Ginger_Warrior

You're missing out on some great chat-up lines you could be using on that girlfriend you're dating: http://www.funnyjunk.com/funny_pictures/2440443/Dat EDIT: [bleep]... just realised I searched for those on my uni internet account.

My housemate got a Pokemon FireRed emulator on his phone and I'm having to try so hard not to demonstrate the socially unacceptable level of knowledge I have about the games. I know their names, the levels they evolve, the types, the type chart, where Pokemon can be found, where TMs are, what moves they learn, the gym leaders Pokemon and what moves they know, base stats and the best place to grind EVs. He told me his Metapod evolved into Beedrill and I had to bite my lip really hard so I didn't correct him. <_< What's worse is two of my other housemates know I bought Pokemon Black and they can see the anguish on my face as I'm doing this.

Righto, slept now. One the best pieces of dating advice I ever saw was this, and it's backed up by what that channel says about rejection: The majority of women are not and will never be attracted to you. That sounds like daft, fatalistic advice: Oh good heavens, if most women don't find me attractive, how will I ever find anyone?! When you think about it though, it takes the pressure off. I think a lot of guys out there think that if a woman rejects you, it must be your fault. It's the receding hairline, the funny shaped nose, the lack of interesting banter, the scrawny figure. A staggering 63% of British men think their arms or chest aren't muscular enough; 1 in 10 would trade a year of their life for the ideal weight and shape. The idea that in an image-complex world, men don't suffer body image issues like their women counterparts is asinine. But the reality is, a date / hook-up / whatever was never on the table to begin with, so you haven't really "lost" anything. The trick is finding the ones who do find you attractive, and learning what signs people give off when they put you in that zone. This also lays death to this idea of a "friend-zone": the concept that women irreversibly and definitively place men into a metaphorical box once they believe the man isn't interested in them sexually, or otherwise lacks the confidence to make a move. A concept which, from observing post-pubescent lads around me at university, causes far more anguish and anxiety than it was originally intended to resolve. The fact of the matter is, they probably weren't interested in the first place. It wasn't anything you did or didn't do, that's just life. In business, you might have someone approach you with a deal, and you might not be interested because it's not what you're looking for. That's not to say what they're offering is bad, it's just not what you're after at that moment in time, or perhaps at any moment in time. The same is true with dating. As soon as you give me one good argument to suggest why you should go on a date with a girl you don't find attractive, simply because they found you attractive, I might be obliged to believe that girls should return the favour. Can't think of one? Didn't think so. Touch is a risky area, but it needn't be. I remember when Dan touched (no pun intended) on the subject a few years ago, and if I recall correctly, his advice was banned by moderators. Touch is one of the most effective ways we form connections with other people. We hug and shake hands when we meet people. We tap shoulders and hold elbows to get people's attention. We hold hands when offering sympathy, security and support. We cuddle up to each other when watching scary films. I'm a little bit cautious to recommend touching to guy friends, but that's more because I'm afraid that they'll take that advice to mean, "So I grope her ass and see if she's interested?" rather than the advice that channel is actually trying to give. Just don't be a dick. Are you touching somewhere inappropriate (boobs, ass, legs etc.)? Is your touching likely to make the person alarmed or scared? Has the person already told you, or made it otherwise clear, that they're not interested in your advances? Does the context make touching inappropriate or threatening (work, being backed against a wall etc.)? Are you really only touching this person to suggest how physically attractive you find them / their body / genitals? If so, don't do it. You'll see in that video he starts by holding her hand, in an open area where she can move in just about any direction she wants, and she allows him. That's a good example of where touching is appropriate, and even useful, to forming a relationship with another person.

You only get so many chances dude. I had a lot of thoughts about muggi's post before but now I've got tired (it's midnight) and they don't make sense no more. I'll try again in the morning. :)

There was some good in that, some bad. Generally, trying to pick up girls when they're walking home isn't going to end that well. Just like you, they're mostly tired and stressed from working all day, which for most people is reason enough to be left alone. Let's also face it: quite a lot of the time when guys approach girls for no good reason it's usually something they'd be better off moving away from, and a lot of girls are wary of that. Still, the flirting and the use of touch seemed useful.

What did you do on these dates? Just go out or...?

Or they were celebrating Enoch Powell's Rivers of Blood speech. 20th April was a good date for fascism.

