| (Pages: 1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 ... 24) | |
| 386) | |
BANNED  Posts: 55 Joined: 21 May 2008 | |
| 387) | |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 2195 Joined: 26 Feb 2008 | About e-dating... Everyone thinks that this is some new phenomenon that came about because of the internet, but you are wrong. Electronic dating has been around for several hundred years. Don't believe me? Look it up. Even as far back as the telegraph, there were couples that met over the line, got to know each other, then got married. And yes, there were Mail-correspondance dating and marriages before that, too. So it is entirely reasonable to expect to meet someone online and have it work. It has been working for generations! |
| 388) | |
BANNED Posts: 55 Joined: 21 May 2008 |
I'm not entirely sure where we started talking about online dating (or where you may have gotten the idea), most of the posts I have be responding to are questions from girls about the "bizarre" habits and preferences of men. |
| 389) | |
Anonymous Source  Posts: 1 Joined: 21 May 2008 | Ima go out on a limb and call Darth Mobius a LIAR. |
| 390) | |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 2195 Joined: 26 Feb 2008 | Someone asked about meeting people on the internet, so I thought I would mention that it has been around for generations. And feel free to call me a liar, but I learned about it in my History of American Technology class. Kind of hard to disprove that there weren't mail based weddings when people have been doing mail order brides for decades... |
| 391) | |
BANNED Posts: 55 Joined: 21 May 2008 | I missed it completely, which kinda makes your post totally random, especially since you didn't have anything more to add to it and I have to poke you with a stick to get more information, furthermore it isn't helpful that you seem to be surly right now (or in general). Please try to post whole ideas. |
| 392) | |
Pulitzer Laureate  Posts: 765 Joined: 22 Aug 2006 |
I know that I'm at least one of the people you're referring to, but I never implied that it didn't exist previously. I implied that it was becoming more mainstream (Penthouse is in the biz of hooking up the devoutly religious), with more and more people engaging in it. As for your hundreds of years bit, I think you're stretching the definition of "electronic dating". This would be akin to calling telegraphs "e-mail". Yes, correspondence relationships and services have existed for quite some time (Original Sin, anyone?). The number of people engaged in them, as a percentage of the population, methinks, is higher. |
| 393) | |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 2195 Joined: 26 Feb 2008 | Well, technically, the telegraph used an electrical charge to transmit data, so it is e-dating, and yes, it IS more mainstream now, but it happened back in the day, too. |
| 394) | |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 1578 Joined: 13 Feb 2008 |
I've found gender orientation more accurate, because sexual orientation brings in BDSM, Yiffing which aren't gender specific... And brings up a whole udder issue. :)
Latter (There will be the odd exceptions of course, but they'll balance out)
Other question : How come you can touch a woman's boobs in front of a hetero-guy? Biggest cockslap around imho. ;)
[/quote] Although Britney has inflatables. Dolly actually had reductions AFAIK. |
| 395) | |
Anonymous Source  Posts: 10 Joined: 21 May 2008 | I have a question. Why don't guys show their feeling more, see my best friend is a guy and he is all up for hugs and telling me how his day has been and even crying! My Boyfriend's the same as well. But they are the only two guys I've met so far that have been open with me about the feelings. So why aren't the rest of you like that? |
| 396) | |
Pulitzer Laureate Posts: 765 Joined: 22 Aug 2006 |
This is a untenable stretching of the definition of e-dating, and you know it. Why be so reasonable all the time, and then defend your own verbal trip-up? Let's add to this that the individuals sending the telegraphs were writing them on paper or dictating them, handing them to someone else, who then tapped on something that transmitted the electrical charge, while someone else wrote down or typed up the interpretation for delivery to the other. Are faxes "e-mail" now too? Paper in, data across, paper out? Bah. Quit being silly. The reason we started calling it "e-mail" is because it existed entirely in the electronic state, with no physical manifestation short of the light-waves produced by a viewing device necessary. |
| 397) | |
Pulitzer Laureate Posts: 765 Joined: 22 Aug 2006 |
Nature and nurture: individual hormone levels, and the way they were raised in terms of what is acceptable for a guy to display. |
| 398) | |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 1030 Joined: 7 Mar 2008 |
most straight guys won't because it's a sign of weakness in front of other males. i say straight males because most gay males i've met act more like woman and show emotion. it's a social thing that's got a lot of roots in being an alpha male around other males. most guys will take crying and showing of emotion as weakness and ridicule and/or lay a smackdown on the guy who's crying/being emotional. now there are times you can cry in front of your other male friends and they are as follows spill your beer every other reason one of your male friends will ridicule you for crying, including getting nailed in the crotch if they aren't laughing too hard at you already now this doesn't apply to guys around women, they will be all emotional and such either cause they are like that or they want to score. |
| 399) | |
Muckraker Posts: 342 Joined: 19 Dec 2007 |
Because there's only room for one pussy in a heterosexual relationship. The last thing we need is for modern society to erode manliness altogether. If that happens, then men will basically just be "chicks with dicks" (To steal a phrase). |
| 400) | |
Beat Writer  Posts: 156 Joined: 4 Feb 2008 |
Because we're manly... But seriously, I guess it's a psychological superiority thing for us. I don't know. Some deep need to appear as if nothing bothers us. That's being deep. The first answer is probably the most correct one for most guys |
| 401) | |
Pulitzer Laureate Posts: 765 Joined: 22 Aug 2006 |
Gender orientation is impossible to be accurate, because it is mixing two different concepts. One being gender: do the parts I was born with feel right for me? This is separate from what I am attracted to on other bodies. Am I a man in a man's body, a man in a woman's body, a woman in a woman's body, a woman in a man's body, or something in between? Gender. Two being sexual orientation: what am I attracted to in other people? Yiffing, and BDSM, these are not sexual orientations. They're a third category: what do I want to do with the individuals I'm attracted to? I don't have a good word for it. But nobody is rightfully mixing this up with sexual orientation. Are some people predisposed to being Dom/Sub-Top/Bottom? Sure. Is this a separate thing from whether they are attracted to Men, Women, or Both? Yes.
