I never get laid. Feeling undesirable or something.

[shiny5437]

Take Eugene Levy's adivce from American Pie: The longer you go without, the less you'll miss it.

That male sexual prime is supposedly at 18, so in theory your libido should only decline. Give it time, before you know it it'll be a decade since you've had sex. Trust me it's not that big a deal. Fretting over it is probably making it worse, do other stuf. Drink, do drugs, work a lot, play a sport. All are time consuming and incredibly engaging. At the end, at least, you'll have cool stories (kinda like Jim Anchower) and loads of spare cash.

You are joking, right?

So I'm not invited to the relationship party so I may as well go cut my balls off?

 

[shiny5437]

I have liked and been liked by enough people to know that there isn't "one true love". You're saying maybe someone who doesn't match my criteria -- let's say religious belief -- can be a great fit for me, well you know what, I am pretty damn sure there is someone who does believe in the same gods (or the lack of which) as I do and who is also a great (if not better) fit for me.

It must be nice to have such an abundance of options. Unfortunately not all of us do and that's probably why seeing other people's selectivity comes across almost sort of 'wasteful'. So if you're trying to enter the world of relationships and coming into contact with people like yourself it's not a nice feeling to know you're at the bottom of the pile. Especially when that pile sometimes seems from the outside to include jerks, two timers, wife beaters etc. That again supports my initial quanderry: it's great to meet someone you feel comparability with, but clearly there is something that can override that and that's plain and simple, tingle in your trousers, attraction. Which Welkin you probably possess plentiful amounts of.

 

[SweetErika]

It's not a question of what you're sexually attracted to or not. You're allowed to prefer darker skin (for example) or overweight people. But it's wrong to discard someone just because he doesn't fit that description. What I'm saying is that it is VERY possible that you fall in love with someone who doesn't fit this description. And this is why I don't support internet dating... because you filter out a BUTTload of possibilities.

It totally depends on how you use dating sites, Mac. Personally, I search for location, gender, a fairly wide age range, and maybe one or two preferences (e.g. their sexual orientation, type of relationship), but that's about it. Then I see what comes back and read the profiles that catch my eye. But I don't discriminate based on what I consider to be minor criteria, like body type/stats, ethnicity, income, etc. If a person's attractive, they're attractive, and I mostly determine that (superficially, at least) on what they write in their profile.

Yeah, that person who has a very narrow idea of what they're looking for isn't likely to have great luck, but the ones who keep an open mind can, and do, meet the loves of their lives online. It's just another way to find people who you might click with.

 

[Douchemoron]

I don't get it really. I am not ugly. I wouldn't call myself a catch or anything, but I'm just incredibly unlucky or something. I've never had a girlfriend and I'm 25. I'm starting to feel unwanted. I don't know how to meet people, and I'm losing things to talk about.

I guess I'm rambling. Just looking for advice, or to share similar experiences.

One word, my friend: chloroform.

 

[welkin]

It must be nice to have such an abundance of options. Unfortunately not all of us do and that's probably why seeing other people's selectivity comes across almost sort of 'wasteful'. So if you're trying to enter the world of relationships and coming into contact with people like yourself it's not a nice feeling to know you're at the bottom of the pile. Especially when that pile sometimes seems from the outside to include jerks, two timers, wife beaters etc. That again supports my initial quanderry: it's great to meet someone you feel comparability with, but clearly there is something that can override that and that's plain and simple, tingle in your trousers, attraction. Which Welkin you probably possess plentiful amounts of.

I didn't intend for it to come across like that. I can list lots of things I'm willing to be open on, that includes age, income, profession, looks, etc. And I am sure others are open on many things -- though they may differ from my list, otherwise no one is ever going to find a match! I am just very annoyed that Mac98 here has an idea of what he thinks is acceptable or not acceptable to be open on, and wants to impose his own list on everyone else.

Particularly shocking is his earlier claim that difference in religious belief is superficial / not a big deal. I admit this is an easy example, as religion has profound impact in one's life and values -- people go to war in the name of religion, and even among my young, well-educated peers, there are families who do not allow marrying outside their religion. Is it so hard to conceive how religious differences can become an unbridgeable chasm between two individuals? Fortunately, in my personal experience, I meet lots of people who agree with me on religion, so I am not really saying "oh I am so attractive I can have anyone I want", it's a limit I choose to impose knowing that I'm not decimating my chances by doing so.

