View Full Version : Sex Advice For Zerokewl ITT
Hababi
06-08-2006, 04:58 PM
Anyone heard of the site www.dontdatehimgirl.com? Basically, it's a user input site similar to ratemyprofessors.com, only it's a hub for embittered ex girlfriends to spread rumor and slander (and every once in a while some truth) about their former dates...And for everyone to read it. So, guys, don't piss off your girlfriend, particularly if/when you break up with her, because otherwise you might see that you "gave her an STD" or something of the sort.
Should such sites even be protected under the law? I'm all for free speech, but the site basically gives an unregulated venue for slander against individuals.
PerpetualBurn
06-08-2006, 05:01 PM
If it would violate libel laws in a newspaper it should be illegal online. In fact, I'd be surprised if it isn't.
WhoDidTheElf
06-08-2006, 05:02 PM
Bleh, it seems more like a hub for women to talk about how paranoid they are when they're on their period.
It would be hard to regulate. I don't think the site itself would be illegal, just the individuals committing slander. Prosecuting them could take way more effort than the justice dept. would be willing to make.
Against Miik!
06-08-2006, 05:04 PM
I personally see no problem with it. Although maybe that would change if I was on it. I hope i'm not on it.
Dave de Sylvia
06-08-2006, 05:05 PM
I think Zero's had a bad experience with this website.
*looks up Steve Sequitur*
If it would violate libel laws in a newspaper it should be illegal online. In fact, I'd be surprised if it isn't.
American libel laws only cover material losses, as far as I know.
Hababi
06-08-2006, 05:06 PM
Prosecuting them could take way more effort than the justice dept. would be willing to make.
One of the guys on it, Troy Hollings or someone, is already suing the owner of the site.
I really don't see any reason for this website to exist.
Don't date him, girl.
Reaganista
06-08-2006, 05:06 PM
at first I thought this thread was about lesbianism.
As for the actual topic, I'll just say that monogamous relationships are a vehicle to turn men into rabid consumers (especially of blood diamonds) and women into slaves, and as such I'm firmly opposed to anything except for random ****ing between strangers or acquintances.
One of the guys on it, Troy Hollings or someone, is already suing the owner of the site.
What's his lawsuit? How can the owner be held accountable?
PerpetualBurn
06-08-2006, 05:09 PM
Because the owner is printing something unfounded as fact and it is defamatory towards the victim.
coheneran
06-08-2006, 05:10 PM
Anyone heard of the site www.dontdatehimgirl.com? Basically, it's a user input site similar to ratemyprofessors.com, only it's a hub for embittered ex girlfriends to spread rumor and slander (and every once in a while some truth) about their former dates...And for everyone to read it. So, guys, don't piss off your girlfriend, particularly if/when you break up with her, because otherwise you might see that you "gave her an STD" or something of the sort.
Should such sites even be protected under the law? I'm all for free speech, but the site basically gives an unregulated venue for slander against individuals.
As long as they don't post unreasonable confidential information (not personal) such as the poor boy's address, full name, picture etc., I don't see the problem in getting the anger out publicly.
Iron Bug
06-08-2006, 05:10 PM
That was some of the biggest hormone induced crap I've ever read.
Against Miik!
06-08-2006, 05:11 PM
If they didn't print last names it would still be fun and not illegal I don't think. It's only slander if there is no question who is being talked about. There are millions of Daves out there. So in that case, it would still be fun, at least to some people, but not illegal.
Ugh, I knew it was a bad idea to let women on the internet.
SubtleDagger
06-08-2006, 05:18 PM
You don't go, girl
I've had twelve girlfriends and I think it's pretty cool that I'm not on here yet. That's a very good average.
Yeah, same.
Then again, we're high quality :-D
PerpetualBurn
06-08-2006, 05:22 PM
Yeah, same.
Then again, we're high quality :-D
It could be argued that if you've had 12 girlfriends in a short space of time then they obviously don't want to stick around...
...of course I would never do that.;)
Atomic Rain
06-08-2006, 05:22 PM
sounds like a hub for slander to me.
