what year to get pregnant

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
You lost me at "Marx was a genius". I was really liking you up to that point...

So do you not think he was a genius? I'm pretty sure his IQ was well over 160. Probably 180+. His ability as a philosopher was that good...

Members don't see this ad.
 
I also agree with his theories about religion, vis-a-vis it being the "opiate of the masses."


I'm sure a religious person would disagree, but I think he was spot on. As I look at religion...it exists solely to appease those that aren't fulfilled. But it does serve a purpose towards those that need it. It is, literally, the opiate of the people. Ironically, the view one Thomas Paine had of religion was even more scathing. Yet he appears in your sig, now doesn't he?

It does make sense that religion is an "opiate of the masses," but then again, many unrelated topics can cause similar infatuation and delusion. I think it's safe to say the internet and computers have been my opiates for the past few years, and although I know it's bad for me, I can't free myself of this addiction. I just think that everyone has to be infatuated with at least one thing at any time, and religion can be one of these things. I honestly can't blame anyone.

Like Old Timer said, maybe it's the human condition that causes problems, rather than religion and whatnot. If you think of the "goodness" in people as a bell curve, the people at the bottom will always cause problems for the top, and with a better overall "goodness" in a society, the more easily it is taken advantage of, so in the end, you're left with crap again.
 
I
Like Old Timer said, maybe it's the human condition that causes problems, rather than religion and whatnot. If you think of the "goodness" in people as a bell curve, the people at the bottom will always cause problems for the top, and with a better overall "goodness" in a society, the more easily it is taken advantage of, so in the end, you're left with crap again.

Yeah...that's actually pretty much Marx's point...he saw religion as a symptom, not a cause...

Oh well...
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I don't know how the hell a lowly low-post pre-pharmer like me came to this thread but this thread is epic. Sometimes I don't know whether epic win or epic fail... but epic nonetheless

This is bringing things from pages ago but...

WVUPharm2007- About the car argument...When I got my license, my dad game me his old car (bought used) and bought himself a new car. Not an expensive one or anything (jeep liberty), just so we could have another vehicle. I personally think this was genius.
I also find you hate of Pitt sports teams hilarious. I personally hate the Penguins.

So you think you can have your own child as well as an adopted child and TRULY love the adopted one equally? A biological parent would easily sacrifice their life to save their child. Would you die for your adopted child? That's the one thing holding me back from adopting children, because I want to have my own children too but I don't want to treat one child differently from the other.
I was adopted as a baby and I know that my parents loved me as much as their biological children and they would sacrifice their lives for me without hesitation just as quickly as they would for their biological children.

from way far back...
So many feminists want so much equality, that they expect to be treated like MEN. I could never understand this.
What's wrong with that? I don't want to be treated a specific way because I'm a woman - I would like to be treated the way I would like to be treated. Just because I am a woman doesn't mean I behave or think like all other women. I hate purses/handbags and I personally think dramatically holding a door open for me or pulling out my chair is awkward (the door thing makes me feel like I should be walking faster when I'd rather keep speed I was originally walking at). I HATE cooking and do not think that I should be the one cooking just because I am a woman and "that's what a woman does." Just because I am a girl doesn't mean that I am automatically hysterical and emotional and feel like talking about my emotions at every given moment. I do not fit the mold of a "stereotypical woman" and therefore do not want to be treated like one. I would like to be treated as an individual.
We are all individuals and all have ideas about how we should be treated (and treat others) and there is nothing wrong with that. By your definition, I want to be treated like a man but I do not think there is nothing wrong with that. I don't see it so much as being treated like a man, but being treat like me.

All the previous talk about languages brought me to this. I am Asian but I was adopted as an infant to the US into a white family. It annoys me when people assume I know an Asian language (whatever one they think I am). Another thing is that a lot of people think that I should be looking into "my heritage" and are confused when I tell people I have no interest. Really I consider myself a part of my family... which is English, Irish, Polish and Ukrainian. I realize that I myself am not any of those things but I still consider myself a part of them. Is that so hard to grasp?
 
