Seen on Facebook.

David Saintloth
Overheard from two women while walking down 26th & 6th ave. "don.."
18 hours ago via Android · Like ·

David Saintloth Don'date him just fuck him" new york is just filled with descent women. (sarcasm)
16 hours ago · Like · 1 person

Kristina White-Chagani I mean.. sometimes you dont feel like dating.... LOL
15 hours ago · Like · 1 person

Flora Samuelson Yeah I guess but damn they don't have to be so nasty about it. Just because men have that stereotype doesn't mean women should do just out of some stupid feminism feeling. Ugh.
15 hours ago · Like

David Saintloth ‎@Kristin, yes...as long as those women glow dayglow green so that I can avoid their skanky asses...no problem...they can do as they wish...but they won't be getting my ring.

@Flora, exactly.
14 hours ago · Like

Marc 'Reginald' St Jour Those type of brainless women are just about as reliable in value as paper money.
14 hours ago · Like

Flora Samuelson And to be clear- I'm of the same opinion of men saying that crap, too. It's just not as shocking cos society ( stupidly) sees it as more acceptable.
13 hours ago · Like

David Saintloth ‎@Flora, exactly...it's why I have so few male friends...I can't stand skank from either sex.
13 hours ago · Like

Kristina White-Chagani my point: people are people - some people are "nasty" - men don't get a pass for being men and women shouldn't be chided for being women - in today's society that kind of commentary is common
13 hours ago · Like

David Saintloth sorry I left out the "a" previously. ;)
13 hours ago · Like

Kristina White-Chagani and who are we to judge anyone you overhear in passing? (cause deciding to "fuck" = automatically not being decent)
13 hours ago · Like

Kristina White-Chagani thanks for remembering :)
13 hours ago · Like

David Saintloth That falls well within my set of things I don't exactly want to have in any woman I'd consider dating so...yeah it is a basis of judgment. We all judge others all the time..it's how we determine who we get along with and who we don't, what we prefer and what we don't...the sexual proclivities of others that we might consider as mate or more fall well within this umbra of judgment.
12 hours ago · Like

David Saintloth I might be labeled a prude but I am no hypocrite. I expect nothing more from anyone than I have upheld in my own life.
12 hours ago · Like

Flora Samuelson I'm not really judging- rather disgusted in their conduct. It would be different if she was having this discussion with said partner, it would seem that he deserves to know that she's just interested in sex and not a relationship- but she's saying this to another person, so it makes it gossip and cheapens her actions.
12 hours ago · Like

Kristina White-Chagani But why are random women overheard on the train being judged the way you consider potential mates? I could understand you passing judgement on a date or even after an actual conversation- but if every little thing we do in passing other people is up for judgement of high standards ( i.e. the "wife" type consideration) who isn't going to disappoint?
12 hours ago · Like

David Saintloth It's a statistical thing...the probability that their mode of thought was unique is very low given the number of females that walk the city. It is more likely that their mode of thinking is more common which then bodes not very well for someone actively looking for the opposite over the general available , single female population...even if in passing, the agents of the sampled opinion or view were not subjects of interest for personal desire at the time. Good point about disappointment....who isn't....that's the question...and I wouldn't call the expressed standards "high" for me they are standard.
12 hours ago · Like

Kristina White-Chagani Maybe she did tell him - we can't really be sure because we're assuming all of this from a few moments of "overhearing" - and thats why i'm saying - maybe we shouldn't judge when we don't really know the full picture ( of the person or the situation) - Maybe she should judge you David for ease dropping !!! LOL
12 hours ago · Like · 1 person

Kristina White-Chagani and she's not interested in your ring David - she just wants to "fuck" - LOL!!!
12 hours ago · Like
Flora Samuelson But really, what you say in public is absolutely public...small children, prudes, etc will all hear and make assumptions- thus it is the responsibility of the person of what they want to act like in public.
12 hours ago · Like
Kristina White-Chagani By "high standards" I mean the standard for potential mates is different and more stringent than that for say general friends or even good friends - I am willing to be friends with people I would not consider for marriage/mating because the standard is lower and even lower still for associates, etc. How is random woman A on the train whom you have no connection to a candidate for marriage/mating - to be held to that standard..... and of course one should consider what they do in public - but if we had to change our behavior to try to account for the possible reaction of the hundreds of strangers we pass daily in NYC we would never have a chance to be ourselves/ without massive paranoia - true some taboos at this point are across the board - but discussing your sex life just isn't one of them anymore LOL
12 hours ago · Like

