I can think of so many things I'd like to do with that woman (does she have any buttons on her shirt fastened?), but no, let's show her goatse instead.
"Literally the only people this ruling benefits are class action vulture attorneys, who sue, cost a company millions of dollars, and get those actually effected small coupons to buy more of the defective product."
Considering this is AT&T we're talking about, I'm sure this is also a win for civil liberties groups looking to actually take AT&T to court for their warrantless wiretaps.
157% humidity is 157% humidity. It may take far less grains of water to saturate a pound of air at lower temperatures (which is why it feels so dry when you step into a heated building), but saturation is saturation.
No, I'd say pretty much from release, Windows 2000 was lauded as "the Windows that doesn't suck." People didn't just start appreciating it when XP came out, it was a favored alternative to 98 and NT 4.0 practically since launch.
And only Linux zealots really complained about the stability of XP. Those who had first sunk their teeth into 2k were disappointed, but even they said that XP was "okay" rather than "sucked."
"Before air conditioning, yankees stayed in yankeeland. After air conditioning they moved to places where they weren't welcome."
Actually, refrigeration technology took off in the South before the North. The Yankees you so deride didn't need large plants to manufacture ice for their iceboxes, they had the Great Lakes.
As for electricity generation, you'll note that the New Deal and the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA in TFA) was interested in improving electricity generation in the South long before consumer air conditioning was available, let alone viable. Southerners were interested in those new-fangled electric lights Northerners were beginning to take for granted.
"We used clothes lines to hang and dry our clothes, not electric driers."
Another technology that caught on in the South more than the North. It's not the North that has to deal with trying to dry clothes in 157% humidity, at least not year-round.
The only way for something to be moving faster than c (with special relativity) is if it has imaginary mass (otherwise it would have imaginary energy, which is a no-no). If you had some magic ray gun to convert real mass to imaginary, you'd be good, except you'll soon find that what you intend to shoot with the ray gun turned to tachyons before you actually shoot it (i. e. "cause" and "effect" would be reversed for some observers).
Judging by the lack of Philip's logo on most (if not all) music media sold today (due to the inclusion of DRM efforts violating the standards), I'm not altogether sure CD-DA has lived long enough to reach 25.
""Microwave photons" are neither "light", nor "energetic"."
Well, they're photons, so the "light" moniker seems to fit, and as for the "energetic" part, put your money where your mouth is and put your head into your microwave oven.
"And Einstein need not worry, his basic theory or Relativity covers the fuzzy concept of "simultaneity" and "instanteinity" quite thoroughly."
Yes, by allowing "effect" to precede "cause" for some observers. No elephant in the room there!
"I thought that something travelling at exactly the speed of light required infinite amounts of energy. No-one said anything about more than the speed of light."
It takes an infinite amount of energy to get something with real mass (tardyons) to reach the speed of light in a vacuum. Photons (luxons) do it by not having any real mass, only momentum. And, looking strictly at the math of special relativity, it would also require infinite energy for something with imaginary mass (tachyons) to slow down to the speed of light in a vacuum.
"Check out what happens when X-Rays pass the speed of "light" in water."
The speed of light through water is less than the speed of light through a vacuum, which is the important number (and why light is refracted when it hits the surface of water)
"Because if you are a teenage boy yourself, you won't mind:)"
Yet. How many sexual experiences did you have as a teenager seemed spectacular at the time but, through the lens of a few years' experience, weren't all that great?
"Well. You would be surprised at how much teens today know about sex,"
The rate of teenaged pregnancy leaves me surprised at how little they know, yes.
"and how active they are. In just a few years, they've become far more aware of these things. The 'net helps in a lot of areas..."
Pornography is much older than the internet, as is teenaged sex.
At any rate, teenagers approach (what they consider to be) sex from a socially-conscious viewpoint, like they do with most things. All too often, sexual desires take a back-seat to trying to keep up with where they perceive their friends and peers to be ("We should have 'done it' by now!"). And even if they're saying the truth about their sexual history (which isn't always the case), a desire for sexual pleasure is usually secondary to a desire to appear more mature. I can't count the number of times a young girl has listed how she's done sex acts X, Y and Z in an effort to impress but has never stopped to think about whether or not she enjoyed any of it; it's not about whether she enjoyed X or is skilled at Y, simply that she's done them and ticked them off on her imaginary scorecard. Heck, often she'll have tried Y and Z because X wasn't as pleasurable as she thought it'd be and she believes the problem to be the act itself rather than her partner or her approach (teenagers and introspection rarely mix).
