obfuscator

care to explain further?

I'd be interested in hearing them. -avoid unwanted pregnancies with a perfect (100%) success rare -avoid STIs with a similar success rate -save money on contraceptives (and avoid contraceptives like the pill that can have serious side effects) -minimize hormonal changes that can challenge someone to view the health of a relationship objectively -minimize emotional damage in the event of the relationship's failure

Her daily management of the relationship should make it clear how she really feels in short order. Which is why I say that she isn't into sex. Marriage is just some far off event she can tell people and feel reasonably assured she wont have to have sex with them. If she was into sex but was holding off on it until a religiously sacred event thats a different story. I literally cant see how you can take a non religous person saying that they want to wait until marriage any other way then "I'm not into sex" Did he say she wasn't religious? There are also practical reasons to wait for sex....

Her daily management of the relationship should make it clear how she really feels in short order.

Avoiding sex by saying that they want to wait until marriage. I think it's important to acknowledge that in this situation it is possible that she is sexually attracted to him and actually wants to wait until marriage.

This is not even remotely close to being true..... I know a number of women who have said exactly that, especially in high school. They meet a guy that they kinda like, but they're not really attracted to, so they say they're not ready for sex. There's a reason why most women aren't virgins when they get married.Okay, if we're talking about 15 year olds. I've never met an adult woman who had this motivation for delaying sex.

This is not necessarily a bad thing.... If your goal is just to have sex, you won't be happy...but some of the strongest relationships I know of waited until marriage to have sex.

This is not even remotely close to being true.....

Whatever phrase you use, I don't think it works.

Criticizing people isn't going to help either.

I meant to say civility. Dang phone. @tyler I agree that people should be civil, but that doesn't mean they are. Generally people on the internet are rude, so expecting them to be civil is naive.

I don't know why anyone would expect civil city from the internet

I regret reading this thread

Her grammar killed my boner

except, of course, several people who had private information stolen and posted on the internet

Sure, you can look at it that way but if a legitimate threat arises towards an area we have a vested interest in, it can and will still be dealt with. If China ever invaded Japan we would come to their aid, that's a fact. That Obama isn't a warmonger doesn't change that. I'm not arguing that the President should or needs to be a "warmonger." I'm saying that when he draws a red line, states that chemical weapons would change his equation, then does absolutely nothing later, he loses face with the international community. I don't think the U.S. should stick its nose in conflicts everywhere, but it should have enough influence that its rhetoric matters. If Obama states there will be consequences for xyz, and xyz occurs, there should be consequences. If Obama has no intentions to respond to xyz, he shouldn't make idle threats. I don't think there has been any legitimate indication whatsoever from any party that he has lost face. well, you won't get some foreign president saying "oh he won't do crap", but the actions of other countries can be telling. It seems like you're suggesting Putin saw that Obama didn't invade Syria after they used chemical weapons and took that as a go ahead to invade the Ukraine. Well, that's not quite what I said. What I said was: When you have a large world power not sticking to their guns, it does not make people think they're going to stick to their guns in the future. I'm not saying that had Obama acted in Syria, Putin wouldn't have invaded ukraine, but the behavior of the US over the past few years would certainly not have given him any pause. @Range april is also pre-ukraine for the most part. Besides, I agree with the US being less of a "world police" - I just think it would be good for Obama to make up his mind, and not try to pretend to be willing to police other countries. I think the Syria situation would have been handled just fine if he simply didn't make the "red line" remarks.

Sure, you can look at it that way but if a legitimate threat arises towards an area we have a vested interest in, it can and will still be dealt with. If China ever invaded Japan we would come to their aid, that's a fact. That Obama isn't a warmonger doesn't change that. I'm not arguing that the President should or needs to be a "warmonger." I'm saying that when he draws a red line, states that chemical weapons would change his equation, then does absolutely nothing later, he loses face with the international community. I don't think the U.S. should stick its nose in conflicts everywhere, but it should have enough influence that its rhetoric matters. If Obama states there will be consequences for xyz, and xyz occurs, there should be consequences. If Obama has no intentions to respond to xyz, he shouldn't make idle threats. I don't think there has been any legitimate indication whatsoever from any party that he has lost face. well, you won't get some foreign president saying "oh he won't do crap", but the actions of other countries can be telling.

Ehh I agree with sees. When you threaten to do something but don't, it doesn't make people think you're actually likely to follow through on your threats. Of course the scale is different, but the idea is still the same. However, the US does have an existing military agreement with SK which pretty much mandates they get involved militarily if NK invades (I htink).

I don't think the president is solely to blame, but I think it's ridiculous to claim he has nothing to do with it. he has proven throughout his presidency that he is averse to military action compared to his predecessors, and that does affect the way the world views the US. I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing, but it definitely has an effect.

Then again, popular opinion in the US is more against intervention than for it. I think if obama had the same political support bush did post 9/11 he'd be much more likely to take military action.

The best advice I can give you is to not bite off more than you can chew. It's nice having a project, but a reasonable project is better than one that's too ambitious.

By this point it seems fairly obvious that russia is slowly invading Ukraine. At what point should legitimate efforts be taken to stop them? It seems to me that the UN/Nato/US/other countries have no real desire to stop russia and they could probably take over the entire country with nothing but economic sanctions. Thoughts?

i try to be reliable, like steve said. Also, I try to never lie (part of being reliable) other than that I'm mostly an [wagon]

I don't believe in love of first sight, and I don't generally talk about I want to bang attractive celebrities - I distance myself from that culture by my actions, not a label. I don't consider myself to be anywhere on the ace spectrum.

But you have to have some kind of consistent definition, unless you just make it mean whatever you feel like, in which case back to my original point: why bother with the label at all? That's mostly a rhetorical question.