Female only, no prostitutes please, I will only communicate throughso don't send any other accounts. 8 Cock waiting for fun Now m4w I am 27 year old Male that wants to have some Discreet NSA fun right now if that is possible for you.
|Seeking:||I Seeking Teen Sex|
|Relation Type:||Help Me Learn What Pussy Tastes Like|
At times when I get to see you I get nervous as if I had just met you and we first started meeting. Waiting for a girl to suck and Fuck my lookinng I'm waiting for a girl that would like to fuck my boyfriend suck him off and swallow while I watch and join in.
Brrr cuddle weather. Come out to the Doll House club on Monday, February 1st. PUT Getting to know you in the subject line, so I know it's not spam. Just imagine you coming into my house and I press you up against the wall and kiss you passionately and let you feel how hard I am, and just bend you over a couch and pull down your pants and panties and just thrust it right in. So if you are not down with a BIG GIRL.
Even if you're good with people, there are likely times when you're stuck for something more to say and start wondering what topic to bring up next. To come up with good conversation topics, you should prepare a mental list of ideas beforehand so that you can seamlessly pull up one idea and continue on with your chat. Form conversation around the other person, tailoring the topic based on how well you know him or her, and give the other person equal opportunity to steer the conversation in other directions.
Moreover, you can ask about hobbies, like favorite sports teams or books. If you want to talk about work, don't feel confined to what someone does currently. You can also ask about a person's first job or what they would do if money wasn't an issue. Listen actively to your partner's answers and ask follow up questions to extend the conversation. Featured Articles Conversation Skills. Expert Reviewed Why choose wikiHow? When you see the green expert checkmark on a wikiHow article, you know that the article has received careful review by a qualified expert.
If you are on a medical article, that means that an actual doctor, nurse or other medical professional from our medical review board reviewed and approved it. Similarly, veterinarians review our pet articles, lawyers review our legal articles, and other experts review articles based on their specific areas of expertise. Talk about the other person. The biggest secret to being a good conversationalist is simply allowing other people to talk about themselves.
It's a subject they are familiar with and that they probably feel comfortable discussing. Ask for his opinion. You could tie it to what's currently happening in the room, current events, or whatever else you may want to discuss. Delve into "life story" topics. Ask where your conversation partner is from, how he grew up, and so on. Have a few different starters for people you know to different degrees. The kinds of questions you will ask someone depend on how well, or whether, you know him.
Here are some openers for two other types of people you'll converse with: People you know well: People you know but haven't seen for a while: Remember what to avoid. You know the old rule: The risk of saying something offensive is too high, so just stay clear; these are often emotional charged issues as well .
Find out about interests and hobbies. People are complex, with different interests, hobbies, likes and dislikes. There are several different kinds of questions you can ask about interests and hobbies, many of which will themselves will near-automatically lead to further follow-up conversation.
Questions you could ask include: Do you play or follow any sports? Do you like to hang out online? What do you like to read? What do you do in your spare time? What kind of music do you like? What kinds of movies do you like to watch? What are your favorite TV shows? What's your favorite board game or card game? Do you like animals? What's your favorite animal? Your safest bet here is siblings and general background information such as where he grew up.
Be sure to respond enthusiastically to encourage him to share more information. The topic of children can be uncomfortable for couples who are having fertility issues or disagreements about whether to have children, or for a person who wants to have kids but hasn't found the right person or situation. Some questions you might ask include: Do you have any siblings?
If he has no siblings What was it like being an only child? If he has siblings What are their names? How old are they? What do your siblings do? Modify the question based on how old they are. Do you look alike? Do you all have similar personalities? Where did you grow up? Ask about past travel adventures. Ask your conversation partner where he's been. Even if he has never left his hometown, he will likely be happy to talk about where he would want to go.
Specifically, you could ask: If you had a chance to move to any other country, which one would it be and why? Of all the cities in the world you've visited, which one was your favorite? Where did you go on your last vacation? How did you like it? Inquire about food and drink. Food is a little better to talk about because there's always the chance of bumping into someone who has had issues with alcohol abuse or doesn't drink.
Be careful that the conversation doesn't stray into someone going on about their diet or how they're trying to lose weight. That can take the conversation in a negative direction.
You might instead ask: If you could only have one meal for the rest of your life, what would it be? Where do you like to go when you eat out? Do you like to cook? What's your favorite kind of candy? What's the worst restaurant experience you've ever had? This one can be a little tricky because the conversation could end up sounding like a job interview.
Still, if you can handle it carefully and keep it short and sweet, it can lead to an interesting discussion. And don't forget that the person may be studying, retired or "between jobs". Here are some suggested starters: What do you do for a living?
Where do you work or study? What was your first job ever? Who was your favorite boss in the past? When you were a kid, what did you want to be when you grew up? What do you like best about your job? If money was no object, but you still had to work, what would be your dream job? Find out why you are both in the same place. If you've never met him before, there are plenty of unknowns to explore just surrounding why you're both at the same event.
Ask such questions as: So, how do you know the host? How did you get involved in this event? Or, when relevant In fundraising? How do you find the time to be involved in events like this? Offer a genuine compliment. Try to make it a compliment that involves something he did rather than something he is.
This will allow you to carry the conversation forward by asking him about that skill. If you tell your conversation partner that he has beautiful eyes, he will thank you and the conversation will likely end there. Be sure to remain enthusiastic when you give a compliment so that you come across as sincere. I loved your piano performance. How long have you been playing for? You seemed really confident during your speech. How did you learn to put together such great presentations?
You need a tinder bio. Why do you need a bio? Well, last year there was a tonne of research analysing the behaviour of k male and k female profiles. They found that males are less selective than females in terms of matches shocker and therefore, women get more matches.
Well, these dudes also found that your chances of getting a match increase fourfold if you have a bio. Take it from me. I get a shit tonne of dates you can read about HERE. But looking intelligent and standing out helps too. So what do we put in to make that awesome, ladykilling, award-winning tinder bio? The trick is to take the format but personalize it ;. If I spend up to 77 minutes a day shock horror swiping, passing through countless faces a day and am then interested enough in you to tap on your picture and check out the bio, then I WANT it to catch my attention and not be like the other avalanche of idiots.
You seem like a smooth operator. It worked a charm apparently. Catching attention can be done in a variety of ways. I mean, The Tattooed Consultant used a goddam number sequence to do it in his bio… Find out more about that here. Walking around with a hot dude that has nothing to talk about will eventually get tiresome I said eventually. Show that you have interests you can talk about and can engage in a good convo. More on interests can be found in the bit about tinder picture ideas HERE.
