Pregnant or is she just freaking out?

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]nighthawkz wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]nighthawkz wrote:

[quote]flipcollar wrote:
I couldn’t remember why I had harrypotter on my ignore list. Thanks for quoting him you guys, now I remember![/quote]

You just reminded me of something I wanted to do for some time. Figuring out how to ignore list that retard, that is.[/quote]

Thanks to both of you for answering that question in my head, “Am I the only one who thinks this clown is a, well, clown?”[/quote]

Ironically, he could almost be my former flatmate. “Society favours women, Americans are idiots, we need to defend our culture against Islam, RULE BRITANIA!”
[/quote]

Did you figure out how to add to the ignore list?
[/quote]

Yeah, via the message centre. (In case you didn’t know)

OP, if you have not returned upon my awakening, I will speak the dreaded tome.

[quote]DarkNinjaa wrote:

[quote]csulli wrote:

[quote]DarkNinjaa wrote:
You can’t trust the pill[/quote]
You… You can’t?[/quote]

You just can’t trust anything.[/quote]

Yes.

Yes you can.

You can trust the snip.

[quote]2busy wrote:

Yes.

Yes you can.

You can trust the snip.
[/quote]

I’ve heard it sometimes reverts back.

No. You can’t trust it either.

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]ouroboro_s wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]kpsnap wrote:

[quote]ouroboro_s wrote:
This isn’t really directed to the original poster but to everyone else who jumped to the conclusion that she is pregnant with another man’s baby. Perhaps people should try having sex/a relationship with a better class of person than one you think would screw around on you. You’re known by the company you keep. If it’s with a skank, what does that say for you?[/quote]
Too much logic.[/quote]

It lacks logic, to me.

If I’m afraid my wife is screwing around, then yes, I should be weary of myself because of the company I keep. If I’m concerned about someone else’s wife screwing around on them, that doesn’t say anything about my wife or myself, does it? After all, she’s not the one I’m concerned with. [/quote]

It’s more the frame of mind that they immediately think she’s a slut/skank. It seems like an over familiarity with that type of behaviour which leads me to believe they associate with people who behave poorly. I don’t expect the worst of people because I don’t marry, sleep with, hang with or become friends with people who I believe will shit on me. That doesn’t mean I haven’t experienced it but it’s the exception rather than the expectation.
[/quote]

Fair enough - and I don’t totally disagree. [/quote]

I do, and here is why.

From an evopsych perspective, we have developed to err on the side of caution in many cases, because there are disproportionate risk/rewards.

If something rustles the grass it might be the wind, it might be a lion.

If you automatically assume its a lion, you may err often, but whats the harm?

If you automatically assume its the wind you may be right often, but only err once.

Its better to err on the side of caution if the risk/reward is laid out like it regrettably is , i.e. men having almost no reproductive rights in our society.

If the one exception can ruin you, better to be vigilant always.
[/quote]

Have fun being paranoid your entire life.

There is a tremendous harm in ALWAYS erring on the side of caution. It’s like Pascal’s wager when he says there is no risk in believing in God. There certainly is a huge risk in spending your entire life living by certain principles, worshiping a fictional character (if you’re wrong) and spending so much of the limited time you have devoted to God.

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]ouroboro_s wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]kpsnap wrote:

[quote]ouroboro_s wrote:
This isn’t really directed to the original poster but to everyone else who jumped to the conclusion that she is pregnant with another man’s baby. Perhaps people should try having sex/a relationship with a better class of person than one you think would screw around on you. You’re known by the company you keep. If it’s with a skank, what does that say for you?[/quote]
Too much logic.[/quote]

It lacks logic, to me.

If I’m afraid my wife is screwing around, then yes, I should be weary of myself because of the company I keep. If I’m concerned about someone else’s wife screwing around on them, that doesn’t say anything about my wife or myself, does it? After all, she’s not the one I’m concerned with. [/quote]

It’s more the frame of mind that they immediately think she’s a slut/skank. It seems like an over familiarity with that type of behaviour which leads me to believe they associate with people who behave poorly. I don’t expect the worst of people because I don’t marry, sleep with, hang with or become friends with people who I believe will shit on me. That doesn’t mean I haven’t experienced it but it’s the exception rather than the expectation.
[/quote]

Fair enough - and I don’t totally disagree. [/quote]

I do, and here is why.

From an evopsych perspective, we have developed to err on the side of caution in many cases, because there are disproportionate risk/rewards.

