NationStates Jolt Archive


Relationships

Pages : [1] 2
Keriona
19-12-2007, 19:14
Just reading the post about the guy who can't get laid and wondered what everybody's relationship status is on here
Maraque
19-12-2007, 19:15
Single.
Just broke up with fiance of 18 months.
Ad Nihilo
19-12-2007, 19:17
Single.
Just broke up with fiance of 18 months.

:(

I'm too young to have been engaged but something of the similar sort has happened to me... so I feel your pain (well almost... 18 months here as well... and considering I almost moved country for her...)
Yootopia
19-12-2007, 19:18
Tragically single.
Brutland and Norden
19-12-2007, 19:18
Never had one.
Keriona
19-12-2007, 19:19
Ooh, ooh, I know the answer!

14/f/AK

18? Great!
Greater Trostia
19-12-2007, 19:20
Ooh, ooh, I know the answer!

14/f/AK
Maraque
19-12-2007, 19:20
:(

I'm too young to have been engaged but something of the similar sort has happened to me... so I feel your pain (well almost... 18 months here as well... and considering I almost moved country for her...)That's odd... my ex moved to the United Kingdom and never returned, which is what killed our relationship.
Keriona
19-12-2007, 19:23
:cool:Whole lotta singles so far..... 'cept me! woo!
Greater Trostia
19-12-2007, 19:23
That's odd... my ex moved to the United Kingdom and never returned, which is what killed our relationship.

Would it not be safe to conclude, then, that the United Kingdom is responsible for killing your relationship? That in fact, King George is out to kill us all? Come on man, no taxation without representation!
Jello Biafra
19-12-2007, 19:24
In a relationship that will likely be ending within a month or so.
Keriona
19-12-2007, 19:24
Never had one.

How old are you?
Yootopia
19-12-2007, 19:25
:cool:Whole lotta singles so far..... 'cept me! woo!
Sheep don't count :)
Llewdor
19-12-2007, 19:26
I'm effectively married, though not actually married.

Marriage doesn't strike me as a useful construct, so I haven't done it, but we've been together for 6 years.
Keriona
19-12-2007, 19:26
Sheep don't count :)

Oh no, you misunderstand, I was counting your mother!
Khadgar
19-12-2007, 19:27
Single and quite content to stay that way. I don't much like people and I can't begin to imagine the bullshit associated with living with another one.
New Czardas
19-12-2007, 19:27
I am an emotionally stunted sociopath incapable of forming meaningful relationships with other people.

I continue to maintain that I clicked on this thread by accident and was actually aiming for the one directly above it. This post is in no way a plea for attention. There is nothing to see here, move right along. Fnord.
Yootopia
19-12-2007, 19:29
Oh no, you misunderstand, I was counting your mother!
I was unaware that the Welsh actually had trains. But hey, there we go.
The Alma Mater
19-12-2007, 19:29
Relationship. And not just with Rosie Palm and her quite lovely daughters ;)
Keriona
19-12-2007, 19:30
Relationship. And not just with Rosie Palm and her quite lovely daughters ;)
Are you sure it's not Palmala Handerson?
Keriona
19-12-2007, 19:31
I was unaware that the Welsh actually had trains. But hey, there we go.

Come again....

Oh no, that's what your mother said to me!

Haha!
The Alma Mater
19-12-2007, 19:32
Are you sure it's not Palmala Handerson?

Thank goodness no.
Iniika
19-12-2007, 19:33
Single and quite content to stay that way. I don't much like people and I can't begin to imagine the bullshit associated with living with another one.

I completely share your view point. We should be neighbours XP

Every single relationship I've ever been in has ended with me being unsatisfied and feeling cramped and obligated and it has been more of a chore than a pleasure to continue it. So~ I find myself quite happilly single and not looking to change that. :)
Yootopia
19-12-2007, 19:33
Come again....

Oh no, that's what your mother said to me!

Haha!
Ah, the joys of baiting people on the internet, eh?
Keriona
19-12-2007, 19:34
Ah, the joys of baiting people on the internet, eh?

lol
Keriona
19-12-2007, 19:35
19.
Use it or lose it dude
Brutland and Norden
19-12-2007, 19:36
How old are you?
19.
Bottle
19-12-2007, 19:36
Just passed the 5-year mark in my (currently) monogamous heterosexual relationship. Of that 5 years, two were spent in college, two were spent living on opposite sides of the country, and the last year+ has been spent living together in our very first non-studio apartment.
Keriona
19-12-2007, 19:38
Just passed the 5-year mark in my (currently) monogamous heterosexual relationship. Of that 5 years, two were spent in college, two were spent living on opposite sides of the country, and the last year+ has been spent living together in our very first non-studio apartment.

Companion cubes don't count!

O/j! congratulations, a long distance relationship must be tough, how did you stick that out?
Bottle
19-12-2007, 19:44
O/j! congratulations, a long distance relationship must be tough, how did you stick that out?
Well, it helped that we were both in grad school, so we were kept pretty busy. I'm actually kind of glad that my partner wasn't around while I was preparing to take my qualifying exams because I was extremely unpleasant to be around for a good three months there.

The internet was such a blessing, though. We used webcams a lot--not just for sexyfuntime, though that helped too--and instant messenger is the only reason I didn't blow all my savings on cell phone bills. We also are both videogame geeks, so we started playing MMOs together. It really is wonderful to be able to play with your best friend/partner even if you're physically separated by thousands of miles.

And, for the record, COMPANION CUBES DO SO COUNT!! ;)
Keriona
19-12-2007, 19:46
And, for the record, COMPANION CUBES DO SO COUNT!! ;)

I wish I could add them to the poll :headbang:
SoWiBi
19-12-2007, 19:46
Single.
Just broke up with fiance of 18 months.
Sorry to hear that. I keep mixing up people on here, but.. weren't you the guy we all rooted for when there was talk about breaking up the relationship about an infidelity some time earlier? If so, that#s doible bad for having made it once and failing now.

In a relationship that will likely be ending within a month or so.

I've noticed you saying something like that before - WTF keeps you in a relationship you don't see any potential for?

Just passed the 5-year mark in my (currently) monogamous heterosexual relationship. Of that 5 years, two were spent in college, two were spent living on opposite sides of the country, and the last year+ has been spent living together in our very first non-studio apartment.

But, but, you're OMG teh ebil feminazi, how can you live in a stable heterosexual relationship?!



As for myself, I've finally been able to persuade my long-term best friend that he'll has to overcome his blasted fears and have us be together already yesterday, so I guess that officially and legitimately makes me "in a relationship" now :] Yes, Fass, we did it. Yes, it's the time where you congratulate me.
Dyakovo
19-12-2007, 19:47
Woo-hoo first married person to vote! :D

Married almost a year, been together 16 yrs
Bottle
19-12-2007, 19:47
But, but, you're OMG teh ebil feminazi, how can you live in a stable heterosexual relationship?!

Shh, don't tip him off. I'm really just fattening him up and leeching off his manly paychecks, before I steal his sperm, impregnate myself, and then bite his head off and use his bodily fluids to feed my spawn. As is the custom among the feminist species.
SoWiBi
19-12-2007, 19:51
Shh, don't tip him off. I'm really just fattening him up and leeching off his manly paychecks, before I steal his sperm, impregnate myself, and then bite his head off and use his bodily fluids to feed my spawn. As is the custom among the feminist species.

Nah nah nah, this is not how it works. As a Proper Feminist (tm), you'll have to staunchly and dogmatically oppose the Oppressive Reproductive System that is really just forced down your throat by the Male Sexist Conspiracy and refuse to have your body soiled and used by the Collaborative Chauvinist Sperm like that.

Also, you're being way too dependent and I bet you shave, too. No, you cannot play with the other Proper Feminists anymore.
Neo Bretonnia
19-12-2007, 19:51
The internet was such a blessing, though. We used webcams a lot--not just for sexyfuntime, though that helped too--and instant messenger is the only reason I didn't blow all my savings on cell phone bills. We also are both videogame geeks, so we started playing MMOs together. It really is wonderful to be able to play with your best friend/partner even if you're physically separated by thousands of miles.


When my wife was back in Denver to finish school we played EverQuest II together.

Ah, geek love. Nothing in the world quite like it.
Jello Biafra
19-12-2007, 19:53
I've noticed you saying something like that before - WTF keeps you in a relationship you don't see any potential for? Heh. He's been out of town for a couple of months and will be until after Christmas - it's not really a conversation I wanna have over the phone.
And it's not that I see no potential, it's that I don't see much potential.
Fassitude
19-12-2007, 19:53
Yes, Fass, we did it. Yes, it's the time where you congratulate me.

Congrats on turning your back on the team and no longer being just a closeted heterosexual.
SoWiBi
19-12-2007, 19:55
Heh. He's been out of town for a couple of months and will be until after Christmas - it's not really a conversation I wanna have over the phone.
And it's not that I see no potential, it's that I don't see much potential.

Ah, I see. Well that sucks, having to brood that conversation inside oneself because of such circumstances.. good luck, to both of you, whichever way it goes.
Law Abiding Criminals
19-12-2007, 19:57
Married. Just passed one year. Don't know if we'll make it to two.
Telesha
19-12-2007, 19:58
Ah, geek love. Nothing in the world quite like it.

Sure there is, opening the door to geek love and watching them take to it.

Married 1 year, 2 months. Together 4 years, 11 months (3 1/2 years of college with summers being across the country from one-another)
SoWiBi
19-12-2007, 19:58
Congrats on turning your back on the team and no longer being just a closeted heterosexual.

Speak of the Devil.. hi. And thanks for the heartfelt congrats; I know you really mean it. And I don't believe I have turned my back, I only temporarily averted my eyes from The Team?

Either way, que sera, sera, and I think I'm happy right now.
Neo Bretonnia
19-12-2007, 19:59
Sure there is, opening the door to geek love and watching them take to it.

Touche' :)
Jello Biafra
19-12-2007, 19:59
Ah, I see. Well that sucks, having to brood that conversation inside oneself because of such circumstances.. good luck, to both of you, whichever way it goes.Thank you very much, and congrats on your budding relationship. :)
SoWiBi
19-12-2007, 20:00
Thank you very much, and congrats on your budding relationship. :)
You're welcome, and if that's a pun I spot in there, I appreciate it ;P
Fassitude
19-12-2007, 20:05
Speak of the Devil.. hi. And thanks for the heartfelt congrats; I know you really mean it. And I don't believe I have turned my back, I only temporarily averted my eyes from The Team?

That's not how it works. You're doing it wrong.

Either way, que sera, sera, and I think I'm happy right now.

Happy you may be, but gay never more.
Jello Biafra
19-12-2007, 20:11
You're welcome, and if that's a pun I spot in there, I appreciate it ;PA pun? Moi?

Happy you may be, but gay never more.Hm, maybe you can bi happiness after all?
Llewdor
19-12-2007, 20:38
Use it or lose it dude
I was 23 for my first. He'll be fine.
Vojvodina-Nihon
19-12-2007, 20:54
Was in a relationship but we sorta.... lost touch. So single I guess.
Pure Metal
19-12-2007, 21:08
in a relationship of... *counts* ... 22 months (almost 2 years) :)

Single.
Just broke up with fiance of 18 months.

woah that sucks :( :fluffle:

don't blame us in the UK for it, right? ;)
Ad Nihilo
19-12-2007, 21:27
That's odd... my ex moved to the United Kingdom and never returned, which is what killed our relationship.

spooky:D... I almost moved out of the UK, but I'm quite satisfied now that I didn't.
Crimson Potatoes
19-12-2007, 21:49
I am single and i would rather not have a girlfriend because at the moment, i have too many girlfriends and its eaiser to just fool around with them and meet your desires then be weighed down by commitment.
Zilam
19-12-2007, 21:53
Just reading the post about the guy who can't get laid and wondered what everybody's relationship status is on here

Post about the guy who can't get laid? Please tell me you aren't talking about me:P


Anyways, I am willfully single.
Laerod
19-12-2007, 21:54
As for myself, I've finally been able to persuade my long-term best friend that he'll has to overcome his blasted fears and have us be together already yesterday, so I guess that officially and legitimately makes me "in a relationship" now :] Yes, Fass, we did it. Yes, it's the time where you congratulate me.My memory tells me you're lesbian. I don't like it when my memory lies to me. :(
Smunkeeville
19-12-2007, 21:55
married, for............7 years 18 days 14 hours and 53 minutes.
Aegis Firestorm
19-12-2007, 21:57
Married for three years now, and have a 10 month old son. Or should I say my son has me?
The Fanboyists
19-12-2007, 21:58
Relationship. And not just with Rosie Palm and her quite lovely daughters ;)

Discworld reference there...?

