You are not logged in.

Dear visitor, welcome to Holy-War. If this is your first visit here, please read the Help. It explains in detail how this page works. To use all features of this page, you should consider registering. Please use the registration form, to register here or read more information about the registration process. If you are already registered, please login here.

Vedauwoo

Unregistered

41

Tuesday, January 13th 2009, 8:58pm

I can tell ya stories!

We used to have contests on the submarine...

I never won Longest or shortest. Darwin Stjernholm always won longest, Duncan or Kenny Higgins always won shortest. However, I have the guts to whip it out and measure whenever ya want! :thumbup:

Bigger Phil

Unregistered

42

Saturday, January 17th 2009, 12:14am

We used to have contests on the submarine...

I never won Longest or shortest. Darwin Stjernholm always won longest, Duncan or Kenny Higgins always won shortest. However, I have the guts to whip it out and measure whenever ya want!


TMI

43

Saturday, January 17th 2009, 3:41am

Two different threads degenerated to a female's body size... :pinch:

Posts: 3,022

Location: San Francisco, CA, US

Occupation: Software Developer/Musician

  • Send private message

44

Saturday, January 17th 2009, 5:00am

Two different threads degenerated to a female's body size... :pinch:
Wait, Vedauwoo is female? :P
Top accounts for sale: HW1 TG1 AI1
Already sold: HW2/3/4 TG1DE

45

Saturday, January 17th 2009, 8:45am


Two different threads degenerated to a female's body size... :pinch:
Wait, Vedauwoo is female? :P
Now...anything is possible in a virtual world :P

Bigger Phil

Unregistered

46

Saturday, January 17th 2009, 11:26pm

Female Body Component

This thread has always had a female body component. The SE ratio. I was always upfront about it.

47

Sunday, January 18th 2009, 12:30am

RE: Female Body Component

This thread has always had a female body component. The SE ratio. I was always upfront about it.
lol, it was more of the size designating a larger girl verses a smaller one....numbers can be misleading ;)

Bigger Phil

Unregistered

48

Wednesday, March 11th 2009, 12:58am

Thank You Mulvers! This thread is no longer the most Chauvinist thread in the forum. If Mulvers says it- it must be true! :thumbsup:

Mulvers

Unregistered

49

Wednesday, March 11th 2009, 1:02am

If Mulvers says it- it must be true! :thumbsup:


If you live by this rule ..... expect a premature death :S

Airey(W2)

Trainee

Posts: 88

Location: Minnesota

Occupation: Analyst

  • Send private message

50

Friday, March 13th 2009, 5:35pm

RE: Female Plunder Theory



Variable Factors
SE= Your three measurements (bust,waist,hips) added together. If your SE is 92 or below it becomes a negative factor. If your SE is 93 or above it become a positive factor.


Oh gosh really?! ---- I dont' even know what to say to this! :P
W2: Airey Member of [Sho]

W7: Airey Member of [Sin]

IN8: Airey

~~I really don't have anything constructive to say. Surprised?~~

Bigger Phil

Unregistered

51

Friday, March 13th 2009, 6:12pm

Oh gosh really?! ---- I dont' even know what to say to this!


Falcotron pointed out that my figures were a little off---pun intended :-)

I need to revise those numbers.

Posts: 3,022

Location: San Francisco, CA, US

Occupation: Software Developer/Musician

  • Send private message

52

Friday, March 13th 2009, 6:13pm

RE: RE: Female Plunder Theory



Variable Factors
SE= Your three measurements (bust,waist,hips) added together. If your SE is 92 or below it becomes a negative factor. If your SE is 93 or above it become a positive factor.


Oh gosh really?! ---- I dont' even know what to say to this! :P
I always thought this one was a bit weird. If you just add them up, the classic 36-24-36 idealized woman is fat, while the curveless 32-30-30 of a chubby teenage boy is hot....

Edit: Phil beat me to it, so I'm removing the joke.
Top accounts for sale: HW1 TG1 AI1
Already sold: HW2/3/4 TG1DE

Bigger Phil

Unregistered

53

Friday, March 13th 2009, 8:48pm

However, I have the guts to whip it out and measure whenever ya want!


