forsaken

Goddess:

I have this uncanny ability to exhibit a trait not shared by most of humanity; I think.

I'll be essentially describing my girlfriend, so as tripsis said, but in the reverse - everything I've ever wanted => in her. [The pun kills me.] Someone who's cute/attractive, with a strong sense of humour and the ability to appear like a ditzy-blonde but is actually quite intelligent. The type of girl who seems to have an endless store of silly facial expressions and bodily gestures. Someone who's very physically affectionate, and not afraid to kiss me, wherever, whenever [this may not _always_ be possible though. but yes, in the general case]. As above, someone who's innocent, but then in the bed or in moments of privacy displays a wild streak of sexual deviancy that - coupled with the apparent image of innocence - drives me wild. Sort of like the girl who goes "Oh" quietly when you do something, then proceeds to turn the tables about and use the same tactic [or an even more unexpected one] on you later on. Someone who tells me things that happen of import in their day, as well as everything about themselves! This one's pretty important because I find it somewhat cutting if someone else knows something about her that I don't and then I find out from them. Think of the situation where a friend says, "Hahahaha I can't believe [your girlfriend] did that!" and you're left looking the fool saying, "Did what?". Identical to tripsis, I also take relationships seriously; I don't go out with someone if I don't seriously think they're a potential life partner. Physically, I prefer girls shorter than me, big, innocent [but not really] eyes and a slim figure. Usually, the personality [provided the person is at least passably decent looking] draws me in more. Did I mention she needs to be smart? :P

Replay the situation. Only this time, after experiencing thir contradiction, highlight it - tell them what they're doing, and how stupid it is. Use judicious amounts of sarcasm whilst maintaining an informative air. Be scornful.

Cynicism is reality undiluted. There is a saying that in every lie, there is a grain of truth. The principle remains true in the majority of posts you have read. Firstly, I suggest you read over what you wrote. Of particular note: The way they move knocks my brain around, not arrogant but knowledgeable of their own beauty. They are not arrogant or self absorbed but they care about the good things in life and are not controlled by sex and lust. Nowadays are history is still shaped by men, how many male business tycoons are there and how many female, females don't care about superficial things like making money but stronger more deeper things. They mature earlier and know what they want in life, their emotions are powerful but in a good way as they are sensitive to what other people like and dislike. Are you not aware of the tone you projected? Do you not know that you have essentially insulted the male population, all on wild generalisations? If you had, in your musings, written that you think a portion of females were as you depicted - or even that females are more likely to be compassionate or whatever than men - then I would have had no problem. But once again, I urge you to read what you wrote. "They have a heart and soul and have the power to embrace you on another level. Men are too proud and arrogant, settle problems in fights and generally have lust motives. Women are the opposite. " Women and men share the same basic traits, we merely have different methods of expressing them. I can tell you now, some of the sharpest, most derisive tongues I've met in my life have been from females. Men, obviously, express their displeasure physically more often then women do. However, some women have acerbic wits that I would gladly take a punch to avoid. What is it that I'm attempting to establish here? Well, that women settle problems in fights too. Also ... I think most of us can agree that the libido of middle-aged women is, uh, somewhat of an urban legend. Ergo, women are not the opposite - they are just as lustful and find as much occasions to 'fight' as men do, merely in a different format. Some also made the comment that women are more prone to superficial relationships - this is not a fact however from my experience it is true more often than not - hence your impression that they are 'generally much nicer with [their] friends and much more genuine and easy to talk to'. Also, [with minimum insult to those female users who have posted in this thread] have you not been, for lack of better phrasing, 'put down' by them? Does this not by default debunk your earlier statements? Essentially, my point can be boiled down to this: Women have the capability to be beautiful, wondrous and all that - but it is a far-fetched conception that these are traits exuded by ALL females.

Oh my, that actually sounds like me. Hm. I won't pretend to know anything about dealing with persons suffering from bi-polar disorder, but I can wish you good luck. [;

Maybe some, though my post was more of a point of how the idealism (and ignorance) in the first post seems almost like an objectifaction of women ("creatures, exotic, er... private parts"). I know it wasn't the intention (I think), but I just got a very strong whiff of objectification from the post. Honestly, no one else cringed while reading that? Then again, I'm not exactly a fan of feminists, so... ya. Neither am I - you don't see masculinists around now do you? I didn't cringe when I read that; I bore my eyes out.

I shudder at the amount of generalisations. But seeing as it seems to have become a trend, let me make a few too. Everyone is different. Oh, and try this one. No one is perfect. Funnily enough, by placing females on a pedestal as you have you've just only promoted sexism against males. Aren't you just grand?

I play games and no one calls me sad?