David Saintloth So be it , then I be judged...and if she deems me lacking of whorishness to be with her ...huzzah! I win again. :)

I didn't say I saw HER as a candidate but as a sample point among potential women in the city she didn't BODE well for the others in the city that I might come across and find interesting in that way (as explained previously) read it again!
12 hours ago · Like

Kristina White-Chagani i read your slippery slope statistical reasoning and it just sounded problematic - you know that one random conversation does not an accurate sample make
11 hours ago · Like

Kristina White-Chagani i read your slippery slope statistical reasoning and it just sounded problematic - you know that one random conversation does not an accurate sample make
11 hours ago · Like

Kristina White-Chagani i read your slippery slope statistical reasoning and it just sounded problematic - you know that one random conversation does not an accurate sample make
11 hours ago · Like

Kristina White-Chagani i read your slippery slope statistical reasoning and it just sounded problematic - you know that one random conversation does not an accurate sample make
11 hours ago · Like
Harold Baize I don't see why you have a problem with that. Would you rather they date him under false pretense? Have him spend money and time with the false impression that it was a traditional romantic relationship? Does sex need to be restricted to long term or potentially long term relationships? Does it require commitment? No it doesn't and I don't understand your moral condemnation. Is there a rational basis for this?

I do understand that you value love and commitment. Myself and most people do, but not all sexuality must follow that template. Sometimes it can just be sex.
2 hours ago · Like

David Saintloth Harold, I am only making the point that this human (me!) does not behave in that way or see that type of behavior as preferable in any one I'd consider in a ltr (I don't engage in specifically defined short term sexual relationships). I particularly do not engage in that behavior, never have....don't know what a one night stand is...not because I don't love sex or had the opportunity...but because for me doing something like that is too easy, meaningless. It tells me more about the person that would do it than a thousand conversations...areas of commonality that we would need to share if I were considering a LTR. I believe in the traditional model of courtship...in this way I am very conservative (contrasts starkly with my other views which are either centrist or progressive). I think it cheapens me and so I don't do it, I only expect the same in anyone I deal with...in the hope that corresponding views in that way will ensure greater compatibility, since their sense of self value will at least in this metric be similar to mine...it's a theory.

"value is the scarcity of availability" printed out and displayed on my wall since I was in HS. Living it and noticing how it works in life has allowed me to make insights into many areas of my life.

It is one I've been living consistently since I was a teenager, I can accept (if not respect) the views of others as they wish to live them but I retain the right to judge them when those views oppose my own.

If you've noticed any theme in my expressed areas of interest you should have noticed a very singular focus on the subject matter involved...some would say obsession with a built in ethical and moral framework guiding my perspective (outside of hard data) that I know is different from most people. That's just me, I know many don't agree with my views in this area but I explain clearly my reasons. I think my original statement is being read out of context and I am being labeled as a judging prude. Yes, I judge we all do and I am not going to back down from that...but that doesn't mean I have to accept things from others that in my own life I see as reduction of quality, why would I do that? I can say "to each their own" but still have the right to say "For me this and not that." they are mutually exclusive expressions. Telling me that I shouldn't judge them is judging me by your standard of what you feel is appropriate...but that isn't right as we all have our own matrix of needs...either we all should not judge (impossible) or we are all free to accept that others will judge us regardless what we do and in our lives *behave in such a way* as to acquire the interaction with those that would deem our way of living correlated to their own....ignoring the judgments of others but not decrying them for those judgments.
about an hour ago · Like

Harold Baize We're very much the same in our sexuality. I've never set out to have a "one night stand." It doesn't interest me, the goal is an ltr.

