Clean Boy!!

[Admin]

One thing that lets a lot of Westerners down when they visit a Filipino lady for the first time is cleanliness. They don't like smelly guys, unshaven, badly dressed, shirts hanging out.....etc......

Best thing to do is look in the mirror and ask 'Would YOU have sex with this guy?'

If you don't shower or bath every day, they'll soon start moving further and further away from you.

....and change your bloody underwear every day, we are no longer in the Blitz :blink:

[ginapeterb]

Originally posted by admin@Aug 5 2005, 10:19 AM
One thing that lets a lot of Westerners down when they visit a Filipino lady for the first time is cleanliness. They don't like smelly guys, unshaven, badly dressed, shirts hanging out.....etc......

Best thing to do is look in the mirror and ask 'Would YOU have sex with this guy?'

If you don't shower or bath every day, they'll soon start moving further and further away from you.

....and change your bloody underwear every day, we are no longer in the Blitz :blink:

Quoted post



its a very good point, you have to be immaculate if you want a Filiipina to have sex with you, you hve to be really constantly taking care of your hygiene, Filipina's are in the bathroom so much the might as well move in it..Admin is right of course, they find it offensive, if you have unpleasant smells, dont shave, they dont like it, your face should be like a baby's bottom, badly dressed is also a good point, just look at Filipino's in the malls, they are generally immaculate in their dress, its highly noticable when a couple of Joe's are wandering around the mall, dressed in a sleevless T Shirt and a pair of shorts that look like they used to them to paint the house, and a pair of flip flops.

A Filipina freind of mine told me, that when she was considering dating a Western guy, she was told by her amigas "Oh they smell dont they" pity we all get tarred with tthe same brush, cos some of them had a whiff of some sweaty guy...in an elevator somewhere in Makati.

Anyway if you want to have sex with a Filipina, you really should thoroughly shower before commencement, even better take her with you in the shower, and spend some time, just remember anything that goes in the mouth should be immaculate, and for the Filipina..vice versa, it cuts both ways.

[Oishii]

Yes, you are both right guys. We are a smelly bunch. Not just us, all Westerners are like it. In Japan, all Westeners will have trouble getting into the bath houses or much of the sex industry.

Japanese call all Westerners "Smelly Gaijin". I found out that the sales of deoderants are lower in Japan than anywhere else in the modern world. It's because the Japanese do not sweat as much as us Westerners and they, as well as other Oriental Asians are cleaner.

[ginapeterb]

Originally posted by Oishii@Aug 8 2005, 11:30 AM
Yes, you are both right guys. We are a smelly bunch. Not just us, all Westerners are like it. In Japan, all Westeners will have trouble getting into the bath houses or much of the sex industry.

Japanese call all Westerners "Smelly Gaijin". I found out that the sales of deoderants are lower in Japan than anywhere else in the modern world. It's because the Japanese do not sweat as much as us Westerners and they, as well as other Oriental Asians are cleaner.

Quoted post



Good tip Paul, and welcome back buddy, we know you have been busy with the bombings, and well done to Westminster City Council for all the support they give, so we now know what they think of us..hahaha

[peterdavid]

Westerners, however, at least use toilet paper after taking a dump, rather than their bare hand......

[Admin]

Originally posted by peterdavid@Aug 9 2005, 11:36 AM
Westerners, however, at least use toilet paper after taking a dump, rather than their bare hand......

Quoted post

....and help in the destruction of the rain forests by doing so!

[peterdavid]

Originally posted by admin@Aug 9 2005, 01:44 PM
....and help in the destruction of the rain forests by doing so!

Quoted post


not if it's recycled.

[Admin]

Originally posted by peterdavid@Aug 9 2005, 02:21 PM
not if it's recycled.

Quoted post


So where does the paper come from before it's recycled then?

Plus we drink coffee, tea, use tobacco, etc, this all leads to the destruction of rain forests.

[peterdavid]

Originally posted by admin@Aug 10 2005, 07:34 AM
So where does the paper come from before it's recycled then?

Plus we drink coffee, tea, use tobacco, etc, this all leads to the destruction of rain forests.

Quoted post


So does the pollution from industry required to build computers, power mainframes, provide your house with electricity in order to allow you to run your racing site....

Every activity, from a polar bear emptying an arctic lake of fish in order to eat, to the Saudis drilling out all the oil under their land in order for humans to survive, has an arguably negative environmental impact. Whilst every effort should be made to minimise wastage and inefficiency and to ustilise sustainable/renewable forms of energy, if you take the view that any activity with an environmental impact is, overall, a negative one to be avoided, then we wouldn't be able to survive - and neither would the polar bear.

[Joey]

Originally posted by peterdavid@Aug 10 2005, 06:08 AM
Every activity, from a polar bear emptying an arctic lake of fish in order to eat, to the Saudis drilling out all the oil under their land in order for humans to survive, has an arguably negative environmental impact.

