NationStates Jolt Archive

You talk about "issuing a challenge" like we're dueling at dawn with fucking pistols and I am the one strutting in front of an audience?

Riiiiight.

You're not dueling at dawn. You're dueling at high noon! draw!

You're not dueling at dawn. You're dueling at high noon! draw!

that's better, I prefer to sleep in before my duels. I'm a horrible shot before my morning coffee.

Really, it's quite embarassing honestly.

fruedian slip perhaps?

LOL :p


It's not a "tactic." It's what we call a "question", which you failed to answer btw.

Of course it's a tactic. Specifically "red herring"

Patient 0 catches a virus through contaminated exposure to another species carrying said virus. Patient 0 then proceeds to enter into a monogamous relationship, infecting his partner, and also impregnating her.

Impregnated partner procedes to give birth to infected child. Infected patient 0 dies to virus, partner remaries, infects new partner.

Infected child of patient 0 becomes a drug user, shares needles, infects 3 more people, who proceed to infect their monogamous partners, and passing on to their children.

The reason nobody answered you is, I suppose, that the answer was so BLATANTLY obvious that we figured you didn't need such a thing pointed out to you.

Apparently we were wrong.

Either way, there you go. Multiple people infected, no monogamy breached. Holy crap, it would seem that patient 0 is not irrelevant at all, is he?

Oh, but of course this wouldn't happen in your hypothetical world if the monkeys weren't such promiscuous sluts. Those dirty dirty monkeys

Which disease?

Because if you're r efering to HIV, that's not an exclusively sexually transmitted disease, as you've illustrated.

What about Herpes, Syphilis, the clap, crabs, etc?

In fact, if we consider that the average person has a bit over 2 children, patient 0 would still likely spread the virus on to his children which would be born with it.

Even if THEY remain in monogamous relationships, THEIR children would be born with it too.

You talk about "issuing a challenge" like we're dueling at dawn with fucking pistols and I am the one strutting in front of an audience?

Riiiiight.

What strutting? What pistols? Are you drunk? I'm trying to take the conversation private and you're dancing around.

But TBH that's kind of what I figured you'd do.

Which disease?

Because if you're r efering to HIV, that's not an exclusively sexually transmitted disease, as you've illustrated.

What about Herpes, Syphilis, the clap, crabs, etc?

Well gee, if you wanted to talk about a specific disease, you should have said so, and not "Although I note that when I asked that someone explain how a person could be born with an STD in a world where pure monogamy existed, nobody answered."

I showed you how someone could be born with an STD in a world where pure monogamy existed. If you wanted to talk about a specific disease, you should have said so. Your failure to clarify is not my problem.

Of course it's a tactic. Specifically "red herring"

you're still avoiding the question.

What strutting? What pistols? Are you drunk? I'm trying to take the conversation private and you're dancing around.


Wow, this is remarkably telling.

What strutting? What pistols? Are you drunk? I'm trying to take the conversation private and you're dancing around.



thats what she said.

you're still avoiding the question.

Why do you feel I owe you the answer to a question that:

A)Has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic of the discussion
B)You think you know the answer to already and hope to make me answer it your way to attack my credibility
C)Demonstrates a lack of intellectual honesty

I have nothing more to say about it.

Wow, this is remarkably telling.

I agree

Well gee, if you wanted to talk about a specific disease, you should have said so, and not "Although I note that when I asked that someone explain how a person could be born with an STD in a world where pure monogamy existed, nobody answered."

I showed you how someone could be born with an STD in a world where pure monogamy existed. If you wanted to talk about a specific disease, you should have said so. Your failure to clarify is not my problem.

Ok I'll concede that you're right when an STD is not transmitted sexually if you'll concede that the incidences of such diseases would be drastically reduced and some would disappear altogether.

Ok I'll concede that you're right when an STD is not transmitted sexually if you'll concede that the incidences of such diseases would be drastically reduced and some would disappear altogether.

Holy fuck, did that hurt? I mean..it only took you how long to finally actually address the issue?

why would you not answer unless for some reason you were ashamed of the answer?

I just told you.

Why do you feel I owe you the answer to a question that:

A)Has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic of the discussion
B)You think you know the answer to already and hope to make me answer it your way to attack my credibility
C)Demonstrates a lack of intellectual honesty

I have nothing more to say about it.

why would you not answer unless for some reason you were ashamed of the answer?

Holy fuck, did that hurt? I mean..it only took you how long to finally actually address the issue in a way that I like and doesn't expose the fact that we're debating hypotheticals?

Fixed.

:fluffle: unappropriate for be4 marrige

Fixed.

Hypotheticals where magically, no human contracts a disease that becomes a sexually transmitted disease...

AND everyone is monogamous.

Riiiight.:rolleyes:

Hypotheticals where magically, no human contracts a disease that becomes a sexually transmitted disease...

AND everyone is monogamous.

Riiiight.:rolleyes:

Well, yah... those were the parameters of the example.

I don't see why everybody's acting like it's new info, unless you just weren't paying attention in the first place.

Well, yah... those were the parameters of the example.

I don't see why everybody's acting like it's new info, unless you just weren't paying attention in the first place.

It's been pointed out to you, though you have failed to grasp this...that your hypothetical is worthless. The whole point of introducing 'patient 0' was to show you this.

