Can we talk about the "friend zone" and "nice guys" for a moment?

Logic123

New member
Apr 19, 2012
1
0
0
The point i think being missed here (about the friend-zone) is that a woman treats guy friend/s, that has no chance of seeing them naked, like they should treat a boyfriend who does see them naked. So if i am not your boyfriend i don't want to hear about how your current boyfriend treats you - go tell your female friends that or even better your dirtbag boyfriend so he can shape up or ship out.

I also don't want to hear about how your current boyfriend treats you like a piece of trash but you still sleep with him and if i ask you why you say "but he loves me". Whether he listens to you or not is not my problem. If he tells you you're fat tell him to f-off, don't come and cry on my shoulder then go back to him afterwards after i made you feel good about yourself.

Tell a nice guy from the start the you aren't interested and he (being nice) will respect it. He won't pine over you, he won't lust after you but also don't expect any favors from him. You don't break a person's heart and still expect to be friends.

If you are looking for someone to talk to about the ups and mostly downs of your love life while dating an idiot, go to your girl friends, they live for this stuff. Guy friends dont. We'll move heavy boxes and kill spiders for you, not listen to you getting raw deal and loving it.

RE Memes and cartoons - Many a true word is spoken in jest
 

WOPR

New member
Aug 18, 2010
1,912
0
0
museofdoom said:
Let me put it this way, it's like applying for a job, meeting all the qualifications, being a hard worker, then being turned down because they hired some idiot instead, then each week they call you to tell you what a horrible job the idiot is doing, and each month they fire them and hire a new one, and you'll never get the job, ever, for as long as you live, and are forced to sit through it all until the employer can take a hint.

Does that explain it better?
I mean it's nice to have girls that are "just friends" but generally being "friend zoned" means that the guy NEVER had any intentions of being "just a friend" to begin with. And that's what ticks us off, it's that we'll do nothing bad and the girl will pick some idiot who we KNOW is bad for her over us, then when she finally figures it out she'll come crying to us about it, bring our hopes up, then date another idiot.

It's not really "how dare she not have romantic feelings" it's more "how dare she not have common sense" or "how dare she not take a chance"
seriously ladies, one freaking date won't kill you, and if the guy's paying take it as a free meal and a risk to be happier. sheesh.
 

Helmholtz Watson

New member
Nov 7, 2011
2,503
0
0
people need to chill out and quit worrying about the "friendzone" like its some horrible monster.

 

DoctorObviously

New member
May 22, 2009
1,083
0
0
What about the scenario where one guy confesses his love for her, but she says no because she is with someone else. When the first guy understands this and wants to go on as a friend, but then she doesn't contact him anymore since then?
 

Freechoice

New member
Dec 6, 2010
1,019
0
0
Jimbo1212 said:
- I have to disagree here. You are claiming that people should stab themselves or self harm, only so that they are more grateful for when they are not hurting themselves. Why not just avoid the pain in the beginning? Also, people only spend a bit of time on a roller-coaster. On the trip to the theme-park they would have travelled in a car which tries to have the smoothest ride possible.
Where in the fuck did you read that? He made no mention of stabbing. At no point did he refer to inflicting self harm either. He mentioned cold, hot and lukewarm water. The point being made is that conditions change perceptions brought about by identical stimuli.

Also, your point regarding the roller coaster event is both moot and self-negating (well done). The point is to illustrate the individual changes present in a singular event. As well, if you take the act of riding the rollercoaster along with all the other acts (a car ride), the point still stands because the rollercoaster is considered an "up" to the neutrality of the car ride or the "down" of waiting in line.
 

Jimbo1212

New member
Aug 13, 2009
676
0
0
Freechoice said:
Jimbo1212 said:
- I have to disagree here. You are claiming that people should stab themselves or self harm, only so that they are more grateful for when they are not hurting themselves. Why not just avoid the pain in the beginning? Also, people only spend a bit of time on a roller-coaster. On the trip to the theme-park they would have travelled in a car which tries to have the smoothest ride possible.
Where in the fuck did you read that? He made no mention of stabbing. At no point did he refer to inflicting self harm either. He mentioned cold, hot and lukewarm water. The point being made is that conditions change perceptions brought about by identical stimuli.

