In cable news, Fox gets more viewers than all the other cable news networks combined.
But that's only true in the USA, and their ratings are going down. And there's nothing terribly insightful about noting that the country was in love with conservatism for the past decade but has been falling out of love with it recently.
CNN/MSNBC et al certainly did change some of their presentation style in response to the domestic popularity of FOX, but much of their audience is outside the US, so they don't want to make themselves unpalatable to anyone but US jingoists the same way that FOX has.
Well, if you want to have a chance to win, you kind of do.
That depends greatly on the definition of "win". A tank is great at destroying stuff and holding ground, but sooner or later the people in the tank have to get on with some sort of post-war activity, at which point they become vulnerable again. Unless you just want to populate the occupied country with sentient tanks that eat dirt, there's no specific need for an opposition force to have an anti-tank strategy.
Guerrilla warfare isn't about winning a swift tactical victory, it's about making life unbearable for your opponent. Your entire anecdote is about tactical success, and seems to dismiss merely "political" attacks as somehow meaningless, when of course the entire purpose of war is to further a political goal, so if you're able to do that more efficiently than the other side, you're "winning", regardless of the tactical results. You can rake all the insurgents you like from rooftops, if you're making new ones at the same time, you're losing ground (since it takes you more resources to occupy than it does for them to resist).
I don't know how you came to the conclusion that guerrilla warfare is a method guaranteed to lose. There are numerous governments today that were put in place (at least initially) by guerrilla forces. Fidel Castro certainly thinks it is possible to wage a successful guerrilla war against a US-supported government. Things turned out pretty well for Mao.
All you say is certainly true, I don't think anyone doubts the importance of resources in war -- our own revolution would have been a failure without the mercenaries, materiel, and distractions by the French and other powers who had their own motivations for seeing the English fail (just as we had motivations for seeing the Soviets fail, China and Iran had a motivation for seeing the US fail, etc).
But the point remains that guerrilla warfare is a successful means of fighting a vastly superior armed force, so there's no historical credibility to the argument that it's impossible to fight the US Army simply because the army has nuclear weapons and tanks. You don't have to field an armored division just because your opponent has one.
If the army decides to move in, it will do so with howitzers, mobile rocket launchers and bomb-proof APCs. After the USAF has carpet-bombed the place. If armed and trained gunmen couldn't hold Tora Bora, where they had solid rock and deep caves, I really don't see what the local neighbourhood militia is going to be able to do from an appartment complex.
I think the folks in Baghdad would disagree. The carpet-bombing of major cities hasn't happened yet, and the local militias in the apartment complexes seem to be killing soldiers in "bomb-proof APCs" just fine.
I'm also not sure how you conclude that Tora Bora proves anything -- our primary target got away, and it's not like either side cared about the ground itself. Congratulations, we sterilized a useless mountain range! Was there some valuable resource there being defended? No, it was just a convenient hiding place. When it stopped being that, the inhabitants moved on. Now, of course, they're moving back. The net result is that we dropped millions of dollars in ordinance on worthless land and accomplished virtually nothing other than killing a few hundred or thousand foot soldiers and (presumably) the third-ranked al-qaeda officer (because every operation we engage in kills the third-ranked al-qaeda officer -- the org chart must really flatten out at that level).
Of course you're right, if you put 20 guys in a building and send in ten SAS against them, the SAS will win. Conventional and trained forces will always win a "fair" fight, particularly when they can choose the moment of engagement. Guerrilla warfare isn't about fighting fair. Hide those 20 guys in a city of ten million, and tell the ten SAS guys they have to live in that city for the next few years, wear a highly visible uniform that says "please kill me in the dirtiest way possible" on the back, and they aren't allowed to hurt any innocent people. SAS training isn't going to do you any good if someone blows up your whole building while you're asleep after a 48-hour operation. And it's a lot faster, easier, and cheaper to build a car bomb than it is to train an SAS operative.
Individual citizens armed with handguns and rifles and shotguns are going to go up against government forces, who have artillery, cruise missiles, and attack helicopters?
it seemed to work pretty well for the Vietnamese, the Iraqis, the Mujaheddin. The entire point of guerrilla warfare is that it almost completely eliminates the military advantage that large standing forces have. Artillery and other massive weapons are only useful against other standing militaries. Cruise missiles are only useful against infrastructure and other persistent targets. Attack helicopters are no use at picking one soldier out of a crowd of civilians. Aircraft carriers are useless against someone poisoning your barracks' food supply. ICBMs don't frighten someone who lives 2 miles from your own military base. Stealth fighters can't protect you from roadside bombs.
Of course, your argument is pointless anyways. As the decision states, whether resistance is a practical option in the 21st century has no bearing on whether it is a protected right. You don't say that the freedom of speech is no longer protected just because Rupert Murdoch can easily speak louder than any protester, you don't say that the fourth amendment is no longer valid since the police can easily find out tons of information about you without entering your home. I don't think there's any risk that the government will want to quarter soldiers in private homes to save some money, that doesn't mean the constitutional prohibition against it ceases to be the law of the land.