What's wrong with that? I don't want to be treated a specific way because I'm a woman - I would like to be treated the way I would like to be treated. Just because I am a woman doesn't mean I behave or think like all other women. I hate purses/handbags and I personally think dramatically holding a door open for me or pulling out my chair is awkward (the door thing makes me feel like I should be walking faster when I'd rather keep speed I was originally walking at). I HATE cooking and do not think that I should be the one cooking just because I am a woman and "that's what a woman does." Just because I am a girl doesn't mean that I am automatically hysterical and emotional and feel like talking about my emotions at every given moment. I do not fit the mold of a "stereotypical woman" and therefore do not want to be treated like one. I would like to be treated as an individual.

Women these days don't know how to cook anyway. Women expect all the typical behaviors from men. They want men to take care of them, work, fix the car, etc. etc. Stop whining.
 
I was adopted as a baby and I know that my parents loved me as much as their biological children and they would sacrifice their lives for me without hesitation just as quickly as they would for their biological children.
Wow that's awesome. See, if I could love another child equally as I would love my own, then, I would know that I can adopt one. However, I wonder how one knows if they possess this character of love.


I am Asian but I was adopted as an infant to the US into a white family. It annoys me when people assume I know an Asian language (whatever one they think I am). Another thing is that a lot of people think that I should be looking into "my heritage" and are confused when I tell people I have no interest. Really I consider myself a part of my family... which is English, Irish, Polish and Ukrainian. I realize that I myself am not any of those things but I still consider myself a part of them. Is that so hard to grasp?
Yeah baby! That's why I think "racial" differences have little to do with external appearances but rather cultural differences, however, people use the external appearances as a stereotyping tool because it's the first thing they see. People are too simple to think beyond what concerns them. And very few people are in your position to understand that you're White, not Asian. I believe you that you may look Asian but you're totally White.

P.S. Do you intend to adopt a child in the future?
 
I don't know how the hell a lowly low-post pre-pharmer like me came to this thread but this thread is epic.

Lowly low-post pre-pharmer? I don't understand why you would belittle yourself like so. Perhaps you see a hierarchy between posters and their career statuses, but in the end I think your human-card trumps you into equality with everyone. Plus, who needs a PharmD to have an opinion on when to get knocked up during pharmacy school? :hungover:
 
Women these days don't know how to cook anyway. Women expect all the typical behaviors from men. They want men to take care of them, work, fix the car, etc. etc. Stop whining.
Haha are you crazy? I would not trust the car to be fixed by my bf/dad--nobody but a mechanic! :hungover: And this mechanic doesn't have to be a male, they can be a female or a hermaphrodite, as long as they know how to fix the car.
 
This is not the place for this type of discussion. Your conversation has nothing to do with pharmacy. Someone please remove these posts or this thread.

Oh why don't you just cry me a river? You bit*ch more than a woman on PMS. :laugh:
 
Your weak argument is getting annoying. If you actually made yourself believable, I wouldn't have a problem.

Obviously it has made you cry like a b*tch so it must be a strong argument!
 
Wow that's awesome. See, if I could love another child equally as I would love my own, then, I would know that I can adopt one. However, I wonder how one knows if they possess this character of love.


P.S. Do you intend to adopt a child in the future?

About the last part, I am undecided about having children so I am not sure. About the first part - I have no clue. Though I guess if you have doubts it would not be the time to adopt.
Yeah baby! That's why I think "racial" differences have little to do with external appearances but rather cultural differences, however, people use the external appearances as a stereotyping tool because it's the first thing they see. People are too simple to think beyond what concerns them. And very few people are in your position to understand that you're White, not Asian. I believe you that you may look Asian but you're totally White.
Try to explain that to everyone else. Apparently when I was a baby and my mom was pushing my in the stroller in public places, people would come up to her and ask if she would teach me english lol
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Women these days don't know how to cook anyway. Women expect all the typical behaviors from men. They want men to take care of them, work, fix the car, etc. etc. Stop whining.

Not really. Or at least this one doesn't.
 
lol. TRUE story:

I left this thread open on my computer, and my parents decided to use my computer. Apparently my Dad thought that I was taking a year off of school because I was pregnant??? So today my mom sits me down and says..dad saw your email open, he thinks you are going to take time off of school to have kids.

haha. At first I had no idea what he was talking about, but then we figured it out and it was pretty funny.

