RE: Male to Female Ratios -- Look at Ashley Madison

RE: Male to Female Ratios -- Look at Ashley Madison (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

crumpets -> RE: Male to Female Ratios -- Look at Ashley Madison (9/10/2015 6:33:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NookieNotes However, NOW the word marriage means the civil agreement. That's exactly the problem. You don't get to re-define the word marriage to your liking, any more than I do, or that the bigoted closed minded (and quite selfish) gay-rights activists do. Marriage, as I tried to explain, is MANY things. Anyone who thinks it's just about sexual orientation or kids or finances or religion, or, heaven forbid, something as selfish as "rights", has no business using the word. My proposal makes sense, which is to utterly destroy and deprecate the word, and then build two new innocuous words out of the ruins, just as we rebuilt Hiroshima after the rain of ruin the likes of which man had never seen before. Only then, will whatever word the selfish gay-rights activists impound, have ANY meaning whatsoever that is universally accepted.

Zonie63 -> RE: Male to Female Ratios -- Look at Ashley Madison (9/10/2015 7:30:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sexyred1 A recent article in Vanity Fair went in depth on this, and when asked if those on Tinder (and OKCupid, Match.com, almost every dating site) wanted to find love and companionship with eventual marriage and commitment, 100% of the men said no, it was too easy not to have to date when women so easily fucked them. 100% of women, young and old said, yes, they wanted love, a boyfriend and future marriage and commitment, but couldn't find men to actually date, so they just went with whatever happened. I am talking about attractive, intelligent men and women here, not desperate people. None of these women were happy about being fucked and dumped. Interestingly, none of them would admit that it was their fault for not valuing themselves more and making men get to know them. Even if the women had great sex (which most of them did not), when they wanted to see the men a second time the men refused, so the women ended up faking a bravado that masked how used they felt. Our society lets men and women treat each other as disposable and interchangeable. People are lazy and don't value their relationships or respect each other. I saw that article, too, although what was interesting is that they compared the male to female ratio on various college campuses, and found that the "hook up culture" existed more where the women outnumbered the men. At campuses where men outnumbered women, the dating culture was more "traditional" and emphasized relationships over hook-ups. I think they also mentioned that, nationally, there are more women enrolled in college than men (57% vs. 43%). These young kids have it so easy. Things were much different when I was in college. Not only did we have to walk to the bars barefoot in the snow, texting was really a major hassle (involving typewriters and carrier pigeons) - so we just talked to people instead. I think the article had a picture of all these people in the bar, yet instead of conversing with each other, their eyes are all glued to their phones. I've never used Tinder, but the way they were talking about it in the article, it seems the users were hopeful that it would be like some sort of slot machine. The men seemed to like it a lot, but as you noted, the women in the article seemed rather disappointed by Tinder. If I recall correctly, I think Tinder responded to the article, taking exception to the way their product was portrayed. Apparently, some people have made successful relationships after meeting through Tinder, so it's not all just fuck-and-dump. As with any online dating service, it's only as good as the members who are part of it.

NookieNotes -> RE: Male to Female Ratios -- Look at Ashley Madison (9/10/2015 7:35:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crumpets quote: ORIGINAL: NookieNotes However, NOW the word marriage means the civil agreement. That's exactly the problem. You don't get to re-define the word marriage to your liking, any more than I do, or that the bigoted closed minded (and quite selfish) gay-rights activists do. Marriage, as I tried to explain, is MANY things. Anyone who thinks it's just about sexual orientation or kids or finances or religion, or, heaven forbid, something as selfish as "rights", has no business using the word. My proposal makes sense, which is to utterly destroy and deprecate the word, and then build two new innocuous words out of the ruins, just as we rebuilt Hiroshima after the rain of ruin the likes of which man had never seen before. Only then, will whatever word the selfish gay-rights activists impound, have ANY meaning whatsoever that is universally accepted. It's not to my liking. It's the dictionary. So, YOU don't get to redefine it to YOUR liking, since so much of what you attribute to it is NOT the common use of the term.

crumpets -> RE: Male to Female Ratios -- Look at Ashley Madison (9/10/2015 8:55:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NookieNotes YOU don't get to redefine it to YOUR liking, since so much of what you attribute to it is NOT the common use of the term. Let's not forget, a woman just went do jail for days over the common meaning of the term, to her. Her meaning is no more or less valid than yours, or mine. What I see, is something most people don't see - which is the cold-hearted bigotry inherent in the gay right's activits' arguments. They purposefully chose to attack a word which had deep complex meaning in our society - and their express purpose was to debase the entire concept - to bring it down ONLY to their level - as you have done yourself. Me? I feel EVERY common meaning of the word should not only be celebrated, but should also be revered. The gay rights' activists merely want to destroy the word as a common gang of selfish hoodlums sprays graffiti all over the road signs, to debase their common meaning and to elevate their own selfish agenda.

Lucylastic -> RE: Male to Female Ratios -- Look at Ashley Madison (9/10/2015 10:25:39 AM)
yes love and committment only happens with religious straight people. Religion is a choice... her choice s to do her job or not..not decide who can marry and who cant.

NookieNotes -> RE: Male to Female Ratios -- Look at Ashley Madison (9/10/2015 10:58:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crumpets quote: ORIGINAL: NookieNotes YOU don't get to redefine it to YOUR liking, since so much of what you attribute to it is NOT the common use of the term. Let's not forget, a woman just went do jail for days over the common meaning of the term, to her. Her meaning is no more or less valid than yours, or mine. To her. Sure. To the rest of the world... she doesn't get to define the word. Of course, I wonder how much love is attached to her FOUR marriages, cuckolding (not as a fetish) and etc. quote: What I see, is something most people don't see - which is the cold-hearted bigotry inherent in the gay right's activits' arguments. They purposefully chose to attack a word which had deep complex meaning in our society - and their express purpose was to debase the entire concept - to bring it down ONLY to their level - as you have done yourself. My level. No, again, I point to the level of the actual dictionaries that people use to define words. There is a reason they exist. Because we need a COMMON language. You can say to you that with marriage comes all of those things, sure. But to suggest others are bigots, because they actually use the dictionary definition... That's just plain silly. quote: Me? I feel EVERY common meaning of the word should not only be celebrated, but should also be revered. The gay rights' activists merely want to destroy the word as a common gang of selfish hoodlums sprays graffiti all over the road signs, to debase their common meaning and to elevate their own selfish agenda. Wow. Just wow. You are a special kind of something. quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic yes love and committment only happens with religious straight people. Religion is a choice... her choice s to do her job or not..not decide who can marry and who cant. Exactly so.