Is This is why Veda is on the calendar? :S

54

Saturday, March 14th 2009, 4:58am

Think you could figure out the SE from the Plunder Experience? *was bored enough to play with the numbers*

Bigger Phil

Unregistered

55

Tuesday, March 17th 2009, 8:27pm

Updated Formula

I have updated the formula with input from Falco and others.


Female Plunder Theory

First ,I will give you the Male Plundering Fact. Men Plundering in HW: Some days are good some days are bad. There is no grand conspiracy or other external factors that effects basic male plundering. All men have basic 60/40 luck, we accept this fact and move on with our basic HW activities.

Now with females it’s more complicated. First I will give you mathematical terms, followed by the formula and then final product:

Givens:
Women get 8 hours of rest per day and incur no positive or negative effects during this time( ie Women can not nag while asleep)

Lady Luck and Beginners Luck have no effect after one month of game play.

Negative Factors
N= Nagging Percentage Range .15 to.75
CS= Catty Comments/Sarcasm Percentage Range .1 to .4
M=Manipulating Percentage Range .25 to .75
V=Vindictiveness Factor Range 0 to .99

Positive Factors
F=Friendliness Percentage Range .25 to .75
*MP= Proverbs 31 Mirroring Factor Range to .20 to .75
BHW= Basic Holy War Game Mechanics = 2

Variable Factors
SE= Your three measurements (bust,waist,hips) added together. If your SE is 100 or below it becomes a negative factor. If your SE is 101 or above it become a positive factor.

Final Product
PP= Plunder Percentage


Formula

BHW+F+ MP – N –CS-M-V + or – SE=PP

PP X 12= Plunder Experience


*For Pagans females who don’t own, have ever seen or have read a bible. All you have to do is compare yourself against the Wicked Witch in Wizard of Oz. Your formula is your percentage minus 1 equals your MP percentage.

This post has been edited 2 times, last edit by "Bigger Phil" (Mar 17th 2009, 9:33pm)


Janet H

Unregistered

56

Tuesday, March 17th 2009, 9:21pm

RE: Updated Formula

Variable Factors
SE= Your three measurements (bust,waist,hips) added together. If your SE is 100 or below it becomes a negative factor. If your SE is 101 or above it become a positive factor.
Long ago I decided to stay out of this thread because I think my perpetual gripes about bad plunders instigated it; however, I'm compelled to point out a much-flawed factor in your hypotheses.

SE must be calculated on bust, waist, hips AND height. Possible genetic mutations and medical alterations aside, it's unlikely a petite woman will share the same ideal measurements as one 5 foot 7 inches. That said, let me introduce you to Einstein and the significance of relativity in refining your formula. :whistling:

On behalf of vertically challenged women everywhere, I beseach you to reconsider your train of thought. 8)

57

Wednesday, March 18th 2009, 12:58am

Variable Factors
SE= Your three measurements (bust,waist,hips) added together. If your SE is 100 or below it becomes a negative factor. If your SE is 101 or above it become a positive factor.
Um...didn't change the values I came out with at all :whistling:

Posts: 3,022

Location: San Francisco, CA, US

Occupation: Software Developer/Musician

  • Send private message

58

Wednesday, March 18th 2009, 12:26pm

RE: Updated Formula

Variable Factors
SE= Your three measurements (bust,waist,hips) added together. If your SE is 100 or below it becomes a negative factor. If your SE is 101 or above it become a positive factor.
No, this is still wrong. It's about proportions. The traditional "ideal female shape" may be 38-25-38, 36-24-36, 34-22-34, or 32-21-32, depending on the overall size of the woman, but it's the same shape.

To exaggerate the femininity of the shape, you can't just decrease all three; you increase the bust, decrease the waist, and leave the hips alone. The original Barbie doll, for example, was 39-18-33. Jayne Mansfield was 40-21-36. A typical Playboy playmate is 38-24-35 (although in the 70s, they were all 37-25-35).

Very few women actually meet this 3:2:3 ratio. Even most of the hot starlets in Hollywood over the past 20 years don't meet it. Judging by your age group, there's a good chance the first rated-R-for-nudity movie you remember starred Phoebe Cates and Jennifer Jason Leigh. At 34-25-34 and 34-24-35, both of their waists were "too big," and Ms. Leigh's hips were "too big" as well (especially for being a little under average height), and yet I can't think of any straight male in our age group who has any problem with the way either one of them looked.

