What do girls/women look for in men?

[DaxInvader]

The worst is : A girl that manipulates you and you don't see it after 4 and a half years...

 

[mathwonk]

of course we all get our information about normal human behavior from action at singles bars and websites.

 

[JasonRox]

The worst is : A girl that manipulates you and you don't see it after 4 and a half years...

I guess so.

If you can get manipulated for that long, there are certainly other problems.

 

[Hurkyl]

Backfilling data to reach a desired conclusion is generally regarded as a no-no.

Then why do you insist on doing so? You do realize that my criticism is precisely that, don't you? You are inventing data so that you can reach your desired conclusion.

the values that represent the vast majority of actual cases in the real world?

It would be interesting to see some sort of evidence of this. But, frankly, it's irrelevant, because you're simply stereotyping, rather than actually discussing Moonbear's scenario.

The values you filled in in order to reach the conclusion she obviously wanted to reach

What makes you think I filled in any values, or reached a conclusion? Also, I wonder why you think what I may or may not have done has any bearing on what is appropriate behavior.

 

[whitay]

Green Light

Verbal

• Statements like, “I really enjoy spending time with you;” “Perhaps we can get together again;” “You are very sweet/ kind/thoughtful…” or “Here’s my phone number.”
• Attempts to reschedule or develop an alternate plan if unable to get together.
• Asks many questions about you.

Nonverbal

• Actively engages in eye contact along with open body language, smiles and perhaps even blushing.
• Stays when you approach and might even move to be closer to you.
• Dresses well when she knows she will be seeing you.
• Looks interested when you talk.
• Laughs at your jokes.

I've displayed all of that towards someone. That person displayed such actions in returns over a certain period of time. I made my feelings quite clear (I like her, quite abit). My feelings expressed verbal, which felt like my feelings fell on deaf ears. I received no response. Ever since then her behaviors have been odd towards me to the point where everyone notices and questions me about them (i have no answer for them).

A friend of her's has asked me about my feelings for her and the friend's response was simply I'm pretty sure she feels the same way.

I'm afraid however this women/girl/teenager isn't quite as simple as you all have tried to put it. She is quite inadequate about herself, she is very insecure, lacks confidence. However she is intelligent and has direction.

Unfortunately, my feelings have fell sour for her and only really want to remain friends with her. I've felt I grew a hatred for her once she began treating me like ****. But that has changed.

It's essentially tought me the lesson to not bother with the one's who possesses what I call an "emotional complex". And look for the ones who are level headed and arn't afraid of who they are or expressing themselves.

 

[whitay]

Then again I am 18 and really don't care about anything.

But on topic, if I was a women or gay. Then the characteristics I would want in a man, would have to be, hands down, intelligence. But looks are overly important. He must have short hair (styled), no facial hair (yucky, as is body hair), glasses only if they make you look sophosticated, a great jaw line, if taned skin then dark coloured eyes, if pale skin then blue eyes (like me) and well toned body (6packs are hot).

He needs to know how to shop aswell. Must know how to take care of face, eg cleansers and moisterisers and exfoliators (I have an array of them), I mean we don't want him looking old to quick.

He's to know how to handle himself, can't be loud and extroverted. Needs to be nice and willing to express himself. Can't be a drunk, can't excessively drink when going out.

Shouldn't bull**** or fiddle fart around. Needs some direction in life, needs motivation. Can't be homophobic. Open minded. Knows how to treat people. Needs to be able to read people.

I can't think of much more, but ill keeping adding if i think of anything more.

 

[Astronuc]

of course we all get our information about normal human behavior from action at singles bars and websites.

It does seem to be the case for some. I guess an awful lot of parents don't bother to discuss human behavior and relationships with their children.

One could add TV and peers.

"emotional complex".

Each and every person is "an emotional complex", which is a consequence of having a brain. The young lady, who is perhaps insecure, will change, and hopefully mature and become more confident.

Then again I am 18 and really don't care about anything.

I wonder if that's a generational thing. I cared about lots of things when I was a teenager, and so did most of my peers.

no facial hair (yucky, as is body hair),

Body hair is natural - so is facial hair. What can I say - I'm just a hairy beast.

 

[twisting_edge]

Then why do you insist on doing so? You do realize that my criticism is precisely that, don't you? You are inventing data so that you can reach your desired conclusion.

Hurkyl, I think you ought to read the backthread somewhat. I believe you are starting to lose track of what you are arguing about. I don't think you realize which side of this debate you have managed to wind up on.

