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: Being raped
 wiserd
Joined: 5/11/2004
Msg: 57 (view)
 
Being raped
Posted: 3/1/2007 2:58:26 PM
Well, I can't speak for myself, but having dated two girls who were raped, one repeatedly by a relative... there are triggers for some people. It's like PTSD. They get in a situation that reminds them of the rape, and seem to relive it, or some portion of it. I can see your analogy of getting raped in the a**. But the one thing missing from that description is that it's not likely to make normal sex traumatic for you. At least that's my understanding of things.
 wiserd
Joined: 5/11/2004
Msg: 6 (view)
 
do girls actually mean what they say
Posted: 3/1/2007 2:39:10 PM
Yeah, don't ask a girl if she likes you. Just give her attention. I don't mean "be freaky" but do the 'get coffee thing' with her (causually) and ask her about stuff in her life. Remember what she says and bring it up in later conversations. It lets her know that you're listening, which gives a girl the compliment of your attention without freaking her out or putting her (or you) in an awkward situation.


I don't know if the situation is salvagable, though.
 wiserd
Joined: 5/11/2004
Msg: 7 (view)
 
When the does Offical Girl Friend/Boy Friend Come in?
Posted: 3/1/2007 2:33:29 PM
You're not allowed to consider whether you're a couple until you've at least kissed (seriously, not a peck) and had a date after that. Or else you've discussed it and agreed that you're bf/gf. But even then, it's not solid till you've gotten facetime. Usually there's a bit more than that, a few months of dating in the flesh, cuddling, etc. but that's an absolute minimum.
 wiserd
Joined: 5/11/2004
Msg: 53 (view)
 
why the boob shots?
Posted: 3/1/2007 2:28:30 PM
[blockquote] its'what is inside that matters the most![/blockquote]

Yeah, but who posts pictures of that?

[blockquote]Why do men think that they are more appealing in muscle shirts or cr*tch shots?[/blockquote]

Maybe they're treating others the way they'd like to be treated? Or maybe they're just trying to screen out the girls with interesting personalities.
 wiserd
Joined: 5/11/2004
Msg: 52 (view)
 
why the boob shots?
Posted: 3/1/2007 2:27:26 PM
its'what is inside that matters the most!

Yeah, but who posts pictures of that?

Why do men think that they are more appealing in muscle shirts or cr*tch shots?

Maybe they're treating others the way they'd like to be treated? Or maybe they're just trying to screen out the girls with interesting personalities.
 wiserd
Joined: 5/11/2004
Msg: 7 (view)
 
Should I give up?
Posted: 6/30/2006 8:05:18 PM
You're cute, but your pictures look a little boyish. Guys on the net might be worried about that. Small things disturb people online. Lack of information makes people worry that every little thing might be a concealed flaw.
 wiserd
Joined: 5/11/2004
Msg: 27 (view)
 
Does stress make you horny?
Posted: 6/24/2006 3:16:52 PM
Certain types of stress can decrease levels of a protein called SHBG (Sex Hormone Binding Globulin). SHBG is what binds to Testosterone to keep it from being used, so that if you need a lot of testosterone you lower your SHBG and suddenly *boom* lots of free testosterone. Insulin also lowers SHBG, so if you eat a lot *boom* lots of free testosterone (depending on how your body works.)

But losing sleep tends to lower testosterone and doesn't lower SHBG in fit males. So that kind of stress won't make you horny.

People with low levels of SHBG are more likely to be horney all the time, I think. And more likely to lose their hair, too.
 wiserd
Joined: 5/11/2004
Msg: 42 (view)
 
I'm not easily offended but...
Posted: 6/18/2006 4:09:21 PM

That sounds like one sickhouse to me. Please tell me some parent assassinated this freak.


IIRC, he died from infection related to his penile insertion techniques. (i.e. the man got off by sticking stuff up his pee-hole)
 wiserd
Joined: 5/11/2004
Msg: 40 (view)
 
I'm not easily offended but...
Posted: 6/17/2006 12:14:04 PM

Saying that someone has a mental disorder and saying that they're a criminal are two different things. Do you want pedophiles to be found "not guilty by reason of instanity"?

I think that they're rational and should be held legally responsible for their actions, myself.


The above was mine. The formatting came out wrong.

You're wanting the APA to enforce a moral agenda. That's not their job. They're psychologists. Not clergy or legislators. Abnormal psychology is about people who cannot adapt and function effectively in a wide set of circumstances.
 wiserd
Joined: 5/11/2004
Msg: 39 (view)
 
I'm not easily offended but...
Posted: 6/16/2006 6:10:38 PM

In 1998, a study published by the American
Psychological Association claimed that sex between
adults and children is not only less harmful than
believed but might even be positive for willing children.


Where's the study? You gave no source.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSM-IV
WHY was it removed? Not on a scientific basis whatsoever.

There is presently considerable debate whether some aspects of zoophilia are better understood as an abberation or as an orientation. The activity or desire itself is no longer classified as a pathology under DSM-IV (TR) (the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association) unless accompanied by distress or interference with normal functioning on the part of the person.

The "Illustrious" APA....has just given the AOK...to screwing Animals...???? Freaks!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia

APA tried to pass off Pedophilia as "normal" in 2003!


Saying that someone has a mental disorder and saying that they're a criminal are two different things. Do you want pedophiles to be found "not guilty by reason of instanity"?

