News that makes us laugh, cry, or both

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Fri Oct 02, 2009 5:38 pm

Count: I know of a girl who tried that with a gentleman who works for law enforcement. She didn't know it at the time. He ended up rifling through her purse when she was having a shower in an invitational manner, went straight for the ID, noted the age and, when she returned, said "I saw your ID. Now here's mine. Try it again and I'll arrest you."

And most girls who are attracted to/hit on me usually tend to be underaged. At least, that used to be the case. As in, I was 20, she was 13? 14? Uh, no thanks.

Why can't the legal (and for that matter: the physically and mentally developed) ones be like that?

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Fri Oct 02, 2009 6:00 pm

Koumei wrote:
And most girls who are attracted to/hit on me usually tend to be underaged. At least, that used to be the case. As in, I was 20, she was 13? 14? Uh, no thanks.

Why can't the legal (and for that matter: the physically and mentally developed) ones be like that?

Hormones.

No, seriously, that's my answer. I was hanging out with my sister and one of her friends (they were going to the bookstore and I caught a ride) and put forth the theory that young adolescents should be required and taught to say, "I hormones you" rather than "I love you" to people they have the hots over.

I can't remember the exact way I put it, but my sister's friend ended up taking the basic rant and writing an English paper on it.

Once the horny gits get older and settle into development more, it wears off. Such a shame...

violence in the media · Fri Oct 02, 2009 6:27 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:I will never forget a night I was out playing live action vampire (I was 17 at the time), and this girl in a nightgown and no shoes came up and started hitting on me, hard. I was flattered and confused, but I assumed under the circumstances that she was a fellow player who was deeply immersive in her role as a Malkavian temptress and I played along making damn sure to never make direct eye contact lest the Dominate challenge I thought was coming rear its head.

...And it turned out that she was a 14 year old who lived in a halfway home and she was running around the back alleys of downtown late at night in nothing but a shift because she had broken out for a while. So glad I kept it in my pants.

-Username17

How bizarre. I had a similar experience with a Vampire LARP in the mid 90s.

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Fri Oct 02, 2009 8:50 pm

Maxus wrote:
Koumei wrote:
And most girls who are attracted to/hit on me usually tend to be underaged. At least, that used to be the case. As in, I was 20, she was 13? 14? Uh, no thanks.

Why can't the legal (and for that matter: the physically and mentally developed) ones be like that?
Hormones.

No, seriously, that's my answer. I was hanging out with my sister and one of her friends (they were going to the bookstore and I caught a ride) and put forth the theory that young adolescents should be required and taught to say, "I hormones you" rather than "I love you" to people they have the hots over.

I can't remember the exact way I put it, but my sister's friend ended up taking the basic rant and writing an English paper on it.

Once the horny gits get older and settle into development more, it wears off. Such a shame...

It might actually have something do do with a woman in an older peer group. The two most overtly sexual women I've known had both skipped grades; one in high school and the other in college. Of course, that's armchair psychology with a sample size of two...

And saying that the emotions experienced as love is 'just hormones' at younger ages is a bit of a simplification. My wife and I were attracted to each other in junior high. That might simply mean that we're clingy, emotionally stunted, childish adults who are unable to go beyond childhood infatuation or not brave enough 'try new things'. Or it might mean that we were coincidentally lucky. On the other hand, maybe people actually can be capable of determining if they're compatible even at a young age. Another armchair sample size of two.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Fri Oct 02, 2009 9:34 pm

Or maybe all love is just a complex interaction of hormones, physical attraction, and enjoying the person's company, and younger people might or might not be more likely to accidentally forget part 3.

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Sat Oct 03, 2009 1:26 am

CatharzGodfoot wrote:
Maxus wrote:
Koumei wrote:
And most girls who are attracted to/hit on me usually tend to be underaged. At least, that used to be the case. As in, I was 20, she was 13? 14? Uh, no thanks.

Why can't the legal (and for that matter: the physically and mentally developed) ones be like that?
Hormones.

No, seriously, that's my answer. I was hanging out with my sister and one of her friends (they were going to the bookstore and I caught a ride) and put forth the theory that young adolescents should be required and taught to say, "I hormones you" rather than "I love you" to people they have the hots over.

I can't remember the exact way I put it, but my sister's friend ended up taking the basic rant and writing an English paper on it.