 

[bailadora]

You're allowed to have preferances, I just think it's too bad that you would immediately dismiss someone because he doesn't fit what's ideal to you.

I agree with this in the sense that there are SOME things that, for some reason, you can't get over. Quick example, someone who snores very loudly. That being said, I tend to think that if you're really IN LOVE with this person, these little pet peeves of yours shouldn't take THAT much importance. And if they do, why not discuss it with the person or find help? It shouldn't be THAT big a deal.

Thank you oh so kindly for your generosity.

Honestly, I'm starting to get bad flashbacks of your "Where Are We?" thread. You're sitting here complaining about how judgmental people are, yet you're doing the very thing you're complaining about. Just because something is unimportant to you doesn't mean you get to be dismissive of its importance to someone else. Since your not the one living their life, what gives you the right to sit in judgment of someone else's criteria for a life mate? Frankly, I think it's kind of arrogant of you.

Let's take religion as an example. While I get the sense this is not something that matters to you, it was (and is) of vital importance to me that my spouse share my views with regard to religion. Aside from many of the reasons Welkin already listed, my religious views shape the way I raise my children and what beliefs I try to instill in them. I know as they grow older they may question and/or reject these beliefs, but at this point in time, I'm trying to lay a foundation for the values I believe to be important. If my spouse did not share and reinforce these views, we would constantly be at odds over just about everything to do with their lives and that would make for a toxic environment for everyone involved. And frankly - we all deserve better than that. Having a shared religion was and is about so much more than a "pet peeve." By not giving in on this criteria, I saved myself, my spouse and my children a lot of heartache.

The idea that love conquers all is an idealistic fantasy, Mac. If people are fundamentally too different from each other, the chances of them making a successful life together are pretty slim.

But imo, today's way of thinking toward relationships is way too defeatest. It almost seems as though people are LOOKING to end relationships or get a divorce...

I'll agree that people today don't seem to be as willing to work on relationships as they did in the past. But to my way of thinking, that would seem to be even more of an incentive to find someone who is as closely compatible with yourself as possible. If people are less tolerant to begin with, it would stand to reason that you want to start with as strong of a foundation as possible to give your relationship the best chance of surviving the long term.

 

[welkin]

Regarding people being defeatist and looking to get a divorce / end a relationship, while it sounds negative, it also partially reflects how more individualistic and tolerant the society has become, allowing people to overcome the guilt or shame or social stigma of being a divorcee. It may not be a bad thing. Some people change, some people realize later in life what they really want. There are definitely couples who should be divorced long ago who are still together solely for the sake of staying together. State of being together or separated by itself does not indicate level of happiness or rightfulness of the decision.

 

[Mac98]

I have liked and been liked by enough people to know that there isn't "one true love". You're saying maybe someone who doesn't match my criteria -- let's say religious belief -- can be a great fit for me, well you know what, I am pretty damn sure there is someone who does believe in the same gods (or the lack of which) as I do and who is also a great (if not better) fit for me. I'd rather take my time and look for that second guy and reject the first guy right away, as difference in religious belief is often a great indicator for difference in life style and opinions about social issues, I save my future self the time wasted in arguments. I wouldn't think it is wrong at all, it's rational risk aversion and evaluation -- and heck, rejecting someone is NEVER wrong. We all have our right to choose our partners as we like.

Final words: Stop being so judgmental on other people's personal choices. I am not asking you to be as picky as I am (even though I think one ought to be picky when it comes to partners possibly for life), I am not saying your not-rejecting others for difference in beliefs is necessarily wrong, so why not give me and others the same respect and not try to convert us?

Listen, I'm not trying to convert anyone to believe what I believe. I'm just voicing an opinion I have that I feel strongly about. Call me naive all you want, but it's like we've become so saturated with superficiality and materialistic goods that suddenly we're constantly looking for perfect this and perfect that. I did it too. Like I said, for long, I never saw myself dating someone outside of my ideal woman (5'3 etc, etc.).

What I'm saying has nothing to do with being judgemental or not. You want to be picky? Fine! Go ahead. Like you said, this changes nothing for me. Only for you. That being said, I still have an opinion about the whole dating scene of today and I'm making it heard. If you don't like hearing my opinion then I guess don't read my posts? I'll apologize if I come off as arrogant, but I won't apologize for expressing my way of thinking.

And I also think Shiny5437's post made a good point... (irrelevant to what I just said).