tj444 -> RE: Male to Female Ratios -- Look at Ashley Madison (9/10/2015 12:09:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NookieNotes quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 I dont care much for being "wooed", and all that stuff.. It takes many months to really get to know someone, anything sooner (including all the flowers, door opening, etc) is usually window dressing and a mask... of course they are trying to make a good impression.. What is the real person like? I have met dudes (not even as dates, just as acquaintances) that seemed very nice (at first) but I came to know the "real" person and that person makes me want to throw up.. seeing who they really are, I have come to despise them (cheap, misers, liars, selfish).. Maybe I am being overly critical/picky but I am not gonna waste my time on a dud dude, life is too short!.. dam it, I wish I was a lesbian.. Well, I love being wooed. Forever. If they can't start off right, I'm not interested. As far as months to get to know someone, try YEARS. I don't accept ownership until usually a year or more has gone by. The shortest period is 8 months, and that felt like a whirlwind to me. But, overall, I have not had someone show me "their true colors" and had them be markedly different after a period of time, except in the case of my ex-husband, who became mentally ill. All of my other lovers are still my friends. No hate, no acrimony. Simply discovering over time that we were not fully compatible, no great reveals of assholery. But then, I spend most of my time in the first 6 weeks trying to find reasons the relationship WON'T work, and reasons to end it. Historically, once someone has made it through 6 weeks with me, they have a better than 50/50 chance of being with me longer than 2 years. So, perhaps you can see why I find your take on it surprising. hmmm.. ok that is really odd/funny to me... you love being wooed but then you spend all your time trying to convince yourself that it wont work with the wooer??? Well, you are a dominant so that would account for why you do things that way & have certain expectations.. Under normal (not bdsm) dating circumstances, the problem with being wooed (imo) is that with most guys it eventually stops and he starts leaving his dirty underwear lying on the floor and other such things.. if the guy is like that (wooing) forever then thats a different story, that is the real him, not a fabrication to impress you until he gets you into the sack..

crumpets -> RE: Male to Female Ratios -- Look at Ashley Madison (9/10/2015 12:39:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic yes love and committment only happens with religious straight people. You either chose to ignore there are plenty of other issues, or, you chose to latch onto the one issue that the Kentucky clerk used, but that doesn't change the fact the word has meaning which the gay-rights activists debase by re-defining it any way they want. Bear in mind, I'm all for any number of people to get married to any other number of people (limited only to the species) of any age and religion and ethnicity and sexual orientation and financial situation and political view (subject only to higher laws of the state or union). I just see this bigoted view that the gay rights activists have that marriage ONLY means what THEY want it to mean, and nothing else, and, their quite selfish REASON for wanting to get married.

Lucylastic -> RE: Male to Female Ratios -- Look at Ashley Madison (9/10/2015 12:55:54 PM)
We as a race ( the human race) have defined and re-defined marriage so many times. In so every country, in every religion. Selfish? Gays Debase marriage? Any further than its debased by people who think they can just fuck anything around on AM.or wherever, Because they are always horny? Or have a penis? Or think they deserve to screw their and their spouses wedding vows?

crumpets -> RE: Male to Female Ratios -- Look at Ashley Madison (9/10/2015 1:08:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NookieNotes I point to the level of the actual dictionaries that people use to define words. Let's dance around the word, shall we? We both can quite easily find cherry-picked definitions that suit our argument, simply because, as you seem to not be able to comprehend, gay-rights' activists specifically went after the institution of marriage specifically BECAUSE they wanted to debase the meaning of the word. There was no other reason, if you THINK (and please, do think ... do not ASSUME that things are what they appear to be when someone is trying to sell you a load of politically correct BS). Remember, I'm saying that marriage is an immensely complex social word - which is WHY they went after it. They, the ones running the campaign, as are ALL political action groups that run campaigns, are VERY INTELLIGENT PEOPLE. They know 99.9% of the population will be snowed by their focus on a SINGLE ELEMENT of the battle. There was a reason Gettysburg has a huge cemetery of dead soldiers, and, no, the battle wasn't over a little hill now called "Cemetary Ridge". All the people wholly snowed by the gay rights' activists would also be easily led to believe that the battle was over a small hill; but it wasn't. The battle was to CHANGE PEOPLE'S MINDS. It worked there - and - since people are, generally quite stupid, it works here on you and most others. That's what's so frustrating, to me, which is how stupid people are. They think that they can define (all by themselves) marriage any way they want to (especially so that it conveniently includes ONLY their point of view, and specifically excludes ALL OTHER POINTS of view!). For example, since we're already in the process of destroying the word, when we rebuild it, why not just include all people of all ages and any number of them? What's the problem with that? I'd vote for that. I wouldn't call it the "M" word; but we can conveniently find any word to take the place of what has been and is being debased. However, to your specific question, Here, for example, is a (Br) English definition of the "M" word: Marriage Definition: quote: The voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. And, here, for example, is a (Christian) English definition of the word: Marriage Definition: quote: Marriage is the formal, legal, and public union of one man and one woman by which the two become husband and wife. Within marriage, biblically speaking, the couple is to remain sexually faithful only to each other and share in the responsibilities of raising children. In times past polygamy was practiced in ancient Israel, as well as other cultures. And here, of course, is the traditional (Am) definition of the word marriage: Marriage definition: quote: Anthropology. the primary established form of marriage recognized in a given country or religious or social group at a given time: In that culture, traditional marriage requires the families of the future bride and groom to engage in ritual visits and exchange gifts. 2. marriage between one man and one woman (primarily used by opponents of same-sex marriage). The whole point doesn't hinge on what YOUR specific definition of the word means (nor mine). The whole point is that you don't SEE what is going on, just like the politicians in the age of McCarthyism didn't see (for a long time) what was going on. The gay rights' activists are selfish and bigoted, but, they are NOT stupid. They are far smarter than you or I are - because they managed to destroy an institution - and rebuild it ONLY in the form that THEY personally wanted it to be rebuilt as - and - what's most important - for wholly selfish reasons - and not for ANY of the reasons that have existed for the institution in most people's minds. Of course, you will find BRAND NEW DEFINITIONS (which didn't exist only a mere few years ago), which conveniently dance around the complex social issues, such as this one from the same reference as used above: Marriage Definition: quote: a. Also called opposite-sex marriage. the form of this institution under which a man and a woman have established their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. See also traditional marriage (def 2). b. this institution [wholly artificially] expanded to include two partners of the same gender, as in same-sex marriage; gay marriage Notice the word "expanded" anyone? Well, since the word has already been utterly destroyed and is now devoid of any rational meaning, my modest proposal is to expand it to its natural bounds, which is the following: quote: this institution [purposefully] expanded to include ᴛ̶ᴡ̶ᴏ̶ ANY NUMBER OF partners of ᴛ̶ʜ̶ᴇ̶ s̶ᴀ̶ᴍ̶ᴇ̶ ɢ̶ᴇ̶ɴ̶ᴅ̶ᴇ̶ʀ̶ ANY gender or age, as in same-sex marriage (unless otherwise forbidden by law); traditional marriage; gay marriage; polygamy marriage being all part of the natural progression of marriage today.

