Why Don't Guys My Age Approach Me?

[Galteeth]

An anecdote that happened to me last week. I'll try very hard to keep this SFW. I was outside my venue on a cold night. No one was around, and an woman in her sixties who appeared homeless asked if she could come inside for a moment to warn up. My spider sense told me this was probably a bad idea, but I let her come down.
It soon became clear that her purpose was to try and have sex. I told her several times that I had a girlfriend, (which actually wasn't true) but she was incredibly persistent, to the point of, um, undressing and making vulgar displays (which, trust me, did NOTHING to influence me towards her advances).

After many, many refusals, and having to literally run away from her, she eventually left. The incident made me reflect on my thoughts regarding age. She had the appearance of a homeless crack addict, although I had to admit, the age difference was probably a factor in my disgust. I thought about it, and realized that while I wouldn't write off someone in their sixties automatically, it would probably be a hurdle for my attraction (I am 26.)

At the risk of stating something politically incorrect, I think it generally seems that women "peak" earlier in physical attractiveness then men do. I know girls my age who consider older men to be within their age range (not sixty, but say, forties) and although I know guys who are willing to be with older women, it is more of a novelty then a serious consideration.

I suppose this has some biological basis, as it stands to reason that men would be less attracted to women who were post-menopausal, whereas men remain fertile, and from an evolutionary standpoint, a man who has survived longer is potentially more fit.

I must admit, the experience was a bit of an eye opener, as it has left me wondering whether it will be difficult to be attracted to women my own age as i get much older.

 

[Astronuc]

My impression is that young males are so fixated on sex that it basically makes them easy to manipulate but the problem is that every little moment of consciousness-acquisition spooks them into running away from relationships. So it seems like many young women would like to build a relationship but they get confused at dealing with men because they can't fathom the level of ignorance for what goes on after sex. This leads (for many I think) to some emotional desperation which in turn leads to some cheap affairs just to prove that at least she is attractive. Once she has established self-confidence this way, she will move on to testing whether a guy she likes has a conscience about hurting women. If they do, any amount of physical intimacy is basically a step in the direction of a more committed relationship, not because the committing is voluntary but because the guy will have to do some soul-searching before breaking it off. A "real catch" is a guy who will work to avoid breaking your heart and avoid cheating because this will keep him coming to you for affection.

Physical intimacy is not necessarily a step to a more committed relationship. The commitment depends on the individual. Some of my colleagues at university simply wanted to have a good time without any commitment whatsoever. In some cases, if there was a commitment, it was temporary - so in that case, I wouldn't call it a commitment. I also knew guys who were quite willing to be dishonest (misrepresentation) to get what they wanted, i.e., they put their selfish interest ahead of the interest of the woman invovled. I also met a few women who behave the same way.

Sorry if this sounds cynical, but I don't think that an active belief in commitment is developed by people until later life. Early adulthood is basically spent trying to manipulate people into either sex, a (committed) relationship, or both. Ideally, people would become very good friends and when they reach a level of openness and honesty where they could discuss their relationship desires, they could negotiate the relationship they wanted PRIOR to engaging in physical intimacy. This way they could avoid getting in deeper than they are ready to reap the consequences for; but how many people do this instead of flying by the seat of their pants?

Belief in commitment is learned, just as any ethical or moral principle/belief such has honesty, sincerity, diligence, . . . . I learned about relationships and commitment from my parents at a very early age, and they, and my grandparents, provided me with good examples.

 

[Lisa!]

You should move to MissSilvy's university and vice versa

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=408133

 

[DanP]

Physical intimacy is not necessarily a step to a more committed relationship.

It's IMO a kind of friendship. It all depends what you want. A friend or a girlfriend.

The commitment depends on the individual. Some of my colleagues at university simply wanted to have a good time without any commitment whatsoever. In some cases, if there was a commitment, it was temporary - so in that case, I wouldn't call it a commitment.

Yeah, but serial monogamy is the most widespread type of intimate relationship in the western world now. Commitment is usually understood "for while the relationship lasts".

I also knew guys who were quite willing to be dishonest (misrepresentation) to get what they wanted, i.e., they put their selfish interest ahead of the interest of the woman invovled. I also met a few women who behave the same way.