I will be likely to initiate a thumb wrestling match or suggest one for a first date. This list is long but it uses random things for humour. It also highlights desirable qualities e. Find out what women want in men and make your own funny list like this. But parents do not generally find it necessary to crush their children, nor shepherds to crush sheep. The former you can hope to teach a better way. Which is after all true in some cases — not just in the ironic case of dealing with conflict theorists, but also, as has been mentioned, things like copyright law.
Which is to say, we can fight — but we can fight like mistake theorists. Or Guerilla theorists that treat politics as an armed struggle by individuals against the state, forever fighting to determine whether the State should release its control.
You should read about Academic Choice Theory. Help, I tried to go a meta-level up by making fun of this and writing about Blogger Choice Theory, but I just ended up turning into Robin Hanson. This is especially concerning because Robin Hanson is currently in Davos. My first thoughts are the old Buddhist claim possibly apocryphal?
I think its a dangerous temptation to diagnose people who disagree as ignorant, as the Jacobite article does. The underlying problem for both i think is failing to appreciate how deeply different the other sides worldview is. In that circumstance getting the antibiotics as quickly as possible should be the priority.
Important correction from my experience as a friend of some very religious people: The problem here is that the world is broken and too complicated to easily fix. To which, one might respond: Have you seen the Zetas and other Mexican drug cartels that skin children alive? Is that stupid, crazy, incorrigible, or something else? It makes sense to me to say that Pol Pot was evil because he had a third of his country killed; it does not make sense to say that Pol Pot had a third of his country killed because he was evil.
A counter-response would be that they are both phrasing the same problem differently. Something like — Evil differently-valuing people having power is too complicated complicated to easily fix, this is possibly the fault of said people having broken the world. Meh, ended up too much conflicty instead of a split… Maybe the counter-response would be that since you can specify each of these problems in the terms of the other you need some additional evidence that they exist independently.
Because of the complexity of the world it is easy for evil people to gain power and hard for good people to be effective enough to retain power. Achieving almost any difficult goal means that you tend to have to trade off other values for that one, make compromises, etc. Reaching the top levels of political power in the US is a pretty demanding goal, so you can expect that the people who get there have had to compromise a lot of their other values to get there.
You can refrain from some of these things, some of the time and still be successful. The point of setting up a system of governance is to put in selective pressures that hamper the rise of amoral careerists.
This has been empirically disproven. But, as I read it I kept thinking about Indian wise men describing th elephant. Now obviously, you build using wood or nails, but structures out in the real world are not built exclusively using one or the other. The tendency to naturally think in binary terms even while knowing this is incorrect. A fair framing would be that conflict theorists believe evil people cause problems and mistake theorists believe that dumb and crazy people cause problems.
Easy mistake theory and easy conflict theory are pretty much incompatible, but why not both hard mistake theory and hard conflict theory? I think that because mistake theory suggests the problem is coordination and the solution is compromise, while conflict theory suggests the problem is malice and the solution is winning, the two are made mutually exclusive in the case of any given actor. Maybe I believe that Scott is wrong about psychiatry but is motivated deep down by the desire to help, while a theoretical Dr Maison is wrong about psychiatry because he is motivated by the desire to earn money and defang the revolution by medicalising poverty.
Is there any belief I could hold where Scott was wrong for both reasons equally, or would I always choose one above the other when deciding how to act? A lot of social and political action comes down to talking. Saying what we believe, trying to influence what other believe. Maybe in the case of a given actor on a given issue, you have to choose one or the other.
There are a few conflicting Dr Maisons even more in politics than in psychiatry , but also lots of mistaken Dr Alexanders.
Although the most frustrating issues are those where someone is both incompetent and nefarious in such a way that the honest mistakes and the evil intentions make things worse together than either would alone. A lot of foreign policy issues seem like this to me, from the perspective of world leaders. I keep thinking of examples but they all trigger fights — no doubt people here can all think of examples of specific methods of combating unfairness that would be counterproductive, or involve a cure worse than the disease.
Not the only reason, but one reason, certainly. Hard mistake theory, hard conflict theory, easy conflict theory, and just enough easy mistake theory to create plausible deniability for the hard conflict theorists to undermine the hard mistake theorists.
I also think your articulation of it with respect to conflict theory, at least is still largely in Easy Mistake land, though, because the the conflict theorist you describe sounds like an anti-rational boogeyman. I think the thrust of my thought on this is that a person can be on board with the principles of mistake theory but not trust other people who claim to be mistake theorists to play fair ball, and accordingly adopt behaviors that look a lot like conflict theory.
I think the thrust of my thought on this is that a person can be on board with the principles of mistake theory but not trust other people who claim to be mistake theorists to play fair ball….
If someone repeatedly makes reasonable-sounding arguments that, on closer inspection, turn out to be bullshit, it eventually stops being worth your time to listen to them. My sister is a teacher at a public high school in a different part of the state, and has an analogous experience with people on the right. Would like to upvote, turn into an article, and turn into a book! Amazing post, and definitely something I had never explicitly considered before. In fact, I made an account just to comment on this.
That being said, I think some of these opposing viewpoints are nothing more than false dichotomies. People like having power and coming up with policy is hard. I think it might be healthy to consider these viewpoints from a Consequentialist stance.
Keep in mind that the hottest newest evidence on policy has to factor into your long-term strategy for making policy somehow. On each individual issue it might be worth going full Conflict Theorist until the situation of the People has been improved, but in the back of your mind you should keep track of which evidence would convince you that you are wrong. True in theory, but in practice, given cognitive limitations and the need to compete with specialists, any given person is likely to benefit from specialization.
This exposition makes me more sympathetic to conflict theory, but only on the specific issues where conflict theorists are clearly on to something. The three that spring to mind are global warming, redistribution towards the poorest, and making people less racist and sexist.
Perhaps having conflict theorists who scaremonger about GMOs is the price we need to pay in order to have people who actually take large-scale action against global warming; that may well be worth it. To get a system that avoids that, it feels like your best bet is to create slow cultural change, Scandenavia-style. Maybe the reason for that is their deep mistrust of the other side.
Then we need to figure out whether people who deeply mistrust the other side, but are wrong, are Actually Bad People. The left-wing are correct that the best way to deal with these people is by treating them like Actually Bad People i.
Thirdly, it sounds like the people who hate EA most are probably conflict theorists, and the people who like EA most are probably mistake theorists. Yeah, so I thought I might get this reaction, and should probably clarify. So you are quite aware that what you stated was wrong i. Can you reach back and reconstruct your state of mind when you said it?
Was it temporarily forgetting that issue, or deliberate engaging in a conflict between sides? But not, of course, equally. Wind is acceptable if you have enough dams to smooth supply, and nothing else is remotely economic.