I think that they're rational and should be held legally responsible for their actions, myself.
 wiserd
Joined: 5/11/2004
Msg: 35 (view)
 
I'm not easily offended but...
Posted: 6/3/2006 1:51:39 PM

back inthose days, few people were educated, male or female


True. But this only reinforces the fact that age of consent is a cultural construct. You wouldn't say "in those days, people died younger and were less educated so murder and theft were okay." Personally, I'd say the difference was that back then, people got _married_ at 13. They didn't just start screwing around.

People died of infectious diseases more often, certainly. The infant and child mortality rate was much higher, dragging down the average lifespan. But the maximum lifespan was the same then as now and you had _plenty_ of people living past 80. To take the ages of the first four presidents of the United States as a sample;

George Washington - 67
John Adams - 91
Thomas Jefferson - 83
James madison - 85

Three out of four lived past 80.
 wiserd
Joined: 5/11/2004
Msg: 17 (view)
 
Why do people get fat after marriage?
Posted: 6/2/2006 10:53:58 PM
studies show that one of the biggest giveaways of a wife having an affair is when she suddenly begins exercising, dieting and wearing silk undergarments instead of cotton.

http://www.somethingjewish.co.uk/articles/670_the_weight_issue.htm
 wiserd
Joined: 5/11/2004
Msg: 33 (view)
 
I'm not easily offended but...
Posted: 6/2/2006 10:38:54 PM
>is being a pedophile considerd not only a crime but also some sort of mental illness?
>since when do the inmates get to run the asylum?

It's more of a fetish, crime or social stigma. Just because someone is immoral doesn't mean they're crazy. As mentioned previously, it wasn't long ago that marrying at 13-15 was considered common and socially acceptable. Of course, people (particularly women) needed less education to get by in society then.
 wiserd
Joined: 5/11/2004
Msg: 32 (view)
 
I'm not easily offended but...
Posted: 6/2/2006 10:35:55 PM
>Which may give us a better clue as to why their all powerfull society collapsed so easily
>when confronted by a much less powerfull enemy -with a socialy conservative based
>cause.

Sparta and Athens were both millitaristic and colonial. Sparta was so conservative that they were eugenicists, however, and killed weak infants. But it's hard to compare the two forces. Athens had a powerful navy. Sparta had a powerful army

Of course, there's no evidence that pedaresty, disgusting as it is, was the downfall of Athens. Typhus, spread by fleas and ticks, seemed to have killed a third of them.
Infighting and power lust in general made the greeks vulnerable to destruction by outside forces (who were, themselves, less than socially conservative.)

So if you equate millitary power with sexual restraint what do you think of Phillip the II of macedonia and his son Alexander the Great being involved in homosexual and pedarestical relationships and marrying multiple times, sometimes simultaneously? And all the while the macedonian empire grew by leaps and bounds.

My take is that might doesn't make right or vice versa.
But that's only my opinion.

This is even truer in modern times where bravery in battle is secondary to technological prowess.
 wiserd
Joined: 5/11/2004
Msg: 26 (view)
 
I'm not easily offended but...
Posted: 6/1/2006 9:47:17 PM

Why, not two consenting adults…bring in some farm animals…

Do you not think some adults would do this?


Not very many. People refrain from an act, not because of the severity of punishment or because it's illegal, but because of the liklihood that they'd get caught. Anyone who was going to do freaky garbage like this would already be doing it, because they wouldn't fear punishment, because they wouldn't get caught. The exception might be some people who would do performances for money. And frankly, I think the act would be it's own punishment.


So are you saying the pedophiles should be allowed to have sex with children, if the kid’s parents consent?


No. Not at all.

I'm saying that once people reach the age of consent, whatever it may be (I don't think it should be lower than 16, preferably 18) that the law should be concerned with protecting people from other people and not with protecting people from their own deliberate stupidity. It should make people responsible for the consequences of their own stupidity, and only curtail people's freedom when they aren't capable of taking responsibility for the consequences of their actions. Stupidity is its own punishment. Specifically, I'm not worried about whether the law is sending 'mixed messages' by allowing people to do bad or stupid things because I think that there are more ways to communicate with people than through laws and coercion. Legalizing smoking and telling people that smoking is bad for them is not a 'mixed message' in my eyes. And this is one more reason I don't want to pay for other people's health care. Let them pay for their own choices.



Okay, so we can all walk around nude and have intercourse in public places.


If it were a nude beach or some area where people, by virtue of being in the area, gave consent to seeing these kinds of things, then I don't care. I wouldn't go, but I don't care if other people do these things.


So Yes Call me a Neanderthal,


Has anyone here done that? Personally, I've tried to address what you've said and avoided ad hominem attacks.


You have to be nuts to think all adults make good decisions!


I think most adults make bad decisions. But bad decisions are their own punishment. As long as people can be held responsible for the consequences of their actions (and often they're not) then they can do as they please. That includes the right to make decisions that get themselves very sick or kill them. It boggles my mind that gambling, for instance, is illegal.

Of course, sex is tricky because diseases are communicable to unwilling parties.

Personally, I've been fined $225 for walking across some train tracks because the gate was down. The train was a ways down the tracks, and stopped dead for several minutes, and heading away from me. There weren't any other trains coming. The justification given was that they didn't want me to get hurt. Like they honestly didn't think I'd be concerned about my own life and wouldn't carefully evaluate the situation? They had TWO cops monitoring the tracks, day in and day out. This is just one more idiotic exercise by the government to have cops sitting around doing busywork rather than chasing after violent criminals. And guess who pays for it? Yup. All of us.