It's just biology. The male drive towards sex is amoral in itself. Genetic drives shapes the sexual behavior of both males and females in subtle ways. Dishonest signaling may be a winning strategy, for both sexes. But most ppl are properly equipped IMO with the necessary apparatus to detect dishonest signals.

Belief in commitment is learned, just as any ethical or moral principle/belief such has honesty, sincerity, diligence, . . . . I learned about relationships and commitment from my parents at a very early age, and they, and my grandparents, provided me with good examples.

Is commitment an issue of ethics ? Id rather say is a simple term agreed upon by the partners , part of the social exchange process. If a couple has fun together without commitment, or even more extreme, life long commitment, I don't see any problem.

 

[Astronuc]

Dishonest signaling may be a winning strategy, for both sexes. But most ppl are properly equipped IMO with the necessary apparatus to detect dishonest signals.

In my observations, it's more of a losing strategy for one of the participants. It seems that irrational thinking overcomes the apparatus for detecting dishonesty - based on the number of failed relationships I've seen.

Is commitment an issue of ethics?

Yes - and morality.

Id rather say is a simple term agreed upon by the partners , part of the social exchange process. If a couple has fun together without commitment, or even more extreme, life long commitment, I don't see any problem.

I never indicated a problem with such relationships as described. There is no problem unless one or both participants are honest with respect to the relationship. I do see a problem with dishonesty - which leads to betrayal.

 

[DanP]

In my observations, it's more of a losing strategy for one of the participants.

I didn't say it's a win-win, only that may be a winning strategy for both sexes.

It seems that irrational thinking overcomes the apparatus for detecting dishonesty - based on the number of failed relationships I've seen.

Relationships fail from a plethora of reasons, not necessarily dishonesty alone.

Yes - and morality.

How comes ? I don't see ethics in commitment, for me it's just a contractual term. It may be unethical to break contract terms, but IMO commitment, or lack thereof, bear no moral or ethical load.

 

[Astronuc]

How comes ? I don't see ethics in commitment, for me it's just a contractual term. It may be unethical to break contract terms, but IMO commitment, or lack thereof, bear no moral or ethical load.

Fulfilling a commitment, is like fulfilling the terms of a contract, even when there are exogenous changes.

It comes down to making a promise and keeping it.

 

[ThomasT]

Fulfilling a commitment, is like fulfilling the terms of a contract, even when there are exogenous changes.

It comes down to making a promise and keeping it.

I had to look up "exogenous", but yes, I agree. But, also as you suggest, I would say that a promise of commitment to a friend or lover is more than just a 'contract'. And you seem to suggest that. It's very much a matter of personal honesty -- and the wisdom that comes with learning about and thinking about this sort of stuff. The honesty has, first, to do with oneself, and then with those whom one has, to oneself, pledged commitment to. For me, it comes down to the promise that I make to myself to be honest with the people that I want to be honest with me. Just like treating people with the respect and courtesy that I want to be treated with. It is a fact that in my most valued and long term friendships we almost invariably treat each other respectfully and coureously (while, I must admit, occasionally, bickering about certain incidental situations and circumstances).

Look, I know that generally you can't trust any human being. Why? Because everybody has their breaking point. We are, basically, animals. We are greedy and selfish, and all that seven basic sins stuff. To the bone. But we're also capable of reason, based on experience. And my experience has led me to believe that, in well chosen cases, my commitment to honesty with another human being can lead to lasting friendships. And lasting friendships contribute to a certain sort of peace of mind that I've come to greatly value. I, thankfully, have several 40 year friendships. These sorts of friendships are based on a trust that I won't allow to be broken for any reason on my part, and I assume that my long time friends feel and reason pretty much the same way.

I'm sorry. I've rambled along here. What was the OP about? Old guys hitting on a younger woman?

Ok, here it is:

I almost NEVER get approached by guys my age even though I'm a female in physics (there are 2 other girls max in all my other physics classes). However, I live off campus and almost every time I make a trip outside I get hit on by these creepy older guys. I've tried talking to guys my age and dropping subtle hints that I'm interested but it never seems to work. I'm so tired of this. Are the standards of older guys too low?

Ok, so raw is unhappy that guys her age don't hit on her, but older guys do hit on her so she asks, "Are the standards of older guys too low?"

Hmmmm. What should I read into that, if anything?

 

[DanP]

I had to look up "exogenous", but yes, I agree. But, also as you suggest, I would say that a promise of commitment to a friend or lover is more than just a 'contract'. And you seem to suggest that. It's very much a matter of personal honesty -- and the wisdom that comes with learning about and thinking about this sort of stuff.