crumpets -> RE: Male to Female Ratios -- Look at Ashley Madison (9/10/2015 1:28:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic We as a race ( the human race) have defined and re-defined marriage so many times. In so every country, in every religion. I agree. It has such a hugely complex meaning. Which, I argue, is EXACTLY WHY the gay rights' activists went after the word. quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic Selfish? Ask someone (who isn't gay) WHY, primarily, they got married. You'll likely hear a diverse set of main reasons: a) To have kids b) To save money c) To do the right thing d) Because we were in love e) To get health insurance f) To get citizenship g) To obtain the protection from divorce for my unborn kids h) To make my parents happy etc. While some of those reasons are also as selfish as the reasons the gay rights' advocate promote, almost never, will you hear: a) To get rights When you look at the gay rights' activists argument for destroying the traditional view of marriage, you find it's all about THEM. It's all about their access to RIGHTS. It's not about love. It's not about kids. It's not about protection. No. It's all about their selfish access to the same legal goodies that traditional married people get. Mind you, I am as open minded as anyone (despite your instant knee-jerk reaction to the contrary). I personally feel men cheat in huge droves in traditional marriages, and, I would think that gay men didn't suddenly change stripes, so, they'll cheat in gay marriages also (although, since other men may actually sexually satisfy them, I don't really know if that is the case - but it's not my central theme so I won't delve further). I feel marriage, as a concept, has already been destroyed, just as Hiroshima was destroyed as a city. Now it's time to rebuild marriage in our image, just as we rebuilt Hiroshima. We didn't CHANGE or EXPAND Hiroshima. We first utterly annihilated it, and then rebuilt it to our liking (same with the governments of Germany and Japan, for that matter). The same has to happen with the M word. STEP 1. Annihilate the traditional meaning of marriage. STEP 2. Rebuild it as a new word - with new "expanded" meaning. And it's not that I am against gays being "married". I am wide open in my feelings. I feel ANY NUMBER of PEOPLE should be able to enjoy the responsibilities, privileges, and rights of marriage. Any age (limited only by law). Any number of people (limited only by species). Any sexual preference (limited only by your imagination). Any political or religious affiliation (again, limited only by your imagination). What I'm against is a clever McCarthyism-like campaign, that pulls the wool over YOUR eyes, and almost everyone stupid enough to fall for their admittedly extremely clever strategy of attacking marriage head on and destroying its meaning - and then "expanding" it, ONLY TO THEIR LIKING (and not to the natural bounds to which it belongs). quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic Gays Debase marriage? That single set of 3 words showed either you are too stupid to get my point, or, you purposefully ignored EVERYTHING that I said just so that you can try to disagree with me. To prove you're actually not an idiot, please show me where I said "gays debase marriage". quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic Any further than its debased by people who think they can just fuck anything around on AM.or wherever, Because they are always horny? Or have a penis? Or think they deserve to screw their and their spouses wedding vows? I never said that marriage prevents cheating. In fact, cheating is often defined in terms of marriage. But, just as I'm not against ANYONE (gay, cheating, or otherwise) from being married, I'm not against cheating either. Cheating is a natural solution to a natural problem. What prevents cheating is satisfying the otherwise-cheating person's needs - BEFORE that person cheats. But that isn't realistically going to happen.

