Looks or Game? - Page 32

On March 08 2008 21:11 Floofy wrote: idea is not to be an idiot and display ur erection and be like "lol i got teh penis"

You know what I do? I flip my boner up into my waistband. It hides it AND it feels awesome. I almost blew a load into my bellybutton.

LMAO

so, laying sidebet odds for 1yr from now?

On March 09 2008 00:05 gawdawaful wrote: so, laying sidebet odds for 1yr from now?

hes already changed it from "a hot chick" to "an average chick like a 6 or a 7"

On March 09 2008 00:26 byrnesam wrote: Show nested quote + On March 09 2008 00:05 gawdawaful wrote: so, laying sidebet odds for 1yr from now? hes already changed it from "a hot chick" to "an average chick like a 6 or a 7"

When the thread gets locked the "hot chick" will be a "decent looking guy" named Pedro.

Just you wait.

On March 09 2008 00:40 Cro)Deadman wrote: Show nested quote + On March 09 2008 00:26 byrnesam wrote:   On March 09 2008 00:05 gawdawaful wrote: so, laying sidebet odds for 1yr from now? hes already changed it from "a hot chick" to "an average chick like a 6 or a 7" When the thread gets locked the "hot chick" will be a "decent looking guy" named Pedro. Just you wait.

lol
love napolean dynamite

everytime I click on this thread and I see Yug's comment and then all the pages... I just.... facepalm mentally

Ok. i missed a few pages and i just read up, here are my comments

Freak: whoaaaaaaaaa dude, you're coming from this place that's totally inappropriate. I don't know your history but you definitely do not have to right to judge people like that and just what actually IS the norm today in most parts of the world and was essentially BY FAR the norm for the history of mankind prior to the 1950s.

Romeo & Juliet - 12 & 13 years old I believe. In many parts of the world 35 year old marry 15 year old still. I remember once when I was 21 I believe, just having had sex with this 26 year old chick and then the next day hoking up with a 15 year old chick. I remember it mainly because THE 15 YEAR OLD CHICK was WAYYYYYYY smarter and more emotionally mature than the 26 year old. She also seemed more sexually comfortable and I found out later she was more emotionally stable. Finally, all indications from her body made me feel that she was definietly physically mature. You can say you don't think it's appropriate and give us reasons that you think so... but YOU ARE NOT a moral authority and you definitely shouldn't come out talking like that to floofy the way you did.


To okyougosu - good advice but speaking directly about sex is not necessary and if done poorly will most certainly have bad effects. Personally, I don't lead the conversation to sex, sometimes it happens, sometimes it doesn't. I have yet to see any correlation with future outcome.


Finally, whoever said that Floofy's relationship with this chick would go bad because they "already had nothing to talk about" is utterly mistaken. Many people can't relate or talk about things when they first meet (if they don't have good social skills) and it's just because they haven't built a shared body of knowledge. They haven't found common interests et cetera.

Oh, and to pokerdoc - Let's get this straight, if floofy has certain standards on her looks THAT MAKES HIM LESS SUPERFICIAL. The least superficial person would have an array of standards that the girl would have to meet. Some, like looks, may be make or break, while others may need to be compensated for in other areas of interest. Floofy is actually LESS superficial if he has standards in looks.
Have you ever heard the saying "pussy is pussy"?

Friend: "Dude I can't believe you slept with the whale"
Guy who slept with obese woman "hey man, pussy is pussy"
Now there's a superficial guy.

I think floofy has the right AND OUGHT TO BE more superficial as he doesn't have much history with women and so does not know what he wants from a relationship. In fact, it is common knowledge on dating sites, magazines like cosmo and even amongst academia that if a woman is looking for a man to marry, she should date guys who have been in many long term relationships.

"WHAT/??????????????" many 30 year old women will say after reading that... "but, but, but if he's been in many LTRs and they obviously didn't end if marriage then he must have a problem with commitment or compatibility issues"

not true, the thing is that guys, (and girls) have a desire to experience many different relationships/sexual partners before they get married, otherwise, they'll wonder if they made a mistake by not seeing what all was out there and this will hurt their marriage even.

So because there are exceptions we should completely ignore the norm?

