Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Sexuality


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 10-10-2007, 11:05 PM   #121 (permalink)
Insensative Fuck.
 
Location: Boon towns of Ohio
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hyacinthe
In all honesty I would go for the first guy smelly =/= sexy in my books

And yes I know you're going to say I am being dishonest because I don't agree with what you want me to say but /shrug that's your problem not mine.

As for your correlation between women and oranges that's just stupid. You've opened up and looked inside numerous oranges so you can say that most oranges are going to be orange. Can you say that you've understood every aspect of numerous female psyches? what makes them tick what they want from life for themselves, their partners, their children, friends and family? That you know their dreams and ambitions?

Until you can HONESTLY say that you understood exactly how they work (and I don't think anyone can say that they completely understand anyone else) you can't say that you have any understanding of women enough to decide whether they're orange, red, blue, purple or pink with yellow polkadots inside. It's like me giving you a bag of clinkers (chocolate covered lollies that come with different coloured candy filling) and asking you to guess which colour you've picked out.

clinkers

I kinda like "Mens Manor" to match "Ladies Lounge" personally

gimme a bag of clinkers and after awhile I can still tell you how good my chances are of getting a certain color.

Honestly though, I'm pretty much done, I really don't think you guys have any arguement, I mean seriously..... money/power =/= sexy?? I don't know how you are even saying this.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crompsin
Menoman is my hero. He masturbates with Brillo pads. And likes it.
Menoman is offline  
Old 10-11-2007, 12:35 AM   #122 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Infinite_Loser's Avatar
 
Location: Lake Mary, FL
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menoman
I believe it would have ended up much differently without women here who obviously take offense to the entire theory.
People only take offense to those things they peceive to be true.
__________________
I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.
Infinite_Loser is offline  
Old 10-11-2007, 12:57 AM   #123 (permalink)
 
abaya's Avatar
 
Location: Iceland
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapiens
No, they are not. If you look at research relating to what women prefer in long-term mates versus short-term mates, women tend to emphasize the importance of immediate resources (and a variety of other traits) in short-term relationships and emphasize the importance of intelligence, motivation, industriousness (and other traits) in long-term mate selection. An early examination of this can be found here:


Greiling, H., Buss, D.M. (2000). Women's Sexual Strategies: The hidden dimension of extra pair mating. Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 929-963.


A later investigation by a related researcher can be found here:

Li, N. P. (2007). Mate Preference Necessities in Long- and Short-Term Mating: People Prioritize in Themselves What Their Mates Prioritize in Them. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 39, 528-535.

Both of the above studies rely on self-report. Others researchers have used different methods. Both papers are testing hypotheses forwarded by:

Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual Strategies Theory: A contextual evolutionary analysis of human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204-232.

who got a lot of his ideas from:

The evolution of human sexuality by Don Symons

Most of the research cited above came out of the same lab or group of labs. There is a larger body of research that supports the hypothesis that men and women have different mate preferences, and that those mate preferences differ depending on the type of relationship they are seeking (and on their personal situation).


I would expect that the thresholds for acceptable outcome might depend on the mate value of both partners. So, I would expect marital bliss to be related more to matching levels of mate value between partners rather than absolute mate value levels. To put it bluntly a man who is a 2/10 might have greater marital stability with a partner who is a 2/10 than with a partner who is an 8/10.
Damn, sapiens, you found the stuff I was trying to scare up... nice work. Now, is anyone reading what he posted? Here we have scientific studies, the kind that actually mean something. Or are you just proceeding along with your own opinions, not even bothering to click on these links?
__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love;
for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.

--Khalil Gibran
abaya is offline  
Old 10-11-2007, 01:48 AM   #124 (permalink)
has all her shots.
 
mixedmedia's Avatar
 
Location: Florida
Quote:
Originally Posted by kutulu
This thread is a great read. I love how the non-believers get their panties in a bunch about the generalizations made by the creator and then go out and make their own generalizations. Classic.
You're right, but you know, at the same time...live by the sword, die by the sword. The entire system is based on pigeon-holing yourself and others.
__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce
mixedmedia is offline  
Old 10-11-2007, 04:13 AM   #125 (permalink)
Junkie
 
filtherton's Avatar
 
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menoman
My point is, I don't have to get inside an orange to know its orange inside.

