Comment

Comment by Shannon Equality Barber on June 14, 2012 at 6:36pm

Gary, I didn't have you pegged as anything. I have problems with Libertarianism in general. That's my opinion and I am entitled to it. I don't think you're negative. I think you are very misguided about how to attract women. I tried to help with that, but you seem to be writing off my womanly advice, which is fine.

Joseph, so right. Gay people supporting Ron Paul or any other libertarian, or a republican...that's just masochistic in my book.

Comment by Philip Jackson Armstrong on June 14, 2012 at 6:26pm

It depends on what you are exposing and to who. It's all bad.

Comment by Joseph P on June 14, 2012 at 6:15pm

Some of us can instantly expose ourselves online in a way we can't in person.

For some people, that's a bad thing.  ^.^

Comment by Joseph P on June 14, 2012 at 6:12pm

Well I think you are somewhat misinformed at to the scope and practical realities of political campaigning, and too fast to rush to conclusions.

I'm well aware of how the Republicans view the primary season and general election season with the term Etch A Sketch in mind.  Of the two, I consider the primary season to be a more accurate preview of what a candidate will probably do once in office.

Second, what you perceive as Ron Paul vision is not accurate. He is fundamentally a libertarian,  most of his states' rights oratory is directed to reactionary conservatives.

And how do I know he wouldn't stick to that vision to appease the Republican base, if he got into office?  The same thing happened with John McCain.  The John McCain of 2000, I could almost vote for.

By 2008, he had sold his soul to the ultra-conservative end of the Republican party.  When he picked Palin as his running mate, I knew we had lost him to the far-right.  I was voting for Obama anyway, but Palin crystallized it.

Comment by Philip Jackson Armstrong on June 14, 2012 at 6:04pm

Very hard to explain, but I met the love of my life on line. We were able  in two brief exchanges to get to the core of our values and start an incredible relationship. I really don't believe that if we met, through friends our a bar it could of happened so fast. Some of us can instantly expose ourselves online in a way we can't in person.

Comment by Joseph P on June 14, 2012 at 6:02pm

For whatever reason, the online dating male:female ratio is appalling.  On Craigslist, it’s around 20:1.  On Plenty of Fish, it’s around 4:1.  20 years ago, we could have said that the reason for such a ratio is that men are more likely to be computer-oriented than women, but today such reason does not appear to be operative.  Ladies – can you shed any light on this?

It doesn't really take one of the "ladies" to shed light on that.  Online, people are more aggressive and feel less constrained to decency.  Most women can only take so many pictures of penises e-mailed to them before they get the hell out of there.

In a bar, most men at least feign interest in you as a person, and there are other people around to correct someone who goes over the acceptable social boundaries.  Online, it's more of a free-for-all.  Get one of your platonic, female friends to show you her inbox from a dating site.  I've done that with a few of my friends.  It's both enlightening and depressing.

Comment by dr kellie on June 14, 2012 at 6:00pm

Michael, I don't have an explanation for that ratio.  I don't seek dates online because I usually have a date when I want one, and I am not seeking a relationship.

 

I certainly do not want to dismiss Gary.  I just want everyone to consider that when women read personal ads, they seek something that might be a deal-breaker.  It's a quick weeding out that (obviously from the ratios), women have to do when looking at hundreds of profiles.  What would your first impression be when reading the profile of an average woman if she stated that she, while being 45, was seeking a very attractive man between the ages of 25 and 38?  My first thought would be, "Who the hell does she think she is?!"  Then I'd move on to the next profile.

Comment by Michael OL on June 14, 2012 at 5:29pm

Gary’s posting illustrated how much forays into online dating are fraught with potential for misunderstanding, double-speak and prejudicial inferences – from all sides.  It’s amazing how in face to face conversation, most reasonable people will suspend judgment until their initial hunch is confirmed and re-confirmed, whereas in online discourse, one unguarded phrase is grounds for immediate dismissal. 

 

For whatever reason, the online dating male:female ratio is appalling.  On Craigslist, it’s around 20:1.  On Plenty of Fish, it’s around 4:1.  20 years ago, we could have said that the reason for such a ratio is that men are more likely to be computer-oriented than women, but today such reason does not appear to be operative.  Ladies – can you shed any light on this?

Comment by Gary Trieste on June 14, 2012 at 5:26pm

Well I think you are somewhat misinformed at to the scope and practical realities of political campaigning, and too fast to rush to conclusions.

First of all libertarianism as a philosophy does not make a distinction of domestic law: all anti-gay law is illegal from a libertarian POV, states' rights notwithstanding.

Second, what you perceive as Ron Paul vision is not accurate. He is fundamentally a libertarian,  most of his states' rights oratory is directed to reactionary conservatives. It is an artful dodge that achieve the momentary awkward substantive questions, assuaging those extreme rightist nuts and still not directing offending the idealist libertarians.

Remember he is/was trying to get the Republican nomination.

But no, I do not agree that it is a states rights issue only.

What you do with your own body is your business, not the govt's.

Comment by Joseph P on June 14, 2012 at 4:52pm

I like to use this example when talking to one of the gay Libertarians in my local atheism groups. He's a Ron Paul supporter.
Don't you realize that in Ron Paul's vision of America, you would have gay men crossing the border with their legal husband, only to be arrested for having sex with him, in violation of the second state's anti-sodomy laws? It's one of the purest bits of political insanity that I can imagine.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 8
• 9
• 10
• 11
• 12
• …
• 110
• Next ›
• Page