Ginger_Warrior

If you have female relatives or friends (and we almost all do, barring an incredibly unfortunate series of deaths), and you support their right to go through life without being prejudiced or having their rights abused simply because they happen to be female, then you support women's rights. You're a feminist. I'm assuming we're decent blokes and we're all firmly in support of women's rights against sexual harassment, for example? There you go then. You can still identify yourself as a feminist and criticise some aspects of feminism. I identify as a feminist, I certainly don't support misandry. There are those who suggest being a feminist is tantamount to misandry, but you only arrive at that conclusion following the most infantile forms of logic conceivable. Similar to how you might oppose racist discrimination, but still criticise some aspects of the civil rights movement. In fact, that's a good comparison, because although Malcolm X and MLK had the same vision in mind, both had radically different methods of accomplishing it and beliefs which drove them. Likewise, people are feminists for different reasons, and believe in different methods of accomplishing gender equality. As far as this guy is concerned, though, it really has no relevance whatsoever. He's single because he feels sorry for himself and wishes a 'rescuer' would come save him from the rut he's dug himself into. That's not how life works, whether you're a man or a woman.

I liked the one where he said he didn't want to have kids because he was "ethically" opposed to them. :lol:

It changes with time, too. I remember the days when literally running to the kitchen to make a cup of tea meant you were AFKing and people would report you for it. That doesn't necessary mean Jagex took action, of course, but things used to be much more draconian than they are now.

There's your problem. Define (objectively): Big advantage

I would describe myself as a feminist too, although there's obviously controversy about whether men can call themselves that and there's many different forms of feminism. Etiher way, I've read books on feminism, I follow feminism in the news and social media: I get it, and I support it. His problem has nothing to do with gender inequality. Do women need a man to feel happy? No, at least they don't as a gender if not as individuals; so why would stating the same statement in reverse be any more offensive? He's just feeling sorry for himself: "Why doesn't anyone find me attractive? Why doesn't anyone want to be in a relationship with me? If I was in a relationship I wouldn't have these worries." That quote about loving yourself before you can some somebody else is true. His attitude towards relationships need to change away from seeking relationships as a means of obtaining external validation against internal insecurity.

Personally, I'd prefer to grab a beer.

You can do everything to make yourself assertive, but the one thing you can't ever do is to be accountable for someone else's insecurities or make someone else assertive. That's something people need to discover for themselves. If she was assertive already, she wouldn't take your lack of contact as some personal defect on her part, although I can see how being abandoned might make her naturally incline that way. All you can do is be sensitive, really. It's not something you can 'fix'. I think you're right there. My friend definitely isn't interested in benefiting this guy, apart from sexually. He's got kids from a previous relationship and whenever he even mentions them, she goes into a sulk. When they were seeing each other, she once demanded he take pictures of them off his phone and out of his apartment. If I put myself in her shoes, I can see why his kids might make you feel a bit jealous and insecure, but the way she reacted was really selfish. If I started seeing a girl who had kids, I can't imagine anything worse than saying "If you want this to carry on, get rid of any memory of them". If it was an issue, surely the right thing to do would be to say, "I'm not prepared or ready to be in a relationship with someone who has kids, so before this goes any further, I'm really sorry but this can't carry on."

I had a really weird eureka moment in the shower before (it's where I tend to do my craziest deep thinking). ------------------------------------------------------------- Romantic relationships (mono and poly)... they're just really selfish, aren't they? Like, you both need something from the other person that you don't get from other people in your life, and it's mutually beneficial, but really you're just hanging on each others' madness and profiteering from it as best you can. You haven't actually got a vested interest in helping the other person to root out whatever's causing them to be so needy. You just feed off it and get a fair trade for it. Kind of like giving bottled water knowing you could probably fix the well, but then you wouldn't have anything to sell. It's a bit like how the doctor says "take care" when you leave the room. But (s)he can't actually mean that statement sincerely, unless they wanted to be out of business. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm only getting that impression because one of my mates is blatantly stringing her ex along because she's quite needy for attention, and he's too clingy and too much of a doormat to tell her to [bleep] off. But then maybe that proves I'm right because he's quite... doting. He literally used to come round at 4am from another town about 25 miles away because she phoned up and asked him to. He can't tell he's being taken advantage of because, frankly, it makes him feel better and for some weird reason, he thinks that relationship makes him 'special' in her eyes. I've changed my mind. I think that probably only represents unhealthy relationships. OK, I'll stop rambling now. Someone make logical sense of that.