Take two guys, one who is a decent looking, fairly nice guy, makes a good enough living that he can afford necessities and go out a few times a month.

The other guy, is not very good looking, a bit unkempt, smells a little bit, and is fucking loaded.


Being honest, we all know 9 out of 10 women will go for that rich bastard. Do you disagree? I will be very suprised if you do. That seems such a basic thing.
I don't think being greedy is an innate characteristic of being a woman- so the orange thing doesn't really make sense to me.

The rich guy and the not rich guy isn't a matter of honesty. All you're being honest about is your perspective on women- there isn't any kind of objective truth to what you're saying. It isn't a "basic thing," it is an illustration of how you view the world and nothing more, and, while i understand that you think the vast majority of women are greedy, i don't think that that's accurate. There is no way for us to reconcile these two perspectives. Though to me it doesn't really make much sense to try and say meaningful things about women when there is no way you're in any kind of position to make such claims, i.e. claiming that all women are greedy isn't credible because there's no way that you've even come close to dealing with enough women, each one in such a way that you've seen that they're all mainly concerned with money.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kutulu
This thread is a great read. I love how the non-believers get their panties in a bunch about the generalizations made by the creator and then go out and make their own generalizations. Classic.
What's really classic is that the true believers put all their faith in getting some in some overly broad, self serving generalization, and then start whining when they get generalized about. "Aside from the one where all women are greedy bitches- i find generalizations to be distasteful and inaccurate."

Then, what's even more classic is that instead of attempting to refute the generalizations that they don't like- namely that they need to grow up and stop trying to find love in shallow people- they just reassert the generalization that they do like- that all women are greedy bitches.

If you had put more effort into reading the thread, you'd see that many of the "non believers" think that ladder theory is accurate under limited circumstances. The idea, though, is that the people for whom it doesn't apply outnumber the people for whom it does, and so if you avoid the people to whom it applies- and if you're complaining about them you probably shoud- it's useless.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser
People only take offense to those things they peceive to be true.
Is that why all the "true believers" take offense at being told that they don't know what they're talking about when if comes to women? I mean shit, the fact that you have to subscribe to someone else's theory concerning interacting with the opposite sex implies that you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to interacting with the opposite sex, right?

Last edited by filtherton; 10-11-2007 at 04:17 AM..
filtherton is offline  
Old 10-11-2007, 09:44 AM   #126 (permalink)
Junkie
 
kutulu's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by filtherton
What's really classic is that the true believers put all their faith in getting some in some overly broad, self serving generalization, and then start whining when they get generalized about. "Aside from the one where all women are greedy bitches- i find generalizations to be distasteful and inaccurate."

Then, what's even more classic is that instead of attempting to refute the generalizations that they don't like- namely that they need to grow up and stop trying to find love in shallow people- they just reassert the generalization that they do like- that all women are greedy bitches.

If you had put more effort into reading the thread, you'd see that many of the "non believers" think that ladder theory is accurate under limited circumstances. The idea, though, is that the people for whom it doesn't apply outnumber the people for whom it does, and so if you avoid the people to whom it applies- and if you're complaining about them you probably shoud- it's useless.
Wow, my mouth is full of all the words you just put in it. Thanks for speaking for me.

The Ladder Theory is a fun read that I learned about years ago. I think it's more of less true and explains a lot of things I'd see from people when I was younger. However, it doesn't affect my life because I'm married and don't plan on getting a divorce.

The theory has a lot of funny things about it. The "Cuddle Bitch" part is great. I knew a few of them and they were just pathetic. However, the best thing is seeing the responses it gets from people who take it way too seriously.