One of my favorite examples is something you hear a lot from younger girls these days: "I like lesbian porn." It doesn't happen anywhere near as often, but when an older woman tells a man "I like lesbian porn," she means "I like lesbian porn." When a younger girl tells that to a boy, however, 99.99% of the time she's actually saying "I want you to stop thinking with your brain." Whether or not she really is bi-curious isn't as important to her as the reaction and attention saying those words gets her. And, being young and inexperienced, she doesn't yet realize that using that as a tactic to seduce boys also kills any thoughts a boy her age might have of "I want to have sex with this warm, breathing girl" and instead replaces it with "ZOMG! Bagged a lesbo!" (After all, he has his own social status and bragging rights to think about.) In fact, genuinely curious older women will refrain from saying something like that for that very reason.
It doesn't matter how "sexually" active they appear to be or genuinely are, they still approach it like teenagers, with all the bullshit that entails.
"The thing I find with women is...if you want to sleep with them, entering the 'friend zone' is death to that. I learned that early on...I'd become their friends...and bang, I'd end up not only NOT being the one they slept with, but, the friend they would endlessly drone and complain about to about the men they did sleep with."
Falls under the category of "teenaged bullshit" I was talking about. A young girl lusts after a boy and, in order to make things socially acceptable, will duck tape the "dating/going steady/exclusive" idea onto what is really just a sexual pursuit with her. And then, even if the sex is satisfying for her, she'll still ultimately unsatisfied because the relationship isn't living up to the empty title she gave it. And after it ends, she'll probably make the same mistakes because she's just a teenager and doesn't yet realize that good sex is about more than looks.
And she'll be frustrated and look for the emotional support she's not getting from her "boyfriend" elsewhere, which is where the "friend zone" comes in. But that zone exists because of teenaged boys that have their own teenaged bullshit to deal with, focusing on being a "good friend" rather than being honest with both her and himself: depending on the girl, it can be all too easy to seduce her from within the "friend zone," even if it would end up with her "cheating" on her "boyfriend." After all, it's already been firmly established that she's frustrated and dissatisfied, and if a girl is comfortable enough with a boy to talk about her sexuality (a major accomplishment for a girl with teenaged insecurities), then (whether either of them realizes it) she's only a nudge away from being comfortable with being sexual with said boy, and far more so than with the guy she can't share all of her dirty little secrets with.
The only real exception to this are the girls that are truly users (more common among teenagers than adults, who've learned better), in which case they should be kicked to the curb as soon as possible (something that you seem to have the hang of). But they're not all users like that, not by a long shot. The "friend zone" only exists because decent boys (the ones girls really want to sleep with whether they know it or not) hesitate and voluntarily linger there.
After a decade or so, women outgrow this and learn that enlightened self-interest gets them far more satisfying sex than abiding by social norms on when it is and isn't alright to sleep with a guy. And the more honest the guys in their "friend zone" are, the faster she can skip ahead to the good parts.
"I figured out after awhile of that which end of the relationship with women I'd rather be on."
Being the guy she complains about doesn't sound all that much more satisfying to me. It's far more satisfying to my own ego to leave her speechlessly satisfied rather than bored and unconsciously window-shopping. Girl, "boyfriend," "good friend," all three are left frustrated and unsatisfied.
"Your views, either consciously or unconsciously, tend to promote monogamism."
That certainly seems to be a very broad definition of "monogamism." "I think I want to exclusively settle down with someone and maybe have children eventually, but not now and not with you."
"Both of you have valid points,"
Considering that his original post was an attempt at suggesting that others should follow his own example and then he went on to all but express dissatisfaction with his own sex life (reminiscing about the past, constant anticipation of the future, an apparent lack of satisfaction with the present)... whether or not his points are valid, he doesn't seem to be the best poster boy for his stance.
"No, not due to it getting complicated, but, because it may be getting boring...and there's always someone NEW out there. Often it is the thrill of the chase, rather than the conquest."
