Today I got a message from a compatible OKC member, and she read and thought deeply about something in my profile.  That is so unusual and rewarding!  Would that everybody did that when the opportunity presents. 

I know some people are afraid to admit that words of a stranger have affected them.  So sad that they concentrate on appearances rather than trying to be real.  Once we attain adulthood, I think we should work at shedding our automatic defenses.  Isn't that the true measure of confidence, that we have taken responsibility for all that we are?  I know it ain't easy. 

I thought this was an early life lesson, but is not, in fact.  Unless online posts are not "saying". 

Various people call themselves tolerant, and find interesting nits to pick in my bio.  Like nits are what make up a person (haha).  Some say they love life, and yet show no interest in diverse or distant cultures and locales.  Some say they are into people, but show a rigid disaffection with moneyed people and great ignorance of the plight of the masses.  Some say they are educated at the college level, but fall for political flimflammery, or show severe innumeracy.  Some say they value communication, but rather than ask why about something I've said, say it's the reason they won't enter a personal dialog!?!  WOW!  Some say they love music, yet all they list as their entertainments are the top20! 

Reading many typically lengthy OKC profiles has been an educational refresher.  Little that people will tell you about themselves is really true.  Self-delusion is rampant.  Still, I like OKC for its attempt to provide digging tools.  They just might help me find someone totally open and honest and very accepting. 

 

Once upon a time the US was very NON socialist.  I see many mature women immigrate here from England or France and call themselves Socialist.  Don't they know that's what they left behind?  Or did they FINALLY realize that's what they love, so their new country should change to be more like the one they left?  I resent that particular political importation. If the Old World is dull, maybe the economic system is why; it CAN'T be the cultural history, can it? 

Of course your typical American can't explain what's good about capitalism, but that's due to government-run schools: another socialist import.  Universal opportunity is one benefit.  You don't see individuals migrating btwn econ classes/strata elsewhere.  btw, I favor ETHICAL capitalism, not corporate welfare, which is what we got. 

If you wish to debate, please don't do it in my journal; OKC emails or real emails are fine.  jesteele1948@yahoo.com

Lately I find that I'm clicking on COMPARE to check my compatibility with women. Yes, I believe in numbers. (One has to place faith SOMEWHERE.)

With rare exception, women with More Sex Experience than average have Less Desire for Sex than average. (I cite OKC.) OKC tells me my Sex Experience is Less than average and my Desire for Sex is More than average. What's going on here?

It sure seems that one's libido is directly subject to wearing out!
And less experience makes one "hungry". Wish I knew what more experience meant! It CAN'T be positions. It CAN'T be kinky things. What's left is Quantity! I was hoping that monogamous sex grows in Quality: strength of attraction, enjoyment, bonding.

I won't argue with statistics, but are all the women who know what they're doing in bed tired of doing it? Did it get boring after it became pleasurable, meaningful, and reinforcing of one's commitment? What a disappointing prospect for a monogamous future!

MAYBE you are, but shouldn't the browser/searcher decide?
That's usually why you supply a photo: to provide a basis for such a statement.

You can't always believe what you're told, ya know. Comments COULD be about your Inner beauty.

If your profile says it, it helps if agreement comes easily. Otherwise, one's grasp of reality is questioned.

What really gets me is when the physical beauty escapes my recognition entirely. Some people don't photograph well. And some women, BlvItOrNot, just aren't. Hey, I wish you all were, especially those with the inner glow, but LET ME DECIDE, don't tell me!

I do NOT expect to be adding "handsome" to my self-description any day soon.

Today's economy and a recent activity have combined to give me a cheap education in human greed.

A friend had me shop for junkyard replacement parts for his old car. I understand that inventory costs are high for a low-demand aged clunker. But $75 for a taillight assembly? $35 for a 3x5 piece of turn signal cover? We're not talking a high-end car, but a Mazda. Gag me with a spoon!

I've been "checking out" homes in foreclosure for same friend; he's far away; I inspect and take photos; give him my impressions. Banks that have held homes forever since their foreclosure still want oodles of dough. Agents trying to sell for those banks are wary of low bids, probably because of low commissions. So they give bad service on info-gathering. Talk about shooting oneself in the foot! Of course bids are going to be low in this market! Buyers are not stupid (at least they're getting over that).

I see now and then hetero guys stalking my profile. They don't leave messages. I'm not "out there" in any forums. I don't edit others' profiles. I rarely post here. What's up with that?

I saw another person's profile in which she asked "What's short term dating?" Later she indicated she's learning to accept odd lifestyles (or some similar statement). I rebel. I accept their existence, but really don't like those choices. Today I vent about "Short Term Dating". It means (and I could be wrong): Growing tired of another person very quickly, but willing to bed them to see if they're somehow different or can teach me new positions. I'll drop them gently and move on to another lover.

This seems as antisocial as many other trends, like high divorce rates, polyamory, out-of-wedlock broods, and (!) road rage (!). Why do I say antisocial? Because it shows low valuation of other individuals: easy replacement, no demonstration of lasting kinship, no desire to bond and share for the long term.
I suspect the feeling is like the last days of ancient Rome.

Excuse me while I leave my keyboard to puke.

It's nice that we can have others "proof" or edit our profiles, but OKC doesn't (it seems) pay any attention to egregious spelling errors in Qs and Tests.

I mention this because such errors in profiles are an indication of either ignorance or hurriedness by profile posters, and lack of desire to get those proofread. Once in a while, though, it's a sign or a foreign (including British, Australian, or Canadian) education. In those countries they use alternative spellings.

Now, it seems, when SOME Americans see these "alternative" spellings they, being uncertain in their own education, copy them. The result is really weird. I've read profiles in which, out of the blue, someone has written "humour" or "colour", and my perfectionist bent wants to scream. A person who wants NOT to stand out, probably wants to be corrected. A sloppy person does NOT want to be corrected. A young person wanting to impress OUGHT to be corrected.

OKC could OFFER to make such corrections.

Now, the real irritant: When Questions or Tests have a KEY word misspelled, it makes the answerer wonder, Should I read this as it was intended, or as it reads? Why present me with this dilemma? Should I pretend I didn't notice the misspelling of (perhaps) the words in "aknollidge anothers kneads"?

Can't we all scream together? GAHHHHH!

OKC Question:
Do you believe that intelligence is a basis upon which we should decide how to treat other living creatures?

* Yes; our society should be an IQ-based hierarchy.
* Yes, but for animals only; all humans are equal.
* No.

I suppose the originator of the Q realized that there's a logical contradiction in choice 2, treating people & animals differently, as it begs the Q, Why?
However, OKC allows the Q to imply that the more important issue is treatment of non-humans (I don't usu. think of fellow humans as "other living creatures" b/c they're sort of in their own class.).
Notice, too, that the Q asks about "A" basis, not the best or only basis. Then the Q asks about "should". I don't believe in "should" unless we're talking about ethics or morality.
I really wasn't sure if the Q originator knows there's more than one kind of intelligence, and IQ isn't the whole enchilada.

Anyway, this Q has so many dimensions and points of view that I could have spent an hour pondering my response. The fact that I was given only 3 answer choices helped immensely.

When the Q puts me in a corner, I snap; which means I take the fast way out, and I answer NO (or I SKIP it).

So I answered No, and wonder if someone will think I didn't understand the Q, or I had some issue with giving animals an intelligence test.

Sometimes OKC gives me agita (heartburn) as I wonder if I'm getting further and further from the answers of my soulmate.

Such is the pain of being a thinker.