Twelve over six years.
Two a year.
That sounds pretty reasonable.
PerpetualBurn
06-08-2006, 05:24 PM
You win this time...
guitrguy
06-08-2006, 06:16 PM
http://dontdatehimgirl.com/search/cheater.asp?ddh_id=9031&return_url=index%2Easp%3F
hahah oh man some of the stuff on there is funny
Hep Kat
06-08-2006, 06:20 PM
I really don't see any reason for this website to exist.
Agreed. There's no point to it whatsoever.
PerpetualBurn
06-08-2006, 06:21 PM
Twelve over two years so this definitely applies for me
I really don't know why I'm being so smug. It's more action than I've had.
coheneran
06-08-2006, 06:21 PM
Let's close it down!
That's pretty cool. I think most of the population of my school would have a lot of fun on this site.
It's at times like these I'm quite pleased with the whole "long-term relationship" thing that I'm in.
I mean, next year we're going to be abroad, seperated, and lonely, and so we're allowing each other to fool around with other people to substitute for the awesome lovemaking we would otherwise be engaged in, which we're only able to do because we're so secure with our feelings for one another!
So basically, I really win more than anybody else on that site, and in this thread.
Zesty Mordant
06-08-2006, 08:31 PM
man, if us guys were smarter we'd start Dude, Don't Date That Insecure Bitch.com
Then the problem would resolve itself.
Dave de Sylvia
06-08-2006, 08:34 PM
man, if us guys were smarter we'd start Dude, Don't Date That Insecure Bitch.com
Then the problem would resolve itself.
I think just the url would be sufficient in this case.
Jharaski
06-08-2006, 08:41 PM
man, if us guys were smarter we'd start Dude, Don't Date That Insecure Bitch.com
Then the problem would resolve itself.
Dammit you beat me to the idea, but mine was dontdateherman.com
Because the owner is printing something unfounded as fact and it is defamatory towards the victim.
Is that actually grounds for a lawsuit though?
If I were a newspaper editor who printed an editorial which included slander, even if I had one of those little "these views do not necessarily...etc" disclaimers, could I still get sued?
Seems a little harsh.
BurningSky
06-08-2006, 09:13 PM
That's pretty cool. I think most of the population of my school would have a lot of fun on this site.
It's at times like these I'm quite pleased with the whole "long-term relationship" thing that I'm in.
I mean, next year we're going to be abroad, seperated, and lonely, and so we're allowing each other to fool around with other people to substitute for the awesome lovemaking we would otherwise be engaged in, which we're only able to do because we're so secure with our feelings for one another!
So basically, I really win more than anybody else on that site, and in this thread.
You are doomed. I was in the same position as you when I went off to college. I was in a loving relationship for two and a half years, and the bitch broke up with me just two months after I left for college. I later found out she had cheated on me four times in those two months...
Also, about 90% of the relationships that people had at the start of college fell apart by the end of October. In fact, I only have two friends that are still with their significant others from the pre-college days...
Knifeboy
06-08-2006, 11:19 PM
I would love to be on that site...
Because that'd automaticly weed out all the retarded chicks who visit that site..
You are doomed. I was in the same position as you when I went off to college. I was in a loving relationship for two and a half years, and the bitch broke up with me just two months after I left for college. I later found out she had cheated on me four times in those two months...
Also, about 90% of the relationships that people had at the start of college fell apart by the end of October. In fact, I only have two friends that are still with their significant others from the pre-college days...
lol
she's my college girlfriend. i've been with her in the two and a half years i've been in college.
she will be in england for the year, i will be in italy for the year. we'll visit each other as much as we can, and in the meantime make out with hot members of the opposite sex native to the countries we're visiting in the intermediary.
so i'm still pretty safe. trust me. i even think it's a little hot that she's so explicit about her desire to fool around with british people.
Det_Nosnip
06-09-2006, 01:09 AM
at first I thought this thread was about lesbianism.
As for the actual topic, I'll just say that monogamous relationships are a vehicle to turn men into rabid consumers (especially of blood diamonds) and women into slaves, and as such I'm firmly opposed to anything except for random ****ing between strangers or acquintances.