Coal in particular is terrifyingly expensive, you just mostly pay for it at the doctor or the mortuary. I think the cost of goods more strongly relates to the labor spent in their construction than the energy, and to the extent that it includes energy it is because of the labor spent obtaining energy. My dad used to say that you could do anything if you had enough people and energy.
To engineers, energy matters. I would add time. The three main contributors to value are people, energy, and time, or the interaction between the three. Jim Crow laws were laws in the South that made discrimination against blacks mandatory. They are indeed no longer a thing. Warming is, on the whole, good when you are cold and bad when you are hot.
It looks more like poor countries being pro-AGW mostly in the belief that they can use the argument to get money from rich countries, everyone else dividing on ideological rather than self-interest lines. Goldman Sachs has climate change science specialists on payroll, and is buying water rights in target areas.
Or look at how much it did for the Sierra Club to get a huge injection of cash from big natural gas to go after coal, and ask if it did as much to help climate action as a cause as it did to give natural gas a boost over coal.
Policies that tend to make it uneconomic if you try to drill up and sell these marginally-profitable fossil fuels… you hate those policies. So do all the folks who work for you—your lawyers, business hacks, security guards—everyone who traces their well-being to your largesse will also want the oil to flow.
Some people with a little cleverness see how much you are likely to hate those, and build whole careers anticipating the largesse that will flow from you if you see them as solving this problem for them… by any acceptable means. Now do that again across a lot of other places where agendas can form. Find what David Koch wants, or what a year-old climate activist wants, such as a something-year-old buddy of mine who did a day vitamins-only fast to protest climate inaction… etc.
In principle, conflict theory is easily separable from political Manicheanism. In practice, it usually requires a crowbar. I should have been more careful with my phrasing. Possibly the clearest conflict-theoretic examples today are international borders, which very effectively preserve the interests of citizens of wealthy countries.
Also, at the risk of flattering myself overmuch, I suspect that an increased appreciation of conflict theory or rather, an increased wariness of overly-trusting forms of mistake theory is a common thread among many of my moderate-but-unpopular-among-rationalists political views.
By median I mean in terms of power, status, wealth, etc. And yes, the most recent United States presidential election was evidence in favor of this proposition. Incidentally, I am confused about the idea that public choice theory is a mistake-theory thing. The triumph of concentrated interests over diffuse ones is a central insight of public choice theory, and that insight is the major reason why I fear corruption and want more democracy on the margin. And it plays nicely into conflict theory; everyone agrees that of course concentrated interests are going to fight kicking and screaming against anything that reduces their relative influence.
Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. But since this is slatestarcodex, do we have any evidence that increased democracy reduces corruption etc , or are we just engaging in wishful thinking? And indeed there are many examples of this in practice. We do need more empirical tests of these kinds of questions, though. It must have literally just gone down. Because if not you should definitely consider doing so! The simplified version of that argument is that the more people you need to have supporting you to hold power, the more you need to provide public goods that make everyone better off rather than private goods benefiting a few.
And back down, or at any rate not up for me. I suppose that the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation is to blame. Most educated people I know are in agreement with this. Now the line is that Facebook is bad because Russians can buy ads on it.
I found your 3rd para confusing. There are a million technocratic diagnoses and solutions to various kinds of corruption, which go routinely ignored not because serious, well-intentioned people disagree on the prescription, but because beneficiaries of corrupt bargains are central enough members of political coalitions to protect their privileged position. The more a political system is subject at detailed junctures to democratic processes vs. See, for example, local land-use decision-making favoring incumbents, vs.
I think the housing crisis is mostly caused by voters voting in support of their own interests. Normally this is good. So in a sense, the solution is more democracy.
A point in favour of mistake theory in the case of the US election — in many other countries, with the same distribution of votes, Donald Trump would not have been selected as president. And in those countries, some other distribution of votes would lead to equally perverse outcomes, contrary to the will of a majority of the population.
Obviously, because your clear implication was that the US solution was exceptionally bad. But if the extent of your argument is that a solution is exceptionally bad because look at this one single failure in a marginal case, then that does look like you are arguing for the existence of a perfect solution that never fails. Also, your initial statement was weak on the facts. With different election rules, the campaigns would have been different. Whether intentionally or not, Trump traded millions of worthless votes in California and New York for thousands of critical votes in Pennsylvania and Michigan.
The popular vote gap was way to big for campaigning to shift. Anything that reduces benefits to that particular interest group. Preventing something that reduces benefits to concentrated interest groups in general probably not, since the collection of all concentrated interest groups is itself a diffuse interest group.
For your previous point, note that interest groups are not people. The logic of public choice implies that governments will give benefits to the concentrated interest group I am a member of at the cost of the diffuse interest groups I am a member of, and I am a member of both. Hence the free trade vs protection argument may be a conflict issue from the standpoint of interest groups but a mistake issue from the standpoint of the individuals who compose them. The only way for the average individual to benefit from policies favoring concentrated interest groups over diffuse ones, is if those policies are net positive.
Even if everyone is a member of some concentrated interest group that benefits from some such policy, they all still lose. I feel like the situation in the realm of policy is no different from what we see in the realm of truth.
Likewise, in policy you ultimately run into competing interests that cannot be explained away or reconciled. The conflict theorist is like the fundamentalist zealot, and the mistake theorist is like the fedora atheist. Both extremes are bad. However, in general our world still needs more rationality than zealotry, so I invite you to keep the current course. Suppose my view of the effects of minimum wage is correct. Then most of its supporters, who support it in order to help the poor, are making a mistake.
Have we ultimately run into competing interests? I mixed up two different things for the sake of brevity. I think we can say that ultimately we always run into some interests or goals that cannot be further reduced or proven right they are similar to axioms ; furthermore, in a non-negligible number of cases but not in all cases, as you point out the interests we run into are in conflict. I will grant that the… Raumgeist? Hmm, but maybe addition is the wrong metaphor.
As a libertarian, I find myself often agreeing with left-liberals on ends, but not always on means i. Conversely, I find myself completely disagreeing with conservatives on ends, while sometimes agreeing with them on means i. Effectively, I tend to apply conflict theory when dealing with people to my right and mistake theory when dealing with people to my left with some exceptions, like authoritarian far-leftists, who I definitely see as the enemy just as much as conservatives and far-rightists.
I have met people whose concern for the impoverished was of a different shape than mine, or a different degree, and I have met people who defined poverty and poor differently than I. Even those who viewed the conditions of poverty as capable of teaching the value of hard work and thrift when all the nagging in the world would not very rarely saw an issue with other people gifting the poor with their own money — just so long as it stopped with the handout coming from their own pocket, and not dipping into others.