Your posts since then have been made of fail.

It's been pointed out to you, though you have failed to grasp this...that your hypothetical is worthless. The whole point of introducing 'patient 0' was to show you this.

Your posts since then have been made of fail.

IYO

Is sex before marriage really a sin?

No. It's not.

Ok I'll concede that you're right when an STD is not transmitted sexually if you'll concede that the incidences of such diseases would be drastically reduced and some would disappear altogether.

sure, I concede that in a world where all relationships were monogamous STD spreads would be radically reduced and in some cases eliminated (which is quite different than what you said in saying that there would be no STDs after the first generation).

I also concede that if money were made of chocolate it would be very difficult to buy things in the summer.

Both concessions are of equal value in a practical discussion, which is to say, none.

IYO

Maybe we should put it to a vote:p

sure, I concede that in a world where all relationships were monogamous STD spreads would be radically reduced and in some cases eliminated (which is quite different than what you said in saying that there would be no STDs after the first generation).

I also concede that if money were made of chocolate it would be very difficult to buy things in the summer.

Both concessions are of equal value in a practical discussion, which is to say, none.

If I try and apply that to the real world, I'll be accused of saying that everybody should believe as I do.

If I try and apply that to the real world, I'll be accused of saying that everybody should believe as I do.

At last you've conceded you aren't discussing reality.

That's a step in the right direction.

*This actually made me laugh out loud. By that logic maybe we should add a class to senior level high school students teaching them exactly how to have sex complete w/practical exams so no one need ever suffer the hardship of inexperienced sex with a lover.*



That certainly isn't the worst idea ever. If we combined it with teaching them about safe sex, we might save the whole world a lot of unnecessary pain and anguish.

Holy fuck, did that hurt? I mean..it only took you how long to finally actually address the issue in a way that I like and doesn't expose the fact that we're debating hypotheticals?


Fixed. In a way that shows how little chance I have of winning this debate so I have to put words in other people's mouths.

Fixed. Now cut it out.

That certainly isn't the worst idea ever. If we combined it with teaching them about safe sex, we might save the whole world a lot of unnecessary pain and anguish.

I actually do think it's a pretty bad idea to force students to either have sex or fail a test (I think that's what was meant by "practical exams").

But teaching them about sex - particularly safe sex? Abso-freaking-lutely!

Which disease?

Because if you're r efering to HIV, that's not an exclusively sexually transmitted disease, as you've illustrated.

What about Herpes, Syphilis, the clap, crabs, etc?

There is no such thing as a disease exclusively transmitted through sex. They are called STDs because sexual contact is the primary vector of infection, not because they only get transmitted through sex.

If you think Herpes, Syphilis, Chlamydia, or pubic lice can only be transmitted through sex, you seriously need to take a sex ed course (and not one from a 'sex is bad' church - but a medically reputable one).

This actually made me laugh out loud. By that logic maybe we should add a class to senior level high school students teaching them exactly how to have sex complete w/practical exams so no one need ever suffer the hardship of inexperienced sex with a lover.

(Actually, that could be the basis for a SNL sketch.)
Monty Python actually. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aaeACilspE)
I happen to think this is not a bad idea, so long as it wasn't mandatory. I'm actually leaving in the morning to go spend a few days attending practical workshops on new techniques and kinky play.

Also, the word used to refer to sexual immorality in the New Testament is translated from the original Greek "Porneia", which specifically refers to sex with prostitutes. In this respect, whilst the Bible certainly promotes marriage, there is one reading that says sex without marriage isn't explicitly banned, only sex with prostitutes.
Much like fornication comes from fornix - which is latin for arch. Prostitutes used to ply their trade under the arches of the colosseum so employing the services of a prostitute was fornication. This is why I believe the original stance against fornication was against having sex with prostitutes, not sex in general.

As much as I hate to reward poor reading comprehension I'll reply even further anyway. In your version of the example, STD gone in 1 generation.
Except that people who have STDs still have sex and there are other methods of transmission.

There's nothing wrong with wanting your first time to be magic - in many ways it's a good thing - but all you're doing is justifying your broken belief - as so many religious people do when they give in to reality.

Yet there's also nothing wrong with getting laid with multiple people, gaining different experiences and finally....

...understanding that being faithful to one person is about trust and commitment and enjoying each other's company, which will lead to great sex anyway, and has nothing to do with sex intrinsically.

Fuck yeah.
Good post. *bows*

I don't tend to get genuinely angry at metaphors.

Yeah, but what about declaring wars on nouns?

Nope. It's tremendously good fun.

I am, as ever, terrified by the naive certainty exhibited by those who simultaneously demonstrate that they lack even the most fundamental grasp of how sexually transmitted diseases work.

It's not promiscuity that's the problem. It's people who are so goddam sure that if they're morally "pure" then they're totally safe and they can't possibly need to be tested like all those icky diseased sluts out there.

I'm sure it's really fun to imagine a wonderful magic world where nobody has STDs and nobody ever has sex with more than one person. Normally, I wouldn't have the slightest objection to people engaging in a little harmless fantasizing. But, as this thread has demonstrated, these fantasies never seem to stay confined to pure imagination. They always end up bleeding over into the individual's real-world thinking.

