kitten

Naah!! I bet I'm even more workinger class than you! Anyway, I thought your story, Seventeen, was autobiographical and that both your parents are surgeons... Mind you, I suppose in some social circles surgeons are considered to be workimg class! Kit

Why do it if you hate it? Isn't that why we have tradesmen and the other working classes? Kit

I want to be god-emperor of the multiverse. Then, if you're nice to me, I'll maybe appoint you ruler of Earth. Kit

This is my attitude as well! 1) If it ain't broke, don't fix it! 2) If it does everything I want, keep it the way it is. 3) Getting the newest, fastest, bestest, cutest version is fine if you enjoy the proces of getting them and installing them and optimising them for your requirements, but otherwise I think it's a waste of my time. Of course eventually it may wear out or cease functioning or not do all the things I want it to do. Then I'll get a new version. Actually, I think item 3 probably applies to boyfriends as well as new technology! Kit

But presumably you wouldn't flirt with girls who were strangers? Certainly, I hope you wouldn't play with the titties of girls who were strangers! Again, presumably if you grab a guy's ass they can't be total strangers? Otherwise you would likely get punched in the face, especially if they turn out to be straight! That would almost certainly be the case here in the UK. Is the US really so different in this respect? Don't you think that's a selfish attitude? To do things to a total stranger, which that stranger may not want, just because it makes you happy? This brings up two points - 1. You are happy to do something to a stranger that offends that stranger, just because you enjoy doing it and you feel it's good for you. 2. You think that anyone who doesn't agree with you about being flirted with or touched by a stranger is a pissy prude. That attitude, reprehensible in itself, will be picked up by your victim, who will thereby be made to feel bad for rejecting your unwanted advances. So, again, not only do you offend them with unwanted advances, you make them feel bad just because they don't respond positively to being offended. This is exactly how I feel. As we are both in the UK and almost all the supporters of flirting with strangers appear to be in the USA, maybe it's a cultural thing. When you feel as we do, if you don't return the flirting then you are treated as if you were the one being rude, and if you show you're offended then they treat you like a prude, etc. Thus the victim is further victimised. Unlike me, however, it seems that you want to change your own behaviour and personality to try comply with the 'flirters'. My question, though, is - why should you? well I wouldnt see it that way. the way you would retreat like I'm some crazed animal would likely make me as depressed as you'd feel not being flirted with. I'd find it rude. and its often the case that those people aren't very good at concealing their disgust at you for not appreciating their total love and adjustment to flirting as the norm. I'm perfectly happy making new friends, but I'm not really adjusted to people assuming they can be overtly sexual in their touches, especially to strangers. so no often I don't simply want that attention to make myself feel good, its not my goal on a night out or whatever. celia I totally agree with celia in this. Kit

I totally agree... Ron is cuter than Harry. And even cuter than Ron are his twin brothers (I have some hot fantasies invoving them!). But cutest of all is the captain of the Gryffindor Quidditch team! Droooool! (now, where's my drool-bucket??) Kit

Please quote where you believe that I assume that flirting entails groping people's buttocks. I don't believe I said that, and I think you misinterpreted what I did say. Also, two of the thre definitions of flirting I found (three different online dictionaries) use the word sexual. The third used the word amorous. You seem to think that amorous does not imply sexual, yet here are definitions of amorous : 1. Strongly attracted or disposed to love, especially sexual love. 2. Indicative of love or sexual desire So, basically, all definitions I found of flirting involve 'sexual', either directly or though 'amorous'. No doubt if you look around you will be able to find a definition that doesn't involve 'sexual'. However, most definitions and most people's understanding, will have flirting associated with sexual. Thus I think that our disagreement really boils down to: 'How sexual is it appropriate to get with strangers?' Clearly, the answer depends on your upbringing and environment. There is a gradation of behaviour between a friendly smile and a grope, with bawdy jokes and flirting coming somewhere in between those extremes. I think that you and I agree on the two extremes - i.e. smile is good, grope is bad. Somewhere in between those two extremes we will each draw a line between what is appropriate with a stranger and what is not appropriate with a stranger. Is it not true to say that our disagreement involves where we draw that line? As a sort of analogy - suppose some people don't like physical contact with strangers, but also suppose you think that it's okay (even good) to touch strangers sometimes, in a completely non-sexual way. Knowing that some people don't like it, would you still persist in touching strangers and risk offending the ones who don't like it? From your posts, it seems you enjoy flirting with strangers and/or have them flirt with you. Some people find it, uncomfortable, unpleasant, even intimidating, when strangers flirt with them. Because they are strangers to you, you can't know if the person you start flirting with will find it distressing. Are you happy to risk hurting those strangers just because you enjoy it? After all, if you refrain from flirting with strangers, it won't totally deprive you of your flirting pleasure, because you can still enjoy flirting with non-strangers, who you know will also enjoy it. Kit