I think maybe you're not hearing what people are saying, but rather interpreting it through your own preconceptions.
Nobody is suggesting that you walk up to a complete stranger, grab her breasts and say "hey, wanna fuck?" Sure, we all hear rumors that such a shotgun approach will work purely by playing the odds, but you're right, you'll get kicked out if you try that on girls in a club, and even the ones who say yes are unlikely to be ones you're interested in.
But that's just the opposite end of the spectrum from spending weeks and weeks getting to know a girl before feeling comfortable expressing sexual interest in her. You don't have to do that, even though that's what we're *told* we're supposed to do by everyone -- be friends first, then it will "just happen".
There is such a thing as a middle ground, where you meet someone, talk to them for 30+ minutes, make her laugh, show her you're a worthwhile human being and a confident man who isn't intimidated by the idea of approaching an attractive woman. You both get to see if you enjoy each others' company, and if you don't, you go your separate ways. If you do keep talking, then in the course of conversation when she says something sexual, or strange, or that could be deliberately misinterpreted as a double entendre, you say something like "oh my god, I had no idea you were such a freak, I should have brought my extra handcuff keys", and she'll laugh, and hopefully roll with it and joke back, pushing the idea further. You eventually go back to talking about whatever else (unless she doesn't let you, in which case forge ahead), and eventually just say "hey, you want to get out of here?" and she'll say "nah, i'm hanging with friends" (or whatever) or she'll say "and go where?", at which point you say "well, we can go back to my house and play badminton, or do something boring like go to a coffee shop and talk, though I admit that talking to you is pretty damn fun". Then she'll say "well, I do love badminton..." and you go home together, "I don't play badminton on the first date", or "nah, I'm hanging with friends but you can give me a call later in the week", or a brushoff.
Note that NOTHING WHATSOEVER in that entire conversation was rude, insulting, derogatory, or something a sane woman would take offense at. Nobody would get kicked out of anywhere for having that conversation. You're just having fun and playfully but clearly expressing interest in her and giving her the opportunity to decline your interest without drama. If she shoots you down, you just double over in fake frustration and complain about how the US Badminton team always loses at the olympics because of people like her who hold the sport in such low regard, and that if public perceptions don't change the Chinese will continue their lead in critical badminton technology. You then talk about other stuff and then excuse yourself to go back to your friends, and get her number. For the rest of the night you'll cross paths and point her out to people as the girl who hates freedom and supports lead paint on toys.
There's nothing in that scenario that you can't both walk away from with a smile and a few laughs, even if it doesn't go anywhere.
Being straightforward with someone about your intentions isn't about being an asshole or crude, it's about not wasting a bunch of time trying to deceive them into thinking you're only being friendly. People don't like being lied to, and the truth is that a lot of women do feel they're being lied to when men "befriend" them thinking it is going to lead to something else. It also wastes a lot of time if she IS interested and wishes you would just give her an excuse to go with you, or if she isn't interested but doesn't know how to let you know that without feeling rude. You're giving her opportunities to do both in a funny manner, and showing her by your reactions that you're confident enough to accept any answer without being a jerk about it, and indeed are able to laugh and make her smile with your reactions.
Well of course he (and everyone since) emulated the greek proportions, which is why the head and hand size are so notable and serve as proof of his intent for what the viewer should focus on.
Without a mind reader, of course nobody can *prove* what Michelangelo's intentions were. But just look at the proportions of the sculpture -- the penis and testicles are very small, and the head and hands are dramatically enlarged. It's clear where your eyes (and attentions) are supposed to go, and it isn't to the genitals. Having tiny genitals was pretty common in his work, precisely because he was a naturalist enough not to go around adding stupid fig leaves where they didn't make sense, but he certainly wasn't trying to make anything sexually stimulating (or even sexually interesting -- I don't think I've ever met or read of anyone who found Michelangelo's women to be exciting in any way, though they were beautiful from an artistic point of view).
As an artist who does nudes I can say, in my experience and working with others, it's pretty unusual for an artist to intend to titillate (outside of obvious personal or commercial realms). It's not that sexuality is separate from art, it's that usually the artistic goal of anything well-known is to represent that beauty can be separate from sexuality. It's precisely the notion that nudity=sexuality that many major artists from the past few hundred years have been fighting against.
Not that i think you disagree or don't understand this (it seems clear from your tone you're being a Devil's Advocate).
a woman into to you, but not wanting sex that night, could very well slap the creep label on you if you do what you've described.
No, she won't. If she's interested in you, and over the age of 18, and relatively sane, she won't be offended by an expression of sexual interest unless you're crude, pushy, or needy about it. If you maturely, playfully, and confidently express sexual interest in a woman and she reacts badly, then you never had a shot with her anyways, she's not attracted to you. A woman who is attracted or neutral towards you will, even if they brush off your attentions for the moment, start thinking of you as a potential sex partner and not just some guy who's kind of cute.