Just thought I'd share :)
 
About the last part, I am undecided about having children so I am not sure. About the first part - I have no clue. Though I guess if you have doubts it would not be the time to adopt.

Try to explain that to everyone else. Apparently when I was a baby and my mom was pushing my in the stroller in public places, people would come up to her and ask if she would teach me english lol
:laugh: Hahaha a baby?!!? People can be soooo stupid!
 
lol. TRUE story:

I left this thread open on my computer, and my parents decided to use my computer. Apparently my Dad thought that I was taking a year off of school because I was pregnant??? So today my mom sits me down and says..dad saw your email open, he thinks you are going to take time off of school to have kids.

haha. At first I had no idea what he was talking about, but then we figured it out and it was pretty funny.

Just thought I'd share :)
LOL that's so funny!
 
You've cited it as fact several times in this thread alone. [FONT=Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]You must be fairly confident that the information contained there is accurate. My opinion is that Wiki is a reliable source for amusement. only. It's an unreliable source of information. Does your university allow to cite wiki in your papers?

I am very confident the information is accurate for the sites which I posted. Know why? Because unlike you, using your politicized pseudoscience website to paste a bunch of references, I checked the references that were being cited on Wiki's Global Warming page for any fact that I choose to use. Specifically, regarding the Wiki's global warming page, you can not refute a single solitary piece of information there.

In fact, I even decided to check some of yours, since you didn't, and as I previously stated, the reference I looked into is incongruous with your thesis.

Well, my opinion is that your talking points are for amusement only. You are certainly entitled to your amusing opinions, but I am sorry, you are not entitled to your own facts. Stop politicizing science.

Please read this:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html

Please.

I don't expect you to read it. In fact, I would bet on it. But I suppose that some others may be interested so I posted it anyway. We are having a non-technical discussion on global warming (although you take the non-technical part to an extreme) so for these purposes, this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming is sufficient. This specific webpage is not unreliable. This is a non-academic discussion on a topic which none of us has any meaningful expertise on; said webpage is fine for neophytes of this discipline.

Does my university allow me to use it in papers? Do you read? Sorry, that is condescending, surely you read...but do you comprehend? All available evidence suggests that you certainly do not. Please reread my previous posts in this thread to learn where I gather information for papers.

To deny global warming as an occurrence is not even laughable...it's beyond parody.
 
I am very confident the information is accurate for the sites which I posted. Know why? Because unlike you, using your politicized pseudoscience website to paste a bunch of references, I checked the references that were being cited on Wiki's Global Warming page for any fact that I choose to use. Specifically, regarding the Wiki's global warming page, you can not refute a single solitary piece of information there.

In fact, I even decided to check some of yours, since you didn't, and as I previously stated, the reference I looked into is incongruous with your thesis.

Well, my opinion is that your talking points are for amusement only. You are certainly entitled to your amusing opinions, but I am sorry, you are not entitled to your own facts. Stop politicizing science.

Please read this:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html

Please.

I don't expect you to read it. In fact, I would bet on it. But I suppose that some others may be interested so I posted it anyway. We are having a non-technical discussion on global warming (although you take the non-technical part to an extreme) so for these purposes, this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming is sufficient. This specific webpage is not unreliable. This is a non-academic discussion on a topic which none of us has any meaningful expertise on; said webpage is fine for neophytes of this discipline.

Does my university allow me to use it in papers? Do you read? Sorry, that is condescending, surely you read...but do you comprehend? All available evidence suggests that you certainly do not. Please reread my previous posts in this thread to learn where I gather information for papers.

To deny global warming as an occurrence is not even laughable...it's beyond parody.

Damn global warming. We're coming out of an ice age. The frig do you expect?

Crazy **** was happening to Earth's weather long before humans were throwing Styrofoam Quarter Pounder containers into lakes.
 
Damn global warming. We're coming out of an ice age. The frig do you expect?

Crazy **** was happening to Earth's weather long before humans were throwing Styrofoam Quarter Pounder containers into lakes.

This poses a serious dilemma. Should I side with Irish Hammer's crazy **** hypothesis, or should I side with the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the US National Academy of Science, and every other industrialized country's national science academy. :rolleyes:

Tough choice...
 
