No, he will become a serial killer for sure.
The Most Destructive Attitude in Romance
- Thread starter lixluke
- Start date
No, he will become a serial killer for sure.
lol. i was just thinking that a lot of people never do mature past the point where he is right now.
let's hope you do lix.
You conveniently missed the already "getting married" part. I'm not searching for Mr. Right anymore, found him already
. And it would be torture, if I can't stand being touched by him how could I stand sex? (without crying anyway) There is something about not enjoying sex you don't seem to get. As if it were impossible to not enjoy. :bugeye: What planet are you from? When I broke my knee and found it painful to walk, I didn't have to run a few laps to know that running would be painful too.OK, here goes... /yawn
@ lixluke:
If you met a man who was quite kind and caring, not unattractive, with whom you shared many interests, all that shit, AND he was more than willing to have sex with you, would you have sex with him? Why or why not. And keep in mind: chemical and biological explanations are simply "rationalization," and are therefore unacceptable.
@ lixluke:
If you met a man who was quite kind and caring, not unattractive, with whom you shared many interests, all that shit, AND he was more than willing to have sex with you, would you have sex with him? Why or why not. And keep in mind: chemical and biological explanations are simply "rationalization," and are therefore unacceptable.
Oh this is good.
Perhaps I've missed it but it seems you are not responding to my posts.
In any case...
If, in the above quote, you are using hos as a general term for women, then perhaps they are not sleeping with you because they can tell, however nice you are, that you really hate them and are a sexist pig. If you are only referring to some women when using the term ho, I wonder why the nice women are not sleeping with you and other men you term nice. Could it be, again, I've said this before, that you are doing precisely what you blame the women for doing
going after not nice women?
I do realize that the above includes ad hominim, if in the subjunctive, but you open the door for that when you refer to women as hos. This is ad hom sprayed across half the world.
lixluke, I am assuming you are are a heterosexual. You have male friends that you like but there is probably no chemistry between you and you are not attracted to them, right? Well, that's how it is for some women. We like the guy, but we are not sexually attracted to him.
and Bells got me to wondering. Do straight guys ever have a bad sexual experience with a woman?
Oh, please, nothing to apologize for. I was just whining for credit and attention. I wasn't getting any from the OP writer - kind of ironic given the topic - so I whined for some from the others.ah, my bad.
I haven't read all the posts here either.
Oh, just lucky. But I think he will dismiss this idea as completely irrelevent since he is hetero. A hetero woman should sleep with any nice man she likes. She owes him this.Damn you.
Niceness is the payment for sex.
You know, it is sort of like he considers women prostitutes - so no surprise he calls them hos - but is too cheap to pay cash. He pays, in advance one must admit, with niceness.
Now spead those legs, I was nice and you know what that means I'm owed.
Getting back to the chemistry angle, Herr Gustav alludes to the clincher:
but what do we really know of our capacity for discernment in these matters? (please see linked article) And specificity?
I, by virtue of temporal lobe damage and/or chronic migraines, have hyperosmia, and (so I believe) can smell a compatible female or an aggressor from a mile away (as can lepidopterans, apparently). Likewise, I know people by their natural scent. However, I am unusually deficient in my capacity for "reading" people otherwise--whether this owes more to an inability to interpret visual cues or dysfunctional "mirror neurons" is unclear. The latter (which in my case is rather profound) should make me highly susceptible to what lixluke seems to be "suffering" from, but I've never really experienced this problem--disregarding the other factors (common interests, physical attractiveness, etc.), I have historically interpreted "interest" correctly.
Now the question is not whether or not I am full of shit regarding my own claim, but rather do we emit pheromones/other odors so specific that some measure of "compatibility" can be determined--perhaps not consciously--solely on the basis of this? And if so, doesn't the use of perfumes and colognes serve to undermine our intent (assuming the intent is to find someone with whom one is truly compatible)? The article linked above suggests this is indeed the case, but one has to wonder just how important this singular factor may be in determing compatibility and whether--in instances of incompatibility--it can by overcome by virtue of other factors.
but what do we really know of our capacity for discernment in these matters? (please see linked article) And specificity?
I, by virtue of temporal lobe damage and/or chronic migraines, have hyperosmia, and (so I believe) can smell a compatible female or an aggressor from a mile away (as can lepidopterans, apparently). Likewise, I know people by their natural scent. However, I am unusually deficient in my capacity for "reading" people otherwise--whether this owes more to an inability to interpret visual cues or dysfunctional "mirror neurons" is unclear. The latter (which in my case is rather profound) should make me highly susceptible to what lixluke seems to be "suffering" from, but I've never really experienced this problem--disregarding the other factors (common interests, physical attractiveness, etc.), I have historically interpreted "interest" correctly.
Now the question is not whether or not I am full of shit regarding my own claim, but rather do we emit pheromones/other odors so specific that some measure of "compatibility" can be determined--perhaps not consciously--solely on the basis of this? And if so, doesn't the use of perfumes and colognes serve to undermine our intent (assuming the intent is to find someone with whom one is truly compatible)? The article linked above suggests this is indeed the case, but one has to wonder just how important this singular factor may be in determing compatibility and whether--in instances of incompatibility--it can by overcome by virtue of other factors.
There is no such thing as "being" a man. You are born either male or female. How about being less obsessed with ignorant BS gender roles?
No I would not have sex with him. I don't do males. And I'm not referring to lesbos either. I'm referring to hetro females that have sex with males. Speficially those who seem to be coming up with lots of justification to have sex with losers.
You do not seem to know how to operate logic. Ad hominem is just a term for a fallacy, and all fallacies need not be explained for all fallacies are logically obvious. All terms aside, it is comepletely obvious if the topic is me, then discussing me is relevant. If the topic is not me, then discussing me is irrelevant. So the topic is discussing males/females/relations, yet you somehow dedice that discussing females is irrelevant.
I'll try to spell it out by example. Jack values the following attributes: Caring, interesting, exciting, and often intelligent. Jack is also ugly.
Jill values the following attributes: Domination, dirty, agressive. Jill is a hotty.
Jack thinks Jill is hot.
Jill want's to vomit when she sees Jack.
Jack thinks domination is repulsive.
Jill thinks caring is weak.
Jack thinks he's interesting.
Jill thinks he's a nerd.
...
...
...
Jack just can't understand why Jill doesn't like him because he's a "nice guy"... completely neglecting two simple facts:
* He's butt-ugly.
* Jill has zero interest in a "nice guy" because her values are utterly different.
Values are subjective. There are no correct or incorrect ones. If a person fails to comprehend this and thinks his values are somehow superior to another persons then that's a strike against his mental capacity (which might be another turn off).