NookieNotes -> RE: Male to Female Ratios -- Look at Ashley Madison (9/10/2015 2:53:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 hmmm.. ok that is really odd/funny to me... you love being wooed but then you spend all your time trying to convince yourself that it wont work with the wooer??? Well, you are a dominant so that would account for why you do things that way & have certain expectations.. Well, yes. Because I'm taking responsibility for a person, if I own them. So I want to find all the non-compromiseables ASAP, so I don't waste my time or theirs. But I've always been like that, even when I was vanilla dating. I don't want a million guys. Just the one(s) that fit me right. quote: Under normal (not bdsm) dating circumstances, the problem with being wooed (imo) is that with most guys it eventually stops and he starts leaving his dirty underwear lying on the floor and other such things.. if the guy is like that (wooing) forever then thats a different story, that is the real him, not a fabrication to impress you until he gets you into the sack.. Right. That's my point. The wooing must show enough creativity and thoughtfulness that it is not a flash in the pan. I look for ALL the red flags: how they speak about their exes, how they take personal responsibility for various situations (or don't), how they treat hired help, how they react to being told they're wrong, how they react to being right after being told they're wrong... LOL! This is my nature. I do it to friends as well, but I don't care as much about the results. I'm curious about the people around me, and their psychology. quote: ORIGINAL: crumpets quote: ORIGINAL: NookieNotes I point to the level of the actual dictionaries that people use to define words. Let's dance around the word, shall we? We both can quite easily find cherry-picked definitions that suit our argument, simply because, as you seem to not be able to comprehend, gay-rights' activists specifically went after the institution of marriage specifically BECAUSE they wanted to debase the meaning of the word. Right. Because they run the dictionaries. ALL OF THEM. And I went with the ones that came at the top of a search. In actual dictionaries. I did not cherry-pick. But again, you refuse to actually use fact. It's all about your opinion. More power to ya. quote: Here, for example, is a (Br) English definition of the "M" word: Marriage Definition: quote: The voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. A LEGAL dictionary. There is nothing about love in there. Or religion. Or family. Or support. So your point it moot. quote: And, here, for example, is a (Christian) English definition of the word: Marriage Definition: quote: Marriage is the formal, legal, and public union of one man and one woman by which the two become husband and wife. Within marriage, biblically speaking, the couple is to remain sexually faithful only to each other and share in the responsibilities of raising children. In times past polygamy was practiced in ancient Israel, as well as other cultures. Ok. Still no love? Not so important a concept, is it? Shame you're making my point. quote: And here, of course, is the traditional (Am) definition of the word marriage: Marriage definition: quote: Anthropology. the primary established form of marriage recognized in a given country or religious or social group at a given time: In that culture, traditional marriage requires the families of the future bride and groom to engage in ritual visits and exchange gifts. 2. marriage between one man and one woman (primarily used by opponents of same-sex marriage). The whole point doesn't hinge on what YOUR specific definition of the word means (nor mine). The whole point is that you don't SEE what is going on, just like the politicians in the age of McCarthyism didn't see (for a long time) what was going on. And YOU have made my point more clearly than I could. Who can't see? WHERE is the word "love in ANY of your definitions?" Yeah. Thought so.

LadyPact -> RE: Male to Female Ratios -- Look at Ashley Madison (9/10/2015 3:36:46 PM)
Yeah, I'm getting wayyyyy off of the original topic of Ashley Madison now. My apologies, cloudboy. I tend to think that just about any definition regarding the word marriage as it is linked to a religous based coupling is probably incorrect. If it isn't, please explain to me why an Justice of the Peace has been sanctioned to marry anyone? quote: "By the power vested in me by the State of Colorado..." I told this story elsewhere but it might be worth repeating. I was married before I married MP. When I was engaged to my former then to be husband, he and I went to a beautiful little church to inquire if we could be married there. Since I'd had a prior marriage and been divorced, we were turned down. We couldn't be married there but it didn't stop our ability to be married. We just did it another way, legally.

crumpets -> RE: Male to Female Ratios -- Look at Ashley Madison (9/11/2015 10:26:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NookieNotes And I went with the ones that came at the top of a search. In actual dictionaries. I did not cherry-pick. BTW, so did I. Those hits were the first three that came up in my DuckDuckGo search. quote: ORIGINAL: NookieNotes But again, you refuse to actually use fact. It's all about your opinion. More power to ya. You actually appear to be intelligent, so, it's not easy to hear you spout this well-worn and easily debunked argument, considering that you actually might BELIEVE what you just wrote. My main point is that marriage is an immensely complex word, that means many things to many people. If I understand your argument, which merely blandly parrots what the gay-rights-activists want you to parrot, marriage is, to you, a very simple word which means exactly what only you and the gay-rights' activists want it to mean. In fact, to you, since you don't apparently think for yourself, it means only what the express definition of any particular government chooses to make the word mean. Do I understand your meaning-of-marriage argument correctly? If so, then I must ask you a simple question: QUESTION FOR NookieNotes: WHICH GOVERNMENT, to you, gets to legally define the word marriage (bearing in mind that people travel over time) for the entire world? quote: ORIGINAL: NookieNotes A LEGAL dictionary. There is nothing about love in there. Or religion. Or family. Or support. So your point it moot. Again, I have previously assumed that you were intelligent, and, in which case, I must ask you a simple question which will tell me how intelligent you really are by your answer. QUESTION for NookieNotes: Do you really think the ONLY definition of the word marriage is the current legal definition in either a specific state in the United States or in a specific country? quote: ORIGINAL: NookieNotes Ok. Still no love? Not so important a concept, is it? Shame you're making my point. Since you haven't had the opportunity to answer the previous question, I can't ask you whether the word LOVE appears in YOUR DEFINITION of the word marriage - since your definition appears to be a single government entity's definition of the word - and you haven't selected the particular government entity that you feel is entitled to defined the word. Therefore, given we don't know if YOUR definition includes the word LOVE, you must still realize, I hope, that I said people get married for MANY reasons, and, one of those reasons, I clearly noted (please look back at my posts above), included love (and, specifically, in my wide-open opinion, love between any number of individuals, not limited to age or sex, but only limited to species (and subject to higher laws). Since you MUST have seen that, and since I, like you, simply picked the first three hits of a DuckDuckGo search and posted verbatim the results, I can see now that you're simply fighting to disagree with anything I say, and you choose, for example, the untenable argument that I'm proving your point that love isn't involved in many people's definition of marriage - when - in fact - I've said clearly that love is one of the many reasons why people get married. quote: ORIGINAL: NookieNotes WHERE is the word "love in ANY of your definitions?" Same as above. If you are as intelligent as I thought you were, you would have been able to read my prior posts, which clearly included love in one of the reasons that people get married. So then, for you to first accuse me of cherry picking, and then to say that the supposedly cherry picked examples don't include love, and then, to tell me that the LEGAL definition (perhaps you'd pick a specific state, let's assume California) is the ONLY definition. Now, I must ask you a question which is akin to what you're (falsely) accusing me of: QUESTION FOR NookieNotes: Since you feel the ONLY definition of MARRIAGE is that which is LEGALLY DEFINED; where in California law (or any state or union) does the word LOVE show up? quote: ORIGINAL: NookieNotes Yeah. Thought so. :)