If something rustles the grass it might be the wind, it might be a lion.

If you automatically assume its a lion, you may err often, but whats the harm?

If you automatically assume its the wind you may be right often, but only err once.

Its better to err on the side of caution if the risk/reward is laid out like it regrettably is , i.e. men having almost no reproductive rights in our society.

If the one exception can ruin you, better to be vigilant always.
[/quote]

Have fun being paranoid your entire life.

There is a tremendous harm in ALWAYS erring on the side of caution. It’s like Pascal’s wager when he says there is no risk in believing in God. There certainly is a huge risk in spending your entire life living by certain principles, worshiping a fictional character (if you’re wrong) and spending so much of the limited time you have devoted to God.

[/quote]

Its not paranoid if its true.

There are women who will try to smuggle another mans child in under your nose, you positively will pay a huge sum of money if you do not go to court soon enough “oops” pregnancies happen more often than one might believe intentionally by women supposedly “on the pill”.

I think a default position of distrust is entirely in order.

I dont trust random men enough to just hand them over at least 100000 $, but that is essentialy what you do if you bone a woman bareback.

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]ouroboro_s wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]kpsnap wrote:

[quote]ouroboro_s wrote:
This isn’t really directed to the original poster but to everyone else who jumped to the conclusion that she is pregnant with another man’s baby. Perhaps people should try having sex/a relationship with a better class of person than one you think would screw around on you. You’re known by the company you keep. If it’s with a skank, what does that say for you?[/quote]
Too much logic.[/quote]

It lacks logic, to me.

If I’m afraid my wife is screwing around, then yes, I should be weary of myself because of the company I keep. If I’m concerned about someone else’s wife screwing around on them, that doesn’t say anything about my wife or myself, does it? After all, she’s not the one I’m concerned with. [/quote]

It’s more the frame of mind that they immediately think she’s a slut/skank. It seems like an over familiarity with that type of behaviour which leads me to believe they associate with people who behave poorly. I don’t expect the worst of people because I don’t marry, sleep with, hang with or become friends with people who I believe will shit on me. That doesn’t mean I haven’t experienced it but it’s the exception rather than the expectation.
[/quote]

Fair enough - and I don’t totally disagree. [/quote]

I do, and here is why.

From an evopsych perspective, we have developed to err on the side of caution in many cases, because there are disproportionate risk/rewards.

If something rustles the grass it might be the wind, it might be a lion.

If you automatically assume its a lion, you may err often, but whats the harm?

If you automatically assume its the wind you may be right often, but only err once.

Its better to err on the side of caution if the risk/reward is laid out like it regrettably is , i.e. men having almost no reproductive rights in our society.

If the one exception can ruin you, better to be vigilant always.
[/quote]

Have fun being paranoid your entire life.

There is a tremendous harm in ALWAYS erring on the side of caution. It’s like Pascal’s wager when he says there is no risk in believing in God. There certainly is a huge risk in spending your entire life living by certain principles, worshiping a fictional character (if you’re wrong) and spending so much of the limited time you have devoted to God.

[/quote]

That’s kind of my thought (except the God part). Unless you live in a war zone in which paranoia is well founded you risk living a sad, shriveled existence when you distrust everyone. You may not get burned but the price to your soul seems pretty high.

[quote]2busy wrote:

[quote]DarkNinjaa wrote:

[quote]csulli wrote:

[quote]DarkNinjaa wrote:
You can’t trust the pill[/quote]
You… You can’t?[/quote]

You just can’t trust anything.[/quote]

Yes.

Yes you can.

You can trust the snip.
[/quote]

The snip doesn’t prevent disease.

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[quote]2busy wrote:

[quote]DarkNinjaa wrote:

[quote]csulli wrote:

[quote]DarkNinjaa wrote:
You can’t trust the pill[/quote]
You… You can’t?[/quote]

You just can’t trust anything.[/quote]

Yes.

Yes you can.

You can trust the snip.
[/quote]

The snip doesn’t prevent disease.[/quote]

Bingola bingolallalallaaaa

. EDIT: Just realized how late I was to the game… I am sure it’s all been said. My bad.

[quote]orion wrote:
I dont trust random men enough to just hand them over at least 100000 $, but that is essentialy what you do if you bone a woman bareback.

[/quote]

If ‘random men’ deserve the same amount of trust as the women you choose to have sex with you’re choosing the wrong women. Which, I think, is the core of your issue. Yes, I said ‘issue’.