This poses a serious dilemma. Should I side with Irish Hammer's crazy **** hypothesis, or should I side with the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the US National Academy of Science, and every other industrialized country's national science academy. :rolleyes:

Tough choice...

What exactly do you deem a crazy hypothesis? The fact that Earth had cyclical weather patterns long before humans were around? Yeah, that's a real out there thought.

You seem to have missed the fact that I'm not arguing your viewpoint. Yes, the Earth is getting warmer. My postulate simply was, what the frig do you expect? Earth has undergone a ****load of climate change over the past 4.6 billion years, the fact that the climate continues to change is par for the course. With that in mind, in the grand scheme of things, humans, just like every other species that has ever inhabited this planet, don't possess a whole lot of power in terms of either exacerbating or slowing this process.
 
I am very confident the information is accurate for the sites which I posted. Know why? Because unlike you, using your politicized pseudoscience website to paste a bunch of references, I checked the references that were being cited on Wiki's Global Warming page for any fact that I choose to use. Specifically, regarding the Wiki's global warming page, you can not refute a single solitary piece of information there.

In fact, I even decided to check some of yours, since you didn't, and as I previously stated, the reference I looked into is incongruous with your thesis.

Well, my opinion is that your talking points are for amusement only. You are certainly entitled to your amusing opinions, but I am sorry, you are not entitled to your own facts. Stop politicizing science.

Please read this:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html

Please.

I don't expect you to read it. In fact, I would bet on it. But I suppose that some others may be interested so I posted it anyway. We are having a non-technical discussion on global warming (although you take the non-technical part to an extreme) so for these purposes, this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming is sufficient. This specific webpage is not unreliable. This is a non-academic discussion on a topic which none of us has any meaningful expertise on; said webpage is fine for neophytes of this discipline.

Does my university allow me to use it in papers? Do you read? Sorry, that is condescending, surely you read...but do you comprehend? All available evidence suggests that you certainly do not. Please reread my previous posts in this thread to learn where I gather information for papers.

To deny global warming as an occurrence is not even laughable...it's beyond parody.



Wow... Time for anger management. Or maybe a switch to decaf.
 
What exactly do you deem a crazy hypothesis? The fact that Earth had cyclical weather patterns long before humans were around? Yeah, that's a real out there thought.

You seem to have missed the fact that I'm not arguing your viewpoint. Yes, the Earth is getting warmer. My postulate simply was, what the frig do you expect? Earth has undergone a ****load of climate change over the past 4.6 billion years, the fact that the climate continues to change is par for the course. With that in mind, in the grand scheme of things, humans, just like every other species that has ever inhabited this planet, don't possess a whole lot of power in terms of either exacerbating or slowing this process.

You used the phrase crazy **** to explain previous weather patterns. I did not use the word 'crazy' to remark on the legitimacy of this assertion, I simply used the word in the context of quoting you exactly. Now, there is a crazy thought!

I did not miss any fact. You are arguing my viewpoint which also happens to be, overwhelmingly, the viewpoint of the scientific community. Specifically, it is that much of the earth's warming is attributable to anthropogenic forces, and not merely cyclical weather patterns as you suggest.

By the way, I don't form viewpoints on these matters because I do not study them directly. I simply look to what the majority of scientists who do study this ascertain. For example, the conclusion of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was that there is 'strong evidence' that most of the warming in the latter half of the 20th century is attributable to human forces. Here is the link http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm, chapter 12 is particularly relevant.
 
You used the phrase crazy **** to explain previous weather patterns. I did not use the word 'crazy' to remark on the legitimacy of this assertion, I simply used the word in the context of quoting you exactly. Now, there is a crazy thought!

You quoting me? Now that is crazy, haha. I've never said anything quotable in my life. My mistake on the misunderstanding. Regardless, I still don't think humans will be able to completely overturn the current climate change. Slow it? Maybe, but ultimately to a negligible amount; if the Earth gets too hot for human existence, no amount of carbon credits will save us.

I could use anger management. I wonder how much it helps? I don't do decaf. though.

Anger management is bull****. And even if it was legit...stay angry. Many of society's greatest changes came at the hands of angry intelligent people.
 