It totally depends on how you use dating sites, Mac. Personally, I search for location, gender, a fairly wide age range, and maybe one or two preferences (e.g. their sexual orientation, type of relationship), but that's about it.

I agree. Not everyone uses dating sites the same way. But I would argue that they're also conceived in such a way that you can type in who your perfect man or woman would be and they give you those results which I personally think is too bad (for the reasons I've mentioned earlier).

Thank you oh so kindly for your generosity.

Honestly, I'm starting to get bad flashbacks of your "Where Are We?" thread. You're sitting here complaining about how judgmental people are, yet you're doing the very thing you're complaining about. Just because something is unimportant to you doesn't mean you get to be dismissive of its importance to someone else. Since your not the one living their life, what gives you the right to sit in judgment of someone else's criteria for a life mate? Frankly, I think it's kind of arrogant of you.

Let's take religion as an example. While I get the sense this is not something that matters to you, it was (and is) of vital importance to me that my spouse share my views with regard to religion. Aside from many of the reasons Welkin already listed, my religious views shape the way I raise my children and what beliefs I try to instill in them. I know as they grow older they may question and/or reject these beliefs, but at this point in time, I'm trying to lay a foundation for the values I believe to be important. If my spouse did not share and reinforce these views, we would constantly be at odds over just about everything to do with their lives and that would make for a toxic environment for everyone involved. And frankly - we all deserve better than that. Having a shared religion was and is about so much more than a "pet peeve." By not giving in on this criteria, I saved myself, my spouse and my children a lot of heartache.

The idea that love conquers all is an idealistic fantasy, Mac. If people are fundamentally too different from each other, the chances of them making a successful life together are pretty slim.

I'll agree that people today don't seem to be as willing to work on relationships as they did in the past. But to my way of thinking, that would seem to be even more of an incentive to find someone who is as closely compatible with yourself as possible. If people are less tolerant to begin with, it would stand to reason that you want to start with as strong of a foundation as possible to give your relationship the best chance of surviving the long term.

You mean my ultimate jackassness when approaching the subject of bettering the world collectively that was majorly frowned upon? Yes, I remember that thread. So arrogant of me to have thought about such a thing! God!

As far as religion is concerned, you're telling me that if you fell madly in love with someone (back up before you got married and had kids) you would call it off because his religious beliefs differed from yours? Who's to say you'd be unable to live happily with this man. What if his beliefs were different from yours but that he respected your way of thinking? Ok, so maybe he wouldn't go to church with you every sunday. Or heck, maybe you wouldn't follow him to the synagogue, but that doesn't mean that you couldn't live happily together and raise very functional and kind children.

Regarding people being defeatist and looking to get a divorce / end a relationship, while it sounds negative, it also partially reflects how more individualistic and tolerant the society has become, allowing people to overcome the guilt or shame or social stigma of being a divorcee. It may not be a bad thing. Some people change, some people realize later in life what they really want. There are definitely couples who should be divorced long ago who are still together solely for the sake of staying together. State of being together or separated by itself does not indicate level of happiness or rightfulness of the decision.

I agree. Divorce isn't ALWAYS a bad thing and in some cases you just have to accept that it's over. That being said, I think today it becomes too much of an easy exit or rapid solution. I think MANY marriages that have ended in divorce could have easily been saved.

And beleive me... growing up in a divorced family is hell for kids. 99.999% of the time.

 

[Felix_Jones]

You are joking, right?

So I'm not invited to the relationship party so I may as well go cut my balls off?

Holy shit! Nobody's talking castration here, what the fuck?

 

[welkin]

Mac, you are really tilting at windmills. My first post in this thread indicated that I'm looking for a man who's not so desperate, who respects his ex's, who is not so self-absorbed, and later I'm adding the requirement that who agrees with me on religion, but also mentioning that I'm happy to consider a wide range of looks and incomes and ages etc., and now you are charging me for being superficial and demanding for perfection? My my don't we have low standards for perfection! Please, even if the things I listed look like mission impossible for you, do your gender a favor and not insult all the other men out there by implying that my ideal is too picky.

 

[Felix_Jones]

One word, my friend: chloroform.

Best pick-up line ever:

"Does this smell like chloroform to you?"