Also, your point regarding the roller coaster event is both moot and self-negating (well done). The point is to illustrate the individual changes present in a singular event. As well, if you take the act of riding the rollercoaster along with all the other acts (a car ride), the point still stands because the rollercoaster is considered an "up" to the neutrality of the car ride or the "down" of waiting in line.
...it's called an analogy *facepalm*
They said that you can only learn from making a mistake and I showed that this is not true as many people don't do things like hurting themselves because we believe those who tell us that it is not a good idea.

And again you utterly miss the point of the roller-coaster analogy.
They said that people like shit relationships for the thrills, like a roller-coaster. But as I said, people only ever want that extreme up-and-down for a short amount of time. This is why roller-coasters are short. To show people prefer long term things which are smooth and easy but possibly dull, a smooth car ride was the perfect comparison.

Your point about waiting is just weird and wrong. People wait in anticipation which is why they wait. As far as the convo is concerned, that can't be applied to anything.

So next time slow down with the typing and just look at what has been written as it is always impossible to correctly jump into the middle of a debate and not get it utterly wrong.
 

Prosis

New member
May 5, 2011
214
0
0
Girls are not something that you just put niceness into until a relationship falls out.
If she isn't interested in you, she isn't interested in you. DON'T STICK AROUND.

Do not stick around in the vain hope that one day she'll turn around and realize how great you are and how you've always been there for her. Each week is another week that you become more invested in her via time and emotion, and each week is another affirmation that you'll always be there for her as a friend she can depend on. Unless you genuinely just want to be her friend (and nothing else), you're just strengthening a relationship that harms both of you (harms you by pain of unappreciated love, and harms her when you leave to actually date someone else).

It doesn't matter how "nice" of a person you are. I know some girls who are the nicest people I've ever met. But I wouldn't date them. Why? Not because I'm after "bad girls." But because their personality, WHO THEY ARE, doesn't interest me. Likewise for ladies. Just because you're nice, doesn't mean she should be interested in you.

Also, you don't have to realize that you love someone in order to ask them out on a date. If you're a single guy spending a ton of time with a single woman, and if the idea of a relationship seems interesting or like a possibility, ask her out. Don't wait until you're head over heels for her.
 

Doclector

New member
Aug 22, 2009
5,010
0
0
Oh god, who the hell dug this up? Do ypu realise what you've done? You've unleashed a gorram gender war...again! if anyone needs me, I'll be picking out the slender bits of conversation that doesn't involve mass effect 3 in the gaming discussion forum until this all blows over.

Or I get bored.
 

Freechoice

New member
Dec 6, 2010
1,019
0
0
Jimbo1212 said:
Freechoice said:
Jimbo1212 said:
- I have to disagree here. You are claiming that people should stab themselves or self harm, only so that they are more grateful for when they are not hurting themselves. Why not just avoid the pain in the beginning? Also, people only spend a bit of time on a roller-coaster. On the trip to the theme-park they would have travelled in a car which tries to have the smoothest ride possible.
Where in the fuck did you read that? He made no mention of stabbing. At no point did he refer to inflicting self harm either. He mentioned cold, hot and lukewarm water. The point being made is that conditions change perceptions brought about by identical stimuli.

Also, your point regarding the roller coaster event is both moot and self-negating (well done). The point is to illustrate the individual changes present in a singular event. As well, if you take the act of riding the rollercoaster along with all the other acts (a car ride), the point still stands because the rollercoaster is considered an "up" to the neutrality of the car ride or the "down" of waiting in line.
...it's called an analogy *facepalm*
They said that you can only learn from making a mistake and I showed that this is not true as many people don't do things like hurting themselves because we believe those who tell us that it is not a good idea.

And again you utterly miss the point of the roller-coaster analogy.
They said that people like shit relationships for the thrills, like a roller-coaster. But as I said, people only ever want that extreme up-and-down for a short amount of time. This is why roller-coasters are short. To show people prefer long term things which are smooth and easy but possibly dull, a smooth car ride was the perfect comparison.

Your point about waiting is just weird and wrong. People wait in anticipation which is why they wait. As far as the convo is concerned, that can't be applied to anything.

So next time slow down with the typing and just look at what has been written as it is always impossible to correctly jump into the middle of a debate and not get it utterly wrong.
Or be the primary participant and still manage to be dissuasive in your argument. Jesus, having read your posts, I probably would have used more strongly worded diction. You really do come off as misogynistic and logical to the point of unrealistic expectations.

First off, commas help tremendously when clarifying multiple points. Second, a perceptual experiment is nowhere near stabbing yourself in the arm. The "analogy" you made just doesn't work because some people slash their wrists and mutilate themselves and are ok with that. It's psychological relativity. What is good for you may be awful for me. And we know this is also true in emotion because people stay in abusive relationships.