Which was precisely my point. By falsely defining what you tried to use your argument to justify, it was 'failsafe' only in that it is circular. you say: 'cordial human behavior' = good flirting = 'cordial human behavior' and so you conclude that: flirting = good However, flirting = 'cordial human behavior' is not true. Or at lest it is an assumption which you do not justify. Which was exactly the point I made - your argument falls down because it is based on an untrue definition. Of course, if you wish to define any word to mean anything YOU want it to mean, then all your arguments will always be 'failsafe'. They will also be meaningless. You also state, or at least imply, that flirting is part of human instinct. Do you have evidence for this? For example - is it, and has it always been, part of human culture, or is it just part of modern Western culture? Is it an inbuilt, instictive part of the human mating ritual, or is it learned behaviour, like buying engagement rings, going to restaurants, etc? You equate flirting with 'smiling in a friendly manner' and also with bawdy conversation. Well, I don't know about you, but while I might smile at strangers, I certainly wouldn't be bawdy with them. Neither would I flirt with them nor touch them intimately. Clearly there is a gradation of familiarity between smiling at strangers and touching them. So, not only do you define your own terms to suit yourself, you also seek to impose your own value judgements about what is appropriate behaviour with strangers. You might argue that I, too, am seeking to impose my judgements. However, no stranger will be offended if I don't flirt with them, but I would be offended if a stranger flirted with me. So at least my judgements will cause least offence. Finally, the weakness of your argument is not strengthened by name-calling, by 'conveniently' leaving out the smiley I put on my 'incest' comments, and by comparing me with right-wingers such as Palin. In fact, do you even know what her views on flirting are? Kit

Just as I am speaking for myself and I'm saying how a stranger flirting with me makes me feel. Also, your whole intellectualised 'paradigm argument' falls flat because it is based on an assumption that flirting with strangers is in fact a 'cordial human interaction'. Some people might think that grabbing a stranger's buttocks is a 'cordial human interaction'. Maybe it's just a product of your society, and I'm grateful that where I live flirting with strangers is quite rare. If getting laid is your main goal then flirting with strangers is a very inefficient way of achieving that goal. Even most of the posters here who think flirting with strangers is wonderful don't consider that it's main objective is to get laid. There is a very high probability that the other person isn't going to be interested and may not even share your sexuality. Flirting with people you know, and who might possily be interested in sex with you, is more likely to achieve your goal of getting laid. If you flirt with strangers, it is random because you don't know anything about them. If you flirt with a stranger, you don't know if they might consider it to be harrassment. Sorry, but I'm not into flirting within the family. It's a bit too close to incest for me. Kit

So you think that the decision as to the acceptability of a certain behaviour should be made based on whether or not some people might feel the world would be depressing without that behaviour? Also, Procyon wrote: "There was a guy selling strawberries close to where I live last summer, and I think he flirted with basically every customer he had -- even the old, decrepit ladies of about 95" The man was obviously not being 'nice' for the sake of it. He was making a cynical (and probably successful) attempt to sell more strawberries by insincerely flattering the women. Personally, I take a dim view of that. For example, if any waiter (male or female) tries flirting with me I assume that it's an attempt to flatter me into giving a bigger tip, so I make a point of not leaving any tip at all. Hopefully that will encourage them to behave better in future. Kit

In the last question, isn't choosing the answer 'No' essentially the same as choosing the last answer, that laws and morals are two differentr things? Kit