[quote]ouroboro_s wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]ouroboro_s wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]kpsnap wrote:

[quote]ouroboro_s wrote:
This isn’t really directed to the original poster but to everyone else who jumped to the conclusion that she is pregnant with another man’s baby. Perhaps people should try having sex/a relationship with a better class of person than one you think would screw around on you. You’re known by the company you keep. If it’s with a skank, what does that say for you?[/quote]
Too much logic.[/quote]

It lacks logic, to me.

If I’m afraid my wife is screwing around, then yes, I should be weary of myself because of the company I keep. If I’m concerned about someone else’s wife screwing around on them, that doesn’t say anything about my wife or myself, does it? After all, she’s not the one I’m concerned with. [/quote]

It’s more the frame of mind that they immediately think she’s a slut/skank. It seems like an over familiarity with that type of behaviour which leads me to believe they associate with people who behave poorly. I don’t expect the worst of people because I don’t marry, sleep with, hang with or become friends with people who I believe will shit on me. That doesn’t mean I haven’t experienced it but it’s the exception rather than the expectation.
[/quote]

Fair enough - and I don’t totally disagree. [/quote]

I do, and here is why.

From an evopsych perspective, we have developed to err on the side of caution in many cases, because there are disproportionate risk/rewards.

If something rustles the grass it might be the wind, it might be a lion.

If you automatically assume its a lion, you may err often, but whats the harm?

If you automatically assume its the wind you may be right often, but only err once.

Its better to err on the side of caution if the risk/reward is laid out like it regrettably is , i.e. men having almost no reproductive rights in our society.

If the one exception can ruin you, better to be vigilant always.
[/quote]

Have fun being paranoid your entire life.

There is a tremendous harm in ALWAYS erring on the side of caution. It’s like Pascal’s wager when he says there is no risk in believing in God. There certainly is a huge risk in spending your entire life living by certain principles, worshiping a fictional character (if you’re wrong) and spending so much of the limited time you have devoted to God.

[/quote]

That’s kind of my thought (except the God part). Unless you live in a war zone in which paranoia is well founded you risk living a sad, shriveled existence when you distrust everyone. You may not get burned but the price to your soul seems pretty high.
[/quote]

And again would you trust a man you barely know with 100000$

You would, wouldnt you?

Otherwise, your constant paranoia might damage your soul…

Or maybe you would engage in an activity that could lead to serious emotional, social and financial harm with a group of people who are known to reneg 50% of all time and there is shit all you can do about it?

Well, yes, you would do that too, because otherwise you risk bitterness.

BULLSHIT.

If you had the same reproductive rights as men, if you were in the same position as men are in al Western nations, women themselves would sew their vaginas shut.

The very fact that women have bit by bit and inch by inch made it so that they hold all the cards in the reproductive game and that they complete devalued the male provider role by choosing to get at our resources via state coercion instead of cultivating female virtues so that a man might commit means first and foremost one thing.

YOU DONT TRUST US ONE BIT.

But, you would like us to trust you.

Because the whole house comes down if we stop doing so in sufficient numbers.

[quote]nighthawkz wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
I dont trust random men enough to just hand them over at least 100000 $, but that is essentialy what you do if you bone a woman bareback.

[/quote]

If ‘random men’ deserve the same amount of trust as the women you choose to have sex with you’re choosing the wrong women. Which, I think, is the core of your issue. Yes, I said ‘issue’.
[/quote]

Look, I stuck my dick in crazy, but not in obvious crazy.

Sometimes, they hide it well.

When push comes to shove, then it comes out.

I know, that could never happen to you, with all the experience of your 28 years, but, better safe than sorry, neh?

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ouroboro_s wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]ouroboro_s wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]kpsnap wrote:

[quote]ouroboro_s wrote:
This isn’t really directed to the original poster but to everyone else who jumped to the conclusion that she is pregnant with another man’s baby. Perhaps people should try having sex/a relationship with a better class of person than one you think would screw around on you. You’re known by the company you keep. If it’s with a skank, what does that say for you?[/quote]
Too much logic.[/quote]

It lacks logic, to me.