NookieNotes -> RE: Male to Female Ratios -- Look at Ashley Madison (9/11/2015 10:40:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crumpets QUESTION FOR NookieNotes: WHICH GOVERNMENT, to you, gets to legally define the word marriage (bearing in mind that people travel over time) for the entire world? Your marriage is defined legally by where you live. quote: QUESTION: Do you really think the ONLY definition of the word marriage is the current legal definition in either a specific state in the United States or in a specific country? No. I think that the common definitions, including the ones you provided, DO NOT INCLUDE LOVE. quote: Since you haven't answered the previous question, I can't ask you whether the word LOVE appears in YOUR DEFINITION of the word marriage - since your definition appears to be a single government entity's definition of the word - and you haven't selected the particular government entity that you feel is entitled to defined the word. To answer your question, marriage is not defined by love. However, I would not marry without love. That's not the same thing. Love is not defined by sex. Love is not defined by possession. Love is not defined by family. ALL of these things often go side-by-side with it. That does NOT make it part of the definition. quote: Therefore, given we don't know if YOUR definition includes the word LOVE, you must still realize, I hope, that I said people get married for MANY reasons, and, one of those reasons, I clearly noted (please look back at my posts above), included love (and, specifically, in my wide-open opinion, love between any number of individuals, not limited to age or sex, but only limited to species (and subject to higher laws). Reasons do not change the definition. People love for many reasons, and that does not change the definition. quote: So then, for you to first accuse me of cherry picking, and then to say that the supposedly cherry picked examples don't include love, and then, to tell me that the LEGAL definition (perhaps you'd pick a specific state, let's assume California) is the ONLY definition. No. I did not use legal definitions. I used Merrium Webster and the OED. YOU are the one bitching that other people don't recognize your definition. And yet... your definition does not match even the common definitions. The "gays" you spoke of have their right to their definitions. Why get upset with how they define marriage, if your own definition is not-standard?