Once the horny gits get older and settle into development more, it wears off. Such a shame...
It might actually have something do do with a woman in an older peer group. The two most overtly sexual women I've known had both skipped grades; one in high school and the other in college. Of course, that's armchair psychology with a sample size of two...

And saying that the emotions experienced as love is 'just hormones' at younger ages is a bit of a simplification. My wife and I were attracted to each other in junior high. That might simply mean that we're clingy, emotionally stunted, childish adults who are unable to go beyond childhood infatuation or not brave enough 'try new things'. Or it might mean that we were coincidentally lucky. On the other hand, maybe people actually can be capable of determining if they're compatible even at a young age. Another armchair sample size of two.

Oh, I agree that it's an oversimplification, but it's not too far off. The first half of adolescence has certain body parts speaking very loudly to the brain. I'm pretty sure it's a result of genetic drift (or flow. I can NEVER keep those two straight...); Back Inna Dawna Time, the people/creatureswho were predisposed towards, to put it bluntly, horniness at a young age, produced more offspring than those who were not, resulting in a population which is generally wired to go "Woo-hoo!" at the possibility of getting liad.

Heath Robinson · Post by **Heath Robinson** » Sat Oct 03, 2009 2:01 am

Maxus wrote:Oh, I agree that it's an oversimplification, but it's not too far off. The first half of adolescence has certain body parts speaking very loudly to the brain. I'm pretty sure it's a result of genetic drift (or flow. I can NEVER keep those two straight...); Back Inna Dawna Time, the people/creatureswho were predisposed towards, to put it bluntly, horniness at a young age, produced more offspring than those who were not, resulting in a population which is generally wired to go "Woo-hoo!" at the possibility of getting liad.

That's not what genetic drift is. Genetic drift is allele frequency changes through means other than the selective value of that allele. For example, if two people who have a mutant Vitamin C gene (it's already broken, so this mutation is neutral value) mate and have a significant number of children for other reasons (perhaps they're quiver-fulls) then the increase in the relative frequency of the allele is caused by drift.

What you're talking about is normal Natural Selection. Reproducing when young is (or was) a viable, strongly selected strategy (since you pass the trait on to a greater proportion of the next generation than people who don't have it) when resources are plentiful (as has been the case for millenia in the west). Therefore, us modern WEIRDs are heavily controlled by the reproductive urge at that age.

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Sat Oct 03, 2009 2:08 am

Heath Robinson wrote:
Maxus wrote:Oh, I agree that it's an oversimplification, but it's not too far off. The first half of adolescence has certain body parts speaking very loudly to the brain. I'm pretty sure it's a result of genetic drift (or flow. I can NEVER keep those two straight...); Back Inna Dawna Time, the people/creatureswho were predisposed towards, to put it bluntly, horniness at a young age, produced more offspring than those who were not, resulting in a population which is generally wired to go "Woo-hoo!" at the possibility of getting liad.
That's not what genetic drift is. Genetic drift is allele frequency changes through means other than the selective value of that allele. For example, if two people who have a mutant Vitamin C gene (it's already broken, so this mutation is neutral value) mate and have a significant number of children for other reasons (perhaps they're quiver-fulls) then the increase in the relative frequency of the allele is caused by drift.

What you're talking about is normal Natural Selection. Reproducing when young is (or was) a viable, strongly selected strategy (since you pass the trait on to a greater proportion of the next generation than people who don't have it) when resources are plentiful (as has been the case for millenia in the west). Therefore, us modern WEIRDs are heavily controlled by the reproductive urge at that age.

Ahhhh. Thank you.

I'm not that good with the squishy parts of science; my mine interest in biology begins about when the critter is covered in sediment and fossilized.

Heath Robinson · Post by **Heath Robinson** » Sat Oct 03, 2009 2:26 am

Maxus wrote:Ahhhh. Thank you.

I'm not that good with the squishy parts of science; my mine interest in biology begins about when the critter is covered in sediment and fossilized.

I paraphrased Wikipedia, so I can take no credit for the explanation.

Maj · Post by **Maj** » Sat Oct 03, 2009 7:19 am

Catharz wrote:And saying that the emotions experienced as love is 'just hormones' at younger ages is a bit of a simplification. My wife and I were attracted to each other in junior high. That might simply mean that we're clingy, emotionally stunted, childish adults who are unable to go beyond childhood infatuation or not brave enough 'try new things'. Or it might mean that we were coincidentally lucky. On the other hand, maybe people actually can be capable of determining if they're compatible even at a young age. Another armchair sample size of two.

