: If someone has a leg-up when they're born, and access to a Harvard degree...they haven't taken any slices from a pie and left you with very little. Their success doesn't intrinsically decrease the chances of yours. And you don't have to get a Harvard degree to qualify as having bettered yourself either. It isn't required that you get the same as them in order to have bettered yourself and be successful and have a decent life.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 85 (view)
 
CLEAVAGE
Posted: 5/14/2018 4:06:48 AM
(MadameBoisseau) One thing that I think men generally don't realize is how hot or uncomfortable boobs can be with the wrong clothing. A lot of the cleavage out there in the world is there because women are trying to dress for a little more comfort and to not be so hot, etc. However, I don't see that much effort to design clothing that makes it less-hot yet less-revealing. It's not necessary to reveal in order to be more cool and comfy. And not that much effort in choosing such clothing. Nonetheless...this is about what the genders use as 'bait', and what 'baits' them...not a criticism of women in general having boobs and cleavage.

Btw: I notice another thing that's very curious, concerning women in public in real life. Many of them are almost always dressing in shorts...showing their whole legs. They don't have to, for comfort. In fact we always see women still doing similarly in winter while us men asking "damn aren't they freezing?". It should be admitted - women are still trying to flaunt their body and value themselves according to sexuality to a great extent. The same as those men who need to be so flashy. And the workplace has gotten out of hand - women want to be valued in a different way, but they make damned sure that they show leg, and lots of sexy-designed makeup, etc. Women know how to be conservative, so obviously they're making a conscious choice and effort in this department.

If a woman is okay with the phenomena of cleavage attracting men and earning potential attracting women...the implication is that her body and her sexuality is her main or at least initial commodity and source of value as a woman, and a man's money or status his - which can further suggest some possibility that women really do have little sexual interest in men, and even maybe little interest in 'who he is as a person' - just as much as a given man who is affected by boobs so much doesn't care so much about her, but just her boobs, etc. We should examine further why we still want to operate this way concerning what attracts us. We should compare this to how we speak of gender in society and relationships, and see if things match up.

If you dated one of those guys, you got to go to all the cool parties, be part of the major events at school

Which should even further invoke horror in a man concerning a woman's intentions or motivations.

Marilyn Monroe in the bedroom. Martha Stewart in the kitchen. Mary Poppins in the nursery. Yes, this is the 21st century but men are drawn to these things still. And men want to be the one that provides safety and security.

This conversation just doesn't have enough variety - You can't really say this about so many men, nor women. You couldn't even say it about the past as much as we might think that we can.

I don't think there is an equivalent body part of men. Women aren't wired the same way. A woman doesn't typically see a nice ass and say to themselves they want to "tap that".

Nah. Not buying it. Again, we need a better sampling-pool of candid opinion. We're wired with some differences, sure. But not quite these differences. Women DO look at...for example, their crotch. And their butt. They do it all of the time. And try to imagine "what he's like". As with a lot of things, many men are just still tricked into not noticing. Women still enjoy and exploit some invisibility. Women are constantly looking at a man's body, and certain body parts. I'm surprised no one in here has mentioned the "arms" thing, like with the "hands"(Or has someone?) We're always hearing about a woman liking a man's arms.

We're just still catering to a popular perception on this topic, versus talking honestly. When asked what is the male equivalent of cleavage, something like "hands" were given. And "arms" could be given. And those would be some honest and logical answers. Are women attracted to or baited by earning-potential or status? Yes, they are. But that is a very different discussion...that is not as much of a maybe-definitive male equivalent to cleavage.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 67 (view)
 
CLEAVAGE
Posted: 5/13/2018 3:44:47 AM

it's just conceptually different


I disagree. It is comparable.

Girls flaunt their boobs in profile pics.
Guys flaunt their cars or their professions in their profile.

Some women's boobs are emphasized by a pushup bra.
Some men's money is emphasized by expensive-looking clothes.

An ugly woman with great big boobs might attract action.
An ugly man with a great big wallet might attract action.

Well-boobed women can have awful personalities.
Rich men can have awful personalities.

A man reaches into a woman's shirt for her boobs.
A woman reaches into a man's pocket for his wallet.

It's just that there are so many bad implications here that so many people claim to be against and complain about...so for whoever it's all true for, doesn't say much good about them to me.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 53 (view)
 
THE great equalizer for us old farts?
Posted: 5/12/2018 6:36:30 PM
I just really gotta wonder about cases wherein people decide to live together, then things really go south. Especially folks not in their 20's or so, who I'd think have more figured out. People just seem to have such a hard time understanding how to know who a person is, and themselves, concerning relationships. Seems so unnecessary. You decide to live with someone because you really know each other and what each other wants. That's why I always say people just plain don't know how to do this, and that's why they don't like living together. Living together isn't a bad idea, is a good idea in fact, but just like with everything else in life you have to do it right. You don't shack up with just anybody. It's gotta be the right person. How can there be such break-ups when they made the decision to live together? If you decide you want to live together, but it goes south...how in the world did you not know each other any better than that?
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 264 (view)
 
Women making the first move...
Posted: 5/12/2018 6:27:22 PM
Asking a woman out isn't at all about being aggressive, or having confidence. Not really even an issue of being rejected or not, really. Like it's always characterized as. Well, speaking for myself at least. Maybe not everyone.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 258 (view)
 
hairy situation.
Posted: 5/12/2018 1:08:16 PM
I haven't actually done that physically. But I make them feel like it happened.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 1007 (view)
 
Paying for a date
Posted: 5/12/2018 12:55:42 PM
Darn.