And breaking a contract ain't a issue of honesty ?

 

[ThomasT]

And breaking a contract ain't a issue of honesty ?

Well sure. But the word, contract, has a sort of business connotation. And in business we're always looking for loopholes, aren't we? I'm a firm believer in never giving a sucker and even chance. But personal relationships aren't just business. They're much more than that. The covenant of a personal relationship precludes looking for loopholes and demands avoiding situations and circumstances that might threaten the relationship.

The point is this, the payoff is either in the keeping of the personal relationship or it isn't. If you decide, and promise to yourself, that you will not be the one to break the covenant, and you keep that promise, then you won't be the one who might regret what you did.

And this carries with it a very deep sort of peace of mind that can't be replaced by any amount of money or power or diversion of any sort.

And I sense that you intuitively know that. And, anyway, I like your posts, mostly.

 

[DanP]

Well sure. But the word, contract, has a sort of business connotation. And in business we're always looking for loopholes, aren't we? I'm a firm believer in never giving a sucker and even chance. But personal relationships aren't just business. They're much more than that. The covenant of a personal relationship precludes looking for loopholes and demands avoiding situations and circumstances that might threaten the relationship.

Isn't totally dishonest (from a moral point of view, not a legal one) to use loopholes in either cases, even if you know very well what was agreed upon ?

If you are looking for loopholes to get out of a contract, IMO, you are pretty much dishonest, and looking to save face.

The point is this, the payoff is either in the keeping of the personal relationship or it isn't. If you decide, and promise to yourself, that you will not be the one to break the covenant, and you keep that promise, then you won't be the one who might regret what you did.

Relations don't last forever. For some ppl they last a lifetime, more power to them. To be honest, I admire them. But for many of us they did not. You don't have to harm yourself by sitting stoically in a relationship only because you committed to her for a period, determined not to break away first. It's masochism to stay in any relationship which doesn't work.

About regrets, well, in this case, you might regret what you didn't do .

 

[ThomasT]

Isn't totally dishonest (from a moral point of view, not a legal one) to use loopholes in either cases, even if you know very well what was agreed upon?

If you are looking for loopholes to get out of a contract, IMO, you are pretty much dishonest, and looking to save face.

Looking for and exploiting loopholes is part of doing business. Business isn't based on trust. It's based on competition. Everybody is supposed to know this going in. If they don't, well, tough. Why do you think that government regulation of business and a certain mandated minimum wage is necessary? Without it people would be working 70 hour weeks to make ends meet. Sweatshops and child labor would be the norm.

Personal relationships are quite different. They're not based on competition. They're based on trust. No trust, no relationship.

Relations don't last forever. For some ppl they last a lifetime, more power to them. To be honest, I admire them. But for many of us they did not. You don't have to harm yourself by sitting stoically in a relationship only because you committed to her for a period, determined not to break away first. It's masochism to stay in any relationship which doesn't work.

I agree. This is where the honesty comes in. There's always some reason why one partner or the other in a relationship wants to end it. So, they just need to be honest and end it. Then they can both can get on with their lives.

 

[DanP]

Looking for and exploiting loopholes is part of doing business. Business isn't based on trust. It's based on competition. Everybody is supposed to know this going in. If they don't, well, tough. Why do you think that government regulation of business and a certain mandated minimum wage is necessary? Without it people would be working 70 hour weeks to make ends meet. Sweatshops and child labor would be the norm.

Personal relationships are quite different. They're not based on competition. They're based on trust. No trust, no relationship.

The point is, if you are the kind of man to use every loophole possible for your own good, thing which I can understand, you are likely to use every kind of loophole possible in a relationship as well.

 

[Char. Limit]

I've read a lot of posts here condemning all males under the age of 30 for wanting nothing but sex. And I just wanted to say, quite bluntly, you're all idiots. Just because a lot of guys that age are total morons doesn't mean every single one of them are, you know. And by the way, I wouldn't date a woman if the only one whose needs were considered were hers. That's called selfish in my book.

Going over my personal experience, I have one girlfriend, and zero ex-girlfriends. We've been dating for over a year, and it's clear to both of us that we love each other, but we're both fine with no sex (even though both of our parents are constantly scared that that's not quite true). Oh look, I'm a guy under 30, and I'm dating, and she's not putting out, and I'm not leaving her. God, but your stereotyping frustrates me.