They are proposing that baristas make as much as garbagemen or construction workers, however. Nor does it mean that, because of my outrage at how he has mismanaged and wasted his life, I would be at all inclined to take steps to make his plight even worse. My disagreement with various sorts of bleeding hearts lies in what kinds of policies might possibly improve the situation of such a person.
But, which the cases close to the boundary are always hard, surely it is still a distinction that makes sense, and should matter to us? What is being said is that consequences exist. In the case of people who spend more than they bring in, those people do not have money.
This is a consequence of the equation above. Many of us come to our senses and get out of it. Others continue to compound previous bad mistakes with others. Then ask yourself why childcare is on the list as a necessary, typical expense. Aside from what has been agreed upon by that worker and his employer. Yet this is an argument made all the time by the left.
Would they and their families, if they are supporting any be better off with a higher wage? Does every human have worth regardless of how much or how little they can produce in a day? Does every human have worth regardless of whether they are smart or stupid, a liar or honest, lazy or hard working, crippled or whole? I would caution you against the hasty assertion that it is typical of the Left to see humans as God does.
Could you point at conservatives actually making that argument? I agree with you! But I reject both of those arguments in favor of my own pragmatic utilitarian views. Instead of focusing on what people deserve, we should be focusing on what works best for everyone. Honestly, if that is the case, that just makes them even worse in my view.
So for the right-wing equivalent to comment outside their own ideological bubble, they pretty much have to come here. More expansively, it may well be that mistake theorists will only comment on the blogs of other mistake theorists regardless of viewpoint while conflict theorists prefer to comment on the blogs of people with opposing viewpoints regardless of theory.
If so I think we can discard said Hypothesis safely. They see Right-wingers around, and conclude the blog is a Right-wing fortress; they choose to move because they have other cosmopolitan blogs to voice their opinions with more peer support. Hey, I even saw one of them saying something like this!
What struck me in your post was that the examples you gave for conflict theories all came from the Marxist perspective. While cultural Marxists may be the most obvious, unabashed conflict theorists these days, the behavior of the American right wing looks like they have their fair share of conflict theorists, and Republican tax and health care policy often smells more of an undeclared class warfare than of careful consideration of the pros and cons.
Which brings me to the seconds point: The first part of this is more or less what I wanted to say; Conflict Theory is basically how we wound up with Trump. We basically wound up with Trump because Clinton got caught when she stole the primary from Bernie.
People in will have a choice between voting for D party fools and crooks who get caught, voting for Trump, and voting for a socialist. Right, Clinton got caught stealing the primary, which made certain groups realize she was in Conflict with them rather than just making Mistakes. The NeverTrump former Republicans are not going to even consider voting for a socialist, so the only way that a socialist candidate has a better chance this year than last is if the socialist actually captures the Democratic party nomination.
How likely do you really think that is? Not hugely likely, but not beyond the realms of possibility. People outside the party concentrate smears etc. Especially if the most left-wing candidates are still not considered serious contenders worth actively countering by the rest of the party, and are allowed to get a good run-up. The Democrats can basically either swing right and hope to capture the NeverTrump vote, or swing left and hope to catch enough think-the-Dems-are-too-rightwing voters to score them an overall win once the Republicans are weakened by losing NeverTrump folk to the Libertarians or to straight-up ballot-spoiling is that a thing in the US?
From the limited amount I know about the situation, both of those sound like at least semi-plausable options. Sanders had a major issue reaching minority voters, any socialist running is going to have to address this issue without driving middle of the road voters away.
For a second i did a double take and wondered if this was sarcasm or tinfoil hattery, and i was really hoping it would the former. Imagine my disappointment on reading the rest of the post and finding that you are dead serious. Clinton won because more Democratic primary voters wanted Clinton. Unless the Clinton campaigned managed to somehow sabotage both the vote and the polls without anybody noticing, they did not steal the primary.
As far as i can tell, the only evidence of the Clinton campaign doing anything like stealing the primary are emails showing DNC antipathy toward Sanders. This amounts to… what precisely? There is no evidence that this materially swung the election from Sanders to Clinton, or indeed that the DNC even tried to do such a thing.
This whole narrative stands on nothing more than bad vibes. She maneuvered to exclude all other serious contenders beforehand. And of course she stole the Republican primary for Trump. OK, that overstates the case by a lot, but search for [pied paper candidate].
Nope, totally stole the primary. There was a headline that Trump had received a phone call from Bill Clinton, encouraging him to run. Now, looking back for good reporting… Google gives me this link. They sowed early support of an ethically monstrous narcissist, and, as the saying goes, as you sow, so shall ye reap.
You might as well as claim the Trump got the Russians to steal the election for him, and Jeb Bush stole the election for his brother. I think you are wrong about the first part. I think she is a habitual conspirator. I could easily imagine Trump beginning his political career taking a massive bribe, and going on as he began. I could easily imagine Hillary Clinton starting out as slumlord, moving on to carriage trade real estate, casinos, Mr America contestants waking alone on some cold hillside, poor bare forked things, shrivelled by a night of shame with the judge of the contest.
It is not in question that people of bad character attempt to steal high office, nor in question that the Clintons are shady, sleazy, and corrupt.
The problem is that there is no evidence that the election was in fact stolen. First you have to establish that fact, then you can start pointing fingers at who did it. Have you looked at the details of the cattle futures case? It was a long time ago and the amount involved, about a hundred thousand dollars, is small change by modern standards.
DavidFriedman makes a good point, here is the study that shows how staggeringly unlikely it was that clinton got her money legitimately. On top of that, you have her blatant violation of security laws in hosting almost all senior state department business on her personal servers.
That brazen obstruction of justice on top of the violations we know about. Hillary Clinton blames Wikileaks for losing the election.
Assange is a smart loose cannon. The emails released by Wikileaks could be interpreted as evidence of the DNC effectively being an arm of the Clinton campaign. Both of these things are corrupt, but neither amounts to Clinton stealing the primary. Sanders was still able to reach the voters and get his message out. I think Clinton would have won the primary without suborning the judges, and I think she bent the judges and lost the general election because she got caught.
Simpler to assume that a politician whose career is based on a half-billion dollar bribe to suborn the Justice Department is telling another lie.
The polls show Democrat voters wanted Clinton, they got Clinton, nothing was stolen. As for why Clinton lost the election, the answer is basically bad luck. About the only lesson to be drawn from by the Democrats is that alienating the rural white vote is risky due to population distribution. They can still win if they do it, but the EC margins become narrow enough to be susceptible to bad rolls. Polling is an unbiased science now?