Which is one more reason I don't trust the careless proliferation of laws, however well intentioned they may sound. They will eventually be used to launch 'operation stopcowfuc.kers' or some other absurd taxpayer funded activity.
 wiserd
Joined: 5/11/2004
Msg: 21 (view)
 
I'm not easily offended but...
Posted: 6/1/2006 1:09:52 AM
You seem to have a rather authoritarian view of society, BigDogg. You really think that people will obey the government mindlessly and only do what they're told? Polititians are some of the most immoral people on the planet. Anyone who looks to them for a model is already pretty messed up, morally.

The law says I can smoke and drink if I want. I don't. The law says I can gamble my money away. I don't. Stupidity is it's own punishment and people who just don't get that will suffer without our help.

Laws are not "messages." They are controlling people's behavior through the implied threat of violence and they shouldn't be overused, even to help people do what we think is best for them.

If we're at the point as a nation where people are no longer capable of making their own decisions, where they need the government to dictate their actions to them then we might as well toss out democracy. After all, democracy is based on the belief that people are capable of acting in their own best interests. If they can't do that, then we should go to some more authoritarian model where those who know best can tell us all how to live.

The purpose of the government is to prevent people from hurting others. Not from hurting themselves.
 wiserd
Joined: 5/11/2004
Msg: 8 (view)
 
How Does POF Compare To Other Sites?
Posted: 5/29/2006 1:25:14 PM
OKCupid is good. There are more people there, and you can search through them ten different ways so it's easier to find someone who is a good match. I tried a paid site once and most of the profiles there were dead. My e-mail didn't even get READ, let alone responded to. I think paid sites keep interesting profiles up, even if people don't check them, because it makes it look like there are more people on their site.

With OKCupid, it tells you how recently someone has been on so you have an idea of whether they'll answer your mail or not before you write "A Tale of Two Cities" and hit send. Their goal is to create an interesting site, not to trick you into parting with your $$$.
 wiserd
Joined: 5/11/2004
Msg: 46 (view)
 
Okay If women over a certain age are called cougars,,what about men?
Posted: 5/28/2006 9:14:20 PM
Women are cougars. Men are... codgers? Then women who avoid older men are codger dodgers.
 wiserd
Joined: 5/11/2004
Msg: 3 (view)
 
Why the fencing?
Posted: 5/27/2006 7:52:28 PM
I like it a little jousting. I've been with a few girls who avoid conflict like the plague. If there's a problem in that type of relationship, you just can't fix it. They won't let you. People who are too polite are not telling you what they're really feeling.

People who play sports stay in physical shape. People who argue (properly) stay in mental shape. Of course, some are just on a superiority kick and nothing can be done. But I think there is a happy medium.
 wiserd
Joined: 5/11/2004
Msg: 3 (view)
 
Attracting bees with honey not vinegar
Posted: 5/26/2006 9:46:29 PM
Stop it. You're making me hungry.
 wiserd
Joined: 5/11/2004
Msg: 9 (view)
 
Tall=Intimidating?
Posted: 5/26/2006 9:21:15 AM
Well said BigSmile!
 wiserd
Joined: 5/11/2004
Msg: 147 (view)
 
Dating a guy with no car...
Posted: 5/23/2006 2:26:21 PM
I think it will be awfully uncomfortable making out with someone on the back of your bike.
 wiserd
Joined: 5/11/2004
Msg: 28 (view)
 
Y do guys lie to get a pice of A$$??
Posted: 5/18/2006 3:58:42 PM

>fungal, are you sure condoms arent safe from herpes? I thought it was.


Syphilis, HPV, herpes, jock itch, etc. can all exist as skin diseases. Condoms would protect you, assuming you wore them over your whole body. But most people only wear them on a tiny patch of skin.
 wiserd
Joined: 5/11/2004
Msg: 14 (view)
 
horror stories from online dating......
Posted: 5/12/2006 5:05:42 PM

and going to the STD clinic with swollen lymph nodes


Any idea what she had?
 wiserd
Joined: 5/11/2004
Msg: 28 (view)
 
I'm not sure if I intimidate guys, or if I am just butt ugly
Posted: 5/12/2006 2:44:35 PM
It seems like part of your question is 'how do I approach guys.'

I think it's important for a girl to do half of the chasing. A lot of the players are very confident and outgoing. A lot of the shy guys are interesting and faithful. So it's worth being able to nudge the right guy into making the right move.

The key is.... questions. Just be interested, you know? If you think guys are intimidated by you, ask for their help with somthing. A guy will be less intimidated if he feels he's helpful or being asked for help. If "intimidation" is not the problem (I think this excuse is overused by girls anyways), showing interest is still good. Ask for things. Trade things. i.e. Questions require a response. Needs require an interaction. Make a bet or offer a challenge. It's one way to break the ice. Also, make sure to remember things that he's done or said and work them back into the conversation. It creates a sense of history and relationship.
 wiserd
Joined: 5/11/2004
Msg: 7 (view)
 
horror stories from online dating......
Posted: 5/12/2006 2:40:20 PM

To top it all off he wrote everything in baby talk. Saying I looked so cutesy-wutesy.


He sounds like a real creepy weepy.
 wiserd
Joined: 5/11/2004
Msg: 33 (view)
 
Rush has learn release bad news on Fridays. Rush Limbaugh makes deal to end 'doctor shopping' probe
Posted: 5/1/2006 11:42:14 PM

It is the hypocrisy that bothers most of you. Is that correct?


You hit the nail on the head there, brother! At least for me. And thank you.

Here's the root of it; I see Rush as more of as an apparatchik for the Republican party than an individual in his own right. He's like the president's press secretary. The press secretary speaks out against wellfare if he's asked to, regardless of whether or not the press secretary used to be on welfare. Rush is a Republican party spin doctor even though he ostensibly speaks as an individual and his job is to put the actions of his chosen party in the best light possible. (He doesn't speak for the Christian Coalition portion so much from what I can tell). In doing so, he sometimes argues for standards which I don't think he'd want imposed on himself or his country.