Sorry, but I felt the need to rant.

 

[DanP]

I've read a lot of posts here condemning all males under the age of 30 for wanting nothing but sex. And I just wanted to say, quite bluntly, you're all idiots. Just because a lot of guys that age are total morons doesn't mean every single one of them are, you know. And by the way, I wouldn't date a woman if the only one whose needs were considered were hers. That's called selfish in my book.

Going over my personal experience, I have one girlfriend, and zero ex-girlfriends. We've been dating for over a year, and it's clear to both of us that we love each other, but we're both fine with no sex (even though both of our parents are constantly scared that that's not quite true). Oh look, I'm a guy under 30, and I'm dating, and she's not putting out, and I'm not leaving her.

Rofl, Go Char, go !

And yeah, why do you care what your parents think about sex? Or her parents? Do you lust over her ? Then get her. Life is short, don't let others control what you want.

And btw, don't listen to the bull that man over 30 or something don't want sex. This whole world revolves around power, money and sex.

Ask Bill Clinton.

God, but your stereotyping frustrates me.

It shouldn't Char. Stereotypes do not apply at individuals, but to groups as a whole.

Oh look, I'm a guy under 30, and I'm dating, and she's not putting out, and I'm not leaving her.

Yeah, probably you would after 30 :P Not necessarily leaving, having a female companion , a friend is great. But most likely, you would get a girlfriend, a woman who is giving you sex, and keep the other one as a friend. And none could blame you for that. And no moral code in this world can fault you.

 

[Char. Limit]

And yeah, why do you care what your parents think about sex? Or her parents? Do you lust over her ? Then get her. Life is short, don't let others control what you want.

Well, I still care what my parents think because due to college, I'm still financially dependent on them... Although sometimes I have to ignore their advice and find my own path. Example: took a trip to Kalispell to see my girlfriend last week. Parents didn't approve, didn't trust me not to get her pregnant. I went anyway... no pregnancy.

It shouldn't Char. Stereotypes do not apply at individuals, but to groups as a whole.

Ah, but anything that applies to a set must also apply to all elements in that set.

Edit: Didn't see your last part before... it's not that she's not going to have sex. We have romantic love for each other, no doubt about it. But she isn't quite ready for sex yet, and I respect that.

 

[DanP]

Well, I still care what my parents think because due to college, I'm still financially dependent on them

Yeah, money are freedom. Make your own and forget the parents nagging and IX century ideas. You are at the college now, they should give you more credit, and treat you with respect. At least give you enough credit that you learned to use a condom.

Ah, but anything that applies to a set must also apply to all elements in that set.

Not true. Get a course in statistics.

 

[Char. Limit]

Yeah, money are freedom. Make your own

With my schedule, in the town I'm at, with this economy... easier said than done.

Not true. Get a course in statistics.

I'm trying, but there's all these other courses I have to take too... maybe next year? I could slot it in next to Diff EQs?

 

[ThomasT]

The point is, if you are the kind of man to use every loophole possible for your own good, thing which I can understand, you are likely to use every kind of loophole possible in a relationship as well.

Why would you think that? If someone is smart enough and strong enough to take 'undo' advantage of certain people or entities via the exploitation of formal, or other, 'loopholes', why wouldn't they be smart enough and strong enough to draw lines wrt the people or entities that they might choose to take 'undo' advantage of?

Thoughtful people know that the joy and satisfaction of a long term relationship with another human being is a source of true peace of mind. Of course, one has to really want to be with and remain faithful to that person. And one has to believe that that person feels the same way. If either of those is absent or lacking, then infidelity is imminent.

 

[DanP]

Why would you think that? If someone is smart enough and strong enough to take 'undo' advantage of certain people or entities via the exploitation of formal, or other, 'loopholes', why wouldn't they be smart enough and strong enough to draw lines wrt the people or entities that they might choose to take 'undo' advantage of?

For the simple fact is not in their nature. They will only behave "morally" as long as it is in their interest. Shove that away, and they will quickly find the loopholes. Intimate relationships are not based on trust as so many ppl seem to think, they are a combination of cooperation / competition (in a healthy balance if it works) as are all social relations which exist in this world.

Out of curiosity, you vote with the conservative right ?

