I've seen flirting in 12 year old girls who don't really even know what sex is, and aren't consciously interested in boys yet. You gonna tell me they know what they're doing?
And I've seen 10 year old boys puff out their chests in response, even tho they still think girls have cooties. You gonna tell me they're offering dick??
Fact is, flirting is largely hardwired behaviour, and as with most hardwired behaviours, experienced individuals learn how to use it to their own advantage. But that doesn't mean everyone does so, especially the socially-inexperienced. (We joke about geeks here who wouldn't know how to pick up a girl if she sat on his face, but there's some truth in that.)
By the time a woman gets to the age where she does hen parties, OF COURSE she knows; she's *experienced* at controlling and using her instinct to flirt, or she wouldn't be a wife, let alone welcome in the henhouse.
I'm non-participatory, which gives me a different perspective. I'm not going to react whether the flirt is acted or unconscious. Maybe that lets me see the difference more clearly than someone who's being victimized by it.
As to girls who behave like the "pornstar Tshirt" that you describe -- I think this is not flirting, but rather a form of predatory behaviour: trying to get the guy to DO stuff FOR her, with no investment on her part. And there again, some women just naturally operate that way, while others do it quite definitely on purpose.
Someone I know very well does that -- flirts and "promises" to get men to do stuff for her, and knows very well that most guys can be lead around by the balls. Once in a while it's backfired when a guy turns out to be a psycho who can't take "rejection" ("what do you mean, I don't get to sleep with you after all??") As I keep telling her, if you troll for suckers, you're gonna catch a lot of bottom-feeders.
A: I've met women who simply didn't even know what they were doing was interpreted as flirting. B: Afraid not. You've actually met women who were really good actresses.
I've seen both. There really ARE women who flirt without realising what they're doing, just like there are guys who apply sexual pressure without really knowing they're doing it. These are biologically primitive behaviours. And both types are astonished and insulted when you call 'em on it, cuz they really had no idea.
The actresses, in my observation, are more overtly flirty, but the big difference is that they WATCH the guys for their reaction, rather than having no idea how the guy is reacting.
I had a related thought: What about all the women who misinterpret everything guys do as being sexual, even when it's not? Or who are completely clueless about when a guy IS being sexual? I think I've seen more of these issues than I have of guys misreading girls' signals.
And remember how popular it's become to scream "SEXUAL HARASSMENT" about even the most innocent behaviours -- and notice that the "WTF? how is THAT harrassment?" meter leans WAY over into the female camp, even in situations where women have roughly equal power with men.
As the lead post in this thread said -- I'm not so sure it's male misinterpretation as often as it's fuzzy female signals, AND females who have exaggerated (either too sexual or not sexual enough) interpretations of male signals.
Also to demonstrate to officials that what they design for the people, they should have to endure themselves as well. Or are they not part of "the people" anymore??
Not quite so dramatic, but I used to rent a house whose owners had their own security contract. So the "safe word" was the owners' phone number, which I couldn't remember to save my life (I dealt with a manager). The keycode to disarm the alarm system didn't always work, and then I'd get a call from the security company, and we'd have an argument over the "safe word" which I couldn't remember....
The alarm system also had a motion sensor, which was forever getting set off by the cats. And it also had a siren..... one night I'm driving home about 2am, and from about two miles away... what's that noise?? sounds like a siren!! OMG, it's MY HOUSE! Gods know how long the siren had been blaring, or what the neighbours thought.... that was the last time I armed the alarm. Wasn't worth the trouble!!
I would go further, and say that your sense of *personhood* is tied to whether you're allowed to have privacy. And =that= is why privacy (even if in just the most minor things) is so important to kids, the more so as they mature and become independent *persons*. Personhood, which is concomitant on privacy, is what tells you that you are of value as a person.
Take that away and you've reduced the individual to part of the homogenous crowd, subject to abnormal stress levels wherever he can't quite fit that unbending mold. And then you have -- as you guessed, a higher suicide rate. Look at Japan for a good example.
Also, a "DNA profile" doesn't mean your complete DNA. It means a mere 15 or 20 markers. And while it's not *likely* that you and some random stranger will be a match on those markers, it's not *impossible* by a long stretch.
