Changed my profile infor and lied and results are as expecte

Post Reply New Topic

No, she did not care if she was courted by a peasant or not. She only cared how well that man will provide for their family.

Sly would have probably been at least an okay provider during medieval times.

I agree that in medieval times he could have been an ok provider, but I think that in modern US he could become even better than ok.

Being a Christian doesn’t necessarily translate you will be accepted by other Christians, though. Even when I considered myself one and thought God was real (I am now an agnostic bordering on atheism), I was still bullied by other Christians, especially by Baptists who make up the majority of the Central Texas Bible Belt region. “Brothers and sisters in Christ”? Yeah f*****g right.

I believe, for some people, believing in something is much better than believing in nothing.

I'm not talking about most Christians, really. I'm talking more about sects of Christianity, like Unitarianism, which preach nonjudgement----and the equality of each person.

Like I said, I'm actually not a Christian at all.

I just pointed it out because some people have been in trouble here before for making such sweeping generalisations. I certainly don't appreciate being told I only want fit rich guys.

But to stay on topic, maybe dating sites are more likely to be shallow due to having access to so many people so quickly. I knew someone who was hiring for a job and they said they threw away applications written in blue ink without even reading them to reduce the number of people. Not fair but perhaps that's what these women are doing with wages.

I really wish there was something I could say to help you Sly but I would likely be in your shoes if society said women were the ones who had to ask people out.

I understand your conclusion, but I do not see the problem.

Should men want "unsexy, ugly" women and women want "unfit, penniless" guys instead?

People attract the (prospective) mates they deserve.

Men and women go beyond "fit" and "rich" in the vast majority of cases.

I've never been a particularly "fit" man-----except in my marathon days. Actually, I was the least appealing to women at the time I was the most "fit."

I'm short, and I'm chubby. I looked like a "neckbeard" when I was in my 20s at one point

I certainly have never been "rich."

Yes...still and all...I've had my share of relationships.

I have seen “neckbeard” men with cute nerdy/geeky girls but they tend to be in the extreme minority where I live. Rednecks call them “virgin losers” and even “incels” despite how there are redneck incels. It’s surprising but they really do exist.

Last edited by Marknis on 04 Nov 2019, 11:19 am, edited 1 time in total.

You seem to be implying that it is not so much how you look as how you behave that makes all the difference. Is that your intent?

It’s better to be decent to folks, all in all...no matter how you might “look.”

You get more accomplished than if you are not decent to folks, and you look like a male model.

Those “neckbeard” guys probably treated their ladyfriends decently.

What a concept! All you have to do is treat people decently and they will like you. Why doesn't everyone know this?

Now...I've been decent to folks, and people have not treated me all that decently all the time, sought to take advantage of my "decency."

There have been times when people have treated me somewhat cruelly.

That doesn't mean that one should stop treating people decently. All it means is that there are idiots in the world, and then there are people like you...who treat people decently.

Thanks.

I hope everything is going okay at the library, Marknis.

If we love based upon benefits then that's vanity. It's useless because even the animals do that, and for love to be real it need musn't be comingled with vanity. Anyone can love something that feels good, but that’s more lust than love, to love the unlovable is the very essence of love, which does not seek it's own benefit. Hence why we're so moved by its proof through a sacrifice in a narrative.

Here’s a very poignant passage from G.K. Chesterton’s “Orthodoxy”

“Let us suppose we are confronted with a desperate thing – say Pimlico. If we think what is really best for Pimlico we shall find the thread of thought leads to the throne of the mystic and the arbitrary. It is not enough for a man to disapprove of Pimlico; in that case he will merely cut his throat or move to Chelsea. Nor, certainly, is it enough for a man to approve of Pimlico; for then it will remain Pimlico, which would be awful. The only way out of it seems to be for somebody to love Pimlico; to love it with a transcendental tie and without any earthly reason. If there arose a man who loved Pimlico, then Pimlico would rise into ivory towers and golden pinnacles… If men loved Pimlico as mothers love children, arbitrarily, because it is theirs, Pimlico in a year or two might be fairer than Florence. Some readers will say that this is mere fantasy. I answer that this is the actual history of mankind. This, as a fact, is how cities did grow great. Go back to the darkest roots of civilization and you will find them knotted round some sacred stone or encircling some sacred well. People first paid honour to a spot and afterwards gained glory for it. Men did not love Rome because she was great. She was great because they had loved her.”

Everything is backwards in this world, we're loved not for being but for what we do, but we're not what we do, hence when we lose what we do, we can still exist, but if we love based upon works then the love will fade away with those works, hence the existence was meaningless in the end.

That's the problem, and it's the paradox that the bible points out "He who saves his life shall lose it, but he who losses his life for my sake shall find it", and "what does it profit a man to gain the whole world but lose his soul?"