I don't listen to him much. But he was arguing one time, for example, that the US Army's use of torture is equivalent to college hazing. Now you can make all the arguments you want in favor of the army using torture. But it is not anything like college hazing. Saddam was condemned for using torture in Abu Ghraib. Lets not delude ourself into thinking that folks in the Arab world or anywhere else look more kindly on the American use of torture or "extraordinary rendition" than we would if someone abducted our citizens and sent them off to torture and humiliation without a fair trial and sometimes unjustly. The Geneva conventions are being unwritten. Our moral authority to oppose torture anywhere in the world is being undermined. We should be clear on that, whether we thing it's a good move or ill. Rush's job is to spin the issue. But if pictures came back of U.S. troops being tortured, do you think he'd compare it to college hazing? I don't.

I feel sorry for the guy. I really do. He shouldn't have to play so many games in order to get the painkillers he wants, whether he's dependant, addicted, or both. But he's condemned a lot of people for their moral failings, and selectively quoted others. So he's going to catch hell when it turns out he's human too and things aren't as black and white as he spelled them out to be. It's the price you pay for making your living by setting yourself up as smarter/holier/better than others.


Well by definition you could say the same thing about me. I used to think people who smoked pot were idiots. Then I went to college and started smoking pot. I quit smoking a few years later. This didn't change what I thought about smoking pot. Before I only thought pot smokers were idiots, now I know it for sure.


Sounds perfectly consistant to me. You thought pot smokers were idiots. You smoked pot. You thought you were an idiot. You quit.
 wiserd
Joined: 5/11/2004
Msg: 24 (view)
 
Rush has learn release bad news on Fridays. Rush Limbaugh makes deal to end 'doctor shopping' probe
Posted: 4/30/2006 11:05:09 PM
You know, I'm clean as a whistle. I don't use tobacco, pot, meth, crack, oxycontin, alcohol, artificial sweetners or whatever. I'm not part of any 'pot smoking lynch mob.' If I wanted to say that drug users are destroying our society and should be sent to Switzerland, I could do so with a hell of a lot more integrity than Rush can. The way I see it, however, the black market that was created by making drugs illegal has created far more crime than what it's supposed to prevent. And Rush's public statements just fan the flames of this expensive, pointless, government service. Lets break into people's homes and arrest them for what they put in their bodies... whatever happened to 'getting government out of our lives.'

I'd just like Rush to have the moral courage to walk his talk. Is that too much to ask? If he wants the freedom to use painkillers, fine. He should say that all Americans should have the right. That's how the law works, we all play by the same rules. If he want's to pretend that all illegal drug users are crazed demons who should be sent offshore, he should pack his bags because he is one. You make your bed and you lie in it. I don't care if what he did was illegal or not. He contradicts himself.


He has top of the line health insurance. His drug problem, if there is one doesn't effect anyone but him.


But that's not what Rush was arguing for, either. He said people who use illegal drugs should be sent to Switzerland. This is like how he berates people on welfare... but he used to be on welfare. Welfare is bad for people... who aren't Rush apparently.

Your solution, incidentally, is an essentially "liberal" idea. i.e. Legalize drugs and tax them to cover the expected damage/cost to society. Congrats. Have fun washing off the shame.
 wiserd
Joined: 5/11/2004
Msg: 48 (view)
 
Do I even want to bring up the Duke controversy?
Posted: 4/29/2006 1:18:30 AM

I ought to go to Google and research the topic of the low percentage of REPORTED AND TRIED rapes which go to conviction and/or are indeed cases of rape. I read somewhere that it's low.



Conviction rates for those cases known to involve athletes accused of rape hover around 30 percent, far less than those in normal rape cases, which is over 80 percent.
http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/2223/context/archive


And the 80 percent rate is despite the fact that the burden of proof is on the accuser, and the court is supposed to let guilty people go free rather than put innocent people in jail.
 wiserd
Joined: 5/11/2004
Msg: 42 (view)
 
Do I even want to bring up the Duke controversy?
Posted: 4/27/2006 12:06:07 AM
Thanks for the great posts kitsguy4u.


bike_man: but i read somewhere that the vast majority of REPORTED rape cases turn out to be hoaxes.


Color me skeptical. It would be interesting to see where you got that from, and the agenda of the person saying it. Rape is pretty reasonably described as a very underreported crime. I've had a number of friends who were raped and haven't reported it, since the cases involved family members or boyfriends of family members. (one blood relative, two boyfriends of female relatives, and one more friend who seems to have been the vicitm of date rape.)
 wiserd
Joined: 5/11/2004
Msg: 40 (view)
 
Do we give up too easy?
Posted: 4/26/2006 10:32:02 PM

Obviously contracts would be tailored differently with people who want kids.Maybe 10,15,20 or perhaps different options would be available depending on what the couple mutually agreed on.I'm not suggesting doing away with traditional marriage, I'm just suggesting offering alternatives.


I can see it. Mary Ann? Will you contract #4 me?

Brad! I'd love to! I never expected you to want a committment in the single digits...

Granted, traditional marriage has its problems. So how do we work through those? How do we prevent someone from running off to Vegas after four weeks then getting an annullment. How do we make sure people pick partners based on real, shared values? How do we make sure that they know how to solve conflicts, that they have similar ideas of what should be expected of them in a relationship. Prenuptual agreements? Funding for drug abuse prevention? Or, if the answer is that 'some people are just ***holes' how do we keep ourselves from marrying such people?