So, how do you measure this? Simple: (bust + hips) / waist. Here are some examples:

2.2 Oprah before dieting: 38-33-36
2.4 Kate Moss before recovery: 31.5-26-32
2.5 Phoebe Cates at 13: 30-24-31
2.6 Kate Moss after recovery: 34-26-35.5
2.7 Phoebe Cates in Fast Times: 34-25-34
2.8 Oprah after dieting: 36-25-35
2.9 Jennifer Jason Leigh in Fast Times: 34-24-35
2.9 70s Playmate: 37-25-35
3.0 Modern Playmate: 38-24-35
3.6 Jayne Mansfield: 40-21-36
4.0 Original Barbie: 39-18-33

So, below 2.6 is a negative (overweight, underweight, boyish, or mannish); above is a positive.

But even this doesn't really work. The same proportions that look "curvy" on one woman can look "chunky" on another because of the angle of her bones, or the way she carries herself. And the difference between "skinny" and "svelte" also depends on a variety of factors besides just the numbers. The only way to properly judge a woman is the whole package.

If you can just arrange all of the women in the world naked in front of me, I'll tell you which ones are attractive, and you can have the rest of them.
Top accounts for sale: HW1 TG1 AI1
Already sold: HW2/3/4 TG1DE

Bigger Phil

Unregistered

59

Wednesday, March 18th 2009, 2:15pm

Long ago I decided to stay out of this thread because I think my perpetual gripes about bad plunders instigated it;


:whistling:

Janet H

Unregistered

60

Wednesday, March 18th 2009, 2:57pm

RE: RE: Updated Formula


Variable Factors
SE= Your three measurements (bust,waist,hips) added together. If your SE is 100 or below it becomes a negative factor. If your SE is 101 or above it become a positive factor.
No, this is still wrong. It's about proportions. The traditional "ideal female shape" may be 38-25-38, 36-24-36, 34-22-34, or 32-21-32, depending on the overall size of the woman, but it's the same shape.

To exaggerate the femininity of the shape, you can't just decrease all three; you increase the bust, decrease the waist, and leave the hips alone. The original Barbie doll, for example, was 39-18-33. Jayne Mansfield was 40-21-36. A typical Playboy playmate is 38-24-35 (although in the 70s, they were all 37-25-35).

Very few women actually meet this 3:2:3 ratio. Even most of the hot starlets in Hollywood over the past 20 years don't meet it. Judging by your age group, there's a good chance the first rated-R-for-nudity movie you remember starred Phoebe Cates and Jennifer Jason Leigh. At 34-25-34 and 34-24-35, both of their waists were "too big," and Ms. Leigh's hips were "too big" as well (especially for being a little under average height), and yet I can't think of any straight male in our age group who has any problem with the way either one of them looked.

So, how do you measure this? Simple: (bust + hips) / waist. Here are some examples:

2.2 Oprah before dieting: 38-33-36
2.4 Kate Moss before recovery: 31.5-26-32
2.5 Phoebe Cates at 13: 30-24-31
2.6 Kate Moss after recovery: 34-26-35.5
2.7 Phoebe Cates in Fast Times: 34-25-34
2.8 Oprah after dieting: 36-25-35
2.9 Jennifer Jason Leigh in Fast Times: 34-24-35
2.9 70s Playmate: 37-25-35
3.0 Modern Playmate: 38-24-35
3.6 Jayne Mansfield: 40-21-36
4.0 Original Barbie: 39-18-33

So, below 2.6 is a negative (overweight, underweight, boyish, or mannish); above is a positive.

But even this doesn't really work. The same proportions that look "curvy" on one woman can look "chunky" on another because of the angle of her bones, or the way she carries herself. And the difference between "skinny" and "svelte" also depends on a variety of factors besides just the numbers. The only way to properly judge a woman is the whole package.