OTOH, if the big states knuckle under, the smaller states (in popupation and congresscritter-count) won't have a chance -- unless said smaller states all band together. As someone above pointed out, chances are that CA is actually just blackmailing the Feds for more money, and will give in on RealID when CA gets what it wants. CA itself has been edging toward police state for a long time, in terms of how the Us vs Them mentality works.
And here's another thought -- what about economic pressure from small states to large ones? the big states still need to import food and export goods, whereas the smaller states are more likely to be economically independent (gov't funds aside).
[grin] Found a couple agreeable articles on your blog too, but gotta use Some Other Browser to comment (assuming I remember to do so!), cuz it won't play nice with the antique I use on/.
That's true if the lake has a gently-sloped beach, like most in Minnesota. Not so true if the lakeshore is a jumble of boulders above a sharp dropoff, like is common in Montana. (Your lakeshores may vary.)
"Who says you must be stupid in order to do manual labor?"
You don't; in fact a lot of intelligent people prefer to do manual work because it's less stressful (you certainly can't "take your job home with you"!) and it may even pay better (backhoe operators can make more than programmers). And a lot of people just like working with their hands.
But the assumption at the head of this thread was that only stupid people (or poorly-educated people) would ever do grunt work, and [haughty sniff] that we should all rise above that.
The truth is that a balanced society contains a wide swath of education and intelligence levels, as all are valuable in one way or another. If this weren't the case, they'd have been naturally-selected against long since.
But what we're seeing now seems to be a selection pressure toward the more-intelligent and better-educated, but at the same time the nanny state strongly selects for scant-of-common-sense and lacking-in-realworld-experience. The result is that we've got a lot more outright morons today, many of whom are otherwise-intelligent and well-educated people.
"Don't confuse people who want to take your guns away with people who have no problem with your guns but don't want the responsibility of owning their own."
An excellent point. I myself have no use for anything beyond a shotgun and a pistol. But if you want to maintain a houseful of AK-47s and even the odd Howitzer or two, I'm fine with that, so long as you know what you're doing.
Occurs to me that it's also valuable in an armed community to know who does NOT keep arms, because that is the person/household that is most likely to need defending by those of us who ARE armed. I see some level of group responsibility there, given that in the event of riot or the like, the cops can't be everywhere at once.
When I was a kid there was no such thing as crossing guards. We all learned how to cross streets safely by the time we were 5 or 6 years old, because our parents and teachers taught us (both did, cuz you can't always assume someone else is responsible for basics).
Now there are crossing guards in front of every school, and kids are quite obviously NOT taught the basics of how to cross the street -- this is evident when I see kids of this same age group elsewhere, clearly without the vaguest notion of how traffic works or why they should pay attention to it.
So... who's going to do the grunt work of building said robots? Because at some level you've still got to initiate the process by the labour of someone's hands. Foundries don't magically build themselves.:)
You are correct as to what the Second Amendment protects; ie. more than just the individual right to arms. I was just pointing out that the Founders' =primary= reason for these protections was not what most people nowadays believe.
Once everyone has been bred for superior intelligence and there are no more morons... who's going to clean the toilets?
[Leaving aside that most of the complete morons I've known are in fact "intelligent" people by any objective scale, but lack all trace of common sense.]
I guess all those naked primitives in South America and Africa and Borneo must have kids with warped little minds, since they've seen nothing but naked tits every day of their lives....
Actually, in a lot of urban areas it IS illegal to have your pool unfenced or uncovered; in fact many require both. And there's a whole body of (often contradictory) requirements re pool fencing.
Doesn't seem to stop kids from climbing over the fence and drowning themselves, tho... all of the cases I've heard about have involved a kid getting past a fence and a locked gate.
When I was in the 9th grade, sex education was a required class. And that was pretty much our response... ewww, and once we were out of class, no one thought about it again. But funny thing, we had no teen pregnancies in our school... probably because everyone knew all about the birds and the bees, whether they acted upon it or not.
Slashdot Mirror
I've seen flirting in 12 year old girls who don't really even know what sex is, and aren't consciously interested in boys yet. You gonna tell me they know what they're doing?
And I've seen 10 year old boys puff out their chests in response, even tho they still think girls have cooties. You gonna tell me they're offering dick??