Here is a complete quote of the original information given:

Another classic example of manipulation: a woman meets a wealthy guy who loves to lavish gifts on her, but she finds him completely boring. She pretends to be interested in him, talks about getting married someday, yet will never commit, as long as he keeps giving her expensive gifts.

There are tons of situations just like that. So far, not one person has disputed that this sort of situation comes up fairly often. It's pretty rare for material gifts to flow in the other direction, but men do exactly the same sort of thing.

Now, your version of "filling in the blanks" assumes she realizes what she is doing, that she is in it just for the gifts. You seem to feel the majority of women stuck in such situations are consciously doing it just for the gifts.

My version is far less misogynistic. I would assume that in the vast majority of such cases the women don't even realize what they are about. They are not scheming, and conniving (although that certainly happens), but are in fact somewhat puzzled by their own behavior. If forced to confront their true motivations, they would probably stop.

Do you think that most women, once they became aware of what they were doing in such a situation would stop? Or do you think they would simply continue, milking the situation for all it was worth?

Are you really sure which side of this argument you want to be on?

What makes you think I filled in any values, or reached a conclusion? Also, I wonder why you think what I may or may not have done has any bearing on what is appropriate behavior.

The exceprt above from Moonbear is verbatim. Please check it if you wish. Once you have confirmed that it is correct, show me where it says the woman taking the gifts is aware of what she is doing. It does imply very strongly ("...as long as he keeps giving her gifts") why she is doing it, but does not say she is aware of her own reasons.

[edited to add] I forget the second part of that last quote from you. I would agree that she still bears responsibility for her own actions even if she is in denial. That's the main point people don't seem to be getting. But once you open that door, almost all behavior becomes "manipulative" to one degree or another. No one ever does anything for no reason at all. Even when acting on the flip of a coin, something made the person willing to do either of the alternatives. But trying to sort out those motivations is often impossible.

 

[Astronuc]

There is no clear dividing line between "what everyone means by manipulation" and normal behavior.

Hmm. Thinking about this, it seems to be a matter of semantics, i.e. specifically of understanding the meaning of 'manipulation' as opposed to 'influence'.

Humans, with their brains/minds, seek to influence their immediate environment, and that includes people.

Perhaps it is a matter of defining a boundary between 'influence' and 'manipulation', or rather, like an alloy, defining the relative degrees of influence/manipulation?

 

[Astronuc]

Let's look at the full context of Moonbear's example:

Another classic example of manipulation: a woman meets a wealthy guy who loves to lavish gifts on her, but she finds him completely boring. She pretends to be interested in him, talks about getting married someday, yet will never commit, as long as he keeps giving her expensive gifts.

Not manipulation: a woman meets a wealthy guy and they have everything in common. He enjoys giving her lavish gifts, and she accepts (perhaps with some protest). He proposes, she accepts, they get married and live happily ever after.

The difference in those examples is intent. In the first, she has no intent of marrying the guy, doesn't really even like him, but it suits her to pretend to like him to get lots of gifts. The guy may also be manipulating her in return (sometimes it has to be mutual to last so long), thinking he can keep her around and buy her affection if he keeps giving her gifts.

In the second example, she really loves the guy, has every intention of marrying him, in reality, whatever he buys her will end up still being his as part of their shared assets once married, and he can afford it. He gets genuine pleasure of seeing her smile every time he gives her a gift, and knows it's just a token of a much greater, genuine affection.

The intent in the first scenario is established, and therefore the woman is ostensibly conscious/cognizant - OR maybe she is behaving pathologically, and she can't help it. But is it not the responsibility of the man to recognize whether or not he is being manipulated?

It comes down to influence/manipulation, and how much of each, and to what end.


In reality, looking from the outside, one cannot 'know' the thoughts/motivations of another. Over time, one might be able to discern a pattern of behavior, which is consistent with a particular motivation, but there one cannot be sure, unless the person being observed makes a plausible declaration of the person's thought/motivation.


My wife influences me, but AFAIK she doesn't manipulate me - or maybe she does and she's so good at it, I just don't see it. Well, I love her, and that's what counts!

 

[whitay]

Each and every person is "an emotional complex", which is a consequence of having a brain. The young lady, who is perhaps insecure, will change, and hopefully mature and become more confident.


I wonder if that's a generational thing. I cared about lots of things when I was a teenager, and so did most of my peers.


Body hair is natural - so is facial hair. What can I say - I'm just a hairy beast.

She'll be alittle to late for me. I won't be in the country next year(exchange) and I'll be in a different city when I return to study university.