My husband proposed when he was in high school (I had already graduated). We were engaged for four years before the wedding, and we'll have been married for nine years in ten days. I'd like to believe that we were both capable of determining compatibility and emotion. If nothing else, it's much preferable to believing that we're emotional rejects.

Count Arioch the 28th · Sat Oct 03, 2009 7:58 pm

Maxus wrote:
Koumei wrote:
And most girls who are attracted to/hit on me usually tend to be underaged. At least, that used to be the case. As in, I was 20, she was 13? 14? Uh, no thanks.

Why can't the legal (and for that matter: the physically and mentally developed) ones be like that?
Hormones.

No, seriously, that's my answer. I was hanging out with my sister and one of her friends (they were going to the bookstore and I caught a ride) and put forth the theory that young adolescents should be required and taught to say, "I hormones you" rather than "I love you" to people they have the hots over.

I can't remember the exact way I put it, but my sister's friend ended up taking the basic rant and writing an English paper on it.

Once the horny gits get older and settle into development more, it wears off. Such a shame...

I have heard that women who get older regain it, but they tend to be confident enough to make better choices in partners.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Sun Oct 04, 2009 4:58 am

I sure hope that California doesn't collapse.

I really hope you teabaggers are proud about yourselves. This is what happens when there aren't taxes; you have to cut social services.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Sun Oct 04, 2009 7:54 am

Maj, the hormones help. But you are right, a long term relationship isn't built on that alone.

-Crissa

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Sun Oct 04, 2009 8:09 am

Lago: they ARE proud of themselves, they hate social services.

And for the sake of Tzor I propose we stop calling them teabaggers and instead call them fuckwits. All in favour?

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Sun Oct 04, 2009 10:29 am

Koumei: Well, except for the ones they use. And they tend to use more than average. (See red states vs blue states or red counties vs blue counties in taxes paid vs services rendered.)

-Crissa

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Sun Oct 04, 2009 11:46 am

The anti socialist useful morons "grass roots" are always against welfare and social services in general without any self awareness of the welfare and other social services they consume.

Storytime...
At a government funded education institution I meet this girl. She is,
1) A female
2) A young person
3) A student
4) A student at a publicly funded institution
5) A daughter of a migrant with skin noticeably darker than mine
6) A bit of a overly made up tart

She identifies herself as "extremely right wing and conservative". Despite the fact that if the conservatives had their way she would
1) Be bare foot pregnant and chained to the kitchen sink.
2) Be expected to pull herself up by her boot straps, why in MY day, blah blah, whipper snappers...
3) Not be getting an education at all (female, migrant, not upper class, etc...)
4) Certainly not be getting a tax payer funded education
5) Be sent back "where she came from"
6) Wouldn't be allowed to dress like that in public
7) Wouldn't be permitted to have an opinion on politics let alone an actual vote

Another story!
In my high school "general studies" (political studies) class most of the students came out against welfare.

This is in Kurri Kurri high. A public funded school that gets extra public funds for being in a poverty stricken disadvantaged area, where half the class was on student welfare to keep them in school, had parents on welfare and probably had never in their life not in some way been partially government funded on a personal or family level.

ANOTHER STORY
At my university (also publicly funded, all students subsidized, most on student welfare, also disadvantaged area... etc...) you might THINK that the political studies class would see some of those typical leftist type kids.

We had "discussions" in tutorial classes (indeed thats all those consisted of). The majority of the class came to the decision that all welfare should be abolished because of the existence of an unknown number of an unknown severity of welfare cheats.

EVEN when it was pointed out that not only were they virtually ALL on welfare but there are actually people out there who NEED welfare to LIVE, some of whom are so incapacitated they cannot work in any way shape or form...

...the revised decision was that all welfare should be abolished and it was better the cripples and what not die than someone somewhere draw a second dole cheque.

Ganbare Gincun · Post by **Ganbare Gincun** » Sun Oct 04, 2009 3:49 pm

Koumei wrote:Lago: they ARE proud of themselves, they hate social services.

And for the sake of Tzor I propose we stop calling them teabaggers and instead call them fuckwits. All in favour?

I second this motion. I have stopped making any attempts to engage most Conservatives in rational, reasonable political debate because they are unwilling to acknowledge that the facts that they are using to support the documents are little more then propaganda, distortion, and lies. Nor are they capable of entertaining the idea that the people that are feeding them those facts do not have their best interests at heart. The fact that so many of them are crazy racists that can't stand the fact that we have a "[EDITED] President" doesn't really help the situation all that much either.