This is just a more practical application of the psychological testing that's been done showing that women in the workplace consider certain actions "flirting" when they come from an attractive man, and "sexual harassment" when they come from an unattractive one. She will perceive your actions through the filter of her existing attitude towards you.
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Girls with character, intelligence and a sense of humor always think they're going to be screwed in the elevator? You sound like you are 16 at most.
Women who are confident with themselves certainly fantasize about sex in public (and other taboos), and more than half of Americans have had sex outdoors at some point. Anyone who thinks sex outside of the bedroom or home is solely the product of teenage imagination has some eye-opening experiences ahead of them, if they're lucky.
Note that you don't even have to do those things for them to contribute to your sex life. Simply having standing sex in your living room while describing how you're really in the office elevator and could get caught at any moment by your coworkers is pretty close to the same sort of thrill (with much less risk, obviously) than the real thing. The GP's point, as I recall, was that any woman so dull that she will immediately recoil in horror at the mere concept of sexual fantasy outside the bedroom is simply not going to be a particularly fulfilling partner.
Having sex in an elevator has nothing to do with being healthy.
What's unhealthy about it? Exhibitionism is one of the most common fantasies across societies and sexes. Assuming you're not doing it in the mall's glass elevator during the back-to-school shopping season, you can certainly match the excitement of the *risk* of getting caught with the relative safety of knowing you won't. It's basically just one step removed from sex in the office, since it's a slightly less controlled area but still pretty predictable.
Sorry, directly asking for sex doesn't work, unless you're well into the relationship. Try giving advice that won't turn guys into the pariah who "omg did WHAT?"
if you're asking in a way that would make her respond in an OMG WHAT manner, you're not asking right. Because yes, just expressing sexual interest in a healthy, single young woman can be successful if you're not creepy or weird about it. You don't need a relationship any longer than it takes to build some rapport and trust, whether that's an hour or a month.
As with almost all the responses to issues in this story, the key is confidence and a sense of humor. There's nothing strange about modern, city-living, liberal adults enjoying sex, discussing sex, or expressing an interest in sex with someone. If you ask with that attitude, there's no reason she should say anything but "oh come on, we couldn't do that, I barely know you!" (with a bashful smile, but now she is thinking of you as a potential partner in the future) or "let's go upstairs".
If she or anyone else reacts badly, you just brush it off with something like "Oh, geez, sorry I didn't realize I was at a church youth group meeting! I left my promise ring in the car, I'll bring it next time!" and a huge shit-eating grin. Then continue whatever conversation you were having before, and they'll see that you don't accept what happened as any more embarrassing than getting turned down for a golf date. If you don't accept their disapproval, you might be surprised to find out they don't offer it.
If you accept her "no thanks" gracefully and simply continue the conversation (ie, don't seem like you were ONLY talking to her in hopes of having sex), chances are when she tells her friends about how bold you were, they'll seek you out to flirt at the next social gathering. Because most guys either brag about sex in a transparent way trying to "excite" (more like bore) a woman they've met, or they avoid all discussion of it for fear it will offend this woman who is presumably the Virgin Mary until proven otherwise. Simply being comfortable, discussing it when appropriate, and acting like an adult is pretty rare.
have more relationships than the "good boys," who do not desire such promiscuity
I think that's a pretty big assumption that the good boys have fewer partners because they don't desire any more. But yes, all this study shows is that there's a correlation between certain personality traits in college-aged males and higher numbers of sex partners. Whether that it because of a difference in desire, effort, attractiveness, or what would require more research.
While I agree that's true, the issue is that you keep claiming the fact a girl is out with another guy is proof that she's moved on, which has no rational basis. Just because a girl is seeing someone else doesn't mean she has no interest in another. Any attractive woman isn't going to sit around waiting for the phone to ring, no matter how much she wants it to, she'll go out and have fun (possibly to help her begin to move on, possibly to make the other guy jealous enough to get off his ass and act, whatever).
99.9998% is just the probability that you've had sex with at least one woman with HSV2; it's not the probability that you actually have HSV2, because the probability that you will catch HSV2 if you have sex with an infected person is less than 100%.
The problem with this line of thought is that it assumes people have sex with statistically representative partners. People usually have sex within very limited class/race/education/professional subgroups.
There are also unfortunate realities that disease transmission is not equitable -- a healthy male is much less likely to contract a disease like HIV from a female than vice versa, simply due to the direction of fluid exchange and the relative delicacy of genital tissue in the sexes.
Did it ever occur to you to talk to the actual live women in your life? Mom, grandma, aunts, sisters, neighbors, friends? That's the core of the divide between men and women- the large segment of men who do not listen to women, and who do not treat us as individuals who are worth getting to know. Who think of us as Woman, Any One Will Do. We're hopping up and down and saying in plain terms how we like to be treated, and they're all fixated on some abstraction with little relationship to reality.