Then you end up with a person who holds completely unrealistic expectations and resents the fact that the world doesn't live up to them. You end up in a situation where somebody is far more interested in apportioning blame than in actually doing something productive and healthy. And you invariably end up having to listen to another misinformed godder explain the many reasons why their opinions give them a lovely coating of moral superiority which will definitely render them immune to all illness and misfortune.

I am, as ever, terrified by the naive certainty exhibited by those who simultaneously demonstrate that they lack even the most fundamental grasp of how sexually transmitted diseases work.

Err...simultaneously what? You only point out one thing in the rest of the sentence. :confused:

I'm sure it's really fun to imagine a wonderful magic world where nobody has STDs and nobody ever has sex with more than one person.

Doesn't sound much like a "wonderful magic world" to me.

Now, if nobody had STDs, and everyone had as many willing sexual partners as they wanted....

Sex is always a sin.

You shouldn't do it, never!

Sex is always a sin.

You shouldn't do it, never!

Pffft, like that ever stopped anyone doing anything.

sin = bad thing in the bible
sex = bad thing in the bible (if before marriage)
therefore...
yes, its a sin. but governing one's life by the concepts of sinning is pretty silly, along with a shitload of other things in the bible. Im christian, but that doesn't necessarily mean i feel that im going to hell; truth is, if you live a good moral life you can't go wrong, regardless of what happens in the afterlife (if there is one)

oh and the only reason you (you know who i mean above me) think sex is a sin is because you've never had it. either that or you're a close minded catholic

No matter how much you trust your partner in a monogamous relationship...you really should be getting tested for STDs along with your yearly check-up.

Err...simultaneously what? You only point out one thing in the rest of the sentence. :confused:
Their ignorance and naive certainty are simultaneous.

Their ignorance and naive certainty are simultaneous.

Ah, ok. Makes sense.

Ah, ok. Makes sense.This just in: Bottle's grammar sucks.

I, for one, blame the liberal education system.

This just in: Bottle's grammar sucks.

I, for one, blame the liberal education system.

Really! What for the actions of you gram ma!?

Really! What for the actions of you gram ma!?
Also spelling.

I hate you people.

This just in: Bottle's grammar sucks.

I, for one, blame the liberal education system.

Bah, you're a psychologist. That's "soft science," dangerously close to liberal arts. I mean, come on! I'm a physicist and I write better than thou! :p j/k

Sex is always a sin.

You shouldn't do it, never!

On the other hand... if that worked, we wouldn't need to worry about STD's (or anything else) after just a couple of generations. Or non-generations, as the case may be.

Perhaps not the ideal solution... but certainly a permanent one!

In my intrepretation, the whole thing about 'forsaking all others until death do you part' is retroactive. If someone is so devoted to being faithful in marriage that s/he sleeps with nobody else, before marrying or even meeting the future spouse, it seems like a good indicator that the person will be that much more devoted to being faithful after being wed. When I marry, I will be proud to tell my wife that I waited for her, despite having had the mode, motive, and opportunity to go extramarital. Sure, the wedding-night (Or maybe afternoon) sex might not be as good as it would with practice, but I also plan on making up for lost time, so I am confident that all will work out in the end.

In my intrepretation, the whole thing about 'forsaking all others until death do you part' is retroactive. If someone is so devoted to being faithful in marriage that s/he sleeps with nobody else, before marrying or even meeting the future spouse, it seems like a good indicator that the person will be that much more devoted to being faithful after being wed.

Does it? I wonder if there are any studies on the incidence of cheating in marriages where the couple had no previous sexual partners vs. those who did.

In my intrepretation, the whole thing about 'forsaking all others until death do you part' is retroactive. If someone is so devoted to being faithful in marriage that s/he sleeps with nobody else, before marrying or even meeting the future spouse, it seems like a good indicator that the person will be that much more devoted to being faithful after being wed. When I marry, I will be proud to tell my wife that I waited for her, despite having had the mode, motive, and opportunity to go extramarital. Sure, the wedding-night (Or maybe afternoon) sex might not be as good as it would with practice, but I also plan on making up for lost time, so I am confident that all will work out in the end.

Like I tell my oldest son, you have to practice, no woman is going to want a man that is shit in bed, to get good at anything requires practice. Now use them condoms and get practicing!

In my intrepretation, the whole thing about 'forsaking all others until death do you part' is retroactive.

That has to be the most batshit insane thing I've read in a very long while. Color me impressed.


If someone is so devoted to being faithful in marriage that s/he sleeps with nobody else, before marrying or even meeting the future spouse, it seems like a good indicator that the person will be that much more devoted to being faithful after being wed.

I don't see any reason to assume that a person who lacks past sexual experience will be any more (or less) faithful once they are married.


When I marry, I will be proud to tell my wife that I waited for her, despite having had the mode, motive, and opportunity to go extramarital. Sure, the wedding-night (Or maybe afternoon) sex might not be as good as it would with practice, but I also plan on making up for lost time, so I am confident that all will work out in the end.
Question:

Do you intend to marry somebody who you are in love with?

Sex before marriage should be ENCOURAGED!!!

Not having sex before marriage is irresponsible. If you don't know what your sexual chemistry with your partner is like you don't know what marriage is like. What if the sex is bad? Then you're screwed (badly) for the rest of your life.