Last sentence of paragraph 4 should be "THEN you're being dishonest or deceptive" not "they".

In paragraph 6 should be "that is THEIR in-road to dating that woman" not "there".
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 57 (view)
 
What is stupid?
Posted: 5/12/2018 12:35:22 PM
Oh, and who said I was ever "smarter back then" anyway? "Memories can be like jewels - sometimes the false ones are the prettiest." That's some quote by some dude. Who said that anyway?
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 56 (view)
 
What is stupid?
Posted: 5/12/2018 6:55:11 AM
I was gone from this board because it bored the hell out of me. I'd come to a place like this for productive conversations with other human minds. But that doesn't happen much. And...this board isn't so important in life. There is real life. With other things. Not just the pof forum.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 1000 (view)
 
Paying for a date
Posted: 5/12/2018 6:36:04 AM
This is a perennial topic in here, and saying the following feels like playing a broken record that keeps skipping. This may not be everyone's understanding, but it is more often than many realize but just don't see it...

...who pays for first dates is not a matter of equal financial burden or equal gender treatment. Conversations about it deteriorate into that, because they're not 'getting' it, but it's about something else. This correlates with what someone's after, and that's why it applies to some but not others because different people are looking for different things. However some of the ones that this does apply to don't realize it and that's why they have difficulty:

For people who want a serious long term relationship with mutual interest and a 'deeper connection'...and they're not looking for something wherein one person 'takes care of' the other or is a housewife or househusband...or neither is any form of male or female chauvinist...the first few dates should be for the purpose of getting to know each other in those initial areas. You decide to go on some first dates because you have an interest...you see a possibility, but of course you don't know. You're not trying to 'win' the other, or impress them, or 'make them like you'. Neither of you have decided prematurely that you already want the other...you're going on the first few dates to find out. You've made no foregone conclusions. You're not putting the cart before the horse. You go on first dates to begin finding out, both of you...not going on those first dates because you think that you already know when you don't even know each other yet. That is, if any kind of logic and honesty are at play.

So, both people are interested - because a situation wherein one isn't really interested and the other is...doesn't make any sense and should be an insult to the one to even go on a date. You shouldn't agree to a first date if you're not really interested and the other is there to 'win you'. It shouldn't even matter who asked who...they asked you because they're asking if you're interested - interested in finding out the possibility, interested in finding a relationship with someone. When you agree to go on a first date, that's what you're agreeing to in an unspoken way...if not, they you're being dishonest or deceptive.

And if both people are there on the first few dates for this reason, not having made any foregone conclusions about each other...there is no basis for the ritual of one paying for the other. It's in fact bizarre. To do so implies exactly the opposite of what I've described here. It may seem like it's not a 'big deal', and in real life practice it often isn't...it doesn't have to all go down this way literally. But it's still important to know what the other's mindset is. It's an important step in finding out about them and their intentions - which, again, is the whole point of the first few dates. Even that $2 coffee...isn't about the little-ole 2 bucks, and isn't about being petty and keeping score. It's about finding out what kind of person you are and what you're after...what's you're purpose in going on the first dates with someone. It's about whether or not you have the expectation of it, and how it does or doesn't change how you see the other person for wanting to go completely dutch. This tiny thing, right at the very beginning, can reveal a lot about who you are and what you're looking for. People who value and are looking for this kind of real relationship are keen to tune into this.

And all of the catch-phrases and counter-remarks against how this works...is just from some women basically being players, dishonest and manipulative, even if they themselves don't realize it. They know, even if unconsciously, that there will always be men who cater to the idea of always paying on first dates because those men know that is there in-road to dating that woman when she's refused by others for this. And of course those men will continue to legitimize this wrong thinking and those women will continue to do this way...on and on and on. Never having the spine and strength to see how they're sabotaging themselves.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 54 (view)
 
What is stupid?
Posted: 5/12/2018 5:19:04 AM
...therefore...see what's happening here? Right now, in this thread, we see a demonstration of one of the things that's wrong. This is how people state true facts, for the most part, and make legitimate statements...but are wrong. This is how they weasel themselves into excuses and weakness. They can kinda-sorta see a problem, but how they characterize and interpret it allows them to have an excuse and fail...putting blame somewhere so that they're allowed to not take responsibility and do for themselves. How they approach it is how they defeat themselves. Boo-boo after boo-hoo after boo-hoo...and then you're dead. Your life is over, and you never got off yer azz.

Some people in the world lie and manipulate and use nonsense logic in hidden tricky ways against others...but some people use this talent against themselves.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 255 (view)
 
hairy situation.
Posted: 5/12/2018 5:06:14 AM
reverendswine: I would just about smack people in the f*cking mouth for yanking the pony tail. Right in the f*cking mouth for that sh*t. You shouldn't have to be told not to do that...so you don't get a word, you get a smack.
 
Show ALL Forums