I say this with all the respect in the world, because I know you believe what you're saying, but listening to women is the last thing any guy who has bad luck with women should be doing. It's precisely what the OP was complaining about -- women in general say all the "right" things when asked what they look for in a man, but like any survey, you simply can't trust self-reporting.
Women will generally talk about the higher-level relationship things that they seek, which is fine as far as that goes, but those long-term relationship traits are not the same traits that create the attraction and chemistry a romance needs in the beginning.
Guys are much better off getting advice from other guys who are successful with women, not from women themselves.
What it boils down to is: women want to fuck good looking guys.
Not really. I mean sure, they'll prefer a toned guy to a not-toned guy, but one huge advantage we have as men is that our physical appearance isn't anywhere near as critical to our mating options as a woman's is to hers.
Women want men who trigger the emotions they want to feel -- and you can do that by being successful, confident, smart, funny, popular, etc. There are lots of overweight bald guys (who aren't rich) who are very successful with beautiful women, but not many overweight women who have boy toys hanging around.
The big thing is that when we're younger, the good-looking/fit guys definitely get more attention, so they naturally develop the confidence, attitude and such that generates more than momentary attractiveness. But if you develop those traits even without being a particularly great-looking guy, you can come very close to getting the same results.
The best response to this line is: "I don't have time for these games, call me when you grow up." Then get up and leave.
The hard part? Not calling her again, ever, for any reason. She might call, she might not, but either way your sense of self-respect will shoot through the roof.
I think the "grow up" thing is too obnoxious to be beneficial -- you're just kind of insulting someone for turning you down, which isn't exactly going to make her think what a great guy she missed out on when you're gone.
But brutal honesty is a good response -- something like "well, our friendship is already changed, so that's not really an option anymore. The only choice we have now is whether to change it for the better or spend the rest of our lives wondering what could have been." That way you're putting it in the positive context of her missing out on something, and even if she turns you down and you don't speak for a few months, she'll still have a positive memory of your attitude towards her, and just might call someday to say how much she misses you.
A lot of people rag on the "nice guys" for hanging out with the girls hoping to get somewhere, but what do the guys that succeed in getting the girl (for more than a slam bam) do? They hang out with the girl hoping to get somewhere.
No, they don't -- they spend time with her, actively pursuing her and making their intentions known. There's a difference between "hoping" something will happen by osmosis and actually taking steps to make a romantic/sexual relationship happen while giving the woman a chance to respond or not to your advances. One is pathetic and unattractive, the other is exactly what attractive women look for in a partner.
The bonus is that actively pursuing something also yields a definitive answer -- within days (or a week or two at most) you know if there's any chance of it going somewhere, so you can move on and stop wasting emotional energy on somebody who is uninterested. The bonus bonus is that if it's a girl used to guys hanging around her hoping to "get lucky", the very confidence shown by stopping your pursuit will often trigger her into being more attracted to you.
If she's moved on with her life, she is no longer interested.
You keep making these statements that have no basis in real social actions. just because someone is dating a person doesn't mean they have no interest or attraction to others, perhaps even others they would PREFER to be with. If your ideas were true, nobody would ever cheat or break up with someone because they've fallen in love with another.
Just because a girl doesn't want to sit home alone every night doesn't mean she's uninterested in someone.
Why anyone thought Senator Obama was different is beyond me.
Ignoring the charisma/ideology/etc, it seems only logical that in a two party system often defined by opposition to each other (rather than support for any specific act), the major challenging party candidate would appose something so desperately sought by the ruling party and that party's longtime financial supporters.
It just seems strange that it isn't being opposed if only on the basis that it makes for good political theater showcasing the wild-west lawlessness so many have tired of in the current leadership. but I guess they made the political calculation that they ran the risk of looking weak on national security if they didn't pass the bill (which makes no sense, since without the immunity provision it probably would have passed, just been vetoed by the President, at which case you can then claim the President is holding up necessary national security legislation because he wants gifts for his political supporters).
Fourth, Bush couldn't have gotten a warrant in minutes. What they were looking for was codes being relayed signaling another attack or triggering the start of one. If terror suspect 1 calls someone in the US, says something, then who that person communicates with afterwards could reveal codes used to communicate between terrorists or if they were trigering another terrorist act. If they were calling another suspected terrorist afterwards, it made it more interesting as far as intelligence gathering goes. Suspicion by association isn't generally good enough grounds to get a warrant so the case would have to be stated that something in a seemingly uninformational conversation meant some sort of potential threat or interest.... All this immunity does is stop the companies who help the government at a time when it seemed important from having to waste funds defending what would otherwise be a frivolous lawsuit because there is already immunity of they acted legally.
This is almost the complete opposite of reality. Yes, a warrant could be obtained in minutes if necessary -- but it isn't. FISA warrants can be obtained after the fact, so there's nothing to stop a wiretap from happening and the warrant from being issued a day or two later. The most insulting thing about the whole fiasco is that the executive branch didn't even care enough to bother filling out paperwork to make their actions legal after they already had what they wanted.