crumpets -> RE: Male to Female Ratios -- Look at Ashley Madison (9/11/2015 11:37:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NookieNotes Your marriage is defined legally by where you live. And, what happens when you MOVE to somewhere else? What if that somewhere else has a DIFFERENT concept of marriage than the state in which you got married in does? quote: ORIGINAL: NookieNotes I think that the common definitions, including the ones you provided, DO NOT INCLUDE LOVE. Are you capable of comprehending intelligent discourse (and remembering just a few posts back)? Who brought up "love" as a specific point of argument? quote: ORIGINAL: NookieNotes To answer your question, marriage is not defined by love. I'm glad you answered your own question, because meanwhile, I had taken the liberty of looking up what appears to be your (ONLY) definition of marriage, which is, conveniently, EXACTLY what the very clever gay-rights activists WANT you to think. My jurisdiction is California. Here is California's definition of marriage (notice that we are both correct, in that the word LOVE does not exist in that form anywhere in the definition - while "religion" does exist in some form - as does "consummate"). A California marriage is: quote: FAMILY.CODE SECTION 300-310 300. (a) Marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between two persons, to which the consent of the parties capable of making that contract is necessary. Consent alone does not constitute marriage. Consent must be followed by the issuance of a license and solemnization as authorized by this division, except as provided by Section 425 and Part 4 (commencing with Section 500). (b) For purposes of this part, the document issued by the county clerk is a marriage license until it is registered with the county recorder, at which time the license becomes a marriage certificate. 301. Two unmarried persons 18 years of age or older, who are not otherwise disqualified, are capable of consenting to and consummating marriage. 302. (a) An unmarried person under 18 years of age is capable of consenting to and consummating marriage upon obtaining a court order granting permission to the underage person or persons to marry. (b) The court order and written consent of the parents of each underage person, or of one of the parents or the guardian of each underage person shall be filed with the clerk of the court, and a certified copy of the order shall be presented to the county clerk at the time the marriage license is issued. 303. If it appears to the satisfaction of the court by application of a minor that the minor requires a written consent to marry and that the minor has no parent or has no parent capable of consenting, the court may make an order consenting to the issuance of a marriage license and granting permission to the minor to marry. The order shall be filed with the clerk of the court and a certified copy of the order shall be presented to the county clerk at the time the marriage license is issued. 304. As part of the court order granting permission to marry under Section 302 or 303, the court shall require the parties to the prospective marriage of a minor to participate in premarital counseling concerning social, economic, and personal responsibilities incident to marriage, if the court considers the counseling to be necessary. The parties shall not be required, without their consent, to confer with counselors provided by religious organizations of any denomination. In determining whether to order the parties to participate in the premarital counseling, the court shall consider, among other factors, the ability of the parties to pay for the counseling. The court may impose a reasonable fee to cover the cost of any premarital counseling provided by the county or the court. The fees shall be used exclusively to cover the cost of the counseling services authorized by this section. 305. Consent to and solemnization of marriage may be proved under the same general rules of evidence as facts are proved in other cases. 306. Except as provided in Section 307, a marriage shall be licensed, solemnized, and authenticated, and the authenticated marriage license shall be returned to the county recorder of the county where the marriage license was issued, as provided in this part. Noncompliance with this part by a nonparty to the marriage does not invalidate the marriage. 306.5. (a) Parties to a marriage shall not be required to have the same name. Neither party shall be required to change his or her name. A person's name shall not change upon marriage unless that person elects to change his or her name pursuant to subdivision (b). (b) (1) One party or both parties to a marriage may elect to change the middle or last names, or both, by which that party wishes to be known after solemnization of the marriage by entering the new name in the spaces provided on the marriage license application without intent to defraud. (2) A person may adopt any of the following last names pursuant to paragraph (1): (A) The current last name of the other spouse. (B) The last name of either spouse given at birth. (C) A name combining into a single last name all or a segment of the current last name or the last name of either spouse given at birth. (D) A hyphenated combination of last names. (3) A person may adopt any of the following middle names pursuant to paragraph (1): (A) The current last name of either spouse. (B) The last name of either spouse given at birth. (C) A hyphenated combination of the current middle name and the current last name of the person or spouse. (D) A hyphenated combination of the current middle name and the last name given at birth of the person or spouse. (4) (A) An election by a person to change his or her name pursuant to paragraph (1) shall serve as a record of the name change. A certified copy of a marriage certificate containing the new name, or retaining the former name, shall constitute proof that the use of the new name or retention of the former name is lawful. (B) A certified copy of a marriage certificate shall be accepted as identification establishing a true, full name for purposes of Section 12800.7 of the Vehicle Code. (C) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the Department of Motor Vehicles from accepting as identification other documents establishing a true, full name for purposes of Section 12800.7 of the Vehicle Code. Those documents may include, without limitation, a certified copy of a marriage certificate recording a marriage outside of this state. (D) This section shall be applied in a manner consistent with the requirements of Sections 1653.5 and 12801 of the Vehicle Code. (5) The adoption of a new name, or the choice not to adopt a new name, by means of a marriage license application pursuant to paragraph (1) shall only be made at the time the marriage license is issued. After a marriage certificate is registered by the local registrar, the certificate may not be amended to add a new name or change the name adopted pursuant to paragraph (1). An amendment may be issued to correct a clerical error in the new name fields on the marriage license. In this instance, the amendment must be signed by one of the parties to the marriage and the county clerk or his or her deputy, and the reason for the amendment must be stated as correcting a clerical error. A clerical error as used in this part is an error made by the county clerk, his or her deputy, or a notary authorized to issue confidential marriage licenses, whereby the information shown in the new name field does not match the information shown on the marriage license application. This requirement shall not abrogate the right of either party to adopt a different name through usage at a future date, or to petition the superior court for a change of name pursuant to Title 8 (commencing with Section 1275) of Part 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to abrogate the common law right of any person to change his or her name, or the right of any person to petition the superior court for a change of name pursuant to Title 8 (commencing with Section 1275) of Part 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (d) This section shall become operative on January 1, 2009. 307. This division, so far as it relates to the solemnizing of marriage, is not applicable to members of a particular religious society or denomination not having clergy for the purpose of solemnizing marriage or entering the marriage relation, if all of the following requirements are met: (a) The parties to the marriage sign and endorse on the form prescribed by the State Department of Public Health, showing all of the following: (1) The fact, time, and place of entering into the marriage. (2) The printed names, signatures, and mailing addresses of two witnesses to the ceremony. (3) The religious society or denomination of the parties to the marriage, and that the marriage was entered into in accordance with the rules and customs of that religious society or denomination. The statement of the parties to the marriage that the marriage was entered into in accordance with the rules and customs of the religious society or denomination is conclusively presumed to be true. (b) The License and Certificate of Non-Clergy Marriage, endorsed pursuant to subdivision (a), is returned to the county recorder of the county in which the license was issued within 10 days after the ceremony. 308. A marriage contracted outside this state that would be valid by laws of the jurisdiction in which the marriage was contracted is valid in this state. 309. If either party to a marriage denies the marriage, or refuses to join in a declaration of the marriage, the other party may proceed, by action pursuant to Section 103450 of the Health and Safety Code, to have the validity of the marriage determined and declared. 310. Marriage is dissolved only by one of the following: (a) The death of one of the parties. (b) A judgment of dissolution of marriage. (c) A judgment of nullity of marriage. quote: ORIGINAL: NookieNotes However, I would not marry without love. Since I already know and understand ALL your arguments, you prove my point. People get married for diverse reasons. quote: ORIGINAL: NookieNotes Love is not defined by sex. Love is not defined by possession. Love is not defined by family. Um... ok. er... um... whom are you preaching to? I never disagreed. In fact, I said well before this that some people get married for love. YOU are the one who said there is only one strict definition of marriage - not me - and you parrot EXACTLY what the gay-rights activists WANT you to parrot. You are being led by the nose, in EXACTLY the direction they want you to do. If you could think for yourself, you'd at the very least be able to start to COMPREHEND my argument, which is that the gay rights activists are leading you by the nose - and you're incapable of seeing what is actually happening. quote: ORIGINAL: NookieNotes ALL of these things often go side-by-side with it. Nobody said otherwise. In fact, I clearly said so, prior. quote: ORIGINAL: NookieNotes That does NOT make it part of the definition. As you can see, LOVE is not a word that is used in your narrow definition of what a California Marriage entails. Interestingly, the word "religion" and the word "consummate" do exist, in some form; but not "love". quote: ORIGINAL: NookieNotes People love for many reasons, and that does not change the definition [of marriage]. Huh? The word "love" is not in YOUR definition of the word marriage. That is so easily provable that I can't repeat that fact a hundred times just to get you to comprehend your own definition of the word marriage. You are the one who brought up the word "love" as a sticking point. Not me. quote: ORIGINAL: NookieNotes YOU are the one bitching that other people don't recognize your definition. And yet... your definition does not match even the common definitions. First off, I'm frustrated not that what you call "my" definition is not recognized. I don't expect what you call "my definition" to be recognized, simply because what you call "my definition" is NOT the definition the gay-rights activists want me to parrot. In fact, what you call "my definition" is not what the religious rights wants me to parrot either! I can think for myself, thank you. First off, what I "bitch" about has nothing whatsoever to do with what you call "my definition". You should be intelligent enough to comprehend that my argument is that you (and most others) are slaves who are being led by the nose by the utterly selfish and bigoted arguments of EITHER the gay-rights activists or the religious zealots. I'm neither. I am a free-thinking soul. What I rebel against, and, what frustrates me, is that you don't comprehend a word that I am saying. You don't realize that the gay-rights activists are as bigoted and selfish as the religious activists are. My argument, if I may repeat it for your comprehension, is that the word marriage no longer has any meaning if it only means what you, and the gay-rights activists WANT it to mean - because - the word marriage means MANY THINGs to many people - most of whom do not agree with your opinion. By way of elucidation, I propose a solution, which is merely to open your eyes to what is really going on. That solution is written somewhat seriously in terms of Jonathan Swift's approach to open your eyes to what is happening. What you term "my argument" isn't my argument at all; it's just my truly open-minded EXAMPLE of what a truly non-bigoted and truly non-sexist and truly non-discriminatory DEFINITION for the word MARRIAGE could be. And, you argue AGAINST my example, PURELY because it's NOT bigoted. You argue against my example purely because it's NOT close minded. Yet, you don't see that what you call "my argument" of what a marriage is, encompasses ALL PEOPLE's DEFINITION (my argument was carefully chosen, after all). Since the word "MARRIAGE" already has been destroyed, my example of what this new "M" word would mean is that the new "M" thing would be open to anyone, of any sex, of any age (constrained by law), of any religious or political affiliation. The ONLY way you can argue against my EXAMPLE is to be bigoted and close minded. That's why I presented that carefully crafted open minded example. I'm trying to open your eyes. I can easily see and comprehend what is going on. You can't. If only you could comprehend that I'm not arguing the typical tripe that either the religious zealots or the gay-rights bigots argue.......... quote: ORIGINAL: NookieNotes The "gays" you spoke of have their right to their definitions. Why get upset with how they define marriage, if your own definition is not-standard? Sigh. I feel I'm stuck in a Montey Python skit. To prove that there is sanity involved, can ANYONE paraphrase what my main point is? You don't have to agree with me (I don't expect that of most people). I would only expect fewer than 5% of the population to have the innate cognitive ability to just merely understand my argument, let alone agree with it. But, maybe I'm wrong. Does a single person on this forum even UNDERSTAND what it is that I'm trying to get across? PS: In return, I will gladly state what your point of view is (to prove I understand yours).