You sound like my father witht he whole generational thing. If he tries to something to me and it makes no sense, he tells me it secret generation (X,Y,Z, whatever he is) language and that's why I don't understand. I do care about people closest to me. But in terms of my peers, they're interested in how superficial they are. There car, girlfriend, music and bling is really what's important to them. I don't care what car i drive (According to some ego's at school I am gay cause i drive a toyota echo to school), I don't really care that I don't have a girlfriend, the music i listen to is purely anything that I want and isn't subject to my subculture(i don't have one) and I don't wear jewellrey. My peers care about how pissed they were on the weekend, I'm practically an abstainer (I had one alcoholic drink since I've turned 18).

And body hair... um... we have clinics which will wax that all off for you, or hair removal gels. I'll be happy to attack you with a razor. I don't even have to shave my facial hair... yet... it doesn't grow... Every morning I wake up and quench tightly on my face to suppress my hormones. I hear justin timberlake has trouble growing facial hair, takes him 3 times as long compared to the average man. I'm hoping I get something better than that, like 6 times longer to grow facial hair.

I shall be off I have a chemistry exam tomorrow. :( and I need to study for my maths exam (optimisation :D).

 

[Astronuc]

And body hair... um... we have clinics which will wax that all off for you, or hair removal gels. I'll be happy to attack you with a razor. I don't even have to shave my facial hair... yet... it doesn't grow... Every morning I wake up and quench tightly on my face to suppress my hormones. I hear justin timberlake has trouble growing facial hair, takes him 3 times as long compared to the average man. I'm hoping I get something better than that, like 6 times longer to grow facial hair.

I started growing facial hair when I was 15/16. I have an aversion to shaving. When I shaved regularly, which was about 30 years ago, I would have to shave twice a day to remain 'clean shaven'.

As it was, I'd shave probably once a week, or so. I finally got to the point where I concluded to heck with it, and I stopped shaving. I figured that somewhere, sometime, I'd find the right woman who didn't object to my beard and hair - and I did.

As for removing body hair ( ) - for me that's just bizarre - although I certainly understand that human like to modify their bodies.

I have several friends who simply cannot grow much of a beard. Afterall, the growth of hair is a genetic characteristic.

I shall be off I have a chemistry exam tomorrow. :( and I need to study for my maths exam (optimisation :D).

Good luck on your chemistry exam.

 

[whitay]

Good luck on your chemistry exam.

Thank you, I'll think of you if at anytime during the exam I get stuck.

 

[Astronuc]

Thank you, I'll think of you if at anytime during the exam I get stuck.

Try to think of something more pleasant.

 

[twisting_edge]

Perhaps it is a matter of defining a boundary between 'influence' and 'manipulation', or rather, like an alloy, defining the relative degrees of influence/manipulation?

That has been my point all along: it is one huge grey zone. There are overt, conscious decisions, such as Moonbear's implied golddigger. But I think they are really relatively rare. Most people simply act without thinking.

Look at my own example, where I know I sometimes establish a pattern of withdrawing from a disagreement, because I know I'll get my way later. It's a real-world example. I've actually caught myself doing that. (The full context is https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1146814&postcount=326".)

I'm not even behaving any differently than I would normally. I just start exhibiting that particular behavior more frequently when the other person is likely to let me get my way if I do. I do not consciously think, "This one's a patsy, so I can get away with this." It's just that the reasons for not doing it (I am more likely to wind up agreeing with them, they might get mad because I am blowing them off) become less of a risk.

In the specific case I spelled out (which has never happened, I might add), I would probably go ahead and do it even if I were aware of it. Why? Because she probably wouldn't want risk ruining the evening, either. Her interest in getting her way and her interest in having a nice evening don't line up. I have to chose between them.

I could, of course, point all this out to her and let her decide, but that doesn't work. The truth is toxic. I might say, "Look, I'm in a good mood and was looking forward to a nice evening. Can we deal with this later?" But what she will hear is, "Your concerns are less important to me than my happiness. Either let me have my way or I'll spoil the rest of the evening for you." What was a completely rational approach becomes a threat. In a way, she's right. Some days, you (plural) just can't win.

That's why people need to either learn to deal with it, get out of the race until they can. Personally, I can't deal with it at all.

 

[Astronuc]

I think there is a typo in post #326. I think "maligned interests" is supposed to be "misaligned interests", which also cited subsequently.

Most people simply act without thinking.