Its like saying "don't discuss politics and religious views before your married." That doesn't make sense, does it?

Sex is an important part of a marriage. Don't you think you should try it before you commit the rest of your life to someone?

All of my life, when I've heard that Sex before marriage is a sin. Oh you cannot have sex before marriage because if you do, then your penis will fall off, or your vagina will rot. For awhile I believed it, and abstained. However, I soon gave up on saving myself for marriage because well I never thought I would actually get a chance to be married. So, I've decided to at least save myself for the right person. Recently I have met that right person and had the most magical night of my life. I don't know maybe we did it because we were both lonely and had the same mindset, etc. Whatever the reason I'm glad it happened.

Ever since then I've been wondering, is sex before marriage really a sin? I mean Adam and Eve were never married and they still produced offspring. The more I think about it, the more I believe that this whole 'No sex before marriage' was man made instead of divine revelation.

I think that it would be best to have your first time be with someone whom you love. When we are younger we have not yet become disgusted by women. Once you have been kicked around by women enough screwing them is only as special as the quality of the woman's body and skill. It would be nice to avoid all that if possible but women can make feeling that way pretty hard to avoid.

I think it is a sin to withold sex from anyone whom you love and who loves you. That is an unnatural and harmful way to live and the Lord wants us to thrive. It is no coincidence that when people are allowed to thrive and fulfill their potential, they do so. If we are experiencing true joy and happiness then we are living up to our potential.

If God is the type of deity who looks at two people who love each other humping away and is mad about it, he would be somewhat less entitled to be worshiped.

I think that it would be best to have your first time be with someone whom you love. When we are younger we have not yet become disgusted by women. Once you have been kicked around by women enough screwing them is only as special as the quality of the woman's body and skill. It would be nice to avoid all that if possible but women can make feeling that way pretty hard to avoid.

Yikes! I don't know who hurt you so badly, but know this, not all of us become "disgusted by women" when we get older, whether we have premarital sex or not. Whoever she was, I suggest you let it go or you stand to become a bitter old man.




If God is the type of deity who looks at two people who love each other humping away and is mad about it, he would be somewhat less entitled to be worshiped.

Seconded!

What a long topic, I think I read up to page four or so. I think sex before marriage is a sin but let's not forget that everybody makes sin all the time, they just do it in different forms and some might do more than others.

When I was a teenager my mom gave me a pamphet of True love awaits campaign but I couldn't sign it because I couldn't be sure that I could abstain so it's better not to swear than to break a promise. Also I was thinking it's not a burning matter because I had zits and was often smelled sweaty so I saw myself as hideously ugly (and the boys in school boosted this belief - thanks a lot you buggers). In a nutshell I thought no one could ever find me attractive, at least in many years so I wouldn't have to worry about sex. Then I was 18 and a half and I met this guy in an rpg chatroom, we were playing and then he wanted to see my picture and he told me I was pretty. No male person had ever said that to me. Soon he started flirting with me and wanted to come over, just to attend this summer festival that was happening in my town. We never ended up going to the festival, instead we practiced kissing, very passionate kissing that nearly made me cum this one time. We slept in the same bed but I had told him that we would do that only on the condition that he wouldn't try anything funny and he said he wouldn't touch me against my wishes. So we played nice, didn't go too far. He stayed for three days and I totally fell in love with him. I think he was in love too. Later during that same summer he came over again and we were sleeping in the same bed again. He was getting to know my parents (they had been away the previous time) and getting along well, he had also shown me pictures of engagement rings and once we were rp'ing that he was a vampire and made me a vampire too and then slipped a ring in my finger, this was just in writing but it felt like we were spiritually engaged already. I was thinking he's a good man. So the last night we were together, I let him have my virginity, we tried all sorts of stuff before that to preserve it but it just wasn't enough (although the thing itself didn't feel like anything compared to that passionate kissing, it was a bit of a disappointment). When my mom found out we had done it without a condom and after telling her that we wouldn't do stuff like that under her roof, she was mad and didn't let me go see him. Also we had to stop using our Internet connection for the rest of the month because it was on dial up and I had made a big bill with all the roleplaying. So mom bought me a cellphone so that I could stay in touch with him and we were cybering all the time. Total 300 text messages in two weeks or so. Also I was very possessive and if he didn't reply often enough then I felt angry. Also sometimes he promised to call and didn't. I started finding more and more instances when he "betrayed" me. Then I started looking for his friends online to check if he has any skeletons in his closet and when he found out, he was stunned. I started acting out more and more to prove him that I need him and eventually I was sent to a mental hospital. I was obsessed about the thought of marrying him even though he didn't want that anymore, I felt like I would be betraying my future spouse in advance unless HE was my future spouse. He kept messaging with me although he refused to call and our messages were mostly cybering, and once he said he would come over and fuck me from behind and I was scared all day - but he never arrived. It took me a long time to figure out that he didn't want me anymore and we would never be together because he didn't have the same Christian necessity to stick with one partner for life, he had had four others before me. Finally I talked to a priest at the hospital who told me that nothing irreversible has happened, that God isn't mad at me and stuff. Then I felt better. I don't remember when I finally stopped messaging with that guy.

