Okay, so I know this is probably one of the most discussed topics EVER, but I still think it's cute and fun. But what kind of qualities and/or characteristics do you look for in your significant other??
Intelligence, kindness, and willingness to sit for me to draw them. Not kidding. Those are the VERY basics.
"What is life but a constant search for pleasure? I think that the feeling of a young man's tongue inside your mouth is the greatest pleasure of all."
-The Baron Van Oestregan
That's aweome things to look for. It's neat that you can draw. that's an admirable trait. I want someone who I can laugh with, and at times cry with. Who I can argue with, and someone who drives me so insane, but is still there for me. And truly cares. I know, it's kinda stupid.
In fact, those are wonderful traits to look for.
I like to think so.
He'd have to be mature, know when to be serious and when it's okay not to be. He'd have to have a sense of humor otherwise we won't get along at all. And he needs to be understanding and well, nice of course. He'd have to be able to put up with me when I'm not at my best but I'd do the same for him in return.
Ideally, I'd like someone vegetarian, around the same height as me, with a sense of adventure. Not terribly religious (mostly because I'd probably end up offending them without realizing it. >_> I've got an awful tendency to do this) And artistic in some way. Whether that means they're into music or dance or drawing... I'd like someone creative and expressive.
And of course he has to be someone who isn't going to push me into something I'm not comfortable with.
...In a nutshell I want my boyfriend to be a best friend that I can hold hands with and kiss from time to time. Heh.
Your last sentence. I think that nicely sums up what I want. Just replace "boyfriend" with "girlfriend" :)
Agreed. This sums up my perfect match, too. Boy or girl, I suppose. ^.^
[[Love means you can never be apart... <3]]
That's awesome! And comepletely relatable.
I want someone smarter and better looking than me. Great social skills would help too.
I am so clever that sometimes I don't understand a single word of what I am saying.
I want somebody who is different but the same as me. You know? I'd like somebody who likes to do a lot of the same things as me yet can introduce me to new things. Someone I can just hang out with and talk to about anything. Somebody who I'm comfortable with. That doesn't make me feel like I have to watch what I say or bite my tongue. Somebody who can bring me out of my shell.
I completely understand. I want someone who doesn't let me walk over them, I can admit I do tend to do that when given the chance. And with some people, I'll lose all respect for them if they let me. I have my moments where i don't want to talk to anyone, and it's hard to get me to, I want someone who I can talk to , even when I'm like that.
They have to have a sense of humor and compassion, and they wouldn't have to be too pushy. Things go at their own pace, no sense in rushing them. That's all...
If you're going through hell, keep going. ~Winston Churchill
I hate when people try to push you faster than you're ready to go.
I seriously think that things in relationships should just happen when it's time.
"When you can't walk you crawl, and when you can't do that you find someone to carry you" ~Firefly
I would want that someone to be brutally honest; I don't want people to lie to make it easier for me. I want the complete, unadulterated truth. I also want them to be genuine, competitive (it's a fun way to be cute and flirt), humorous and a granola (it's the Vermont in me, what can I say?).
I've never heard that term before.
It's essentially Vermont in its entirety. I'd use Thoreau as an example, but he was kind-of, sort-of, REALLY a HUGE hypocrite.
Haha, I see. There's a lot of people like that here, but not enough for us to use a term like that apparently. XD
Man, if that's a Vermont thing I -really- need to be in Vermont. I'm always wishing I knew more people like that. Well no, I'm always wishing I knew more -guys- like that. I know plenty of girls like that. But finding guys like that proves difficult. :P It almost makes me wish I were straight... Almost.
Haha... Well, I was mega-exaggerating when I said all of Vermont.
But actually... All of my past boyfriends have been vegetarians at one point in their lifetimes. Joey was off-and-on one, although he was pretty much a fakie. So he would be a fegetarian. Jake is a vego too. Andy's a pretty strict one. He consumes dairy and egg, but no gelatin, jus' like me!
I think Andy's family was actually the definition of granola though. They live in a farm house, raise sheep and chickens, own a Subaru, buy natural products, buy in bulk, use their own containers, are unitarian universalists, and his mother is training to become a druid.