As for me, I'm single, but I don't think that's really unusual for people my age.
Poliwanacraca
19-12-2007, 21:59
I'm single for now, very much by choice. My last relationship was really, really, really unhealthy, and though it's been quite some time since it ended, I'm still recovering.

On the bright side, guys are usually okay with being turned down once you say, "My last boyfriend abused me and I have lots and lots and lots of emotional baggage because of it. Do you want to help me work through it all?" ;)
Kryozerkia
19-12-2007, 21:59
We dated for four years and just got married this past August, though we had been living together for over a year at that point.
Maraque
19-12-2007, 22:03
Sorry to hear that. I keep mixing up people on here, but.. weren't you the guy we all rooted for when there was talk about breaking up the relationship about an infidelity some time earlier? If so, that#s doible bad for having made it once and failing now.Yep, that would be me.

>_>
Callisdrun
19-12-2007, 22:05
Three years with my ladyfriend at the end of this month.
Maraque
19-12-2007, 22:05
woah that sucks :( :fluffle:

don't blame us in the UK for it, right? ;)I don't. He rushed back to the US after I dumped him, and cried for me back, but I don't like being pushed around so he's gone.

Bastard.
The Parkus Empire
19-12-2007, 22:07
I am eighteen. I do not, nor have ever had a "relationship." Never couched, never kissed, never dated, never flirted.

And you know what? I do not care.
Maraque
19-12-2007, 22:10
spooky:D... I almost moved out of the UK, but I'm quite satisfied now that I didn't.I almost moved there... but I was sick of it after two months of being there. LOL.
Ad Nihilo
19-12-2007, 22:19
I am eighteen. I do not, nor have ever had a "relationship." Never couched, never kissed, never dated, never flirted.

And you know what? I do not care.

dude... how do you handle your hormones? I'm 18 and I really can't imagine living like that (even though I can still remember how it feels).
Yootopia
19-12-2007, 22:22
dude... how do you handle your hormones? I'm 18 and I really can't imagine living like that (even though I can still remember how it feels).
Massive amounts of masturbation, and/or pretending like he doesn't ever want to have sex anyway?
Ad Nihilo
19-12-2007, 22:24
Massive amounts of masturbation, and/or pretending like he doesn't ever want to have sex anyway?

Ah... yes, of course... silly me:D
Yootopia
19-12-2007, 22:26
Ah... yes, of course... silly me:D
That and probably eating.
Mad hatters in jeans
19-12-2007, 22:39
yeah, 26 people single, i like, lets get together and have a group hug!

Sorry i nearly vomited after i said that, i should really avoid that sort of thing.
Mad hatters in jeans
19-12-2007, 22:40
I almost moved there... but I was sick of it after two months of being there. LOL.

What didn't you like? or where there better pastures (if so please tell me)
Fassitude
19-12-2007, 22:46
My memory tells me you're lesbian. I don't like it when my memory lies to me. :(

It wasn't your memory that lied.
One World Alliance
19-12-2007, 22:49
Relationships are FAR over-rated.


............unless you find someone who's worth it ;)
Maraque
19-12-2007, 22:50
What didn't you like? or where there better pastures (if so please tell me)To be honest, all my reasons are quite trivial:

I never got used to driving on the opposite side of the road and car.
I never got used to the different slang words and general lingo.
I could not understand metric for my own life.

When I touched back down in NYC... I felt so joyful LOL.
Poliwanacraca
19-12-2007, 22:58
dude... how do you handle your hormones? I'm 18 and I really can't imagine living like that (even though I can still remember how it feels).

It's not that hard. It's been years since I've done anything sexual (and, yes, I do mean anything), and while it's definitely less than ideal, I seem to have survived. Admittedly, I'm no longer a teenager, so my hormones probably aren't raging quite so much as yours, but still. Sex is great and fun and all, but it is possible to live without it.
Neesika
19-12-2007, 23:00
I've been told that I would fuck anything with a pulse sometimes.

To which I reply...a pulse isn't always necessary.*


*think battery operated, not a corpse you sick bastards
Neesika
19-12-2007, 23:02
As for myself, I've finally been able to persuade my long-term best friend that he'll has to overcome his blasted fears and have us be together already yesterday, so I guess that officially and legitimately makes me "in a relationship" now :] Yes, Fass, we did it. Yes, it's the time where you congratulate me.

What the....

I thought...

You said...

But aren't you...

Sheesh!
One World Alliance
19-12-2007, 23:02
I've been told that I would fuck anything with a pulse sometimes.

To which I reply...a pulse isn't always necessary.*


*think battery operated, not a corpse you sick bastards

batteries have pulses, thus, you MUST mean corpses.......you sick sick bastard
Self-Sustain
19-12-2007, 23:05
Married 12 years April 3rd, and we still go at like drunk monkeys!

I like sex, she likes money! The key to a relationship is finding a way to satisfy your needs and your partners!
Neesika
19-12-2007, 23:05
batteries have pulses, thus, you MUST mean corpses.......you sick sick bastard

Ok fine, the non-battery operated inanimate objects then. Killjoy.
Thumbless Pete Crabbe
19-12-2007, 23:05
I'm married to my work. *noble pose*

My work of leeching off public institutions, that is. :)
Dalmatia Cisalpina
19-12-2007, 23:10
In a relationship that I'm trying to end. Every time I hint I end it, he hangs on tighter. It's like dating a boa constrictor that's not actually trying to kill you -- it just does anyway.
I'm afraid I'm going to have to do something slightly drastic to end this.
Bottle
19-12-2007, 23:11
In a relationship that I'm trying to end. Every time I hint I end it, he hangs on tighter. It's like dating a boa constrictor that's not actually trying to kill you -- it just does anyway.
I'm afraid I'm going to have to do something slightly drastic to end this.
Does he have a pet rabbit?
Maraque
19-12-2007, 23:11
Try going for the kill, not a hint.
Dalmatia Cisalpina
19-12-2007, 23:13
Does he have a pet rabbit?

No. And I'm afraid I'm missing the reference. Sad, isn't it?
Bottle
19-12-2007, 23:14
No. And I'm afraid I'm missing the reference. Sad, isn't it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatal_Attraction
Dalmatia Cisalpina
19-12-2007, 23:14
Try going for the kill, not a hint.

Unfortunately, the kill is not an option. It would get the point across, but then there's all that messy paperwork and legalities.
Maraque
19-12-2007, 23:15
Damn bureaucracy!
One World Alliance
19-12-2007, 23:24
Ok fine, the non-battery operated inanimate objects then. Killjoy.

LMAO


hey, it's no worries mate, you can choose to make love with whomever you wish, I won't judge you..................well, yes I will, but not to your face....................actually, yeah, I would straight up to ya.

but hey, it's all good, as long as your happy! :D
Vojvodina-Nihon
19-12-2007, 23:42
dude... how do you handle your hormones? I'm 18 and I really can't imagine living like that (even though I can still remember how it feels).
I dunno. I'm 17 now, yet I've never had much of a sex drive. (Can explain the failure of aforementioned relationship, I guess.)

Unfortunately, the kill is not an option. It would get the point across, but then there's all that messy paperwork and legalities.
That's only if they find the body....


hey, it's no worries mate, you can choose to make love with whomever you wish, I won't judge you..................well, yes I will, but not to your face....................actually, yeah, I would straight up to ya.
Well, this is the internet, so I can question the marital status of your parents at the time you were born and insinuate that your facial features are uncomely without suffering any particularly adverse consequences in the real world.
One World Alliance
19-12-2007, 23:44
Well, this is the internet, so I can question the marital status of your parents at the time you were born and insinuate that your facial features are uncomely without suffering any particularly adverse consequences in the real world.


oh i have my ways...............



and no sexual drive? are you alive?!?! lol jk, it's cool dude
Sarrowquand
19-12-2007, 23:57
Married 12 years April 3rd, and we still go at like drunk monkeys!

I like sex, she likes money! The key to a relationship is finding a way to satisfy your needs and your partners!

Rational choice theory: the key to any social relationship is balancing needs economy style with no real empathy towards other people.

Had to write a 2000 word essay on that and my girlfriend dumped me just before I started. So bitter towards that theory.
Uturn
20-12-2007, 00:12
Far too busy trying to regain a life worth living to actually be seeing anyone.
When I finally get out my house and have my health back however...
Well lookout world!
:D
Darknovae
20-12-2007, 00:23
I have a BF! :D We've only been together for like a month though.


If high-school relationships count at all, old people. :p
Alexandrian Ptolemais
20-12-2007, 00:39
I have never been in a relationship, never kissed, never flirted, and never will, and who really gives a toss, after all;

Relationships are a great waste of time and resources. I would much rather spend my time and money on other more interesting things than chicks who will leech you for what it is worth and dump you once they have got their fill.
Mad hatters in jeans
20-12-2007, 00:42
I have never been in a relationship, never kissed, never flirted, and never will, and who really gives a toss, after all;

Relationships are a great waste of time and resources. I would much rather spend my time and money on other more interesting things than chicks who will leech you for what it is worth and dump you once they have got their fill.

I sense much bitterness with this one.
Alexandrian Ptolemais
20-12-2007, 00:52
I sense much bitterness with this one.

No bitterness, just a realisation in last year that relationships were a waste of time.
One World Alliance
20-12-2007, 00:55
No bitterness, just a realisation in last year that relationships were a waste of time.

awwww, sounds like you had a bad experience :(




i had a really bad experience this year too, but from it I learned to not settle but wait for the right person to come along, otherwise you're just shooting blanks in the good ol' game of love :D
Vojvodina-Nihon
20-12-2007, 01:03
and no sexual drive? are you alive?!?! lol jk, it's cool dude

Actually, I doubt it sometimes.... You could describe me as terminally lazy. I spend most of my time doing as little as possible and avoiding anything that could spark mental or physical activity, interspersed with occasional periods of intense metal and physical activity that leave me pledging to change my behaviour but never actually doing it.
One World Alliance
20-12-2007, 01:16
Actually, I doubt it sometimes.... You could describe me as terminally lazy. I spend most of my time doing as little as possible and avoiding anything that could spark mental or physical activity, interspersed with occasional periods of intense metal and physical activity that leave me pledging to change my behaviour but never actually doing it.

that's quite a way to say "i don't wanna" lol
Ashmoria
20-12-2007, 01:25
dec 24 will be my 24th anniversary.

ive been married longer than the average poster here has been alive.
Neesika
20-12-2007, 01:27
I was common law for 11 years, recently split up, but not entirely disengaged unfortunately.
The Parkus Empire
20-12-2007, 01:30
That and probably eating.

I eat very little for my age. Generally one, and never more then two meals a day.

My real secret? Fencing.
Bann-ed
20-12-2007, 01:31
I eat very little for my age. Generally one, and never more then two meals a day.

My real secret? Fencing.

Ah..

The phallic symbols there are horrifying.
The Parkus Empire
20-12-2007, 01:45
Ah..

The phallic symbols there are horrifying.

With a sabre? Not unless you have an extremely normal mind.
One World Alliance
20-12-2007, 02:05
With a sabre? Not unless you have an extremely normal mind.

does fencing really give you a good workout? (i'm asking in all seriousness, cause if so, it might be something worth looking into, cause let's face it guys, fencing is HAWT!!!) :)
The Parkus Empire
20-12-2007, 02:27
does fencing really give you a good workout? (i'm asking in all seriousness, cause if so, it might be something worth looking into, cause let's face it guys, fencing is HAWT!!!) :)

It generally does. Foil gives slightly less of one, and is more intellectual.

http://www.guildfordfencing.co.uk/pre_04_pics/fencing2003_0321_215621aa.jpg

Sabre and épée are much more athletic.

http://www.hudsonriverfencing.com/images/img_15.jpg

http://www.veterans-fencing.co.uk/wc2006/images/cover-kh.jpg

http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/3308646.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=BAA3E61C514E7EC6A5DAB01EBCFF367FA55A1E4F32AD3138

As for "HAWT!!!", no woman would come within a hundred yards of someone who has just come out of a competition. They smell like something out of Dante's Inferno.

Foil simulates gentlemanly swordplay.

Épée simulates rough soldier duels.