The bottom line is that starting your sex life is a huge step with lots of emotions involved (at least for girls) and it's easy to get hurt if you want different things than what your partner does. I think God wants to protect people from getting hurt physically, emotionally and socially. You learn from each person you sleep with but it also leaves scars and your future experiences will be affected by that stuff. You can never trust as open-heartedly as you trusted before you were betrayed and love requires trust. If you're always suspicious about wether your partner is gonna stop loving you and leave then you can't fully relax and be yourself.

Nowadays people are having a divorce very easily, they don't have the same sort of commitment as people used to have in the past. Burning love only lasts for a moment, the most passionate phase times out in 3 to 4 years and after that you will have to wait for a different kind of affection to develop. But the modern trend is to break up at the first sign of hardship and thus a lot of people are already worn out when entering the relationship.I know from experience that such feelings of betrayal and the like can happen without any sex or even much touchiong whatsoever.
I think it is a sin to withold sex from anyone whom you love and who loves you. That is an unnatural and harmful way to live and the Lord wants us to thrive. It is no coincidence that when people are allowed to thrive and fulfill their potential, they do so. If we are experiencing true joy and happiness then we are living up to our potential.Bullshit. Never heard of familial or platonic love? Would you say it would be irresponsible of you to refuse sex from your mother? And even if people are married or going out or whatever, there are times when they just aren't in the mood and it's much more irresponsible to have sex with soemone who doesn't want to. I think people can have a higher morality due their sexuality: Rapists and paedophiles have lesser morality relating to sexuality than other people.

I think we need to be more free and open sexually, and stop clinging to reactionary and repressive dogmas.

Yikes! I don't know who hurt you so badly, but know this, not all of us become "disgusted by women" when we get older, whether we have premarital sex or not. Whoever she was, I suggest you let it go or you stand to become a bitter old man.

Also:

If somebody treats you like shite or breaks your heart, don't make the mistake of blaming their gender. "Women" have done precisely nothing to you, GF. A particular woman may have done something to you, but her femaleness didn't do anything. She did. It's as stupid to become bitter toward all women as it would be to become bitter toward all people who have the same hair color as the one who wronged you.

If somebody is a jackass, don't make excuses for them and let them off the hook by blaming their gender. THEY made a bad or mean choice, so hold THEM responsible. Don't spread the blame around to people who have done nothing to earn it. If you do, you're just going to increase the chances that you'll miss out on meeting awesome people later in life, and awesome people are rare enough as it is!

I think we need to be more free and open sexually, and stop clinging to reactionary and repressive dogmas.

Amen!

All of my life, when I've heard that Sex before marriage is a sin. Oh you cannot have sex before marriage because if you do, then your penis will fall off, or your vagina will rot. For awhile I believed it, and abstained. However, I soon gave up on saving myself for marriage because well I never thought I would actually get a chance to be married. So, I've decided to at least save myself for the right person. Recently I have met that right person and had the most magical night of my life. I don't know maybe we did it because we were both lonely and had the same mindset, etc. Whatever the reason I'm glad it happened.

Ever since then I've been wondering, is sex before marriage really a sin? I mean Adam and Eve were never married and they still produced offspring. The more I think about it, the more I believe that this whole 'No sex before marriage' was man made instead of divine revelation.

Everything you've been told about why you shouldn't do it (about genitals falling off) is bullshit you've been told to terrorize you to stay on the straight and narrow. That whole "stay a virgin till married" thing originally applied only to women, and is a holdover from the time they were considered property -- and because by and large, men wanted to bed a virgin so there was no question that any offspring they had were definitely his and not someone else's -- and also so they wouldn't be having someone else's castoff. The idea there was the woman had no ownership over herself -- she was owned by her male relatives until she was given or sold to her husband (dowry, anyone?) Fortunately, we're SOMEWHAT more mature these days. (I say somewhat because society tends to call a woman with many partners a slut, and mean something negative, and a man with many partners is admired and jokingly called a pimp. Go figure.)

All that said, I can see waiting for the right person so long as it is voluntary and not coerced (as through the 'you penis will rot off' nonsense). You both need to be careful to prevent pregnancy if you're not ready for parenthood, and you both should take precautions regarding your helalth (as in, making sure neither of you have any surprises to pass to the other.

Otherwise, go for it.

(I say somewhat because society tends to call a woman with many partners a slut, and mean something negative, and a man with many partners is admired and jokingly called a pimp. Go figure.)

Tangent:

Isn't it a bit fucked up, how calling a woman a "whore" is a horrible insult, but calling a man a "pimp" is a compliment?

Selling your own body = bad.

Selling other people's bodies = good?!

Like I tell my oldest son, you have to practice, no woman is going to want a man that is shit in bed, to get good at anything requires practice. Now use them condoms and get practicing!

Would you say a similar thing to a daughter?

Would you say a similar thing to a daughter?

If I had one certianly, although I don't think my wife would be pleased.

If I had one certianly, although I don't think my wife would be pleased.

Not being a parent I was having trouble imagining myself saying anything like that, though I do agree with the sentiment and think it applies equally.

Not being a parent I was having trouble imagining myself saying anything like that, though I do agree with the sentiment and think it applies equally.

