Posts by DJS

I echo those who state that you may want to read Tolkien's books. I've read the Hobbit, the Trilogy and the prequel. They require a commitment; they aren't Harry Potter. Although both transfer to the big screen in mystical fashion, Harry Potter is a child's read. Tolkien's books are not.

Moreover, Tolkien influenced culture in an amazingly high manner. Google it. A lot of the video games, movies, tv dramas, books, etc. that have been produced the past half century owe a lot of their inspiration to Tolkien. A number of rock groups (Rush, Led Zeppelin, Beatles) wrote songs inspired by or directly about Tolkien's Middle Earth world. Tolkien inspired Lucas, Spielberg and others.

Some people think Tolkien gets too much credit. I don't. He was a 20th Century icon. Go for it Blackwolf!!

70

"Most women would prefer to be stay at home housewives. Women's lib did alot of damage to women!"

by purrpurr in

jw
friends

the above is a quote from a jw female relative.

this was in response to a discussion about the suffragette movement ( and the movie about it that's currently in cinemas).

she seemed to think that it would be so much better if women were just daughters/ wives/ mothers and didn't go out to work and have career's?

DJS

@Sabin: "DJS, is that happier if he's taller laying down or standing up?"

FUNNY! If you keep making wise-ass comments like this, I will be forced to consider you for membership into the exclusive Wise-Ass Club, of which I am the CEO and Alpha. You can replace And Don't Call Me Shirley - a former member I miss terribly who apparently lost a battle with the Forum Alpha (Simon).

The study didn't say. Girls????

However, on an empirical note, I can find no data suggesting taller men are better husbands, lovers or fathers. But based on a number of US studies, including a recent study by Harvard U and a poll of Fortune 500 companies about the height of their CEOs, men at least 6' tall make nearly $6k more per year on average than men who are 5'5" and the average height of male CEOs was 3 inches taller than the average male.

This suggests what we would intuitively expect: women place a high value on security, typically represented by power (height, fame, etc.) and $$$. Taller men make more $$ on average, as they likely do in S. Korea. This even has a name: Tall Male Syndrome.

Women will often select a male that will: earn more money, be a better protector, or otherwise stay close to the nest. In other words, anything that will give her that sense of security. Based on how we evolved and societal and cultural reinforcements, this makes sense. But what the S. Korean study suggests is that women will STAY with a man, when all other factors appear equal, who makes more money.

70

"Most women would prefer to be stay at home housewives. Women's lib did alot of damage to women!"

by purrpurr in

jw
friends

the above is a quote from a jw female relative.

this was in response to a discussion about the suffragette movement ( and the movie about it that's currently in cinemas).

she seemed to think that it would be so much better if women were just daughters/ wives/ mothers and didn't go out to work and have career's?

DJS

Turns out you XXers really do want to be - or feel - dominated (from personal experience I already knew that). From yesterday's news:

Women Are Happier Married to Men With This Trait, Courtney Smith, Dec. 7, 2015

Happy wife, happy life, the saying goes. The onus of that cliché is always placed on the man, whose job it is to make his wife happy. However, you can make yourself a happy wife by marrying man who is taller than you.

A survey, conducted by researchers at Konkuk University in Seoul, South Korea, examined 7,850 Indonesian women in a long-term population study with the aim of discovering whether a taller male partner had a discernible effect on the happiness of the female. Turns out it does, and the happiness level the woman feels only grows as the height disparity gets bigger.

70

"Most women would prefer to be stay at home housewives. Women's lib did alot of damage to women!"

by purrpurr in

jw
friends

the above is a quote from a jw female relative.

this was in response to a discussion about the suffragette movement ( and the movie about it that's currently in cinemas).

she seemed to think that it would be so much better if women were just daughters/ wives/ mothers and didn't go out to work and have career's?

DJS

@Sabin: "Strong, independent girl with her own income, home, friends etc who stays interesting viable & challenging. Wont be obsessed with you. Only $400 an hour."

That's FUNNY!!! Maybe that explains my relationship issues.

70

"Most women would prefer to be stay at home housewives. Women's lib did alot of damage to women!"

by purrpurr in

jw
friends

the above is a quote from a jw female relative.

this was in response to a discussion about the suffragette movement ( and the movie about it that's currently in cinemas).

she seemed to think that it would be so much better if women were just daughters/ wives/ mothers and didn't go out to work and have career's?

DJS

Sowhatnow,

Obese men equally disgust me, so I'm with you. I don't date men (not that there is anything wrong with that) but whatever I say relative to girls applies to guys.