Yet I can't find fault in others for pursing purely sexual relations. It seems to me to be an irrational moralistic stance. That I have a different sexuality does not make their's evil. To fault then I'd have to build a case that their actions harm someone. If they are honest consenting adults, then I can't make that case. If their behavior is repugnant to me, then I have to consider that perhaps my emotional response is irrational. An affective response that serves to promote a particular sexuality. That affect may not be necessary and might be more harmful than productive.
about an hour ago · Like

Matthew Lee Loftus I think that it is unavoidable that we will have certain desires, preferences, morals, or value judgments that are ostensibly axiomatic. That is to say that they can't be rationally justified as instrumental means to an intrinsically valuable end. If they could, then the same line of interrogation could be brought against the goal toward which the principle was aiming. With normative issues of value, desire (etc) there is a point at which the proverbial buck stops, and different axioms can be ascribed by different people, and those axioms can only be discredited in terms of a different set of value axioms. So, it's not so much that rational processes can't be employed in a process of judgment, it's that it's only rational in the conceptual framework of a self-ascribed rule-governed set of normative axioms. It could be thought of in terms of mathematical paradigms: What is valid in base 10, will not necessarily line up with analogous processes in binary. In the case of normative issues, the disparity is in even worse shape, because unlike changing base in mathematics, the systems of values cannot always be translated between each other in a one to one manner. There is no transformational algorithm for reconciling or comparing aesthetic tastes.

There is however, I think, a difference between condemnation of others based on ones own system of preferences, and merely sorting out which types of people one believes will likely be a constructive force in ones life, versus ones who may be a destructive force. Take for instance, if you see a large man dressed in thick shabby clothes in a dark alley, with his face barely visible, & holding something in his hand that you can't see clearly, & nobody is around.... the decision of whether to go up & say "howdy partner! Nice night out, eh?" versus run like hell & risk possibly letting your gut level prejudices lead you to an unfair assessment of this mans character... is a decision that weighs on an outcome upon which one could hardly be blamed for placing more importance than on mere social correctness. Judging out of an assessment of a person or situation as relating to ones own well being, needn't necessarily correlate with spiteful condemnation.
6 minutes ago · Like


Matthew Lee Loftus That being said, I think that there are a combination of biological evolutionary, psychological, & cultural reasons for many of the normative leanings common to various people, & that there are more than one type of sexuality that can be considered completely natural. It may not be a wise decision for everyone to exclusively have sex in the context of a long term monogamous relationship. It could promote rash decisions if the persons sexual desire is strong enough to cloud their judgment to the point of impatiently choosing a long term partner who may not be so great for them. Or they may be completely miserable suppressing their needs. The opposite can also be true. Sometimes short term sexual relationships can get a person in way deeper than they had intended.
6 minutes ago · Like


Matthew Lee Loftus My reasons for avoiding the promiscuous life are 100% pragmatic. I have no moral problem with sex between consenting adults. Whether it's me, someone I don't know, or even a prospective partner. In fact, I've noticed that experienced women can often be highly proficient in bed, & they are not shy. For me, the draw back is all about the potential consequences of irresponsible sex. That's it. Not because the character of the woman. Women are human. They have urges too, & that that's a good thing as far as I'm concerned. It can be frustrating to have a partner who you adore in every possible way, but who is just prudish about sex, & can't enjoy it, & doesn't want to do it as frequently as you do.

I've tried that so called "single but dating" lifestyle (albeit briefly) in my 20's, & I found it to be a colossal waste of time & energy, & the source of unnecessary suffering. Dates would fall through, people would get attached without intending to, & thus there would be hurt & regret. There was always the fear of unplanned pregnancy or STD's. It's really a maelstrom of problems that you just don't have to deal with if you can stifle your urges long enough to find a compatible partner to hold on to. So in that regard, I can see how it would be frustrating to live in a metropolis of incredibly beautiful women, & feeling as though there just aren't any out there that fit your criteria for an ideal partner.
5 minutes ago · Like

Allen E. Simpson You're totally f7cking up the dumb ox beefcake assumed from a distance stereotype Matthew.
about an hour ago · Like · 1 person

Matthew Lee Loftus I'd also add that to me value=scarcity multiplied by desirability. I can think of things that are rare, but would not be of particular value to me. (Hamburger earmuffs come to mind). We could express scarcity as 1 over the frequency of occurrence (a probability rating) greater than zero, less than or equal to 1. I'll call it p. I'll call desirability d, value I'll call v. Probably modulate with a proportionality constant called c. So for me: v=cd/p

(=D haha jk.
about an hour ago · Like · 1 person

David Saintloth Thank you Mathew for a laser focused and precise expansion of every single point I was making, that really was epic. I have no more to add on this subject.
about an hour ago · Like · 1 person

_______