Welcome to Thunderdome

GORDON wrote: As long as we agree 18 and 19 year olds are fair game.

I don't have a problem with that.

I actually thought about this last night for myself, if I was back on the market, how young I'd be willing to go now. Went with 21. Some sexual experience, some maturity, and more importantly, that I could take her out to a restaurant and be able to split a bottle of wine. If you can't take a woman out to restaurant/bar and show her off while both of you get drunk, what's the point? I fucking love those sort of dates. We do them a few times a week.

Troy wrote: I actually thought about this last night for myself, if I was back on the market, how young I'd be willing to go now. Went with 21

You and all other men.

That's a "find most attractive at" not "the lowest I would go out with." That graph might as well be what age of women are men most likely to jerk off to on PornHub.

I actually don't think most women have much of a personality until 23 or so, when they graduate college and get into the real world. Probably the same thing with men as well, but my dating experience that way is lacking.

An older buddy of mine started dating a sophomore in college when he was 30 or so, and she was utterly boring until she actually graduated college. Just hadn't formed an identity at all yet. Once she graduated she was actually cool and interesting, which was great. Especially because they are married now.

Troy wrote: This one was the story that seemed to break the back of the deniers. I don't think those cops and ex-cops fwho were cited and remembered him being banned have anything to gain. That WTF yearbook signing of the sixth accuser was what did it for me.

All the two unnamed officers were able to confirm was that they'd heard the stories of the ban. Not that there was a standing ban.

The yearbook thing was pretty much the thing that did him in for me.

Troy wrote: I actually don't think most women have much of a personality until 23 or so, when they graduate college and get into the real world.

This is an interesting statement. I don't necessarily disagree with it, but I do tend to think something of the woman they will become is always there. So if you're dating a slob that also happens to be a self centered airhead, the odds of her having an interesting personality after college are slim to none. Meanwhile, if she's OCD about being neat and organized, that's who you're getting later in life too.

However, I completely agree that their views on the world, life experiences, maturity, level of not giving a fuck, etc. all improve post college or high school if the woman skips college.

There's a reason young girls are more attracted to "bad boys" than older women. Older women know better because of experience. Young girls still think they can turn the frog into a prince with a kiss.

I think the defining characteristic of ANYONE under 23 is inexperience. No one knows who they are, yet... but some traits are already there. Neat or slovenly, intelligent or average, bold or timid, driven or lazy. Everything after is what they're exposed to from there on out, and what they decide to do with it.

GORDON wrote: and what they decide to do with it.

And that's where my point lies. I think certain personality traits prepare people for certain experiences more than others.

I'm not sure I would say "PREPARE them for," but I think their tendencies would more inform their position.

Like in Defending Your Life, Maryl Streep made much different decisions throughout her life than did whats-his-name, even though they seemed to have very similar life paths. She was bold, he was timid.

Troy wrote: That's a "find most attractive at" not "the lowest I would go out with."

Yes, I'm sure physical attraction plays no role is what men look for.

TheCatt wrote:

Troy wrote: That's a "find most attractive at" not "the lowest I would go out with."

Yes, I'm sure physical attraction plays no role is what men look for.

hehe

To be fair, fucking a super hot woman with no personality is more of a hassle than masturbating.

I'll take a 7 with a great personality over a 10 with no personality all day, every day.

Leisher wrote:

TheCatt wrote:

Troy wrote: That's a "find most attractive at" not "the lowest I would go out with."

Yes, I'm sure physical attraction plays no role is what men look for.

I'll take a 7 with a great personality over a 10 with no personality all day, every day.

Every damn day. Or a woman who lays like a dead fish in bed. Or just an awful human being.

One's good for jerking off, the other is actually worth being around.

Leisher wrote: Ohio Republican who preached the bible and "natural marriage" caught fucking a guy.

It's always the guys that are most vehemently homophobic...

Just go have gay sex dude, it's 2017.

e: in a motel, not your office

Troy wrote:

Leisher wrote: Ohio Republican who preached the bible and "natural marriage" caught fucking a guy.

It's always the guys that are most vehemently homophobic...

Just go have gay sex dude, it's 2017.

e: in a motel, not your office

Or lock the damn door...

My first child was conceived in my office when I worked for NBC.

Were you there at the time?

I'd be a LOT wealthier if I wasn't...

Also, I should have clarified my first child with my wife.

Troy wrote:

Leisher wrote: Ohio Republican who preached the bible and "natural marriage" caught fucking a guy.

It's always the guys that are most vehemently homophobic...

Just go have gay sex dude, it's 2017.

e: in a motel, not your office

To be fair, one can be against gay marriage and gay at the same time. There were plenty of them during the debate. They just never got any air time.

Project Vertias got caught trying to send a "victim" to the Washington Post with a fake Roy Moore rape and abortion story.

Wow.

While I'm fine with someone "testing" the MSM to ensure fair and unbiased reporting, this seems rather seedy. I don't think it's ok to pile onto an existing case. There are already accusations, and now you're just muddying the waters, and potentially hurting real victims.

it's also not ok to be biased and unfair when doing those investigations. It's like how cops can't break the law when enforcing it.

Good on the Post for not reporting accusations they didn't believe. I wish all MSM outlets acted in the same responsible manner.

Also, this story doesn't belong in the Republican Party thread. It belongs in the MSM thread.

Leisher wrote:
Also, this story doesn't belong in the Republican Party thread. It belongs in the MSM thread.

Fair, I wasn't sure where to put it, I almost threw it in Weinstein.