Classy.
Anyways, I don't see this as too much of a threat. I mean...come on - how many billion people are there in this world? What are the chances that you'll date somebody who even knows about this site, let alone is stupid enough to post on it? From there, what are the chances that the next person you happen to have an interest in also frequents the site? Honestly, if I were single, I'd think that the site was great. If somebody I were interested in was actually dumb enough to date or not date me based upon what seems to be a glorified version of a blog...I would be glad to be rid of them.
Reaganista
06-09-2006, 01:15 AM
Classy.
i declare class WAR!
White Riot!
06-09-2006, 03:57 AM
I wouldnt worry about the site............if anything it will weed out the bitches and slags for you!
coheneran
06-09-2006, 04:00 AM
I'm having a serious problem knowing if you were kidding about this:
"As for the actual topic, I'll just say that monogamous relationships are a vehicle to turn men into rabid consumers (especially of blood diamonds) and women into slaves, and as such I'm firmly opposed to anything except for random ****ing between strangers or acquintances."
PerpetualBurn
06-09-2006, 04:44 AM
Is that actually grounds for a lawsuit though?
If I were a newspaper editor who printed an editorial which included slander, even if I had one of those little "these views do not necessarily...etc" disclaimers, could I still get sued?
Seems a little harsh.
Defamation of character is grounds, I'm sure. I haven't read the site to see if there are any disclaimers or anything, but I would think it's still touchy ground if they're printing people's names and personal details.
Reaganista
06-09-2006, 08:52 AM
I'm having a serious problem knowing if you were kidding about this:
I'm dead serious.
No one should love anyone until the capitalist order is overthrown, otherwise your love is driven by consumption.
unless maybe if you live on a commune already.
You are doomed. I was in the same position as you when I went off to college. I was in a loving relationship for two and a half years, and the bitch broke up with me just two months after I left for college. I later found out she had cheated on me four times in those two months...
Also, about 90% of the relationships that people had at the start of college fell apart by the end of October. In fact, I only have two friends that are still with their significant others from the pre-college days...
:lol: at people trying to extend high school relationships into college.
The people at my school with high school relationships lasted a little longer than that - even into spring semester often - but it always is the same.
Except a few of them decided to get married instead.
Steerpike
06-09-2006, 11:59 AM
That site actually saves me a lot of trouble. The more these insecure, vindictive shrews bitch and whine and lie about their ex, the more I can tell how little I'd want to date her myself.
spitfirejunky
06-09-2006, 01:26 PM
Yeah, that's the unintended genius of the site. It's a lure for people who you shouldn't date.
Steerpike
06-09-2006, 01:38 PM
I figure soon enough the site is going to be better known as "Dude, don't do her."
dustindow
06-09-2006, 01:50 PM
If it were possible to regulate the internet. Then something MIGHT be done. But the internet is something too complex to regulate.
PerpetualBurn
06-09-2006, 01:57 PM
Not when people are posting names and the owner is very easily traceable.
spitfirejunky
06-09-2006, 01:59 PM
If it were possible to regulate the internet. Then something MIGHT be done. But the internet is something too complex to regulate.
It's huge, yes, but very transparent. When you confine your search to a site, it's actually pretty easy to track people down.
dustindow
06-09-2006, 02:01 PM
Tracking, yes. Thats how identity theft works. But i mean regulate it. Like to delete sites like rotten.com or all those porn sites.
spitfirejunky
06-09-2006, 02:23 PM
I thought you were speaking in reference to fraudulent accusations and defamatory comments.
The internet as a whole cannot be regulated, but sites can.
coheneran
06-09-2006, 02:48 PM
Tracking, yes. Thats how identity theft works. But i mean regulate it. Like to delete sites like rotten.com or all those animal photographs sites.
Nothing wrong with pron.
Hababi
06-09-2006, 03:02 PM
Nothing wrong with pron.