NativeJovian · Post by **NativeJovian** » Sun Oct 04, 2009 5:14 pm

PhoneLobster wrote:She identifies herself as "extremely right wing and conservative". Despite the fact that if the conservatives had their way she would
1) Be bare foot pregnant and chained to the kitchen sink.
2) Be expected to pull herself up by her boot straps, why in MY day, blah blah, whipper snappers...
3) Not be getting an education at all (female, migrant, not upper class, etc...)
4) Certainly not be getting a tax payer funded education
5) Be sent back "where she came from"
6) Wouldn't be allowed to dress like that in public
7) Wouldn't be permitted to have an opinion on politics let alone an actual vote

Strawmen are fun, aren't they?

Despite not being conservative myself, I feel it necessary to point out that you can, in fact, be conservative without being a sterotypical good ol' boy. Not all conservatives hate women, darkies, and foreigners on principle, or think that they should be cooking dinner, picking cotton, or staying home, respectively. Honestly, the fact that you present this as a serious argument just shows what a goddamn retard you are. And this coming from a guy who disagrees with Conservatives anyway.

Ganbare Gincun · Post by **Ganbare Gincun** » Sun Oct 04, 2009 5:30 pm

NativeJovian wrote:Despite not being conservative myself, I feel it necessary to point out that you can, in fact, be conservative without being a sterotypical good ol' boy. Not all conservatives hate women, darkies, and foreigners on principle, or think that they should be cooking dinner, picking cotton, or staying home, respectively. Honestly, the fact that you present this as a serious argument just shows what a goddamn retard you are. And this coming from a guy who disagrees with Conservatives anyway.

National Review's John Derbyshire doesn't think women should be allowed to vote. Neither does Ann Coulter, one of the most prominent female Conservatives in the mass media today.. I think this has a lot less with PhoneLobster "being a retard" and "setting up strawmen" and more to do with the fact that many Conservatives and that represent them in the MSM are regressives that wish we were living in Biblical times.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sun Oct 04, 2009 5:42 pm

Some fuckwits were interviewed on the daily show and when asked what was most essential to a good grass roots movement responded that Fox news endorsement was essential.

Let's see... Grassroots... Yeah.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Sun Oct 04, 2009 5:48 pm

Or the fact that Women's Suffrage, alongside the 8 hour workday, public education, interracial marriage, and the fire department were progressive inventions pushed through over heavy conservative opposition.

Whenever the conservatives talk about their heroes, they always bring up dudes who actively fought against basic civil rights. Watch any conservative commentator talk about their heroes and count the names before they get to William Buckley.

-Username17

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Sun Oct 04, 2009 10:01 pm

The conservative movement IS defined by being on those sides of all those debates. Furthermore the extremist conservative movement, which she defined herself as being part of, is defined as being extremely on those sides of the debate.

What fantasy world are you living in where conservatives, extreme conservatives, are...
Pro feminism/universal suffrage
Pro youth welfare/assistance
Pro immigration
Pro education
Pro publicly funded education
Pro low cut bust lines, mini skirts, and too much make up
????

Cynic · Post by **Cynic** » Mon Oct 05, 2009 12:44 am

http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/09/2 ... ooting.htm

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Mon Oct 05, 2009 2:58 pm

Koumei wrote:And for the sake of Tzor I propose we stop calling them teabaggers and instead call them fuckwits. All in favour?

Thank you Koumei! Ironically I'd rather be called a “fuckwit” than a “teabagger.” (OK, why isn’t Microsoft flagging “fuckwit” as a spelling error; no seriously!) Especially; since I personally never mailed a tea bag to anyone.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Mon Oct 05, 2009 3:06 pm

Lago PARANOIA wrote:I really hope you teabaggers are proud about yourselves. This is what happens when there aren't taxes; you have to cut social services.

No, that's what happens when you can't print money from your ass as it true for all of the 50 states in the US. You can never spend more than you can reasonably collect and in practice you can only collect from the surplus GDP that is ablve and beyond the minimum needed to maintain and (hopefully) modestly grow the economy.

Califorina is the perfect example of the problems of big goverment with big reaching regulations without a vague understanding that the state simply doesn't have the resources to pay for all of this stuff in the first place.