If I’m afraid my wife is screwing around, then yes, I should be weary of myself because of the company I keep. If I’m concerned about someone else’s wife screwing around on them, that doesn’t say anything about my wife or myself, does it? After all, she’s not the one I’m concerned with. [/quote]

It’s more the frame of mind that they immediately think she’s a slut/skank. It seems like an over familiarity with that type of behaviour which leads me to believe they associate with people who behave poorly. I don’t expect the worst of people because I don’t marry, sleep with, hang with or become friends with people who I believe will shit on me. That doesn’t mean I haven’t experienced it but it’s the exception rather than the expectation.
[/quote]

Fair enough - and I don’t totally disagree. [/quote]

I do, and here is why.

From an evopsych perspective, we have developed to err on the side of caution in many cases, because there are disproportionate risk/rewards.

If something rustles the grass it might be the wind, it might be a lion.

If you automatically assume its a lion, you may err often, but whats the harm?

If you automatically assume its the wind you may be right often, but only err once.

Its better to err on the side of caution if the risk/reward is laid out like it regrettably is , i.e. men having almost no reproductive rights in our society.

If the one exception can ruin you, better to be vigilant always.
[/quote]

Have fun being paranoid your entire life.

There is a tremendous harm in ALWAYS erring on the side of caution. It’s like Pascal’s wager when he says there is no risk in believing in God. There certainly is a huge risk in spending your entire life living by certain principles, worshiping a fictional character (if you’re wrong) and spending so much of the limited time you have devoted to God.

[/quote]

That’s kind of my thought (except the God part). Unless you live in a war zone in which paranoia is well founded you risk living a sad, shriveled existence when you distrust everyone. You may not get burned but the price to your soul seems pretty high.
[/quote]

And again would you trust a man you barely know with 100000$

You would, wouldnt you?

Otherwise, your constant paranoia might damage your soul…

Or maybe you would engage in an activity that could lead to serious emotional, social and financial harm with a group of people who are known to reneg 50% of all time and there is shit all you can do about it?

Well, yes, you would do that too, because otherwise you risk bitterness.

BULLSHIT.

If you had the same reproductive rights as men, if you were in the same position as men are in al Western nations, women themselves would sew their vaginas shut.

The very fact that women have bit by bit and inch by inch made it so that they hold all the cards in the reproductive game and that they complete devalued the male provider role by choosing to get at our resources via state coercion instead of cultivating female virtues so that a man might commit means first and foremost one thing.

YOU DONT TRUST US ONE BIT.

But, you would like us to trust you.

Because the whole house comes down if we stop doing so in sufficient numbers. [/quote]

I do not mean this as an insult, but you just general come off as someone who has socially and emotionally shut themselves off from the outside world. It must be lonely.

[quote]Waittz wrote:

I do not mean this as an insult, but you just general come off as someone who has socially and emotionally shut themselves off from the outside world. It must be lonely. [/quote]

Alright?

Its just that I could not possibly have any experience with women while being socially shut off?

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ouroboro_s wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]ouroboro_s wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]kpsnap wrote:

[quote]ouroboro_s wrote:
This isn’t really directed to the original poster but to everyone else who jumped to the conclusion that she is pregnant with another man’s baby. Perhaps people should try having sex/a relationship with a better class of person than one you think would screw around on you. You’re known by the company you keep. If it’s with a skank, what does that say for you?[/quote]
Too much logic.[/quote]

It lacks logic, to me.

If I’m afraid my wife is screwing around, then yes, I should be weary of myself because of the company I keep. If I’m concerned about someone else’s wife screwing around on them, that doesn’t say anything about my wife or myself, does it? After all, she’s not the one I’m concerned with. [/quote]

It’s more the frame of mind that they immediately think she’s a slut/skank. It seems like an over familiarity with that type of behaviour which leads me to believe they associate with people who behave poorly. I don’t expect the worst of people because I don’t marry, sleep with, hang with or become friends with people who I believe will shit on me. That doesn’t mean I haven’t experienced it but it’s the exception rather than the expectation.
[/quote]

Fair enough - and I don’t totally disagree. [/quote]

I do, and here is why.

From an evopsych perspective, we have developed to err on the side of caution in many cases, because there are disproportionate risk/rewards.

If something rustles the grass it might be the wind, it might be a lion.

If you automatically assume its a lion, you may err often, but whats the harm?

If you automatically assume its the wind you may be right often, but only err once.

Its better to err on the side of caution if the risk/reward is laid out like it regrettably is , i.e. men having almost no reproductive rights in our society.

If the one exception can ruin you, better to be vigilant always.
[/quote]

Have fun being paranoid your entire life.