Well, perhaps people act with varying degrees of thought/deliberation. If one had to constantly 'think' about each and every action/behavior, we would not accomplish very much. So I think ( ) that we program ourselves based on experience - kind of like setting 'autopilot' - which can get jolted off when the susequent consequences of an action do not meet the expectations.

I meet her in a good mood, she brings up an outstanding issue that has been bothering her, and I am given a choice: I can either ignore it right now, knowing it will blow over, and then deal with it in a few moments; or I can respond right then and possibly spoil the entire evening for both of us. Most people would prefer the first choice. But what I am doing can also be explained as putting her off now because I know if I do that I'll get my way later. It's precisely the same motivations, and precisely the same actions.

The truth is I probably do neither of those things: I probably just respond one way or the other without thinking, even though my motivations remain identical. I honestly prefer not to think things like that through all the time, for obvious reasons. But isn't that willful abdication of responsibility also my responsibility?

In answer to the question - No, not necessarily. However this scenario is an example of the inherent complexity of human relationships, and the source of considerable frustration and anxiety and suffering, or on the other hand, one might be able to work through it and smooth over the 'bump in the road'. It's human nature.

One's response to another depends entirely on oneself and the other person. I suppose one could apply a physics principle and chose "the path of least resistance", however it doesn't work in all cases. My wife prefers to deal with issues rather than leave them lingering, i.e. she doesn't like outstanding issues, but they do happen. I have to accept that because she is who she is - and I chose to deal with her when I married her.

Relationships, as well as people, are dynamic. People change with time and consequently the relationships change. The bottom line in a relationship is that one makes a choice to adapt and work with it, or not.

And one does have a choice - free will.

 

[twisting_edge]

The intent in the first scenario is established, and therefore the woman is ostensibly conscious/cognizant - OR maybe she is behaving pathologically, and she can't help it. But is it not the responsibility of the man to recognize whether or not he is being manipulated?

I didn't include that second part because it contains no new information. The excerpt I made already said she was completely bored with the guy, although it does add information about his motivations.

My original response to that (the one that got chopped) went into they guy's role. If he's the one that mentioned marriage, it could very well be just a red herring. He may want her to remain in a state of denial. By keeping marriage on the table, it lessens her worries about the future (i.e., finding a better guy). If worse comes to worst, she can just marry him after all.

But that guy is really pretty interesting. Most people aren't that generous, but some do exist. In my expereince, generous people, like everyone else, expect other people to treat them they way they treat other people. When the woman eventually splits, his most likely response is, "I really very disappointed. I expected better of her."

Quid pro quo? I'd say not. But he was probably raised a certain way, and came to expect certain things from other people. As a child he used to make things for his mother and she would always lavish affection on him in exchange, or something like that. So even if he's just generous by nature, there's probably all sorts of machinery grinding away on some level. You have to draw the line somewhere, though, and I wouldn't blame him for that.

If he gets really vindictive over the perceived betrayal, though, his behavior becomes questionable again. That's the sort of thing he ought to pay attention do, and preferably do something about. Personal responsibility kicks back in at some point.

 

[twisting_edge]

Well, perhaps people act with varying degrees of thought/deliberation. If one had to constantly 'think' about each and every action/behavior, we would not accomplish very much. So I think that we program ourselves based on experience - kind of like setting 'autopilot' - which can get jolted off when the susequent consequences of an action do not meet the expectations.

That's actually why I prefer not to think things through. It seems to me to be more "honest" to simply respond. Once you start to think things through, you conlude there is no way to be "honest" in that sort of situation without a half-hour debate of your and her motivations. The truth is toxic (I'm determined to get milage out of that one). Any attempt to address the issue directly will itself become An Issue and put you right back to square one.

But you can look at my reluctance to think things like that through as giving myself permission to do whatever works: as long as I have not consciously decided to manipulate the situation in order to achieve a desired result, I'm not guilty of "manipulation as that word is usually meant", and am free to engage in as much manipulative behavior as I like.

Your analogy of the robot is a good one. When I catch myself doing things like that, I make a determined effort to avoid that particular behavior until I establish a new pattern and can forget about it. It can lead to some pretty weird results, though. In the case cited, I might decide never to put anything off (I'm a terrible procrastinator and do that every so often in any case). So I might appear to start getting rather argumentative. I've been told it can get very unsettling, even when I try explaining in advance what my concerns are.

Aside: anyone every wonder why, in my fictitious example, she brought the issue up if I was clearly in a good mood? Her motivations for bringing an issue up at that time are at least as complex as mine when I try to deal with it. That cuts you a lot of slack in your behavior.