Then you have issues with interpersonal relations above and beyond sex. If it really does get boring (and you have yet to learn to avoid the boring ones) and it really is about moving on to the next target, then sex is nothing more for you than stroking your own ego, and it's bound to get as boring as other forms of masturbation (and I can easily understand your cynicism then). As with anything, if you can't learn from going through the cycle over and over again that it isn't as good as you thought it'd be, you need help.
"I like things that are tight, and new..."
If that's your primary concern, forgo the women and visit your local sex toy shop.
"much like cars. I like to trade both women and cars for newer models...."
And all you'll end up with are women that either don't know or don't care that you can easily compare them to an inanimate object. You may find yourself a "newer model" (and they likely see you the same way), but you're not going to find yourself a woman who feels a burning, needful desire to please you sexually, who will put her entire mind and body to the task. You're finding exactly what you're looking for and nothing more.
"and believe it or not, I often do stay friends with some of the women."
Because you have compatible interests (likely, with these "friends," you yourself were just one of their conquests). But I do find myself suspecting that you don't know what a good friend is, either.
"Like I'd said in another post, I only believe marriage and monogamy are for those wanting to have kids and raise a family."
And like I've been saying repeatedly is that I'm talking about neither. And it's hard to resist the urge to continue playing armchair psychologist with you when you keep seeing things in my posts that simply aren't there. I'm talking about sex, period. No matrimony, no children, not even exclusivity (why trade in for the "newer model" when there's no need to let go of the old one?). The only thing that really requires (and that you seem to be lacking in your cycle) is true friendship; if you can't really talk to your partner, then what you and she are doing may resemble the physical act, but lacks the psychological component and is more akin to masturbation than intercourse (there's a reason why that word is used to describe both sex and conversation).
There doesn't need to be flowers and rings and Valentine's Day cards. There's no need for use of the words "love," "commitment," "settle down," "children," or "meet my family." But what is needed is genuine dialog (which, coincidentally, most young girls are lousy at). If, after the two of you are spent after your late night/early morning/rushed lunch-hour tryst, neither of you feels a desire to just lie there a bit and talk, it wasn't worth it and never will be.
"Your advice is good for someone that is looking for a long term relationship with someone."
No, most of my experience has been with "older" women coming out of disappointing long-term relationships and are "merely" looking for some good sex. They'll have learned that long-term relationships for their own sake aren't a good idea, in the US they often have already had children so they don't have "biological clock" issues, they just want some good sex and experience the things they think they missed out on.
This doesn't make them "hit it then quit it" fodder (odds are they had enough of that attitude from the guy they divorced), but you'll end up with a "fuck buddy" or "booty call" or whatever you want to call it, where the two of you are in synch sexually (far more than either of you would be with a random pick-up) without getting entangled in anything more than the desire for the occasional fun.
If anything, it's the younger women that are fixated on long-term relationships, since that's what modern society tells them to pursue (especially in the US) and women's lib hasn't progressed enough for it to be socially acceptable for a girl to just enjoy sex for its own sake. Other than that handful of teenaged girls with serious emotional and psychological problems, it takes a decade or so (at least) of "life experiences" for a woman to just let go.
Really, with those young girls you have in mind when you think of just moving on after a short term, why do you need to move on if it weren't for things getting "complicated?" You'd be better off with a woman who's tired of "complicated," so you wouldn't have to once again deal with the warm-up period when you and your new sex partner figure out each other's likes and dislikes.
"One day you're going to meet someone you love and respect and want to stay with forever. You want to "sow your wild oats" before that,"
No, you want someone who you can "sow your wild oats" with. All your line of reasoning will do is replace "I wish I did more back then" with "I wish it was still as good now," leaving both you and your significant other unsatisfied. If your sexuality is incompatible with the person you're looking at, you're better off as just friends.
If you can't be "wild" with someone you love and respect, you have issues.
"That is the only time in your life where you'll be able to (in some cases legally) to screw teen girls while everything is tight and where it is supposed to be."
First off, not strictly true. In case you don't remember your own teenaged years, girls that age tend to prefer older guys. How much older depends on the girl, of course, but you rarely see such a girl dating a boy younger than her, and it's certainly not unheard of for a teenaged girl to lust after a man twice her age.
With that being said, the bodies of teenaged girls tend to be attached to the minds of teenaged girls, so why would you even want to? Yes, they have youthful bodies, but that comes with youthful inexperience and they've yet to have a reason to learn to do anything more than lie there like a dead fish (after all, they don't have to do anything to get guys like you beating down their door).
