What do you want from a guy/girl?

[AreaCode707]

I hear so much about girls and dating and such on this board - what is it exactly that most of you are looking for? I'm happy just being me, an individual without a S.O., but I really love my bf. It's great to have a guy like him as my best friend. So, without creating a poll, what are you looking for right now in your life. Some options:

a.) I'm not looking
b.) I'm looking for a one night stand for a couple of weeks
c.) I'm looking for a girlfriend/boyfriend just for kicks and giggles but nothing permanent
d.) I'm looing for a best friend type to date indeterminately
e.) I'm looking for a spouse
f.) you're a freak (this claim is indisputable)
g.) I'm looking for a self-esteem booster to prove someone's acutally willing to date me
h.) I've already got the best S.O. in the world
i.) I'm looking to get a restraining order

I'm not creating a poll because people will come up with a lot of suggestions to add to it I think, and it'll immediately become inaccurate. So just make up your own answer and explain why.

 

[KennyTheGreat]

Well, I really like this girl and she knows, but I have no idea what to do next

 

[yobarman]

c.) I'm looking for a girlfriend/boyfriend just for kicks and giggles but nothing permanent


i just need to get laid right about now. who knows, it might become something permanent.

 

[Linux23]

lots and lots of sex!

 

[Ns1]

i'm looking for:


1.)a new platonic friend
2.)a friend with benefits
3.)new friends in general

 

[Daniel]

E) well that is the final goal ultimately I guess
F) might be but I have no idea
I) yes, I almost needed one for some insane married woman just a bit ago but that is another story entirely.

 

[linuxboy]

f.) you're a freak (this claim is indisputable)

I question that. Now it seems to me that two instances are possible with regards to a qualifying assertion of freakatude. Namely, one is a non-freak or one is a freak. If the case is the latter, as you assume/posit, then the former is necessarily false, else we have an assertion and its negation as true, thus allowing us to do all sorts of fun things like saying that the statement "you are" really is "not you are" by good 'ole reductio ad absurdum.

So allow me to demonstrate why exactly is is not only disputable that you are a freak, but that you are indeed not a freak.

Firstly, we define conditions sufficient for freakatude. Let's say that being female is sufficient for being a freak, but of course not necessary. Then what is necessary? I posit that the necessary condition of being a freak is a unanimous assertion by one's society that one is indeed a freak. I am a part of society. I assert that you are not a freak, this is indeed my entire argument. Thus, the assertion is not unanimous, thus not universal, thus our necessary condition fails.

With necessity failing, I think it's not too possible to say that you are absolutely a freak. That is, you very well may be but surely, it is not a case of being if-and-only-if. With such vague notions, I can say that a brick is a freak. And such a nomenclature is readily absurd !

Secondly, we analyze what we have. It seems to me that your assertion of freakatude is only sufficient. My assertion has equal truth conditions. Therefore, using the good 'ole rule of assumption, we can safely say that you are indeed both a freak and not a freak.

This leads me to conclude therefore that a negation of your assertion is in order. Thus, "not you are a freak" is true.

Of course, this is our conclusion. Seemingly then, your claim of indisputability fails and so does your claim of freakatude. I'm sorry. There's really no easy way to do this. SOMEBODY had to tell you and I picked the short straw.

<--- fellow freak

Cheers !

 

[amnesiac]

I'm somewhere in between all of the above options.

I want a girlfriend, I've been single since July, which is probably a good thing because only recently have I got my head together enough to deal with an S.O. However, I am an incredibly busy person, and what little free time I have is very valuable to me, so should I find someone great I'd barely be able to spend time with them. Add to that the fact I tend to spoil girls I know (even platonic friends, but love interests much more so) which I can't do because I'm lacking funds at the moment.. I figure I'll just wait until Ms. Right drops into my life somehow -- at least until I have time to go back on the prowl.

On that note, I saw this incredibly beautiful girl at a coffee shop today and we exchanged looks and smiles. Stupid me flees before I realize I should have asked her number. Oh well, fate will bring her back in my path if it was meant to be, right?

 

[InfectedMushroom]

j) an inflatable woman that can cook and clean.

 

[hzl eyed grl]

I'm not a guy, but this is what I want: Someone to date, maybe turn into something serious after being together for a while.

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

<< lots and lots of sex! >>



The expected response when seeing that title

 

[Anghang]

<< Someone to date, maybe turn into something serious after being together for a while. >>



but then again, i'm not looking...things with me happen when they happen...is that a good/bad thing?...

for the time being i just enjoy spending time travelling and hanging with my friends

 

[Zim Hosein]

<< j) an inflatable woman that can cook and clean. >>



LMAO

 

[brjames]

i dunno... i kind of want a gf, but every gf ive ever had (a whole 2 so im not talking about lots of experience here) has turned into situation i) where i need a restraining order. so im kinda scared to look at all.

Maybe i should just wait a couple of years until i can buy a wife from some eastern european country

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

I'm looking for my best friend who I'm physically attracted to. I need love, trust, respect, honor, companionship, emotional support, someone to go to for advice, and... I dunno. It's really late and I have to get up in 3 hours for work. I can't think right now.

Nik

 

[Kadarin]

I want...

Someone with whom I share a healthy physical attraction (who also shares it with me)
Someone with whom I feel completely comfortable
Someone in whose company we both laugh a lot
Someone who shares a lot of interests with me (but not everything)
Someone with a strong sex drive

Funny thing is, I know exactly who this person is for me. Too bad it's not my g/f...