It objectifies women.
nowhesingsnowhesobs
06-09-2006, 03:04 PM
you dont need porn for that
PerpetualBurn
06-09-2006, 03:05 PM
Why does pron objectify women and not men? I never understand this inequality.
nowhesingsnowhesobs
06-09-2006, 03:09 PM
Do you watch much porn?
PerpetualBurn
06-09-2006, 03:10 PM
Have you?
I'm sure you can find all sorts of sordid gay acts if you search for it.
coheneran
06-09-2006, 03:12 PM
It objectifies women.
No. Making a stereotypical image of a woman is objectifying her.
nowhesingsnowhesobs
06-09-2006, 03:12 PM
Well, I'm talking about straight porn. Most of it certainly does objectify the woman. cumshots? woman on cam most of the time?
Steerpike
06-09-2006, 03:17 PM
It objectifies women.
I like porn, and I still don't think of women as objects. Maybe that's because I'm smart enough to know that porn is bad acting as a backdrop to a bunch of people who like to ****.
Well, I'm talking about straight porn. Most of it certainly does objectify the woman. cumshots? woman on cam most of the time?
I know a few women who really get off on that. One of my friends is really into bondage, but she's still a strong, independent person. If she heard some guy saying, "Bitch, get in my car," she call the police after she finished gauging his eyes out.
coheneran
06-09-2006, 03:27 PM
Sorry, I used the wrong word in my last post. What I described was sexist, not objectification, this is objectification:
Having sex and treating your partner like crap, both during and after, treating them like an object you screw, not a being you make love to.
Pron, on the other hand, is fantasy, played by actors. It's no more objectification that the stuff on Literotica is, or dirty anime. It's another form of fantasy media.
Hababi
06-09-2006, 03:51 PM
I know a few women who really get off on that.
Then she's an exception rather than the rule. P0rn reduces women to sex objects. Anyone who claims to be pro womens "rights" (abortion) and watches p0rn is a hypocrite, because if you really respected women, you wouldn't feel the need to release your sperm to the sight of seeing women treated as brainless sex objects.
Steerpike
06-09-2006, 03:55 PM
Then she's an exception rather than the rule. P0rn reduces women to sex objects. Anyone who claims to be pro womens "rights" (abortion) and watches p0rn is a hypocrite, because if you really respected women, you wouldn't feel the need to release your sperm to the sight of seeing women treated as brainless sex objects.
So... I need your permission and approval to look at breasts and think of sex?
Honestly, I don't care what the hell people do with or put in their bodies. You whine about women in p0rn being treated as objects, but have you noticed the men in p0rn? They're little more than inflata-friends that talk. Yet, men don't have a problem with that. Why is that? Oh right! Because p0rn isn't real. It's just a fake staging of various lurid fantasies that went people's heads at one time or another.
Hababi
06-09-2006, 04:10 PM
So... I need your permission and approval to look at breasts and think of sex?
No, you're free to look at p0rn (though I'd love to pass some significant restrictions on it). But if you do, and yet claim to respect women, it makes you a hypocrite.
Steerpike
06-09-2006, 04:12 PM
No, you're free to look at p0rn (though I'd love to pass some significant restrictions on it). But if you do, and yet claim to respect women, it makes you a hypocrite.
I don't see how. If you ask me, you're more of a hypocrite because you're whining about the women, but fail to realize the men don't get treated much differently at all.
Mr. Ron
06-09-2006, 04:14 PM
Then she's an exception rather than the rule. P0rn reduces women to sex objects. Anyone who claims to be pro womens "rights" (abortion) and watches p0rn is a hypocrite, because if you really respected women, you wouldn't feel the need to release your sperm to the sight of seeing women treated as brainless sex objects.
No. Women are ment to be sex objects to men. We are all wired that way and that is how we reproduce. But it is up to the man to be polite and be a gentlemen.
Jharaski
06-09-2006, 04:15 PM
Pron does often objectify women and sometimes men. It's objectifying when the guy is like "oh suck it bitch suck me you whore" or the like. But most viewers don't let that change their view of women, although it can often happen unwillingly. Expectations can change because of it. Which is what really bothers me about Girls Gone Wild, because that's objectifying to the max.