 

[Felix_Jones]

Mac, you are really tilting at windmills. My first post in this thread indicated that I'm looking for a man who's not so desperate, who respects his ex's, who is not so self-absorbed, and later I'm adding the requirement that who agrees with me on religion, but also mentioning that I'm happy to consider a wide range of looks and incomes and ages etc., and now you are charging me for being superficial and demanding for perfection? My my don't we have low standards for perfection! Please, even if the things I listed look like mission impossible for you, do your gender a favor and not insult all the other men out there by implying that my ideal is too picky.

I saw on a nature show once that the best reason for females to have a male around is to protect her from other males of the same species.

 

[shiny5437]

Holy shit! Nobody's talking castration here, what the fuck?

To some extent you probably are talking about a form of castration. From your description it sounds like; wait long enough and the ravages of time will shrink your balls and render you asexual.

 

[bailadora]

You mean my ultimate jackassness when approaching the subject of bettering the world collectively that was majorly frowned upon? Yes, I remember that thread. So arrogant of me to have thought about such a thing! God!

I mean the thread where you outed yourself as a hypocrite for doing the very thing you were railing against - which, not so coincidentally, you are doing yet again.

As far as religion is concerned, you're telling me that if you fell madly in love with someone (back up before you got married and had kids) you would call it off because his religious beliefs differed from yours? Who's to say you'd be unable to live happily with this man. What if his beliefs were different from yours but that he respected your way of thinking? Ok, so maybe he wouldn't go to church with you every sunday. Or heck, maybe you wouldn't follow him to the synagogue, but that doesn't mean that you couldn't live happily together and raise very functional and kind children.

Yes - that's exactly what I'm saying. There is a big difference between respecting someone's right to have different beliefs and agreeing with them. The scenario you describe would not work for me because my religious beliefs and the way I raise my kids go way beyond functionality and kindness. It includes believing in and accepting Christ as their savior and living their lives accordingly. Now - let's say I married someone outside my faith and my kids started asking questions of their father:" Dad, is Christ really the Messiah? Is it really that important to believe in Him", etc? If my spouse didn't share my faith what in hell would he tell them? There would be two options: 1) either lie to the kids or 2) say that he doesn't share my beliefs, which, in effect would undermine what I'm trying to instill. Can you imagine how confused this would make a kid? I'll grant you that I'm not always 100 percent in agreement with my husband on every little thing, but on the things that are most important to us, he and I are absolutely in sync, including how we raise our kids and what beliefs we try to instill in them. In short, other people might be able to live very happily with someone with a faith different from their own, and I wish them all the happiness in the world. But for me and my life, I know for a fact that I cannot be happy with someone outside my faith.

Just like anyone else, you are entitled to have your opinion regarding the dating scene, Mac. Where you put your foot in it is when you started being dismissive of other people's criteria as superficial and shallow just because they were items that were of little or no importance to YOU. You appointed yourself arbiter of what does and does not constitute "being open minded" when you called other people's criteria into question and that's what has caused people to bristle.

 

[Mac98]

Mac, you are really tilting at windmills. My first post in this thread indicated that I'm looking for a man who's not so desperate, who respects his ex's, who is not so self-absorbed, and later I'm adding the requirement that who agrees with me on religion, but also mentioning that I'm happy to consider a wide range of looks and incomes and ages etc., and now you are charging me for being superficial and demanding for perfection? My my don't we have low standards for perfection! Please, even if the things I listed look like mission impossible for you, do your gender a favor and not insult all the other men out there by implying that my ideal is too picky.

Yeah, that... OR... I could also keep saying what I believe and share my opinion. I think I choose the sharing my opinion.

I'm gonna' stop repeating myself cuz I can only do so for so long. I shared what I had to say. I disagree with how people view dating today. I'm not gonna' apologize for what I said cuz I frankly don't feel I've been rude or out of place. I shared my opinion and never insulted you or anyone else here. I disagree with how you view things and have all the right to. If you don't like having your views challenged then I'll make it a point not to engage in a discussion with you in the future so we can avoid this next time.

I mean the thread where you outed yourself as a hypocrite for doing the very thing you were railing against - which, not so coincidentally, you are doing yet again.