Again, you can't speak for everyone (which you're trying very, very hard to do).

Likewise, the fear of pain is intrinsic (save for masochists), but the association between certain stimuli and pain is learned. I remember being told by a Native American studies teacher that American Indians would let their children touch a fire to understand that the fire burns them. This makes sense when you consider the average 18-25 male and the common feeling of invulnerability associated with that demographic's psyche. This feeling fades over time as concentrations of testosterone go down. People are driven more by their hormones than you would like to believe.
 

Jimbo1212

New member
Aug 13, 2009
676
0
0
Freechoice said:
Jimbo1212 said:
Freechoice said:
Jimbo1212 said:
- I have to disagree here. You are claiming that people should stab themselves or self harm, only so that they are more grateful for when they are not hurting themselves. Why not just avoid the pain in the beginning? Also, people only spend a bit of time on a roller-coaster. On the trip to the theme-park they would have travelled in a car which tries to have the smoothest ride possible.
Where in the fuck did you read that? He made no mention of stabbing. At no point did he refer to inflicting self harm either. He mentioned cold, hot and lukewarm water. The point being made is that conditions change perceptions brought about by identical stimuli.

Also, your point regarding the roller coaster event is both moot and self-negating (well done). The point is to illustrate the individual changes present in a singular event. As well, if you take the act of riding the rollercoaster along with all the other acts (a car ride), the point still stands because the rollercoaster is considered an "up" to the neutrality of the car ride or the "down" of waiting in line.
...it's called an analogy *facepalm*
They said that you can only learn from making a mistake and I showed that this is not true as many people don't do things like hurting themselves because we believe those who tell us that it is not a good idea.

And again you utterly miss the point of the roller-coaster analogy.
They said that people like shit relationships for the thrills, like a roller-coaster. But as I said, people only ever want that extreme up-and-down for a short amount of time. This is why roller-coasters are short. To show people prefer long term things which are smooth and easy but possibly dull, a smooth car ride was the perfect comparison.

Your point about waiting is just weird and wrong. People wait in anticipation which is why they wait. As far as the convo is concerned, that can't be applied to anything.

So next time slow down with the typing and just look at what has been written as it is always impossible to correctly jump into the middle of a debate and not get it utterly wrong.
Or be the primary participant and still manage to be dissuasive in your argument. Jesus, having read your posts, I probably would have used more strongly worded diction. You really do come off as misogynistic and logical to the point of unrealistic expectations.

First off, commas help tremendously when clarifying multiple points. Second, a perceptual experiment is nowhere near stabbing yourself in the arm. The "analogy" you made just doesn't work because some people slash their wrists and mutilate themselves and are ok with that. It's psychological relativity. What is good for you may be awful for me. And we know this is also true in emotion because people stay in abusive relationships.

Again, you can't speak for everyone (which you're trying very, very hard to do).

Likewise, the fear of pain is intrinsic (save for masochists), but the association between certain stimuli and pain is learned. I remember being told by a Native American studies teacher that American Indians would let their children touch a fire to understand that the fire burns them. This makes sense when you consider the average 18-25 male and the common feeling of invulnerability associated with that demographic's psyche. This feeling fades over time as concentrations of testosterone go down. People are driven more by their hormones than you would like to believe.
What I don't understand is that the other person in the debate had no problem understanding the analogy, so why do you?

You make it far too complex and use the English language in a very unusual way, thus I think the issue is at your end, not mine.
Also please don't confuse your strange experiences with the worlds. I do not know of any 18-25 year old who believes they are invulnerable (what country are you from again?).

Also, care to actually comment about the topic at hand or just fail to grasp basic analogies?
 

the Dept of Science

New member
Nov 9, 2009
1,007
0
0
WOPR said:
museofdoom said:
Let me put it this way, it's like applying for a job, meeting all the qualifications, being a hard worker, then being turned down because they hired some idiot instead, then each week they call you to tell you what a horrible job the idiot is doing, and each month they fire them and hire a new one, and you'll never get the job, ever, for as long as you live, and are forced to sit through it all until the employer can take a hint.

Does that explain it better?
I mean it's nice to have girls that are "just friends" but generally being "friend zoned" means that the guy NEVER had any intentions of being "just a friend" to begin with. And that's what ticks us off, it's that we'll do nothing bad and the girl will pick some idiot who we KNOW is bad for her over us, then when she finally figures it out she'll come crying to us about it, bring our hopes up, then date another idiot.