Kids need a stable environment. There might be some cases (abuse, etc.) where they're better off with a divorce.

What about people who stay in 'too long' trying to make things work? I don't think that every relationship has the same problems. What were yours? What caused them? When did you notice them?
 wiserd
Joined: 5/11/2004
Msg: 24 (view)
 
Do we give up too easy?
Posted: 4/25/2006 2:57:24 PM
I've spent some time in Asia. Relationships are different there. People are supposed to be closer, call each other daily, etc. People in the US are just plain scared of this. We like our spacious boundaries and disposable relationships. If a guy seems too interested in a girl, she worries that he might 'be a stalker' etc.
 wiserd
Joined: 5/11/2004
Msg: 35 (view)
 
Why is it that older men treat you better?
Posted: 4/20/2006 5:13:49 PM
I'd imagine some women are turned off by the higher sex drive of younger guys.

Another possibility is that "It's better to light a candle than curse the darkness" and older men are better at doing the first, seeing problems in a relaitonship and fixing them rather than just getting frustrated.

Of course, I'd be careful with the generalizations. If you like "older men" who are you dating? Divorced 50 year olds with families? 40 year old bachelors who never settled down and have been with dozens of girls? Who are we talking about?

Also, a lot of girls don't want to date older guys. The grandpas have more money and they're thankful for what they get. Some younger guys can find a new girlfriend in a week or two and know it, which is never good for a serious relationship.

I'd like to know just what 'treat me good' means to a woman.
 wiserd
Joined: 5/11/2004
Msg: 3 (view)
 
bladder infections
Posted: 4/16/2006 1:46:44 PM
Cranberry extract and ascorbate (non-acidic vitamin C like ester-C, but generic is cheaper. I get "C-salts" i.e. ascorbate salts) are great for preventing bladder infections. Don't overdo it on the ascorbate though. It doesn't cause any permanent damage (you can't overdose) but if you take too much you'll get gas. A good amount is about 1 gram morning and one at night, or about what would fit into a normal pill. If you're sick or drink a lot of water, you can tolerate more ascorbate. The stuff is water soluable so it only stays in your body for about 6 hours. Garlic is also wonderful stuff, though women tend to complain about the smell.
 wiserd
Joined: 5/11/2004
Msg: 23 (view)
 
What do you do when you have given up completely on having relationships?
Posted: 4/15/2006 2:33:11 AM
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

1. What is "the way you want?" What are you expecting in a relationship? How do you try and get it? What do you get instead?

2. How are you getting yourself into these unsatisfactory relationships? How you look for love influences the type of love you'll get.

Sounds like you do still want a relationship, you just want one different than what you're getting. So you're not doing what you want, you're giving up and not going after what you want because you think it's too difficult. Following this strategy does not seem like the path to a happy life.

"Trying to be happy is like trying to build a machine the only specification for which is that it should run noiselessly."
 wiserd
Joined: 5/11/2004
Msg: 10 (view)
 
A question about men
Posted: 4/12/2006 5:00:13 PM
Oh, don't communicate what you want or anything. Just walk around being miserable. I'm sure he'll like that better.

Seriously, I don't know about Joy's comment. Communication is important. Tell him what you want in a way that lets him know you love him and respect him. Just remember, your needs are about what YOU LIKE, not what HE IS. Good guys like to make the women they love happy, so hints on good presents, etc. can be helpful.

Maybe you can build up this guy's confidence, but could you love him if he didn't change? If he resists, don't push it. His personality is his territory. If he doesn't think you're helping then you're not, end of story. But nobody ever said "my girlfriend compliments me and encourages me too much and thinks too highly of me." At least, noone I've heard of.

Usually guys complain that girls want to change them in the opposite direction, telling them what they can't do. I've personally never had this problem. Or maybe I'm just a terrible listener.

You sound like you make a good gf for him.
 wiserd
Joined: 5/11/2004
Msg: 22 (view)
 
illegal combatents hurting US soldiers
Posted: 4/11/2006 2:55:23 AM
The US has basically shot it's credibility to protest human rights abuses anywhere else in the world, and everyone from Cuba to Russia to China (in xinjiang) is acting on it. We can still bribe or invade, but the leadership status we accrued during the cold war has been horribly tarnished.

We know torture is immoral, so we give prisoners to other countries that torture and think it keeps our hands clean. We supported Batista who was non-democratic and that gave us Castro. We promoted torture through the CIA trained Alcatel in S. America. American diplomats are now calling Chavez a dictator even though he was democratically elected and trying to overthrow him. It casts a particularly Orwellian light on the claim that the CIA really wants to 'liberate' anyone. It's all power relations to them. The religious appleation for such an outlook is satanism.

Legal issues aside, torture sets a horrible precedent. What would you think if you saw the folks who toppled Saddam torturing people in the same building that he tortured them in. This makes the US look very evil, no matter how much the conservative radio shows try and compare torture to frat pranks.
 wiserd
Joined: 5/11/2004
Msg: 35 (view)
 
WHY IS IT SO HARD TO FIND A GENUINE BI CHICK
Posted: 4/8/2006 1:44:20 AM

yes very true, and they wonder why chick are becoming bi more and more, cus they don't want to put up with males crap


SSDG (Same shit, different gender.)
 wiserd
Joined: 5/11/2004
Msg: 38 (view)
 
My Name Is Rachel Corrie canceled for fear of controversy.
Posted: 4/3/2006 11:44:28 AM

The topic of the thread has gotten lost. If you want to discuss military service, consider starting a new post? This thread is about the issues surrounding the censorship of a play and the story of the woman who inspired it. Not about who did what in the military.