And circumstantial evidence is certainly enough for a warrant, particularly when you're talking about call patterns involving known or suspected terrorists in national security cases. The FISA courts almost never rejected a warrant that was presented to them.
Your final statement is meaningless circular logic. All the immunity offers is immunity from something that's already legal? What? telcoms aren't being sued for doing things that were legal, they're being sued for doing things that were illegal. The only way large companies will uphold the law is if they are penalized when they break it. After they pay several million dollars in court fess, they'll be able to point to that cost the next time a government agency asks them to break the law.
I am saying that if she was interested in him in the first place there would NOT BE ANOTHER GUY AT ALL.
Because she's supposed to wait around every night at home hoping he'll get up the courage to make a move? Just because someone is going on with their life doesn't mean they're uninterested, it just means they have options.
Nothing burns like having someone you care about in your arms, in tears, and hearing her say, "I wish I could find someone like you..."
And the correct answer to that is something along the lines of "well, the problem is guys like me don't date crazy chicks..."
If you actually answered "oh, you're the sweetest most precious woman in the world and any guy would be lucky to have you", congratulations, you're in the friend zone forever.
Will this mean racing games can finally include all the awesome cars they want, and GT can finally do proper damage sim. without risking lawsuit?
No, because it's almost always trademark issues that make racing games license with car manufacturers. Sure, you can model a car if you like without any license whatsoever (and generally arcade racers do exactly that -- it's not like you can't tell exactly which car each "generic" racer in Burnout is supposed to be). But you can't call it a Ford GT and use their livery without a license, because the names of the cars and the logos and distinctive color schemes are generally trademarked. Folks playing a racing sim want that level of authenticity.
Slashdot Mirror
But that's only true in the USA, and their ratings are going down. And there's nothing terribly insightful about noting that the country was in love with conservatism for the past decade but has been falling out of love with it recently.
CNN/MSNBC et al certainly did change some of their presentation style in response to the domestic popularity of FOX, but much of their audience is outside the US, so they don't want to make themselves unpalatable to anyone but US jingoists the same way that FOX has.
That depends greatly on the definition of "win". A tank is great at destroying stuff and holding ground, but sooner or later the people in the tank have to get on with some sort of post-war activity, at which point they become vulnerable again. Unless you just want to populate the occupied country with sentient tanks that eat dirt, there's no specific need for an opposition force to have an anti-tank strategy.
Guerrilla warfare isn't about winning a swift tactical victory, it's about making life unbearable for your opponent. Your entire anecdote is about tactical success, and seems to dismiss merely "political" attacks as somehow meaningless, when of course the entire purpose of war is to further a political goal, so if you're able to do that more efficiently than the other side, you're "winning", regardless of the tactical results. You can rake all the insurgents you like from rooftops, if you're making new ones at the same time, you're losing ground (since it takes you more resources to occupy than it does for them to resist).
I don't know how you came to the conclusion that guerrilla warfare is a method guaranteed to lose. There are numerous governments today that were put in place (at least initially) by guerrilla forces. Fidel Castro certainly thinks it is possible to wage a successful guerrilla war against a US-supported government. Things turned out pretty well for Mao.
All you say is certainly true, I don't think anyone doubts the importance of resources in war -- our own revolution would have been a failure without the mercenaries, materiel, and distractions by the French and other powers who had their own motivations for seeing the English fail (just as we had motivations for seeing the Soviets fail, China and Iran had a motivation for seeing the US fail, etc).
But the point remains that guerrilla warfare is a successful means of fighting a vastly superior armed force, so there's no historical credibility to the argument that it's impossible to fight the US Army simply because the army has nuclear weapons and tanks. You don't have to field an armored division just because your opponent has one.
I think the folks in Baghdad would disagree. The carpet-bombing of major cities hasn't happened yet, and the local militias in the apartment complexes seem to be killing soldiers in "bomb-proof APCs" just fine.
I'm also not sure how you conclude that Tora Bora proves anything -- our primary target got away, and it's not like either side cared about the ground itself. Congratulations, we sterilized a useless mountain range! Was there some valuable resource there being defended? No, it was just a convenient hiding place. When it stopped being that, the inhabitants moved on. Now, of course, they're moving back. The net result is that we dropped millions of dollars in ordinance on worthless land and accomplished virtually nothing other than killing a few hundred or thousand foot soldiers and (presumably) the third-ranked al-qaeda officer (because every operation we engage in kills the third-ranked al-qaeda officer -- the org chart must really flatten out at that level).