Properly weighted aggregated polling seems to have a fairly low margin of error when compared to real world results, which i think makes it accurate enough to draw real world conclusions.
How do you define success? If the other side is right in its mistake theory, then the policies the conflict theory faction is pushing are bad for it as well as for others. I believe in mistake theory, but my opponent believes in conflict theory so I have to deal with them in conflict terms. I was already aware that many people care more about ideology than policy.
Or to put it differently: Everyone agrees that helping poor people is a good thing—the bottom half of the income distribution pays close to zero federal income tax and the Republican tax bill did not change that. People disagree about what policies help the poor and about how much they want to help the poor, what cost in other things they are in favor of they are willing to pay.
The intellectual and moral arguments against slavery were well developed at the time of the revolution, but it took almost a century for slavery to actually be abolished. All the evil and stupid arguments for slavery were downstream of the massive power slaveholders had, and their strong interest in maintaining that power. The only way to resolve the problem was to reduce the power of the slaveholders in the traditional way, by killing most of their young men and conquering their territory.
The democracy was a ritualized alternative to the bloodshed, but the same fundamental power underlies them both. Mostly because the anti-copyright side is now much stronger politically than it was in That seems to support a conflict theory way of looking at the issue.
Just how far in advance do you think you can predict American politics? The first time that not extending copyrights in the U. Note that that was only necessary precisely because the slaveholders consciously defined themselves as such and interpreted any argument attempting to find a mistake in their presentation of the rationality or theology of the case as an attack.
Most countries were able to get away with abolition via compensation because both sides were still operating in mistake mode. An example is the Net Neutrality debate.
We all want cheaper, faster internet. Some people think that, since ISPs want to make more money, the way to go is to do make it illegal for them to make certain things more expensive. This sounds like a prediction. If Steamboat Willie enters the public domain, will you consider that evidence against your current model?
The war imposed enormous costs on both sides. If the outcome had been accurately predicted by both sides they could have saved a lot of blood and treasure, all been better off, with some compromise, perhaps along the lines of what was done in the British West Indies. So the decision of the Confederate states to go to war was, ex post , a mistake, as was the failure of the Union to offer them more attractive terms for abolition.
Under the act, the copyright would have expired in The act extended protection for Mickey but it did so as a result of bringing U.
The Sonny Bono copyright term extension act of was the first change in the law that one could plausibly describe as designed to keep Mickey Mouse out of the public domain. How could the Union have offered more attractive terms, when the South seceded before any terms were given? The Civil War happened because the South did not even want to discuss the matter, and on realizing it could no longer be avoided, they chose to draw blades rather than come to the table.
It seams to me they both have a nugget of truth to them. I think they developed a world view based on their own life experiences and think that that gives them some kind of special insight on how to run the economy and that their donations are purely altruistic to help people. Oh, wait nobody even mentioned it because our right wing president Obama just pulled something off the shelf at heritage and then dangled a public option before pulling that back. I remember someone on a Magic: Other countries have a range of policies involving various mixes of public and private provision.
Because the elites in this country have nothing but disdain for the rest of us and are quite content to see differences of 10 to 15 years in life expectancy between the richest and the poorest. The obvious question is what happens when we control that number for the various risks that low-income people have.
I believe that smoking, alcoholism and obesity are all inversely correlated with income. Is it a perfect comparison? Is it good enough to make the point that the lack of universal coverage in this country is killing poor people? It seems clear to me that some political problems are mistakes and some are conflicts. The issue here is really about the meta-level: Whether that rejection is a mistake or a conflict may be left as an exercise for the reader.
There are a lot of conflicts, and some groups have different interests. But not only that — the religious settler movement also have very different interests from main Jewish society, and would spend lots of resources to achieve ends that are not in line with what most people believe.
Or the Ultra-Orthodox society, which want to keep state support for religious practices and their own group. I think treating society as homogeneous leads to mistake theorists, but when different groups arise, conflict theorists come to the fore. People tend to find mistake-theory type arguments that align with their interests or beliefs a lot more convincing than ones that contradict their interests or beliefs.
Powerful people can and do get some mistake-theory-type arguments excluded from the public sphere. It seems like the best argument for conflict theory is other conflict theorists. So how do you respond to that? Rather you need to rely on building a mobilized opposition, and work to divide his base if you wish to successfully oppose any of his aims. Put another way, perhaps even if one is inclined more towards the mistake theorist world view it can be necessary to adopt the conflict theorist one for dealing with other conflict theorists?
Are they even separate world views, or just a reflection of ones level of social trust? I would think the appropriate level of social trust is one proportionate to the degree of social trustworthiness. By the way were you thinking of another way to frame the post-modernism post when you wrote this?
It would seem like, by your definition anyway, the post-modernist view would correspond with the conflict theorist one, just seen from a different angle. The problem facing someone who looks at the world purely in terms of conflict is that if they want to win and acquire power, they do need to engage with the world as it is and not how they wish it were.
The problem facing someone who looks at the world purely in terms of mistakes is that boy! Your enemies depend on the lies they tell themselves. Every piece of muddled thinking is a strategic weakness. Yudkowsky alluded about this here. I am a fan of the school that says you can quote someone approvingly without that suggesting you actually like them.
That being said, I do actually like Yudkowsky. Quite a lot, actually. They say they believe in the invisible dragon , they believe that they believe in the invisible dragon, but all their predictions about reality are as if they did not really believe this.
I also see Scott has used this phrase. I always often forget about belief-in-belief. I need to watch for that blind spot. I had the same thought after reading it. There appears to be a lot of melding between the conflict and the mistake paradigm. In both cases they figured if you were just smart enough you could fix the state with technocrats, but in both cases they had a fairly conflict driven ideology.
No one is saying the melding worked. Just that it was an example of the melding of the two theories. Up until then, all wars were wars of total extermination — but afterward, the theory was that if a large group of people could all do something wrong, it was probably a reasonable mistake.
Their conceptualization of probability theory — of a formally correct way of manipulating uncertainty — was followed by the dawn of their world peace… Of course… anyone who departs from the group norm due to an actual inherent flaw still has to be destroyed. I said it was fine, but from my point of view we weren't friends before so why pretend to be now?
So I pretty much took that as a "I don't want to see you again but want to let you down gently" Nothing flirty or anything, just friendly texts. So now I'm confused, is this just him "being a friend" or does he want something more? Don't want to come right out and ask him, obviously. I don't see why you couldn't ask him directly. If I were you I would send him a message saying "Look, I enjoyed dating but don't have much interest in being just friends.