The issue of the play itself is a non-starter. The people who own the theatre are not obligated to show the play there, end of story. If the cast and crew want to show the play somewhere else, they're free to do so. Noone has made the showing of the play illegal.

Producers and editors have the right and responsibility to be gatekeepers for their media. The freedom of the press belongs to those who own the press.

The question, then, is whether or not the play deserves to be shown somewhere else. Does it tell an honest story? Is its protagonist a hero? These questions go back to issues of when passive resistance and millitary force are justifiable or even morally good, which is how the thread got to its current state.

In that regard, backwordduck sounds like someone who read the cut-and-paste 2 minutes version of Ghandi. As Raverdad has mentioned repeatedly and backwordduck has ignored, Ghandi specifically said that his tactics worked because of several crucial things, among them; that the British believed themselves to be good and decent people and that the British media cooperated with Ghandi and were willing to favorably record his actions.

As for the first one; When someone says "we don't think you have a right to exist and we're willing to back up our views using whatever violence we have at our disposal" you don't say "well, that's an interesting starting point for negotiations." You defend yourself.

Additionally, there have been protests and threats against Palestinian media simply for reading from an Israeli newspaper. I remember one guy was able to get away with it because he was a fatah member with a long rap sheet who justified it as 'needing to understand our enemy.' But most people wouldn't be able to do that. No peaceful Israeli protest would be fairly portrayed in the Arab media, which is composed almost entirely of facist state-controlled outfits.

If both these critiera had not been present, Ghandi noted, his experiments in passive resistance would not have succeeded. Ghandi was never opposed to India having a standing millitary, though he did go to fantastic efforts to prove that he cared about all people.

The various arab nations were very weak when they first got their independance from Great Britain. Hatred of another group is one of the oldest ways to secure one's political power.

Granted, I don't agree with everything that Israel has done, but they seem much more concerned with targeting those responsible for brutal acts as opposed to taking the Palestinian route and blowing up busloads of children.

Rachel Corrie is a far cry from Tiananmen square. The protestors at Tiananmen were there for days before the tanks were sent in. They didn't run around looking for earth moving equipment to throw themselves in front of.

There are laws on the books in many arab countries since the 1940s saying that Jews can't live there. Those who did at the time were kicked out. But you know, none of the self proclaimed crusaders who call Israel racist and violent ever seen to have a problem with that, even though it was done using state sponsored violence. There are, however, arabs and muslims living in Israel as citizens and represented in the Knesset. And they're the most rapidly growing minority.

The sooner we have a two-state solution and mutual sovereignty, the better.
Everyone wants peace. The question is; "under what terms?"
 wiserd
Joined: 5/11/2004
Msg: 27 (view)
 
Do man like when I women shows her feelings?
Posted: 3/29/2006 2:43:43 PM
In sales, they have what's called a 'trial close.' As has been mentioned earlier, you say some stuff to allow the guy to let you know how he feels without being too explicit before you go forwards.

For example, did you ask him if he's dating anyone? This is usually better than jumping to "I really like you." It says you're interested quite clearly, but doesn't require any sort of reply from him. Which he'd probably garble anyways. His answer will tell you if you should take things up a notch. (just one notch)
 wiserd
Joined: 5/11/2004
Msg: 4 (view)
 
Can there be anyone out there who wants more than a short-term relationship?
Posted: 3/22/2006 11:37:47 AM
Guys who want long term relationships get into relationships. The dating field gets picked over. Guys who want one night stands go out canvassing, talking to as many women as possible.

This may be speculation, but I think this is one of the problems with older women waiting for guys to come to them. The guys who are most likely to come to you if you do nothing are the players.

One thing that works well for me (though guys don't need it nearly as much) is to focus on some common intellectual interest. If someone else is also interested in, say, natural medicine then there's an actual connection there, as opposed to some girl looking for "a guy, any guy, to fill her lonely nights" etc.
 wiserd
Joined: 5/11/2004
Msg: 6 (view)
 
Debra LaFave, she did a 14 year old boy cause she's bi-polar!
Posted: 3/21/2006 10:41:34 PM
If I were bi-polar I would protest her statements. If you accept that being bi-polar is an excuse to break the law that means that people who are bi-polar are incompetant.

But then, most people just deny the accusations. But they had tapes on her. She had to give some kind of pushback if she wanted to get a plea bargain.

There was a male teacher at our old school who messed around with a female student. But supposedly there was "no penetration." Hell if I know what happened exactly, or whether that's true. I think she might have been 16 or 17. He was married. He lost his job of course, and maybe the ability to teach.

Plea agreements are common, though. Whether or not there would have been a lynching has nothing to do with what the courts would rule.

http://gcruse.typepad.com/the_owners_manual/2004/11/debra_lafave_su.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debra_Lafave


A sensational highlight to this case came to light in September 2005 when it was revealed that the Temple Terrace, FL, police ordered explicit nude photos be taken of Lafave's genital area while her feet were bound up in stirrups. The officer who ordered the photos was later charged with soliciting a prostitute and downloading pornography at work. He resigned after also being caught trying to cover up his actions on police department computers.
 wiserd
Joined: 5/11/2004
Msg: 56 (view)
 
Republicans Are Happier Than Democrats
Posted: 3/21/2006 2:10:01 PM

I wish they would have just said "hey, these guys are about to take over all of Europe and are committing Genocide, once Europe and Asia is down, you know who's next, we should fight while everybody else still exists". But....I do understand where that would not be enough for some or even many Americans. (We're quite egotistical)


American WWI propaganda involved some serious over-the-top exaggerations about the brutality of Prussian soliders, etc. It had people saying just what you are "polititians lie to get us to do what they want (i.e. fight Germany.)"