Three definitions of flirting: To make playfully romantic or sexual overtures to court triflingly or act amorously without serious intentions playful behavior intended to arouse sexual interest To me, those definitions imply something sexual. I'm not sure exactly how overt it is. Probably not as overt as 'fancy a shag?'. How overt does it have to be before it becomes inappropriate? Or goes on to become harrassment? Certainly, for me it is inappropriate if a stranger behaves that way toward me. That, however, wasn't the real point of my previous post, and it appears that my attempts at subtle satire were a miserable failure. So I guess I should be blunt. My real point was that the decision as to the acceptability of a certain behaviour should not be made based on whether or not some people might feel the world would be depressing without that behaviour. Thus, I'm sure that some people would find the world less depressing if they could sexually harrass people whenever they want to. Personally, I think that the world would be less depressing if I could just take money from people who had more than I had. So, to put it bluntly, saying that the world would be more depressing without flirting has neither practical nor moral validity. Kit

Flirting is just a mild form of sexual harrassment. It puts pressure on the recipient to respond positively or be thought of as a killjoy. What a depressing world we'd have if we couldn't sexually harrass people! It's all just a bit of fun. They don't have to respond, and in any case, we're not really serious about it it, so even if they do respond we'd just reject them. It doesn't matter who we hurt as long as we don't have to live in a depressing world! Yeah. Right. Kit

You didn't say it was merely your opinion. You stated it as if it were a fact, and even used the phrase 'without doubt'. You certainly appeared to be stating as fact that Henry was dumb, which goes against what I've seen stated by historians. However, accepting that it was indeed merely an opinion and not based upon an inaccurate drama, what historical facts do you base your opinion on? Well, you said:- "The guy who had to fight for the throne knew its worth and had some kind of vision for the country" You didn't say some guys and you didn't say sometimes. In fact, you didn't use any qualifiers at all. So there is an implication that all or most of those who "had to fight for the throne knew its worth and had some kind of vision for the country". You seem to be saying that those who inherited the throne were unlikely to have vision for the country. So I wonder if you had any hard data to support that? Kit

I do hope that you're not basing your opinion of Henry VIII and an inherited monarchy on this TV show, which is historically inaccuate. It's an entertaining historical soap-opera that just happens to have characters that have the same names and a few things in common with historical characters. Actually, Henry VIII was pretty intelligent and very well educated compared to other rulers of around that time. Apart from his messed up sex life he was also a reasonably good ruler, and arguably better than his father (Henry VII), who did have to fight and kill Richard III for his throne. Looking through history, you find that many of those who seize power by force are more tyrranical and do not rule in the interests of their country. This is because they feel less secure in their position than someone who inherits it. Also, people who seize power rarely do so for the benefit of the country, no matter what they say. They do so because they want the power and wealth. Mugabe didn't inherit his power, but I don't see that his rule has shown much vision for the future of his country! As for Henry VIII having some kind of vision of his country - most of his matrimonial problems were due to his desire for a male heir, and having an unopposed male heir was very good for the stability of the country. England had only just come out of many decades of the Wars of the Roses, and those wars were caused mainly because there were weak kings and uncertain heirs. Henry's desire to have a male heir and be a strong king may have been partly selfish, but he knew that it would also be in the best interests of the country. While a country has two sets of laws (one for religious clergy and one for the rest) and while a large part of the population accepts the sovereinty of some foreign bishop (the pope) over their own king, that king will be weakened. Therefore, even apart from any questions of his divorce, Henry VIII was acting in the interests of his country by throwing off the shackles of superstition imposed by a corrupt Church. Other rulers were doing much the same thing at this time as the Reformation swept across Europe. So, although I agree that inherited monarchy can have its disadvantages, especially if there is a fixed system of primogeniture and if the heirs are not properly brought up and selected, I do not agree that Henry VIII was an example of such disadvantages. Kit

Well, I'm not sure about this, but as I understand it, the compensation is supposed to make up for losses not taken care of by other means. So, for example, if you lose a leg, you will get free medical treatment, possibly disability benefits, etc, but they won't be able to deal with all the 'inconvenience' of not having a leg. Compensation is supposed to cover you for the 'inconvenience' and other aspects not totally covered by other things. Of course, it's totally inadequate and goes back to Anglo-Saxon times when the perpetrator could avoid blood feud by paying a compensation. As you say, if society were to provide all the medical, psychological, social backup required, what would the compensation be used for? I suppose it might be considered part of the psychological aid - e.g. buy yourself something nice to cheer you up? That's why I think it shouldn't be needed in a proper, caring society. However, we live in an increasingly 'compensation culture' and people now feel that they are being deprived of their rights if they don't get compensation. But how much money would be required to make someone really feel better about being raped? Kit