My belief corresponds closely with the response given by Cecil Adams. Vision is the brain's representation of the amount of "light" reflected off objects and the relative distance between the light and person; what we refer to as dimensions. Many people have commented on what blind people see. Do they see a darkness? Because darkness is a lack of a light, right? But then, a lack of light is acutely different from a lack of perception of light. In my opinion, they do not see, because they do not perceive.

8/10 I gave most of them fleeting glances and one of the ones I missed had a 'wrong logo' as one of the main justifications for how to tell it apart. As I don't live in America, I'm unaware of their companies and thus the logo holds no relevance to me. :P

It's called semi-skim reading. :P I finished it in about 5 hours myself - there's a lot of descriptive stuff that you can glaze over hehe.

Funny that, I just watched the Eragon movie today. God damn it ripped the book to shreds in its [developmentally delayed]ant attempts to do it justice. Horrific. *shudders*

I once told my gf that one of my strongest wishes was to one day, if I ever had the time, to find some secluded, isolated place. A forest or mountain or field, and just SCREAM all the frustration and feelings I've ever held in out of me. .. She expressed a wish to do so too. So I guess what I'm saying is - yes I do. [;

"13303 of May 22, 2003, and expanded in Executive Order 13315 of August 28, 2003, and relied upon for additional steps taken in Executive Order 13350 of July 29, 2004, and Executive Order 13364 of November 29, 2004." You'd think America would have seen it coming, what with those recent and subsequent 'expansions'.

Those actions and reactions are the instinctual, on the moment types. Basically, at the time they're doing it, it may seem a 'logical' thing to think; but that's because they haven't taken - whether due to the fact that its instinctive and therefore they have no time, or that they just don't bother - into consideration the circumstances they place the other person. For instance, take the example of the girl moving away when the guy sits down, expecting him to move over too if he likes her. For her, if he edges closer, it, during the spur of the moment, must indicate that he likes her. For him however, her movement connotes rejection - and to attempt to follow through would result in a loss of pride/or just look like an idiot.

Written for a creative writing task set by my teacher for English. It's a short story, to do with Revenge of some sort. --- Reflections It was a hobby for him. Painting that is. He had no grand illusions about his skill; he was no Salvador Dali, no John Waterhouse. He wasnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t great, but he wasnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t bad either. It was an outlet for his emotions ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâ his getaway from life. When most people sat down, writing in their journals, he painted his stories, and his feelings. There was something so much more personal about it to him. Something distinctly attractive about being different from others, however slight that shade of difference was. The paintings held chapters of his life, snippets of how he felt, and why. And it was so much better than a journal ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâ he thought. Short of reading his mind, no one would be able to discern his past ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹ÃâentriesÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢. Only he understood them. Or, as Julian Bell wrote in his astute book, ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹ÃâWhat is Painting?ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢: ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅYour painting expresses ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâ for you; but it does not communicate to me. You had something in mind, something you wanted to ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹Ãâbring outÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâæ I have no certainty that I know what it wasÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâæÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

To the first bit, I hold a similar if not the same view as Sumpta. To the latter, I have a few problems with what is said. Firstly, I don't believe prostitution is 'wrong', but I can anticipate that you find it immoral. Here there is obviously a clash, but I think it's one that I hope we can both agree to disagree on. The main problem I have is in regards to the fact that rape is more likely in pre-marital sex than it is in marital. That is, from my experience, far from the case. For instance, let's look at the history of marriage and the concept of unito caro, which used to be a key component of marriage. Essentially what this concept entailed was that when married, two persons became 'one flesh' - however the church did not recognise females and so in effect women became the property of men. Here, marriage essentially propagated the right of males to consortium [sexual relations]; that is, allowed them the right to rape women. Women however had no avenue of redress; the law and the church both supported the male in this regard. Nowadays, many people still hold out-of-date views that once married, they have said legal right to consortium. Once again, if you've never had sex with someone before, or engaged in such physical intimacy, you'd be unaware of what both were comfortable with, and thus what could amount to rape could occur in equal likelihood within a marriage as it would without. This also brings me onto another key issue; women - or even men - who are subject to rape or assault of any nature in a marriage are less likely to report and complain about it. Most of the time, this is due to a fear of the consequences; be it that 'it wasn't worth pursuing in the broader view of things', or the need to provide a unified - if fake - front of 'happiness' for the children and so on. Therefore, I strongly think that rape is not limited to pre-marital sex, nor do I think it is more likely to occur in pre-marital sex. More likely to be reported? Yes. To occur? Not so much.

How does being romantic relate? I'm assuming you're replying to my post. You're taking a very narrow-minded response if so to my post. It's not about someone measuring up to my - or anyone elses - sexual standards. To do so would be the greatest sort of superficial folly. The comment I am making is that physical - and thus sexual - intimacy plays a role in a relationship, regardless of what spin or view of relationships you have. It is an integral component in that it has the capability to affect the emotional and mental bond between two persons. As such, it should be one that is tested PRIOR to marriage - an institution that requires two persons to have the intent to, as mentioned, bond together indefinitely. Does it not make sense for this intent to be as well-nurtured and better fulfilled and understood by both parties before entering marriage? What is wiser: Ironing out doubts before or after a marriage, when doing so after limits your avenues of action, or at least the ease at which you can attain them.

