If you find it necessary, then yes.
If you both don't find it necessary, then no.

IME there are two types of girls along this gein.
1. The type of girl that can, if they want, flirt with anyone.
2. The type of girl that happens to have compatible communication with a specific individual or type of individual where the interaction can be considered flirtatious.

IMO the first aren't all that difficult to find, but the flirting is actually a means of retarding meaningful communication in developing a meaningful relationship, more of a defense mechanism.

The second is serendipitous and should be pursued.

"Flirting" IMO isn't really a positive "skill" you can pick up.

If you are looking for a girl that "know how to flirt" what you're ultimately going to find is a woman that is testing you and/or playing with you for her own entertainment.

Spiders hide under them and control men's brains, like puppets, with spider silk running through open pores.


Because they're human beings with personal tastes and tolerances?


I lol'd at this:

Honestly it is not the clothes on women that bothers most men, it is that they have them on with all their pics.. Hey I want to see what they look like without clothes on like do they have skin...

Darn tootin' I am.


Sure. For no less than $4.99 a minute with a 20 minute minimum.

Not sure exactly how to read this.
Hey girls, wanna ask why u hate indians?
Hey, girls wanna ask why u hate indians?

Other than that...
Pop culture.
Wrangler butts drive 'em nuts.
Save a horse, ride a cowboy.
They don't hate indians, they just prefer cowboys.
El vaquero. Which is spanish for, the vaquero.

Do I believe in it like I follow it like a religion and let it define me?
No.


I believe it's just rationalizing. People wanting to have their cake and eat it to so they come up with some pseudo emotional lofty ideals to justify what they want to do.

I see "Polyam" little different than "I'm going to work 3 part time jobs rather than try really hard to develop one meaningful career in depth, then I'm going to brag about how all these jobs teach me about true professionalism."


I don't believe it's "cheating" though.
I see what some people define as "monogamy" as simply a social construct based on a lack of understanding of biology. e.g. "forever and ever, 'true' love," that's really just a 3-7 year result of a bonding process for the sake of procreation.

People are born babies. Babies want what they want when they want it how they want it. There is no real difference between a baby and adult except for how they go about gratifying those urges that used to make them cry and fuss. They're simply taught they can't just cry and be catered to.

That's all anything pretty much is. People learn ways to gratify themselves, reduce the risks/costs of gratifying themselves, then come up with lofty ideals to justify and validate the continuation of what they're doing.

What ideals are being forced down the collective throat anymore? "Everyone is a unique, talented, worthwhile individual, inherently deserving of respect, consideration; a snowflake. To be a 'good' person (i.e. to be safe in society so you can have greater access to what gratifies you for less cost/risk) you need to believe and follow diversity, multiculturalism, and inclusion."

What value would monogamy have in that paradigm? To choose one person to commit to, thereby not accepting to the same level 7 billion other snowflakes?

"Polyam" is simply a deluded means of pursuing self actualization through shallow gratification spread among numerous "partners."
Simply avoiding the "non sex" boundaries of "friendship" due to "fomo" making sure you don't deny yourself any convenient emotional gratification you might happen to feel a compulsion towards.

I do think a "polyam" relationship would be better for those that constantly seek attention, approval, and feedback from people, needing to constantly be around a lot of people than a monogamous relationship would.

I think other people would be better served by a monogamous relationship.

So, TLDR, no, it's not cheating, but it's not some higher level of relationship. People define relationships. Relationships don't define people.
Relationship types aren't fish oil multivitamins sold on Sunday talk radio with guaranteed results for everyone.

Depends on what they're addicted to. It depends on how it affects their life.
Depends on if they're actually addicted, or just don't really see any reason to stop, and it's not really affecting their life in a negative way.
Some people are "cutesy" using the term "addiction." e.g. "OMG! I'm addicted to these taco's! I'm going to eat them everyday!" then for a month they do, then they get sick of them.

And there's a huge difference between someone that has to watch porn while having sex, and sneaking out in the middle of the night in order to have sex with strangers for money to score drugs because they lost their job due to a random drug test and are lying about it so they don't have to stop doing drugs.

If I'm emailing someone on a dating site and trying to go on a date with them and they say "I'm addicted to heroin" that's a deal breaker.

If I'm emailing someone on a dating site and trying to go on a date with them and they say "I'm addicted to baby yoda meme's and jiggly boob porn, I'll show you what I mean on our date," that's not a dealbreaker.


Of course. I judge people all the time. It effects/helps define "good judgment."

Is this supposed to be under the "humor" section?

It's just a guy asking seemingly random people how much they think something costs in the U.S., then throwing out numbers.

Like Jay Leno's Jaywalking skit.

Other than that, in no part of the video are they really discussing the "true cost of U.S. healthcare."

At best he's reading line items off a bill.
Which is irrelevant.
And the people being interviewed on the street don't really know what the services "true" cost is under the NHS. For the most part they're just guessing numbers.


Yes. Nationalizing things = socialism to me.
I do see a difference between nationalizing and national cooperation facilitated by a centralized mechanism.

A lack of at least 6 toes on at least one foot.
I want to put myself to sleep every night playing this little piggy and coming up with what that extra li'l piggy does.

Take intelligent risks (learn new things) in building a better future.

A massage.
They last longer than quickie's and it's okay to be selfish and just enjoy them.
Plus when done right they absolutely reduce stress and tension and are healthy.

Quickie's are annoying. If you're going to do something, put the time and effort into it and do it well.

I already ate, so not really feeling the scrumptious meal and dessert.