That's asinine.

your idea, your way of looking at things is the exception... it's the exception that modern American popular culture for the past 60 years (yes not even all developed nations) has tried to establish

BUT, even many academics in fields which correspond to what's natural in terms of young relationships in America disagree with this Hollywood concept.

and you're acting very childish. Again you are not listing any points... and you are coming from some lofty place of authority. What right do you have to put people down like that or say that your idea (and EXCEPTION) is better than the norm? I don't know of any society that thinks or ever thought it was responsible/normal that women, before puberty (having the physical ability to conceive) have sexual relations. But a minority of cultures today, and none that i know of before the 20th century, had problems with this.

plz don't act childish with one-liners. Calling my ideas exceptions when they are norms and your idea is the exception... then ironically calling me asinine after failing to state any points with your argument.

Perhaps this ties a lot into what we consider to be the real age of consent or awareness. You see, the US government (and many governments in turn) acting upon scientific information available at the time, decided to put on trial ppl 18 and older as ADULTS, while ppl under 18 were put on trail as juveniles. This is because the scientific community believed that at the age of 18, the human brain has fully physically matured. Only fairly recently (i think like 2 years ago) was this popular belief completely shattered. The human brain does not stop growing until the age of 28 or something, an age that, for most human societies, was considered that of an elder. The court system or laws did not change in turn as they function well and are agreed upon. BUT, this is why our legal status and privileges as citizens expands so much when we turn 18. It's very artificial, as are many of the laws on sexual consent that were made in this nature and following this tradition.

I gave all my reasons earlier, why should I repeat them?

It's certainly not the norm though. It's not uncommon, but there is a world of difference that and the norm. The norm implies that it's what the majority are doing. That's not the case. I'd like to see what makes you so certain that relationships between 16 year olds and 20 years are the norm.

I'm not even talking about sexual relations, so I don't know why you keep talking about them. Nothing I have said implies that that is what I'm talking about.

And it's not a one-liner, it's a legitimate question. I never called you asinine, I said the idea was asinine. You can't even call somebody asinine. The word isn't used that way. Nor is it irnoic, for that matter. Just to nitpick.

Please show me any evidence that people dating outside of their respective demographic is considered normal. That goes against any sort of social norms since people operate almost exclusively within their own demographic.


And do you think it's at all odd that a number of people are agreeing with me? Does that not give you some idea that it might be normal? Or are all these people just seeing the world in an abnormal light? I'm not usually big on popular opinion dictating what's right, but we're talking about social norms that we all function within. People know what social norms are. Somehow they've managed to completely escape you though.

On March 09 2008 07:09 Steal City wrote: Perhaps this ties a lot into what we consider to be the real age of consent or awareness. You see, the US government (and many governments in turn) acting upon scientific information available at the time, decided to put on trial ppl 18 and older as ADULTS, while ppl under 18 were put on trail as juveniles. This is because the scientific community believed that at the age of 18, the human brain has fully physically matured. Only fairly recently (i think like 2 years ago) was this popular belief completely shattered. The human brain does not stop growing until the age of 28 or something, an age that, for most human societies, was considered that of an elder. The court system or laws did not change in turn as they function well and are agreed upon. BUT, this is why our legal status and privileges as citizens expands so much when we turn 18. It's very artificial, as are many of the laws on sexual consent that were made in this nature and following this tradition.

Please point me to where I can read about what the age of consent was decided upon? I've never heard of any of this and am actually lead to believe you are making it up because it soudns logical rather than based on anything. The age of consent, and age of when people are considered adults differs in a lot of societies. The age of consent and age that one legally becomes and adult aren't even the same. Age limits also vary depending on activity.

I think you just made this up, to be honest. Or heard it somewhere and are just now regurgitating it. Similar to the evolution stuff you were spouting earlier in the thread.

You are actually one of the most daft people I've ever exchanged with.

ok, i'll try to find something online

but the point is it's obvious that these ages are fabrications...

dude, even this last post of yours is from a totally judgmental and insulting place. You really need to work on that. Also, notice that again you have just attacked me and not defended your position which you have yet to explain.

also, ofc i am regurgitating it.... just like to the evolution stuff that i was spouting earlier (which many ppl backed me up on -including wikipedia- and is very well established). Do you expect me to reinvent the wheel?