Yes - that's exactly what I'm saying. There is a big difference between respecting someone's right to have different beliefs and agreeing with them. The scenario you describe would not work for me because my religious beliefs and the way I raise my kids go way beyond functionality and kindness. It includes believing in and accepting Christ as their savior and living their lives accordingly. Now - let's say I married someone outside my faith and my kids started asking questions of their father:" Dad, is Christ really the Messiah? Is it really that important to believe in Him", etc? If my spouse didn't share my faith what in hell would he tell them? There would be two options: 1) either lie to the kids or 2) say that he doesn't share my beliefs, which, in effect would undermine what I'm trying to instill. Can you imagine how confused this would make a kid? I'll grant you that I'm not always 100 percent in agreement with my husband on every little thing, but on the things that are most important to us, he and I are absolutely in sync, including how we raise our kids and what beliefs we try to instill in them. In short, other people might be able to live very happily with someone with a faith different from their own, and I wish them all the happiness in the world. But for me and my life, I know for a fact that I cannot be happy with someone outside my faith.

Just like anyone else, you are entitled to have your opinion regarding the dating scene, Mac. Where you put your foot in it is when you started being dismissive of other people's criteria as superficial and shallow just because they were items that were of little or no importance to YOU. You appointed yourself arbiter of what does and does not constitute "being open minded" when you called other people's criteria into question and that's what has caused people to bristle.

So why argue or even adress someone you view as a hypocrit? I think it's unfortunate that you would play that card, Bailadora. I see it as a low blow. I also think it's sad (or maybe even hypocritical) that such a devout religious person would argue someone expressing his anger that people can't come together and help his fellow man.

I never called anyone shallow or superficial. Sure, I disagreed with Welkin when she said she had certain criterias, but all I was saying is that maybe people should keep a bit more of an open-mind and not dimiss others so quickly. I don't know this person. Welkin may very well be a superb human being IRL. I disagreed with her views on dating and felt that some of her criterias shouldn't hold so much importance imo.

Just like I find religion shouldn't get in the way of something as beautiful as Love. I'm not religious. I'm a believer, but I'm not religious. But I sure as hell would never let faith come between me and another human being. Be it relationship or friendship.

As far as raising your kids and being undermined goes, I think there's a way around it. He could always, for the sake of your kids, tell them that some people believe that (...insert Jesus and Bible talk here). And maybe when they grow a little older, he could explain to them HIS views and let them decide on their own beliefs by themselves.

Listen, I don't much feel like fighting with any of you. That wasn't my point.

Welkin: Sorry if you thought I was calling you shallow or superficial. I didn't mean it directly towards you.

Bailadora: I don't know what I'm apologizing for... but sorry.

 

[welkin]

As far as raising your kids and being undermined goes, I think there's a way around it. He could always, for the sake of your kids, tell them that some people believe that (...insert Jesus and Bible talk here). And maybe when they grow a little older, he could explain to them HIS views and let them decide on their own beliefs by themselves.

Sure it's easy to compromise when it's something you don't care so much about and you are willing to do it for your partner's sake. But that is a weak case to test the power of compromise. Suppose the man is just as fervent about his belief of the big bang and evolution, then what does he tell his kids? Why should he be forced to silence about his views? Why doesn't he get to teach his kids what he thinks is right? Do you see what I'm getting here? If the couple agreed on religion, then this won't be a dilemma at all!

You specifically used words such as "it's wrong to pick your mate based on ...", and that effectively translates into "it's wrong for you to put such importance on ...", and that "..." may very well be something very dear and defining for some individuals. Yes love is beautiful and all, but really, how can you expect everyone to prioritize love, faith, money, hobbies, etc. in the exact same order as you do?

 

[Mac98]

Sure it's easy to compromise when it's something you don't care so much about and you are willing to do it for your partner's sake. But that is a weak case to test the power of compromise. Suppose the man is just as fervent about his belief of the big bang and evolution, then what does he tell his kids? Why should he be forced to silence about his views? Why doesn't he get to teach his kids what he thinks is right? Do you see what I'm getting here? If the couple agreed on religion, then this won't be a dilemma at all!

You specifically used words such as "it's wrong to pick your mate based on ...", and that effectively translates into "it's wrong for you to put such importance on ...", and that "..." may very well be something very dear and defining for some individuals. Yes love is beautiful and all, but really, how can you expect everyone to prioritize love, faith, money, hobbies, etc. in the exact same order as you do?

I'm not saying the husband shouldn't get to teach his kids about his beliefs, but that's where compromise should come in and both adults should sit down and discuss this and find a compromise both will ultimatley be ok with. Communication... it's not just a cliche, it's actually IMPORTANT in a relationship.

And for the rest, you're absolutely 100% right. I concede victory to you. You win. Congradulations.