It's not really "how dare she not have romantic feelings" it's more "how dare she not have common sense" or "how dare she not take a chance"
seriously ladies, one freaking date won't kill you, and if the guy's paying take it as a free meal and a risk to be happier. sheesh.
Your problem starts with using a bad analogy. A woman doesn't decide who she is going to go out with because several potential candidates have applied for the position, she can weigh them up on their relative merits then make "the best decision".
You are forgetting the most important part, which is sexual attraction. Your a "hard worker"? I bet that gets her vagina nice and wet! You say you meet all the qualifications, but you are forgetting the one that would make you a good sexual partner. Without being able to turn her on, why does she want you as any more than a friend? She isn't going to have any trouble getting all the emotional support she needs from her friends, perhaps she doesn't need her boyfriend to be fit into that role as well. Good sex is the only thing that a boyfriend and only a boyfriend can provide.

A better analogy may be eating. While it's rational to eat, our urge to eat is determined by biology, not cold cognition. Brocolli may be very good food for you, its filled with nutrients and is low in fat. However, if presented with the option, most people would go for a big tasty burger, covered in cheese instead. That's not a rational thing, its just that burgers are way nicer to eat. We are biologically programmed to eat fat and sugar whenever its available. Fruit and vegetables were fairly abundant to our ancestors, just like good friends are to us, so we don't feel any great urge to eat them because that's what we had most of the time anyway. If you've ever been on a diet, you will know how difficult it can be to say no to that big juicy burger or tub of ice cream, especially if you are hungry.

The most important point is that chemistry just doesn't happen with everyone. Even the best "dating coaches" in the world can't go 5 for 5 when it comes to getting girls. Sex is an intimate experience and people are too complicated to have a way that works 100% of the time. Let's say you are an intelligent person. That can be quite a turn on to some girls, maybe they just want someone that they can have really interesting conversations with and will stimulate them mentally as well as physically. However, the ability to talk about science and literature ain't going to count for shit if you come up to a girl who just wants to party and talk about trashy TV and celebrity gossip. There is very little that is universally attractive and so the "qualifications" are going to be different for pretty much every girl you meet.
 

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
May 13, 2009
5,901
968
118
Country
USA
Onjenae said:
BTW i notice that nice guys seem to think they are entitled to women alot of you so called nice guys really creep me out

you act as if women belong to you and seem to be mad at the world because you rejected and noboyd wants to sleep with you.
Check out number 5:)

http://www.cracked.com/article_19785_5-ways-modern-men-are-trained-to-hate-women.html

I don't think a guy has to be ugly to be friend-zoned: just not particularly attractive. And guys: this goes two ways: we want attractive women. Hopefully in life, people find their opposite number that fits.

And everyone here see, "Just Friends" ? The socio-political implications of that very funny movie are staggering.

EDIT: Although, cracked.com had another good story on some odd things women find attractive, such as, NOT smiling men. Maybe that's where we get the idea women love Mr. Cruel.
 

Freechoice

New member
Dec 6, 2010
1,019
0
0
Jimbo1212 said:
What I don't understand is that the other person in the debate had no problem understanding the analogy, so why do you?

You make it far too complex and use the English language in a very unusual way, thus I think the issue is at your end, not mine.
Also please don't confuse your strange experiences with the worlds. I do not know of any 18-25 year old who believes they are invulnerable (what country are you from again?).

Also, care to actually comment about the topic at hand or just fail to grasp basic analogies?
Yeah, and the person you were debating? I made their exact same point. Either you're not reading or you're not understanding.

I... actually don't use the English language in a "very" unusual way. I just use higher level diction to supplement and expedite my points.

Yeah, not my "strange" experiences. It's an observable phenomenon that has [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0882596308001206] studies [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886909002803] conducted about it. If anything, the conclusions you draw from your experiences make you the odd one out. Most people don't operate on the computer logic you seem to have. I've yet to be accused of having misogynistic views for declaring what women should seek in a male. Likewise, you speak in complete certainty and ask for citations, but you yourself never give any. It's all declarative statements on how you think people should behave (again, failing to perceive the concept of relativity.)

And if you want a comment on the topic at hand, the entire thread is stupid because people on both ends are right and wrong on certain things. The question is correctness relative to who is speaking.
 

Jimbo1212

New member
Aug 13, 2009
676
0
0
Freechoice said:
Jimbo1212 said:
What I don't understand is that the other person in the debate had no problem understanding the analogy, so why do you?