If you're looking for something more than just stroking your own ego ("ZOMG! Bagged a teenager!") and are interested in, you know, actually good sex, you're better off with a woman around 30, one who knows what she's doing, knows what she likes, and doesn't have all the hang-ups and teenaged bullshit that the younger ones come with.
"Gravity takes a toll on the old human body as you get older. And with people getting obese at earlier and earlier ages....get some fun in while you and potential partners are in good shape."
A little bit of exercise goes a long way, and, of course, the sex itself is pretty good exercise. And, again, it's difficult to have "some fun" when you're still not quite sure what "fun" is, let alone how to go about getting there.
"Especially true for guys. As a teen, you are in your prime and best years for sex...stamina, endurance."
There's more to (good) sex than just stamina and endurance, and it's relatively simple for your average Slashdotter to maintain their teenaged stamina and endurance by doing the exercise and such that they never bothered to do as a teenager. Yes, more work, but, as I keep saying, older women are so much more worth it (to the point where I'd recommend them even for teenaged boys, they will be so grateful and appreciative).
"Do it now and do it as often with as much variety as you can."
Quantity versus quality?
"and your selection of partners will be older and more worn looking too. "
If those are the only qualities you're looking for, you've yet to find out what good sex is.
"I'm glad I got as much as I did growing up...wish I'd had even more..."
Perhaps your problem is that, as women get older, they realize that the sex you're thinking back to wasn't really all that good for them, and the worthwhile partners your age have learned to avoid guys like you and repeating past mistakes.
Slashdot Mirror
"if only tentatively,"
The process of peer review requires that you actually give your peers time to review.
"people who have been loudly complaining about the lack of such observations have gone silent."
If someone's going to get emo over cries of "tests or GTFO," they're in the wrong line of work.
I can think of so many things I'd like to do with that woman (does she have any buttons on her shirt fastened?), but no, let's show her goatse instead.
And you wonder why you're all virgins.
"Literally the only people this ruling benefits are class action vulture attorneys, who sue, cost a company millions of dollars, and get those actually effected small coupons to buy more of the defective product."
Considering this is AT&T we're talking about, I'm sure this is also a win for civil liberties groups looking to actually take AT&T to court for their warrantless wiretaps.
"freezing fog"
157% humidity is 157% humidity. It may take far less grains of water to saturate a pound of air at lower temperatures (which is why it feels so dry when you step into a heated building), but saturation is saturation.
No, I'd say pretty much from release, Windows 2000 was lauded as "the Windows that doesn't suck." People didn't just start appreciating it when XP came out, it was a favored alternative to 98 and NT 4.0 practically since launch.
And only Linux zealots really complained about the stability of XP. Those who had first sunk their teeth into 2k were disappointed, but even they said that XP was "okay" rather than "sucked."
"Before air conditioning, yankees stayed in yankeeland. After air conditioning they moved to places where they weren't welcome."
Actually, refrigeration technology took off in the South before the North. The Yankees you so deride didn't need large plants to manufacture ice for their iceboxes, they had the Great Lakes.
As for electricity generation, you'll note that the New Deal and the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA in TFA) was interested in improving electricity generation in the South long before consumer air conditioning was available, let alone viable. Southerners were interested in those new-fangled electric lights Northerners were beginning to take for granted.
"We used clothes lines to hang and dry our clothes, not electric driers."
Another technology that caught on in the South more than the North. It's not the North that has to deal with trying to dry clothes in 157% humidity, at least not year-round.
Wikipedia article
"Effect never precedes cause in special relativity. In any reference frame, effect always comes after cause."
Orly?
The only reason effect never precedes cause is because we've yet to observe (let alone interact with) tachyons.
"Since you put "effect" and "cause" in quotation marks, maybe you already knew this."
No, I put them into quotes because causality goes out the window when you introduce tachyons.
GOTO
"However, maybe you are referring to the Compact Disc Digital Audio logo, which still appears on more than a few discs produced today."
The logo is owned by Philips, which is how/why they are able to deny others the use of it for violating the standard.
- Special relativity
- Faster-than-light travel
- Causality
Pick any two.Judging by the lack of Philip's logo on most (if not all) music media sold today (due to the inclusion of DRM efforts violating the standards), I'm not altogether sure CD-DA has lived long enough to reach 25.