I totally agree with you about how things should be. Unfortunately, that is not how things actually are. Our whole criminal compensation system is a complete mess. There are (quite trivial) set amounts for an eye, leg, hand, finger etc. and (AFAIK) they don't take much (if any) account of psychological damage. Within the system the degree of negligence of the victim is also taken into account. FWIW, my opinion is that there shouldn't be any 'compensation' as such at all. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that we should ignore the victims hurt by crimes; in fact, I mean just the opposite. i.e. society should look after them according to their actual individual needs, and not according to some 'tarrif' system. That way, there would be no need for any specific compensation. Thus it should be a bit like the health service - when your leg is injured you get whatever treatment you need, you don't get a fixed sum of money to 'compensate' for your injury. Kit

I think that it is important to distinguish here between criminality and compensation. The behaviour of the victim does not affect the criminality of the rapist and he is found guilty and sent to jail whether the victim was drunk or not. Compensation is where society (i.e. we taxpayers) pay a victim some money to contribute toward the victim's recovery from the crime. The convicted criminal does not pay that compensation. Now I'm not trying to equate rape and car theft, but the distiction between criminality and compensation is analagous. If you leave your car unlocked with the key in the ignition and someone steals your car, then your negligence does not alter the criminality of the thief. However, your negligence might well affect whether or not your insurance company will pay up. Obviously, it is debatable whether or not getting drunk with strangers should be be regarded as neglligent behaviour with respect to it contributing to a rape. FWIW, I personally don't think that it should be. Certainly, it's not the same order of negligence as leaving a car unlocked with keys in the ignition. However, the theoretical idea that a degree of negligence can affect compensation without affecting criminality is not completely unreasonable. Kit

It is historically inaccurate, but it's well made and if you treat it as fiction then it's entertaining. There's a lot of shots of nice male bodies, where you can see everything except the dangley-bits. The king (Jonathan Rhys Meyers) and his best mate, Duke of Suffolk (Henry Cavill) are espescially tastey! (IMHO).

The guys are cute but the song is rubbish. It has the same relationship to music as bubble-gum has to food. Kit

It's sad that she's dead, but at least she saw the huge progress made and even lived long enough to benefit from the possibility of gay marriage. However, I think that the above quote is rather innaccurate. It is also very USA-centric. Here is a timeline:- 1946

I'm afraid that, even for me, 03:48 AM is either too early or too late to be drinking tea - I'd been in bed for about 4 hours by that time! And why on earth were you doing house cleaning so late??!!?? You're not one of those people addicted to house cleaning are you? Still, if you actually enjoy house cleaning, I have a 7-bedroom house that always seems to need cleaning, not least because a monkey is an agent of chaos and catalyst of entropy. Kit

Mmmm.... seems like I'm definitely female... though (if the ratio of the scores means anything) maybe my later works are not quite so feminine... Thinking I might have spent years under a misapprehension, I just checked the reproductive equipment and it's definitely male. Shorts: Just Visiting - Female (Female score = 20301; Male score = 14697) Chat Room - Female (Female score = 11820; Male score = 9831) JTMD - Female (Female score = 9265; Male score = 7011) Novels: Tapping Ch1 - Female (Female score = 14869; Male score = 11371) Tapping Ch9 - Female (Female score = 21268; Male score = 14891) Tough Q Ch1 - Female (Female score = 8359; Male score = 6067) Tough ! Ch10 - Female (Female score = 16617; Male score = 11576) Perspective Ch1- Female (Female score = 11810; Male score = 9971) Perspective Ch3- Female (Female score = 8339; Male score = 5534) I wonder if that algorithm takes into account sexuality or just assumes both genders are hetero? Kit

I'm not going this year but I've been 3 times in the past - last time two years ago. I had a great time but was rather shocked by the number of people selling drugs on Canal Street. If you go, enjoy yourself but take care! Kit