Quoted post


Um, Not!

Nature has provided the fish for the polar bear. The polar bear does not empty the lake, but just takes what he needs. The Eskimos talk about one of God's creations: Keribou herds have diseased and unhealthy members in their herds. Diseases spread and eventually can kill off the herd. When wolves chase the keribou, the sick ones are the slowest, and get killed off, thereby removing diseases from the herd. If all the polar bears stopped eating, the fish would overpopulate, finish off their food supply, and die.

[peterdavid]

Originally posted by Joey@Aug 10 2005, 12:47 PM
Um, Not!

Nature has provided the fish for the polar bear.The polar bear does not empty the lake, but just takes what he needs.



Nature has provided oil for the humans. Humans also take what they need - but humans are multiplying so fast that their needs are outstripping the supply (hence my comment about the need to use the supplies in the most efficient/minimal waste/renewable way possible).



The Eskimos talk about one of God's creations: Keribou herds have diseased and unhealthy members in their herds. Diseases spread and eventually can kill off the herd. When wolves chase the keribou, the sick ones are the slowest, and get killed off, thereby removing diseases from the herd.

Quoted post


So, according to your rapturous celebration of Darwinian theory, where only the strong survive, then it's ok for the strongest countries to maintain a stranglehold over the poorer, developing ones, because they are not strong enough, and full of diseases, and therefore when these countries, who are riddled with SARS, Bird Flu, Men C, Dengue, Malaria, fail in the face of the stronger, developed countries, the human race will be stronger and fitter.



If all the polar bears stopped eating, the fish would overpopulate, finish off their food supply, and die.


No they wouldn't. The world's ecosystem isn't that simple. Even assuming your simplistic version is correct (ie, that if the polar bears stopped eating, there would be no other natural predator for the fish, and therefore they would 'over-populate', well there are plenty of animals who are at the top of the food chain in their environment but have not over populated - lions, great white sharks, elephants.

Humans, it could be argued, have overpopulated, but this over population is occuring in the poor, less developed countries - according to your Darwinian analogy, they are the ones who therefore get killed off in order to 'strengthen the herd' of the human race....?

[Admin]

Thanks to the European fishing policy we only have minnows left in the sea :unsure:

All animals need to cause a certain amount of destruction to survive, but man (woman), takes it to far.

Take the American Redwood, 1000 years old, the Yanks cut them down as though they grow back again in a week :blink:

[Joey]

Wow! Talk about reaching! I gave a single example of how things actually work, and you go on about Darwin and countries, etc. Mankind has exceeded natural boundaries worldwide, thereby throwing the balance out in so many ways.


So, according to your rapturous celebration of Darwinian theory, where only the strong survive, then it's ok for the strongest countries to maintain a stranglehold over the poorer, developing ones, because they are not strong enough, and full of diseases, and therefore when these countries, who are riddled with SARS, Bird Flu, Men C, Dengue, Malaria, fail in the face of the stronger, developed countries, the human race will be stronger and fitter.

I was talking about nature, not countries. Did I really rapturously celebrate Darwin's theory? I didn't think I even mentioned it. I only talked about what the Eskimos believe God did. What you are talking about is the equivalent of eradicating all the keribou because wolves are stronger, if you really want to compare what I said to what countries do under Darwin's theory. Please don't try to change what I say. Your analogy of what I said is very far fetched.


... The world's ecosystem isn't that simple. ...

I know it isn't that simple. I was giving a single example for simplicity because I didn't want to write a 4 page report on the subject. Have you ever heard the phrase, "A word to the wise is sufficient"?


Humans, it could be argued, have overpopulated, but this over population is occuring in the poor, less developed countries - according to your Darwinian analogy, they are the ones who therefore get killed off in order to 'strengthen the herd' of the human race....?

I was not making a Darwinian analogy. I was stating an Eskimo belief in God. It isn't about strong countries killing weaker countries. It wasn't keribou killing other keribou. It was wolves killing the sick and dying keribou. Human kind does not subscribe to Darwin's theory any more. We coddle our handicapped, and spend billions on trying to fix various genetic maladies, where as in centuries past, those who had those problems would have died. We now have the capability to keep alive those who would normally die. We also have the capability to kill off species that would have normally survived, and we are doing so in wholesale numbers.

I was just arguing the polar bear point and nothing more. Everywhere in nature, you can see some example of predator/prey in balance. If the food is plentiful, the eaters increase in population. If food becomse scarce, the eaters tend to decrease reproducing accordingly. There are lots of examples of humans meddling in natural balances. Australia had rabbits introduced, but there were not enough predators to control the population, so they bred like, um, rabbits.

When nature does it, it usually works out harmoniously. When we get involved, things tend to get thrown out of wack. Polar bears don't affect the environment negatively, since they're part of the whole balance. Saudis drilling oil so we can use it for various methods of polution does have an impact.

I'm going to stop now.