Steerpike
06-09-2006, 04:17 PM
Pron does often objectify women and sometimes men. It's objectifying when the guy is like "oh suck it bitch suck me you whore" or the like. But most viewers don't let that change their view of women, although it can often happen unwillingly. Expectations can change because of it. Which is what really bothers me about Girls Gone Wild, because that's objectifying to the max.
Then wouldn't the proper thing be to remind all of your female friends that they can still kick us in the nards if we get out of line?
Jharaski
06-09-2006, 04:19 PM
Then wouldn't the proper thing be to remind all of your female friends that they can still kick us in the nards if we get out of line?
Yeah. But that doesn't change the fact that it's objectifying. But like I said, fortunately, it's not a common thing for men to be like "oh why aren't all women like that?" and I would assume the woman's response to be similar.
coheneran
06-09-2006, 04:27 PM
Pron does often objectify women and sometimes men. It's objectifying when the guy is like "oh suck it bitch suck me you whore" or the like.
Dirty talk is an essential part of sex for some people. Porn with dirty talk/cumshots/bondage/spanking is just a way to enhance the fantasy. depending on the target audience. Myself, I prefer literotica.com, but pornography has its merits, and is much funner to watch while having sex with a partner. I think the free homemade/DIY stuff is better (ethically and aesthetically) than the stuff Seymour Butts or Playboy make. The ethical reason is that that professional stuff sets a stereotype of what "feminine and masculine perfection" looks like, which is complete BS. The aesthetic reason is that you never see any gash, tackle or pubes. What the hell is this attraction to prepubescent-like genitalia? Last time I checked, pubes were sexy.
Then she's an exception rather than the rule. P0rn reduces women to sex objects. Anyone who claims to be pro womens "rights" (abortion) and watches p0rn is a hypocrite, because if you really respected women, you wouldn't feel the need to release your sperm to the sight of seeing women treated as brainless sex objects.
Porn is a totally fictional enterprise so I don't really see how it has any bearing on the very real issue of women's rights.
Atomic Rain
06-09-2006, 05:01 PM
complaining about prnography depicting women as sex objects is as valid as complaining that the fairytale with the gingerbread house depicts old ladies as evil, manipulative cannibals.
Actors are actors. You don't have to be ashamed of inavoidable natural urges.
Jharaski
06-09-2006, 05:03 PM
complaining about prnography depicting women as sex objects is as valid as complaining that the fairytale with the gingerbread house depicts old ladies as evil, manipulative cannibals.
Actors are actors. You don't have to be ashamed of inavoidable natural urges.
You're still USING that woman for your own benefit. Though the same could be said about fairy tales, using them for a childish joy.
coheneran
06-09-2006, 05:11 PM
You're still USING that woman for your own benefit. Though the same could be said about fairy tales, using them for a childish joy.
That woman is acting, of course she is being used. Every actor gets used to make films. I would not look at pron that looks dodgy (ie. the chick is crying) though.
No, you're free to look at p0rn (though I'd love to pass some significant restrictions on it). But if you do, and yet claim to respect women, it makes you a hypocrite.
But it's totally OK if a woman watches pron and gets off on it, or if a dude looks at gay pron right? Because sexism can only go one way :rolleyes:
coheneran
06-09-2006, 05:19 PM
Lol @ sarcasm.
Why is nobody replying to my posts?!:confused:
Atomic Rain
06-09-2006, 05:19 PM
You're still USING that woman for your own benefit. Though the same could be said about fairy tales, using them for a childish joy.
The beauty of human beings is their compassion; their ability to assist eachother.
You abused thousands of workers just to have your internet hooked up, through the supply chain.
If we're not to "use" anybody we're all dead, simple.
Jharaski
06-09-2006, 05:22 PM
The beauty of human beings is their compassion; their ability to assist eachother.
You abused thousands of workers just to have your internet hooked up, through the supply chain.
If we're not to "use" anybody we're all dead, simple.
Though it isn't degenerating to workers for me to "abuse" their service.
coheneran
06-09-2006, 05:24 PM
Though it isn't degenerating to workers for me to "abuse" their service.