Anger management is bull****. And even if it was legit...stay angry. Many of society's greatest changes came at the hands of angry intelligent people.

That... and maybe a big stick.
 
Please read this:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html
Please.
I don't expect you to read it.




Britannica didn't agree with them. You should take the time to post their point of view, even it doesn't fall right into line with yours.

http://corporate.britannica.com/britannica_nature_response.pdf



Does my university allow me to use it in papers?

You never did answer this question regarding WIKI. The answer is NO, and you know it. There's a reason for this. You should care a little more about the integrity of the data that your getting from WIKI and not just throw it around as fact when much of is unverifiable.


Do you read? Sorry, that is condescending.

No apology necessary. I wouldn't have expected anything less from you.
 
Please read this:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html
Please.
I don't expect you to read it.




Britannica didn't agree with them. You should take the time to post their point of view, even it doesn't fall right into line with yours.

http://corporate.britannica.com/britannica_nature_response.pdf

LOL, so you didn't read it! hahahhahahahahahaha.

:laugh::laugh::laugh:I knew it :D:D:D

They mention Britannica's response at the very beginning of the article.

Hmmph, go figure! I don't think you even clicked on it. If you had, you would have noticed they mention Britannica's response at the very beginning, in bold, like this, so that people like YOU can notice it.

You didn't even click on it! LOL.

By the way, they respond to each of Brittanica's claims and did not retract their article. This is all transparently documented in the very beginning of the Nature link. Then, Britannica shut their mouth, just like you should.
 
Does my university allow me to use it in papers?

You never did answer this question regarding WIKI. The answer is NO, and you know it. There's a reason for this. You should care a little more about the integrity of the data that your getting from WIKI and not just throw it around as fact when much of is unverifiable.


Do you read? Sorry, that is condescending.

No apology necessary. I wouldn't have expected anything less from you.

When Hannity goes to commercial, feel free to check out Post 934. Regards, ff.
 
LOL, so you didn't read it! hahahhahahahahahaha.

:laugh::laugh::laugh:I knew it :D:D:D

They mention Britannica's response at the very beginning of the article.

Hmmph, go figure! I don't think you even clicked on it. If you had, you would have noticed they mention Britannica's response at the very beginning, in bold, like this, so that people like YOU can notice it.

You didn't even click on it! LOL.

By the way, they respond to each of Brittanica's claims and did not retract their article. This is all transparently documented in the very beginning of the Nature link. Then, Britannica shut their mouth, just like you should.


Now your resorting to name calling and saying "shut up"..how juvenile. Reminds me of my 5 year olds fighting over their toys.

Your nature puff piece didn't do anything to support the "Wiki is a reliable reference" argument. Their methodologies were flawed and they misrepresented the facts. Britannica disagreed and Nature won't do a retract. End of story...

You've personally been quoting WIKI on here extensively as a valid source on various subjects, and it just not. Yelling at me and calling me names wont change this.

Not sure where Hannity stands on Wiki, but I can guarantee you that there are plenty of people from the right and left that post garbage on Wiki to further their agenda.

This is a big part of the problem. Why don't you name for me a few research universities or peer-reviewed scientific/medical publications that consider Wiki to be a valid source of information?
 
When Hannity goes to commercial, feel free to check out Post 934. Regards, ff.

Yea, I saw that batch of BS. I don't believe it for a second. Your just covering your a**. If your freely referencing it here, your using it everywhere...
 
Global warming is caused by all of the *******es in the world that follow a political ideology like they follow a religion who have worked to increase CO2 levels to gargantuan levels as they can't shut their traps long enough to realize that they are ****ing *****s that pretty much only preach to their selective choirs...
 
Now your resorting to name calling and saying "shut up"..how juvenile. Reminds me of my 5 year olds fighting over their toys.

I did not call you any names. I called your assertions regarding gobal warming ignorant, which they are. If I was going to call you a name however, I might call you an idiot. YOU'RE a professional, so please learn how to use your/you're properly. You have misused the words repeatedly in this thread though I didn't care to point it out until now. I must say, it is difficult to argue with an idiot, because they drag you down to their own level and beat you with experience.