Getting back to the original question, is attraction to breasts gender based, sexual-orientation based, or genetically rooted? You seem to be indicating sexual-orientation based, while I'm proffering gender/genetics. I have trouble believing that a lesbian would be as fascinated, or if so, fascinated through the same mechanism, by breasts as a guy, because the lesbian has her own. So really, the question is out for women attracted to women, and guys not attracted to women: what do you think about breasts? You and I both seem to be males who are attracted to women, so our POV is nearly worthless. |
| 402) | |
Anonymous Source  Posts: 5 Joined: 21 May 2008 |
Why are girls so intimate? Most guys just aren't as comfortable with initimacy as girls are. I barely give my parents a half-hug... and even then it's usually a special occasion >.> We just don't like to have people see us cry. Either that or the high pain tolerance stuff already mentioned. >.> And in both cases for you the guys knew you very well and vice versa. |
| 403) | |
Pulitzer Laureate  Posts: 834 Joined: 16 Jan 2008 |
No it isn't, really. Electronic dating would logically be dating via electronic means of communications. Ergo telegraphs are in. |
| 404) | |
Copy Clerk  Posts: 85 Joined: 19 Mar 2008 |
I'm all up for showing feelings but only with people I know who won't ridicule me. There's a few people that I feel I can really open up to but it's not something that a lot of guys do. Girls can bond with each other by crying and hugging but guys bond by getting drunk at football matches. |
| 405) | |
Paperboy Posts: 45 Joined: 19 May 2008 | I've found that, when presented with a problem, I can't help myself, and have to figure out a solution. Even if it takes me all day. Give me a Crossword Puzzle, you've lost any chance of chatter for the evening. That's how my brain is, I'm a very Logic/Problem Solving thinker. Probably the last thing that comes through my mind is 'ahh, she just wants my attention and a hug'. |
| 406) | |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 2195 Joined: 26 Feb 2008 |
I am glad someone agrees with me. I wasn't trying to be reasonable, but since two people seem to think I was being confrontational about it, I will follow the Logician's example and apologize to anyone and everyone for what I said. I wasn't trying to be confrontational, I was simply trying to fill in a random fact about dating electronicly because I believe it was BlazeTheVampire who asked about e-dating. I was just trying to show in my own way that it is completely normal and acceptable to date someone having never met them, even though I will NEVER make that mistake again. You have to take everything I say with a grain of salt because at the end of the day, my experiences have mostly been negative, and so I was trying to remove some of the brevity that I injected... No offense intended. Sorry Guys! |
| 407) | |
Pulitzer Laureate Posts: 765 Joined: 22 Aug 2006 |
If I knew where you lived, I would come e-beat you. We'll take this to the next step then... The telegraph was invented in 1809. It is now 2008. 2008-1809 = 199. Mobius said "several hundred years". This is fallacious, even assuming that the moment the telegraph was invented, someone used it to date someone else. And if we're going to be that general about what is electronic, and what is not, then there has never been ANY form of dating which is not electronic (speech may be audible, and handwriting may be visible, but both are pre-empted by the electrical signals used by the brain to control the muscles.) See!? Electricity is involved. Ergo... ergo... I've lost my will to live... |
| 408) | |
Pulitzer Laureate Posts: 765 Joined: 22 Aug 2006 |
I need nor want any of your apology, because I never thought you were being confrontational. I only took issue with one aspect of your content, on a factual basis. The comment in and of itself was 100% relevant, valid, and I was glad you made it. If you would like to cede the point about e-dating, no apology needed there either. Just a signed affidavit of your surrender. |
| 409) | |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 2195 Joined: 26 Feb 2008 | Actually, I wasn't surrendering to you, or APOLOGIZING to YOU. A few other people mentioned that I was being mean, so I was apologizing to them. I will concede that my statement "Several Hundred years" was inflated, so, in the interest of Historical Accuracy: People have been e-dating for almost two centuries (Good Enough?) and there have been long distance relationships for OVER two centuries (Snail Mail, before it was called that) so the idea of meeting someone in a non-real fashion and having the relationship work has a large historical precedent and as such, dating websites are a viable alternative to local dating. Is that correct enough for you? |
| 410) | |
Pulitzer Laureate Posts: 834 Joined: 16 Jan 2008 |