If you can just arrange all of the women in the world naked in front of me, I'll tell you which ones are attractive, and you can have the rest of them.
So ... if I understand this correctly, Falcotron needed 368 words to tell us it's all random. :evil: 8o

The Black Knight

Unregistered

61

Wednesday, March 18th 2009, 3:08pm

So ... if I understand this correctly, Falcotron needed 368 words to tell us it's all random. :evil: 8o

And this surprises you?

62

Wednesday, March 18th 2009, 6:41pm


So ... if I understand this correctly, Falcotron needed 368 words to tell us it's all random. :evil: 8o

And this surprises you?
Nope :P

Posts: 3,022

Location: San Francisco, CA, US

Occupation: Software Developer/Musician

  • Send private message

63

Wednesday, March 18th 2009, 7:00pm

RE: RE: RE: Updated Formula

So ... if I understand this correctly, Falcotron needed 368 words to tell us it's all random. :evil: 8o
No, that's a different thread. This isn't random at all. (Well, other than the genes and upbringing and life experiences that lead each woman to her shape.) In general, a healthy 20-year-old woman looks more feminine and more attractive than an underweight, overweight, underdeveloped, or overly-masculine woman, or a 13-year-old girl. This number helps distinguish the two. Whether you're 5'1" or 6'3", having curves closer to 3:2:3 makes you look more feminine.

The point at the end is that woman--even just a woman's body--can't be reduced to just this one number (or just those 3 numbers), if you want to get beyond "in general." But the numbers are still a good general guideline.

(Actually, the real point was that Phoebe Cates is still hot, well into her mid-40s. But since you're neither male nor in the right age range, I can't expect you to understand how important this fact is.)
Top accounts for sale: HW1 TG1 AI1
Already sold: HW2/3/4 TG1DE

Janet H

Unregistered

64

Wednesday, March 18th 2009, 8:10pm

RE: RE: RE: RE: Updated Formula

(Actually, the real point was that Phoebe Cates is still hot, well into her mid-40s. But since you're neither male nor in the right age range, I can't expect you to understand how important this fact is.)
Who is Phoebe Cates? :wacko: What group does she sing with?

The Black Knight

Unregistered

65

Wednesday, March 18th 2009, 8:20pm

RE: RE: RE: RE: Updated Formula

So ... if I understand this correctly, Falcotron needed 368 words to tell us it's all random. :evil: 8o
No, that's a different thread. This isn't random at all. (Well, other than the genes and upbringing and life experiences that lead each woman to her shape.) In general, a healthy 20-year-old woman looks more feminine and more attractive than an underweight, overweight, underdeveloped, or overly-masculine woman, or a 13-year-old girl. This number helps distinguish the two. Whether you're 5'1" or 6'3", having curves closer to 3:2:3 makes you look more feminine.

Actually, I would like to point out that that is a common misconception. I will grant that Hollywood certain does portray the "feminine ideal" as being a mix of something being Playboy Playmate and Sports Illustrated/Victoria's Secret Supermodel, but I would suspect that a pretty fair percentage of the straight male population would disagree with that.

I'd also be willing to bet that if you asked 1,000 straight guys what their feminine ideal was and you asked 1,000 straight women what they thought the feminine ideal was, a lot more women then men would think along the typical Hollywood ideal, simply because that is what our society has programmed them to think.

I'm quite sure that very few people will actually believe me (or even if they do, won't actually feel this way) that confidence is the one thing that makes a woman more attractive than anything else. Case in point; my ex-fiancee was a 36C-22-34 or something similar (very petite woman with a very nice bustline) with bedroom eyes and a voice that could melt a glacier. Easily the sexiest woman I've ever met in my life. Close to zero self-esteem, though. By way of contrast, another ex-girlfriend of mine was something like a 38B-26-36. A swimmer's body (she actually swam competitively in high school and still maintained that body), and definitely rather "mannish," in my opinion. However, she was the former model that many of my friends envied me for dating as they all thought she was drop dead gorgeous, whereas almost everyone who knew us thought my ex-fiance was homely.

And of course, none of that even remotely covers the multitude of various personal preferences that a lot of men have. No matter what a particular (or man, for that matter) woman looks like, I guarantee that out of 1,000 different people you meet, one will think you're grossly unattractive (I always thought Pam Anderson was hideous, for example), whereas one will think you are a Venus/Adonis. The rest will fall somewhere in the middle.