That's a fairly strong over-generalisation. I think I can safely say that although idealistically we'd like to think that love is a purely mental concept, and one where we 'appreciate the person for their personality'. However, in the real world, the physical component is very readily a key factor of any relationship. How familiar and 'at ease' you are with your partner in terms of character compatibility plays a huge role in how well the relationship runs. Physical intimacy, however, does too. There's a direct correlation between how familiar and at ease two partners are physically and the healthiness of their relationship. If you're not physically at ease with a partner, then that would - obviously - translate into emotional/mental distress of some sort. This could then lead to further complications, ie., quiet unhappiness, unspoken insecurities, the whole bag of relationshipal issues. To me, the basic foundation of relationships then have two core areas: the physical intimacy and the emotional intimacy. Someone mentioned it earlier, but pre-marital sex helps weed out one problem of many - BEFORE persons have committed to marriage [which is both a social and legal institution]. In an ideal world, this wouldn't be an issue - but then in an ideal world, we wouldn't need marriages, because everything would be perfect and nothing would need to be set down in stone. Here, pre-marital sex acts as, to put it crudely, a testing ground. I am sure you can all agree that bad sex for the rest of your life is an infinitely daunting prospect. One that would negatively impact and undermine a relationship. Once again, I want to address this: "Premarital sex = single parents, orphans, abortion, prostitution, rape, STD's. Martial sex = babies in a loving family." In the contemporary world, marriage is less of a religious institution in so much as it is a legalised social institution. The legal definition [in Australia at least] is the ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹Ãâthe union of a man and woman to the exclusion of all others voltunarily entered into for lifeÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ [Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)] Evidently, this is based on the former religious conceptions, but its evolved and broadened beyond those narrow fields. For most, marriage is only entered because of the benefits offered to a pair that has the intent - during the time - to remain with eachother indefinitely. So from this perspective - of marriage as a social and legal institution rather than religious - I'd have to say that pre-marital is okay, I'd even go as far as to say that its a fairly important 'criteria' of sorts prior to marriage. The single parents, orphans, abortion, prostitution [i have no idea where that comes from], rape [?] and STD's [?]. In light of my perspective, these are irrelevant. For me, marriage only occurs once both parties have sufficiently 'tried' eachother to the point that they know that that person is the one they want to live with. To me, pre-marital sex is one such determinant. If everyone were to marry before sex, then the issues of single parents, orphans, abortion and etc would be amplified. You would have financial and legal issues stacked on top, owing to the complex nature of divorcing a partner. The above issues only occur because most people have the foresight to 'test' each other out.

I sit down, bunker up, and make the best of the situation as possible. Damage control comes to mind. I rest assured that if ever a case were to occur that engendered said need for a miracle, it would be due to external forces, blamable upon someone else, and thus an inescapable issue that was not of my creation. In my interpretation of that question, it would more than likely mean that the external forces need pray for a miracle, because in my opinion, if I'm not at fault, I don't need to pray for a miracle. --- A bit off topic but: If it's a situation where I might die - well, I'm heavily cynical regarding persons who attribute luck and near-death escapades to some divine being. Put it this way, I'm sure those who do such attributing have great belief, but why is it that sometimes this belief 'blossoms' upon almost dying? [Does that not belittle the faith in itself? That it took a miracle to convince them, rather then being convinced prior to it?] On another hand, I'm verily sure that there have been a plethora of believers who were not so lucky as to be saved and ended up dying; funnily enough, this is usually considered to be a divine writ stating that it was 'their time to go'.

Just wondering how the pill lets you down? Or did you not use it correctly? Because I thought the pill was a safe alternative to stopping conception? Or is there always a chance of still getting pregnant while using it? Anyway congratulations on your expected child! :) It is safe - just like a condom. But condoms are 98% effective, and pills are probably 99% or whatever. Point of fact remains; no system is infallible or perfect.

I was unaware that inexperienced fumbling and feelings of ineptitude from both sides - that are more than likely to eventuate - is viewed as something to 'look forward' to. --- In regards to pre-marital sex, I think it's perfectly fine, and socially I think this is reflected with the rise of de facto relationships.

Did you watch Tigers vs Panthers? The Tigers, when on the ball, just play some awesome ball. Just so bloody cohesive it's amazing.

I have. Me too. Hey Striker, you're already wrong, again. Well I don't believe you. I'm not saying its explicitly 18, its just that is the age people start maturing more. You see, that was the only issue I had with your comment, the drawing of a distinct line where people can or can't know or have love. Now that you've put that 'disclaimer' of sorts, I have no problem with you.