It might also have been her way of letting a friend down gently. Either way, there's nothing on the table. Take muggi's advice and look elsewhere.

"What's you're political Idoligy" LOL

I feel like we're running through the plot to DodgeBall here. Same principles, though. Set yourself no goals and don't take chances? You won't ever lose, I guess. Congratulations.

Some of what this guy says is tenuous (to say the least) but there are some videos, like this, which are very good at illustrating the basic principles of successful attitudes and mindsets. I think you really need to listen to this video. You are not a wuss. You are acting wussy. There's a very important difference. People in this world are in far, far worse positions than you. That's one of the few things you can guarantee in life. Nobody is going to rescue you out of this mindset, it's your responsibility to attack the day. No bugger else is going to do it for you.

1) I'm not actually that arsed about having sex, at least not compared to other guys my age. My brother asked me recently whether I was asexual because I seem to show little interest in attracting sexual partners at parties. I'm definitely not asexual, though. I had sex with two girls I wasn't interested in emotionally. It was nothing special and didn't really do anything for me. Most of the time, I'm focused on bigger issues in my life and the world around me, and yes, that sometimes involves women who I'd describe as friends. I guess that point really depends on what you're focused on and what you find important. Clearly we have different ideas about this, which is normal and I'm comfortable with that; 2) I proudly define myself as not being Alpha. Or at least, not the idea of Alpha you seem to present. Except having the self-confidence to not follow someone else's idea of Alpha is quite Alpha-ish, I guess. Meh... contradictions. Either way, I can live with not abiding rules about what Alphas shouldn't be doing; 3) If you really want to [bleep] her that bad, you're not really being platonic in the first place, are you? Or at least, if you pretend to be platonic, you're being very disingenuous. Everything else is a moot point after you establish that premise. The only thing I would say, having posted here not six months ago about being attracted to one of my best friends, is that that physical attraction does go quite quickly when you realize nothing's going to happen. It's not really suppression, you just start finding other woman attractive instead. Me and that girl still talk and go to bars now, and there's nothing there any more, honestly; 4) I couldn't give a rat's arse about my 'social standing', really, especially not one that's defined by the number of women I'm having sex with. But you did mention a caveat on that point being more relevant to extraverts. I'm very introverted, although I can 'act' extroverted if I really need to, so I guess if I disagreed with that point it would be meaningless. In answer to your directed question, I think I've answered it in point 1). I did, and it wasn't that enjoyable. I like agreement, though, so let's agree on this. Milhouse's line in The Simpsons when Lisa asks him to pass a love note to Nelson. About how if she sees he'll do anything she tells him, she'll definitely respect him? We both agree there. But then, let's be honest, that's just about true for any human relationship. Giving in to unreasonable demands or doing things you don't want to do is overly passive behaviour, which indicates low self-esteem. That's not healthy in any context, let alone sex and dating.

I'd argue the same is true of a lot of men about women. This is a problem when men are generalized as wild sex beasts whose only interests are a woman's face and cup size and need to be 'tamed' by the right woman; it's a warped stereotype, a lot of it fantasized by Hollywood, which only holds limited validity to a minority of men. Which is why I think it's senseless that somebody would take such a black and white attitude towards weight, much less try and extract all sorts of assumptions about her personality from it. It unfortunately also leads to this sort of white knight vs Neanderthal BS being posted on trashy magazine sites. The biggest turn off for me, as a heterosexual man (and I hope it's obvious I'm only speaking myself with the qualification that I'm sexually attracted to women) is a woman with no obvious ambition or interests. Trying to get any sort of spark going with somebody who literally has no passion to talk about is incredibly difficult.

But then two-thirds of men are also overweight. So in mathematical terms, we've got roughly around a third of the population who are a) unattracted to women their own 'healthiness value' (if you define this by weight); and b) incapable of attracting women their own 'healthiness value'. I'm starting to have doubts about this system. People should strive to be healthy, but there's far more to attraction than judging their waist size, surely.

We have a problem, then, given around two-thirds of women in the developed world are overweight.

