the *girl=slut man=stud" question.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes


I love the way you recopy all my thoughts because it gives them much more weight and time in the memory while you repeat it all again. I don't have to repeat myself to make a point. So thank you for that little superfluous idiosyncracy. It's a nice touch.

The top men are rich, successful, charismatic and good-looking. Why would they settle down with something from the poundshop, when they can afford to shop at Harrod's ?

Because when you put people side by side you really know very little about them. You cannot push a button and see "history." If a cute little pup should find her way to Harrod's, she will be bought.

That the "top men"are rich, successful, charismatic and good looking is about as truthful as saying the top women are. Funny. Heiresses are seldom lovely. Except in the eyes of her lover.

There is a small, infinitely small number of individuals who hold all those characteristics and they I am afraid are scooped up at puberty in arranged marriages because no matter what they tell you "beautiful people" stick together.

The top men might have one or two of those traits.
They do not have all those characteristics. 2 or more is a catch.
If they are wealthy and good looking they are snobbish, insufferable, boring a-holes so full of them self you want to go and throw up rather than spend another minute with them no matter what the price.

Originally posted by rusethorcain
I love the way you recopy all my thoughts because it gives them much more weight and time in the memory while you repeat it all again. I don't have to repeat myself to make a point. So thank you for that little superfluous idiosyncracy. It's a nice touch.

LOL.

Don't flatter yourself, love.

It's called multi-quoting, and it makes replies more readable by breaking down a post into the various points contained within it, and replying to those points specifically, rather than writing the entire reply, which often consists of separate and seemingly unrelated posts, in one long post.

Many people just skim through longer posts, and it makes the content of the post more accessible to those that haven't got the time or interest to read through what appears to be an essay.

I doubt that it adds any more weight to your points, as you are forgetting that just below your quoted text comes my incisive and thought-provoking counters to your points.

What is said last, usually sticks longest in the memory.

I don't know whether it matters either way, mind you, because I'm not entirely sure whether there's anybody else other than you and I reading our exchanges on this thread !

Originally posted by rusethorcain
Because when you put people side by side you really know very little about them. You cannot push a button and see "history." If a cute little pup should find her way to Harrod's, she will be bought.

That the "top men"are rich, successful, charismatic and good looking is about as truthful as saying the top women are. Funny. Heiresses are seldom lovely. Except in the eyes of her lover.

It's true that you can't always tell someone's ''history''; but there are often clear indicators in their general attitude, body-language and demeanour.

Bearing in mind, that we're talking about someone who you would settle down with, and not just someone that you find attractive.

By ''top men'', I was referring to the most desirable, not the most powerful or rich. I should have perhaps used ''well-off'' instead of ''rich''.


I agree, that most of the men in top positions aren't necessarily that good-looking, but they still manage to secure trophy wives, due to their money and power.

I wouldn't think that these men were the most desirable to women, though.

Originally posted by rusethorcain
There is a small, infinitely small number of individuals who hold all those characteristics and they I am afraid are scooped up at puberty in arranged marriages because no matter what they tell you "beautiful people" stick together.

Just to clarify my point again, I shouldn't have used the terms ''rich'' and ''successful'' to convey my point. I am not talking about a hierarchical elite.

I was talking more about the successful professional type of male who is comfortably off; there are thousand of these men around.

Originally posted by rusethorcain
If they are wealthy and good looking they are snobbish, insufferable, boring a-holes so full of them self you want to go and throw up rather than spend another minute with them no matter what the price.

That's a complete generalisation.

Good-looking people of both sexes can be stuck-up, arrogant, boring and conceited; but there are many who are also down-to-earth, nice, charismatic people.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes


Have you no life at all?
Where is the OP?

