|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 104 responses total. |
naftee
|
|
response 15 of 104:
| 
Jan 16 04:19 UTC 2006 |
you should marry me, furs
|
khamsun
|
|
response 16 of 104:
|
Jan 16 05:21 UTC 2006 |
btw, about "feminism", Chile gets a new president, who's a girl:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4615802.stm
".......
President Michelle Bachelet also has a sound and experienced party
machine behind her, a strong mandate from the Chilean electorate to
govern and a fresh approach to a job that has traditionally been for men
only.
........."
a catholic-spaniard country, ie. supposed to be machist.
besides, it seems 1/2 of south America is slowly heading towards a
yuropean alike social-democracy political scheme.
Yanks still have in office the
bronco-ranchero-mission-accomplished-its-hard-work guy?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 17 of 104:
|
Jan 16 06:41 UTC 2006 |
Quite a few US States have female governors, and quite a few US States are
larger than many other countries.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 18 of 104:
|
Jan 16 06:48 UTC 2006 |
re #56: if you want to talk about feminism and European-style government,
why not enter an item on your thoughts about the Norwegian government's
proposal to require Norwegian companies to radically change the makeup of
their boards of directors to increase female membership?
|
slynne
|
|
response 19 of 104:
|
Jan 16 15:03 UTC 2006 |
resp:14 But he is already married!!
|
jadecat
|
|
response 20 of 104:
|
Jan 16 15:25 UTC 2006 |
re resp:11 Check out resp 112 in that item...
It looks like I did indeed post in that old item:
#12 of 219 by Anne Perry (anne) on Wed Mar 22 17:53:07 1995:
(this is now linked with oathbound, it's item #30)
What do I look for? Hmm, someone I can care about, someone who can make
me laugh. Who likes to spend time with me, and talk to me. Someone who
gives back rubs... :) Intelligence is a definite plus...
Hmm, with regard to the hubby- check, check, check, check, check and
check. ;) Though given our work schedules there really isn't enough time
to spend together. Though we do talk every night on the phone.
|
sholmes
|
|
response 21 of 104:
|
Jan 16 16:32 UTC 2006 |
Someone who I can tolerate for atleast 20 years, after that time we might as
well fight a bit.
|
khamsun
|
|
response 22 of 104:
|
Jan 17 05:06 UTC 2006 |
re #18:
<<if you want to talk about feminism and European-style government, why
not enter an item on your thoughts about the Norwegian government's
proposal to require Norwegian companies to radically change the makeup
of their boards of directors to increase female membership?>>where
foreigners are
(I am too lazy to enter items...)
Yes, the norse and others will reach parity in the business, macho
controlled microcosm.If only Dubya was able to read a map and find
Norway on it, he would launch an Operation-Norway-Freedom
Mission-To-be-Accomplished to save the norse from such a socialist
evil...
then rcurl (Re: #17)will shut my mouth down with a:
quite a few US companies have a female CEO, and quite a few US companies
are bigger than your silly small stinking foreign company out over there
:-D
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 23 of 104:
|
Jan 17 07:55 UTC 2006 |
I don't think there's a perfect one out there, but rather a number of
men who would be compatible. I have yet to meet them, mind you...
|
kingjon
|
|
response 24 of 104:
|
Jan 17 11:59 UTC 2006 |
Re #23:
Perhaps, but I believe that if I marry anyone at all I will marry only one
person -- my "ideals" are what I hope she will be like.
|
keesan
|
|
response 25 of 104:
|
Jan 17 23:11 UTC 2006 |
Do you think you are close to someone else's ideal? To your own ideal?
|
kingjon
|
|
response 26 of 104:
|
Jan 17 23:16 UTC 2006 |
To someone else's ideal -- probably not, but possibly.
To my own ideal -- distinctly not. (Not even of what I think I ought to be.)
|
tod
|
|
response 27 of 104:
|
Jan 18 00:15 UTC 2006 |
re #23
Lemme know when you'll be in Seattle! ;)
|
furs
|
|
response 28 of 104:
|
Jan 18 00:48 UTC 2006 |
re #15 - lets move to utah and get married. :)
|
richard
|
|
response 29 of 104:
|
Jan 18 01:47 UTC 2006 |
Statistically most marriages either fail, or devolve from romantic
relationships to friendship relationships, where the marriage is kept
together for convenience purposes. It is not uncommon for a husband and
wife lose their "spark" and become "just friends" over time, but stay
married for the benefit of their children or other family, or just out
of convenience.
This idea that "romance" is supposed to last forever in a relationship
is more often than not myth.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 30 of 104:
|
Jan 18 02:18 UTC 2006 |
Those would be the extreme possibilities in long marriages. There are many
shades between, as people can be very fond of and comfortable with each other
in various degrees, between the extremes you mention.
|
furs
|
|
response 31 of 104:
|
Jan 18 11:28 UTC 2006 |
re 29. That's cause people are lazy and don't do anything about it.
Gotta water the flowers.
|
jadecat
|
|
response 32 of 104:
|
Jan 18 14:50 UTC 2006 |
Yup, only fairy tales end with 'And they lived happily ever after.'
|
marcvh
|
|
response 33 of 104:
|
Jan 18 15:50 UTC 2006 |
Out of curiousity, what's the objective measurement for a married couple
becoming "just friends"? Not buying flowers? Separate bedrooms?
Separate vacations? Dating other people?
|
edina
|
|
response 34 of 104:
|
Jan 18 16:05 UTC 2006 |
re 29 Are you married?
|
tod
|
|
response 35 of 104:
|
Jan 18 18:01 UTC 2006 |
re #28
Psychadelic Griz! LOL! ;)
|
naftee
|
|
response 36 of 104:
|
Jan 18 20:08 UTC 2006 |
lolol
|
richard
|
|
response 37 of 104:
|
Jan 19 01:01 UTC 2006 |
re #33 all of the above, I guess different people have different
criteria. When a couple stops being hopelessly in love with each
other, loses that "feeling" about the other, stops having sex together,
stops sleeping in the same bed. When a person realizes he/she cares
for a person more than he actually is in LOVE with that person. When
that person has become more your friend than your lover. Etc.
|
tod
|
|
response 38 of 104:
|
Jan 19 01:03 UTC 2006 |
What kind of sucker lays down for that kind of marriage?
|
kingjon
|
|
response 39 of 104:
|
Jan 19 01:04 UTC 2006 |
Re #37 (nit-picking): I think it's a contradiction in terms to "care for" a
person more than one is "in love" with them. (Provided that they're the
sort of person one could be "in love" -- and again, I have a broader definition
of "in love" than the "romantic entanglement" definition.)
|