 

[Astronuc]

Hmm, I think one of the complications in the various discussions within this thread is the shifting target (context). Moonbear layed out two specific examples, but others factors were introduced during subsequent discussions.

Digressing -

The difference in those examples is intent. In the first, she has no intent of marrying the guy, doesn't really even like him, but it suits her to pretend to like him to get lots of gifts. The guy may also be manipulating her in return (sometimes it has to be mutual to last so long), thinking he can keep her around and buy her affection if he keeps giving her gifts.

In the second example, she really loves the guy, has every intention of marrying him, in reality, whatever he buys her will end up still being his as part of their shared assets once married, and he can afford it. He gets genuine pleasure of seeing her smile every time he gives her a gift, and knows it's just a token of a much greater, genuine affection.

These are just two possibilities of an indeterminate set.

The woman could be misleading the man (i.e. manipulating him) and he could be totally clueless, OR she could mislead him and he perserveres hoping to change her mind, OR he could catch on and terminate the relationship.

Other possibilities are that the woman initially feels that she wants to marry the guy, or she might want to marry the guy, but then changes her mind.

And the guy may or may not be interested in marriage. He might want nothing more than a casual relationship, and then discover he has found the woman of his dreams.

As I mentioned to whitay, each person is an "emotional complex", and lines the dunes in the desert, they are constantly shifting.

 

[Astronuc]

That's actually why I prefer not to think things through. It seems to me to be more "honest" to simply respond. Once you start to think things through, you conlude there is no way to be "honest" in that sort of situation without a half-hour debate of your and her motivations. The truth is toxic (I'm determined to get milage out of that one). Any attempt to address the issue directly will itself become An Issue and put you right back to square one.

In short (and cliché) - honesty is the best policy. In a relationship, I would prefer to leave little to chance, i.e. minimize uncertainty and ambiguity - saves a lot time and trouble. Truth is not toxic, especially if one or both parties are not being honest. Honesty is part of maturity.

In a relationship, I need to know where the other person stands.

The other part of honesty is trust - I have to be able to trust the other person in the relatioship, and I need the other person to be able to trust me. If trust does not exist, the relationship will not work (in the positive sense).

But you can look at my reluctance to think things like that through as giving myself permission to do whatever works: as long as I have not consciously decided to manipulate the situation in order to achieve a desired result, I'm not guilty of "manipulation as that word is usually meant", and am free to engage in as much manipulative behavior as I like.

Do you ever feel like you overanalyze things? I have felt that way sometimes, certainly when I was much younger. My wife has pointed out that I am predisposed to over-analyzing things, but one can learn not to do so.

When I catch myself doing things like that, I make a determined effort to avoid that particular behavior until I establish a new pattern and can forget about it. It can lead to some pretty weird results, though. In the case cited, I might decide never to put anything off (I'm a terrible procrastinator and do that every so often in any case). So I might appear to start getting rather argumentative. I've been told it can get very unsettling, even when I try explaining in advance what my concerns are.

We seem to have something in common. In my case, I have to struggle soemtimes to keep on task (ADD). There are infinite distractions.

 

[twisting_edge]

In short (and cliché) - honesty is the best policy. In a relationship, I would prefer to leave little to chance, i.e. minimize uncertainty and ambiguity - saves a lot time and trouble. Truth is not toxic, especially if one or both parties are not being honest. Honesty is part of maturity.

OK, which "truth" below is the one that counts?

I could, of course, point all this out to her and let her decide, but that doesn't work. The truth is toxic. I might say, "Look, I'm in a good mood and was looking forward to a nice evening. Can we deal with this later?" But what she will hear is, "Your concerns are less important to me than my happiness. Either let me have my way or I'll spoil the rest of the evening for you." What was a completely rational approach becomes a threat. In a way, she's right.

She's got a point if I start saying things like that all the time. It's not that simple to choose between them.

Which truth counts? More to the point, that evening is almost certainly shot for both of us. Yes, you can sacrifice that evening, and hope for better later. But then something else will come up. There's always something. You wind up spending all your time in that sort of discussion, and no one is happy.

Assuming it moves any further (highly unlikely), you eventually just wear each other down, and start avoiding discussing anything. You wind up right back where I started: do I thrash out the issue right there and risk ruining yet another evening, or do I let the comment pass, knowing I'll get my way later?

Isn't that precisely where it all started?

P.S.: You know, I'm starting to wonder what this fictitious girlfriend looked like. I'm starting to wonder what I ever saw in her in the first place. This may be a cause for some concern on my part.