Your nature puff piece didn't do anything to support the "Wiki is a reliable reference" argument. Their methodologies were flawed and they misrepresented the facts. Britannica disagreed and Nature won't do a retract. End of story...

Your story skipped a few points. Britannica objected to the study. Note that they have a financial incentive to do just that since the article equates the reliability/accuracy of Online Britannica to the dastardly Wikipedia. Now comes the part you conveniently left out, despite me pointing it out to you previously. Namely, Nature systematically responded to each and every complain Britannica had. Britannica raised no further objections thereafter, and frankly, I trust the peer-review process of top journals.

You've personally been quoting WIKI on here extensively as a valid source on various subjects, and it just not. Yelling at me and calling me names wont change this.

Really? What various subjects? I can think of only one: global warming. Also, I did not quote the site extensively. I was simply shocked at how oblivious you are to the facts and suggested it as a starting point for you to learn about the issue. Then I challenged you to refute a single solitary fact from that specific site (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming), which of course, you can not. I also introduced you to a concept of checking citations for material that you have read. Crying about this and accusing me of name-calling won't change this.

Not sure where Hannity stands on Wiki, but I can guarantee you that there are plenty of people from the right and left that post garbage on Wiki to further their agenda.

I agree. That aside, your guarantees are most likely meaningless/worthless to any discerning individual. The shape of the earth, evolution, and the impact that anthropogenic modifications have had on the warming of our earth in the last 60 years are not left/right issues. They are scientific issues. It's sad when they become politicized.

This is a big part of the problem. Why don't you name for me a few research universities or peer-reviewed scientific/medical publications that consider Wiki to be a valid source of information?

A big part of the problem is that you are obscuring the issue. The issue is global warming. But you are trying to distract from the issue by posing silly questions like this so you can shift the discussion. If you want a valid source of information, try the link I have provided a few posts above in response to Irish Hammer. It is from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Also, as a valid source of information, look up the positions regarding global warming from the American Association for the Advance of Science, the US National Academy of Science, and the position regarding the issue from every industrialized country's national science academy.
 
Yea, I saw that batch of BS. I don't believe it for a second. Your just covering your a**. If your freely referencing it here, your using it everywhere...

1. Grammar. I have a friend who teaches 7th/8th grade and she wouldn't let someone pass if they made that error consistently!
2. Covering my ass from what? From you? You've got to be kidding me. All joking aside, quite often, I honestly have no idea what you are even trying to say. It makes it rather difficult to counter your "points," if we can call them that. Kudos, it's an effective strategy. Keep not making sense.
3. Right. We all use the same standards on an anonymous online forum for an off-topic discussion in which the participants have no meaningful expertise (or in your case, any clue whatsoever) that we do in our respective fields of work.
 
Global warming is caused by all of the *******es in the world that follow a political ideology like they follow a religion who have worked to increase CO2 levels to gargantuan levels as they can't shut their traps long enough to realize that they are ****ing *****s that pretty much only preach to their selective choirs...

Wow this thread is STILL ALIVE! :eek:

Anyhow I like global warming. I hate cold weather and snow.

J/k, but I do like the increase in temperature over the years.
 
Oh yeah, we cannot let this thread die! Such great information.

Ok, so speaking of great info...

What is the standard/etiquette (according to the "pro- male pays" people) for a situation where the guy is visiting a female friend of his (and you think things may go beyond friendship) out of town...i.e. when you're both going out & doing stuff...if you're just friends...but you think it might go further...and you're not technically on a date...does the male still have to pay according to you folks?
 
Ok, so speaking of great info...

What is the standard/etiquette (according to the "pro- male pays" people) for a situation where the guy is visiting a female friend of his (and you think things may go beyond friendship) out of town...i.e. when you're both going out & doing stuff...if you're just friends...but you think it might go further...and you're not technically on a date...does the male still have to pay according to you folks?

It would certainly be a friendly gesture. Coming from experience, though, it won't get you that many brownie points. If you've been friends with her for a pre-determined amount of time, it's either happening or its not, regardless of one meal.
 
Ok, so speaking of great info...

What is the standard/etiquette (according to the "pro- male pays" people) for a situation where the guy is visiting a female friend of his (and you think things may go beyond friendship) out of town...i.e. when you're both going out & doing stuff...if you're just friends...but you think it might go further...and you're not technically on a date...does the male still have to pay according to you folks?