Prior note: I always lose when arguing with you, but I'll hurl myself at it anyway. Not trying to be confrontational, I just like a good bicker. Haha, give over, that's just being pedantic. It's not a case of electricity is used somewhere along the lines. I'll admit putting the years in triple figures might just be pushing it a little, but surely a telegraph comes under electronic communication? Surely as such if you dated (although I guess it would probably be pushing the meaning of dating a little far, but assuming they were determined. And it is possible! It's just a little slower than doing it over the web.) via it, you'd be dating electronically. Far as I'm concerned, if you're carrying out a verb utilising a flow of electrons (to directly carry out the verb, not just somewhere along the line), you can rightfully stick an 'e-' in front of it. |
| 411) | |
Paperboy Posts: 45 Joined: 19 May 2008 | Yeah don't argue :P let it go, move on |
| 412) | |
Pulitzer Laureate Posts: 765 Joined: 22 Aug 2006 |
Glorious! Note to you and Singing Gremlin: I'm walking away from the definition of e-dating. Agree to disagree. Back... away... slowly... But, as before and now, you remain absolutely correct that long-distance "I've never seen you before in my life" relationships have been around far longer than the internet. |
| 413) | |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 2195 Joined: 26 Feb 2008 | I want to clarify, so that at least it makes sense to you why I feel the way I do. At the time of the invention of the telegraph the fastest method of communication was the letter, which took a full two weeks to cross the country. With the invention of the telegraph, a man and a woman could communicate within minutes to each other from the entire length of a country or continent. This instantaneous communication would general be considered electronic because the person who sent the message expected the person to receive that message within minutes. It was transmitted electronicly, in that you had to use electrical impulses to pass the message. The difference (and their isn't even that big a gap, even now) is that you had to have a skilled operator to send a telegram, whereas only some people don't know how to send an e-mail message today. Anyone who knew morse code could send a message, it just made more sense to only have one local center for messages than everyone knowing how to and using a telegraph. See why it qualifies as e-dating now? |
| 414) | |
Copy Clerk Posts: 78 Joined: 1 Aug 2006 | I'd like some girls asking some more questions I feel pleasant for answering now please. |
| 415) | |
Pulitzer Laureate Posts: 834 Joined: 16 Jan 2008 | Yay! I win by default! I shall do a little dance! Note to self, arguments can be won by threatening your opponent's sanity. How wonderful. Edit: Well, I didn't really win at all, Geoff just started to ignore us. Feh, close enough! |
| 416) | |
Paperboy Posts: 45 Joined: 19 May 2008 |
Yeah. Just state your opinion on the above topic and move on. Weather it agrees or disagree with the person who posts after you. Lets keep this thread filled with interesting discussion and not with spam. Afterall, an Opinion is never technically wrong |
| 417) | |
BANNED Posts: 55 Joined: 21 May 2008 | Splitting hairs on a subject that is off topic on a forum that is already fairly off topic leads me to desiring violence upon the one who started this whole mess, and perhaps to a lesser degree on those who propagated said deviation. Now, assuming you haven't driven away all of the girls asking questions, I would like to continue from where I left off. which was waiting for someone to ask a question that was pertinent to the topic at hand. Seriously guys why couldn't you have taken it somewhere else, were I not sharing a company computer right now I would have stopped it myself right after my last post. |
| 418) | |
Press Junketeer  Posts: 370 Joined: 14 May 2008 |
Nope, never said anything about e-dating. |
| 419) | |
Anonymous Source Posts: 5 Joined: 21 May 2008 | Ok then. This one is about a dance that's coming up soon. So, there's this girl that I want to ask to the dance. The question is, should I ask if she'll go with me before the dance, or just ask her if she wants to dance when I get there. I'm almost positive that she won't get asked by another guy, so I don't think there's that danger. And, how do I approach? I read through this topic a bit, and you all agreed with casually, but anything else that might help? Thanks. |
| 420) | |
Press Junketeer Posts: 370 Joined: 14 May 2008 |
My best advice would just be to walk up and ask her, honestly. Quit pussyfooting around and ask "Hey, you want to go to the dance with me?" Mind you, this is assuming that you two are already on a "friendship" level and not a "I like her because I watch from the other side of the room drooling and wishing she'd give me the time of day" level. If you've already got an established friendship with her, just walk up and ask. If you've never actually spoken to her, just watched from afar, I'd suggest not asking at all. This isn't to assume you're the latter, I'd just hate to have you be that guy and then come back going "SHE KICKED ME IN THE NUTS! YOU GAVE ME HORRIBLE ADVICE!" |
| (Pages: 1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 ... 24) | |
What aren't you understanding?