Heh I really don't have any problems with discussing sex, or drugs or whatever with my oldest boy. I feel it does more harm than good to hide the realities of life from him. My wife though offten takes the opposite stance, heh but you know, making up is soooo much fun.

Not being a parent I was having trouble imagining myself saying anything like that, though I do agree with the sentiment and think it applies equally.

I wouldn't say something like that to my child, it's a high pressure statement "if you don't have a lot of sex you will be horrible in bed and nobody would want you, here go fuck!" there is no way in hell I would say that to my child.

Tangent:

Isn't it a bit fucked up, how calling a woman a "whore" is a horrible insult, but calling a man a "pimp" is a compliment?

Selling your own body = bad.

Selling other people's bodies = good?!

It's hypocritical in the extreme. But then, humans are fabulous at hypocrisy.

I wouldn't say something like that to my child, it's a high pressure statement "if you don't have a lot of sex you will be horrible in bed and nobody would want you, here go fuck!" there is no way in hell I would say that to my child.

Ahhhh Smunkee don't tell me you don't have a laugh with your kids, coz I wont belive ya!

My sense of homour, I have been told, is a tad bizzare at times, but the way I communicate with my children, although you may find unorthadox and apperantly slightly disgusting! works fine for us. Both of my boys are good, well ajusted kids, and I'll take credit for that! *psst* ohhh okay and the wife too.

Ahhhh Smunkee don't tell me you don't have a laugh with your kids, coz I wont belive ya!

My sense of homour, I have been told, is a tad bizzare at times, but the way I communicate with my children, although you may find unorthadox and apperantly slightly disgusting! works fine for us. Both of my boys are good, well ajusted kids, and I'll take credit for that! *psst* ohhh okay and the wife too.

I laugh with my kids, it doesn't require me telling them that if they don't have the exact same sexual attitudes/habits that I have that nobody would want them.

I laugh with my kids, it doesn't require me telling them that if they don't have the exact same sexual attitudes/habits that I have that nobody would want them.

Ahhh I see ya didn't get it. Remember when I talked about homour, and how my methoeds work fine for us. The allusion was that my kids know when I am serious and when I am being funny with them. I joke about with my children, we play silly little games, the oldest one I speak to as if he where already an adult, I don't shy away from making the sort of crude remark I might make to my adult friends and family in front of him.

In this instance, I inform my oldest child that sex is normal and natural, and I won't be giving him a hard time about it when he decides that he wants to go there, and that when he is ready he should be using condoms, also implicit is the advice that he shouldn't fall for his first sexual encounter. I do so in am adult homours way, and he gets it. I know this because I am his dad, and because if has never been afraid to ask me for clarifcation, nor about any thing he wants to comprehend.

We are all differant, and we all have our ways and means in bringing up our children. I'm sorry that I had to go into this depth of explanation, but implicit in your post was the disgust you felt at my methoeds and the insult to my parenting skills. I'm also sorry that you feel my methoeds to be incorrect, or some how of a lower morality, as I say they work fine for me and my family.

Ahhh I see ya didn't get it. Remember when I talked about homour, and how my methoeds work fine for us. The allusion was that my kids know when I am serious and when I am being funny with them. I joke about with my children, we play silly little games, the oldest one I speak to as if he where already an adult, I don't shy away from making the sort of crude remark I might make to my adult friends and family in front of him.

In this instance, I inform my oldest child that sex is normal and natural, and I won't be giving him a hard time about it when he decides that he wants to go there, and that when he is ready he should be using condoms, also implicit is the advice that he shouldn't fall for his first sexual encounter. I do so in am adult homours way, and he gets it. I know this because I am his dad, and because if has never been afraid to ask me for clarifcation, nor about any thing he wants to comprehend.

We are all differant, and we all have our ways and means in bringing up our children. I'm sorry that I had to go into this depth of explanation, but implicit in your post was the disgust you felt at my methoeds and the insult to my parenting skills. I'm also sorry that you feel my methoeds to be incorrect, or some how of a lower morality, as I say they work fine for me and my family.
it's different if you are talking to an adult.

it's different if you are talking to an adult.

IYHO you mean? My oldest is 14, 15 in few months, I find him mature enough.

The main point though is he is my child and quite honestly I resent having to justifiy how I teach him, to you or anybody for that matter. Once again I'm sorry you don't get it, but if you knew him, if you met him, you would be shaking my hand and telling me 'well done'.

when I hear child I think child, not 14 year old, carry on.

Heh okay then. Well you know wot its like, he will always be my child.

IYHO you mean? My oldest is 14, 15 in few months, I find him mature enough.

The main point though is he is my child and quite honestly I resent having to justifiy how I teach him, to you or anybody for that matter. Once again I'm sorry you don't get it, but if you knew him, if you met him, you would be shaking my hand and telling me 'well done'.

when I hear child I think child, not 14 year old, carry on.

That has to be the most batshit insane thing I've read in a very long while. Color me impressed.
Glad to oblige. After all, what is the fun in having popular, or even sane, opinions?

I don't see any reason to assume that a person who lacks past sexual experience will be any more (or less) faithful once they are married.
The faithfulness thing is not just based on experience alone- My point was that if someone is willing to be faithful before even meeting her/his spouse, it seems logical that one would have an even greater desire to remain faithful after getting married.