I have a guy friend thats just my friend (I am not attracted to him at all) and he stayed over my place before while I was in New York City bc he always wanted to visit NYC. He paid for his dinner and I paid for mine. We always go dutch during dinner, but he always pays for my movie ticket. But like I say before we are just friends, I would never date him. And he has no interest in settling down with one woman, he has a lot of women after him. He prefers playing the field until he is 35+ years old. :laugh:

I have never had a guy friend become a boyfriend before...it has always been either straight to boyfriend or guy friend forever.

But in the case you mention above, the two people would most likely go dutch or split the bill, but when things starts shifting from friendship to "more" than friendship...than the guy should start paying for dinner. However, the girl should be smart and talk about where the "friendship" is going before doing anything like hooking up with the guy b/c it would suck for her to think that he wants her as a girlfriend and want to date her when all he is looking for is a hook up.

If all he wants is a hook up and not a relationship and she is okay with that, than no he shouldn't have to pay for dinner everytime like they are dating. But if he tells her that he wants a relationship than he should be paying for all the dinners.
 
It would certainly be a friendly gesture. Coming from experience, though, it won't get you that many brownie points. If you've been friends with her for a pre-determined amount of time, it's either happening or its not, regardless of one meal.

agreed, its either straight to boyfriend or never.
 
Ok, so speaking of great info...

What is the standard/etiquette (according to the "pro- male pays" people) for a situation where the guy is visiting a female friend of his (and you think things may go beyond friendship) out of town...i.e. when you're both going out & doing stuff...if you're just friends...but you think it might go further...and you're not technically on a date...does the male still have to pay according to you folks?
I think the guy just starts to offer to pay. I would do the whole pull out my wallet tango as he insists on paying and steals the check from me kind of thing. If the guy is successful at paying for the "pre-date" it tells me that he's interested and if I was already interested in him to begin with, then we can move forward. If I was never really interested in him to begin with, I try a LOT harder to pay for myself. If the guy never attempts to pay for me for anything, there will never ever be a relationship ever, even if I had a little interest, it will die right there.

But this above said scenario is long gone. I stopped making close guy friends half a decade ago as it always ends in drama. And I haven't had a first date in almost four years.
 
I married my best friend!

It can happen!

:smack:

Best friend? Were you guys just really good friends before you started dating?

My best friend is a girl, I can't imagine having a male best friend. I hope he likes shopping a lot. :laugh:
 
Best friend? Were you guys just really good friends before you started dating?

My best friend is a girl, I can't imagine having a male best friend. I hope he likes shopping a lot. :laugh:
My bf LOVES to shop! He is definitely my best friend, but we were romantic before we were best friends. :hungover: But I can see how you can fall in love with your platonic best friend. I've never had a guy best friend who didn't end up liking me.
 
I've seen pharmacists in my class get pregnant during 2nd & 3rd yrs...but I couldn't imagine being pregnant while going thru pharmacy school, regardless of year! I think that it depends on how well you handle stress---if you handle it well, then any time is a good time. Otherwise, perhaps finding out from your own school what yr tends to be the most challenging may help you in your decision.
Gasp* a relevant post!
 
Best friend? Were you guys just really good friends before you started dating?

My best friend is a girl, I can't imagine having a male best friend. I hope he likes shopping a lot. :laugh:

We knew each other for a year before we started dating. We always referred to each other as "very good friends." Nothing really romantic... then one night on the beach in Monterey it sorta just sparked and we were like, hey we're already best friends, might as well give it a shot.

Things are pretty different in the Army. You can't really "date" if you live in the barracks, because males and females aren't readily allowed to cohabitate until you're an E-5(SGT) or above, and then you can get BAH (A housing allowance) to live off-post, anyway.

So, as weird as it sounds... in order for us to date, we had to get married. And here we are 4 years later, beating the odds.

The best part about marrying my best friend is that she already knows about all the skeletons in my closet, and vice versa.