Sabre simulate hussar coarse--er, horseplay.
One World Alliance
20-12-2007, 02:36
It generally does. Foil gives slightly less of one, and is more intellectual.

http://www.guildfordfencing.co.uk/pre_04_pics/fencing2003_0321_215621aa.jpg

Sabre and épée are much more athletic.

http://www.hudsonriverfencing.com/images/img_15.jpg

http://www.veterans-fencing.co.uk/wc2006/images/cover-kh.jpg

http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/3308646.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=BAA3E61C514E7EC6A5DAB01EBCFF367FA55A1E4F32AD3138

As for "HAWT!!!", no woman would come within a hundred yards of someone who has just come out of a competition. They smell like something out of Dante's Inferno.

Foil simulates gentlemanly swordplay.

Épée simulates rough soldier duels.

Sabre simulate hussar coarse--er horseplay.


lol, well mate, i was speaking more about the concept of fencing, like a POTC type thing, other than actual, you know, real life..........so uh..........QUIT BURSTING MY BUBBLES!!!!!!!!
The Parkus Empire
20-12-2007, 02:46
lol, well mate, i was speaking more about the concept of fencing, like a POTC type thing, other than actual, you know, real life..........so uh..........QUIT BURSTING MY BUBBLES!!!!!!!!

Sabre fencers certainly resemble something out of Pirates of the Caribbean (it is the only sword that can cut.)

http://www.utahfencing.org/image_manager/sabre_pic_4.jpg

http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/1554616.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=17A4AD9FDB9CF19390335F8FA9CA92A699B0968C0E4AF36E9930FDCFC4C15FBB

http://images.nbcsports.com/uploads/gallery_photo/image/1088/468long/Mariel_Zagunis.jpg

http://www.prov.vic.gov.au/olympics/img/C2217_day12_full.jpg


The most realistic "sword fighting" movie ever made (in my and my coach's opinion) is The Duellists.
http://www.hellinahandbasket.net/ribbonsword-thumb.JPG

That is "smallsword" (much like foil) dueling but there is also good sabre dueling in the movie.
SoWiBi
20-12-2007, 08:46
That's not how it works. You're doing it wrong.
Says who? I very much challenge your authority!

Happy you may be, but gay never more.

I'll bi happy with what I've got, and that's enough ;P

I never liked lilac anyway.

A pun? Moi?

Hm, maybe you can bi happiness after all?

I hate to say it, but: Oh, lol.

My memory tells me you're lesbian. I don't like it when my memory lies to me. :(

You don't like your memory lying to you about me.. Well now imagine how dreadful it is when your own perception of yourself 'lies' to you!

What the....

I thought...

You said...

But aren't you...

Sheesh!

Well, umm. Well, umm, you know. There are men you cannot possibly resist?

I have a BF! :D We've only been together for like a month though.

Hey, I didn't know that. Congrats!
Barringtonia
20-12-2007, 09:07
3 and a half years in and s'all good.
SoWiBi
20-12-2007, 09:13
3 and a half years in and s'all good.

Well congrats Mr Ringtone! (sorry, had to get that out there one more time)
Wilgrove
20-12-2007, 09:28
Right now I am in a relationship, but really because I don't want to break up with her right before Christmas. So I'm going to break up with her after Christmas but probably before New Years, since I don't care about New Year that much. We had another fight tonight, I just basically got tired of reassuring her and reassuring her that I didn't keep my voice or temper in control.
Barringtonia
20-12-2007, 09:39
Well congrats Mr Ringtone! (sorry, had to get that out there one more time)

Hard to know whether to say thanks or damn you.

Though congratulations back, part of the reason it's been 3 and a half years is that she's essentially my best friend so you've good precedence.

Right now I am in a relationship, but really because I don't want to break up with her right before Christmas. So I'm going to break up with her after Christmas but probably before New Years, since I don't care about New Year that much. We had another fight tonight, I just basically got tired of reassuring her and reassuring her that I didn't keep my voice or temper in control.

Reassuring her that you don't want to break up with her?

Merry Christmas everybody!
Wilgrove
20-12-2007, 09:44
Reassuring her that you don't want to break up with her?

Merry Christmas everybody!

I have to reassure her on everything! Am I pretty, am I'm good enough, am I nice enough, and on and on and on. I actually started to chuckle a little every time she talks about us being together forever. (Keep in mind, we've only been dating for two months.) Yes, keeping composure until after Christmas is hard to do, but 1. She told me if we break up, to wait till after Christmas and 2. like I said, I want her to have at least one Christmas with a boyfriend.

For those of you who's wondering, the reason I'm breaking up with her is that she is too clingy, she's already talking about marriage, she has serious trust issues (always asking what I'm doing, with who, etc.), and she worries wayyy too much. However, what breaks the camel back in this one is that she just won't get any help, and I'm sorry but I can't be with someone who won't get help for their problems.
SoWiBi
20-12-2007, 09:56
Hard to know whether to say thanks or damn you.
In dubio pro optimo?

Though congratulations back, part of the reason it's been 3 and a half years is that she's essentially my best friend so you've good precedence.

Thanks for the vote of confidence :] Though yeah, I think the fact that we've lived together as close friends for nearly a year now and have spent a lot of time and energy working out problems in that friendship relationship before we made this step will be a rather, uh, stabilizing factor? I very much know who I'm with, and what he's like in all kinds of situations, and what our problems with and without each other are right from the first minute of the relationship, and that's definitely a pro.
Barringtonia
20-12-2007, 10:00
I have to reassure her on everything! Am I pretty, am I'm good enough, am I nice enough, and on and on and on. I actually started to chuckle a little every time she talks about us being together forever. (Keep in mind, we've only been dating for two months.) Yes, keeping composure until after Christmas is hard to do, but 1. She told me if we break up, to wait till after Christmas and 2. like I said, I want her to have at least one Christmas with a boyfriend.

For those of you who's wondering, the reason I'm breaking up with her is that she is too clingy, she's already talking about marriage, she has serious trust issues (always asking what I'm doing, with who, etc.), and she worries wayyy too much. However, what breaks the camel back in this one is that she just won't get any help, and I'm sorry but I can't be with someone who won't get help for their problems.

A tragic place to be, it hurts to hurt someone and I don't envy you one bit.

Good luck and have as merry a Christmas as you can I guess.
Barringtonia
20-12-2007, 10:09
In dubio pro optimo?

Omnia mihi lingua graeca sunt
Esoteric Wisdom
20-12-2007, 10:16
In a relationship with a lovely but disturbingly controlling and insecure girl. If I was anyone else I probably would've brushed her off a while ago. Maybe I'm just too patient...
SoWiBi
20-12-2007, 10:16
Omnia mihi lingua graeca sunt

Hehe. Those things always have a special funniness to them, like when the first thing you learn in whatever language is "I'm sorry but I don't speak this language". Works especially well if you have a knack for a good pronunciation right from the start.
Nipeng
20-12-2007, 10:22
On the bright side, guys are usually okay with being turned down once you say, "My last boyfriend abused me and I have lots and lots and lots of emotional baggage because of it. Do you want to help me work through it all?" ;)
It sometimes pays wonderfully :)
In love since 9/11 2004, married since 9/10 2005, two children :D (no, not "and counting" ;))
RomeW
20-12-2007, 10:46
Tragically single.

Nothing at all tragic about it (unless there actually is a death, in which case I apologize). Trust me, relationships aren't worth it unless you've really hit a home run- and that's extremely hard to do.

As far as the OP goes: yes I'm single, but I've had one long-term relationship (lasted almost two years and ended a little over two years ago). Having had the relationship experience and returning back to singledom I've realized it's not so bad- the freedom is pretty nice, and I've consigned myself to saying I won't enter a relationship unless I won't "feel" constrained.

You know, ever since my relationship experience I've concluded "relationships" are all just a state of mind- since it involves a certain kind of bond, it's not something that can come when you'd like it to- it's got to come naturally, and making a declaration that you have such a bond with someone is worthless if it truly doesn't exist.
Cabra West
20-12-2007, 11:10
In a relationship, for nearly 2 years now.
And he's starting to get broody now... there may soon be a good few little Cabras running around.
Ryadn
20-12-2007, 11:25
Married. Just passed one year. Don't know if we'll make it to two.

This thread is not making me feel optimistic! And my boy is already marriage-phobic. -_-
Ryadn
20-12-2007, 11:31
Massive amounts of masturbation, and/or pretending like he doesn't ever want to have sex anyway?

It's a lot easier to pretend when you never have... no one craves chocolate if they've never tasted it, right? Then you go and eat it and you sit around thinking chocolatechocolatechocolate all day. Maybe that's just me. :P
Ryadn
20-12-2007, 11:37
I have never been in a relationship, never kissed, never flirted, and never will, and who really gives a toss, after all;

Relationships are a great waste of time and resources. I would much rather spend my time and money on other more interesting things than chicks who will leech you for what it is worth and dump you once they have got their fill.

It's hard to believe you haven't reeled anyone in with that line yet. -_- Maybe you should pay more attention to the rest of the girls in the world who are genuine people. We do exist.
Alavamaa
20-12-2007, 11:45
That's odd... my ex moved to the United Kingdom and never returned, which is what killed our relationship.

And I left my ex in UK and never returned..so everything is in balance
Nobel Hobos
20-12-2007, 11:52
Just reading the post about the guy who can't get laid and wondered what everybody's relationship status is on here

Any guy can get laid, all he needs is a full-body wax and enough money for the first three drinks in a gay bar.

Seriously, your poll doesn't include "celibate/asexual/keep that nasty relationship thing the hell away from me." It should have, really.

Perhaps I should have voted the last option, but ... cause and effect. I spend so much time here because I'm not in a relationship, not vice versa.

Oh, and go to hell.
Alexandrian Ptolemais
20-12-2007, 11:53
It's hard to believe you haven't reeled anyone in with that line yet. -_- Maybe you should pay more attention to the rest of the girls in the world who are genuine people. We do exist.

lol; to carry on with the fishing anology, I haven't even cast the line out yet. It is a matter of finding the genuine people; and the major problem is that the genuine people tend to be snapped up very quickly and are highly competed for. Combine genuine with good looks, and it is even worse. Even then, when you are going out with a girl, they cost money and time. Dinners, movies, et cetera; I don't have that kind of money, and I am a little like Scrooge (admittedly), and for me, I prefer to use my time for other things.

awwww, sounds like you had a bad experience :(

No, it actually wasn't me with the bad experience. As I said before, it wasn't a bad experience, I just came to the realisation last year that relationships were a waste of time. I believe that much of it was inspired by seeing my friend end up in a relationship that leeched a lot of him that suddenly ended.

i had a really bad experience this year too, but from it I learned to not settle but wait for the right person to come along, otherwise you're just shooting blanks in the good ol' game of love :D

I am not even interested in shooting in the game of love. I have other, more interesting things that I like to invest my time into.
Nobel Hobos
20-12-2007, 12:09
No, it actually wasn't me with the bad experience. As I said before, it wasn't a bad experience, I just came to the realisation last year that relationships were a waste of time. I believe that much of it was inspired by seeing my friend end up in a relationship that leeched a lot of him that suddenly ended.

"The mediocre person learns from their own experience. The sage learns also from the experience of others. The fool learns from neither."

Without experience, though, you don't know which you are.

Please don't take offence, like most of my 'personal' comments, this one is at least half confession.
Cabra West
20-12-2007, 12:22
lol; to carry on with the fishing anology, I haven't even cast the line out yet. It is a matter of finding the genuine people; and the major problem is that the genuine people tend to be snapped up very quickly and are highly competed for. Combine genuine with good looks, and it is even worse. Even then, when you are going out with a girl, they cost money and time. Dinners, movies, et cetera; I don't have that kind of money, and I am a little like Scrooge (admittedly), and for me, I prefer to use my time for other things.


:rolleyes:

Sorry, I usually try to refrain from using that smilie, but that post just deserved it.
Why would girls cost money? Because you feel obliged to pay when doing something together? Why?
I've been on dates with people who thought like that, but never on more than 2... it annoyed the hell out of me. Girls do have their own money and are more than happy to pay for you just as much as you pay for them. Many would find it highly insulting if a guy insisted on paying all the time (I know I did).
I know there are others around who are more than happy to let the bloke pay, but there's a really simple rule on dating them : Don't.


No, it actually wasn't me with the bad experience. As I said before, it wasn't a bad experience, I just came to the realisation last year that relationships were a waste of time. I believe that much of it was inspired by seeing my friend end up in a relationship that leeched a lot of him that suddenly ended.


No argument there, it can happen. But avoiding the other sex just because there are risks is a bit like not leaving the house because you might get run over in the street.
It happens, sure, but life goes on.
Bouitazia
20-12-2007, 12:25
Single, And have been for about, 5-6 years. (also, a virgin)

There is a high probability that it´s because I have rather high standards.
(or that I´m reclusive and other people tend to view me as a bit odd.)
Laerod
20-12-2007, 12:53
It generally does. Foil gives slightly less of one, and is more intellectual.