Of course you're right, if you put 20 guys in a building and send in ten SAS against them, the SAS will win. Conventional and trained forces will always win a "fair" fight, particularly when they can choose the moment of engagement. Guerrilla warfare isn't about fighting fair. Hide those 20 guys in a city of ten million, and tell the ten SAS guys they have to live in that city for the next few years, wear a highly visible uniform that says "please kill me in the dirtiest way possible" on the back, and they aren't allowed to hurt any innocent people. SAS training isn't going to do you any good if someone blows up your whole building while you're asleep after a 48-hour operation. And it's a lot faster, easier, and cheaper to build a car bomb than it is to train an SAS operative.
it seemed to work pretty well for the Vietnamese, the Iraqis, the Mujaheddin. The entire point of guerrilla warfare is that it almost completely eliminates the military advantage that large standing forces have. Artillery and other massive weapons are only useful against other standing militaries. Cruise missiles are only useful against infrastructure and other persistent targets. Attack helicopters are no use at picking one soldier out of a crowd of civilians. Aircraft carriers are useless against someone poisoning your barracks' food supply. ICBMs don't frighten someone who lives 2 miles from your own military base. Stealth fighters can't protect you from roadside bombs.
Of course, your argument is pointless anyways. As the decision states, whether resistance is a practical option in the 21st century has no bearing on whether it is a protected right. You don't say that the freedom of speech is no longer protected just because Rupert Murdoch can easily speak louder than any protester, you don't say that the fourth amendment is no longer valid since the police can easily find out tons of information about you without entering your home. I don't think there's any risk that the government will want to quarter soldiers in private homes to save some money, that doesn't mean the constitutional prohibition against it ceases to be the law of the land.
I think maybe you're not hearing what people are saying, but rather interpreting it through your own preconceptions.
Nobody is suggesting that you walk up to a complete stranger, grab her breasts and say "hey, wanna fuck?" Sure, we all hear rumors that such a shotgun approach will work purely by playing the odds, but you're right, you'll get kicked out if you try that on girls in a club, and even the ones who say yes are unlikely to be ones you're interested in.
But that's just the opposite end of the spectrum from spending weeks and weeks getting to know a girl before feeling comfortable expressing sexual interest in her. You don't have to do that, even though that's what we're *told* we're supposed to do by everyone -- be friends first, then it will "just happen".
There is such a thing as a middle ground, where you meet someone, talk to them for 30+ minutes, make her laugh, show her you're a worthwhile human being and a confident man who isn't intimidated by the idea of approaching an attractive woman. You both get to see if you enjoy each others' company, and if you don't, you go your separate ways. If you do keep talking, then in the course of conversation when she says something sexual, or strange, or that could be deliberately misinterpreted as a double entendre, you say something like "oh my god, I had no idea you were such a freak, I should have brought my extra handcuff keys", and she'll laugh, and hopefully roll with it and joke back, pushing the idea further. You eventually go back to talking about whatever else (unless she doesn't let you, in which case forge ahead), and eventually just say "hey, you want to get out of here?" and she'll say "nah, i'm hanging with friends" (or whatever) or she'll say "and go where?", at which point you say "well, we can go back to my house and play badminton, or do something boring like go to a coffee shop and talk, though I admit that talking to you is pretty damn fun". Then she'll say "well, I do love badminton..." and you go home together, "I don't play badminton on the first date", or "nah, I'm hanging with friends but you can give me a call later in the week", or a brushoff.
Note that NOTHING WHATSOEVER in that entire conversation was rude, insulting, derogatory, or something a sane woman would take offense at. Nobody would get kicked out of anywhere for having that conversation. You're just having fun and playfully but clearly expressing interest in her and giving her the opportunity to decline your interest without drama. If she shoots you down, you just double over in fake frustration and complain about how the US Badminton team always loses at the olympics because of people like her who hold the sport in such low regard, and that if public perceptions don't change the Chinese will continue their lead in critical badminton technology. You then talk about other stuff and then excuse yourself to go back to your friends, and get her number. For the rest of the night you'll cross paths and point her out to people as the girl who hates freedom and supports lead paint on toys.
There's nothing in that scenario that you can't both walk away from with a smile and a few laughs, even if it doesn't go anywhere.
Being straightforward with someone about your intentions isn't about being an asshole or crude, it's about not wasting a bunch of time trying to deceive them into thinking you're only being friendly. People don't like being lied to, and the truth is that a lot of women do feel they're being lied to when men "befriend" them thinking it is going to lead to something else. It also wastes a lot of time if she IS interested and wishes you would just give her an excuse to go with you, or if she isn't interested but doesn't know how to let you know that without feeling rude. You're giving her opportunities to do both in a funny manner, and showing her by your reactions that you're confident enough to accept any answer without being a jerk about it, and indeed are able to laugh and make her smile with your reactions.
Well of course he (and everyone since) emulated the greek proportions, which is why the head and hand size are so notable and serve as proof of his intent for what the viewer should focus on.
Without a mind reader, of course nobody can *prove* what Michelangelo's intentions were. But just look at the proportions of the sculpture -- the penis and testicles are very small, and the head and hands are dramatically enlarged. It's clear where your eyes (and attentions) are supposed to go, and it isn't to the genitals. Having tiny genitals was pretty common in his work, precisely because he was a naturalist enough not to go around adding stupid fig leaves where they didn't make sense, but he certainly wasn't trying to make anything sexually stimulating (or even sexually interesting -- I don't think I've ever met or read of anyone who found Michelangelo's women to be exciting in any way, though they were beautiful from an artistic point of view).
