On 2002-07-23 19:12, Heliotrope wrote:

well, why *can't* things work between a 22 year old and a 35 year old? Who makes these stupid rules? Why does a man always have to be older than a woman and why is an age difference over 5-10 years some sort of taboo? I think it's stupid and pointless.

Besides, even if a long term relationship wouldn't work (and they sometimes can and do), you can still have fun with each other.

I agree, Susan. In fact, the two women I dated most recently before my ill-fated marraige were born in 1971 and 1973, respectively. True, I didn't make a "luuuuuv connection" with either woman, but....I might have. It wasn't age that doomed those would-have-been relationships, just lousy timing.

Who made up those "stupid rules"? Probably those stupid GIs. But since most of them are now worm-meal, who gives a damn what they think??? Let the bastards spin in their graves, while we do what we feel is right. (This, from an anti-Awakening zealot! :lol

On 2002-07-23 17:48, Earthshine wrote:

Back to the purity issue, I think you have some good ideas there Kev. A soulmate might be what we are all looking for. Maybe that trumps Generational theory and all the posting in the world. :smile:

Thanks, Earthshine.

Then again, perhaps what I wrote in my last post was at least 70% bullshit. Maybe I'm just jealous because other people are "getting some" and I'm not (largely, the story of my life)-- even though it's my own damn fault for being too bashful to go for it, and for having pre- or post-seasonal standards far too high for the Turning we're in (or WERE in until September 11th).

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kevin Parker '59 on 2002-07-23 21:51 ]</font>

On 2002-07-23 18:14, Xer of Evil wrote:

On 2002-07-23 17:25, Chet wrote:
I might date (laugh at me) someone who isn't obsessed with making a permanent relationship with me (hence the 35 year old woman that simply CANNOT get hitched to a 22 year old) and will see the relationship for what it is (sex, massages, the occasional hug on lonely night and *love*).

Hmm ... where did you say you live?

:smile:

XoE

Gulp :lol:

On 2002-07-23 21:37, Kevin Parker '59 wrote:

On 2002-07-23 19:12, Heliotrope wrote:

well, why *can't* things work between a 22 year old and a 35 year old? Who makes these stupid rules? Why does a man always have to be older than a woman and why is an age difference over 5-10 years some sort of taboo? I think it's stupid and pointless.

Besides, even if a long term relationship wouldn't work (and they sometimes can and do), you can still have fun with each other.

I agree, Susan. In fact, the two women I dated most recently before my ill-fated marraige were born in 1971 and 1973, respectively. True, I didn't make a "luuuuuv connection" with either woman, but....I might have. It wasn't age that doomed those would-have-been relationships, just lousy timing.

Who made up those "stupid rules"? Probably those stupid GIs. But since most of them are now worm-meal, who gives a damn what they think??? Let the bastards spin in their graves, while we do what we feel is right. (This, from an anti-Awakening zealot! :lol

WORM MEAL???? Ewwwwwww!

On 2002-07-23 18:02, Neisha '67 wrote:
Earthshine, you haven't seen Monsoon Wedding, have you? Go see it. It's a hoot, and it will give you a better sense of what an Indian wedding is really like. And no, the bride pretty much has no say as to the details of the festivities.

Neisha,
No I have not seen the movie. I didn't know you were Indian. - A friend of mine is too, and she had a wedding like you describe.

While I now understand more of what you mean, and respect your culture, I am glad I am a Yankee and am more comfortable with the idea of choice in the wedding for the people having to do the hitching! :lol:

I am glad your wedding was a happy time for you :smile:

On 2002-07-23 22:51, Chet wrote:

On 2002-07-23 18:14, Xer of Evil wrote:

On 2002-07-23 17:25, Chet wrote:
I might date (laugh at me) someone who isn't obsessed with making a permanent relationship with me (hence the 35 year old woman that simply CANNOT get hitched to a 22 year old) and will see the relationship for what it is (sex, massages, the occasional hug on lonely night and *love*).

Hmm ... where did you say you live?
:smile:
XoE

Gulp :lol:

WTF is this? Mr. 22 picks up all the ladies? Damned late wavers...
:lol:

Kevin, don't feel bad about 'not getting any'
it happens to the best of us at times. When I slag on boomers about the free love and dope thing, it is because of the hypocrisy, not because those things are necessarily wrong.

And by the way Jason, watch out for those 35 year old women, a lot of them hear the biological clock ticking and would be HAPPY to marry a 22 year old guy if he seemed emotionally and financially stable. The just sex thing usually only works for rock stars, actors and ex-presidents who don't inhale.
:wink:

On 2002-07-24 09:19, Earthshine wrote:


Neisha,
No I have not seen the movie. I didn't know you were Indian. - A friend of mine is too, and she had a wedding like you describe.