Sabre and épée are much more athletic.Filthy lies. Sabre is the most intense, with foil at a close second. Epée is all about waiting for the other guy to make a mistake, and unless both fencers are really good at it, it tends to be very, very slow.


As for "HAWT!!!", no woman would come within a hundred yards of someone who has just come out of a competition. They smell like something out of Dante's Inferno.Obviously your team isn't mixed :p
Chandelier
20-12-2007, 12:55
Never had one.

Same here, never wanted one.

Seriously, your poll doesn't include "celibate/asexual/keep that nasty relationship thing the hell away from me." It should have, really.

*nods*
Laerod
20-12-2007, 12:58
You don't like your memory lying to you about me.. Well now imagine how dreadful it is when your own perception of yourself 'lies' to you!My personality isn't my most prized posession on these forums :D
SoWiBi
20-12-2007, 13:10
Even then, when you are going out with a girl, they cost money and time. Dinners, movies, et cetera; I don't have that kind of money, and I am a little like Scrooge (admittedly), and for me, I prefer to use my time for other things.

I can't and won't contest the "time for other things" part, but as far as the money goes, I'm with Cabra. WTF?

First of all, I prefer to do things on dates that don't cost (much) money, read: I don't do things much differently (locationwise) than I do with friends, i.e. go to my or their place and talk/cook/bake/do games/whatever, go for walks/biking/whatever, or low-cost things one'd do anyways every once in a while, like go swimming, to a party, or things like that. The most I've ever done is go for a coffee/hot chocolate, but I'd never even dream of going to a restaurant.

That, and secondly, I also agree that dumping (and accepting!) the payload on one person exclusively is utter bullshit. I myself don't go for any of such sentimentality and will always go Dutch (and I'm a woman), but I know plenty couples who need the feeling of togetherness they feel not paying separately creates, but then thy either alternate paying for successive dates, or they pay different parts of the date, i.e. "you pay for the movie tickets and I get the refreshments".

As Cabra said: People (of unspecified gender) who insist on/expect one person to pay everything aren't really worth dating (unless you actively and consciously only pursue a night of getting laid, in which case you can just see the money spent as the price).
SoWiBi
20-12-2007, 13:11
My personality isn't my most prized possession on these forums :D

What is, then? Your post count? ;P
Cabra West
20-12-2007, 13:13
What is, then? Your post count? ;P

Animal magnetism

:D :p
Nobel Hobos
20-12-2007, 13:13
I have a BF!

Lucky fella. No jealousy here, but if he dumps you, revenge is just a telegram away ...

(/creepy internet "friend")
Laerod
20-12-2007, 13:15
What is, then? Your post count? ;PNo, my memory. Postcount comes second :p
Laerod
20-12-2007, 13:16
Animal magnetism

:D :p
That's... I... what?
:confused:
Nobel Hobos
20-12-2007, 13:21
If I gave any less of a fuck, I'd be a virgin again!
SoWiBi
20-12-2007, 13:21
Animal magnetism

:D :p

Our scrawny little Laerod (http://www.forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13296164&postcount=15)? Nah. *pats*

No, my memory. Postcount comes second :p

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Good memory in re other posters of your own, non-USAian nationality doesn't count. It's when you can actually remember bits about USAian posters and keep them apart reasonably well is when good memory starts.
Nobel Hobos
20-12-2007, 13:25
Animal magnetism

If you can pull the puma at your local zoo, you have animal magnetism.

Now, whether that's Good, or Bad ...
Cabra West
20-12-2007, 13:26
If you can pull the puma at your local zoo, you have animal magnetism.

Now, whether that's Good, or Bad ...

Nothing wrong with big pussies, IMHO
SoWiBi
20-12-2007, 13:27
If you can pull the puma at your local zoo, you have animal magnetism.

Oh, I always thought it was when you have all the rats and 'roaches cling to you..

..must be my not being a native speaker. Again.
Nobel Hobos
20-12-2007, 13:31
Oh, I always thought it was when you have all the rats and 'roaches cling to you..

Insects are OK, I guess. Not very cuddly, but I guess they die before you get sick of them so that's an upside ...
SoWiBi
20-12-2007, 13:33
Insects are OK, I guess. Not very cuddly, but I guess they die before you get sick of them so that's an upside ...

Insects not cuddly? Think bumblebees!

...
Nobel Hobos
20-12-2007, 13:33
Nothing wrong with big pussies, IMHO

... so long as they are liberal. Big liberal pussies ... MEOOWWRW!
Nobel Hobos
20-12-2007, 13:38
Insects not cuddly? Think bumblebees!

...

Awww. Furry insects!
Now you're just playing with me. Squeek!Heh, I didn't know about that either until I tried it.
SoWiBi
20-12-2007, 13:48
Awww. Furry insects!
Now you're just playing with me. Squeek!Heh, I didn't know about that either until I tried it.

You might want to not put the spoiler text in white lest you spoil the experience, so to say. Ain't we punny today?

And: When have I not been playing with [insert generic NSG poster]?
Bottle
20-12-2007, 13:49
lol; to carry on with the fishing anology, I haven't even cast the line out yet. It is a matter of finding the genuine people; and the major problem is that the genuine people tend to be snapped up very quickly and are highly competed for. Combine genuine with good looks, and it is even worse. Even then, when you are going out with a girl, they cost money and time. Dinners, movies, et cetera; I don't have that kind of money, and I am a little like Scrooge (admittedly), and for me, I prefer to use my time for other things.

So, you self-select only for women who will demand that you spend money on them, then you bitch that dating is too expensive?

Um, boo hoo for you?


No, it actually wasn't me with the bad experience. As I said before, it wasn't a bad experience, I just came to the realisation last year that relationships were a waste of time. I believe that much of it was inspired by seeing my friend end up in a relationship that leeched a lot of him that suddenly ended.

Sounds like you need smarter friends.


I am not even interested in shooting in the game of love. I have other, more interesting things that I like to invest my time into.
On behalf of the female population, allow me to extend my heartfelt gratitude.
Fassitude
20-12-2007, 14:07
Says who? I very much challenge your authority!

This is not a cheerocracy! I am the cheertator and your request as to address of grievance is denied.

I'll bi happy with what I've got, and that's enough ;P

Oxymoron and doubly non-existent entity.

I never liked lilac anyway.

See, the truth will out. "Never!" Like you never really liked candles, anyway, right? You've always been heterosexual, admit it. Ugh, it churns my stomach just thinking about it...
Nobel Hobos
20-12-2007, 14:17
*snip replies to Alex Pto*

Never mind that, there's a big pile of naked people over here!
Nobel Hobos
20-12-2007, 14:43
Never mind that, there's a big pile of naked people over here!

No, really, Bottle. People are being nice to each other here. It's a thread about Relationships, and if you think that's a cut-and-thrust, personal-is-political battleground ... then take it up with your boyfriend.

I assume that, with your strong consciousness of the issues, you have chosen a robust partner who can take some criticism. Who is a match for you, as it were.

Stick the boot into Alexandrian Ptolemais, and you can expect random attacks from me for months or weeks to come. I've had no private communications with AP, but he pops up in the threads I read (time-zones! geography, still!) and I think he's growing up just fine without ... you know.
Jello Biafra
20-12-2007, 14:46
It's a thread about Relationships, and if you think that's a cut-and-thrust...I don't know about Bottle's relationships, but there's plenty of thrusting in mine. ;)
Nobel Hobos
20-12-2007, 14:48
Sounds like you need smarter friends.

This, however, I endorse.

Making friends with smart people is difficult, but well worth while. :)
Cabra West
20-12-2007, 14:53
No, really, Bottle. People are being nice to each other here. It's a thread about Relationships, and if you think that's a cut-and-thrust, personal-is-political battleground ... then take it up with your boyfriend.

I assume that, with your strong consciousness of the issues, you have chosen a robust partner who can take some criticism. Who is a match for you, as it were.

Stick the boot into Alexandrian Ptolemais, and you can expect random attacks from me for months or weeks to come. I've had no private communications with AP, but he pops up in the threads I read (time-zones! geography, still!) and I think he's growing up just fine without ... you know.

I have to agree with her to some extend... if you pick a girl who wants you to pay for her, don't moan if you end up paying. It's not as if there wasn't a choice, is it?
Claiming that relationships are not worth while cause they cost a lot of money is a very silly statement indeed.
Extreme Ironing
20-12-2007, 14:56
Single, due to slight disinterest, general shyness, and previous rejections whenever I've 'made a move' (though I'm particularly bad at that, even after the months I will have spent deliberating over it, am very good at fucking up social situations).
Neesika
20-12-2007, 14:56
No, really, Bottle. People are being nice to each other here. It's a thread about Relationships, and if you think that's a cut-and-thrust, personal-is-political battleground ... then take it up with your boyfriend.

Ummm...so as part of 'people being nice', those that are making insulting generalisations about (mostly) women get a pass?

Fuck that, to be frank. Or Shirley. Whichever you prefer.

Hopefully, people making these generalisations can be challenged to reconsider them consciously and critically, so as to not continue perpetrating stereotypes which are frankly harmful to both genders.
Jello Biafra
20-12-2007, 14:58
Single, due to slight disinterest, general shyness, and previous rejections whenever I've 'made a move' (though I'm particularly bad at that, even after the months I will have spent deliberating over it, am very good at fucking up social situations).There seems to be an epidemic of that sort of thing here. Perhaps the NSers with this problem should get together (in cyberspaceland) and practice flirting with each other? Perhaps that'll let them see what works and what doesn't?
Bottle
20-12-2007, 14:58
No, really, Bottle. People are being nice to each other here.

So continue on fluffling one another. Nobody's stopping you.


It's a thread about Relationships, and if you think that's a cut-and-thrust, personal-is-political battleground ... then take it up with your boyfriend.

I could say that it's a discussion forum and not a hook-up chat room, and that if you think this is the place to roll around in virtual nudity with others then you should probably go spend time with your significant other instead. But I don't feel entitled to tell other people how they may and may not participate on this public forum, so I won't waste my time on that. :D


I assume that, with your strong consciousness of the issues, you have chosen a robust partner who can take some criticism. Who is a match for you, as it were.

You should probably also have assumed that my partner doesn't actually require my "criticism" on these subjects, seeing as how I am unlikely to waste my time dating somebody who actually needed to have fundamentals of reality explained to him.


Stick the boot into Alexandrian Ptolemais, and you can expect random attacks from me for months or weeks to come.

(He don't know me vewy well, do he?)


I've had no private communications with AP, but he pops up in the threads I read (time-zones! geography, still!) and I think he's growing up just fine without ... you know.
While I'm sure AP appreciates your patronizing and paternalistic attitude toward his maturation process, I'm going to assume that he's a big enough boy to be able to deal with my words on his own. I'll let him fight his own battles.
Bottle
20-12-2007, 15:02
Ummm...so as part of 'people being nice', those that are making insulting generalisations about (mostly) women get a pass?
"Nice" = "Assume that the individuals making ignorant and sexist comments are too emotionally fragile to handle frank discussion of their remarks."
Mott Haven
20-12-2007, 15:32
I have to agree with her to some extend... if you pick a girl who wants you to pay for her, don't moan if you end up paying. It's not as if there wasn't a choice, is it?


Less of a choice than we might think. We are what nature has designed us to be, via God, Evolution or both, take your pick. For ten million years females have been choosing males who are strong providers. Once upon a time men impressed women by killing an animal and bringing it back for her to eat. Now, it's different, but really, still the same. Women have an instinct: Good men will give them stuff. Millions of years in Africa beat it into them. The guy who doesn't want to bust his rump hunting and gathering for her because he doesn't feel it's "worth it" is not going to bust his rump hunting and gathering for the children- whether that is true or false in any individual case does not matter because the woman knows this in her DNA. So she is instinctively drawn to to the same things her great-great great etc etc grandmother was: the guy who gives her stuff.

Much makes more sense when you remember we are still part animal- humanity lies where Rising Ape meets Falling Angel. Sometimes, embrace the animal within. You want the woman? Do what the animals do: prove yourself worthy by building the better nest, being a better provider, or demonstrating your status as a leader.
Nobel Hobos
20-12-2007, 15:34
"Nice" = "Assume that the individuals making ignorant and sexist comments are too emotionally fragile to handle frank discussion of their remarks."

Third time lucky. That is exactly what I think.

