Another gender thread. Sorry, I had to raise this one.

I'm not that dysfunctional...I go for guys who are also in the metal scene like me...but the downside is that they usually take drugs...
That's funny. I've always been a fan of metal, but never really did drugs. I tried pot a few times, but I was afraid of fucking up my brain which I knew I'd need to become a doctor, so I pretty much stayed away from it.

I remember one time I met this gorgeous girl who was obviously quite attracted to me. We were talking and she was rubbing up against me and whatnot until she suggested we go out and smoke a joint. I said, "Well, I don't smoke pot..." She got this horrified look on her face as though I were a Martian or something and pretty much ran away!

After that, I'd just pull a Bill Clinton and not inhale if a girl wanted to smoke a joint!
 
The other thing is, you just have to be committed to making it work. No matter how much you love someone, you won't like them all of the time..

Yes. it's a lot of hard work sometimes.

I know, though, that it would be unreasonable for me to expect all of my children to hold themselves to the standards Ive created for myself.
A lot of my lifestyle rides on dumb luck and a desire to know gold from brass.
Do I still find other women attractive? Oh yeah.
Would I act on it? highly doubt it.
 
In my experience, most marriages that last a really long time are "high school sweetheart" type marriages. You simply have so much in common. The other thing is, you just have to be committed to making it work. No matter how much you love someone, you won't like them all of the time.

You got that right. There are days I hate my husband and consider him lucky that we don't have guns in the house. And there are days he feels the same about me. Luckily we never feel that way on the same day.
 
I can see why some people would look for answers in the ancient past, but as some of you have said, civilization has been around for 5-6,000 years that seems like ample time to develop new behaviors or habits. Such as the male attraction to the female breast. Its an unexplained phenomenon. Apparently there is a large amount of evidence that the female breast was not regarded as sexual in any culture until I believe Roman times.
 
Useless?

I'm glad I did not marry any of the boyfriends I've had so far.

One was so emotionally constipated he did my head in.

The other two were drug addicts.

(I'm not that dysfunctional...I go for guys who are also in the metal scene like me...but the downside is that they usually take drugs...)

What I meant is that you can never know in advance whether or not you'll be spending the rest of your life with your first boyfriend.
There's no point in saying beforehand that you're not going through with it all the way, you don't know.
 
I can see why some people would look for answers in the ancient past, but as some of you have said, civilization has been around for 5-6,000 years that seems like ample time to develop new behaviors or habits.
What you're forgetting is that homo sapiens have been around for about 150,000 years (perhaps even 300,000 years). So it seems a bit silly to ignore 95% of human existence and focus only on the most recent, what, 50 years?
Such as the male attraction to the female breast. Its an unexplained phenomenon. Apparently there is a large amount of evidence that the female breast was not regarded as sexual in any culture until I believe Roman times.
I'd like to see some evidence of this theory. Everything I've read suggests that the whole reason that females even have breasts when they're not lactating is to attract males. No other mammals have breasts all the time.
 
mad it goes back even further than that. Its the nature or nurture debate, people always want to ignore the fact that we are after all ANIMALS and no different from any other animal. We never came into existances as moden man with cities and social structures as they are now or even homosapian, we evolved all the way back to the bactium. This means that our brains still have remnents of all those other ansestors all the way back to the begining and they still have infulance. Its only culture which is relitivly new
 
so
as(s)guard
what do animals do?

comprehensive
the definitive post
sci style

/kissing butthole aka rimjob
 
What I meant is that you can never know in advance whether or not you'll be spending the rest of your life with your first boyfriend.
There's no point in saying beforehand that you're not going through with it all the way, you don't know.

I wouldn't say for sure that I would not go through with it on principle if he was the right guy. But neither would I set out to marry the first guy I was with.
 
I wouldn't say for sure that I would not go through with it on principle if he was the right guy. But neither would I set out to marry the first guy I was with.