You make it far too complex and use the English language in a very unusual way, thus I think the issue is at your end, not mine.
Also please don't confuse your strange experiences with the worlds. I do not know of any 18-25 year old who believes they are invulnerable (what country are you from again?).

Also, care to actually comment about the topic at hand or just fail to grasp basic analogies?
Yeah, and the person you were debating? I made their exact same point. Either you're not reading or you're not understanding.

I... actually don't use the English language in a "very" unusual way. I just use higher level diction to supplement and expedite my points.

Yeah, not my "strange" experiences. It's an observable phenomenon that has [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0882596308001206] studies [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886909002803] conducted about it. If anything, the conclusions you draw from your experiences make you the odd one out. Most people don't operate on the computer logic you seem to have. I've yet to be accused of having misogynistic views for declaring what women should seek in a male. Likewise, you speak in complete certainty and ask for citations, but you yourself never give any. It's all declarative statements on how you think people should behave (again, failing to perceive the concept of relativity.)

And if you want a comment on the topic at hand, the entire thread is stupid because people on both ends are right and wrong on certain things. The question is correctness relative to who is speaking.
a) You think the topic is stupid yet post in it? Hm, I think there is a word for people like you in forums.
b) Your wording is very unusual and says many things about you.
c) Studies...from the US. Until it is done elsewhere, it could be results purely due to US culture. From my life experience, I would say that would be the case as American youth are renown for their arrogance.

And your point was nothing like OP's as you clearly did not understand the analogies myself and OP were sharing. She implied bf material was good due to it being volatile and I said how people do not like things to be volatile for extended periods and that the high points are redundant due to the volume of low points in such a relationship. You missed all that and went on some weird tangent about sadomasochistic....
 

Freechoice

New member
Dec 6, 2010
1,019
0
0
Jimbo1212 said:
Freechoice said:
Jimbo1212 said:
What I don't understand is that the other person in the debate had no problem understanding the analogy, so why do you?

You make it far too complex and use the English language in a very unusual way, thus I think the issue is at your end, not mine.
Also please don't confuse your strange experiences with the worlds. I do not know of any 18-25 year old who believes they are invulnerable (what country are you from again?).

Also, care to actually comment about the topic at hand or just fail to grasp basic analogies?
Yeah, and the person you were debating? I made their exact same point. Either you're not reading or you're not understanding.

I... actually don't use the English language in a "very" unusual way. I just use higher level diction to supplement and expedite my points.

Yeah, not my "strange" experiences. It's an observable phenomenon that has [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0882596308001206] studies [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886909002803] conducted about it. If anything, the conclusions you draw from your experiences make you the odd one out. Most people don't operate on the computer logic you seem to have. I've yet to be accused of having misogynistic views for declaring what women should seek in a male. Likewise, you speak in complete certainty and ask for citations, but you yourself never give any. It's all declarative statements on how you think people should behave (again, failing to perceive the concept of relativity.)

And if you want a comment on the topic at hand, the entire thread is stupid because people on both ends are right and wrong on certain things. The question is correctness relative to who is speaking.
a) You think the topic is stupid yet post in it? Hm, I think there is a word for people like you in forums.
b) Your wording is very unusual and says many things about you.
c) Studies...from the US. Until it is done elsewhere, it could be results purely due to US culture. From my life experience, I would say that would be the case as American youth are renown for their arrogance.

And your point was nothing like OP's as you clearly did not understand the analogies myself and OP were sharing. She implied bf material was good due to it being volatile and I said how people do not like things to be volatile for extended periods and that the high points are redundant due to the volume of low points in such a relationship. You missed all that and went on some weird tangent about sadomasochistic....
Actually, I responded to the post regarding the rollercoaster analogy. That should have been obvious.

Why thank you, I pride myself on being able to use polysyllabic words.

Couldn't find anything that laid everything out cut and dry, but I did find something nice from what I think is Oxford.

http://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/booth/Risk/dyingage.html

Look at the 15-24 range. The jump from 5-14 to 15-24 is MASSIVE. A male aged 20 is 4 times more likely to die than a 10 year old. At no point is there a greater decrease in survivability on that chart.

This piece [http://www.epjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/ep026685.pdf] has some corollaries as to what I'm saying. Teenagers have the risk-taking behavior of adults sans the wisdom. The behavior is noted throughout mammalian and avian animals and is sexually related, sexual maturity being the time of adolescence.