But well... They lived in New Hampshire, and they thought that they were better than Vermont. Except for his father. He liked Vermont a lot better, because apparently it has saner laws (he's a social worker). So I don't really count them as granolas, because they have anti-Vermont sentiments. They're certainly not woodchucks.
I know "all of Vermont" was a mega exaggeration. But as of right now I know two vegetarian/vegan guys (in person) besides myself, and one of them is my dad. (And the other one lives in Mass) :P I know plenty of girls who at least want to be vegetarian. But next to no guys... XP And I mean, meat-breath is a huge turnoff for me. So ick. |D
I'd like New Hampshire more, but it keeps doing stuff to piss me off. (Like not passing that bill about transgender rights... The one Vermont already has.) And plus... Burlington Vermont is probably my favorite place ever, next to Provencetown in Mass... But I wouldn't want to live in Mass for very long, because Mass is crazy. =P
I know... at least three of the top of my head, and like fifty "flexitarians" (they eat poultry and seafood). But yea, meat breath is DISGUSTING. I especially love it when people ask me to handle meat, or things that meat has touched. It's just like... Right, so I don't eat meat, but you think I'm gonna touch it?
There's another word for flexitarian: meat eater.
"People who are happy are slugs... They do not move the human race forward."
-- Camille Paglia, on Oasis
They may be meat eaters, but a flexitarian diet is generally healthier and more ecologically friendly. There's been no real conclusive study between the relationship of poultry and cancer, and there's positive correlations between intelligence and fish intake (mostly due to Ω-3's, which can be gained through other mediums, such as flax. But how much flax can you eat?), although there's the downside of mercury and similar elements. Hell, if anything, soy protein isolate is more dangerous, due the presence of furan, a known carcinogen.
Plus, it is Vermont - a rural agrarian based state (at least compared to other states). Vermont, generally, isn't into factory or industrial farming like the corn belt (although to some degree, industrialization in the agricultural sector is existent). Then there's that good ol' Burlington Farmer's Market, which sells only organic, locally grown produce. That farmer's market serves the Burlington area, 200,000+ (a third of Vermont), as well as the Quebecois
Meat eaters who try to eat healthier need a special term, though. Sort of like pesco vegetarians... meat eaters. And animal cruelty-minded vegetarians who are ovo-lacto actually support the highest amount of suffering in animal agriculture, which is ironic.
The China Study linked animal protein to cancer promotion, and any grilled meat has potential carcinogenic qualities. Walnuts, and any dark leafy greens also have omega 3s.
I eat whole foods, so soy protein isolate only becomes a part of my diet on vacations, never at home. No Boca here.
In normal circumstances, the statement concerning octo-lacto vegetarians, is true, however Vermont is an interesting case. The majority of eggs are obtained from free range, organic birds in Vermont, and the largest milk suppliers of Vermont, as well as Massachusetts are rBST free (Hood, Booth Brothers, the Organic Cow, Organic Horizons, with the latter two being organic, obviously).
There's a problem with most foods containing Ω-3's: they also contain high levels of Ω-6's. Walnuts, for example have a ratio of Ω-3:Ω-6 of 1:16, while swiss chard has a ratio of 1:9. The ratio considered most natural, and thus most healthy for humans is 1:3. Atlantic cod has a ratio of 16:1.
In numerous studies, Conjugated Linoleic Acid (CLA) has been found to have antioxidant properties as well as having the ability to active, and increase the activity of a tumor suppressor gene: the PTPRG gene. CLA is largely only found in eggs, as well as meats, although a small number of mushrooms contain trace concentrations of it. CLA is able to withstand cooking.
Ovo-lacto vegetarians in Vermont will get free-range, less cruel cancer promotion? Whatever makes them happy, I guess.
Most people have way more omega 6s than omega 3s, anyway, so sort of a moot point, unless these fish eaters are avoiding all of the other omega 6 sources and only eating fish.
And, of course, you're in the last generation for eating a lot of fish anyway: http://www.tnr.com/article/environment-energy/aquacalypse-now
And not very interested in tumor suppression, since a vegan diet won't give the majority of the diet-based cancers any chance to grow in the first place.
HCA's (heterocyclic amines), which are the purported carcinogens from the Chinese study (at least this is my assumption) have been found only in cooked meats. HCA's arise because of the presence of amino acids, and creatine, which is only present in muscle tissues. As well all know, dairy and eggs don't contain creatine (because they don't have muscle tissue), and thus the risks posed by cooking are null.