I couldn't quite really understand the point that Mindy was making there. I certainly don't think she's courageous for choosing not to be skinny. That's just day-to-day reality for the vast majority of people. There was a wider context being drawn on there, namely that the mass media have grossly unrealistic ideals of both male and female bodies, which I agree with. There's a few other articles on that website which essentially tap into the same thing, via different angles. That's maybe half the problem with the website. It makes a point, it gives a half-arsed example... and then, frustratingly, it stops. It gets you thinking, sure, but it's not critical. It's not analytical. It's not discursive. It doesn't really make any attempt to understand why things are the way they are. It's the kind of approach that would barely pass at degree level because it's only describing things, not explaining things or providing any of its own thoughts and ideas. If you're going to campaign for change (for instance as in this case, a campaign for media portrayals of beauty) or make some general observation about how society works, I'm all for it, and I get that sometimes we can be a bit silly and not everything has to be perfectly referenced, but let's make it at least a little bit informed. At the moment it's like, 'This is what Mindy said, she's so right!!!' and it leaves you wanting to say, 'So what? People (i.e. academics) have really been saying this stuff for decades in far, far more detail, only you didn't care because they're a) not famous; and b) not charismatic or presentable'.

I've not watched any of the videos, so I did a quick search and I found this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXGNns6Zejw I'd be insulting this site's members if I was to pick this video apart here. It's a gross misrepresentation and over-simplification of both sides of the argument; I puffed on a cigarette twice before, does this make me a smoker in the same way six Presidents smoke pot? The trouble with presenting things like this on YouTube is that 13-year old kids can't critically analyze the difference between crappy BS strawman arguments like this, and a well-substantiated discussion. There's nothing wrong with having ideals or being idealistic. The way society moves forward is by people saying 'This could be better'. Rosa Parks wasn't wrong for being idealistic. The problem comes when people are presented an argument that says 'Do X; achieve Y' (for example: their video about child slavery in India) without them being told 'Well, actually, it's all a bit more complicated than that, so we need to do A, B and C first'.

Every time you have sex outside of procreation a kitten dies. DO YOU WANT KITTENS TO DIE??

Most of my friends (men and women) would prefer not to use a condom, but then they'd prefer not having an unwanted pregnancy / STI to having one. If those two principles clash, the vast majority of people I know would go with the latter, not the former. You're definitely not weird for wanting to use a condom with a new sexual partner, at least not in my experience (of talking to and working with both sexes). From an outside view, it looks more like she's trying to bully you into not using one. I'm not going to speculate on her motives. :) As for sex on a first date: I know girls who've had sex on every first date they've been on (usually involves alcohol), I know girls who refuse to. I even know girls who believe in abstinence before marriage. Surely being able to read the situation is a skill you should know by now. :P

All of the people I know who do MD currently, which admittedly is a very small sample (n=3), I wouldn't have described any of them as being bothered about accomplishment. I'd actually describe two of them as being anti-intellectual, despite both being at university. They're only here for the gravy train, the student loan, the three years off from having to enter the real world and get a job. Of course, the caveat there is there may be many more people I know who do MD who I just don't know are doing MD; uni's a though place, and god knows I have my own coping strategies, but different people choose different things. I can imagine there's much more of a stigma to using MD to get through exams than using MD recreationally. The ones I know do it for the thrill, though.

Depends on the girl, I guess. You shouldn't be using a condom for birth control alone anyway.

One of my housemates does MD very occasionally. Last time she took a really funny turn to it at a house party. Had one of my other housemates in tears. It's effective I guess, but I just can't get my head round how the risks balance with the benefits.

Strawman argument. I didn't disregard polygamy. I said it wasn't relevant to the actual problem, which is that she can have sex with as many people she wants to, whether it's one or many; the men she's having sex with aren't giving her what she needs. Hence why she's having sex with plenty of men, having to tolerate their pillowtalk about how they love other girls so much more, and she's left wondering 'wtf?'

The irony there, though, is that while she's the one who's turned off when men fall in love with her, she's actually the one being most needy in the whole thing. She can't get it into her head why these men "love" their wives / girlfriends and not her. Really, it's as basic as Maslow: I think she has a need to be loved by another person, which she clearly isn't feeling from any of the men she's having sex with. Remove all the sex and the polyamory crap. It's irrelevant to the situation. It's cognitive dissonance: She hates men who fall in love with her; she wants to be loved. One of the replies is spot on: Pick one or the other, stop whining because you can't have your cake and eat it.