Push him into a corner if it pleases you. Just ... watch your back.

*bows in a creepy martial-arts way*
*retires from the forum for now*
Bottle
20-12-2007, 15:36
Less of a choice than we might think. We are what nature has designed us to be, via God, Evolution or both, take your pick.

*Brace for incoming bunk*


For ten million years females have been choosing males who are strong providers.

*BUNK ALERT! BUNK ALERT!*

For all of human history, both males and females have been choosing mates who are strong providers. This is because both males and females benefit when their mate is able to provide for their offspring. Males who choose helpless, dependent females are far less likely to have successful offspring, as are females who choose helpless and dependent males.


Once upon a time men impressed women by killing an animal and bringing it back for her to eat. Now, it's different, but really, still the same. Women have an instinct: Good men will give them stuff. Millions of years in Africa beat it into them. The guy who doesn't want to bust his rump hunting and gathering for her because he doesn't feel it's "worth it" is not going to bust his rump hunting and gathering for the children- whether that is true or false in any individual case does not matter because the woman knows this in her DNA. So she is instinctively drawn to to the same things her great-great great etc etc grandmother was: the guy who gives her stuff.

Because, of course, never throughout human history have women provided their own "stuff," nor have males ever desired a mate who is capable of pulling her own weight and providing their offspring with "stuff" on her own...

No, the females have always sat in the cave tending the fire while the males went out to hunt mammoth.

We know this thanks to extensive study of anthropological records known as "The Flintstones."


Much makes more sense when you remember we are still part animal- humanity lies where Rising Ape meets Falling Angel. Sometimes, embrace the animal within. You want the woman? Do what the animals do: prove yourself worthy by building the better nest, being a better provider, or demonstrating your status as a leader.
If you choose to follow this advice, be aware that you give up your bitching rights when it turns out that you've selected a mate who is only using you for your paycheck. You have intentionally self-selected a female who will desire you as a provider, so when she behaves like a "gold digger" you get to shut the hell up and take it because you were the one who decided to have a relationship on those terms. If you choose to try to blame all of womankind for your poor relationship choices, you will be summarily raspberried.
Cabra West
20-12-2007, 15:41
Less of a choice than we might think. We are what nature has designed us to be, via God, Evolution or both, take your pick. For ten million years females have been choosing males who are strong providers. Once upon a time men impressed women by killing an animal and bringing it back for her to eat. Now, it's different, but really, still the same. Women have an instinct: Good men will give them stuff. Millions of years in Africa beat it into them. The guy who doesn't want to bust his rump hunting and gathering for her because he doesn't feel it's "worth it" is not going to bust his rump hunting and gathering for the children- whether that is true or false in any individual case does not matter because the woman knows this in her DNA. So she is instinctively drawn to to the same things her great-great great etc etc grandmother was: the guy who gives her stuff.

Much makes more sense when you remember we are still part animal- humanity lies where Rising Ape meets Falling Angel. Sometimes, embrace the animal within. You want the woman? Do what the animals do: prove yourself worthy by building the better nest, being a better provider, or demonstrating your status as a leader.

Well, I'm in a bit of a dilemma here... it does make sense what you say, certainly. I just know it not to be true for myself, and for a good few other females I know.
In the nearly 2 years I've been with my BF now, I can honestly say that the exchange was mutual : He gave me a few presents, I gave him a few. I think it would work out as just about equal, maybe me giving a little more (he's really tightfisted, but I don't care. I tend to spend a little too much, so I figure he's a good influence)
In all successful relationships I've seen so far, that has been more or less the same.
Bottle
20-12-2007, 15:46
Well, I'm in a bit of a dilemma here... it does make sense what you say, certainly. I just know it not to be true for myself, and for a good few other females I know.
Well clearly evolution just skipped over you and those other females! Not to mention skipping over me, my mother, both my grandmothers, all of my aunts, and all my female friends and coworkers.

Hmm.

You know, that almost makes it seem like females aren't innately wired to want a male provider! It's almost as if femaleness and dependency aren't inherently linked. As if a man could, if he wanted, find a female partner who neither required nor particularly desired a male provider, and could instead find a woman who was quite willing and able to take care of herself.

Odd, that.
Mott Haven
20-12-2007, 16:07
Well clearly evolution just skipped over you and those other females! Not to mention skipping over me, my mother, both my grandmothers, all of my aunts, and all my female friends and coworkers.

Hmm.

You know, that almost makes it seem like females aren't innately wired to want a male provider! It's almost as if femaleness and dependency aren't inherently linked. .

It is. It's just buried down very deep, in the genes, and even though it plays its part it doesn't trickle up to consciousness. Most of what our consciousness does is justify post facto the choices already made on deeper levels anyway. But rest assured, a sizable part of your choice of boyfriend, or the choices in mates of 99% of the population, was an unconscious evaluation including "what can he contribute to the offspring".

This is why you never, ever, see a lonely billionaire even if he's past his seventies and looks like a troll. This is also why the troll-billionaire's model wife is sleeping with the carpenter. Unconsiously, she sized up the carpenter as being able to contribute something the billionaire can't: really good genes promoting strength and health. She might not beleive it. She might deny it, and say things like "there's chemistry" or "we resonate on an intellectual level", and she would not be lying because at the conscious level, this is how the unconscious choices played out, but still, there it is. The animal is in there.

We are genetically 98% chimp.

And about 50% banana. (New Scientist, 1 July 2000, pp4-5)
Jello Biafra
20-12-2007, 16:11
We are genetically 98% chimp. You do realize that bonobos, (one species of chimpanzee) have a female-dominated hierarchy, right?
Smunkeeville
20-12-2007, 16:21
You do realize that bonobos, (one species of chimpanzee) have a female-dominated hierarchy, right?

it's because they have been socialized out of their natural roles, genetically they know that the penis havers are supposed to be in charge. btw, aren't those the gay ones? I mean srsly.
Cabra West
20-12-2007, 16:31
it's because they have been socialized out of their natural roles, genetically they know that the penis havers are supposed to be in charge. btw, aren't those the gay ones? I mean srsly.

I think they'll pretty much hump everything that won't/can't run away...
Bottle
20-12-2007, 16:31
It is. It's just buried down very deep, in the genes, and even though it plays its part it doesn't trickle up to consciousness.

I'm sure that any second now you will present something--anything--to support your little theory.


Most of what our consciousness does is justify post facto the choices already made on deeper levels anyway. But rest assured, a sizable part of your choice of boyfriend, or the choices in mates of 99% of the population, was an unconscious evaluation including "what can he contribute to the offspring".

To be sure, instinct does play a role in mate selection. But so far you've presented precisely zero evidence that females are any more strongly inclined toward finding a "provider" than males are.


This is why you never, ever, see a lonely billionaire even if he's past his seventies and looks like a troll.

Also true of wealthy women.

Amazingly, it seems that both male and female humans recognize the value of money, and both male and female humans will sometimes select a mate based largely upon that mate's material assets.


This is also why the troll-billionaire's model wife is sleeping with the carpenter. Unconsiously, she sized up the carpenter as being able to contribute something the billionaire can't: really good genes promoting strength and health.

More likely, she is quite consciously aware that she is not particularly attracted to her husband, who only married her because he wanted a trophy wife anyhow, and she seeks out a partner who is closer to her own age and is more physically attractive.

Shocking as it may seem to you, females do experience physical attraction and a desire for good sex.

She might not beleive it. She might deny it, and say things like "there's chemistry" or "we resonate on an intellectual level", and she would not be lying because at the conscious level, this is how the unconscious choices played out, but still, there it is. The animal is in there.

I'm sure it's a comfort to you to tell yourself that your girlfriend left you because of inescapable animal instinct, rather than admitting that she just wasn't that into you.


We are genetically 98% chimp.

More recent data suggests it might be closer to 95%, but it's still a bit unclear.

Regardless, our closest genetic relatives are the bonobo chimpanzees, a matriarchal species which pretty much ignores all the 1950s sex stereotypes you are talking about. (For one thing, your heteronormativity is absolutely adorable. Among bonobos, the most common form of sexual activity is female-female sex.)
Smunkeeville
20-12-2007, 16:35
I think they'll pretty much hump everything that won't/can't run away...

it's obviously a plot by evil liberal scientists to make traditionalists look bad.
Mott Haven
20-12-2007, 16:53
You do realize that bonobos, (one species of chimpanzee) have a female-dominated hierarchy, right?


Yes.

Dominance in a relationship, and the reasons for choosing a mate, are two different things entirely.

It is a modern human convention to associate female dependency (which doesn't exist) and subervience (which is irrelevant to the issue) with the male role of provider/protector. Nothing more. In fact, a Bonobo, looking at a human female with her standard of living improved by a hard working male provider, and comparing her to a second human female who must do all the work alone because her male is a poor provider, would assume that the dominant one is the first female- who obviously got the choice of better mate!

No one ever said females can't provide (they can and do provide everything except one thing, and science will fix that soon enough.). The issue is, a female with a good providing male will have MORE than a female without, and while we modern, internet using humans are used to a life without any pressing physical needs, most wild creatures (and our ancestors) live in an environment where one meal can mean the difference between life and death.

Back in Africa 2 million years ago, female who has gained the services of a capable and dedicated male provider/protector stood a better chance of surviving than one who did not- and so did her CHILDREN- and that is how evolution works.

It works in Bonobos too. Female Bonobos choose mates based on instinctive "what's good for me and the children" calculations, and the dominant females get first pick.

And while the radars perked up at notions of female dependency, I note with some dismay that no one noticed the dependency is two-way. A male who chooses a female that relies on him to be sole active provider has a lower chance of reproductive success (meaning surviving children) than a male who chooses a capable female.

So in Humans, we have not one but TWO simultaneous modes of sexual selection going on, which really complicates things for us. You have males and females both angling for the best answer to "what can I get for me and the kids?".* But have you noticed how over the long term, couples with grossly mismatched levels of "providership" tend to have trouble? That's why.

The point is, it's not "Subservience" or "Dependency", it's animals acting on their instincts- Neutral behaviour.


*Yes, we (speaking for men) are turned on by Angelina Jolie because in our DNA, she matches an instinct level template for "healthy, strong mother, ample mammaries, probably a good resource for my children, and probably no parasites**, so good to sleep next to."


** a lot of the features men find attractive, like thick shiny hair and smooth, clear skin, are really nature's way of saying "no parasites here."
Imperio Mexicano
20-12-2007, 16:56
Single.
Just broke up with fiance of 18 months.

Shit. Sorry about that. :(


I'm in a relationship.
Mott Haven
20-12-2007, 17:05
I'm sure that any second now you will present something--anything--to support your little theory.


To be sure, instinct does play a role in mate selection. But so far you've presented precisely zero evidence that females are any more strongly inclined toward finding a "provider" than males are.


The very fact that you think I am headed in that direction tells me you see this solely through a narrow prism you have constructed. Nowhere will I tell you that females are "More" strongly inclined- only that they are.

Also true of wealthy women.

Amazingly, it seems that both male and female humans recognize the value of money, and both male and female humans will sometimes select a mate based largely upon that mate's material assets.


I'm More likely, she is quite consciously aware

Bingo. What we are consciously aware of is often only a surface shadow of what is going on. Just like, being consciously aware of a sudden need to throw up tells you nothing at all about the chemical reactions currently taking place in your digestive tract.



[QUOTE=Bottle;13307991


that she is not particularly attracted to her husband,[/QUOTE]

Right again. And the roots of that physical attraction, the causes, the things that a person attractive to another, do you think are:

A) God and/or the supernatural, choosing traits at random (that just happen to coincide with health) and calling them "attractive" or..

B) Evolution, Genetics, Nature, Science, all that stuff.

C) Sheer luck.
Khadgar
20-12-2007, 17:09
Homosexuals, evolution, and god. It's like the NSG trifecta here.
JuNii
20-12-2007, 17:33
Just reading the post about the guy who can't get laid and wondered what everybody's relationship status is on here

Single, but you should know that seeing as you were reading my posts... :p
Snafturi
20-12-2007, 17:55
Not single and with a fantastic person.
Extreme Ironing
20-12-2007, 17:56
There seems to be an epidemic of that sort of thing here. Perhaps the NSers with this problem should get together (in cyberspaceland) and practice flirting with each other? Perhaps that'll let them see what works and what doesn't?

Well, people often retreat to internet communication if they are no good at the in-person type. Half of it is body language and actions, and being online gives far too much time to think.
SoWiBi
20-12-2007, 20:05
This is not a cheerocracy! I am the cheertator and your request as to address of grievance is denied.
I've told you before that you're incredibly cute when you pull this kind of indignant act.