As an artist who does nudes I can say, in my experience and working with others, it's pretty unusual for an artist to intend to titillate (outside of obvious personal or commercial realms). It's not that sexuality is separate from art, it's that usually the artistic goal of anything well-known is to represent that beauty can be separate from sexuality. It's precisely the notion that nudity=sexuality that many major artists from the past few hundred years have been fighting against.
Not that i think you disagree or don't understand this (it seems clear from your tone you're being a Devil's Advocate).
No, she won't. If she's interested in you, and over the age of 18, and relatively sane, she won't be offended by an expression of sexual interest unless you're crude, pushy, or needy about it. If you maturely, playfully, and confidently express sexual interest in a woman and she reacts badly, then you never had a shot with her anyways, she's not attracted to you. A woman who is attracted or neutral towards you will, even if they brush off your attentions for the moment, start thinking of you as a potential sex partner and not just some guy who's kind of cute.
This is just a more practical application of the psychological testing that's been done showing that women in the workplace consider certain actions "flirting" when they come from an attractive man, and "sexual harassment" when they come from an unattractive one. She will perceive your actions through the filter of her existing attitude towards you.
Women who are confident with themselves certainly fantasize about sex in public (and other taboos), and more than half of Americans have had sex outdoors at some point. Anyone who thinks sex outside of the bedroom or home is solely the product of teenage imagination has some eye-opening experiences ahead of them, if they're lucky.
Note that you don't even have to do those things for them to contribute to your sex life. Simply having standing sex in your living room while describing how you're really in the office elevator and could get caught at any moment by your coworkers is pretty close to the same sort of thrill (with much less risk, obviously) than the real thing. The GP's point, as I recall, was that any woman so dull that she will immediately recoil in horror at the mere concept of sexual fantasy outside the bedroom is simply not going to be a particularly fulfilling partner.
What's unhealthy about it? Exhibitionism is one of the most common fantasies across societies and sexes. Assuming you're not doing it in the mall's glass elevator during the back-to-school shopping season, you can certainly match the excitement of the *risk* of getting caught with the relative safety of knowing you won't. It's basically just one step removed from sex in the office, since it's a slightly less controlled area but still pretty predictable.
if you're asking in a way that would make her respond in an OMG WHAT manner, you're not asking right. Because yes, just expressing sexual interest in a healthy, single young woman can be successful if you're not creepy or weird about it. You don't need a relationship any longer than it takes to build some rapport and trust, whether that's an hour or a month.
As with almost all the responses to issues in this story, the key is confidence and a sense of humor. There's nothing strange about modern, city-living, liberal adults enjoying sex, discussing sex, or expressing an interest in sex with someone. If you ask with that attitude, there's no reason she should say anything but "oh come on, we couldn't do that, I barely know you!" (with a bashful smile, but now she is thinking of you as a potential partner in the future) or "let's go upstairs".
If she or anyone else reacts badly, you just brush it off with something like "Oh, geez, sorry I didn't realize I was at a church youth group meeting! I left my promise ring in the car, I'll bring it next time!" and a huge shit-eating grin. Then continue whatever conversation you were having before, and they'll see that you don't accept what happened as any more embarrassing than getting turned down for a golf date. If you don't accept their disapproval, you might be surprised to find out they don't offer it.
If you accept her "no thanks" gracefully and simply continue the conversation (ie, don't seem like you were ONLY talking to her in hopes of having sex), chances are when she tells her friends about how bold you were, they'll seek you out to flirt at the next social gathering. Because most guys either brag about sex in a transparent way trying to "excite" (more like bore) a woman they've met, or they avoid all discussion of it for fear it will offend this woman who is presumably the Virgin Mary until proven otherwise. Simply being comfortable, discussing it when appropriate, and acting like an adult is pretty rare.
I think that's a pretty big assumption that the good boys have fewer partners because they don't desire any more. But yes, all this study shows is that there's a correlation between certain personality traits in college-aged males and higher numbers of sex partners. Whether that it because of a difference in desire, effort, attractiveness, or what would require more research.
While I agree that's true, the issue is that you keep claiming the fact a girl is out with another guy is proof that she's moved on, which has no rational basis. Just because a girl is seeing someone else doesn't mean she has no interest in another. Any attractive woman isn't going to sit around waiting for the phone to ring, no matter how much she wants it to, she'll go out and have fun (possibly to help her begin to move on, possibly to make the other guy jealous enough to get off his ass and act, whatever).
The problem with this line of thought is that it assumes people have sex with statistically representative partners. People usually have sex within very limited class/race/education/professional subgroups.
There are also unfortunate realities that disease transmission is not equitable -- a healthy male is much less likely to contract a disease like HIV from a female than vice versa, simply due to the direction of fluid exchange and the relative delicacy of genital tissue in the sexes.