Ok, but it makes sense to give it all you got when you're in a relationship, don't you think ? :)
 
Such as the male attraction to the female breast. Its an unexplained phenomenon. Apparently there is a large amount of evidence that the female breast was not regarded as sexual in any culture until I believe Roman times.

Unexplained here having the meaning of 'unknown to you'. If a woman has big breasts she is more likely to be able to feed and nurture potential offspring well. Subconsciously, a man is looking for that in a 'mate'. I thought everyone knew that.

You may think such explanations are outdated simply because they refer back to evolutionary processes. However, our genes are almost identical to the stone age man and woman. Therefore, our inbuilt desires and predefined preferences are not likely to have changed at all.
 
Such as the male attraction to the female breast. Its an unexplained phenomenon.

http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/images/breasts.htm
Breasts: Their Evolutionary Origins as a Deceptive Signal of Need for Provisioning and Temporary Infertility

Edward M. Miller
Professor of Economics and Finance
University of New Orleans
New Orleans, LA 70148
October 27, 1995

Presented at the August 1993 Binghamton meeting of the Human Evolution and Behavior Society

Abstract

Female breasts enlarge during pregnancy and lactation. Since it is during these periods that provisioning the mother most benefits the child, males evolved to be more generous providers for women with enlarged breasts.
http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/images/breasts.htm

Not necessarily unexplained. It would seem self-evident that ancient man would have preferred larger breasts, better chance of the offspring living. Pretty much irrelevant in today's society, though. I guess subconscious influences still have a place though. CutsieMarie89 if you provide pics of your breasts, we can give you a better analysis of how men view them...
 
Huh? Far too young?
I'd guess you've had the plumbing running well enough for years to get pregnant.
Like Madant pointed out, it's not certain that BC is going to work every time. I would think that would be reason enough to keep your pants on. At least I hope so , If you really don't want kids that's is the only prevention method thats 100% sound.
Or go fuck everyone and then wonder which douchbag's child you have in your belly. Your choice.


You can always just toss the baby in the trash can.
 
Would you advocate the same to a male in case he got his girlfriend pregnant? If so, fair enough. If not, you're a hypocrite. If it's ok for males to fuck left right and centre but women should keep their pants on, who exactly are men supposed to have sex with?

Funny that the sexists want to always throw up strawmen instead of actually discussing anything.

While a male should be around to support the children he produced, it isn't as if the courts won't simply steal everything he has. Only mothers have the 'choice' to legally toss their children to the side.
 
noooo, Mom's have to pay child support as well. My Dad did and when we went to him in the summer, she did.
 
Funny that the sexists want to always throw up strawmen instead of actually discussing anything.

While a male should be around to support the children he produced, it isn't as if the courts won't simply steal everything he has. Only mothers have the 'choice' to legally toss their children to the side.

Bollocks. I don't think mothers should be allowed to 'toss their children to the side.' If they want to fuck off and not be there, they should have to pay child support just as an absent father should. And don't call me a sexist for asking someone if he thinks a principle should apply equally to men and women.
 
While a male should be around to support the children he produced, it isn't as if the courts won't simply steal everything he has. Only mothers have the 'choice' to legally toss their children to the side.

1. I'm not sure if you're aware, but looking after a child is very time-consuming. Apart from all the child's citable expenses that she can ask the father to help out with, she is unable to work to help pay for herself. Sorry, who's getting the raw deal again?

2. If the mother decides to abort, she legally can. After all, the child is still very much a part of her body and she is the one who will have to go through the painful process of labour and giving birth. If a mother has the child, and decides to put him or her up for adoption, the father always has first priority. Strangely enough, it is a rare occurrence for the father to take her up on the offer.

I tried to interpret your words as best as I could but 'toss their children to the side' is a fairly ambiguous phrase. Care to elaborate?
 
cellar door thats probably because its very rare for the father to be in any better position than the mother. for example a teenage pregnancy probably also means a teenage father which doesnt put him in any better place to care for the child than the mother was
 
Back
Top