The Black Knight

Unregistered

66

Wednesday, March 18th 2009, 8:21pm

RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Updated Formula

(Actually, the real point was that Phoebe Cates is still hot, well into her mid-40s. But since you're neither male nor in the right age range, I can't expect you to understand how important this fact is.)
Who is Phoebe Cates? :wacko: What group does she sing with?

Google "Fast Times at Ridgemont High."

Notable for the pool scene (at least for guys of a certain age).

Bigger Phil

Unregistered

67

Wednesday, March 18th 2009, 9:06pm

HW2 Corrections/Adjustments

I looked at the numbers and tried to remember the original thinking/assumptions of the Theory. I felt that the SE product was not clearly defined. Also, since HW2 has become active that the numbers were too small. I have revised the SE and BHW to reflect current gaming conditions. The numbers should work now.


Female Plunder Theory

First ,I will give you the Male Plundering Fact. Men Plundering in HW: Some days are good some days are bad. There is no grand conspiracy or other external factors that effects basic male plundering. All men have basic 60/40 luck, we accept this fact and move on with our basic HW activities.

Now with females it’s more complicated. First I will give you mathematical terms, followed by the formula and then final product:

Givens:
Women get 8 hours of rest per day and incur no positive or negative effects during this time( ie Women can not nag while asleep)

Lady Luck and Beginners Luck have no effect after one month of game play.

Negative Factors
N= Nagging Percentage Range .15 to.75
CS= Catty Comments/Sarcasm Percentage Range .1 to .4
M=Manipulating Percentage Range .25 to .75
V=Vindictiveness Factor Range 0 to .99

Positive Factors
F=Friendliness Percentage Range .25 to .75
*MP= Proverbs 31 Mirroring Factor Range to .20 to .75
BHW= Basic Holy War Game Mechanics = 4

Variable Factor
SE= Your three measurements (bust,waist,hips) added together. If your SE is 100 or below it becomes a negative factor. If your SE is 101 or above it become a positive factor. Negative Factor = -1 Positive Factor = 1 Once the SE becomes established. It actually becomes a constant. The SE needs to be verified twice a year.

Final Product:
PP= Plunder Percentage


Formula

BHW+F+ MP – N –CS-M-V + or – SE=PP

PP X 12= Plunder Experience


*For Pagans females who don’t own, have ever seen or have read a bible. All you have to do is compare yourself against the Wicked Witch in Wizard of Oz. Your formula is your percentage minus 1 equals your MP percentage.

Posts: 3,022

Location: San Francisco, CA, US

Occupation: Software Developer/Musician

  • Send private message

68

Thursday, March 19th 2009, 12:50am

RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Updated Formula

So ... if I understand this correctly, Falcotron needed 368 words to tell us it's all random. :evil: 8o
No, that's a different thread. This isn't random at all. (Well, other than the genes and upbringing and life experiences that lead each woman to her shape.) In general, a healthy 20-year-old woman looks more feminine and more attractive than an underweight, overweight, underdeveloped, or overly-masculine woman, or a 13-year-old girl. This number helps distinguish the two. Whether you're 5'1" or 6'3", having curves closer to 3:2:3 makes you look more feminine.
Actually, I would like to point out that that is a common misconception. I will grant that Hollywood certain does portray the "feminine ideal" as being a mix of something being Playboy Playmate and Sports Illustrated/Victoria's Secret Supermodel, but I would suspect that a pretty fair percentage of the straight male population would disagree with that.
As I said in the earlier post, "Even most of the hot starlets in Hollywood over the past 20 years don't meet [the 3:2:3 rule]."

In the 70s, nearly every woman on TV or in a (non-artsy) movie was 5'7" 36-24-36, but most of the Hollywood-appointed "hot starlets" since then, from Phoebe Cates to Hayden Panettiere, are well outside that range, and that hasn't stopped a single red-blooded male from watching them.

Also, looking "more feminine" doesn't necessarily make you "more attractive" to anyone, much less to everyone; it's at best one component, and having an hourglass shape is itself only one component of looking feminine, and having a 3:2:3-ish ratio is itself only one component of looking like an hourglass.