While I now understand more of what you mean, and respect your culture, I am glad I am a Yankee and am more comfortable with the idea of choice in the wedding for the people having to do the hitching! :lol:

I am glad your wedding was a happy time for you :smile:

Oh, well, it's not exactly my culture. I was born in suburban Chicago. I couldn't reproduce what I experienced with a gun to my head!

The whole thing was sort of silly (but also fun and highly entertaining) because we had been living together for two years and dating for five years by the time we got married in 1995. So, being married wasn't much of a lifestyle change for us. We just went from being rebellious to being legit. I think the whole Indian wedding "system" is set up for a bride and groom who meet just a few days before the wedding. Or at least to the extent that there is a system, it's pretty much loosely organized chaos with lots of last-minute stuff that gets added or forgotten. Indian weddings aren't as tightly scripted as Western ones.

But, it somehow didn't bother me to have such a big honkin' wedding because it was such a joint effort of so many people. Everyone really felt like they had a part to play in the festivities. Oh, and, we *did* get to pick out the band!

But, I can see that, for the type of people who dream about their wedding day, this would be a problem. Like I said, I never was one of those people, so, it was nothing lost for me.

Neisha, is your husband of Southeast Asian ancestry?

My father-in-law is from India, my mother-in-law is from Germany. This is a surprisingly common combination. One of my cousins just married a German woman, and my parents know two other couples (besides my cousin and my in-laws) in which the husband is from India and the wife is from Germany.

On 2002-07-24 09:28, Earthshine wrote:


WTF is this? Mr. 22 picks up all the ladies? Damned late wavers...
:lol:

maybe it's the ladies all lining up for their turn with *him*!
:

Kevin, don't feel bad about 'not getting any'
it happens to the best of us at times. When I slag on boomers about the free love and dope thing, it is because of the hypocrisy, not because those things are necessarily wrong.

I agree completely with this. It's the same reason Jonesers slag on core Boomers. Late Boomers feel about first wave Boomers much as Xers feel about Boomers in general. Trouble is, Xers don't always realize that the late-wave members of their "enemy generation" are really their allies and have many of the same gripes about their own generation that you do about ours. Most of us are on your side but you just don't know it.

And by the way Jason,

I think you meant Justin.





_________________
We're all created from an act of love, so why is there so much hate?



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Heliotrope on 2002-07-24 16:37 ]</font>

Is it? I guess I should have stuck with "Chet" :razz:

Sorry man.

I don't consider you the enemy Helio. Never did. :smile:





<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Earthshine on 2002-07-24 17:02 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Earthshine on 2002-07-24 17:03 ]</font>

On 2002-07-24 17:02, Earthshine wrote:
Is it? I guess I should have stuck with "Chet" :razz:

Sorry man.

I don't consider you the enemy Helio. Never did. :smile:





<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Earthshine on 2002-07-24 17:02 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Earthshine on 2002-07-24 17:03 ]</font>

I didn't mean you personally Earthshine. But some Xers make assumptions when they hear a late-50s birthyear like mine. It's like, they hear the number and go, "oooohhhh...evil boomer monster!" and run away screaming! :lol:



_________________
We're all created from an act of love, so why is there so much hate?



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Heliotrope on 2002-07-24 17:09 ]</font>

Great quote for the Battle of the Sexes from the incredible "Red Green Show" today:

Red Green says: "Sometimes a man's got to do what woman would never even consider."

Great quote for the Battle of the Sexes from the incredible "Red Green Show" today:

Red Green says: "Sometimes a man's got to do what a woman would never even consider."

Hey, what happened to Kevin?
He practically *lives* on this thread.
:smile:

On 2002-07-24 17:08, Heliotrope wrote:

On 2002-07-24 17:02, Earthshine wrote:
Is it? I guess I should have stuck with "Chet" :razz:

Sorry man.

I don't consider you the enemy Helio. Never did. :smile:





<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Earthshine on 2002-07-24 17:02 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Earthshine on 2002-07-24 17:03 ]</font>

I didn't mean you personally Earthshine. But some Xers make assumptions when they hear a late-50s birthyear like mine. It's like, they hear the number and go, "oooohhhh...evil boomer monster!" and run away screaming! :lol:



_________________
We're all created from an act of love, so why is there so much hate?



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Heliotrope on 2002-07-24 17:09 ]</font>

Well, they're kinder to the late 50s years than to the early 80s years...

Our wedding cost something like $600. We got married in the living room of my wife's house (now our house) and then had a party with a keg, a six-foot sub sandwich and a traditional wedding cake with a starship enterprise on it. It was my wife's second (her first wedding wasn't big either) and I didn't want to have a big wedding.

