?

Log in

No account? Create an account

too much fun - Lograh — LiveJournal

Saturday, 07.Feb.2004

0:03 - too much fun

Previous Entry Share Flag Next Entry

I'm atcually getting a bit of a kick out of answering the questions over on that cupid site..

Like this one:
"Would you like to date someone a lot purer than you?"

I found it amusing that this came up right at one of the stronger moments in a Tool song and I was wildly headbanging with the *ahem* "rock-on" hand-sing waving in the air..

okay, so perhaps there's some room up there in the higher reaches of the purity scale above me, but I'm not all *that* low... :)

... answering 'no' to this one...

Comments:

From:serenica69
Date:0:17 07.Feb.2004 (UTC)
(Link)
I always find it amusing when guys say "I totally want a girl who's bisexual and very sexually adventerous but I would never marry a girl like that." Maybe that's where the pure question comes from.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:macklinr
Date:1:21 07.Feb.2004 (UTC)

Re:

(Link)
That does seem like an exceptionally odd thing to say. Maybe it's just me, but a guy saying that is like saying "I wanna fool around with something bisexual and/or very sexually adventurous but I can't trust someone like that to be faithful to me", or "I wanna fool around with ... but I am not enough to please one in a long-term relationship."

Granted, these are only two possible answers to asking such a person "why?", but they are two that I see some people as having and not willing to admit (to others, at least; possibly to themselves as well).
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:lograh
Date:10:13 07.Feb.2004 (UTC)

Re:

(Link)
I've actually spoken with a few guys who would honestly say that. They just want to play with someone who "knows the game" well, but they admit that there is no potential for a long-term relationship between them and such a person.

At least they are being honest, I guess..
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:macklinr
Date:1:24 07.Feb.2004 (UTC)
(Link)
Perhaps they are judging based on chemical purity. Or, at least, the question is open-ended enough for someone like me to come to that conclusion.

To which I would answer "no". Because, I'd feel guilty as I tainted her chemical purity by her coming into contact with me. Unless that is what she's going for in life, in which case I'm just being used. So, as long as I don't gotta pay for the milk.

Cuz, I have problems when I ingest raw milk.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:aaangyl
Date:2:42 07.Feb.2004 (UTC)
(Link)
Assuming they mean like, 'purity test' pure, I think I can honestly say I'd be at least a bit squeamish about someone less pure than myself. Mostly because my score's at the sort of place where there's not much left beyond that doesn't tend to squick me to various strong degrees.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:lograh
Date:10:11 07.Feb.2004 (UTC)

Re:

(Link)
heh.. Yeah, there is that bottom level below which you start getting to the *really* bad stuff.. Fortunately I'm not there yet, so I've got a bit of a cushion on both sides of me where I'd not mind dating someone in that range.

damn, your score is that low??
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:aaangyl
Date:18:00 07.Feb.2004 (UTC)

Re:

(Link)
You know that "use this test as a checklist" question?

That was me in college. Though I could probably still drop a few nonsquick points with creative locality stuff. Funny thing is a lot of it really doesn't appeal to me much anymore.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:lograh
Date:10:14 08.Feb.2004 (UTC)

Re:

(Link)
*snicker*.. yer starting to get old!! *gasp* hehe.. look out, you're getting into my area.. :)

and, just for the record, I have the point for that question also. ;)

Oh, btw: welcome to the party.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)