NookieNotes -> RE: Male to Female Ratios -- Look at Ashley Madison (9/11/2015 12:12:19 PM)
I was confused by something, so I came back: quote: ORIGINAL: crumpets quote: ORIGINAL: NookieNotes And I went with the ones that came at the top of a search. In actual dictionaries. I did not cherry-pick. BTW, so did I. Those hits were the first three that came up in my DuckDuckGo search. Really? What did you type in to DuckDuckGo? Because I tried it out, myself... Marriage: First three are Wikipedia, Merrium-Webster, and 63 Interesting facts about Marriage, with Dictionary.com coming in next, followed by a christian site, Cornell at Wex, etc. Define Marriage: First three are a definition, Merrium-Webster, and Wikipedia, followed by Dictionary.com, Christianity.About.com, and Webster's online. So, again... Cherry picking. A law definition and a Christian definiont, without any of the regular secular definitions. Very suspicious. quote: ORIGINAL: crumpets quote: ORIGINAL: NookieNotes Your marriage is defined legally by where you live. And, what happens when you MOVE to somewhere else? What if that somewhere else has a DIFFERENT concept of marriage than the state in which you got married in does? THERE, the marriage is defined differently. Duh. quote: ORIGINAL: NookieNotes I think that the common definitions, including the ones you provided, DO NOT INCLUDE LOVE. Are you capable of comprehending intelligent discourse (and remembering just a few posts back)? Who brought up "love" as a specific point of argument? Um. You did (bold mine): quote: ORIGINAL: crumpets Only tangentially related, I had a long discussion with a half dozen very intelligent people over lunch yesterday, where I was appalled at the bigotry of the gay rights activists who feel that a marriage has nothing to do with religion; a marriage has nothing to do with morals; a marriage has nothing to do with ensuring long-term financial support; a marriage has nothing to do with, heaven forbid, love. And, certainly, a marriage has nothing to do with families. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: NookieNotes To answer your question, marriage is not defined by love. I'm glad you answered your own question, because meanwhile, I had taken the liberty of looking up what appears to be your (ONLY) definition of marriage, which is, conveniently, EXACTLY what the very clever gay-rights activists WANT you to think. No, you looked up a legal definition of marriage in California—where I do not live—and does not define the actual word, but the legal ramifications. But, hey, get on with your bad self. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: NookieNotes However, I would not marry without love. Since I already know and understand ALL your arguments, you prove my point. People get married for diverse reasons. But my reasons and their reasons do not change the definition. People commit murder for many diverse reasons. Does not change the meaning of the word. quote: YOU are the one who said there is only one strict definition of marriage - not me - and you parrot EXACTLY what the gay-rights activists WANT you to parrot. No, what I said is that there are MANY definitions for the word love, and you are no closer to those definitions in your assessment that "the gays" you were railing against. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: NookieNotes That does NOT make it part of the definition. As you can see, LOVE is not a word that is used in your narrow definition of what a California Marriage entails. Interestingly, the word "religion" and the word "consummate" do exist, in some form; but not "love". No, you did that earlier. Don't you remember your own arguments? quote: quote: ORIGINAL: NookieNotes People love for many reasons, and that does not change the definition [of marriage]. Huh? The word "love" is not in YOUR definition of the word marriage. That is so easily provable that I can't repeat that fact a hundred times just to get you to comprehend your own definition of the word marriage. You are the one who brought up the word "love" as a sticking point. Not me. See above. Maybe you should re-read your own writing. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: NookieNotes YOU are the one bitching that other people don't recognize your definition. And yet... your definition does not match even the common definitions. First off, I'm frustrated not that what you call "my" definition is not recognized. I don't expect what you call "my definition" to be recognized, simply because what you call "my definition" is NOT the definition the gay-rights activists want me to parrot. In fact, what you call "my definition" is not what the religious rights wants me to parrot either! I can think for myself, thank you. Not well, apparently. Have you had your comprehension skills checked? Memory? quote: What I rebel against, and, what frustrates me, is that you don't comprehend a word that I am saying. Interestingly enough, other people have a hard time comprehending your lack of logical discourse as well, so keep pointing those fingers outward... I mean, it doesn't make sense to examine your own communication skills. quote: My argument, if I may repeat it for your comprehension, is that the word marriage no longer has any meaning if it only means what you, and the gay-rights activists WANT it to mean - because - the word marriage means MANY THINGs to many people - most of whom do not agree with your opinion. The word marriage has meaning to everyone. It has meaning to me. It has meaning to you. It has meaning to "the gays." It does not have to mean the same thing to everyone. However, to rail at others for having a different personal definition than yours is illogical. It has meaning. Just not the meaning you want. So sad. I want blue to mean "butterflies spill out your butt," doesn't make it happen. quote: What you term "my argument" isn't my argument at all; it's just my truly open-minded EXAMPLE of what a truly non-bigoted and truly non-sexist and truly non-discriminatory DEFINITION for the word MARRIAGE could be. Who gives two craps what it could be, beyond what I personally make of it with whatever partner I may choose to have it with, if I ever do? And yes. It is YOUR argument. And it's not open-minded, because you work so hard to prove others are assholes with an agenda for thinking differently than you do. That's the antithesis of open-minded. quote: And, you argue AGAINST my example, PURELY because it's NOT bigoted. You argue against my example purely because it's NOT close minded. Yeah. That's why. quote: Yet, you don't see that what you call "my argument" of what a marriage is, encompasses ALL PEOPLE's DEFINITION (my argument was carefully chosen, after all). Except it doesn't. Your definition of a marriage does not include the gay activists' definition of a marriage, that is limited. So, it doesn't include all peoples' definitions. quote: I'm trying to open your eyes. Oh, that's rich! quote: quote: ORIGINAL: NookieNotes The "gays" you spoke of have their right to their definitions. Why get upset with how they define marriage, if your own definition is not-standard? I give up. You don't have the capacity to comprehend what is going on. Yup that's true. Poor logic often boggles me. Oh, and after your edit: quote: ORIGINAL: crumpets I would only expect fewer than 5% of the population to have the innate cognitive ability to just merely understand my argument, let alone agree with it. But, maybe I'm wrong. Does a single person on this forum even UNDERSTAND what it is that I'm trying to get across? PS: In return, I will gladly state what your point of view is (to prove I understand yours). If all else fails, go with the I'm-superior-because-I-understand-me-but-I'm-not-smart-enough-to-make-other-people-understand-me defense. Makes sense. -- Here's what I'll say: You have a right to your all-inclusive definition. The gay rights activists have a right to their definition. I have a right to my definition. Why do you think you have a right to force all of everyone's definitions on everyone? Why does it bother you so much? Isn't what your marriage means to you and your partner what matters?