So many people are so wrapped up in the things that the author said to define what women and men want and seem to miss the rest of it. So freaking what if the author said that half of attraction is money for women? Get over it. Stating that financial worth is typically more important to women then men does not have to boil down to "women are greedy bitches".
kutulu is offline  
Old 10-11-2007, 10:00 AM   #127 (permalink)
I Confess a Shiver
 
Plan9's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mixedmedia
You're right, but you know, at the same time...live by the sword, die by the sword. The entire system is based on pigeon-holing yourself and others.
That quote goes well with: Everybody's doin' it!
__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."
Plan9 is offline  
Old 10-11-2007, 10:30 AM   #128 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Infinite_Loser's Avatar
 
Location: Lake Mary, FL
Quote:
Originally Posted by abaya
Damn, sapiens, you found the stuff I was trying to scare up... nice work. Now, is anyone reading what he posted? Here we have scientific studies, the kind that actually mean something. Or are you just proceeding along with your own opinions, not even bothering to click on these links?
Excuse me, but did you even READ the studies?

http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homepage/group/BussLAB/pdffiles/women's%20sexual%20strategies--PAID-2000.pdf

Look at page 953. I guess you happened to miss that one.

http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homep...heory_1993.pdf

Or check out that little chart at the top of page 222.
__________________
I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.
Infinite_Loser is offline  
Old 10-11-2007, 10:54 AM   #129 (permalink)
Junkie
 
filtherton's Avatar
 
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kutulu
Wow, my mouth is full of all the words you just put in it. Thanks for speaking for me.
What are you talking about? How did i put words into your mouth?

Quote:
The Ladder Theory is a fun read that I learned about years ago. I think it's more of less true and explains a lot of things I'd see from people when I was younger. However, it doesn't affect my life because I'm married and don't plan on getting a divorce.

The theory has a lot of funny things about it. The "Cuddle Bitch" part is great. I knew a few of them and they were just pathetic. However, the best thing is seeing the responses it gets from people who take it way too seriously.

So many people are so wrapped up in the things that the author said to define what women and men want and seem to miss the rest of it. So freaking what if the author said that half of attraction is money for women? Get over it. Stating that financial worth is typically more important to women then men does not have to boil down to "women are greedy bitches".
So your response is essentially, "I think it's amusing, so anyone who doesn't should just get the fuck over it"? Well, shit man, that's great for you, if only we could all be you, and then we could dispense with any sort of discussion about the things we disagree upon because there'd be no disagreement.
filtherton is offline  
Old 10-11-2007, 11:14 AM   #130 (permalink)
Confused Adult
 
Shauk's Avatar
 
Location: Spokane, WA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser
Excuse me, but did you even READ the studies?

http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homepage/group/BussLAB/pdffiles/women's%20sexual%20strategies--PAID-2000.pdf

Look at page 953. I guess you happened to miss that one.

http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homep...heory_1993.pdf

Or check out that little chart at the top of page 222.
yeah her post confused me too.

seems like this is backing up the ladder theory, not refuting it in any way.
Shauk is offline  
Old 10-11-2007, 11:19 AM   #131 (permalink)
 
abaya's Avatar
 
Location: Iceland
Quote:
Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser
Excuse me, but did you even READ the studies?

http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homepage/group/BussLAB/pdffiles/women's%20sexual%20strategies--PAID-2000.pdf

Look at page 953. I guess you happened to miss that one.

http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homep...heory_1993.pdf

Or check out that little chart at the top of page 222.
Dude, chill out. My post was not intended to be hostile. I read the abstracts and skimmed the studies, and I'm glad that we finally have some scientific work to base opinions on around here, even if I don't agree with its methodology.

Sapiens points out some very relevant facts. These studies are based on self-reporting, which is an obvious source of error... compared with, say, direct observation of how people behave and act. It's one thing to ask what people *think* they do, but when you compare that with what they *actually* do, there is a great deal more variation. That's why we do participant-observation in anthropology, as opposed to surveys in sociology (which give less context and often rely on self-reporting alone). You need both methods to obtain greater validity.