As well, adolescent mortality is present throughout populations across the world, save for Europe, I believe. I saw a chart, but can't find the link.

You weren't actually addressing the OP either.
 

Jimbo1212

New member
Aug 13, 2009
676
0
0
Freechoice said:
Jimbo1212 said:
Freechoice said:
Jimbo1212 said:
What I don't understand is that the other person in the debate had no problem understanding the analogy, so why do you?

You make it far too complex and use the English language in a very unusual way, thus I think the issue is at your end, not mine.
Also please don't confuse your strange experiences with the worlds. I do not know of any 18-25 year old who believes they are invulnerable (what country are you from again?).

Also, care to actually comment about the topic at hand or just fail to grasp basic analogies?
Yeah, and the person you were debating? I made their exact same point. Either you're not reading or you're not understanding.

I... actually don't use the English language in a "very" unusual way. I just use higher level diction to supplement and expedite my points.

Yeah, not my "strange" experiences. It's an observable phenomenon that has [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0882596308001206] studies [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886909002803] conducted about it. If anything, the conclusions you draw from your experiences make you the odd one out. Most people don't operate on the computer logic you seem to have. I've yet to be accused of having misogynistic views for declaring what women should seek in a male. Likewise, you speak in complete certainty and ask for citations, but you yourself never give any. It's all declarative statements on how you think people should behave (again, failing to perceive the concept of relativity.)

And if you want a comment on the topic at hand, the entire thread is stupid because people on both ends are right and wrong on certain things. The question is correctness relative to who is speaking.
a) You think the topic is stupid yet post in it? Hm, I think there is a word for people like you in forums.
b) Your wording is very unusual and says many things about you.
c) Studies...from the US. Until it is done elsewhere, it could be results purely due to US culture. From my life experience, I would say that would be the case as American youth are renown for their arrogance.

And your point was nothing like OP's as you clearly did not understand the analogies myself and OP were sharing. She implied bf material was good due to it being volatile and I said how people do not like things to be volatile for extended periods and that the high points are redundant due to the volume of low points in such a relationship. You missed all that and went on some weird tangent about sadomasochistic....
Actually, I responded to the post regarding the rollercoaster analogy. That should have been obvious.

Why thank you, I pride myself on being able to use polysyllabic words.

Couldn't find anything that laid everything out cut and dry, but I did find something nice from what I think is Oxford.

http://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/booth/Risk/dyingage.html

Look at the 15-24 range. The jump from 5-14 to 15-24 is MASSIVE. A male aged 20 is 4 times more likely to die than a 10 year old. At no point is there a greater decrease in survivability on that chart.

This piece [http://www.epjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/ep026685.pdf] has some corollaries as to what I'm saying. Teenagers have the risk-taking behavior of adults sans the wisdom. The behavior is noted throughout mammalian and avian animals and is sexually related, sexual maturity being the time of adolescence.

As well, adolescent mortality is present throughout populations across the world, save for Europe, I believe. I saw a chart, but can't find the link.

You weren't actually addressing the OP either.
Actually everyone of my posts has addressed OP if you cared to have read the replies, you however are utterly off topic due to your inability to understand analogies.
You also like to read into trends as mortality increases for every age group after 10-14, so are 50 year olds partying like mad every night......or is it that life is simply a dangerous ? Either way, don't bother replying as I would not like to see you get a warning for derailing the thread.
 

Freechoice

New member
Dec 6, 2010
1,019
0
0
Jimbo1212 said:
Actually everyone of my posts has addressed OP if you cared to have read the replies, you however are utterly off topic due to your inability to understand analogies.
You also like to read into trends as mortality increases for every age group after 10-14, so are 50 year olds partying like mad every night......or is it that life is simply a dangerous ? Either way, don't bother replying as I would not like to see you get a warning for derailing the thread.
Original post by: museofdoom
Who you have been replying to: tobyornottoby

And no, the increased probability of dying is not because 50 year olds are "partying." Rather, the probability of dying increases over time because of weakening immune systems, poor health habits (that take time to accrue) and exposure to dangerous work, things teens are largely unaffected by.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6572283.stm

A third of road fatalities in the UK are under 25. Road accidents are the number 1 killers of teens. Not AIDS, not tuberculosis, not cancer. Pick any older demographic and it's going to be a disease.

And if you look into that post I had with the link to the sexual expenditure, you'll notice that I biologically explained the PoV of males in the friend zone. It's scientific!