Remember that Hitler was Time magazine's "man of the year." He had been praised as brilliant for reversing the (deliberate) inflation of the Weimar republic by a tactic as old
as the vikings; steal hard assets and use them to back the currency.


But....I do understand where that would not be enough for some or even many Americans. (We're quite egotistical)


And hell, noone wants to fight or die. Millitary conditions have traditionally been horrible, even without the risk of death.


I don't know, I just know if I were a president I would never let deaths occur if I could help it, but then again, I'll never be president, lol.


FDR was an arrogant egotistical sonofa****, but I don't know that he deliberatly let people die. You do have some folks like Mclellan (IIRC) in the civil war who were so afraid to put their troops in harms way that they failed to follow up an attack when they could have routed their enemy and basically couldn't fulfill his job as general.

I'm not trying to argue with you. I'm just trying to lay out my understanding of people's attitudes at the time.
 wiserd
Joined: 5/11/2004
Msg: 53 (view)
 
Republicans Are Happier Than Democrats
Posted: 3/20/2006 9:34:12 PM

Republicans are happier for one simple reason.When you are usually on the right side of most issues it tends to put you in a good mood.


I remember back when Republicans preached on the evils of incumbancy. A number of folks got elected based on promises of obeying voluntary term limits. Think they honored those promises? Heh.

The Republican leadership has no ethics, no conscience and no memory. But it's appropriate this guy is named 'snowman.' He's gotten snowed.
 wiserd
Joined: 5/11/2004
Msg: 52 (view)
 
Republicans Are Happier Than Democrats
Posted: 3/20/2006 4:32:52 PM
My bad too. It was Admiral James Richardson, not Eisenhower, who squeaked out of the Pearl Harbor post because he said it was too vulnerable and went into/was forced into early retirement in protest. That was nagging me for a while so I looked it up. He claimed that it was a 'goddamn mousetrap.'


And that's what you're doing. Thinking TOO much, just not seeing that if they're not stupid, they could have saved both countries alot of money.


Well, the question seemed to be whether Pearl Harbor was essentially a setup. I was doing what I could to contextualize the situation and the claims of the conspiracy theorists because they do have a legitamate historical case (a little more solid than I'd realized, to be honest), but I think that they overstate it. Few things in history are as cut and dried as we'd like them to be. In defense of the conspiracy theorists, there were a few people before Pearl Harbor who were truly very nervous about the vulnerabilities of ship placement there, including Admiral Husband Kimmel who took over the post and was eventually scapegoated for it (and later exonerated by congress). FDR was goading the Japanese into a war (putting them in a position where they either had to stop their imperialistic abitions in China and the Pacific or attack the US) We agree there. And he did that in order to get the US into WWII. Essentially what you were saying. Kimmel recounts that the US and Japan were essentially in an undeclared state of war. I don't believe that FDR nessicarily expected a surprise attack, or that he could control where the Japanese attacked. Maybe FDR maneuvered it. I could be wrong. I don't believe that FDR is responsible for killing the troops there any more than he's responsible for killing the troops he sent to Europe to fight. Leaders are in an unsavory and morally unacceptable position of deciding that one person must die now or else two more will later. If FDR hadn't acted as he did (goading the Japanese into war), many pacifists would have seen America as an agressor (which they were to a degree, but for good cause) and been against America's entry into the war and their resistance would have cost American and foreign lives. America needed all its resources and effort to transform from a peacetime economy to a wartime one. Before Pearl Harbor, the US didn't even have enough tanks to conduct troop exercises. Their millitary readiness was pitiful and most Americans were strongly anti-war. FDR could not have committed troops to fight Japan or Germany without Pearl Harbor.

Noone knew the Japanese had torpedoes that could attack in the shallow water of Pearl Harbor, so far as I know. A surprise attack by arial bombardment was hypothesized earlier, but many millitary men discounted its effectiveness in real life.

I doubt that FDR had the warning to Pearl Harbor deliberately delayed as was sometimes claimed by conspiracy theorists (and even by Kimmel himself). Every little mistake in the defence of P.H. is used to justify a massive conspiracy from the top. And Kimmel, being unfairly scapegoated, wanted to punch back at the people who scapegoated him (including FDR) to exonerate himself. A day or two delay in reporting troop movements due to weather problems seem much more deliberate when examined carefully, years after the event. Beuracracies screw up, involve delays, etc. And the military is a beuracracy.


as allowing OTHERS to die is no big deal to many many people.


Perhaps, but Roosevelt was starting a war, and doing so in the most politically effective way possible. It's impossible to start a fight without putting your own troops in harms way sooner or later. If Roosevelt hadn't acted as he did many more people would have died, American and otherwise. To refuse to confront Japan would have been as immoral as refusing to confront the Nazis. And just as self-destructive in the long run.


So are they just THAT stupid?


Have you ever worked in a corporation or beauracracy? The left hand often doesn't know what the right hand is doing half the time and hindsight is 20/20. I agree that the US goaded Japan into war by cutting off its oil and metal supplies. I'm less certain that the US expected a surprise attack, that Pearl Harbor was the expected target or, if so, that FDR realized that so much damage could have been done to the fleet there (via torpedos that could strike in shallow water.)
 wiserd
Joined: 5/11/2004
Msg: 22 (view)
 
Does anyone know if a non-POF user can access my account without using my password??????
Posted: 3/20/2006 1:14:06 PM
Online, there are a lot of unsavory people, so small things tend to scare people off and first impressions are huge. You can write him another letter explaining, etc. but I'd give you better than average chances that you're not going to recover his trust. Just let it go and find someone else. It sucks that relationships are so flimsy, especially at the start, but I'm just as hard up for a solution to that as you are. I had one girl (interesting, very intelligent and attractive) who was upset at me because I wanted to delay seeing her. I had tons of work at the time, so didn't have time for it. She made all kinds of accusations about it. Finally, I agreed, even though I was sick at the time because she was starting to distrust me. I was a bit out of it all through dinner, but tried to be friendly and cheerful and act healthy.