""Microwave photons" are neither "light", nor "energetic"."
Well, they're photons, so the "light" moniker seems to fit, and as for the "energetic" part, put your money where your mouth is and put your head into your microwave oven.
"And Einstein need not worry, his basic theory or Relativity covers the fuzzy concept of "simultaneity" and "instanteinity" quite thoroughly."
Yes, by allowing "effect" to precede "cause" for some observers. No elephant in the room there!
"I thought that something travelling at exactly the speed of light required infinite amounts of energy. No-one said anything about more than the speed of light."
It takes an infinite amount of energy to get something with real mass (tardyons) to reach the speed of light in a vacuum. Photons (luxons) do it by not having any real mass, only momentum. And, looking strictly at the math of special relativity, it would also require infinite energy for something with imaginary mass (tachyons) to slow down to the speed of light in a vacuum.
"Check out what happens when X-Rays pass the speed of "light" in water."
The speed of light through water is less than the speed of light through a vacuum, which is the important number (and why light is refracted when it hits the surface of water)
Yeah... here's the number 4 for you.
Just don't try to download the bill onto your phone.
"If the Government had promoted condoms instead of abstinence, this wouldn't have been such a big deal."
And if they were getting their information off the internet like you insist, the government wouldn't need to.
"And yet teenagers today are ahead of what they were a few years ago."
Got a link?
"Because if you are a teenage boy yourself, you won't mind :)"
Yet. How many sexual experiences did you have as a teenager seemed spectacular at the time but, through the lens of a few years' experience, weren't all that great?
"Well. You would be surprised at how much teens today know about sex,"
The rate of teenaged pregnancy leaves me surprised at how little they know, yes.
"and how active they are. In just a few years, they've become far more aware of these things. The 'net helps in a lot of areas..."
Pornography is much older than the internet, as is teenaged sex.
At any rate, teenagers approach (what they consider to be) sex from a socially-conscious viewpoint, like they do with most things. All too often, sexual desires take a back-seat to trying to keep up with where they perceive their friends and peers to be ("We should have 'done it' by now!"). And even if they're saying the truth about their sexual history (which isn't always the case), a desire for sexual pleasure is usually secondary to a desire to appear more mature. I can't count the number of times a young girl has listed how she's done sex acts X, Y and Z in an effort to impress but has never stopped to think about whether or not she enjoyed any of it; it's not about whether she enjoyed X or is skilled at Y, simply that she's done them and ticked them off on her imaginary scorecard. Heck, often she'll have tried Y and Z because X wasn't as pleasurable as she thought it'd be and she believes the problem to be the act itself rather than her partner or her approach (teenagers and introspection rarely mix).
One of my favorite examples is something you hear a lot from younger girls these days: "I like lesbian porn." It doesn't happen anywhere near as often, but when an older woman tells a man "I like lesbian porn," she means "I like lesbian porn." When a younger girl tells that to a boy, however, 99.99% of the time she's actually saying "I want you to stop thinking with your brain." Whether or not she really is bi-curious isn't as important to her as the reaction and attention saying those words gets her. And, being young and inexperienced, she doesn't yet realize that using that as a tactic to seduce boys also kills any thoughts a boy her age might have of "I want to have sex with this warm, breathing girl" and instead replaces it with "ZOMG! Bagged a lesbo!" (After all, he has his own social status and bragging rights to think about.) In fact, genuinely curious older women will refrain from saying something like that for that very reason.
It doesn't matter how "sexually" active they appear to be or genuinely are, they still approach it like teenagers, with all the bullshit that entails.
"The thing I find with women is...if you want to sleep with them, entering the 'friend zone' is death to that. I learned that early on...I'd become their friends...and bang, I'd end up not only NOT being the one they slept with, but, the friend they would endlessly drone and complain about to about the men they did sleep with."
Falls under the category of "teenaged bullshit" I was talking about. A young girl lusts after a boy and, in order to make things socially acceptable, will duck tape the "dating/going steady/exclusive" idea onto what is really just a sexual pursuit with her. And then, even if the sex is satisfying for her, she'll still ultimately unsatisfied because the relationship isn't living up to the empty title she gave it. And after it ends, she'll probably make the same mistakes because she's just a teenager and doesn't yet realize that good sex is about more than looks.