And I don't really know what you mean by "heart to heart" conversations.
IME that generally translates to "Communication in the relationship sucks, so occasionally I have to ejaculate buried emotions and thoughts after artificially creating a safe space for me to do so and I expect you to immediately reciprocate and know how to respond in an expected way to things I've been cogitating upon for days/weeks/months, ambushing you with it."

I thought journalists were supposed to research, interview, ask questions, and report.

What class in Journalism school teaches this?

This would make more sense:
"Citizen activist loudly reads Adam Schiff his Miranda Rights to his face… "
Or
"Annoying git loudly reads Adam Schiff his Miranda Rights to his face… "

2nd Amendment. Gun ownership/bearing arms is a right.

Tell me why you believe anyone needs to speak or sing? Or congregate on internet forums? Or worship a god? Or be protected from search and seizure? Or be tried by jury?

No one needs to justify their rights to anyone else, let alone a government.
We could outlaw a lot of things if we start winnowing it down to what one person defines another "needs."

Laws aren't there to define "needs" by which people have to adhere to/justify themselves in order to express their rights.


Sort of.
"Mental illness" is a rather broad term.
Not to mention, psychologists and doctors are not elected officials.
They are fallible and not absolutely impartial or unbiased.
Also psychiatry, psychology, medicine is constantly changing, being relabeled. People used to have Asperger's. That's no longer a diagnosis.
Look up "Drapetomania."

Other than that, background checks aren't there to determine if someone should be allowed to do something, just to check to see if there's something that prevents.

Huge difference between mental illness and domestic abuse/assault. The latter are crimes. Violations of the rights of someone else. They go through a trial process.
Having a mental illness is not a crime. It doesn't violate another persons rights, nor (unless they're found legally mentally incapable, such as an i.q. under 75, or insane) do they go through a judicial process where they can argue against it.

I have a problem with background checks by the government to try and dig up dirt in order to keep someone from expressing their rights, especially without their say in the matter e.g. "mental illness/red flag laws."
I don't have a problem with background checks to determine if someone has a current legal injunction against their expressing their right.
People that go to prison, do their time, can/should sue for removal of injunctions against their ability to express their rights.

"Laws" don't magically keep people from doing things.
"Laws" are simply threats. They aren't "supposed" to be a tool for social engineering. Only "if you do x, y are the consequences." With "x" and "y" clearly defined as objectively as possible.

I do not believe any good law can come from "we think you may possibly do something bad sometime, because these people with Dr. in their name say so, or agree with us, then that gives us license to suspend/abridge your rights, and the onus is on you, the individual, on your dime, to prove us, the government, wrong. Prove your innocence and we'll remove the guilty verdict."


So, TLDR, IMO no one needs to justify their ownership of a semi/fully automatic rifle, anymore than you need to justify speaking.
And IMO the government does not have inherent rights to abridge individual rights.
The onus is on the government to prove/justify their abridging of rights, not on the individual to justify/prove their expression of rights.

How does her saying that make you feel?
When you generally feel that way, what do you say?
Say that.
If it makes you want to do something, then tell her what you're going to do.


Sorry.
There's no shortcut in manipulating people to emotionally respond how you want them to.

Hopefully similar to how they treated you before they were committed.
With the biggest change being your understanding (depth) of "why" they are (consistently) treating you that way.


Depends on the guy.
"FEELING's" based behavior is communication.
Attempting to communicate how they feel, which immediately responds to the feedback they get from how you react and communicate in return.
People communicate differently.
Lots of books on that subject (e.g. five love languages).

Someone "committed" is just someone that sticks around and works with you in reciprocating effort towards developing effective communication for whatever purpose the relationship fulfills.

Your understanding their behavior is just as, or more, important than their actual behavior.


Looks like healthy effective communication.

Apache helicopter.
Pchew Pchew

I'm curious as to what exactly you're asking for.

I mean IME most guys looking for a "sugar baby" just look for (young) women, develop a relationship, but with certain financial parameters and expectations involved, rather than women advertising that they are "sugar babies."

So are you asking for someone that is already in a "sugar baby" relationship but you want to poach them from a "sugar daddy?"

Or is there a belief that if you specifically ask for a "sugar baby" it's like asking for a "sugar momma" but requiring them to be younger, so more like a "sugar jerry springer stepdaughter that's rich enough to, but doesn't want to put me in a home?"

I don't think it's just you.
But you are just as capable of and responsible for elevating a conversation to where you want it to be.


Maybe that's their mindset too.


Then scream.
See what happens.

1. Because it works.
2. Because the benefit outweighs the perceived costs/risks, both of which can be subjectively rationalized to any degree necessary to justify behavior leading to fulfilling self interest/identity.

So the solution to (online?) guys sending emails hitting on women is to respond to people and give them conversation, which might not actually deter them?

Whenever I went into Wal Mart there were always people that immediately stopped me to sell me something (offer me a free gift card! ...for something in return. Or ask about my cable provider, or my energy provider).
I hated that they'd stop me, that they'd say anything to me at all.
So I stopped stopping to talk and say no politely. I ignored them.

Then Wal Mart started letting them solicit all throughout the store. So even though I ignored the first kiosk by the door, I'd get hit on the second, third, or fifth kiosk by sporting goods, in the store.
I ignored those too.

Last time I was in Wal Mart I had people that look kinda like shoppers (small little whatever company name tag somewhere on their person) stop and ask me a general question or small talk, and then go into asking me "salesman" questions (who's your cable provider, do you want a free gift card, do you use the local power company).

I just don't go to Wal Mart anymore.
I don't think the answer to hating being approached and annoyed by salesman is to stop, engage in conversation but tell them lies or stories.
Even ignoring them doesn't always work as they just adapt around it forcing you to adapt in improving ways of ignoring them.