Also, I agree very much with this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sapiens
Most of the research cited above came out of the same lab or group of labs. There is a larger body of research that supports the hypothesis that men and women have different mate preferences, and that those mate preferences differ depending on the type of relationship they are seeking (and on their personal situation).
Yes, amazingly, people have different mate preferences, based on individual preferences and types of relationships. This is what we've all been saying in this thread... yes, plenty of people are shallow and play right along with the Ladder Theory. But plenty of people DON'T. Is that so hard to admit? I didn't see anything in the studies that went against that point. Nor was there anything in the studies talking about "intellectual whores" and "cuddle bitches," which doesn't have anything to do with resources...
__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love;
for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.

--Khalil Gibran
abaya is offline  
Old 10-11-2007, 11:48 AM   #132 (permalink)
has all her shots.
 
mixedmedia's Avatar
 
Location: Florida
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crompsin
That quote goes well with: Everybody's doin' it!
Perhaps, but at least my statements were aimed specifically towards individuals based on things they actually said instead of some hysterical self-pandering speculation based on the idea that all women are like Ginger on Gilligan's Island.
__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce
mixedmedia is offline  
Old 10-11-2007, 11:51 AM   #133 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Some people are shallow, and I guess they tend to show up for societal studies. Others aren't shallow, and they're worth your time.
Willravel is offline  
Old 10-11-2007, 11:53 AM   #134 (permalink)
Junkie
 
sapiens's Avatar
 
Location: Some place windy
Quote:
Originally Posted by abaya
Sapiens points out some very relevant facts. These studies are based on self-reporting, which is an obvious source of error... compared with, say, direct observation of how people behave and act. It's one thing to ask what people *think* they do, but when you compare that with what they *actually* do, there is a great deal more variation. That's why we do participant-observation in anthropology, as opposed to surveys in sociology (which give less context and often rely on self-reporting alone). You need both methods to obtain greater validity.
All methods of data collection have pros and cons. People's stated preferences are likely related to their behavior. So, self report does have some value. The 1993 paper cites a number of different studies that use behavioral data. Results from behavioral data support the conclusions drawn from self report.
Quote:
Also, I agree very much with this: Yes, amazingly, people have different mate preferences, based on individual preferences and types of relationships. This is what we've all been saying in this thread... yes, plenty of people are shallow and play right along with the Ladder Theory. But plenty of people DON'T. Is that so hard to admit? I didn't see anything in the studies that went against that point. Nor was there anything in the studies talking about "intellectual whores" and "cuddle bitches," which doesn't have anything to do with resources...
Among the points to note in the previously posted papers:
1) There are reliable sex differences in the preference for physical attractiveness in both short-term and long-term mates.
2) Both men and women place a greater emphasis on physical attractiveness in short-term mates.
3) Women place a greater emphasis on immediate resource investment in short-term mating contexts.
4) Men and women select short-term and long-term mates using a variety of criteria. Physical attractiveness and resource investment are just 2 of those criteria.
5)Though as IL mentions, there are sex differences in the preferences for resource investment in both long-term and short-term mating contexts, the absolute values of those ratings are low. (Women rate the important of resource investment around 1.2 out of 5 on a Likert scale in ST relationships and 1.8 out of 5 in LT relationships).

Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
Some people are shallow, and I guess they tend to show up for societal studies. Others aren't shallow, and they're worth your time.
Do you have any evidence that "shallow" people are more likely to participate in psychological studies? Mate preferences data has been collected in upwards of 40 different cultures around the world. Participant recruitment methods are designed to obtain a representative sample.

Last edited by sapiens; 10-11-2007 at 11:56 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
sapiens is offline  
Old 10-11-2007, 07:16 PM   #135 (permalink)
Psycho
 
Hyacinthe's Avatar
 
Location: Australia
Quote:
To test this prediction, we conducted a study that requested 20 female subjects
next chart is 44 female subjects

Infact the only charts in there I can find that have over 50 female participants are the graph charts - the one on page 225 is interesting but without knowing what the 18 variables used to determine 'good financial prospects' not very helpful.