I say this with all the respect in the world, because I know you believe what you're saying, but listening to women is the last thing any guy who has bad luck with women should be doing. It's precisely what the OP was complaining about -- women in general say all the "right" things when asked what they look for in a man, but like any survey, you simply can't trust self-reporting.
Women will generally talk about the higher-level relationship things that they seek, which is fine as far as that goes, but those long-term relationship traits are not the same traits that create the attraction and chemistry a romance needs in the beginning.
Guys are much better off getting advice from other guys who are successful with women, not from women themselves.
Not really. I mean sure, they'll prefer a toned guy to a not-toned guy, but one huge advantage we have as men is that our physical appearance isn't anywhere near as critical to our mating options as a woman's is to hers.
Women want men who trigger the emotions they want to feel -- and you can do that by being successful, confident, smart, funny, popular, etc. There are lots of overweight bald guys (who aren't rich) who are very successful with beautiful women, but not many overweight women who have boy toys hanging around.
The big thing is that when we're younger, the good-looking/fit guys definitely get more attention, so they naturally develop the confidence, attitude and such that generates more than momentary attractiveness. But if you develop those traits even without being a particularly great-looking guy, you can come very close to getting the same results.
I think the "grow up" thing is too obnoxious to be beneficial -- you're just kind of insulting someone for turning you down, which isn't exactly going to make her think what a great guy she missed out on when you're gone.
But brutal honesty is a good response -- something like "well, our friendship is already changed, so that's not really an option anymore. The only choice we have now is whether to change it for the better or spend the rest of our lives wondering what could have been." That way you're putting it in the positive context of her missing out on something, and even if she turns you down and you don't speak for a few months, she'll still have a positive memory of your attitude towards her, and just might call someday to say how much she misses you.
No, they don't -- they spend time with her, actively pursuing her and making their intentions known. There's a difference between "hoping" something will happen by osmosis and actually taking steps to make a romantic/sexual relationship happen while giving the woman a chance to respond or not to your advances. One is pathetic and unattractive, the other is exactly what attractive women look for in a partner.
The bonus is that actively pursuing something also yields a definitive answer -- within days (or a week or two at most) you know if there's any chance of it going somewhere, so you can move on and stop wasting emotional energy on somebody who is uninterested. The bonus bonus is that if it's a girl used to guys hanging around her hoping to "get lucky", the very confidence shown by stopping your pursuit will often trigger her into being more attracted to you.
You keep making these statements that have no basis in real social actions. just because someone is dating a person doesn't mean they have no interest or attraction to others, perhaps even others they would PREFER to be with. If your ideas were true, nobody would ever cheat or break up with someone because they've fallen in love with another.
Just because a girl doesn't want to sit home alone every night doesn't mean she's uninterested in someone.
Ignoring the charisma/ideology/etc, it seems only logical that in a two party system often defined by opposition to each other (rather than support for any specific act), the major challenging party candidate would appose something so desperately sought by the ruling party and that party's longtime financial supporters.
It just seems strange that it isn't being opposed if only on the basis that it makes for good political theater showcasing the wild-west lawlessness so many have tired of in the current leadership. but I guess they made the political calculation that they ran the risk of looking weak on national security if they didn't pass the bill (which makes no sense, since without the immunity provision it probably would have passed, just been vetoed by the President, at which case you can then claim the President is holding up necessary national security legislation because he wants gifts for his political supporters).
This is almost the complete opposite of reality. Yes, a warrant could be obtained in minutes if necessary -- but it isn't. FISA warrants can be obtained after the fact, so there's nothing to stop a wiretap from happening and the warrant from being issued a day or two later. The most insulting thing about the whole fiasco is that the executive branch didn't even care enough to bother filling out paperwork to make their actions legal after they already had what they wanted.
And circumstantial evidence is certainly enough for a warrant, particularly when you're talking about call patterns involving known or suspected terrorists in national security cases. The FISA courts almost never rejected a warrant that was presented to them.
Your final statement is meaningless circular logic. All the immunity offers is immunity from something that's already legal? What? telcoms aren't being sued for doing things that were legal, they're being sued for doing things that were illegal. The only way large companies will uphold the law is if they are penalized when they break it. After they pay several million dollars in court fess, they'll be able to point to that cost the next time a government agency asks them to break the law.
Because she's supposed to wait around every night at home hoping he'll get up the courage to make a move? Just because someone is going on with their life doesn't mean they're uninterested, it just means they have options.
And the correct answer to that is something along the lines of "well, the problem is guys like me don't date crazy chicks..."
If you actually answered "oh, you're the sweetest most precious woman in the world and any guy would be lucky to have you", congratulations, you're in the friend zone forever.
No, because it's almost always trademark issues that make racing games license with car manufacturers. Sure, you can model a car if you like without any license whatsoever (and generally arcade racers do exactly that -- it's not like you can't tell exactly which car each "generic" racer in Burnout is supposed to be). But you can't call it a Ford GT and use their livery without a license, because the names of the cars and the logos and distinctive color schemes are generally trademarked. Folks playing a racing sim want that level of authenticity.