Thoughtful people know that the joy and satisfaction of a long term relationship with another human being is a source of true peace of mind.

We are not created equal. Some of us are highly monogamist animals, others are not. Some will find joy in a single partner for the rest of their life, others will not be satisfied nesting with a single person, and will opt for serial relationships.

It's really not about being "thoughtful" or a moral person. It's about our neurobiology, genetic / epi-genetic and social constrains imposing on our behaviors.

Of course, one has to really want to be with and remain faithful to that person. And one has to believe that that person feels the same way. If either of those is absent or lacking, then infidelity is imminent.

Yes of course. You stay with a person for how long the social exchange works. If it doesn't last forever, you have to be masochistic to stay in a unhealthy relationship just for the sake of living up to some questionable moral ideal which says "respect the commitment, don't break away first".

Commitment for me means for how long as the relationship is OK. When it's not, Id rather split up and try something new.

 

[JaredJames]

Commitment for me means for how long as the relationship is OK. When it's not, Id rather split up and try something new.

It doesn't matter how in love you are or how much you care for someone, you will argue, you will disagree. If you give up, you'll never get anywhere.

Obviously there's a point where splitting is better than staying together, but giving up too early doesn't solve your problems, it just moves them onto the next person.

Jumping from person to person simply to keep the 'happy side' of things simply creates an illusion.

 

[DanP]

It doesn't matter how in love you are or how much you care for someone, you will argue, you will disagree. If you give up, you'll never get anywhere.

So what ? You don't seem to get a basic truth: ppl stay in half assed relationships way too long. Past the point of no return. When not even the best marital counselors money can buy can do nothing but accustom the couple with the idea that they will divorce.

Obviously there's a point where splitting is better than staying together, but giving up too early doesn't solve your problems, it just moves them onto the next person.

Simply absurd. Do you think that your problems will be magically solved when you give up at "the right time" ?.

Jumping from person to person simply to keep the 'happy side' of things simply creates an illusion.

Ppl don't keep an "happy side" by doing this. Some relations work, others do not. Some persons will bound forever others wont. Take it as it is, without "happy sides", "happy tablets" or other nonsense.

 

[JaredJames]

Simply absurd. Do you think that your problems will be magically solved when you give up at "the right time" ?.

People who truly love each other don't just give up, put some effort into it. If you really can't work through it, then you give up and move on.

Ppl don't keep an "happy side" by doing this. Some relations work, others do not. Some persons will bound forever others wont. Take it as it is, without "happy sides", "happy tablets" or other nonsense.

If you simply leave and don't deal with your problems, you are just trying to maintain the 'happy side' of relationships and hiding from any bad points.
Nobody is perfect, everybody argues. You don't just give up.

 

[DanP]

People who truly love each other don't just give up, put some effort into it. If you really can't work through it, then you give up and move on.

This is a tautology.

If you simply leave and don't deal with your problems, you are just trying to maintain the 'happy side' of relationships and hiding from any bad points.

You are probably projecting the perceptions based on your own relationships, but as I explicitly told you, its not about happy sides and other senseless folk psychology. It's about real, true differences in humans and in their behavior.

Nobody is perfect, everybody argues. You don't just give up.

You mean, you argue till hell freezes over ? Personal option, man.

 

[FlexGunship]

This is a tautology.

 

[ThomasT]

For the simple fact is not in their nature. They will only behave "morally" as long as it is in their interest. Shove that away, and they will quickly find the loopholes.

Suppose they deem it "in their interest" to preserve the relationship, over and above doing anything that might be construed as a breach of trust by their partner?

Intimate relationships are not based on trust as so many ppl seem to think, they are a combination of cooperation / competition (in a healthy balance if it works) as are all social relations which exist in this world.

I think that, ultimately, it comes down to trust -- and of course sharing some experiences and interests.

Out of curiosity, you vote with the conservative right ?

You might think that. I keep my house and yard clean. I'm a good neighbor. I 'look' conservative. But I'm actually a 62 year old hippie. A musician. I don't vote either Republican or Democrat. If Nader runs again, then I'll vote for him. Otherwise, I probably won't vote. Maybe Kucinich. I don't know. How about you?

We are not created equal. Some of us are highly monogamist animals, others are not. Some will find joy in a single partner for the rest of their life, others will not be satisfied nesting with a single person, and will opt for serial relationships.