Fact is, flirting is largely hardwired behaviour, and as with most hardwired behaviours, experienced individuals learn how to use it to their own advantage. But that doesn't mean everyone does so, especially the socially-inexperienced. (We joke about geeks here who wouldn't know how to pick up a girl if she sat on his face, but there's some truth in that.)
By the time a woman gets to the age where she does hen parties, OF COURSE she knows; she's *experienced* at controlling and using her instinct to flirt, or she wouldn't be a wife, let alone welcome in the henhouse.
I'm non-participatory, which gives me a different perspective. I'm not going to react whether the flirt is acted or unconscious. Maybe that lets me see the difference more clearly than someone who's being victimized by it.
As to girls who behave like the "pornstar Tshirt" that you describe -- I think this is not flirting, but rather a form of predatory behaviour: trying to get the guy to DO stuff FOR her, with no investment on her part. And there again, some women just naturally operate that way, while others do it quite definitely on purpose.
Someone I know very well does that -- flirts and "promises" to get men to do stuff for her, and knows very well that most guys can be lead around by the balls. Once in a while it's backfired when a guy turns out to be a psycho who can't take "rejection" ("what do you mean, I don't get to sleep with you after all??") As I keep telling her, if you troll for suckers, you're gonna catch a lot of bottom-feeders.
Two folks argue,
A: I've met women who simply didn't even know what they were doing was interpreted as flirting.
B: Afraid not. You've actually met women who were really good actresses.
I've seen both. There really ARE women who flirt without realising what they're doing, just like there are guys who apply sexual pressure without really knowing they're doing it. These are biologically primitive behaviours. And both types are astonished and insulted when you call 'em on it, cuz they really had no idea.
The actresses, in my observation, are more overtly flirty, but the big difference is that they WATCH the guys for their reaction, rather than having no idea how the guy is reacting.
I had a related thought: What about all the women who misinterpret everything guys do as being sexual, even when it's not? Or who are completely clueless about when a guy IS being sexual? I think I've seen more of these issues than I have of guys misreading girls' signals.
And remember how popular it's become to scream "SEXUAL HARASSMENT" about even the most innocent behaviours -- and notice that the "WTF? how is THAT harrassment?" meter leans WAY over into the female camp, even in situations where women have roughly equal power with men.
As the lead post in this thread said -- I'm not so sure it's male misinterpretation as often as it's fuzzy female signals, AND females who have exaggerated (either too sexual or not sexual enough) interpretations of male signals.
Also to demonstrate to officials that what they design for the people, they should have to endure themselves as well. Or are they not part of "the people" anymore??
Not quite so dramatic, but I used to rent a house whose owners had their own security contract. So the "safe word" was the owners' phone number, which I couldn't remember to save my life (I dealt with a manager). The keycode to disarm the alarm system didn't always work, and then I'd get a call from the security company, and we'd have an argument over the "safe word" which I couldn't remember....
The alarm system also had a motion sensor, which was forever getting set off by the cats. And it also had a siren..... one night I'm driving home about 2am, and from about two miles away... what's that noise?? sounds like a siren!! OMG, it's MY HOUSE! Gods know how long the siren had been blaring, or what the neighbours thought.... that was the last time I armed the alarm. Wasn't worth the trouble!!
I would go further, and say that your sense of *personhood* is tied to whether you're allowed to have privacy. And =that= is why privacy (even if in just the most minor things) is so important to kids, the more so as they mature and become independent *persons*. Personhood, which is concomitant on privacy, is what tells you that you are of value as a person.
Take that away and you've reduced the individual to part of the homogenous crowd, subject to abnormal stress levels wherever he can't quite fit that unbending mold. And then you have -- as you guessed, a higher suicide rate. Look at Japan for a good example.
Also, a "DNA profile" doesn't mean your complete DNA. It means a mere 15 or 20 markers. And while it's not *likely* that you and some random stranger will be a match on those markers, it's not *impossible* by a long stretch.
OTOH, if the big states knuckle under, the smaller states (in popupation and congresscritter-count) won't have a chance -- unless said smaller states all band together. As someone above pointed out, chances are that CA is actually just blackmailing the Feds for more money, and will give in on RealID when CA gets what it wants. CA itself has been edging toward police state for a long time, in terms of how the Us vs Them mentality works.