Question:

Do you intend to marry somebody who you are in love with?
That is the plan, yes. Haha, although over on the 'Arranged Marriages' thread I am arguing on the "arranged" side, so I suppose in theory I would not have to be. Realistically, though, I do plan on marrying for love.

Tangent:

Isn't it a bit fucked up, how calling a woman a "whore" is a horrible insult, but calling a man a "pimp" is a compliment?

Selling your own body = bad.

Selling other people's bodies = good?!

I always thought it was ...

a woman who sleeps around = whore/slut/tramp/easy (insult)
a man who sleeps around = Playa/popular/playboy (compliment)

I agree, it's rather unfair.

Hey thats the only thing we got the long end of the stick on...don't knock it...

in all seriousness though it is quite fucked up indeed....

*chokes*

tell me that was on purpose... :p

Originally Posted by Bottle View Post
Tangent:

Isn't it a bit fucked up, how calling a woman a "whore" is a horrible insult, but calling a man a "pimp" is a compliment?

Selling your own body = bad.

Selling other people's bodies = good?!

Hey thats the only thing we got the long end of the stick on...don't knock it...

in all seriousness though it is quite fucked up indeed....

That is the plan, yes. Haha, although over on the 'Arranged Marriages' thread I am arguing on the "arranged" side, so I suppose in theory I would not have to be. Realistically, though, I do plan on marrying for love.
In that case, one assumes that you plan to fall in love with somebody BEFORE you decide to marry them.

Which then leads one to wonder...

You're okay with falling in love with a person you may never marry, but you have a problem with having sex with them?

You're comfortable with the idea that you may have been in love with women other than your future spouse, but you're bothered by the idea of having slept with women other than your future spouse?

You're comfortable marrying somebody who thinks past sexual history is more important and more damaging than past love history?

Hey thats the only thing we got the long end of the stick on...don't knock it...

in all seriousness though it is quite fucked up indeed....
Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm not objecting to the fact that men aren't insulted for having sexual experience. I don't think ANYBODY should be insulted for that!

What I'm amazed by is the open way in which people use "pimp" as if it were a compliment. A pimp is somebody who sells the bodies of other humans. That's absolutely NOTHING like a person who freely chooses what to do with their own body.

The faithfulness thing is not just based on experience alone- My point was that if someone is willing to be faithful before even meeting her/his spouse, it seems logical that one would have an even greater desire to remain faithful after getting married.
You cannot be faithful to a person you've never met.

You can decide that you aren't going to have sex until you marry, but that doesn't have anything to do with the PERSON you eventually marry. You're not doing anything for any individual other than yourself when you make that kind of "future commitment." The commitment is to yourself and to the image you have in your head of "my future wife." The real person who may or may not step into that space is not in the picture yet.

It's lame to try to retroactively get credit for something that you decided to do before you'd ever laid eyes on your partner. You didn't do it for them, because you didn't even know they existed. You did it for yourself, because it is what YOU value. That's perfectly fine, and is exactly the right motivation--because your choices about sex should always be about what YOU feel is right!--but it's pathetic to then try to get brownie points with your spouse by claiming that your personal preference was some kind of gift to them.

You cannot be faithful to a person you've never met.

You can decide that you aren't going to have sex until you marry, but that doesn't have anything to do with the PERSON you eventually marry. You're not doing anything for any individual other than yourself when you make that kind of "future commitment."

It's lame to try to retroactively get credit for something that you decided to do before you'd ever laid eyes on your partner. You didn't do it for them, because you didn't even know they existed. You did it for yourself, because it is what YOU value. That's perfectly fine, and is exactly the right motivation--because your choices about sex should always be about what YOU feel is right!--but it's pathetic to then try to get brownie points with your spouse by claiming that your personal preference was some kind of gift to them.
In my view it is about the spouse, though- True, I have (possibly) not met the person, but unless there is a remarkable age-gap, the one I will marry does currently exist. I know that eventually I will meet and marry the person and that it will be an important foundation of our marraige that we waited for each other, even if it meant going ahead without knowing exactly what the future would bring. The fact that we have not met deepens the devotion, as I see it. I think it is a bit more important than just brownie points. Sure, it is nice that I am less likely to get an STD and certain to avoid getting someone pregnant, but I am also missing out on a lot of fun. I already love my future spouse enough to defer that fun, though, until we marry.

"Its just sex. Its not a Space Shuttle launch." - Some funny commedian i saw on Comedy Central and can not remmeber for the life of me who.

if it is a sin then I have a spot reserved in hell along with several other people I know

I already love my future spouse enough to defer that fun, though, until we marry.

Nonsense, you don't love someone you never met. You may love the idea of her, which in all likelihood is vastily different than what your real spouse will end up being, if you get married at all.

The faithfulness thing is not just based on experience alone- My point was that if someone is willing to be faithful before even meeting her/his spouse, it seems logical that one would have an even greater desire to remain faithful after getting married.

No more or less logical than the idea that, after they do have sex with their spouse, they'll start wondering if it is different with someone else and feel the need to find out.

In the end, I highly doubt that faithfulness is significantly different between those who have no previous sexual partners and those who do.

Nonsense, you don't love someone you never met. You may love the idea of her, which in all likelihood is vastily different than what your real spouse will end up being, if you get married at all.