I don't have very many guy friends. Men are smelly, more interested in football than things that actually matter, and enjoy farting contests. I was raised by my mom, sister and other women in the house. Male role-model practically non-existant. And yes, I love shopping... I don't see why it gets a bad rap from men, honestly. Probably still hearkens back to that stupid gender socialization thing. Boys play with tonka trucks, girls play with Barbies. I like wearing nice clothes. Gotta go shopping to get nice clothes, you know what I mean?
 
My bf LOVES to shop! He is definitely my best friend, but we were romantic before we were best friends. :hungover: But I can see how you can fall in love with your platonic best friend. I've never had a guy best friend who didn't end up liking me.

When you say liking you mean wanting to hook up?
 
We knew each other for a year before we started dating. We always referred to each other as "very good friends." Nothing really romantic... then one night on the beach in Monterey it sorta just sparked and we were like, hey we're already best friends, might as well give it a shot.

Things are pretty different in the Army. You can't really "date" if you live in the barracks, because males and females aren't readily allowed to cohabitate until you're an E-5(SGT) or above, and then you can get BAH (A housing allowance) to live off-post, anyway.

So, as weird as it sounds... in order for us to date, we had to get married. And here we are 4 years later, beating the odds.

The best part about marrying my best friend is that she already knows about all the skeletons in my closet, and vice versa.

I don't have very many guy friends. Men are smelly, more interested in football than things that actually matter, and enjoy farting contests. I was raised by my mom, sister and other women in the house. Male role-model practically non-existant. And yes, I love shopping... I don't see why it gets a bad rap from men, honestly. Probably still hearkens back to that stupid gender socialization thing. Boys play with tonka trucks, girls play with Barbies. I like wearing nice clothes. Gotta go shopping to get nice clothes, you know what I mean?

interesting...you met her in the army? She was in Iraq with you?

Men don't hate shopping they just don't want to do it often. Most guys prefer going shopping once a year or once every six months and buy ALOT of things all at the same time. Women prefer going shopping once a week and getting a few things here and there.
 
interesting...you met her in the army? She was in Iraq with you?

Men don't hate shopping they just don't want to do it often. Most guys prefer going shopping once a year or once every six months and buy ALOT of things all at the same time. Women prefer going shopping once a week and getting a few things here and there.

Yep, we met in training at Ft. Huachuca. She was deployed at the same time I was, but because we couldn't be in the same unit (married at the time already) she was in a different region than I was.

Are you kidding? Men abhor shopping. Maybe not that Burberry guys you kick it with, but every guy I know, and have known ever, will dash in, grab a shirt/pack of underwear/pants and then dash out. No shopping involved. He knows what he wants and he goes in, gets it, and leaves. This is the typical male shopper. I have NEVER seen a dude go into a store and leave with 3 or 4 bags. Ever. Estas loca :p
 
The best part about marrying my best friend is that she already knows about all the skeletons in my closet, and vice versa.

I don't have very many guy friends. Men are smelly, more interested in football than things that actually matter, and enjoy farting contests. I was raised by my mom, sister and other women in the house. Male role-model practically non-existant. And yes, I love shopping... I don't see why it gets a bad rap from men, honestly. Probably still hearkens back to that stupid gender socialization thing. Boys play with tonka trucks, girls play with Barbies. I like wearing nice clothes. Gotta go shopping to get nice clothes, you know what I mean?

Since when does football not matter? What, are you from Los Angeles or something? Or maybe just from Oakland, where football hasn't actually mattered since 2003? You can be a guy and still wear nice clothes. Listen to ZZ Top's "Sharp Dressed Man" sometime.

Are you kidding? Men abhor shopping. Maybe not that Burberry guys you kick it with, but every guy I know, and have known ever, will dash in, grab a shirt/pack of underwear/pants and then dash out. No shopping involved. He knows what he wants and he goes in, gets it, and leaves. This is the typical male shopper. I have NEVER seen a dude go into a store and leave with 3 or 4 bags. Ever. Estas loca :p

That doesn't mean they hate shopping. It just means they're focused on what they're shopping for. It's all about the context. I enjoy shopping because it means I'm going to get something of use to me. However, I would not enjoy shopping if it involved walking out of a store carrying six bags of tacky knick-knacks that will ultimately get sold five months from now at the townwide garage sale. That is time and money I would rather spend on beer.
 
Top