Well, to be honest, I seem to be one of those serial relationship people, at least as far as women are concerned. But I still think that the basis for each and every relationship that I've had, as long as it lasted, was trust.

It's really not about being "thoughtful" or a moral person. It's about our neurobiology, genetic / epi-genetic and social constrains imposing on our behaviors.

You might be right. Anyway this is over my head.

Yes of course. You stay with a person for how long the social exchange works. If it doesn't last forever, you have to be masochistic to stay in a unhealthy relationship just for the sake of living up to some questionable moral ideal which says "respect the commitment, don't break away first".

Ok, I guess we agree on this.

Commitment for me means for how long as the relationship is OK. When it's not, Id rather split up and try something new.

Well, "how long the relationship is ok" depends on the attitudes and behaviors of the partners, doesn't it? As I've mentioned, I have a couple of 40-year friends. This doesn't happen by accident. It's a willful thing, and I think it's based on trust and cooperations (even though there might be minor competitions and tensions involved here and there).

 

[ThomasT]

It doesn't matter how in love you are or how much you care for someone, you will argue, you will disagree. If you give up, you'll never get anywhere.

Obviously there's a point where splitting is better than staying together, but giving up too early doesn't solve your problems, it just moves them onto the next person.

Jumping from person to person simply to keep the 'happy side' of things simply creates an illusion.

I agree with your statements here, even though I haven't always been able to live up to the wisdom that I think they express.

It just hit me. Have we gotten off topic? What is the topic, anyway?

Ah yes, a young girl who is being hit on by older men but not by men her age. I still haven't figured that out. Hopefully she will clarify.

 

[DanP]

You might think that. I keep my house and yard clean. I'm a good neighbor. I 'look' conservative. But I'm actually a 62 year old hippie. A musician. I don't vote either Republican or Democrat. If Nader runs again, then I'll vote for him. Otherwise, I probably won't vote. Maybe Kucinich. I don't know. How about you?

I believe in social liberalism, but I also support a free market economy as free of regulations as possible, death penalty, preemptive wars, the right of ppl to bear weapons is for me fundamental, I resent egalitarianism in anything but social rights, area where I resent anyone trying to rob another of human of the slightest right, I find social injustice natural and this affects my ideas on taxation, I don't believe too much in core values of today's society as nuclear family and religion. I don't vote very idealistically, Id vote anything as long as it suits my economic plans for the next years.

 

[DanP]

Well, "how long the relationship is ok" depends on the attitudes and behaviors of the partners, doesn't it? As I've mentioned, I have a couple of 40-year friends. This doesn't happen by accident. It's a willful thing, and I think it's based on trust and cooperations (even though there might be minor competitions and tensions involved here and there).

I also have a couple of friends and the relation lasts for almost 20 years, but heck , it was a bumpy ride. But indeed will to preserve the relation exists.

 

[ThomasT]

I believe in social liberalism, but I also support a free market economy as free of regulations as possible ...

Me too. As much as is possible while still retaining an essential equality and freedom of opportunity.

... death penalty ...

Yes, I wholeheartedly support the death penalty. I consider it quite humane and efficacious considering the alternative, life in prison.

... preemptive wars ...

No, no no. I don't support this at all. Not for any reason. I support a strong defense precluding the need for preemptive wars.

... the right of ppl to bear weapons is for me fundamental ...

Yes. For me too. I don't happen to have any guns right now, but I certainly don't want any laws prohibiting me from having them.

I resent egalitarianism in anything but social rights ...

As far as I know, egalitarianism is only meaningful in a social context. I'm first and foremost an egalitarian, and only secondarily a libertarian. Equality of justice and opportunity, and cooperation are, in my view, far more important to a healthy society, than competition and the protection of the rights of individuals to exploit others.

... area where I resent anyone trying to rob another of human of the slightest right ...

Then you're essentially an egalitarian.

I find social injustice natural and this affects my ideas on taxation ...

Or, maybe you're not essentially an egalitarian.

I don't believe too much in core values of today's society as nuclear family and religion.

I believe in the utility of these things even though I'm an atheist and my family is mostly gone.

I don't vote very idealistically, Id vote anything as long as it suits my economic plans for the next years.

I vote idealistically, or I don't vote. So, mostly I don't vote.