There is a tremendous harm in ALWAYS erring on the side of caution. It’s like Pascal’s wager when he says there is no risk in believing in God. There certainly is a huge risk in spending your entire life living by certain principles, worshiping a fictional character (if you’re wrong) and spending so much of the limited time you have devoted to God.

[/quote]

That’s kind of my thought (except the God part). Unless you live in a war zone in which paranoia is well founded you risk living a sad, shriveled existence when you distrust everyone. You may not get burned but the price to your soul seems pretty high.
[/quote]

And again would you trust a man you barely know with 100000$

You would, wouldnt you?

Otherwise, your constant paranoia might damage your soul…

Or maybe you would engage in an activity that could lead to serious emotional, social and financial harm with a group of people who are known to reneg 50% of all time and there is shit all you can do about it?

Well, yes, you would do that too, because otherwise you risk bitterness.

BULLSHIT.

If you had the same reproductive rights as men, if you were in the same position as men are in al Western nations, women themselves would sew their vaginas shut.

The very fact that women have bit by bit and inch by inch made it so that they hold all the cards in the reproductive game and that they complete devalued the male provider role by choosing to get at our resources via state coercion instead of cultivating female virtues so that a man might commit means first and foremost one thing.

YOU DONT TRUST US ONE BIT.

But, you would like us to trust you.

Because the whole house comes down if we stop doing so in sufficient numbers. [/quote]

Okay.

I’m sure you understand calculating risk. You don’t give a random stranger $100,000. I would suggest you don’t stick your dick into a random stranger either.

You attempt to govern your behaviour in a manner that minimizes your own risk. That doesn’t mean treat everyone as though they intend to rob you or foist someone else’s child upon you. That means don’t fuck crazy or morally corrupt and don’t walk through dark alley’s at night. There is a vast distance between blindly trusting and distrusting everyone. It is the grey area in which most of us operate.

[quote]Waittz wrote:

I do not mean this as an insult, but you just general come off as someone who has socially and emotionally shut themselves off from the outside world. It must be lonely. [/quote]

Also, if I am correct with my assessment and at least the part I stated as facts can easily be verified, you can of course choose to be a happy go lucky, trusting, I hesitate to type “well adjusted” person.

Because you would not be, because you would not be adjusted to landscape that surrounds you.

You would be a lamb, waiting to be slaughtered.

[quote]ouroboro_s wrote:

Okay.

I’m sure you understand calculating risk. You don’t give a random stranger $100,000. I would suggest you don’t stick your dick into a random stranger either.

You attempt to govern your behaviour in a manner that minimizes your own risk. That doesn’t mean treat everyone as though they intend to rob you or foist someone else’s child upon you. That means don’t fuck crazy or morally corrupt and don’t walk through dark alley’s at night. There is a vast distance between blindly trusting and distrusting everyone. It is the grey area in which most of us operate.
[/quote]

You know what you really know about someone before you have sex with them?

Nothing.

Not quite true, you know how good they are at maintaining a facade.

I dont care if you wait for months.

Plus, the way things are now, they do not have to be especially crazy or morally corrupt, they only have to be weak enough to follow the path of least resistance, which most people are.

I also find it peculiar that you did not adress the point that men had rights and obligations in the ebil, ebil patrichaayyyy and how that somehow got changed, step by step, so that now women have all the rights and men all of the duties.

Because somehow, that is not really a ringing endorsement for womens trust in men.

Of course, I could look for a woman able to resist the temptation the current system lays out before her, which would not solve the system wide problem though because those are the minority these days.

Hell, even if they are the majority, a big enough minority of women who take advantage of the current situation are enough to bring the system down.

Which would not necessarily be a bad thing.

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Waittz wrote:

I do not mean this as an insult, but you just general come off as someone who has socially and emotionally shut themselves off from the outside world. It must be lonely. [/quote]

Also, if I am correct with my assessment and at least the part I stated as facts can easily be verified, you can of course choose to be a happy go lucky, trusting, I hesitate to type “well adjusted” person.

Because you would not be, because you would not be adjusted to landscape that surrounds you.

You would be a lamb, waiting to be slaughtered. [/quote]

Slaughtered by what? Just seems to me that having such a tainted and pesimistic veiw on reality and interpersonal relationships is a lonely and uneventful way to experience life. Instead of seeking out good understanding that you may experience bad, why avoid all to escape the bad? Sounds more like passing time until death than living.

You constantly act that your reality and perception is the one true reality, I hate to tell you that it isnt. It is just your reality because you chose it to be so and because you are the one who is in fact experiencing it.