Total co-sign on this post. I agree entirely with your post, Andrew, except in my experience, men are the ones who have the issue letting go, lol. I really think men have trouble "burning bridges" and like to keep the door open for something casual. I know this is old Mine is backwards from 1 in the OP. The dumper is the one who has kept in touch. I cut my ex off months after he dumped me but only after I realized he was doing this trying to be friends I guess with occasional communication?
When I called him out asking what his intentions were I got that he misses me, cares about me, thinks I'm amazing yada yada, but thought we weren't "compatible enough". Why even keep in touch? I'd like to know what happened in your situation. I was dating a guy for two months, and we had so much fun together, but I acted needy and he ended things.
He wants to be friends. I realized what I did wrong and would like to date again, but I don't know how to make that happen. Great post but I'm really confused now! So, I was the dumpee 7 months ago after a 10 month relationship. He did the whole lets still hang out thing but it obviously didn't work. I've done as much as I could to move on, dating etc and think he's probably been dating too. In the last couple of months he's been in touch a lot, invited me for dinner, hung out a few times etc.
Really can't he just be after friendship? He enjoys being with you too, and by allowing him to enjoy your presence without him committing to be your boyfriend, you are letting him have his cake and eat it too. I suggest cutting him off. If he doesn't understand why, tell him "Look, I wanted to date you but you chose to break up with me.
Being around you makes it difficult for me to move on and raises questions in my mind about your intentions. If you don't want me back, please allow me to move on by finding other girls to be 'friends' with.
Thanks for the quick reply. After 7 months with very little contact though I couldn't expect him to commit to being a boyfriend now and he probably thinks I have moved on from having feelings for him st least. I don't necessarily want that but I am confused why he's back now. Or maybe he thinks enough time has passed that we can genuinely be friends?
Which I think I know your answer to! That is possible not likely , but that is not the same thing as seeking friendship, which is what you asked about originally.
Andrew-u r a dork with extremist-type views, but I guess they let anyone call themself blogger. It's perfectly normal to be friends with someone you may have had romantic interests in. Your all or nothing approach says three things about you 1 you are incapable of a mature or meaningful relationship, 2 the type of women you date are probably easy niave chicks who are desperate to date you, and 3 you should seek psychological help for your issues seriously because you seem to be wrong most of the time and seem confident in your misguided views.
I think you're failing to see the subtlety in what Andrew is trying to convey. They aren't strictly his opinions. What he has posted is based on what he has observed of social behaviour. Social behaviour does not adjust to gender equality rules. You can't live in an idealistic world. You have to live in reality. Maybe I'm a pragmatist but that's what I think. Besides, if you do not like what he said, you do not have to read this blog. He is not committing a crime here.
It is rude to be so close-minded and make personal attacks rather than try to reach a dialogue. Make it into a debate, not an attack. Make your criticisms charmingly. But what if you want to get back together with the guy? Is it still best to tell him So what about this.. Me and this guy have been talking and flirting for months now and he did tell me on one occasion that he liked a girl who was in a relationship.
Although he told me that, he continued flirting with me and talking to me all the time. We have nothing in common, literally. He hates animals, I love animals, he hates kids, I love kids. But we still can carry on a conversation and enjoy talking to one another. He had also told me that he didn't know if he wanted a girlfriend because he was leaving on a mission has to do with religion and he would be gone for two years.
Eventually we hung out with each other and he kissed me, not once, but twice, afterwards he left because he had to go and it was an awkward drive home because no one was speaking. I wasn't speaking because I was speechless and as embarrassing as it sounds, I was his first kiss.
A couple of days later though, he texted me and told me he had thought about the night a lot now and gave me a compliment sandwitch. Where you compliment, then break the hard news, and compliment again. That's exactly what he did. He said that he didn't want a serious relationship at this point in his life which I didn't mind because I don't want either and he said that he was sorry if he made me think that he wanted us to be more than friends and that he doesn't want us to be more then friends.
What does this mean? Does he really have no interest in me whatsoever? It means he was sorry if he made you think that he wanted you to be more than friends and that he doesn't want you to be more then friends. This is so right. I said to myself "I'll be friends with him".
I genuinely do not want anything else but he will see it that way. He seems decent enough. He was not tried to wing his way into a FWB scenario, which I wouldn't let happen anyway.
HELLO, I have been seeing this guy for a couple of months, 3 months to be exact and he never directly told me the ' I love you" phrase but we frequently went out for dates and even kissed like twice but neve engaged sexually. He admitted and it was evident that he is a poor communicator, would all or even text for weks on end till I probably made the initiative and called or texted.
I eventually started confronting hi about it ad he promised to improved which seemed wasn't happening though he kept insisting I bare with him and be patient. Recently I called him and e couldn't pick and set a text that he would call me back the next day.
I insisted till he evenually called me late at night and when I asked him and even mentioned that I had seen him that evening with a girl though I hadn't. Don't no what came oer m but I was in tears,he noticed and quickly re-phrased that he I'm a nice girl and really caring but it seemed his lack f cmmuncation owing to his job is really affecting me and apologised for being a bad friend but insisted that we could still hang out.
I know this may sond dumb but I need assistance. Accept it , cut him off and move on. Easier said than done, of course, but it is the best move nonetheless. Andrew, Please - I need serious help here! I started getting involved with a married man who was apparently having troubles at home with his wife. We didnt have sex til him and his wife decided to separate and she moved states. He told me he was falling in love with me the day she returned.
We kept seeing each other, getting intimate He chose to go overseas with her to try and work things out. He told me there wasn't a guarantee things would work out, but he was gonna try. So that was no. And he communicated this via email! I found myself waiting while he went on holidays with her and hoping to see what happened upon his return. When he returned, he texted me telling me his back and his wife was returning.
At that point I knew they were reconciling. I found myself so sad during when he went away, to a point that I couldn't enjoy anything anymore. All this time, he kept telling me he had strong feelings for me. And that was what made me hold on for so long. Because I have feelings for him and 'thought' he had feelings for me.
When he returned, he asked to speak to me on the phone and said he hoped for a close friendship because he thought we got along and understood each other. Before he left on his holidays he also said he wished he never lost me as a friend. So now I am going crazy wondering what I should do. Has this man been lying all along? Was his marriage on the rocks? Were the holidays not 'marriage evaluating' like he said, but perhaps even a romantic getaway for them both?
He keeps telling me he cares, talked about our friendship for so many times even before he left. What are his intentions for a friendship and should I cut him off completely? Did he play me all along? Please kindly provide advice. He might have lied, but it isn't unbelievable that he could have been telling the truth. Either way though, the best and really only viable thing to do in this situation is to cut him off. Trying to be friends with a married man is playing with fire.