And here's another thought -- what about economic pressure from small states to large ones? the big states still need to import food and export goods, whereas the smaller states are more likely to be economically independent (gov't funds aside).
[grin] Found a couple agreeable articles on your blog too, but gotta use Some Other Browser to comment (assuming I remember to do so!), cuz it won't play nice with the antique I use on /.
That's true if the lake has a gently-sloped beach, like most in Minnesota. Not so true if the lakeshore is a jumble of boulders above a sharp dropoff, like is common in Montana. (Your lakeshores may vary.)
"Who says you must be stupid in order to do manual labor?"
You don't; in fact a lot of intelligent people prefer to do manual work because it's less stressful (you certainly can't "take your job home with you"!) and it may even pay better (backhoe operators can make more than programmers). And a lot of people just like working with their hands.
But the assumption at the head of this thread was that only stupid people (or poorly-educated people) would ever do grunt work, and [haughty sniff] that we should all rise above that.
The truth is that a balanced society contains a wide swath of education and intelligence levels, as all are valuable in one way or another. If this weren't the case, they'd have been naturally-selected against long since.
But what we're seeing now seems to be a selection pressure toward the more-intelligent and better-educated, but at the same time the nanny state strongly selects for scant-of-common-sense and lacking-in-realworld-experience. The result is that we've got a lot more outright morons today, many of whom are otherwise-intelligent and well-educated people.
"Don't confuse people who want to take your guns away with people who have no problem with your guns but don't want the responsibility of owning their own."
An excellent point. I myself have no use for anything beyond a shotgun and a pistol. But if you want to maintain a houseful of AK-47s and even the odd Howitzer or two, I'm fine with that, so long as you know what you're doing.
Occurs to me that it's also valuable in an armed community to know who does NOT keep arms, because that is the person/household that is most likely to need defending by those of us who ARE armed. I see some level of group responsibility there, given that in the event of riot or the like, the cops can't be everywhere at once.
The question is how far that "protection from violence" should go.
When it starts eating into my right to protect myself, then it's gone too far.
When I was a kid there was no such thing as crossing guards. We all learned how to cross streets safely by the time we were 5 or 6 years old, because our parents and teachers taught us (both did, cuz you can't always assume someone else is responsible for basics).
Now there are crossing guards in front of every school, and kids are quite obviously NOT taught the basics of how to cross the street -- this is evident when I see kids of this same age group elsewhere, clearly without the vaguest notion of how traffic works or why they should pay attention to it.
That's one of the best examples of why nannyism is terminally stupid that I've ever seen.
Of course here in CA they take a different approach -- the gov't fences off the entire lake.
So... who's going to do the grunt work of building said robots? Because at some level you've still got to initiate the process by the labour of someone's hands. Foundries don't magically build themselves. :)
You are correct as to what the Second Amendment protects; ie. more than just the individual right to arms. I was just pointing out that the Founders' =primary= reason for these protections was not what most people nowadays believe.
PS. Your photography is fantastic. Great composition, layout, use of subject and colour. A bit of daring in a too-safe world!
I did detect some iron content in your post :) Tho thought it best to illucidate for those sadly unaware.
:(
"Safety is a tyrant's tool; no one can oppose safety."
Sad but true
Once everyone has been bred for superior intelligence and there are no more morons... who's going to clean the toilets?
[Leaving aside that most of the complete morons I've known are in fact "intelligent" people by any objective scale, but lack all trace of common sense.]
I guess all those naked primitives in South America and Africa and Borneo must have kids with warped little minds, since they've seen nothing but naked tits every day of their lives....
Actually, in a lot of urban areas it IS illegal to have your pool unfenced or uncovered; in fact many require both. And there's a whole body of (often contradictory) requirements re pool fencing.
Doesn't seem to stop kids from climbing over the fence and drowning themselves, tho... all of the cases I've heard about have involved a kid getting past a fence and a locked gate.
When I was in the 9th grade, sex education was a required class. And that was pretty much our response... ewww, and once we were out of class, no one thought about it again. But funny thing, we had no teen pregnancies in our school... probably because everyone knew all about the birds and the bees, whether they acted upon it or not.
That looks like a good one to try out too, thanks!