Yes, the majority of individuals consume a gross amount of Ω-6's compared to Ω-3's, however, the ratio of Ω-6's:Ω-3's in fish is such that it reduces such a disparity. This dietary correction, can generally only be accomplished by fish, except in the cases of supplementation with ALA's (alpha-linolenic acids).
One P-53 gene that goes awry can ruin an entire life. It can happen due to genetic predisposition (like with reintoblastoma), environment (sun expose) or from chemicals (carcinogens like furan). Simply because an individual cuts out the chemicals, does not remove the risks due to genetics or the environment. So why not be as safe as possible? And in any case, any carcinogen vehicle also contains anti-tumor chemicals. To rule out a single thing because of the risk of cancer is both unfair, and ridiculous.
The China Study is all about animal protein (and milk is best) leading to cancer promotion in the body. Nothing to do with cooked meat.
Wow. I didn't know that anyone outside of my family had heard of that book.
There's a fundamental flaw with any nutritional study of humans: adaptation. In the past millennia, there's been an explosion of carbohydrate based diets in Europe. As we all know, over-consumption of carbohydrates leads to metabolic syndrome and eventually Type II Diabetes. However, comparatively, white Europeans, compared to individuals of differing ethnicities, are actually resistant to these two diseases. Most studies (as described in In Defense of Food) attribute this to the amount of carbohydrates that white Europeans have historically consumed. The body, after time, has become accustomed the vast amount of carbohydrates being consumed.
Adaptation can also easily be seen in a second example: milk. Sometime between 5500 BCE and 4000 BCE neolithic humans in Northern Europe became lactose tolerant - they were able to produce lactase as adults. Prior to this, after the breast-feeding stage, humans become lactose intolerant. This trend can be represented, as 95% of Northern Europeans are lactose tolerant, while 5% of the Han Chinese and 0% amongst American Indians.
Thirdly, alcohol represents a relatively notable shift in digestion and metabolism. Cultures in which alcohol represented, at the very least, a minor role have been found to have greater tolerance to alcohol. However, cultures in which alcohol hasn't played a role, such as the Eastern Asian peoples in general, have a greater intolerance to it. This can be represented by the fact European Whites metabolize acetaldehyde (alcohol metabolism: ethanol -> acetaldehyde -> acetic acid) faster compared to their Asian counterparts.
Finally, I'd like to bring up the fact that humans lactate, and the milk which is produced is the intended sustenance of infants. I highly doubt that nature and evolution would really allow something so fundamental to early development to be that horrible for you.
I'm not against infants having milk, only non-infants, and people drinking the milk of another species, which is a human-only proposition. Breastfeeding infants get a pass. ;-)
None of what you say changes the consumption vs cancer rate charts, which are pretty much 1:1 globally. The rate of consumption lines up with rates of cancer. Adaptation doesn't play a role.
The amount of meat consumed has only risen to such hugh levels in the past fifty years, while massive carbohydrate consumption started over 200 years ago. Fifty years is hardly enough time for evolution, even when concerning nutrition and metabolism. I guarantee you that once again, we'll adapt to our new environment in the realm of food.
And in any case, I hardly think it fair to compare meat consumption so generally. People react differently to different things. Besides, there could be certain effects and benefits that meat confers on individuals that a non-meat diet couldn't. We, as humans, are designed to utilize what we've historically eaten in the most efficient ways possible. Meat, being a very complete food in terms of nutrition, is relatively and easily available compared to say... tofu.
Nutrion is, and will most likely continue to be, a tremendously confusing topic - one in which light cannot easily be shined upon. Due to how science functions, we look at one variable; at one component. Food however, is a complex thing - one in which complex reactions take place. After all, "the whole is greater than the some of its parts".
I'm referencing a book documenting nearly 4 decades of epidemiological research in contrast to your supposition and optimism, though.
And, availability is our choosing. We make this level of meat available. It's not like we're out killing cows that are already out in nature for their meat.
Nutrition is meant to be a confusing topic. Lots of lobbies (meat and dairy) want a confused public. Because only a confused public would continue to eat their products. And informed one would never consider their products food. Same conclusion reached by novelist Jonathan Safran Foer in his new non-fiction book "Eating Animals."