Being in love with an idea is dangerous. Tends to get ugly when the real person doesn't live up to the idea.

Nonsense, you don't love someone you never met. You may love the idea of her, which in all likelihood is vastily different than what your real spouse will end up being, if you get married at all.
I am not sure of exactly how to phrase it, but my gist is that I will love the person I marry to the extent that it affects my actions now (Even though currently I am not romantically in love with anyone, and certainly not an idea). As dandy as it would be for my spouse to be the image of my ideals, I am not so naïve to think that such a person really exists. I just feel that it will deepen the significance of our marriage if I (And hopefully my spouse) share some things, including sex, only with each other, both before and after our wedding.

I am not sure of exactly how to phrase it, but my gist is that I will love the person I marry to the extent that it affects my actions now (Even though currently I am not romantically in love with anyone, and certainly not an idea). As dandy as it would be for my spouse to be the image of my ideals, I am not so naïve to think that such a person really exists. I just feel that it will deepen the significance of our marriage if I (And hopefully my spouse) share some things, including sex, only with each other, both before and after our wedding.

While I understand what you are saying, if it were ME you fell in love with, I would not be so thrilled with this. I would feel first off that you were holding me up to some sort of unrealistic ideal that I could probably never match (no matter how much you protested that this was not the case), and second that you had missed out on learning things about yourself that I would wish you had learned. But that is just me. If it works for you, have at it... or don't have at it, as the case may be. :p

Now, how will you feel if the person you fall in love with, and is perfect in every other way, has had sex with a number of people? How about if she has done some experimentation? What if she has had sex with more than one guy at a time? How will you feel if she has had sex with women? What happens if you have fallen head over heels and proposed and THEN she reveals a torrid sexual history? Would you be able to get over that?

Also:

If somebody treats you like shite or breaks your heart, don't make the mistake of blaming their gender. "Women" have done precisely nothing to you, GF. A particular woman may have done something to you, but her femaleness didn't do anything. She did. It's as stupid to become bitter toward all women as it would be to become bitter toward all people who have the same hair color as the one who wronged you.

If somebody is a jackass, don't make excuses for them and let them off the hook by blaming their gender. THEY made a bad or mean choice, so hold THEM responsible. Don't spread the blame around to people who have done nothing to earn it. If you do, you're just going to increase the chances that you'll miss out on meeting awesome people later in life, and awesome people are rare enough as it is!That reminds me of a cute window sticker i saw a little bit ago:

Women Fake Orgasms
/
Men Fake Relationships

:D

Being in love with an idea is dangerous. Tends to get ugly when the real person doesn't live up to the idea.

And they never do. Neither does the experience, mind you. Worst mistake I ever made was waiting until I was married to have sex for the first time, because I built it up to be this massive thing, and while it was great, it wasn't what I'd built it up to be. It couldn't match up--how could it?

It couldn't match up--how could it?

Obviously, marital aides!
:rolleyes:

"Its just sex. Its not a Space Shuttle launch."

You sure about that?

... some need a booster, others the right launch window, some require a protective layer... and every guy thinks he's got a rocket in his pants!

What's marriage? In today's society, marriage is nothing more than a piece of paper now. It's nothing more than just a slightly strengthened relationship, and even so, what is that? People break up and get together for the silliest reasons, and fall in love until it no longer becomes convenient to them. If God truly had a problem with sex before marriage, then he shouldn't have made it so much fun.

Sex and love are 2 completely different things. Sex is a way for 2 people to get together and make themselves feel good. As long as all involved are consenting and of reasonable age, there is no problem with it. And you will ask, what about pregnancies and STDs? That is all a matter of personal accountability. The bad side effects of sex do not make it immoral, it just means reasonable people should take precautions.

Love does not require sex at all. Sex can be an expression of love, but in a practical sense, love and sex are 2 very different things.

And no, sex does not exist just for us to reproduce. It does for many animals, but we are human, we have evolved. Just as we have found many uses for nature to aid our lives, the fact that sex can be used for pleasure and happiness without intention of reproduction reflects human intelligence.

Likewise with marraige. For many years of history and still in many cultures, mairrages are still arranged, how then could mairrage create love? In more modern cultures, mairrages are consensual, but the commitment is only between the 2 married. Some people feel that mairrage will make their love stronger, if so, they should get married. But there is no universal sign of commitment for humans, especially not a state made institution.

Being a virgin means absolutely nothing. It does not make you pure, clean, or good.

Logically abstinence provides the best protection for the negative side effects of sex, but there is no real difference between a married couple only having sex with each other, and 2 lifetime exclusive unmarried partners.

"Its just sex. Its not a Space Shuttle launch." - Some funny commedian i saw on Comedy Central and can not remmeber for the life of me who.

Sex is like driving a car. It has risks, and logically the less you do it the safer you will be from the bad things that can happen if you do it. But it does not change you as a person, and a liscense doesn't make you any better at it.

Being a virgin means absolutely nothing. It does not make you pure, clean, or good.

I know. I hate the whole virgin = good and pure thing. On a tangent from that, sometimes the religiosity of Hellsing annoys me. Then I realize "Why the fuck am I annoyed? I get to see people blowing the shit out of things with giant guns!" :p