I don't even understand that kind of thinking. Wait till a man is completely separated, and available to even go on a date! Do yourself and these women who are in a life long committed partnership a favor, and don't set out to be a homewrecker, and then expect it to work out for YOU in the end. Bad karama either way. I wish I had listened to advise about not even being friends with a married man.
I thought I was the exception like the many women on Baggage Claim. I have only had one partner and despite being in my 30's due to lack of life experience I fell for the "friendship". He seemed like a genuine friend of 3 years. Then I realised that he can't help his sexual desires like I can't help my desire for a relationship. Understand that if he really didn't love his wife, he would leave. There are no ifs whats about it. You dont want a man who cheats on his partners. You want a good guy.
Power up girl and cut him out!!! You are worth a good man not a cheat. What about a guy who was cheating with you, but left his partner to be with you. Can you ever really trust him? Andrew a few months ago i was dating this guy. He approached me saying he wanted to marry me.
And i could not help it so i said yes. A few months later he again says the relationship can not work out so we just remain friends. I got angry and told him to pretend like we never shared something. But he keeps calling me and sending me christian messages. He then tells me that the reason as to why he approached me was because he wanted to be my close friend. Is this some kind of problem or a temperament.
I am a woman and my best male friend was apparently playing mind games. We grew very close emotionally. Then we hooked up. He was like "let's be friends" and I said "all or nothing at all" we'll either be together or we'll never be in touch again. And I brought up all points you mentioned in your post. He then said that I am having a 'jealous girlfriend syndrome' and that I am disgusting because I wanted clarity and because I thought basically what you stated in your post.
So he exploded then and said our conversation is over. LOL I'm still very hurt especially because we were very good friends for a long time. Don't hook up with a guy who is not courting you. Or if there have been no discussions of an interest in you romantically. Men will try to hook up with women, no matter what their intentions. And then for you to say "all or nothing" after that is like dropping a bomb on him.
Communicate your intentions, and desires beforehand. Just don't give it up like that, period. If you read the other posts Courting doesn't necessarily mean that a committed relationship will come after hooking up. I believe in due diligence. We pace ourselves and proceed with care, focusing on whether we are satisfied with the state of affairs. Guys can back off at any stage of the relationship and we have to accept that.
This is how I write off a recent episode similar to that of Anon Haha above: Thank God I wasn't with him long enough to be introduced to his smelly socks. We will not have to read any blogs after getting our hearts broken. It is called arranged marriage. I think you're better off. True, you may have shocked him with the relationship expectations.
But he didn't have to be a dick about it. Its not a mans way of saying that he hasnt let go? I admit I would look at your fb a lot more than an ex bf should. This falls into the spirit of category 1, even if he isn't looking for sex.
The point is that he has chosen not to be with you first by his action of breaking up with you and now by his inaction of not asking for you back. If he wanted you back, he would ask for you back - especially when you told him he can't kiss you because he isn't your boyfriend. Let me know if that doesn't answer your question. No at this point that definitely makes sense. But what about the part before with him acting that way because I wouldnt talk to him? Hes been trying to keep in touch since so I recently told him he was flirting with me by acting "couple-ish," and trying to kiss me As if we all act the same way with every ex, because when ppl break up they still do things like that simply because their ex's Plus we are long distance because we go to separate colleges anyway.
Andrew, can you explain then the phenomenon of the hit song by Gotye, "Somebody that I used to know". This person seems very emotionally upset that the person they were with cut them out of their lives completely, even though they were okay with the breakup. It seems a lot of guys related to this song. Doesn't this song demonstrate that men want women to remain in their lives for some kind of emotional reason?
And what would that be? I know a guy who fell really hard for a girl and posted this song on fb as she completely screwed him over cheated and didn't want him anymore and then cut contact with him well, at least for a while. If you listen to the lyrics, he was fine with the breakup. He just didn't want to be cut out of her life like they never even had anything.
But you didn't have to cut me off. Make out like it never happened and that we were nothing. And I don't even need your love. But you treat me like a stranger and that feels so rough. No you didn't have to stoop so low". AnonymousJanuary 13, 7: Otherwise he wouldn't have bothered saying anything. My friend's ex dumped her, and posted this song on fb after she cut him off.
He was very upset about it. Hopefully she's better off doing that. This is what I'll do when the guy I'm seeing is going off travelling for 6 months at least for this time. I don't want to see or hear about girls he's shagging in Rio or Caracas.
I think the general idea is that whoever is more upset about the breakup usually the one that gets dumped is the one that is more liable to talk about the other being "cold. If it's a "friendship" then they'll cling to that, if it's a demonstration of the fact that he even remembers her, it will be that, etc.
Andrew, I need some advice. I was in a one year and half relationship and I just walked away from dysfunctional relationship on New Years. The whole time I was with this guy, was just not good. I am not perfect, I made mistakes and he made mistakes also. We do have a lot of fun times together but I never felt secure in a relationship. There is a lot of incidents that had happen, that sometimes we both felt awkward each other but we still tried to work things out.
I finally walked out, he wanted to stay friends with me but I don't thnk it's a good idea because I feel like he just wanted to be physically attached with me. Now, I meet up one guy the other day and I like him.. The second time I saw this guy, we kissed. My ex invited me to play words with friends and exchange messages, he constantly asked me if date other guys , i said I did..
He asked me if I kissed him and I said Yes. He was so pissed at me, he started calling me bunch of names. I am hurt right now. Your ex just wants his cake and eat it too I love this thread. I really need some advice as well, it would be much appreciated as soon as possible. I might be a bit young to be feeling the way I have been but I assure you my feelings are real and serious. I had a serious 3 year relationship with this boy, who broke up with me before he left for college this past summer it stung but I understand the situation.
I went on to start senior year of high school He told me he feels like he won't ever be over me and loves seeing me when he comes home but I feel like that's really cutting me short in the situation. I'm definitely not over him. I'll accept even that type of thing just to spend time with him and I know I should stop I just don't know how. We always have such a nice time together I'm normally the one to initiate plans though, as all his friends are with him Sigh, so that's the having the cake and eating it too?
In the back of my mind I feel like he isn't over us either but I could just be really confused I am really confused. Should I stop talking to him and see what happens? And when he finally comes and asks "what's up? I haven't heard from you in a while Then point out that if he feels differently, then he needs to show you that, because so far it seems to you that he is losing interest.
Cite the fact that you are always the one asking to hang out. Then see what happens. If he steps it up and starts asking you to hang out, and - more importantly - keeps in close touch with you while he is away, then you can consider taking his claims about "never getting over you" seriously.