Oxymoron and doubly non-existent entity.
Bitter is not your color, darling.

See, the truth will out. "Never!" Like you never really liked candles, anyway, right? You've always been heterosexual, admit it. Ugh, it churns my stomach just thinking about it...
Did I ever mention he gives me candles as presents, and I'm loving it? See, he even gave me a couple of Elk paraphernalia and, here it comes, Elk candles! He's a good man alright.

Homosexuals, evolution, and god. It's like the NSG trifecta here.
The burning question now is whether they are a happy threesome, or whether one or more are an unhappy single crying in the corner because they others won't let them join in..
The Alma Mater
20-12-2007, 20:15
This is not a cheerocracy! I am the cheertator and your request as to address of grievance is denied.

Bring it on Fass ;p
SoWiBi
20-12-2007, 20:30
Bring it on Fass ;p

Against me? Cute.
Poliwanacraca
20-12-2007, 20:33
No, the females have always sat in the cave tending the fire while the males went out to hunt mammoth.

We know this thanks to extensive study of anthropological records known as "The Flintstones."


Every now and then, I just have to reiterate my love for the Bottle Smackdown. This is one of those times. :D
Free United States
20-12-2007, 20:34
single, and waiting for forgiveness ;_;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDvUuxwzW_w

note: this is my video...
New Birds
20-12-2007, 20:37
Singl, but slightly obsessed with, and completely pining over, a girl I'm good friends with. Pity she's not even at least bi or I'd have some sort of chance :(
Telesha
20-12-2007, 20:40
Every now and then, I just have to reiterate my love for the Bottle Smackdown. This is one of those times. :D

Yes, the Bottle Activated Orbital Bombardment is a wonder to behold...
Mad hatters in jeans
20-12-2007, 20:50
single, and waiting for forgiveness ;_;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDvUuxwzW_w

note: this is my video...

very creative, a little sad but that's cool.
try this one
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=jBWdRMQfjdo
REM-bad day.
:fluffle:
The Alma Mater
20-12-2007, 20:53
Against me? Cute.

Go watch the movie.
Fassitude
20-12-2007, 21:00
I've told you before that you're incredibly cute when you pull this kind of indignant act.

Cuteness is the purview of my people, as opposed to yours.

Bitter is not your color, darling.

I am not bitter - I am betrayed. To think you could dupe me so.

Did I ever mention he gives me candles as presents, and I'm loving it? See, he even gave me a couple of Elk paraphernalia and, here it comes, Elk candles! He's a good man alright.

You're loving your subterfuge, that's what you're loving.
Fassitude
20-12-2007, 21:01
Bring it on Fass ;p

Don't hate us 'cause we're beautiful, well we don't like you either, we're cheerleaders. Roll call! (http://youtube.com/watch?v=_7tTsV5Z8dQ)
Wilgrove
20-12-2007, 21:05
In a relationship with a lovely but disturbingly controlling and insecure girl. If I was anyone else I probably would've brushed her off a while ago. Maybe I'm just too patient...

Trust me on this, get out while you still can, get out before you go completely insane.
Soviestan
20-12-2007, 21:07
blissfully single
SoWiBi
20-12-2007, 21:15
Go watch the movie.
Unfortunately, I already have.

I am not bitter - I am betrayed. To think you could dupe me so.
Oh, you knew about it - actually, earlier than anybody else (how sad is that?), so you've had plenty of time to go tell you therapist and get the fuck over it by now. ;P
Fassitude
20-12-2007, 21:30
Oh, you knew about it - actually, earlier than anybody else (how sad is that?), so you've had plenty of time to go tell you therapist and get the fuck over it by now. ;P

Oh, I'm over it. I'm just not interested in letting you get over it.
Nipeng
20-12-2007, 21:36
Yes, the Bottle Activated Orbital Bombardment is a wonder to behold...
Even when it completely misses the target? And that happens often, since she aims from such an elevated position.
Am I seeing other posts than everyone else?
Or is the rest scared of BAOB?
SoWiBi
20-12-2007, 21:38
Oh, I'm over it. I'm just not interested in letting you get over it.

Oh, that. Well, I'm over you enough to not really care, so why don't we just hug and let it slide? 'Cause with that attitude, you'll never get the pics I once promised I'd solicit him for once I'd have him, IYR.
Fassitude
20-12-2007, 21:45
Oh, that.

Wait until you tell your mother.

Well, I'm over you enough to not really care, so why don't we just hug and let it slide?

Empty promises of calm and freedom.

'Cause with that attitude, you'll never get the pics I once promised I'd solicit him for once I'd have him, IYR.

I don't want them. I never did.
Telesha
20-12-2007, 21:57
Even when it completely misses the target? And that happens often, since she aims from such an elevated position.
Am I seeing other posts than everyone else?
Or is the rest scared of BAOB?

I said nothing regarding accuracy, that's something you'd have to take up with her rather than sniping at a periphery target.
SoWiBi
20-12-2007, 22:18
Wait until you tell your mother.
I'll try to prolong the time until that comes around as much as I possibly can. Oh Elk, the irony.
I don't want them. I never did.

Right, and I never liked candles. Gotcha.
Nipeng
20-12-2007, 22:22
I said nothing regarding accuracy, that's something you'd have to take up with her rather than sniping at a periphery target.
Sorry if you felt like a target. But I guess your and Poliwanacracas reaction was the last straw.
Yes, I too like to watch the righteous fire. But no, for me the sight of Bottle ripping the poster a new one because she chose to misinterpret his words in such a way as to make him a target is not a righteous smackdown.
Telesha
20-12-2007, 22:30
Sorry if you felt like a target. But I guess your and Poliwanacracas reaction was the last straw.
Yes, I too like to watch the righteous fire. But no, for me the sight of Bottle ripping the poster a new one because she chose to misinterpret his words in such a way as to make him a target is not a righteous smackdown.

Hence the image of an orbital bombardment: it's indiscriminate, overkill of the highest degree, and usually called down by a madman with a button...

That said,

She's passionate in her beliefs, I can respect that and find myself agreeing more often than not. I guess I just have a rather macabre sense of humor.
Poliwanacraca
20-12-2007, 22:37
Sorry if you felt like a target. But I guess your and Poliwanacracas reaction was the last straw.
Yes, I too like to watch the righteous fire. But no, for me the sight of Bottle ripping the poster a new one because she chose to misinterpret his words in such a way as to make him a target is not a righteous smackdown.

Honestly, I read that post the same way she did, and I've worked as an editor, so I'm at least a passable authority on "how words will generally be interpreted." The poster's later clarifications certainly helped, but the post Bottle initially responded to definitely came off sounding worthy of snarky smackdownification to me.

Besides, even unrighteous snark can still be entertaining, as long as you don't take things too, too seriously. ;)
Mad hatters in jeans
20-12-2007, 22:43
snip.

Who's this mightly bottle? and why am i plagued by images of a giant bottle of baby milk?

passionate about beliefs? well two can play at that game (well i suppose three as well, but lets keep it simple), hold on what sort of game am i talking about? i just hear it from spaghetti westerns.
sorry got a bit tangenital there, i'm immediatly suspicious of one person who seems better than others. usually because they aren't
Nipeng
21-12-2007, 00:04
She's passionate in her beliefs, I can respect that and find myself agreeing more often than not.
The problem is - ME TOO! And that was a bit like seeing my champion do something underhanded.

The poster's later clarifications certainly helped, but the post Bottle initially responded to definitely came off sounding worthy of snarky smackdownification to me.

I hang around this forum for quite a bit of time and recently I worry more and more that too often the posters choose to attack rather than to discuss, to punish the guilty rather than to seek mutual understanding. Maybe that's just me changing, becoming softer.


Besides, even unrighteous snark can still be entertaining, as long as you don't take things too, too seriously. ;)

Agreed, and I know I do, but this is a discussion forum after all, my favourite discussion forum, and to me the quality of discussion is a serious matter.
Nipeng
21-12-2007, 00:06
Who's this mightly bottle? and why am i plagued by images of a giant bottle of baby milk?
Just wait and see. If I'll be squashed I hope that it'll be at least entertaining. I mean, educational.
Nobel Hobos
21-12-2007, 00:07
Honestly, I read that post the same way she did, and I've worked as an editor, so I'm at least a passable authority on "how words will generally be interpreted." The poster's later clarifications certainly helped, but the post Bottle initially responded to definitely came off sounding worthy of snarky smackdownification to me.

No accident that! "God, evolution or both" was bound to attract attention.

Nice little campaign there. Almost ... persuasive?

Besides, even unrighteous snark can still be entertaining, as long as you don't take things too, too seriously. ;)

I guess.

...we're Flintstones, meet the Flintstones
They're the modern stone age family ...
Nobel Hobos
21-12-2007, 00:23
Don't worry, Bottle. The only martial arts move I know is Run Away, and a campaign of 'random attacks' would probably be indistinguishable from regular programming. ;)

... from the town of Bedrock,
they're a page right outa history ...

...yabba-dabba doo bie ...
Mad hatters in jeans
21-12-2007, 00:28
Don't worry, Bottle. The only martial arts move I know is Run Away, and a campaign of 'random attacks' would probably be indistinguishable from regular programming. ;)

... from the town of Bedrock,
they're a page right outa history ...

...yabba-dabba doo bie ...

oh no..he/she has started singing! help! i myself prefer rhymes, i before E except after C. Even if they are wrong half the time, god do i hate the English langauge, it's like a microsoft computer, yes it works but if you want it to look good you have to know about 100 other things each of which contradict each other but that's okay so long as it has big and pointless words.
Nobel Hobos
21-12-2007, 00:35
oh no..he/she has started singing! help! i myself prefer rhymes, i before E except after C. Even if they are wrong half the time, god do i hate the English langauge, it's like a microsoft computer, yes it works but if you want it to look good you have to know about 100 other things each of which contradict each other but that's okay so long as it has big and pointless words.

Microsoft don't make computers. If you don't recognize the distinction between software and hardware, you must be a mac loser. :p
But I do rather agree, English is a mongrel of a language.

DO NOT listen to the Flintstones jingle. It's horribly addictive, and you might well get arrested if someone takes "yabba dabba doo time" the wrong way.

EDIT: Nudist!

sorry got a bit tangenital there...
Poliwanacraca
21-12-2007, 00:41
DO NOT listen to the Flintstones jingle. It's horribly addictive, and you might well get arrested if someone takes "yabba dabba doo time" the wrong way.

I think you'd get in more trouble for offering them a "gay old time." It certainly didn't work out well for Larry Craig.
Nobel Hobos
21-12-2007, 00:50
I think you'd get in more trouble for offering them a "gay old time." It certainly didn't work out well for Larry Craig.

Better a gay old time than a gay underage time, I guess.

MHiJ is right though, there's totally the wrong number of syllables in each line. That's one reason it's not a good tune to get stuck in your head.

"av-er-ege" *shudder*
Boonytopia
21-12-2007, 09:05
Just got married 2 weeks ago.
East Rodan
21-12-2007, 09:39
This cute girl gave me her number about an hour ago.
Saxnot
21-12-2007, 12:47
Er... broke up with my last girlfriend about two months ago.
Not sure when stuff'll happen again. I'm just taking things as they come.
Saxnot
21-12-2007, 12:48
Just got married 2 weeks ago.

CONGRATULATIONS. :)
Bottle
21-12-2007, 13:10
Sorry if you felt like a target. But I guess your and Poliwanacracas reaction was the last straw.
Yes, I too like to watch the righteous fire. But no, for me the sight of Bottle ripping the poster a new one because she chose to misinterpret his words in such a way as to make him a target is not a righteous smackdown.
Please feel free to enlighten me. I'm sure that your interpretation of somebody else's words will doubtless be superior to mine. :D
Bottle
21-12-2007, 13:16
sorry got a bit tangenital there, i'm immediatly suspicious of one person who seems better than others. usually because they aren't
"Better" is a uselessly vague term.

I'm more experienced than many posters around here, which can be both advantage and disadvantage.

On the advantage side, I've seen most arguments 10 times over already, and I can make it seem like I'm reading the future because I generally can predict the direction a troll or noob is going to jump. My snark-fu is swift.

