Are you territorial about your mate?

[thepeaguy]

I'll never, ever, ever succumb to that emotional trap -- because I don't need a relationship to validate my existence.

That's a bit of a patronising attitude don't ya think?

It shouldn't be patronising if people choose to ignore such attitudes.

All I know is that I'm going to be one, happy bachelor without any emotional ties from the opposite sex.

[McGiver]

I'll never, ever, ever succumb to that emotional trap -- because I don't need a relationship to validate my existence.

That's a bit of a patronising attitude don't ya think?

It shouldn't be patronising if people choose to ignore such attitudes.

All I know is that I'm going to be one, happy bachelor without any emotional ties from the opposite sex.

yes, until you get pussy whipped.

[thepeaguy]

I'll never, ever, ever succumb to that emotional trap -- because I don't need a relationship to validate my existence.

That's a bit of a patronising attitude don't ya think?

It shouldn't be patronising if people choose to ignore such attitudes.

All I know is that I'm going to be one, happy bachelor without any emotional ties from the opposite sex.

yes, until you get pussy whipped.

But that might not happen because I'm supposedly gay, according to your baseless sources.

[McGiver]

i suspect you are gay.
i have no evidence to support my suspicions.  unless you consider gay-dar to be submissable as evidence.

[purposefulinsanity]

I'll never, ever, ever succumb to that emotional trap -- because I don't need a relationship to validate my existence.

That's a bit of a patronising attitude don't ya think?

It shouldn't be patronising if people choose to ignore such attitudes.

All I know is that I'm going to be one, happy bachelor without any emotional ties from the opposite sex.

Ignore what attitudes?    I believe it is patronising to tell people they want to be in a relationship to validate their own existance and its also a very simplistic view of relationships.   

And why 'going to be', why not 'am'? 

[thepeaguy]

I'll never, ever, ever succumb to that emotional trap -- because I don't need a relationship to validate my existence.

That's a bit of a patronising attitude don't ya think?

It shouldn't be patronising if people choose to ignore such attitudes.

All I know is that I'm going to be one, happy bachelor without any emotional ties from the opposite sex.

Ignore what attitudes?    I believe it is patronising to tell people they want to be in a relationship to validate their own existance and its also a very simplistic view of relationships.   

But I haven't told anyone here that they're in relationships to validate their own existence. I am simply expressing my own opinion that most people these days are emotionally juvenile and arrogant to think that being with someone, no matter how much of a bastard or a bitch the partner is, is better than being with no-one at all.

And why 'going to be', why not 'am'? 

Because I still have mixed feelings on this subject. I'm just being honest with my feelings here.

[odeon]

But I haven't told anyone here that they're in relationships to validate their own existence. I am simply expressing my own opinion that most people these days are emotionally juvenile and arrogant to think that being with someone, no matter how much of a bastard or a bitch the partner is, is better than being with no-one at all.

If that's the case, then it is arrogant and I agree with you. I wouldn't want to be in a relationship no matter what.

[Callaway]

I'll never, ever, ever succumb to that emotional trap -- because I don't need a relationship to validate my existence.

That's a bit of a patronising attitude don't ya think?

It shouldn't be patronising if people choose to ignore such attitudes.

All I know is that I'm going to be one, happy bachelor without any emotional ties from the opposite sex.

Or you might be a very happily married husband and father.  Just because you don't need to be with someone just to not be alone, does not mean that you will never be with anyone at all.  You might find someone you are happy with who is also happy with you.

[purposefulinsanity]

But I haven't told anyone here that they're in relationships to validate their own existence. I am simply expressing my own opinion that most people these days are emotionally juvenile and arrogant to think that being with someone, no matter how much of a bastard or a bitch the partner is, is better than being with no-one at all.

But the way you worded your original post seemed to suggest (at least it did to me) that all of those who had posted before you had 'succumbed to that emotional trap' and thus felt that they had to be with someone in order to be a complete person.  And I agree with you that a twat of a partner is not better than none- however I don't believe that anyone on this thread suggested the contradictory was true.

Because I still have mixed feelings on this subject. I'm just being honest with my feelings here.

I thought that perhaps you had mixed feelings but since you do how can you be so sure that you will be a single for the rest of your life?  (not that I don't believe that remaining single might not be the right decision for you).

[Nomaken]

* Nomaken pounces peaguy and bites him.

Feelin' horny?


Although i am not a hot one.  A better test would be peter, he is bitable.

[El]

I've firmly stated and firmly stand by my stance that people are never never never halves of a whole.  Each person is a whole person on his or her own and doesn't need to be in a relatinoship to make their lives "worthwhile" or "complete."  Yes, I'm in a relationship, but it's not to fill some gapaing hole in my life; that's a bullshit philosophy.

[Lucifer]

it might well be a bullshit philosophy (and i agree with you), but it's fucking difficult trying to go against all one's childhood conditioning.  for me, that meant i would leave school, get a bit of a job, and then get married and have babies.  people started looking at me funny by my early twenties, cos i wasn't engaged.  there was Talk at my younger sister's first wedding, cos i didn't even have a boyfriend at that time - it just wasn't normal or natural for a woman not to have a partner.  people still look at me a bit funny now.

in other words, it was (and is still, in some quarters) considered odd not to have a partner: single-dom was (is) not the natural order of things.

other than that, i know my life would be easier in some ways (and more diffcult, i'm sure) if i had a partner.  so i don't give a fuck - i'd very much like to be in a relationship, please.

[McGiver]

I've firmly stated and firmly stand by my stance that people are never never never halves of a whole.  Each person is a whole person on his or her own and doesn't need to be in a relatinoship to make their lives "worthwhile" or "complete."  Yes, I'm in a relationship, but it's not to fill some gapaing hole in my life; that's a bullshit philosophy.

then why are you in a relationship?

[Nomaken]

yes.

i pea on her everytime she gets out of the shower.
so the other males of the species know that she is spoken for.

I have to comment on this, because i thought somebody would mention it but they never did.  That was hilarious.  +1

[El]

I've firmly stated and firmly stand by my stance that people are never never never halves of a whole.  Each person is a whole person on his or her own and doesn't need to be in a relatinoship to make their lives "worthwhile" or "complete."  Yes, I'm in a relationship, but it's not to fill some gapaing hole in my life; that's a bullshit philosophy.

then why are you in a relationship?

Because I like my mate.  not because I need him.