Later she said she didn't want to see me again because "I seemed more comfortable talking on the phone and seemed to want to stay there" I expained the situation, but it didn't do any good.

Nothing I could do but find someone else.

As for the keystroke logger, I've worked at companies who have used them. I was on the spying end. If the company does it, they're obligated to tell you that you're being logged. Good advice from people to use Firefox (if you're allowed to) and not save your password.

Also remember that if you log in anywhere from a public computer or one that isn't secure someone can pick up your password. You need to be VERY careful about this.

Personally, if I log onto a site using one password and have to give my e-mail address I make sure my e-mail and the site don't both use the same password, etc. so if someone gets my password I don't have to change it for every site I go to.

Good luck!

Ryan
 wiserd
Joined: 5/11/2004
Msg: 51 (view)
 
Republicans Are Happier Than Democrats
Posted: 3/19/2006 3:21:14 PM

But over regualtion is not good for the economy or do you think the lack od refineries leaidng to higher fule costs is good for the economy?


If it gets us away from foreign oil, frankly I'm willing to stand the pain. We'll have to face it sooner or later. Our country has made buddies with a lot of foreign governments that I don't particularly like in order to keep the oil flowing. All forms of US transportation are already very highly subsidized. The quicker we reach a tipping point and get away from foreign gas and move to biodiesel, electric, or whatever next generation fuel is, the better off we'll be. At least with those fuels, there aren't just a small handful of suppliers that we have to rely on. So problems with one area of the country don't screw with the entire national economy, as with our petrol based economy. Diesel is easier to transport (slightly less flammable). And electric can be produced at a central location for greater efficiency and less polution (it's easier to install a scrubber on a factory than a car.)

I'd have bought a hybrid car already except that my grandpa stopped driving so my new car is his old one. But the next one will be somthing other than a standard gas guzzler for certain.
 wiserd
Joined: 5/11/2004
Msg: 50 (view)
 
Republicans Are Happier Than Democrats
Posted: 3/19/2006 1:36:33 PM

It's not a strecth at all sicne the SSA wa sapssed saivngs ahve gone down and are now in the negatives. What Bush did wa spsuh for a short time influx of credit into the economy to stall and reverse the recession. It worked.


1. Correlation does not indicate causation.

2. I can buy on credit for a while and things will be temporarily better. But as long as Bush is increasing the debt, his strategy is short term.

3. You've still not addressed the fact that Bush was deliberately telling people to go out and spend rather than save. If you're a conservative, Bush doesn't share your values apparently.


Thats pure rubbish the CIA wa snot seelign crack in the inner city


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra

Do you know what the Iran Contra scandal involved?
Just curious.


But over regualtion is not good for the economy or do you think the lack od refineries leaidng to higher fule costs is good for the economy? Or massive forest fires caused by burn bans that allow fuel to build up.


The national forest service now allows naturally started fires to burn to take out underbrush. Earlier policies were a mistake.

"Over regulation" isn't good. But I'm naturally suspicious when any polititian refuses to give the details. Under regulation isn't good either, since it allows for fraudulent sales and economic externalities.


Pleas ename one perosn in govemrnet at the time who opposed DARPA.


I doubt many people in government even understood that ARPANET might have a civilian use, much less understood the technical aspects of the project. As far as they were concerned it was just a millitary project. So why would they oppose it?


The Govemrne thas the job of defneding the country. Not only form enemies but agians things liek Tornadoes and hurricanes.


Of course the government has the job of defending the country. No argument from me there. And also to defend against things like tornadoes and hurricanes, at least in terms of giving people good advance warning.

It also has a job to prevent your neighibor from dumping hazardous wastes into the groundwater which supplies your tap water, and insuring that building codes are up to standard before a nightclub full of people gets trapped in a fire or other disaster.

And in order to do that, you need organizations which can investigate matters and resolve them. There have been attempts to reduce environmental protections under the guise of 'deregulation.' That's what I'm concerned about.

I'm not saying that all deregulation is bad. Just that it's sometimes been used as a smokescreen to do things that people wouldn't otherwise want done. If polititians tell you they're 'deregulating' somthing and don't give specifics, it's worthwhile to be suspicious.
 wiserd
Joined: 5/11/2004
Msg: 6 (view)
 
Does anyone know if a non-POF user can access my account without using my password??????
Posted: 3/19/2006 12:50:17 PM
Hmm.. Lets assume for a moment that someone was on your computer and using it. If you look in Internet Explorer's browser cache and check out the timestamps on the files there you could confirm or deny this.

Alternately, maybe you logged into this site and didn't log out so it stayed logged in for a while. I have no clue how long it would take for the site to log you out after you closed a browser. The information's probably around here, but I'm lazy. Were you on earlier that day?
 wiserd
Joined: 5/11/2004
Msg: 5 (view)
 
Does anyone know if a non-POF user can access my account without using my password??????
Posted: 3/19/2006 12:44:46 PM
If there's a keystroke logger somewhere it will be well hidden. You won't find it just by 'looking'. There are probably some programs made to detect some of the more obvious ones, but I don't know them offhand.
 
Show ALL Forums