The way I'm so agreeable that I can't seem to stay angry at people, even when it's a good anger and I know I should be angry with them. I tried the cold shoulder. Worked for about three sentences. [bleep]'s sake, try again tomorrow... >_> On the other hand, I tend to clean when I'm upset / frustrated about something. My kitchen is sparkling and it reeks of lemon. :)

It wasn't correctly spelt at the beginning. :P

I think the part most people would find quite difficult to understand I suppose is, why did you spend over a thousand days worth of time on something which, you freely admit, you regret doing in the first place? We can all understand wanting to spend that much time on some larger project which gives you a sense of accomplishment, whether it's a job, or fitness goals, or money, and I think to some degree we all do that. But then to turn around at the end and say, "Well, even if I had a good time getting there, I haven't really accomplished anything I'm proud of"... maybe that's what worries people. Why invest that much energy into something you've not actually got anything tangible back from? You make the comparison to relationships. Well... if it all goes south with one girl, at least I've developed some skills which would help me attract and hold down a relationship with another. Whatever. 2,999,999,999 other women out there.

I'd agree. She's definitely being sidelined into the "woman on the side" role. She can't seem to see past the fact that in a relationship, men want more than just regular sex as well. The way I see it, these men are all in "normal" relationships with other women who are providing their emotional needs and receiving emotional affection in return, but these woman aren't satisfying their physical needs, and that's where she comes in. She seems to get "ego validation" mixed up with emotional security. She's wanting something deeper and something more emotional with men who were never interested in that from the beginning. But then she does need to make that choice. One of the main benefits of monogamy is emotional security when it works (she said her ex-husband never loved her, although that seemed a bit of an exaggeration to me), whether you choose against that or not. One of the disadvantages is, if your partner's not satisfying you sexually, your options aren't there any more outside of breaking that commitment. As someone who's fully committed to monogamy, I accept there's pros and cons to both.

The comparison to the 'Friend Zone' was interesting. As was the deflection of blame away from herself onto the guys who slotted her into categories she didn't want to be put into. Very reminiscent of what some would call pseudo-Nice Guys who blame women for 'taking advantage' of their friendliness. She also continued to have sex with the Professor even though she knew she was only doing that because she "had it bad for him", much in the same way a guy might continue to do very kind things for a girl in the hope one day, she might see him "in that way", which very rarely happens. Some of what she said actually confirms what I thought about my housemate. The "It's only sex but if he wants it to be something more, so do I" kind of wishful thinking. It suggests to me that she doesn't really want just FB in the first place, she's taken a pragmatic approach and decided it's better than nothing. Nothing about this guy suggests to me that he's interested in a relationship, not least because he's going to Magaluf in the summer and there's only really one reason people go there lol. I dunno... what she said smacked me of torch holding and wishful thinking that he'd one day 'change' for her, or that this FB was something special. Especially when in the same conversation, she criticised her best friend for having more or less the same arrangement with a different guy, lol.

Had one of those deep conversations with my housemate. She thinks that guys who shag around lots in their early 20s tend to settle down in their late twenties. I think she thinks that because there's a guy she blatantly wants to be in a relationship with who is just shagging around with girls, including her (except he says he's more of a relationship type; I think I need muggi's BS app on that one). I don't know if I was allowing this thread to over represent my opinion but my reaction was almost to laugh out loud. Why would a guy who's quite happy shagging around using a POF profile, pretty much picking what girl to have sex with on what day and who's still continuing to be successful at it suddenly stop; because they want to have sex with one person only? Not bloody likely...

I'm not even exaggerating there. I'm well, well beneath the average height for a guy. Same size as Kylie Minogue, for reference. Anyone who's 6'2" or above is a whole foot taller than I am. Ask any bouncer who has to work doors at a nightclub and has to turn people away from the premises. Sure, you need to be big to kick people out, but you don't have to big to confront somebody's behaviour. You need assertiveness. The moment you use your fists, you're no longer being assertive, because you're not respecting the rights of the person you're attacking.

Of course. That stands to reason. The overwhelming majority of sexual assault incidents happen one way, though.

It's not rape. It's sexual assault, and it's just as serious, but it's not rape legislatively speaking. I sympathize with you Noxx, which I don't think anyone else here does. Growing up I was taught by my father that if you don't make a stand yourself, you can't expect things to get better by themselves and you can't expect other people to do it for you. It's probably the most important philosophy I have. I've been in night clubs where girls have been groped when they didn't want to be, and I've confronted guys over a foot taller than me and other guys have supported me. In some clubs, the more grotty ones, it's genuinely the only way to get bouncers to take you seriously. Here's some advice though: I said confront, not fight. I push them away, I tell them to get lost, I put myself between them and the girl who's rejected them. That's the assertive response. Giving in fisticuffs and rolling around the floor solves the problem, sure, but it's too aggressive, and just puts you in danger. I've seen guys who've done that and ended up spending a night in A&E. It's not worth it, because there's other ways of de-escalating the situation while getting them away from it. You're in the right, just keep your cool and remember you don't have to hit someone to make your point known.