 

[Koing]

<< I'm looking for my best friend who I'm physically attracted to. I need love, trust, respect, honor, companionship, emotional support, someone to go to for advice,

Nik >>



ditto.

Currently I am not looking as I have found her

Just working things together and taking it slow as she was burnt twice in her last two relationships so I'm taking things as they come with us ¬_¬

 

[virtuamike]

d.) I'm looing for a best friend type to date indeterminately

My ex cheated on me so I've been going through hell the last few weeks. Only salvation I've been able to find is by hanging out with my high school friends. There's this one girl I've had a crush on for years (the girl next door you want to bring home to mom and dad and the best person in the world to talk to), maybe when I finally get over my ex I'll give this girl a chance, I think in the end I'll regret not asking at least once.

 

[Supahfreak]

I think this would make a lot more sense if everyone gave their age. People in their late teens-early 20's prolly want something totally different from older groups. Just a thought to up my NEF count

FreAk

 

[murphy55d]

the answer is:

a

 

[AreaCode707]

<< f.) you're a freak (this claim is indisputable)

I question that. Now it seems to me that two instances are possible with regards to a qualifying assertion of freakatude. Namely, one is a non-freak or one is a freak. If the case is the latter, as you assume/posit, then the former is necessarily false, else we have an assertion and its negation as true, thus allowing us to do all sorts of fun things like saying that the statement "you are" really is "not you are" by good 'ole reductio ad absurdum.

So allow me to demonstrate why exactly is is not only disputable that you are a freak, but that you are indeed not a freak.

Firstly, we define conditions sufficient for freakatude. Let's say that being female is sufficient for being a freak, but of course not necessary. Then what is necessary? I posit that the necessary condition of being a freak is a unanimous assertion by one's society that one is indeed a freak. I am a part of society. I assert that you are not a freak, this is indeed my entire argument. Thus, the assertion is not unanimous, thus not universal, thus our necessary condition fails.

With necessity failing, I think it's not too possible to say that you are absolutely a freak. That is, you very well may be but surely, it is not a case of being if-and-only-if. With such vague notions, I can say that a brick is a freak. And such a nomenclature is readily absurd !

Secondly, we analyze what we have. It seems to me that your assertion of freakatude is only sufficient. My assertion has equal truth conditions. Therefore, using the good 'ole rule of assumption, we can safely say that you are indeed both a freak and not a freak.

This leads me to conclude therefore that a negation of your assertion is in order. Thus, "not you are a freak" is true.

Of course, this is our conclusion. Seemingly then, your claim of indisputability fails and so does your claim of freakatude. I'm sorry. There's really no easy way to do this. SOMEBODY had to tell you and I picked the short straw.

<--- fellow freak

Cheers ! >>



I hate you.
<---- methodical freak

 

[AgentOrange]

<< h.) I've already got the best S.O. in the world >>



but



<< b.) I'm looking for a one night stand for a couple of weeks >>



doesnt sound bad...







Just kidding! <--(wife made me say that)

 

[Noriaki]

I pick option F (but you know I love you! I'm just teasing!)


<< f.) you're a freak (this claim is indisputable) >>



And linuxboy I dispute your claim. Why is it that it is necessary for your whole society to view you as a freak in order for you to be one? Can you define society a little better please? I could say I'm a member of the society of the city of Victoria, and I can find you people that don't think I'm freak, though I would claim is has no relevance to my freakishness since they don't know me. So I think your argument needs a solid definition of society. I agree to the logic of your argument, I think you just need a clear definition of society for it.



Anyways to answer the question, the only thing I look for in women is friendship. Most of my closest friends are female. In the ways of S.O. I want nothing from women, I have little desire for an S.O. Of all the pros and cons of having an S.O. pretty well none of the Pros appeal to me, and none of the Cons bother me. That's kind of a stark way to put it, but it's accurate enough.

 

[Koing]

I am 18

 

[linuxboy]

And linuxboy I dispute your claim. Why is it that it is necessary for your whole society to view you as a freak in order for you to be one? Can you define society a little better please? I could say I'm a member of the society of the city of Victoria, and I can find you people that don't think I'm freak, though I would claim is has no relevance to my freakishness since they don't know me. So I think your argument needs a solid definition of society.

And I sir, in turn, dispute your disputations. It would seem to me, although I may be wrong, that the argument now rests on the arbitrariness of my assertion that an entire society would need to agree on a condition and axiological characteristics to sustain absoluteness in an assertion of freakatude. By society I mean the sum total of each individual currently in existence, including oneself. If they all agreed to classify one as a freak, then that would create necessary and sufficient reasons for a claim of freakatude to be indisputable. However, one's own person has he choice to hold two opposing beliefs to the state of freakatude. it's a sort of scizophrenia where the brain has a mind of its own .

I chose to make that assertion because a claim of indisputability with regards to the state of being of an entity, or onta, is valid iff it is both foundationalist/internal and externalist due to the fundamental characterists of evaluative of normative terms containing in themselves origin and interaction between both society-at-large and one's own self for the reason that one lives in an environment in flux. So then each aspect of the dynamic is also open to self-contradiction. We then have two parts where the assertion of indisputable freakatude is open to criticism, negation, and indeed refutal. And this was my point and reason for claiming that not only is HC's assertion of absolute freakatude implausable but it is moreover erroneous.

HeHeHe

Cheers !