 

[ThomasT]

I also have a couple of friends and the relation lasts for almost 20 years, but heck , it was a bumpy ride. But indeed will to preserve the relation exists.

Well, people are people. A somewhat bumpy ride is guaranteed. But hopefully you will have these friends for life. You'll be happy that you did, I'm sure.

Ok, we are definitely off topic. What is it with women my age, anyway? Well, I'm 62 and, unless I'm just kidding myself, I seem to be getting some very good vibes from what I consider to be some very hot 40 to 50 year old women. Would I hit on our 20 year old OP? Probably not. But, has she figured out what it is with guys her age yet?

 

[DanP]

As far as I know, egalitarianism is only meaningful in a social context. I'm first and foremost an egalitarian, and only secondarily a libertarian. Equality of justice and opportunity, and cooperation are, in my view, far more important to a healthy society, than competition and the protection of the rights of individuals to exploit others.

Yes, in the social context. but for me this context starts and stops with equality before the laws of the realms and equality in the set of rights granted and protected by a constitution (or whatever else).

Id doesn't require anything else for me, such as equality of opportunity. We are not born equal neither genetically, neither as a social position. Social injustice is natural.

Then you're essentially an egalitarian.

Not quite, I don't have a problem with rich getting richer, and poor getting poorer. I don't see why the more capable members of our society should pay higher taxes, only because they have higher incomes. A flat percent should be employed, and even in this situation, rich would end up paying loads more than the rest of the population.

 

[ThomasT]

Social injustice is natural.

So is cruelty and the exploitation of the weak. But, supposedly, we have, as civilized human beings, evolved beyond justifying those things.

I don't have a problem with rich getting richer, and poor getting poorer.

Well, I suppose that's a good thing, because that seems to be the general trend. Of course it isn't a problem for the rich or near rich. Or even the upper middle class for the most part. The middle class begin to feel it when their dollars don't buy what they did five years past. It's mainly a problem for the working poor and the unemployed. And it's this, latter, segment of society that seems to be growing fastest.

I don't see why the more capable members of our society should pay higher taxes, only because they have higher incomes.

It's because egalitarianism is one of the tenets of American society. But, not to worry, if you make enough money to get into the higher tax brackets, and can afford really good accountants and lawyers, then it's also quite possible to actually pay a lower tax percentage than people whose incomes are, say, half yours.

A flat percent should be employed ...

I agree with this. Flat tax. Absolutely no tax credits or deductions. Period.

... and even in this situation, rich would end up paying loads more than the rest of the population.

Not "even in this situation", but only in this situation would the rich actually pay the percentage at which they're purportedly being taxed.

How much did, say, General Electric pay in US federal taxes last year? How much the year before? With a flat tax of, say, 15% and no deductions, loopholes, etc., then most large corporations, and very wealthy individuals, would be paying far more than they now pay in taxes.

My personal view is that if you're making a ton of money in this wonderful country, then you should be willing to give something back, gladly, with no reservations.

I was going to write something else, but I just realized that this is about as far off topic as I've ever seen a thread get. Probably mostly my fault. Anyway, I enjoy discussing with you Dan.

Maybe you could start another thread on some of what we're talking about, and convince me to accept your point of view? Not that I disagree entirely. Just wrt a few things. But I'm no expert on anything, and always willing to listen to and be persuaded by a wiser view.

 

[tauon]

Okay, so I now understand that girls were expecting ME to make the first step... hmm, I see now why I failed... and why I am DOOMED.

 

[JaredJames]

This thread will die one day...

_{(It takes off topic to another level.)}

 

[ajclarke]

You're almost surely being too subtle. You overestimate the cunning of the male of this species.

^^ This. Never ever assume men understand what you are thinking, hinting or saying :P

For all our intelligence (some of us that is, I am not saying everyone is intelligent) we have no idea what the mind of a woman is like! :P

 

[Char. Limit]

^^ This. Never ever assume men understand what you are thinking, hinting or saying :P

For all our intelligence (some of us that is, I am not saying everyone is intelligent) we have no idea what the mind of a woman is like! :P

Exactly. I tell my girlfriend this all the time.

 

[Galteeth]

^^ This. Never ever assume men understand what you are thinking, hinting or saying :P

For all our intelligence (some of us that is, I am not saying everyone is intelligent) we have no idea what the mind of a woman is like! :P

Or more generally, what's really going on inside someone else's mind, regardless of gender.