Treat them with cynicism in the meantime. If he doesn't get back to you, then you need to start switching gears and cutting him off more completely. Thank you so much, that was really helpful to hear. Especially the importance of keeping in close touch while away part of it all. I'll do as you say, it's what feels right. Andrew, this is about the post that I told you about how my ex tried to kiss me when we hung out, but what do u feel were his intentions or feelings when before that when he text me to say ""i felt like i was thinking about you way more than I should have been.
Hi Andrew, After 7 amazing dates with a gentleman he calls me up at 3 am to say he doesn't want to lead me on and that he thinks we should only be friends. I am thinking we should never talk again No, it's probably appropriate. As I said in the post, his main motivation for suggesting the friendship is to take the edge off the news.
While he probably wouldn't mind staying friends, he isn't going to be overly upset if you tell him politely that you'd rather not be "just friends. He has told me once before that we cant give each other what we both want and i gave us a break for two months. Its been on and off since Although we started out as casual sex, i didnt sleep with him on the first night and i knew it wasnt about the sex. Am i just a shoulder to cry on? Am i blind to the obvious that its never going to work.
Ok, here's one for some feedback. Have been friends with a woman for several weeks and that was my only intent. Initial feedback after meeting for drinks was "didn't feel 'chemistry' - felt like friends. I just wanted to be honest and up front" to which I replied that just friends is fine in my book. Somehow things got blurred and that friend line was crossed mutually - twice. A few days later, after some odd banter I got an "I am not attracted to you" email.
Can you go back to friends after that? Or is it now FWB? Truthfully, we enjoy each others company and we can text and email back and forth all day long, but while we have a good repertoire, friends could work forever but neither of us is the "one" for each other. The first time was messing around and the 2nd went all the way.
Hmmm, you could be the guy I am currently not seeing. Friends only we said, he is funny and makes me laugh but the chemistry is missing. And yet we messed around several times, which we shouldn't have - and how do we go back to friendship at this stage Stay away, do other things, and then possibly slowly reconnect again. We have done it before. What about if a guy 21 is having an issue with almost loosing his kid when the mother moves away with the child.
We've been dating since dec 17 to almost now where we arn't so serious. So he tells you that he has to be with the mother. When you find out this, it is the same time you found your boyfriend with the mother. He ends up comimg back to see you or have sex. Then trys to call off our relationship for my sake. But when I act like I like him, like he acted like in the begining it wont work. He was more into me than I was in him. Though now I am really into him. So that night was ruined.
Then it was my 4 time to visit him again because he dosn't even have a car. So when I went thats when I find out the whole babymomma story.
I dont know if I should let this go or just take it slow with him. We cold just stop. But were kinda into eachother though. I just feel more into him than he is into me now. There he is texting me now ; yayy! I wish we could just make this work. When a guy ends a relationship and wants to breakup but gives the line: There is no for sure reason when a guy ends a relationship and give the let's just be friends line because each man is different; however, there are 5 reasons why he would suggest those four words after a breakup.
Let's Just Be Friends: Makes Him Feel Less of A Jerk No matter how much of a lousy boyfriend the guy was in the relationship, in his own mind he feels less guilty by ending the relationship if he gives the let's just be friends line. He feels that by offering a friendship instead of a relationship it will ease the blow of asking for a breakup. This makes the guy who asks for the break up feel like a better guy. He thinks that by saying, let's just be friends, that it's an easier way of saying good-bye.
He's Unsure Of A Permanent Breakup The man may be feeling that the relationship is not going the direction he feels it should be going and wants a breakup but does have an honest interest in the woman. Friends With Benefits If the man wants to stay in touch with a woman after a breakup and give the line: Don't fall for the whole friends with benefits after a breakup.
It will not end a breakup but make you feel used. If the man truly cares for you then he will want to be with you and not use you for a friends with benefits deal. He Thinks The Woman Will Go Crazy Yes, women sometimes go a little crazy by creating embarrassing scenes, drunk dialing, and other things when a man ends a relationship and asks for a breakup. By suggesting let's just be friends, the man could think that it gives the woman a false hope that he still cares but maybe he is confused about the relationship.
He may even ask for "a break" but does not intent to get back together after a relationship. He Really Wants To "Let's Just Be Friends" Just because a man and woman's relationship didn't work out to how he planned then just maybe the guy actually means when he suggests, let's just be friends. At one time after all, the then-couple clicked and had things in common.
Some men feel that just because a breakup occurred that it doesn't mean that the two can't have any relationship at all: Conclusion Regardless of a breakup, when a man asks for the relationship to be over and gives the let's just be friends line, a woman will only know what reason he gave it by his actions.
Both men and women's actions mean more then just words. Just for heaven's sake do not fall into the friends with benefits trap. Friends with benefits will not glue the breakup back together by giving the benefits of a committed relationship without one.
I acted insecure and needy and he ended things, but asked to stay friends because he thinks I'm unique, creative and positive. I have realized the error of how I behaved, and hope I can convey this when he reaches out, if he does. In the mean time, I continue to date other men. I dated a guy for about a year. We talked everyday and saw each other when we could, became very close very quickly. We never truly committed and a lot of our feelings were left unsaid.
I was going through a divorce at the time and really wasn't emotionally available. We didn't even really get to talk about what happened. He just stopped contacting me and wouldn't respond to text or phone calls. So we lost contact for about 8 months. Well I sent him an email around the first of January forgiving him for everything that happened and wished the best for him. I wanted to clear my heart. He reached out to me and asked if I wanted to catch up after the new year.
I said yes so we started texting and have been for the last three weeks. But have not actually caught up yet. He texts back when I text but when i called he never called back and we still haven't met for coffee.
Seems I'm doing most the work. But i recently found out he is dating someone at this time. So I asked him about this and he said he was but its not that serious. I told him I can't be just his friend i have to many feelings for him Should I be friends with him? My heart says no because I can't deal with hearing about another women. But then I think we could rekindle something by just starting over and being friends I believe this is true in most cases, however I.
Have 2 friends that I once dated. Both were friends before we went out and one wasn't very serious, but the other was. He is my ex fiance. I won't go into details, but it did not work out and we remained friends from the time we broke up.
I still care for him, but not in that way any more. My husband talks to him on the phone abt video games lol!
They actually get along. My husband is friends with a girl he dated a long time ag and I'm ok with it.
Written by Ryan Jakovljevic Ryan is a counsellor and couples therapist with nearly 10 years of experience working with people to resolve relationship issues in a . I've lost count of the times girls have tried being "just friends" with me after I've called off the relationship. It's happened after one-night stands, it's happened after dating girls for a few weeks, it even happened after having a serious ricksteineralaska.com I know this isn't only something I've experienced. There’s a lot of debate about building attraction when it comes to dating. One of the perennial debates is whether looks make a bigger difference than, say, one’s personality.