 

[bailadora]

So why argue or even adress someone you view as a hypocrit? I think it's unfortunate that you would play that card, Bailadora. I see it as a low blow. I also think it's sad (or maybe even hypocritical) that such a devout religious person would argue someone expressing his anger that people can't come together and help his fellow man.

SMH. For such a smart guy, you can be amazingly dense sometimes, Mac. Overall, I think you are a genuinely good person. But on occasion, such as the previously mentioned thread and here, you go off on these tangents on how you think people should act and how the world would be a much better place if everyone just conformed to your way of thinking. What's ironic is that when you get going on these rants, you exhibit the very behavior you are denouncing (inaction in the aforementioned thread, critical/judgmental attitude in this one). To make matters worse, you somehow either fail to or don't want to see that you are doing it and it damages your credibility. You think you are communicating righteous anger when in reality, all that's happening is that you make yourself appear disingenuous, hypocritical, and insincere. If I didn't think you were worth conversing with, I wouldn't bother to explain all of this and I'd save myself the headache by putting you on ignore.

I never called anyone shallow or superficial. Sure, I disagreed with Welkin when she said she had certain criterias, but all I was saying is that maybe people should keep a bit more of an open-mind and not dimiss others so quickly. I don't know this person. Welkin may very well be a superb human being IRL. I disagreed with her views on dating and felt that some of her criterias shouldn't hold so much importance imo.

Just like I find religion shouldn't get in the way of something as beautiful as Love. I'm not religious. I'm a believer, but I'm not religious. But I sure as hell would never let faith come between me and another human being. Be it relationship or friendship.

As far as raising your kids and being undermined goes, I think there's a way around it. He could always, for the sake of your kids, tell them that some people believe that (...insert Jesus and Bible talk here). And maybe when they grow a little older, he could explain to them HIS views and let them decide on their own beliefs by themselves.

I'm not saying the husband shouldn't get to teach his kids about his beliefs, but that's where compromise should come in and both adults should sit down and discuss this and find a compromise both will ultimatley be ok with. Communication... it's not just a cliche, it's actually IMPORTANT in a relationship.

Arrrgh! This is precisely why I find you so aggravating at times,Mac. On the one hand, you say people shouldn't be so judgmental/dismissive and then you turn right around and opine as the validity or lack thereof regarding someone else's criteria for a partner. You say one thing and then contradict yourself by doing the very thing you just said people shouldn't do! I've tried to share with you precisely why having a life partner who doesn't share my religious views would make me extremely unhappy and what do you do? You set about providing examples of how I could make such a relationship work - in essence saying, "If you really tried hard enough Bailadora, you could make it work." Do you honestly think you know better than I do what I require in my life to be happy or what Welkin requires in hers? IF my religious view were not so important to me and IF I were willing to compromise, then what you describe could work. But you know what? This is one area of my life that is non-negotiable and I am no more wrong for holding firm in this criteria than you are for holding it of lesser importance. The reason people get so exasperated with you at times is because you are so dedicated to your point of view that you either are unable or unwilling to concede that maybe, just maybe there might be some validity to what other people are trying to tell you.

We "get it" that you think people are entirely too picky when it comes to what they value when selecting a partner. But what you don't seem to understand is that just because one particular criteria or set of criteria isn't important to you or how you live your life, doesn't mean that it's of any lesser value to someone else just because YOU deem it so. It is not for you to decide in what areas of their lives people should or should not compromise and I think it entirely reasonable for people to get testy with you when you so blithely dismiss out of hand the criteria they hold dear.

 

[Mac98]

SMH. For such a smart guy, you can be amazingly dense sometimes, Mac. Overall, I think you are a genuinely good person. But on occasion, such as the previously mentioned thread and here, you go off on these tangents on how you think people should act and how the world would be a much better place if everyone just conformed to your way of thinking. What's ironic is that when you get going on these rants, you exhibit the very behavior you are denouncing (inaction in the aforementioned thread, critical/judgmental attitude in this one). To make matters worse, you somehow either fail to or don't want to see that you are doing it and it damages your credibility. You think you are communicating righteous anger when in reality, all that's happening is that you make yourself appear disingenuous, hypocritical, and insincere. If I didn't think you were worth conversing with, I wouldn't bother to explain all of this and I'd save myself the headache by putting you on ignore.