On 2002-07-23 01:29, Kevin Parker '59 wrote:
For me, what that means is that if I were to walk down the aisle again I would have to feel that my intended sees me as the one true love of her life, head and shoulders above the rest, bar none. Regardless of whether she's been married before and divorced or widowed, how many guys she's dated, slept with or been in love with, the love that she and I share must be so deep as to render all past relationships moot, trivial, so never-existent by comparison that the idea of mentioning them is in fact ridiculous. IOW, other men may have touched her body, but NO ONE has ever truly touched her soul.

(Sigh).....I suppose that is what everyone really wants-- a soulmate. And therein lies the essential problem with pasts, at least from a man's perspective. To be frank, the more sexual baggage a potential mate carries, the less likely I'd be to see myself as The One True Love Of Her Life. Beyond a certain threshold, it would become very difficult to see myself as anything other than just another guy she would sleep with. Why? Simply put, being with a woman with too much baggage doesn't make you feel special at all, just the latest in a long line of loser guys.

It is wise to think of your spouse (or anyone else for that mater) as making you "feel special", or any other way. Shouldn't you be in control of how you feel?

Isn't the whole idea that there exists a "one true love" for you rather limiting?

On 2002-07-30 09:11, Mike Alexander '59
It is wise to think of your spouse (or anyone else for that mater) as making you "feel special", or any other way. Shouldn't you be in control of how you feel?

Isn't the whole idea that there exists a "one true love" for you rather limiting?

I agree with you Mike. I think Kevin's point was less about them making you feel good than them intentionally going out of their way to make you feel like shit. :lol:
Nobody needs to be with someone who doesn't have their best interests at heart.

That wedding you mentioned sounded great, by the way. I'll keep that in mind when/if ever.

Peace

On 2002-07-30 11:52, Earthshine wrote:

On 2002-07-30 09:11, Mike Alexander '59
It is wise to think of your spouse (or anyone else for that mater) as making you "feel special", or any other way. Shouldn't you be in control of how you feel?

Isn't the whole idea that there exists a "one true love" for you rather limiting?

I agree with you Mike. I think Kevin's point was less about them making you feel good than them intentionally going out of their way to make you feel like shit. :lol:
Nobody needs to be with someone who doesn't have their best interests at heart.


Peace

Earthshine, where have you been all my life? :wink:

I was wondering if anybody out there surfing this forum thinks that sex will ever again be as easy as it was during that halcyon period after The Pill and before AIDS.

On 2002-07-30 18:56, Brian Beecher wrote:
I was wondering if anybody out there surfing this forum thinks that sex will ever again be as easy as it was during that halcyon period after The Pill and before AIDS.

Yes, but only once there is a cure for AIDS. I expect it will happen during the next awakening with the cure coming during the next high. All when we are too old to enjoy it. :lol:

Wait, that would be just enough time for me to have a kid, and for him or her to be an artist type happily "adapting" while crusty old dad the xer bitches at them! :lol:

Oh, this is sooooooo not fair. :razz:

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Earthshine on 2002-07-30 19:03 ]</font>

On 2002-07-30 18:26, Heliotrope wrote:

Earthshine, where have you been all my life? :wink:

Wondering where you were *flirt flirt*
:lol:

This borad rocks sometimes :lol: :lol:

On 2002-07-30 18:59, Earthshine wrote:

On 2002-07-30 18:56, Brian Beecher wrote:
I was wondering if anybody out there surfing this forum thinks that sex will ever again be as easy as it was during that halcyon period after The Pill and before AIDS.

Yes, but only once there is a cure for AIDS. I expect it will happen during the next awakening with the cure coming during the next high. All when we are too old to enjoy it. :lol:

If the free-and-easy returns, a new STD will also return in fairly short order to take the place of a neutralized AIDS. The one follows almost automatically from the other, since easier infection vectors make for more virulent diseases.

This is true of almost all infectious diseases, BTW, not just STDs.

So any free-and-easy period is likely to be self-cancelling, much as the Seventies were.

On 2002-07-30 22:22, HopefulCynic68 wrote:


If the free-and-easy returns, a new STD will also return in fairly short order to take the place of a neutralized AIDS. The one follows almost automatically from the other, since easier infection vectors make for more virulent diseases.

This is true of almost all infectious diseases, BTW, not just STDs.

So any free-and-easy period is likely to be self-cancelling, much as the Seventies were.

Agreed. But the question was if it would ever be that way again, not if it would stay that way for good. I fully expect that some time during the next adaptive or idealist gen that the case will be free love returns for some time. Who knows how long it will last? Maybe just long enough for the new STD to be the alienating event for the next reactive gen

Then again, maybe the new civics will be the ones to eradicate disease. Hey, you never know. Even if it does sound like Star Trek stuff right now. I am sure the Missionaries had no idea in the 1900s that some the new babies bouncing on their lap would be involved with the A-bomb.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Earthshine on 2002-07-31 10:25 ]</font>