Zonie63 -> RE: Male to Female Ratios -- Look at Ashley Madison (9/11/2015 4:42:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crumpets But, maybe I'm wrong. Does a single person on this forum even UNDERSTAND what it is that I'm trying to get across? PS: In return, I will gladly state what your point of view is (to prove I understand yours). I kind of lost track myself, although on the subject of gay marriage, there have been numerous and rather long threads on that topic in the political section.

longwayhome -> RE: Male to Female Ratios -- Look at Ashley Madison (9/12/2015 4:44:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact Fast reply... cloudboy, what have I been telling you for years??? Chicks don't need an internet site to get laid!!! If I just wanted a one-off, I'd go to the bar. Too true The amazing thing though is the number of men who believe that, if it isn't working for them in real life, the answer is to use the internet. I suspect, having never tried to use the net to 'get laid', that the same reasons it doesn't work for people (mainly men) in real life might just be the reasons it doesn't work for them on the internet. Having a good look at your self and what you can do for other people would seem a better approach than picking up a mouse or logging on to AM. No I forgot again, if no-one wants what you are offering, it must be their fault for not being horny enough.

crumpets -> RE: Male to Female Ratios -- Look at Ashley Madison (9/12/2015 7:57:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: longwayhome The amazing thing though is the number of men who believe that, if it isn't working for them in real life, the answer is to use the internet. Back on topic, at last ... this is a hugely significant observation! I think that single observation hits the nail on the head, when it comes to the absolutely phenomenally skewed NUMBERs of men looking for it on sites like AM, as compared to the women (who can get it any time they want, even WITHOUT the Internet). quote: ORIGINAL: longwayhome I suspect, having never tried to use the net to 'get laid', that the same reasons it doesn't work for people (mainly men) in real life might just be the reasons it doesn't work for them on the internet. Having a good look at your self and what you can do for other people would seem a better approach than picking up a mouse or logging on to AM. Personally, I HAVE used the Internet to get laid. It works (e.g., Craigslist). You have to weather the flakes, scams, and psychos of course. And the inevitable virus and spams, most of which your mail service provider should shove into your spam filter (if you're lucky). 95% of the remaining responses are still scams, for example ANY response that asks you to click on a link, or any response that wholeheartedly agrees with your "I wanna fuck" Craigslist ad (simply because "real" women don't just say "I wanna fuck too!" to a stranger, no matter how eloquent the CL ad appears to be. There are even MEN who will respond to a m4w add, in the (vain?) hope that he can turn you into what you're not, simply by asking. Some replies supposedly from real women actually look decent, but then they arrive with a picture that is easily reverse searched, so, while you got your hopes (and other things) up, it was all for naught (although one I had responded to, because I was iffy on it, actually turned out to be a real person using a fake tit pic, in the end, surprisingly). However, most initial replies with pictures fall into the too-good-to-be-true category, which, of course, are to be deleted on sight. (Real women just don't volunteer their pictures on the first contact. I've found the more real they are (so to speak), the less they volunteer ANYTHING in the first message). Personally, I've found that the "real" to "fake" ratio, on CL, given a decently well written ad, is about 10 to 1 (roughly speaking). Of course, that's 100:1 if you're looking for long term relationship results. quote: ORIGINAL: longwayhome No I forgot again, if no-one wants what you are offering, it must be their fault for not being horny enough. I really don't think any man can "offer" all that much which is different than any other man, in something as one dimensional as an ad or profile. What the man offers in real life can only be inferred by the woman. Women develop a highly tuned sense of what is offered by men, since they're so experienced at the task. Consider me, as a teen. I climbed cliffs all the time. I would always take the "shortcut" over the mountain, instead of around it. Switchbacks be damned, I would cut across the elbow, hop over the barbed-wire fence, tunnel under the locked gate, take the risk of holding on to branches so as not to fall into the stream, hop across rocks instead of using the further away bridge, etc. Over time, I developed a "sixth sense", where I could almost predict a swamp in a low-lying area that was suspiciously devoid of tall trees; I could estimate the steepness of the unseen cliff on the backside of the mountain by the amount of sky I could barely see through the foliage looking upward on the mountain; and I could estimate where best to cross the stream by the ripples and curves it made. With a similarly developed "intuition", I believe women have a sixth sense when it comes to "evaluating" the one-dimensional profiles and emajil responses from guys. Without wasting your time delving deeper, you can almost instantly judge a man by his prose, within a reasonable degree of accuracy just as I can judiously select a wind-swept bivouac that I infer might be reasonably free of biting pests such that it's a fair bet to risk bedding down for the night in the chosen spot.

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

7.800293E-02