It's like you saying something simple poker related that you read somewhere and me saying you are regurgitating

asinine then daft, better think of a good word to insult me with in ur next comment ;p

no, srysly a good word like that is much better than a real argument... ppl are like, wow he uses semi-complicated words, he must know what he's talking about ;p

I JUST defended my position and explained myself further. You have a really annoying habit of selectively disregarding anything you don't feel like listening to. As such arguing with you is completely pointless, as you've proven time and time again on this site because you just refuse to listen.

You need to work on your listening skills. And work on communicating since most of what you say makes absolutely no sense. It actually shows a lot of signs of you just repeating things you've read/heard in the past without any sort of real basis. It again, makes talking with you really pointless since you often lack coherency.

And I know, I'm just attacking you and belittling you and being judgmental because nothing you have said or done up to this point could have possibly lead me to believe any of this. I'm just making it up as I go along. Right?

On March 09 2008 07:30 Steal City wrote: also, ofc i am regurgitating it.... just like to the evolution stuff that i was spouting earlier (which many ppl backed me up on -including wikipedia- and is very well established). Do you expect me to reinvent the wheel? It's like you saying something simple poker related that you read somewhere and me saying you are regurgitating asinine then daft, better think of a good word to insult me with in ur next comment ;p no, srysly a good word like that is much better than a real argument... ppl are like, wow he uses semi-complicated words, he must know what he's talking about ;p

If you admitting to regurgitating it, you're admitting to having nothing worthwhile to say on the subject, good job.

And the evolution stuff wasn't very well established, and that was proven earlier in the thread. Nobody asked you to reinvent the wheel, I asked you to stop repeating stuff that you really don't know anything about.

I don't say anything simply poker related that I read somewhere, everything I say poker related is original thought and something I've come to via critical thinking and thought. Something you aren't doing, you're just spouting stuff off without any coherency or real point.

I made a real argument, you just chose to ignore it because you have nothing to say and are only capable of being a parrot.

Oh look, I insulted you agian. That allows you to disregard everything I say. How convenient.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adult#Legal_adulthood

unfortunately wiki doesn't talk about the history but your thinking that the age of consensual sex and adulthood have no relationship is exactly the type of silly stance that I'm talking about. Only people now a days in a few countries like the US/Canada think that the two ideas are unrelated. The idea of adulthood and sexual maturity being unrelated is laughable

if u actually feel that they should be separated and share no common ground please explain your reasoning or reference me to something that does.

otherwise you really look silly. I'd rather have a real argument with a mature adult here, i hope you realize that if your points are valid then reasoning will help you argue much more than trying to attack me.

And again, asinine can't be used to insult somebody but can be used to describe an action. You shouldn't make up instances in which people are insulting you just so you can play victim and avoid actually saying anything.

But calling you daft is actually an insult.

On March 09 2008 07:38 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote: Show nested quote + On March 09 2008 07:30 Steal City wrote: also, ofc i am regurgitating it.... just like to the evolution stuff that i was spouting earlier (which many ppl backed me up on -including wikipedia- and is very well established). Do you expect me to reinvent the wheel? It's like you saying something simple poker related that you read somewhere and me saying you are regurgitating asinine then daft, better think of a good word to insult me with in ur next comment ;p no, srysly a good word like that is much better than a real argument... ppl are like, wow he uses semi-complicated words, he must know what he's talking about ;p If you admitting to regurgitating it, you're admitting to having nothing worthwhile to say on the subject, good job. And the evolution stuff wasn't very well established, and that was proven earlier in the thread. Nobody asked you to reinvent the wheel, I asked you to stop repeating stuff that you really don't know anything about. I don't say anything simply poker related that I read somewhere, everything I say poker related is original thought and something I've come to via critical thinking and thought. Something you aren't doing, you're just spouting stuff off without any coherency or real point. I made a real argument, you just chose to ignore it because you have nothing to say and are only capable of being a parrot. Oh look, I insulted you agian. That allows you to disregard everything I say. How convenient.

i'm not saying you do repeat anything poker related like that, but say if you were to give advise in the low stakes hand section. It would be stupid not to talk about basic principles of poker. Saying things like A3 is an obvious fold preflop from that position. These are things that, maybe you felt were right when you started playing poker, but you probably read them somewhere to validate your thoughts before you took out a calculator or methodically thought things through and realized it was a fold

Also I am listening, you have stated your position but not defended it, simple as that