My point being that I could quite easily go out and find over 50 people in a country who would tell you some truly stupid things are true (I was going to make a list but it got too long).


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


To support my theory earlier that all men care about is having a hot and easy girl I have :

Page 213 Table 2

Page 210 Figure 1


Quote:
Physical appearance should be less central to a woman's mate preferences than to a man't mate preferences.
(Page 209)

That specifically makes me laugh due to the amount of posts in the sexuality section claimng all women want is a guy that fits the physical model of desirability.

Quote:
Prediction 1: Men will express greater desire for, or interest in short term mates than will women.
(Page 210)

Quote:
Prediction8: Because the successful enactment of a short term sexual strategy for men requires minimizing commitment and investment, men will find undesirable in potential short-term mates any cues that signal that the woman wants to extract a commitment.
(Page 213)


Quote:
Prediction 9: Because the most important class of cues that are linked with fertility and reproductive value are physical (Buss, 1987,1989b; Symons, 1979; Williams, 1975) men will place greater importance on physical attractiveness in both short-term and long-term mating contexts.
(Page 213)

Quote:
Prediction 10: Men will find physically unattractive women to be undesirable in both short- and long-term mating contexts.
(Page 214)

All from the scientific site I linked to earlier.

All the above is from http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homep...heory_1993.pdf

From http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homep...AB/Li,2007.pdf I have :


Quote:
studies on long-term mate preferences conducted over several decades have shown that men value physical attractiveness more than women do
(Page 529)

Quote:
physical attractiveness is prioritized by men considering long-term mates
(Page 530)

Quote:
For instance, Buss (1988) found that women tend to attract mates by enhancing their physical appearance. Indeed, the multi-billion-dollar cosmetics industry and the rapidly expanding cosmetic-surgery market reflect modern women’s awareness of the benefits of aesthetically controlling the aging process and thus, the underlying adaptive value (and priority) that men place on physical attractiveness.
(Page 533)

I will admit I am experiencing a growing urge to make a website devoted to the fact that as long as you're pretty you can get whatever guy you want, you don't have to worry about being intelligent, funny, successful or independent. I wonder if I did would some other web forum be in a heated debate about guys caring more about what's in a girls head rather then attached to her chest?


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


All these theories (including the Ladder theory) assume that people are consciously or subconciously choosing a partner according to some vast strategy, isn't it at all possible that we're choosing a partner who meets our needs as an individual? That we want someone that we believe matches us in social status and physical appearance.
__________________
"I want to be remembered as the girl who always smiles even when her heart is broken... and the one that could brighten up your day even if she couldnt brighten her own"

"Her emotions were clear waters. You could see the scarring and pockmarks at the bottom of the pool, but it was just a part of her landscape – the consequences of others’ actions in which she claimed no part."
Hyacinthe is offline  
Old 10-11-2007, 07:20 PM   #136 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapiens
Do you have any evidence that "shallow" people are more likely to participate in psychological studies? Mate preferences data has been collected in upwards of 40 different cultures around the world. Participant recruitment methods are designed to obtain a representative sample.
The outcome of the study is evidence, albeit circumstantial. And considering the cornucopia of people I know, it doesn't accurately represent my understanding of humanity on the whole.

I don't trust this study.
Willravel is offline  
Old 10-11-2007, 09:15 PM   #137 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
The outcome of the study is evidence, albeit circumstantial. And considering the cornucopia of people I know, it doesn't accurately represent my understanding of humanity on the whole.

I don't trust this study.
I would hardly call the unconscious search of looking for the best genes for your children, 'shallow'.

I've read these sorts of studies before my self and can't deny that the generalizations do fit the population as a whole.

