Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Also, there is nothing experience can teach you (when it comes to dating) that some serious research can't teach you just as well if not better. I don't think you should let that sort of doubt hurt your chances (by crushing your confidence) either. Knowledge, kindness, and confidence. You can acquire all three at any age, no matter how many relationships you've been in!
Technically, it's not turning off your sexuality. You can imagine a woman (which isn't technically required either) while masturbating. But even if you are turning off your sexuality, choosing abstinence for some period of time or another, it doesn't mean you can't turn it right back on. And it won't hurt you in the process either. Lots of guys have done this (most of which are probably priests, I will concede) and it didn't kill them.
And I don't think people are telling you not to date, just not to worry about dating. If it comes naturally, great. Otherwise, keep improving yourself so it will someday, come naturally.
In some other cultures, the number of seconds generally okay for staring might be longer. In the U.S., staring is just rude and aggressive, so looking must be done with great delicacy. Why must looking be done by staring? Is looking off and on that impossible?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Davros
I'm talking about men checking out women in particular here. As a man, I like being looked at by women for three seconds.
Would anyone object to being checked out for three seconds?
If so, would these be reasonable objections or is such a person who would be offended by that too sensitive. Although we should notice if they are offended by being checked out for three seconds, and not look at them again at that point, we can't be expected to predict ahead of time that a person would be offended by a three second look, right?
There is a long tradition of men "enjoying the view" and I think that's a basic part of our sexuality. But I agree that it is important not to make people uncomfortable.
Also, I do believe that the habit of staring at pictures of women makes it easier to slip into bad habits in real life. But staring, not just glancing, at pictures of women also seems to be a long and fundamental male tradition. So this feels like a potentially tricky issue for me.
I'm talking about men checking out women in particular here. As a man, I like being looked at by women for three seconds.
Would anyone object to being checked out for three seconds?
If so, would these be reasonable objections or is such a person who would be offended by that too sensitive. Although we should notice if they are offended by being checked out for three seconds, and not look at them again at that point, we can't be expected to predict ahead of time that a person would be offended by a three second look, right?
There is a long tradition of men "enjoying the view" and I think that's a basic part of our sexuality. But I agree that it is important not to make people uncomfortable.
Also, I do believe that the habit of staring at pictures of women makes it easier to slip into bad habits in real life. But staring, not just glancing, at pictures of women also seems to be a long and fundamental male tradition. So this feels like a potentially tricky issue for me.
Well. It depends and is quite complicated.
Use the following formula for determining how long one should stare at someone else (the staree).
First, variables defined:
@x - Age of the starer;
@y - Age of the staree;
1 or 0 (zero) - If the staree is unrelated to the starer that would be a 1 and if the starer and staree are related that would be a zero;
#x- The starer's "number" between 0 and 10, e.g. a super duper hotty would be a '10'
#y - The staree's "number";
$x - The starer's "bling number" between 0 and 9, e.g. rolling in a Benz, with Rolex watch, etc. would be a '9' (this number cannot be a 10 as the highest bling number is derived from, "Dressed to the nines");
$y - The staree's "bling number" between 0 and 9;
D - Distance between the starer and the staree (in meters);
R - Rate at which the distance is increasing in meters per second (if decreasing, use a negative number); - number of interesting people, things, events, etc. that the starer could be staring at if the staree catches the starer staring at the staree;
Lx - location of the starer relative to the staree, e.g. a very private place would be a 10, a public place would be a 1;
Ly - location of the staree relative to the starer; - the number of things that are "wrong" with them, i.e. do they have a 'defect' like an extra appendage that would warrant stares anyway?; = is the starer wearing sunglasses? Yes = 1, no = 0; - is the starer searching for someone but can't find them? Yes = 0, no = the number of people the starer is looking for (if someone is searching for the starer, use a negative number for the number of people looking for the starer); - curiousity ratio as a number between 0 and 1; - language compatibility as number between 0 and 10, e.g. if the starer and the staree speak the same language, then that would be a 1 because at some point the starer has to stop staring and say something (no excuse). If the starer and the staree speak substantially different languages, then that would be a 10 because the staree has no choice. If they speak similar languages or you could figure it out with hand gesticulations and raising voices, that would be a '5';
t = the number of seconds one can stare
Here is the formula:
[[ x [[(@x + @y)/2π x sin(Ly)cos(Lx)]^2] + 5/78 x ( + )^3 - 42] x (speed of light) - D/R - [($x + $y) x (#x + #y)]^ - + ] x (one or zero) = t
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
- number of interesting people, things, events, etc. that the starer could be staring at if the staree catches the starer staring at the staree;
- the number of things that are "wrong" with them, i.e. do they have a 'defect' like an extra appendage that would warrant stares anyway?;
= is the starer wearing sunglasses? Yes = 1, no = 0;
- is the starer searching for someone but can't find them? Yes = 0, no = the number of people the starer is looking for (if someone is searching for the starer, use a negative number for the number of people looking for the starer);
- curiousity ratio as a number between 0 and 1;
- language compatibility as number between 0 and 10, e.g. if the starer and the staree speak the same language, then that would be a 1 because at some point the starer has to stop staring and say something (no excuse). If the starer and the staree speak substantially different languages, then that would be a 10 because the staree has no choice. If they speak similar languages or you could figure it out with hand gesticulations and raising voices, that would be a '5';