I'm not referencing supposition or optimism in the very least. I was referencing a nutritional and metabolic phenomenon that has very clearly occurred in regards to the consumption of carbohydrates. That's 400 years of pattern which details short-term and medium-term repercussions, which also gives us insight to the long-term. And as well all know, long-term, large-group studies are usually most accurate. (the studies are referenced in In Defense of Food
In response to our choosing, I was simply referring to meats consumption historically. Meat has been in our diet since the existence of our species. I hardly think it plausible that the body hasn't found a way to deal with the toxic or carcinogenic compounds of meat, or even found some benefit from them. I would assume that the way we get our meat, or the amount we consume, are the reasons for the negative effects of meat.
I hardly think that a less confused and more informed public would halt the consumption of meat. I mean, under the concept of that, people wouldn't be smoking tobacco anymore, now would they? The simple fact remains that people do things for pleasure. Eating, at least in my opinion, is one of the greatest earthly pleasures.
While I still think you're wrong, I can't continue a debate at this width. ;-)
~"I want someone who I can laugh with, and at times cry with. Who I can argue with, and someone who drives me so insane, but is still there for me. And truly cares."
~"I want somebody who is different but the same as me. You know? I'd like somebody who likes to do a lot of the same things as me yet can introduce me to new things. Someone I can just hang out with and talk to about anything. Somebody who I'm comfortable with. That doesn't make me feel like I have to watch what I say or bite my tongue. Somebody who can bring me out of my shell."
~"(S)He'd have to be mature, know when to be serious and when it's okay not to be. (S)He'd have to have a sense of humor otherwise we won't get along at all. And (S)he needs to be understanding and well, nice of course. (S)He'd have to be able to put up with me when I'm not at my best but I'd do the same for him(/her) in return.
Ideally, I'd like someone vegetarian(doesn't matter what they eat), around the same height as me(shorter), with a sense of adventure. Not terribly religious (mostly because I'd probably end up offending them without realizing it. >_> I've got an awful tendency to do this) And artistic in some way. Whether that means they're into music or dance or drawing... I'd like someone creative and expressive.
And of course (s)he has to be someone who isn't going to push me into something I'm not comfortable with.
...In a nutshell I want my (girl)boyfriend to be a best friend that I can hold hands with and kiss from time to time. Heh."
there we go...there might be more...but yeah...
That's so straight. No, seriously.
Hm... I can't really explain what I like in a person. the people that I've liekd have been all over the place.. xD.
I dunno, they have to be funny, and I love a person who hugs a lot. Otherwise... it really depends on stuff that's so minor that I can't describe it.
"Well I've got a banana, and in a pinch you could put up some shelves..."
"Dreaming that someone unknown has died means that either you've been watching too much CSI..." - 5thstory
and also in HA (huggers anonymous) i feel like i spelled that wrong...haha...anywho...yeah...i'm a total hug junkie....:D
Hi, I'm a reading Rainbow! :)
THANK YOU lamb_da for breaking that reply nest.
anywho, i just want someone who's intelligent, random, loves being spontaneous, and has no problem going off on digressive tangents just for the hell of it. someone who lets me do gentlemanly things for them and enjoys it.
so for those of you falling in love
keep it kind, keep it good, keep it right
throw yourself in the midst of danger
and keep one eye open at night.
--"Elephants" Rachel Yamagata
i want someone who enjoys spur of the moment dance in the rain laugh until you cry times. a girl that will tell me im beautiful even when i look my worse. they have to love animals exspecially horses. they dont mind that i ramble like a nueratic phsyc patient and that i have a big family. someone that will call me a 2 in the morning just to tell me that they missed the sound of my voice. or that they had an amazing dream and when they woke up they relized it wasnt a dream. someone i can depend on and love without end. im a hopeless romantic so i want someone who will call me when im sick and tell me to look on my porch where a bundle of roses are awaiting as a suprise. i dont like sugarcoaters and someone who beats around the bush. tell me flat out what you want and what you are thinking. someone who enjoys a comfortable silence just staring into my eyes. someone who will tell me their dreams and joke about the future.....
idk someone to love!!
is that so much to ask for?