You seem to be having a problem wrapping your brain around the paradigm I defined. It is about Commitment, just with separate living arrangements.

I love waking up next to girls. It's in my top 10 list of fun things to do with girls. Waking up with multiple girls is no. 7. But sometimes I need a bit of space. And to avoid taping cab fare to her sleeping forehead and going to the gym, it's best I manage this aspect judiciously - 3 times per week or so.

As far as staying fit, I would beat Morpheus' record of Dislikes with the XXers if I said what I believe and know about this topic.

I'm not the least bit concerned about finding a girl. Earth girls are easy.

70

"Most women would prefer to be stay at home housewives. Women's lib did alot of damage to women!"

by purrpurr in

jw
friends

the above is a quote from a jw female relative.

this was in response to a discussion about the suffragette movement ( and the movie about it that's currently in cinemas).

she seemed to think that it would be so much better if women were just daughters/ wives/ mothers and didn't go out to work and have career's?

DJS

An OP I should probably stay out of, but what is life without risks. A woman who wants a man that wants or will allow her to stay home is A ok. There are plenty of both persuasions. Don't be surprised however, if the one with the income has some control issues.

A man who wants a monogamous relationship with one woman but without cohabitation or marriage is equally OK. and certainly not 'sad."

A married woman who stayed at home for years, by law in most W lands, should get equal consideration upon divorce for marital assets. They were partners. A caveat to this:sometimes the woman (or man) stays at home even though this wasn't what was presented during dating, which can create resentment.

A man (or woman) who had that arrangement (marriage) before but now has no desire to see half of his or her stuff go walk about again in future marriage arrangements is completely understandable. It isn't a defect.

Personally I want a strong independent girl with her own income, home, friends, etc who stays interesting, viable and challenging. I don't want someone to own me or be obsessed with me, nor I them. And I'm not ok with the 30 lbs. she wants to put on her ass after the rice is thrown. Or ten. Nesting will do that ya know.

24

It seems the 'end' might come by way of humans stupidity, not a plan of a god

by sowhatnow in

http://www.sciencealert.com/it-s-official-we-re-on-the-brink-of-earth-s-sixth-mass-extinction.

pretty obvious, we've deforested the planet so much it cant clean the air, we've polluted the water so much its not fit to drink, we've poisoned the soil so much it cant grow food, we use so many chemicals, its killing off the insects who pollinate.

so while on post on this site claims the end of freedom for mankind, by way of evil governments, .

DJS

Rebel,

My last post, in no manner whatsoever, is minimizing actions taken to protect our planet. Recycling is rational; it isn't hysterical. Utilizing our planet's resources in an economic manner is rational; it isn't hysterical.

Protesting against those who are harming the environment is rational, not hysterical. I'm not sure how you gleaned any of this from my comments. I'm pro environment and I believe that we are causing harm with some of our decisions, but some of the climate changers hurt their cause by some of the very wrong predictive models that they presented.

Making irrational, even hysterical, statements about the environment - or anything else for that matter - that are not and cannot be supported by real evidence - is the topic to which I refer.

24

It seems the 'end' might come by way of humans stupidity, not a plan of a god

by sowhatnow in

http://www.sciencealert.com/it-s-official-we-re-on-the-brink-of-earth-s-sixth-mass-extinction.

pretty obvious, we've deforested the planet so much it cant clean the air, we've polluted the water so much its not fit to drink, we've poisoned the soil so much it cant grow food, we use so many chemicals, its killing off the insects who pollinate.

so while on post on this site claims the end of freedom for mankind, by way of evil governments, .

DJS

The Rebel,

You have my vote for MIP - Most Improved Poster. Thanks for your contributions. If the passion is causing more harm than good then it is neither ethical nor better than reality tv. But you do make a point; sometimes the hysterics are needed to get the attention of those who can make a difference. Sometimes. But not often. Those who make decisions most often listen to the empiricists and empirical data. And when the decision makers think of someone as an hysteric, they typically dismiss everything that person has to say.

And the hysterics typically create a counter-force that results in inertia and a lack of real progress, at least for a while. And they can often discredit the very cause they hold dear. One of the 'arguments' employed by the Rush Limbaugh ditto heads against climate change is that the climate changers have often used faulty 'evidence' and data to support over the top predictions (which they view as hysterics). Which is true. They have. But the overwhelming empirical data from real scientists supports climate change - and the potential for harm to the planet. At least that's what they are telling me on the Marshall Islands.