The Ethical Slut, the term has been used as an expression of choice to openly have multiple partners, and revel in that choice: "a slut is a person of any gender who has the courage to lead life according to the radical proposition that sex is nice and pleasure is good for you."[10] A slut is a person who has taken control of their sexuality and has sex with whomever they choose, regardless of religious or social pressures or conventions to conform to a straight-laced monogamous lifestyle committed to one partner for life. The term has been "taken back" to express the rejection of the concept that government, society, or religion may judge or control one's personal liberties, and the right to control one's own sexuality.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes

It's called multi-quoting, and it makes replies more readable by breaking down a post into the various points contained within it, and replying to those points specifically, rather than writing the entire reply, which often consists of separate and seemingly unrelated posts, in one long post.

Ii is an unnecessary distraction. We can assume people can read and have memory span of over a minute or two. The time it takes to jump from an answer to a reply without forgetting the entire thing. Just saying. They will flag you for quoting an entire post and so I don't see what the difference is if you break it down into bits. Still repetitive. I do not flatter myself. You flatter me, thank you.

Originally posted by rusethorcain
Have you no life at all?

Of course I have.

You didn't think that you were holding this discussion with a dead person, did you...?

Originally posted by rusethorcain
Ii is an unnecessary distraction. We can assume people can read and have memory span of over a minute or two. The time it takes to jump from an answer to a reply without forgetting the entire thing. Just saying. They will flag you for quoting an entire post and so I don't see what the difference is if you break it down into bits. Still repetitive. I do not flatter myself. You flatter me, thank you.

Providing I remain within the T&Cs of the site, then I'll post how I like.

If you don't like it, then you have the option of not reading my posts or not engaging in conversation with me.

As I've said, breaking down a long post and replying to the plethora of different points that can be raised within the post, is eminently more readable to a lot of people.

It also helps people who are just interested in seeing views pertaining to one particular aspect of a discussion, whereby they can just move to the part of the post that is directly replying to the point of interest, rather than wading through the entire post that they are largely not interested in.

The quoted text is more a point of reference, rather than to necessarily be read in its entirety.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by NWOnoworldorder

 

It's simple.

A women can easily get sex from men...it isn't a challenge...she mostly has her pick. Any decent looking women can go into a bar...and go home with almost any man in the bar if she is willing to. When a women gets a guy to sleep with her...it's not challenge...it is just a matter of being willing and picking who she wants.

A man has to work for it. Any decent looking man goes into a bar...and has to work...has to attract..to stand out...to "win". When a guy gets a women to sleep with him in...it is a victory.

hes hit the nail on the head there

edit on 15-11-2010 by pearcester because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

Originally posted by rusethorcain
Have you no life at all?

Of course I have.

You didn't think that you were holding this discussion with a dead person, did you...?

Uh...yeah. Whatever you say.

Look, I am sorry for whatever she did.
All women are not like that.

That's all I have to add here.

Thou doth protest to much.
You are getting a little too "Jack the Ripper" on me and to tell you the truth, it's creeping me out.

Originally posted by rusethorcain
Uh...yeah. Whatever you say.

I was attempting to make a ''funny'' by taking your ''Have you no life at all?'' at face value, and intentionally misinterpreting it as a factual question. Oh well, never mind.

Originally posted by rusethorcain
Look, I am sorry for whatever she did.

Ad Hominem. Unoriginal. Factually devoid and petty. 1/10.

Originally posted by rusethorcain
Thou doth protest to much.

I haven't protested about anything. Misapplying a Shakespeare quote in a situation where it has no relevance. 2/10

Originally posted by rusethorcain
You are getting a little too "Jack the Ripper" on me and to tell you the truth, it's creeping me out.

Ad Hominem x 2. Although I appreciate the creativity of the ''Jack the Ripper'' allusion, which gave me a minor chuckle, marks are taken off for the predictability and hollowness of the latter stages of your comment. 4/10.


Overall: 2/10. My appraisal: Large scope for improvement.

Better luck next time.

...this song is applicable to the topic in an analgesic paradoxical sorta kinda way...

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes

I was attempting to make a ''funny'' by taking your ''Have you no life at all?'' at face value, and intentionally misinterpreting it as a factual question. Oh well, never mind.

If it is any consolation, I did get the joke and was surprised, as it was so out of character.