There are good reasons you rarely see an ugly female with an attractive male and often see attractive females with ugly males. Its all part of searching for the best future for your children, even if the intent is to not have them.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 10-11-2007, 11:40 PM   #138 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Infinite_Loser's Avatar
 
Location: Lake Mary, FL
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hyacinthe
All these theories (including the Ladder theory) assume that people are consciously or subconciously choosing a partner according to some vast strategy, isn't it at all possible that we're choosing a partner who meets our needs as an individual? That we want someone that we believe matches us in social status and physical appearance.
If you want to get technical, all theories are generalizations. None is without it's exceptions. It still doesn't change the fact that the ladder theory holds true in a great deal of situations in which it's applied.
__________________
I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.
Infinite_Loser is offline  
Old 10-12-2007, 02:36 AM   #139 (permalink)
has all her shots.
 
mixedmedia's Avatar
 
Location: Florida
Quote:
Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser
If you want to get technical, all theories are generalizations. None is without it's exceptions. It still doesn't change the fact that the ladder theory holds true in a great deal of situations in which it's applied.
So how does this statement coincide with your earlier assertion that 99.9% of women are bitches is '10000000% true' and other absolute statements about the ladder theory? Could it be you were being disingenuous to get under people's skin?
__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce
mixedmedia is offline  
Old 10-12-2007, 02:47 AM   #140 (permalink)
I Confess a Shiver
 
Plan9's Avatar
 
Yes, yes... but '10000000% true' IS a nice round number.

I think Infinite_Loser is using the same brand of literary tactics that the author of the theory used.

But, uh, more betterer.
__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."
Plan9 is offline  
Old 10-12-2007, 03:43 AM   #141 (permalink)
 
abaya's Avatar
 
Location: Iceland
Quote:
Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser
If you want to get technical,
Heh, what else have we been doing? Not being technical?

Glad to see you're being more reasonable now, anyway. Yep, there are exceptions to every generalization, thank god. Those are the ones you marry.
__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love;
for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.

--Khalil Gibran
abaya is offline  
Old 10-12-2007, 12:23 PM   #142 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Infinite_Loser's Avatar
 
Location: Lake Mary, FL
Quote:
Originally Posted by mixedmedia
So how does this statement coincide with your earlier assertion that 99.9% of women are bitches is '10000000% true' and other absolute statements about the ladder theory? Could it be you were being disingenuous to get under people's skin?
A.) 0.1% IS the exception

B.) Find me where I said the statement "99.9% of women are bitches" is "10000000% true".
__________________
I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

Last edited by Infinite_Loser; 10-12-2007 at 12:25 PM..
Infinite_Loser is offline  
Old 10-12-2007, 06:53 PM   #143 (permalink)
I Confess a Shiver
 
Plan9's Avatar
 
Well, I think you two would have wonderful children if I_L wasn't all about sex and MM wasn't all about money.
__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."
Plan9 is offline  
Old 10-14-2007, 03:00 PM   #144 (permalink)
still, wondering.
 
Ourcrazymodern?'s Avatar
 
Location: South Minneapolis, somewhere near the gorgeous gorge
Please call 911 and tell them i fell off a ladder.
__________________
BE JUST AND FEAR NOT
Ourcrazymodern? is offline  
Old 10-14-2007, 04:02 PM   #145 (permalink)
has all her shots.
 
mixedmedia's Avatar
 
Location: Florida
Quote:
Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser
A.) 0.1% IS the exception

B.) Find me where I said the statement "99.9% of women are bitches" is "10000000% true".
Well, I fucked-up. I see you actually quoted the cuddle bitch part.

But I'll bet you were thinking it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crompsin
Well, I think you two would have wonderful children if I_L wasn't all about sex and MM wasn't all about money.
Actually, I'll bet you good money that you've got those priorities switched, my good man.
__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

Last edited by mixedmedia; 10-14-2007 at 04:03 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
mixedmedia is offline  
Old 10-14-2007, 05:38 PM   #146 (permalink)
I Confess a Shiver
 
Plan9's Avatar
 
Yeah, I suppose you're right.

I_L is the voice of fiscal responsibility.
__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."
Plan9 is offline  
 

Tags
ladder, theory


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:43 AM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360