Arrrgh! This is precisely why I find you so aggravating at times,Mac. On the one hand, you say people shouldn't be so judgmental/dismissive and then you turn right around and opine as the validity or lack thereof regarding someone else's criteria for a partner. You say one thing and then contradict yourself by doing the very thing you just said people shouldn't do! I've tried to share with you precisely why having a life partner who doesn't share my religious views would make me extremely unhappy and what do you do? You set about providing examples of how I could make such a relationship work - in essence saying, "If you really tried hard enough Bailadora, you could make it work." Do you honestly think you know better than I do what I require in my life to be happy or what Welkin requires in hers? IF my religious view were not so important to me and IF I were willing to compromise, then what you describe could work. But you know what? This is one area of my life that is non-negotiable and I am no more wrong for holding firm in this criteria than you are for holding it of lesser importance. The reason people get so exasperated with you at times is because you are so dedicated to your point of view that you either are unable or unwilling to concede that maybe, just maybe there might be some validity to what other people are trying to tell you.

We "get it" that you think people are entirely too picky when it comes to what they value when selecting a partner. But what you don't seem to understand is that just because one particular criteria or set of criteria isn't important to you or how you live your life, doesn't mean that it's of any lesser value to someone else just because YOU deem it so. It is not for you to decide in what areas of their lives people should or should not compromise and I think it entirely reasonable for people to get testy with you when you so blithely dismiss out of hand the criteria they hold dear.

You're totally right. I agree with you completely.

But as far as the parts in bold are concerned (the parts you put in bold in my previous comment), notice that I continuously write "I find", "I think" or "in my opinion" as in that's the way I view these thing. Me, personally. Mac98's own opinion.

 

[bailadora]

But as far as the parts in bold are concerned (the parts you put in bold in my previous comment), notice that I continuously write "I find", "I think" or "in my opinion" as in that's the way I view these thing. Me, personally. Mac98's own opinion.

I did notice that. Contrary to popular belief, I do have some reading skills. But you and I both know that's only part of the story. The way you worded the rest of the phrases I put in bold made them absolutes. It is one thing to say, "Based upon my beliefs and opinions, this is how I choose to live my life." It's quite another to say, "This is how I think you should live your life." People can and do (most often) respect the former. The latter....not so much.

 

[welkin]

So "I think" are the two magical words to not being judgmental? I think black people should be segregated, I think women shouldn't have the right to vote, I think homosexuality should be a crime, I think ugly and stupid people should not be allowed to reproduce and proliferate their genes... Hey, this is just my personal opinion, I am not forcing them on anyone else. If you don't like what I'm saying, then don't read my post?

(I think my point is self-evident. Just in case anyone misreads -- one never know, I don't agree with any of the above.)

 

[Felix_Jones]

To some extent you probably are talking about a form of castration. From your description it sounds like; wait long enough and the ravages of time will shrink your balls and render you asexual.

So you invoke violent mutilating imagery to get your point across. Gotcha. Do you work for Fox?

 

[Felix_Jones]

So "I think" are the two magical words to not being judgmental? I think black people should be segregated, I think women shouldn't have the right to vote, I think homosexuality should be a crime, I think ugly and stupid people should not be allowed to reproduce and proliferate their genes... Hey, this is just my personal opinion, I am not forcing them on anyone else. If you don't like what I'm saying, then don't read my post?

(I think my point is self-evident. Just in case anyone misreads -- one never know, I don't agree with any of the above.)

That's when it all started going downhill, when they got the bloody vote.

 

[Mac98]

So "I think" are the two magical words to not being judgmental? I think black people should be segregated, I think women shouldn't have the right to vote, I think homosexuality should be a crime, I think ugly and stupid people should not be allowed to reproduce and proliferate their genes... Hey, this is just my personal opinion, I am not forcing them on anyone else. If you don't like what I'm saying, then don't read my post?

(I think my point is self-evident. Just in case anyone misreads -- one never know, I don't agree with any of the above.)

You know what... even if that wasn't a joke, you have the freedom to believe whatever you want to believe. I wouldn't agree with it but in the end, the only person I'd be pittying is you (this is all hypothetical, of course, since you were clear that these are not REALLY what you believe). I would respect your choice to believe it even though I would not myself share it.

If you weren't allowed to share your views and opinions with others, we wouldn't be in much of a free country, now would we?

So you invoke violent mutilating imagery to get your point across. Gotcha. Do you work for Fox?

Good one! I LOL'd at this!

 

[shiny5437]

So you invoke violent mutilating imagery to get your point across. Gotcha. Do you work for Fox?

Absolutely. I invoke violent mutilating imagery on all of my first dates. How am I not getting laid?