 

[Astronuc]

OK, which "truth" below is the one that counts?

She's got a point if I start saying things like that all the time. It's not that simple to choose between them.

Which truth counts? More to the point, that evening is almost certainly shot for both of us. Yes, you can sacrifice that evening, and hope for better later. But then something else will come up. There's always something. You wind up spending all your time in that sort of discussion, and no one is happy.

Assuming it moves any further (highly unlikely), you eventually just wear each other down, and start avoiding discussing anything. You wind up right back where I started: do I thrash out the issue right there and risk ruining yet another evening, or do I let the comment pass, knowing I'll get my way later?

P.S.: You know, I'm starting to wonder what this fictitious girlfriend looked like. I'm starting to wonder what I ever saw in her in the first place. This may be a cause for some concern on my part.

Ah, I see. Well, both 'truths count'. What you mean/intend and what the woman perceives are equally valid, and both affect the relationship. This is where effort is required in a relationship. There are times where two people in a relationship are in conflict (out of phase). Then it is a simple matter of working it out.

I can't decide for someone else, but putting myself in the position of the man, I'd look her in the face and ask what's wrong, and I would try to work things out. Even if I wanted to be intimate with the woman, I would defer that in order to deal with the unresolved issue. And such situations happen even in marriage (first hand experience).

One has to balance short terms gains vs long term gains/benefits. I can certainly defer immediate/near-term gratification in favor of long term benefits. Also, don't confuse disappointment with being unhappy. I can be disappointed but not unhappy. Sometimes I am disappointed, and sometimes unhappy, but that is transient, and I get over it. Most of the time, I am quite satisfied and happy.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Do you ever feel like you overanalyze things? I have felt that way sometimes, certainly when I was much younger. My wife has pointed out that I am predisposed to over-analyzing things, but one can learn not to do so.

We seem to have something in common. In my case, I have to struggle soemtimes to keep on task (ADD). There are infinite distractions.

You've mentioned your Asperger's a couple times. Do you actually have that diagnosis, too, or is that only something you suspect?

The reason I ask is because is very much more difficult for a person with Asperger's to fathom facial expressions and social cues and so they're relegated to dealing with this by ammassing an inventory of "rules of thumb" and lists of what certain expressions and behaviors most likely indicate. The net result is that your approach to relationships would be decidedly analytical.

 

[radou]

That sisterhood stuff sounds creepy.

 

[Evo]

That sisterhood stuff sounds creepy.

Oh, that was a BIG mistake.

 

[radou]

...and I was just thinking about becoming a contributor. Too bad.

 

[radou]

Evo, he's given you everything you need to OWN his soul.

First sisterhoods. Then sisterhoods owning guns. Then sisterhoods owning souls. What is this place?

 

[Math Is Hard]

First sisterhoods. Then sisterhoods owning guns. Then sisterhoods owning souls. What is this place?

You should know about this by now. You are not exactly new around here.

 

[radou]

You should know about this by now. You are not exactly new around here.

Umm...but...well, not being new doesn't imply knowing about everything what's going on around here, does it? I guess that makes me a lousy PF member.

Btw, I'm really scared now. All of this sounds kind of...big.

 

[Math Is Hard]

Umm...but...well, not being new doesn't imply knowing about everything what's going on around here, does it? I guess that makes me a lousy PF member.

Btw, I'm really scared now. All of this sounds kind of...big.

time to break you in officially...

*whacks radou with a sturgeon*

there. now at least the easy part of your PF initiation is over.

 

[radou]

time to break you in officially...

*whacks radou with a sturgeon*

there. now at least the easy part of your PF initiation is over.

*reaches out for stars which are spinning around everywhere while asking himself what the hard part of a PF initiation looks like*

 

[whitay]

The next part requires that you bend over. Rap your bottom lip around your head. And prance around like an anterlope(i can't spell).

*saying that in a posh south african accent*

 

[alias25]

A Gentleman, honesty, sensitivity (but also confident enough to stand up for himself), intelligent, good humour, has to like/love science, rich and good looking would be a bonus. lol.

 

[radou]

The next part requires that you bend over. Rap your bottom lip around your head. And prance around like an anterlope(i can't spell).

*saying that in a posh south african accent*

*becoming aware of what he got himself into*

 

[Evo]

*becoming aware of what he got himself into*

Quick GET THE NET!

I just realized that radou is a forum "top dweller" that has somehow stumbled into the PF bargain basement.

Don't let him out!

<cackles insanely>