On the disadvantage side, I've got very little patience for the arguments I've seen 10 times over already. The Flintstones-as-anthropology crap about how women are "biologically" destined to be monogamous house fraus is something I've seen more times than I can count, and I now respond to it the same way I respond to any boring joke that has been repeated too many times. This leads me to be quite short with some people even if they are well-meaning newbies who have absolutely no way of knowing why they're getting snarked on.
Bottle
21-12-2007, 13:17
I hang around this forum for quite a bit of time and recently I worry more and more that too often the posters choose to attack rather than to discuss,

You say that as though they are mutually exclusive.
Boonytopia
21-12-2007, 13:17
CONGRATULATIONS. :)

Thanks. :)
B E E K E R
21-12-2007, 13:33
I used to play the field alot...more than alot in fact...but now im 34 ive decided to calm things down a little and ive just moved in with a lovely girl so we will see where this rabbit hole goes ;)
Nobel Hobos
21-12-2007, 14:15
I used to play the field alot...more than alot in fact...but now im 34 ive decided to calm things down a little and ive just moved in with a lovely girl so we will see where this rabbit hole goes ;)

Well, good luck with that. :)
Mad hatters in jeans
21-12-2007, 14:17
snip

Flame, flame, flame.
Nobel Hobos
21-12-2007, 14:29
Flame, flame, flame.

Er, a flame is where someone insults another poster, surely? Says something hurtful?

Bottle seemed to me to be ... well ... boasting. In the post you rather rudely snipped the entire content from.

It's not my battle, but I suggest that as a courtesy to other posters, so they have some clue what you're on about ... that you leave at least a few words intact.

See, I like to snip, just to (a) show what part of the post I'm answering, and (b) to keep quotes and quotes-of-quotes from taking too much space on the page. So I don't like seeing you use the *snip* as a weapon to dismiss another poster's words.
Nipeng
21-12-2007, 14:43
Please feel free to enlighten me. I'm sure that your interpretation of somebody else's words will doubtless be superior to mine. :D
No, I'm not gonna. It's not necessary to interpret it anyway, just look at his last post and tell me with a straight face you did not misinterpreted his first. Granted, at that time your experience might have told you that it's just another attempt to justify the male domination with pseudoscientific theories. But shouldn't the same experience warn you that just because it was true 99 times out of 100 dosn't mean it will be true always? Why jump to conclusions, why pin the blame on someone you haven't enough of an exchange with to know his position?
I don't think that attack and discussion are mutually exclusive, although I dislike conversations where one side attacks the other. I have enough agression around me as it stands, thank you very much. But I think we all would be better off if we more often tried to find also the points we agree on.
Nobel Hobos
21-12-2007, 14:48
I never really debate. This thread finds me at my worst, deliberately interfering and/or goading because the subject freaks me out.

"Hell, it is the other people."

So, I go now.
Bottle
21-12-2007, 14:49
No, I'm not gonna. It's not necessary to interpret it anyway, just look at his last post and tell me with a straight face you did not misinterpreted his first.

Okay.


Granted, at that time your experience might have told you that it's just another attempt to justify the male domination with pseudoscientific theories. But shouldn't the same experience warn you that just because it was true 99 times out of 100 dosn't mean it will be true always? Why jump to conclusions, why pin the blame on someone you haven't enough of an exchange with to know his position?

You seem to have a very black-and-white perception of this topic.

It's quite possible for a person to have some notions that are right, and others that are wrong. Some of the notions presented thus far have been bunk. Some have not. The fact that a person holds one particular bunk idea does not preclude them from holding non-bunk ideas.

I'm not interested in placing "blame," either.

When it comes to sex and relationships, I find that most people have some generally good ideas as well as a few not-so-good ideas. I also find that most people WANT to have good ideas, because most people want to be happy and have happy relationships. I know that's how I feel about it.

I think that relationships are also an important topic. Important topics deserve critical thinking. Yet relationships are a bit like religion, in that they're one of those topics that everybody seems to tip-toe around because they're scared of pissing somebody off. I think that's lame. I think a good topic deserves a good debate.

I think an internet forum is the ideal setting for such debate, because anybody who gets pissed off can simply not click into the thread any more.


I don't think that attack and discussion are mutually exclusive, although I dislike conversations where one side attacks the other. I have enough agression around me as it stands, thank you very much.

Then perhaps this isn't the forum for you? I'm not trying to be rude, here, but if you don't like seeing aggression or conversations in which one side attacks the other then this place probably will bum you out as often as not.

Feel free to just put me on your ignore list, though, if you feel that my words are too harsh.


But I think we all would be better off if we more often tried to find also the points we agree on.
What does that have to do with this? I've agreed with a number of people on many different points so far on this thread. I also disagree with some people, and I don't mince words about it.

Personally, I don't see the point in pretending to agree when we don't, or ignoring bunk when we see it. I wouldn't want anybody to pretend agreement with me or ignore mistakes when I make them, which is why I like this forum. I treat others as I would like to be treated myself.
Nipeng
21-12-2007, 15:31
You seem to have a very black-and-white perception of this topic.
Not the entire topic. But I have strong feelings about your exchange with Mott Haven. Perhaps because I was in his position more than once - being misunderstood - and it sucked.
I don't want to overanalize my own feelings right here and now. Let me just say this: I agree with you that the notion of women unconsciously choosing partners just because their inner monkey tells them that this one delivers a lot of food is bunk. But I also agree with MH (or rather my interpretation of his position) that people's choices are influenced by subconscious evaluation process we don't know a lot about and a big part of that evaluation is "how he/she will provide" because it was positively selected for during the course of evolution, when we were nothing but animals.
I think it can be and often is secondary to other factors and that's where we probably disagree with MH.
Regarding my vulnerabilities, I apologize for misleading you slightly. Actually, I have no problem with heated debate, I just suffer when I see a fight between people I respect.
Bottle
21-12-2007, 15:46
Not the entire topic. But I have strong feelings about your exchange with Mott Haven. Perhaps because I was in his position more than once - being misunderstood - and it sucked.

Fair enough.


I don't want to overanalize my own feelings right here and now. Let me just say this: I agree with you that the notion of women unconsciously choosing partners just because their inner monkey tells them that this one delivers a lot of food is bunk. But I also agree with MH (or rather my interpretation of his position) that people's choices are influenced by subconscious evaluation process we don't know a lot about and a big part of that evaluation is "how he/she will provide" because it was positively selected for during the course of evolution, when we were nothing but animals.

I also agreed with that.


I think it can be and often is secondary to other factors and that's where we probably disagree with MH.

Exactly.

As I said in my posted replies to MH, both males and females have experienced selective pressures that encourage us to seek capable mates. Both males and females are driving to select a physically healthy mate that will be capable of providing both good genes and also good material support for offspring.

What is bunk is when people try to twist this around to claim that human women select partners based primarily on "instinctive" evaluations of how well the partner will support them, or that human women subconsciously select males based on which one can bring home the biggest mammoth.


Regarding my vulnerabilities, I apologize for misleading you slightly. Actually, I have no problem with heated debate, I just suffer when I see a fight between people I respect.
For whatever it's worth, I wasn't viewing it as a fight. I'm harsh and blunt more often than not these days, but it's not actually meant as a show of personal hostility toward the individual I'm talking to. It's just because I'm a moody, impatient ass of late.
Nipeng
21-12-2007, 16:03
For whatever it's worth, I wasn't viewing it as a fight.
I suppose it looks differently from your side, but it's hard to see such exchanges as merely debating, especially when spectators talk about orbital bombardment... :D
Anyway - thank you for taking the time to explain your position.
Ashmoria
21-12-2007, 18:19
are you suggesting that bottle should "play nice" when responding to those who post bullshit?

not only is that "not bottle" its not right for anyone.

MH (and AP) suggested that women are inherent golddiggers and that men are inherent whoremongers--that women look for men who will give them stuff even when they dont particularly like those men and that men are inclined to buy the most attractive woman they can find regardless of her personality.

why shouldnt bottle rip him a new one?
Neo Art
21-12-2007, 19:01
As I said in my posted replies to MH, both males and females have experienced selective pressures that encourage us to seek capable mates. Both males and females are driving to select a physically healthy mate that will be capable of providing both good genes and also good material support for offspring.

What is bunk is when people try to twist this around to claim that human women select partners based primarily on "instinctive" evaluations of how well the partner will support them, or that human women subconsciously select males based on which one can bring home the biggest mammoth.

And how, exactly, is that "bunk"? I think you are rather wrong to suggest that selective pressures only play a role, if only subconciously, those matters that affect offspring. By saying those selective pressures merely drive us to find someone who will produce those children, and care for those children is, as I said, rather myopic. Yes, of course, a powerful drive in life is the production of offspring, it is, however, completely wrong to suggest that selective pressures can lead one only to select mates for the sake of good children, and not good lives.

After all, in order to produce life, one must live long enough to participate in the reproductive process. Therefore, as a matter of evolution and natural selection, it seems obvious that in a harsh cruel world, those traits that get passed down to healthy generations are not only those traits that helped the parents pick good partners to produce babies with, but the parents' skill at picking good partners that helped keep them along long enough to produce babies.

And if you're a woman, in a time frame sufficiently long ago for natural selection to have played a part in modern population, picking a good mate to provide for you meant one that brought home a mammoth. And if a woman picked a partner incapable of bringing home a mammoth, that woman fucking died. No children, no genetic legacy, and her poor ability to pick a man that could bring home food to keep her alive, died with her. Meanwhile her next cave neighbor, woh did pick a skilled hunter, lived, and survived, long enough to pass on her genetics, including her tendancy to go for men that could provide food to her.

So I think it's entirly absurd to admit that we have, through natural selection, evolved some degree of desire or motivation to find mates that will produce and provide for good children, but did not evolve any degree of desire or motivation to find mates that will provide for us. After all, natural selection requires production of children, who survive. So not only is it important to have good children, and support for those children, we need to survive long enough to do it.

So why would natural selection NOT select for those who, not only are capable of picking mates who will help not only care for your offspring, but care for YOU as well?
B E E K E R
21-12-2007, 19:07
MH (and AP) suggested that women are inherent golddiggers and that men are inherent whoremongers

dont you mean internet whoremongers ;)
Neo Art
21-12-2007, 19:22
and 18 year old swimsuit models.

I'm a super model. And I'm only 16. They said I had to get my parent's permission but I was all "whatever, I do what I want!"
Ashmoria
21-12-2007, 19:22
dont you mean internet whoremongers ;)

oh beeker we are ALL internet whoremongers

and whores

and 18 year old swimsuit models.

thats nothing to get into a fight about.
Nobel Hobos
22-12-2007, 00:48
And how, exactly, is that "bunk"? I think you are rather wrong to suggest that selective pressures only play a role, if only subconciously, in those matters that affect offspring.

Excellent. Now we're getting somewhere.

I will link to two posts, one by Mott Haven (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13308033), the other by Bottle (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13307914). I don't think either poster is trying to present a complete explanation, it's a discussion of the "breadwinning" aspect only.

By saying those selective pressures merely drive us to find someone who will produce those children, and care for those children is, as I said, rather myopic. Yes, of course, a powerful drive in life is the production of offspring, it is, however, completely wrong to suggest that selective pressures can lead one only to select mates for the sake of good children, and not good lives.

Yes. But why do people pair up anyway? It's the same reason there are two sexes.

I mean, if I was going to go risk my life fighting a mammoth, wouldn't I want a partner as strong and aggressive as myself, who could go fight alongside me? If there was a self-interest besides reproduction to forming pairs to support each other, wouldn't we have an urge to do that with someone regardless of their sex?

The obvious example is left to people who understand homosexuality better than I do.

After all, in order to produce life, one must live long enough to participate in the reproductive process. Therefore, as a matter of evolution and natural selection, it seems obvious that in a harsh cruel world, those traits that get passed down to healthy generations are not only those traits that helped the parents pick good partners to produce babies with, but the parents' skill at picking good partners that helped keep them along long enough to produce babies.

... and kept them alive long enough to raise those babies to a viable age. Human offspring are very vulnerable and dependent (perhaps the attachment of both parents to the children is a kind of insurance policy, a 'backup parent.')

And if you're a woman, in a time frame sufficiently long ago for natural selection to have played a part in modern population, picking a good mate to provide for you meant one that brought home a mammoth.

Here we disagree. Humans have been social animals since before we were human. The men hunted in packs, the women worked just as hard and needed to co-operate with each other too.

The very example of the mammoth is telling. Try dragging a dead mammoth anywhere. A person's share of the kill or the gather depended on their status in the tribe ... and the sickly but intelligent/educated healer got a bigger share of mammoth than the number three mammoth-bludgeoner.

So in looking for a mate, people are not just looking for a healthy and strong individual, they're looking for an individual with high social status, or the potential for that. In the modern age, income is one measure of that ... and we're going to find it difficult to seperate the person who is a "good provider" from the person who "climbs the social ladder."