Not necessarily from a logical point of view, but it can be. It is a reason if there's a newer diet/exercise programme for losing weight which has been shown in clinical trials to be more effective than starvation diets.

To a certain extent only. Hyperthyroidism and hypothyroidism tend to be long-term conditions which present with a complex array of interacting symptoms. The problem is you're treating human beings like machines. Human A has Condition B and takes Drug C because it worked on Human D. It doesn't work as simply as that, and if you want, I can point you to a good dozen or so authors, who are all much more clever than me, who would back that assertion up with clinical evidence. There's a very wide range of factors which impact on a person's susceptibility to disease, and which also impact on how that disease presents and affects that individual's life. I also disagree with your assertion that exercise doesn't help someone lose weight. In fact, I don't simply disagree, I know you're wrong there with 99.999% confidence. I wouldn't recommend to someone with a BMI of > 30 that they should be training weights; they need to lose the excess weight first, and strength training won't help with that. They should lose weight with anaerobic and cardiovascular exercises first until they're approaching a healthy weight, and then do strength training.

I do with cards and a box of chocolates. I definitely get the impression people value the chocolates more than the friendly gratitude though. Dat Maslow's heirachy.

Wrong: http://www.ageuk.org.uk/latest-press/archive/shhhhsex-doesnt-stop-in-your-60s/ I don't think he said sex drive disappears, he said it lessens...which is true. According to that link you posted, 1/10 seniors want a new sexual relationship. for people 18-40 that's probably more like 1 in 3 lol. He said a much lower sex drive. I hate to use semantics but, I was merely questioning the extent that muggi seems to think it lessens. Elderly people have sex, it's a massive taboo but it when you look at the statistics, you realise it's really not that weird of an idea to get your head around. Either way, we're moving away from the point. By all means, finish a relationship because the 'spark' isn't there any more, although maybe you should at least make an effort to find it again. But to finish with someone simply because they grow old is asinine, so long as humans are incapable of slowing the aging process.

Wrong: http://www.ageuk.org.uk/latest-press/archive/shhhhsex-doesnt-stop-in-your-60s/ True, but then this has to be countered with the concept that the self-help industry has never been so good at convincing people to believe in bad science. Some examples of marketing in the cosmetic and self-help industry are made because people genuinely cannot evaluate evidence, and so all they see is "Magic pill magically burns fat, a study says", and not the actual methodology of the study which is likely to be far, far more limiting and, frankly, boring. But then there are other examples of sciencey-looking "professionals" who just peddle horse shit around and purposefully do everything possible to make it believable, while evading proper scientific scrutiny and alienating consumers against sources of valid, scientific evidence. I'm talking nutritionists and I'm also talking homeopathy, which for some reason I cannot possibly begin to agree with, the NHS still provides funding for. Anyway, that's my rant about evidence-based practice over. When I qualify, I promise I will avoid recommending quack self-help remedies to my patients. :)

Why are you justifying yourself to us? It's not us you offended. [...] I wasn't making some deep moral point about love and lust or about how you should stay in a relationship with someone you don't find sexually attractive. That's none of my business and it's your choice. I was simply trying to show you why she might have taken to that comment so badly. But, whatever. You seem to think the way to stop offending her is by pointing out how much you're in the right. Well, yeah, you might be right, but it won't make her feel any better: http://lesswrong.com/lw/j6o/according_to_dale_carnegie_you_cant_win_an/.

What you basically said to her in that sentence was this: "I don't give a rat's arse about anything other than your figure. This is nothing more than sex for me. And the only reason I'm with you is because I stopped wanting sex from that other girl and you were the next best thing." That might not have been what you meant, but it's definitely what you said.

It always amazes me how problems like "it uses the same hood so you can't store it" get past the design phase. Not just in RuneScape, but all games. A very basic level of planning and strategy would have seen that issue coming. I know nothing about coding or anything like that, but would it take too many resources to just make a new hood so it can be stored? As a lay person, it just strikes me as a really weak excuse.

Today I bought a game off Steam for the first time in my life: X-COM: UFO Defense Watching my parents play X-COM on the Amiga as a very young boy is one my earliest gaming memories, along with The Fantastic Adventures of Dizzy. It's a weird feeling when you see something that had such a large influence on you growing up.