EPTc-c-c-combo top page
\/ oh yeah it was saturday that they were back to back not sunday
Off-Topic General Discussion - Page 515
| Forum Index > The Shopkeeper′s Inn |
|
ComaDose
Canada10357 Posts
c-c-c-combo top page \/ oh yeah it was saturday that they were back to back not sunday | ||
|
WaveofShadow
Canada31495 Posts
Also loved dat sat. afternoon sinbad/hercules/xena Mordek my kid didn't sleep for the first 8 months. Even if I tried to do what you do awake he wouldn't have stayed still and fussed and/or cried. | ||
|
Zess
Adun Toridas!9144 Posts
On November 07 2013 01:38 WaveofShadow wrote: Lol catching up and I saw somebody wrote that xena was geared towards women and I laughed out loud. Also loved dat sat. afternoon sinbad/hercules/xena Mordek my kid didn't sleep for the first 8 months. Even if I tried to do what you do awake he wouldn't have stayed still and fussed and/or cried. Not enough Valium | ||
|
jcarlsoniv
United States27922 Posts
"Dude...soniv...I'm so tired." | ||
|
mordek
United States12705 Posts
On November 07 2013 01:38 WaveofShadow wrote: Lol catching up and I saw somebody wrote that xena was geared towards women and I laughed out loud. Also loved dat sat. afternoon sinbad/hercules/xena Mordek my kid didn't sleep for the first 8 months. Even if I tried to do what you do awake he wouldn't have stayed still and fussed and/or cried. She's up every 2 hours for us but I normally don't have to do anything about it obviously but she still fusses but usually falls asleep after crying for a half hour. The moby wrap usually tricks her into thinking she's being held, she just doesn't like it when you're sitting normally. The more you think about it you realize there's really very little logic behind any of it lol. | ||
|
caelym
United States6425 Posts
On November 07 2013 01:38 ComaDose wrote: @red_ oh yeah i also think a feminine form is more 'sexy' than a masculine one. I would disagree with the statement that female humans need to do the peacocking tho. that's because you're a guy. imagine if women didnt wear makeup and dressed like guys. women would be a lot less sexy. | ||
|
ComaDose
Canada10357 Posts
On November 07 2013 02:01 caelym wrote: that's because you're a guy. imagine if women didnt wear makeup and dressed like guys. women would be a lot less sexy. i ment like a naked (including makeup) guy vs girl body. but obviously being a strait man i'm biased to the core. | ||
|
Lord Tolkien
United States12083 Posts
On one hand, why not. On the other, I've been jaded by his proposed return of the US to the gold standard. | ||
|
red_
United States8474 Posts
On November 07 2013 01:38 ComaDose wrote: @red_ oh yeah i also think a feminine form is more 'sexy' than a masculine one. I would disagree with the statement that female humans need to do the peacocking tho. I'd like to know why you disagree before I read too much into your statement. | ||
AsmodeusXI
United States15536 Posts
On November 07 2013 02:05 Lord Tolkien wrote: Hm, so Ron Paul will be speaking of my school. To attend or not to attend, what do. On one hand, why not. On the other, I've been jaded by his proposed return of the US to the gold standard. You have an opportunity to see someone who will very quickly become completely irrelevant. See him so you can have a silly referential tale you can recount later! | ||
|
wei2coolman
United States60033 Posts
On November 07 2013 02:05 Lord Tolkien wrote: Hm, so Ron Paul will be speaking of my school. To attend or not to attend, what do. On one hand, why not. On the other, I've been jaded by his proposed return of the US to the gold standard. Ron Paul is everything Amurrika stands for embodied into a man. | ||
|
GhandiEAGLE
United States20754 Posts
On November 07 2013 02:05 Lord Tolkien wrote: Hm, so Ron Paul will be speaking of my school. To attend or not to attend, what do. On one hand, why not. On the other, I've been jaded by his proposed return of the US to the gold standard. Who? | ||
|
ComaDose
Canada10357 Posts
On November 07 2013 02:08 red_ wrote: I'd like to know why you disagree before I read too much into your statement. Well peacocking is trying to get the attention of a desirable mate and i don't think that one gender has to do that more than the other. And the use of the word 'need' made me imagine it insinuated that for women to get a good mate they must appear attractive. But if you were referring to how women are commonly evaluated almost solely on their looks then i agree it's in their best interest in today's society as sad as it is. | ||
|
wei2coolman
United States60033 Posts
| ||
|
Lord Tolkien
United States12083 Posts
On November 07 2013 02:13 AsmodeusXI wrote: You have an opportunity to see someone who will very quickly become completely irrelevant. See him so you can have a silly referential tale you can recount later! I already attended the Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, and Guliani talks. May as well even it out. :< On November 07 2013 02:13 wei2coolman wrote: Ron Paul is everything Amurrika stands for embodied into a man. I thought that was Gingrich though. Who doesn't want a moon base? | ||
|
Dandel Ion
Austria17960 Posts
On November 07 2013 02:20 wei2coolman wrote: Biologically speaking, ignoring social context, and manmade stuff, a species with similar reproductive cycle as humans, would be much more inclined to have the males peacocking. Females are still limiting factor in reproduction, not males, so they're the one with the selection choice, not male. It doesn't actually matter what "would be" if you take social context away since sociality is such a massive part of human behavior. You won't find anybody who doesn't have a social context, and if you did, meaning somebody with no contact to other people at all, you couldn't see how their social behavior is anyways, because there wouldn't be any. So it's redunant to look at human interactions without social context. tl;dr: doesn't matter. | ||
|
caelym
United States6425 Posts
On November 07 2013 02:20 wei2coolman wrote: Biologically speaking, ignoring social context, and manmade stuff, a species with similar reproductive cycle as humans, would be much more inclined to have the males peacocking. Females are still limiting factor in reproduction, not males, so they're the one with the selection choice, not male. Couldn't men overpower the women and take away their choice to choose in this scenario? | ||
|
wei2coolman
United States60033 Posts
On November 07 2013 02:31 caelym wrote: Couldn't men overpower the women and take away their choice to choose in this scenario? I'm not sure if this is suppose to be a social quip about human beings, or a serious question. | ||
Carnivorous Sheep
Baa?21244 Posts
| ||
|
Lord Tolkien
United States12083 Posts
On November 07 2013 02:27 Dandel Ion wrote: It doesn't actually matter what "would be" if you take social context away since sociality is such a massive part of human behavior. You won't find anybody who doesn't have a social context, and if you did, meaning somebody with no contact to other people at all, you couldn't see how their social behavior is anyways, because there wouldn't be any. So it's redunant to look at human interactions without social context. tl;dr: doesn't matter. Yep. Stripping away social context and "manmade" stuffs leaves us without the defining characteristics of what makes us human in the first place. Historically, men have traditionally been the selective gender due in part to gendered power imbalances (without being too SRS-y, patriarchal power structures and feminist analytical lenses are highly relevant). This isn't entirely one-sided, but by in large cultural and social factors in most of the world has put the burden of "peacocking" on women. This has been changing in recent decades following women's liberation, but nonetheless remains tilted, especially in developing countries. This isn't to say men don't "peacock" as well, but there is greater social pressure placed on women. Aka, social sciences (and my field [which isn't in gender studies <__<;]) are still relevant guize. That being said, I wouldn't mind if men peacocked more, and I can no longer use the word peacock the same way again. Thanks TLLoL offtopic! | ||
| ||