But Phil's not trying to measure attractiveness; he's trying to measure... well, I forget what "SE" was supposed to stand for, but he's looking for a single number that encapsulates a woman's womanly curviness, and I think the one I suggested, along with the 2.5 rule, is about the best you're going to do. It distinguishes 20-year-old Phoebe Cates (good) from 13-year-old Phoebe Cates (bad); trim Oprah (good) from overweight Oprah (bad); and healthy Kate Moss (borderline good) from oh-god-how-is-she-still-breathing Kate Moss (bad). It isn't skewed by height (Hayden Panettiere scores 2.9 despite having only a 32" bust, because she's well-proportioned).
I'm quite sure that very few people will actually believe me (or even if they do, won't actually feel this way) that confidence is the one thing that makes a woman more attractive than anything else.
There are an awful lot of men who prefer women who aren't confident. I've never understood that myself--I mean, I can understand intellectually that they're looking for someone they can dominate and manipulate, and never have to worry that she'll leave them; I just don't get _why_ they want that. How is that kind of relationship any better than owning a Real Doll?
Top accounts for sale: HW1 TG1 AI1
Already sold: HW2/3/4 TG1DE

Mulvers

Unregistered

69

Thursday, March 19th 2009, 1:56am

There are an awful lot of men who prefer women who aren't confident.


Thats the complete opposite of me .... Im a 6ft 2inch block of muscle and lard ..... and only really interested in a woman who can beat me up mentally ..... 8o

The lads reckon Im wierd coz I dont have a "type" .... which is wrong ... I do have a type .... just not a physical one....


ok .... maybe late night, slightly drunken ramblings on the forum aint the best of ideas ..... :wacko:

70

Thursday, March 19th 2009, 2:49am

How is that kind of relationship any better than owning a Real Doll?
As a Real Doll is really brainless and never talks (I think, been a while since I learned of them) even an insecure female can carry a conversation and verbally boost a guys ego.

The Black Knight

Unregistered

71

Thursday, March 19th 2009, 3:05am

Well, I also tend to think that "life is what happens to you while you're making other plans," and I know that Shannon (my wife) wasn't "my type" when I met her. My physical type, if you'd asked me to lay out the exact specifications, would likely have run a lot more towards a more slender version of the average Victoria's Secret supermodel, and 5-10 years older than me (or at least the same age). Shannon, on the other hand, was average in weight (if even a hair more than that), very well proportioned (as in a Jayne Mansfield-type body), and 12 year younger than me. Very much the 50s-ish pinup type girl. Not what I thought I wanted at all.

Of course, she was also wickedly sharp, patient, exceedingly kind-hearted and sensitive, and probably one of the funniest people I've ever known. So, definitely my "type," even though I didn't realize it before I met her.

The Black Knight

Unregistered

72

Thursday, March 19th 2009, 3:10am

How is that kind of relationship any better than owning a Real Doll?
As a Real Doll is really brainless and never talks (I think, been a while since I learned of them) even an insecure female can carry a conversation and verbally boost a guys ego.

Hey, I've dated quite a few women in my life that honestly couldn't hold a candle to a Real Doll.

Posts: 3,022

Location: San Francisco, CA, US

Occupation: Software Developer/Musician

  • Send private message

73

Thursday, March 19th 2009, 5:21am

How is that kind of relationship any better than owning a Real Doll?
As a Real Doll is really brainless and never talks (I think, been a while since I learned of them) even an insecure female can carry a conversation and verbally boost a guys ego.
Hey, I've dated quite a few women in my life that honestly couldn't hold a candle to a Real Doll.
And dating a woman like that is hardly an ego boost; it just makes you think, "Wow, is this really the best I can do?"

I suppose there are men out there convinced that a woman with absolutely no character or personality is still better they should be able to do. But that's just too sad to contemplate.
Top accounts for sale: HW1 TG1 AI1
Already sold: HW2/3/4 TG1DE

The Black Knight

Unregistered

74

Thursday, March 19th 2009, 1:14pm

How is that kind of relationship any better than owning a Real Doll?
As a Real Doll is really brainless and never talks (I think, been a while since I learned of them) even an insecure female can carry a conversation and verbally boost a guys ego.
Hey, I've dated quite a few women in my life that honestly couldn't hold a candle to a Real Doll.
And dating a woman like that is hardly an ego boost; it just makes you think, "Wow, is this really the best I can do?"