And she'll be frustrated and look for the emotional support she's not getting from her "boyfriend" elsewhere, which is where the "friend zone" comes in. But that zone exists because of teenaged boys that have their own teenaged bullshit to deal with, focusing on being a "good friend" rather than being honest with both her and himself: depending on the girl, it can be all too easy to seduce her from within the "friend zone," even if it would end up with her "cheating" on her "boyfriend." After all, it's already been firmly established that she's frustrated and dissatisfied, and if a girl is comfortable enough with a boy to talk about her sexuality (a major accomplishment for a girl with teenaged insecurities), then (whether either of them realizes it) she's only a nudge away from being comfortable with being sexual with said boy, and far more so than with the guy she can't share all of her dirty little secrets with.
The only real exception to this are the girls that are truly users (more common among teenagers than adults, who've learned better), in which case they should be kicked to the curb as soon as possible (something that you seem to have the hang of). But they're not all users like that, not by a long shot. The "friend zone" only exists because decent boys (the ones girls really want to sleep with whether they know it or not) hesitate and voluntarily linger there.
After a decade or so, women outgrow this and learn that enlightened self-interest gets them far more satisfying sex than abiding by social norms on when it is and isn't alright to sleep with a guy. And the more honest the guys in their "friend zone" are, the faster she can skip ahead to the good parts.
"I figured out after awhile of that which end of the relationship with women I'd rather be on."
Being the guy she complains about doesn't sound all that much more satisfying to me. It's far more satisfying to my own ego to leave her speechlessly satisfied rather than bored and unconsciously window-shopping. Girl, "boyfriend," "good friend," all three are left frustrated and unsatisfied.
"Elton John says that the internet is destroying good music and "stopping people from going out and being with each other, creating stuff."
So it's impossible for musicians to collaborate over long distances?
"Your views, either consciously or unconsciously, tend to promote monogamism."
That certainly seems to be a very broad definition of "monogamism." "I think I want to exclusively settle down with someone and maybe have children eventually, but not now and not with you."
"Both of you have valid points,"
Considering that his original post was an attempt at suggesting that others should follow his own example and then he went on to all but express dissatisfaction with his own sex life (reminiscing about the past, constant anticipation of the future, an apparent lack of satisfaction with the present)... whether or not his points are valid, he doesn't seem to be the best poster boy for his stance.
"No, not due to it getting complicated, but, because it may be getting boring...and there's always someone NEW out there. Often it is the thrill of the chase, rather than the conquest."
Then you have issues with interpersonal relations above and beyond sex. If it really does get boring (and you have yet to learn to avoid the boring ones) and it really is about moving on to the next target, then sex is nothing more for you than stroking your own ego, and it's bound to get as boring as other forms of masturbation (and I can easily understand your cynicism then). As with anything, if you can't learn from going through the cycle over and over again that it isn't as good as you thought it'd be, you need help.
"I like things that are tight, and new..."
If that's your primary concern, forgo the women and visit your local sex toy shop.
"much like cars. I like to trade both women and cars for newer models...."
And all you'll end up with are women that either don't know or don't care that you can easily compare them to an inanimate object. You may find yourself a "newer model" (and they likely see you the same way), but you're not going to find yourself a woman who feels a burning, needful desire to please you sexually, who will put her entire mind and body to the task. You're finding exactly what you're looking for and nothing more.
"and believe it or not, I often do stay friends with some of the women."
Because you have compatible interests (likely, with these "friends," you yourself were just one of their conquests). But I do find myself suspecting that you don't know what a good friend is, either.
"Like I'd said in another post, I only believe marriage and monogamy are for those wanting to have kids and raise a family."
And like I've been saying repeatedly is that I'm talking about neither. And it's hard to resist the urge to continue playing armchair psychologist with you when you keep seeing things in my posts that simply aren't there. I'm talking about sex, period. No matrimony, no children, not even exclusivity (why trade in for the "newer model" when there's no need to let go of the old one?). The only thing that really requires (and that you seem to be lacking in your cycle) is true friendship; if you can't really talk to your partner, then what you and she are doing may resemble the physical act, but lacks the psychological component and is more akin to masturbation than intercourse (there's a reason why that word is used to describe both sex and conversation).