And if a woman picked a partner incapable of bringing home a mammoth, that woman fucking died. No children, no genetic legacy, and her poor ability to pick a man that could bring home food to keep her alive, died with her. Meanwhile her next cave neighbor, who did pick a skilled hunter, lived, and survived, long enough to pass on her genetics, including her tendancy to go for men that could provide food to her.

Woa, you are in danger of getting entangled in the Flintstones fallacy.

For some idea of how hunters and gatherers lived in prehistory, look at nomadic tribes who persisted into current times. Women provide food too, without the vegetables and the preparation of sometimes poisonous foods, without the making of clothing and shelter, mammoth meat isn't going to keep everyone alive.

You're talking about a life-or-death, borderline existence. The hunters didn't always catch something and the tribe would depend on the roots the women dug from the ground, small animals they trapped, and possibly preserved foods from times of plenty. If people are that close to starvation, don't you think that every hour of the day was hard work for the women too? Do you think they wasted time doing work that wasn't necessary?

My point being that it was never "every man for himself." The people who starved were the ones who were useless or harmful to their tribe. It's always been mediated through a collective decision!

So I think it's entirely absurd to admit that we have, through natural selection, evolved some degree of desire or motivation to find mates that will produce and provide for good children, but did not evolve any degree of desire or motivation to find mates that will provide for us.

Agree.

After all, natural selection requires production of children, who survive. So not only is it important to have good children, and support for those children, we need to survive long enough to do it.

And pass on the skills which allowed us to get to that point, not dying in childhood like most no doubt did.

So why would natural selection NOT select for those who, not only are capable of picking mates who will help not only care for your offspring, but care for YOU as well?

And have a valuable social role. I think it is undeniable that a "good" mate is defined partly by collective aesthetics -- yes, good health is always attractive, a symmetrical body and good physique is indicative of being well-cared for as a child, and might show an individual who will do likewise for their own kids -- but many other factors come into play in a society which is well clear of the danger of starvation.

Humans talk a lot. We talk a lot more than necessary to kill edible animals. There's a reason for that.
Nobel Hobos
22-12-2007, 01:02
I'm a super model. And I'm only 16. They said I had to get my parent's permission but I was all "whatever, I do what I want!"

Oh yeah? Oh YEAH?? Well I'm a hyper model, and I'm famous throughout the universe, and I don't even have parents! And I'm only 12!! And I've got bigger tits than you (six of 'em!), and a bigger dick too.

... hang on ...
Neo Art
22-12-2007, 01:19
Here we disagree. Humans have been social animals since before we were human. The men hunted in packs, the women worked just as hard and needed to co-operate with each other too.

The very example of the mammoth is telling. Try dragging a dead mammoth anywhere. A person's share of the kill or the gather depended on their status in the tribe ... and the sickly but intelligent/educated healer got a bigger share of mammoth than the number three mammoth-bludgeoner.


I never stated women had no role or function in this. The only thing "telling" is that you seem to assume that I was saying that women depended on men, just not vice versa. The selective pressuer knife, does, of course, cut both ways, and as I said, it seems telling you seem to think I suggested otherwise.

I dodn't mention pressures on men, because that's not what I was talking about.
Nipeng
22-12-2007, 01:33
are you suggesting that bottle should "play nice" when responding to those who post bullshit?
I do not. Read more carefully.

MH (and AP) suggested that women are inherent golddiggers and that men are inherent whoremongers

They did nothing of the sort. Their posts can be read that way only if someone is looking for targets. What they suggest is that people tend to select partners who will provide for the family. NOT that "women select men who will feed them".
To put in in simplest possible terms, people prefer partners who care. Are you going to disagree with that?
They do so because of millions of years of positive selection towards this trait. Is this so wrong to think so?

why shouldnt bottle rip him a new one?
To spare ammo for real targets. Yeah, she has plenty. But target discrimination is important. So as not to hit friendlies and innocent bystanders, you know.
Nobel Hobos
22-12-2007, 01:43
I never stated women had no role or function in this. The only thing "telling" is that you seem to assume that I was saying that women depended on men, just not vice versa. The selective pressuer knife, does, of course, cut both ways, and as I said, it seems telling you seem to think I suggested otherwise.

I dodn't mention pressures on men, because that's not what I was talking about.

OK, out of all that post, you pick the one bit which explicitly disagrees with you. Perhaps I should have just left you at the mercy of Bottle...

I'm not trying to be "more feminist" than you here! If anything, I'm standing up for my male ancestors against the kind of characterisation which would get us all new assholes if we were to apply it to prehistorical women!

I assumed no such thing. I was making the point that NEVER have humans been these little self-reliant pairs, except in rare cases (outcasts.) The individual's value to the tribe (or even now, to the uncountable tribe we call 'society') has always been the measure of their viability as a mate.

"He's got big muscles, good for hunting" or "she has fatty breasts, good for suckling babies" are persistent elements of beauty, and point to the persistence of instincts which you, I and MH acknowledge. I'm not disagreeing, but I'm trying to move the emphasis onto something I find more significant and a bigger factor: the social competition AND co-operation aspect of choosing a partner.
Ashmoria
22-12-2007, 01:47
I do not. Read more carefully.

They did nothing of the sort. Their posts can be read that way only if someone is looking for targets. What they suggest is that people tend to select partners who will provide for the family. NOT that "women select men who will feed them".
To put in in simplest possible terms, people prefer partners who care. Are you going to disagree with that?
They do so because of millions of years of positive selection towards this trait. Is this so wrong to think so?

To spare ammo for real targets. Yeah, she has plenty. But target discrimination is important. So as not to hit friendlies and innocent bystanders, you know.

go look at MH's first post. thats what i did before i made mine. he may have backed off that position but he clearly supported the idea that women go for men that buy them stuff.

not that some women dont, im not saying that. but its not true of most women either today or in the past.
Nobel Hobos
22-12-2007, 01:53
MH (and AP) suggested that women are inherent golddiggers ...

The two are different posters, and were saying quite different things.

To my eye, MH absolutely asked for trouble (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13307958), and probably always intended to drop back to a defensible position. In retail parlance, that was a "loss leader."


AP, on the other hand, wasn't trying to make any kind of sweeping analysis but was more chatting about his own situation. And he'd been soundly dealt with by Cabra West and SoWiBi, already.

Trying to harness the two posters to the same war-chariot doesn't seem very helpful to me.

=============

go look at MH's first post. thats what i did before i made mine. he may have backed off that position but he clearly supported the idea that women go for men that buy them stuff.

not that some women dont, im not saying that. but its not true of most women either today or in the past.

So answer that post yourself (I linked to it above) if it's still burning your bacon.

EDIT: You probably meant MH's FIRST post Less of a choice than we might think. We are what nature has designed us to be, via God, Evolution or both ... (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13307908)
Neo Art
22-12-2007, 02:08
OK, out of all that post, you pick the one bit which explicitly disagrees with you. Perhaps I should have just left you at the mercy of Bottle...

I'm terrified, truly...:rolleyes: Someone please protect me as I am surely incapable of defending myself....

I assumed no such thing. I was making the point that NEVER have humans been these little self-reliant pairs, except in rare cases (outcasts.) The individual's value to the tribe (or even now, to the uncountable tribe we call 'society') has always been the measure of their viability as a mate.

None of which in any way contradicts what I said.

"He's got big muscles, good for hunting" or "she has fatty breasts, good for suckling babies" are persistent elements of beauty, and point to the persistence of instincts which you, I and MH acknowledge.

A point bottle, however, does not, as she only mentioned that we may select, even to some degree, those traits that make for good child rearing, but not those that help us ourselves survive. And while you may agree with me...I wasn't actually addressing my comment to you.

I'm not disagreeing, but I'm trying to move the emphasis onto something I find more significant and a bigger factor: the social competition AND co-operation aspect of choosing a partner.

Well, fine, yiou may discuss that if you wish, and you're probably quite right, social factors play far larger roles than our dorment evolutionary drives created by selective pressures long ago. That's almost certainly true.

And also totally irrelevant to my point that those pressures exist. You note I never gave them weight, never stated how strong they were, or that they were dominant. Merely posited that they existed, in contrary to bottle's position that while we have drives in some degree to pick partners because of their ability to help us rear children, we don't seem to select for partners who would help provide for us. Now, sure, social aspects are bigger factors, absolutly.

But I wasn't talking about that.
Ashmoria
22-12-2007, 02:23
The two are different posters, and were saying quite different things.

To my eye, MH absolutely asked for trouble (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13307958), and probably always intended to drop back to a defensible position. In retail parlance, that was a "loss leader."


AP, on the other hand, wasn't trying to make any kind of sweeping analysis but was more chatting about his own situation. And he'd been soundly dealt with by Cabra West and SoWiBi, already.

Trying to harness the two posters to the same war-chariot doesn't seem very helpful to me.

=============



So answer that post yourself (I linked to it above) if it's still burning your bacon.

EDIT: You probably meant MH's FIRST post Less of a choice than we might think. We are what nature has designed us to be, via God, Evolution or both ... (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13307908)

no its not burning my bacon. bottle more than took care of him. im just a little dismayed at the suggestion that bottle should back off when no one suggests, for example, that YOU back off when you do something similar.
Nipeng
22-12-2007, 02:24
go look at MH's first post. thats what i did before i made mine.
This one:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13307908&postcount=163
I distinctly remember reading it and thinking "wow, there's surely Bottle of Wrath ahead. I wonder which way this one turns". Yes, it sounded provocative. Especially the phrase:

whether that is true or false in any individual case does not matter because the woman knows this in her DNA

Lets rephrase it: the instinct is still there, but it does not decide in every individual case. Or,

not that some women dont, im not saying that. but its not true of most women either today or in the past

There was nothing in his post he had to actually back off entirely from later. All he did was to add disclaimers and quantificators. But this did not save him from orbital bombardment. Once he was detected as an enemy and targeted, he was toast.
Ashmoria
22-12-2007, 02:29
This one:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13307908&postcount=163
I distinctly remember reading it and thinking "wow, there's surely Bottle of Wrath ahead. I wonder which way this one turns". Yes, it sounded provocative. Especially the phrase:

Lets rephrase it: the instinct is still there, but it does not decide in every individual case. Or,

There was nothing in his post he had to actually back off entirely from later. All he did was to add disclaimers and quantificators. But this did not save him from orbital bombardment. Once he was detected as an enemy and targeted, he was toast.

he deserved it. its a wrong headed position. people in all times and all places choose mates from their own circle. some choose wisely some choose stupidly. in the end, every one who is interested mates.
Fall of Empire
22-12-2007, 02:38
Regrettably, this man is single. :(
Nobel Hobos
22-12-2007, 02:40
None of which in any way contradicts what I said.

Good, because I certainly was not trying to contradict your very good point that without individual survival, the survival of offspring is moot.

To continue rambling off on my own tangent, it is interesting that "a couple" is a more viable survival unit than an individual. On the one hand, it's quite logical (someone to feed you when you're sick, to watch your back, and to share knowledge with) but on the other hand it comes at a price (you're vulnerable to the consequences of their decisions, they might not pull their weight.) I suspect that without the ancient bifurcation into two sexes, "we" would be far more individualist ... once the individual has compromised their sovereignty by pairing-up, submitting to the needs of the tribe is just another step.

Of course, that is entirely hypothetical, because the bifurcation into two sexes is so ancient, we don't have any creature even vaguely mammalian to compare with, to see what "we" would be like without it.
Nobel Hobos
22-12-2007, 02:49
no its not burning my bacon. bottle more than took care of him. im just a little dismayed at the suggestion that bottle should back off when no one suggests, for example, that YOU back off when you do something similar.

I can think of a few occasions that you might be talking about. You can give examples if you like. They may or may not correspond to the occasions when I HAVE been told to back off.

Note that I defended one of those posters, and not the other. That's exactly why it worries me when you try to tar them with the same brush.
Nipeng
22-12-2007, 02:52
he deserved it. its a wrong headed position.
Wrong headed position? I'm sorry, that sounds unpleasantly familiar to me. Me being Polish and old enough to remember the bad old times.
I mean, it's so general that it's easy to attach to anyone who says something that sounds wrong and mark him as enemy.
I might agree that he reapt what he sow. But being provocative, I guess he was thinking in terms of saying something controversial loudly at a party, not climbing in metal armor on a peak during storm.
people in all times and all places choose mates from their own circle. some choose wisely some choose stupidly. in the end, every one who is interested mates.
Am I right taking it as a general remark about the relationships, not about the discussion of the genetically ingrained preferences?