I suppose there are men out there convinced that a woman with absolutely no character or personality is still better they should be able to do. But that's just too sad to contemplate.

Yeah, there were many of those, "Yeah, I think you're really hot and I would love to sleep with you, but the wind whistling between your ears is too distracting and I really would prefer not to wake up to you." Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your point of view, I guess), unlike a lot of guys, I could never get past that.

Airey(W2)

Trainee

Posts: 88

Location: Minnesota

Occupation: Analyst

  • Send private message

75

Sunday, March 22nd 2009, 2:57am

RE: RE: Updated Formula



If you can just arrange all of the women in the world naked in front of me, I'll tell you which ones are attractive, and you can have the rest of them.


LOL.
W2: Airey Member of [Sho]

W7: Airey Member of [Sin]

IN8: Airey

~~I really don't have anything constructive to say. Surprised?~~

Airey(W2)

Trainee

Posts: 88

Location: Minnesota

Occupation: Analyst

  • Send private message

76

Sunday, March 22nd 2009, 3:05am

Is Crazy a factor?

I have a friend who has the craziest girlfriend I've ever met. The moment I saw her I knew she was nuts. He has to spend 24/7 with her otherwise she'll start a fight about something stupid. Here's an example, just because I love telling about her crazy. He took her to the mountains to go skiing, pretty sure he paid for pretty much everything (gas, hotel, lift tickets) PLUS took her out to nice restaurants every night because she's too high maintenance to go to fast food places. Not even a week after they got back, she got pissed at him and told him he never did anything nice for her. We all wonder why the hell he's with her. Apparently the (darn censor) "love-making" is great. Really though... How can it be that good? You'd think the sheer fact that he knows she's nuts would take away from that.

Just thought I'd share with everyone :P
W2: Airey Member of [Sho]

W7: Airey Member of [Sin]

IN8: Airey

~~I really don't have anything constructive to say. Surprised?~~

77

Sunday, March 22nd 2009, 3:22am

Apparently the (darn censor) "love-making" is great. Really though... How can it be that good? You'd think the sheer fact that he knows she's nuts would take away from that.
For some that aspect of the relationship can make everything else fade away. It is like that aspect is 90% of the importance/priority for a relationship everything else is white noise and bearable.

Airey(W2)

Trainee

Posts: 88

Location: Minnesota

Occupation: Analyst

  • Send private message

78

Sunday, March 22nd 2009, 3:34am

Apparently the (darn censor) "love-making" is great. Really though... How can it be that good? You'd think the sheer fact that he knows she's nuts would take away from that.
For some that aspect of the relationship can make everything else fade away. It is like that aspect is 90% of the importance/priority for a relationship everything else is white noise and bearable.


Gosh I suppose, but I would think her level of crazy would get to even the most hormonally driven males. Most of those types like to hit it and then go do their own thing. She won't let him breathe without her knowing about it!!
W2: Airey Member of [Sho]

W7: Airey Member of [Sin]

IN8: Airey

~~I really don't have anything constructive to say. Surprised?~~

Bigger Phil

Unregistered

79

Sunday, March 22nd 2009, 3:42am

Gosh I suppose, but I would think her level of crazy would get to even the most hormonally driven males. Most of those types like to hit it and then go do their own thing. She won't let him breathe without her knowing about it!!


I bet her plunders are bad :thumbdown:

Airey(W2)

Trainee

Posts: 88

Location: Minnesota

Occupation: Analyst

  • Send private message

80

Sunday, March 22nd 2009, 3:52am

Gosh I suppose, but I would think her level of crazy would get to even the most hormonally driven males. Most of those types like to hit it and then go do their own thing. She won't let him breathe without her knowing about it!!


I bet her plunders are bad :thumbdown:


LOL. I wouldn't doubt it.
W2: Airey Member of [Sho]

W7: Airey Member of [Sin]

IN8: Airey

~~I really don't have anything constructive to say. Surprised?~~