There doesn't need to be flowers and rings and Valentine's Day cards. There's no need for use of the words "love," "commitment," "settle down," "children," or "meet my family." But what is needed is genuine dialog (which, coincidentally, most young girls are lousy at). If, after the two of you are spent after your late night/early morning/rushed lunch-hour tryst, neither of you feels a desire to just lie there a bit and talk, it wasn't worth it and never will be.
"Your advice is good for someone that is looking for a long term relationship with someone."
No, most of my experience has been with "older" women coming out of disappointing long-term relationships and are "merely" looking for some good sex. They'll have learned that long-term relationships for their own sake aren't a good idea, in the US they often have already had children so they don't have "biological clock" issues, they just want some good sex and experience the things they think they missed out on.
This doesn't make them "hit it then quit it" fodder (odds are they had enough of that attitude from the guy they divorced), but you'll end up with a "fuck buddy" or "booty call" or whatever you want to call it, where the two of you are in synch sexually (far more than either of you would be with a random pick-up) without getting entangled in anything more than the desire for the occasional fun.
If anything, it's the younger women that are fixated on long-term relationships, since that's what modern society tells them to pursue (especially in the US) and women's lib hasn't progressed enough for it to be socially acceptable for a girl to just enjoy sex for its own sake. Other than that handful of teenaged girls with serious emotional and psychological problems, it takes a decade or so (at least) of "life experiences" for a woman to just let go.
Really, with those young girls you have in mind when you think of just moving on after a short term, why do you need to move on if it weren't for things getting "complicated?" You'd be better off with a woman who's tired of "complicated," so you wouldn't have to once again deal with the warm-up period when you and your new sex partner figure out each other's likes and dislikes.
"One day you're going to meet someone you love and respect and want to stay with forever. You want to "sow your wild oats" before that,"
No, you want someone who you can "sow your wild oats" with. All your line of reasoning will do is replace "I wish I did more back then" with "I wish it was still as good now," leaving both you and your significant other unsatisfied. If your sexuality is incompatible with the person you're looking at, you're better off as just friends.
If you can't be "wild" with someone you love and respect, you have issues.
"That is the only time in your life where you'll be able to (in some cases legally) to screw teen girls while everything is tight and where it is supposed to be."
First off, not strictly true. In case you don't remember your own teenaged years, girls that age tend to prefer older guys. How much older depends on the girl, of course, but you rarely see such a girl dating a boy younger than her, and it's certainly not unheard of for a teenaged girl to lust after a man twice her age.
With that being said, the bodies of teenaged girls tend to be attached to the minds of teenaged girls, so why would you even want to? Yes, they have youthful bodies, but that comes with youthful inexperience and they've yet to have a reason to learn to do anything more than lie there like a dead fish (after all, they don't have to do anything to get guys like you beating down their door).
If you're looking for something more than just stroking your own ego ("ZOMG! Bagged a teenager!") and are interested in, you know, actually good sex, you're better off with a woman around 30, one who knows what she's doing, knows what she likes, and doesn't have all the hang-ups and teenaged bullshit that the younger ones come with.
"Gravity takes a toll on the old human body as you get older. And with people getting obese at earlier and earlier ages....get some fun in while you and potential partners are in good shape."
A little bit of exercise goes a long way, and, of course, the sex itself is pretty good exercise. And, again, it's difficult to have "some fun" when you're still not quite sure what "fun" is, let alone how to go about getting there.
"Especially true for guys. As a teen, you are in your prime and best years for sex...stamina, endurance."
There's more to (good) sex than just stamina and endurance, and it's relatively simple for your average Slashdotter to maintain their teenaged stamina and endurance by doing the exercise and such that they never bothered to do as a teenager. Yes, more work, but, as I keep saying, older women are so much more worth it (to the point where I'd recommend them even for teenaged boys, they will be so grateful and appreciative).
"Do it now and do it as often with as much variety as you can."
Quantity versus quality?
"and your selection of partners will be older and more worn looking too. "
If those are the only qualities you're looking for, you've yet to find out what good sex is.
"I'm glad I got as much as I did growing up...wish I'd had even more..."
Perhaps your problem is that, as women get older, they realize that the sex you're thinking back to wasn't really all that good for them, and the worthwhile partners your age have learned to avoid guys like you and repeating past mistakes.