Uh, yes it is, because your are supporting their bosses, who are conducting an infinitely unfair relationship with their workers.
You don't need pron to objectify women. If men didn't naturally objectify women all the time nobody would accuse pronography of doing it.
Jharaski
06-09-2006, 05:39 PM
Uh, yes it is, because your are supporting their bosses, who are conducting an infinitely unfair relationship with their workers.
Nah my ISP is a small company, and you could probably list all of their people in under 30 seconds.
PerpetualBurn
06-10-2006, 11:02 AM
This entire argument is based on people's perceptions that:
A) All men treat sex lightly, have no negativity aimed at them for being in p0rn, and enjoy degrading women
and
B) Any woman in p0rn must be somehow mistreated and is a weak individual that the male population must protect.
Both are sexist. There's nothing wrong with p0rn as a concept, even if you have distaste towards the way a lot of it is filmed. Providing that the actors are consenting and not under any duress, it's all good.
Danger Bird
06-10-2006, 11:35 AM
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Seriously, I don't want to date anybody who puts that much stock in this piece-of-**** site anyway.
Steerpike
06-10-2006, 11:46 AM
Seriously, I don't want to date anybody who puts that much stock in this piece-of-**** site anyway.
Exactly. It's just a forum for women to bitch about their exes. And anyone who takes them seriously when they're in that mode probably isn't too bright.
coheneran
06-10-2006, 06:26 PM
This entire argument is based on people's perceptions that:
A) All men treat sex lightly, have no negativity aimed at them for being in p0rn, and enjoy degrading women
and
B) Any woman in p0rn must be somehow mistreated and is a weak individual that the male population must protect.
Both are sexist. There's nothing wrong with p0rn as a concept, even if you have distaste towards the way a lot of it is filmed. Providing that the actors are consenting and not under any duress, it's all good.
*Applauds*
I've never heard that before, but I'm damn well gonna try and memorize it.:thumb: Awesome points dude.
Iscariot
06-10-2006, 07:33 PM
Phew. I looked up my name on there and got four or five results but none of them were me. Thank god. That site should be shut down.
It reminds me of that show my mom always watches, "Good Girls Behaving Badly" in which women go around pulling these retarded, unfunny pranks on men. An example would be one episode where some woman approached a guy in a bar and stuck a sign on his back when she gave him a hug that said, "I have a small penis". Or they'll call up their ex-boyfriends and tell them that they're pregnant and blah blah blah and then half an hour later be all, "LOL just kidding!"
Sexist crap like that is no better than racism.
coheneran
06-10-2006, 07:43 PM
Sexist crap like that is no better than racism.
It's true, racist jokes are way funnier than sexist ones.
clown_phobia
06-10-2006, 09:14 PM
I hate the thought of that site. It should be illegal, because its sole purpose is slander and defamation.
Dave de Sylvia
06-10-2006, 09:54 PM
The serious police have come to take you away. Please surrender quietly :(
Hababi
06-10-2006, 10:31 PM
Porn's going to cause you to objectify women about as much as playing a violent video game is going to cause you to go on a killing spree.
I think that's faulty reasoning. P0rn serves to objectify women, that's what it's there for. Violent video games don't exist for you to kill people. Real people, anyway.
i know girls who watch animal photographs what does this mean oh mighty steve
quite a few actually
i know girls who watch animal photographs what does this mean oh mighty steve
quite a few actually
FALLEN! EVERY ONE!
Hababi
06-10-2006, 10:50 PM
I looked up my name on there and got four or five results but none of them were me
Wouldn't it suck if there was mistaken identity? :p "I saw you on there, you have STD's!"
i know girls who watch animal photographs what does this mean oh mighty steve
I know Jews who hate Jews (Coheneran). Point match. :evil:
I Am a Hat
06-10-2006, 10:53 PM
i don't really see how it objectifies women any more than watching a baseball game on tv objectifies the people playing baseball
they're just tools used to win a game to people watching. you don't see them as people with emotions and thoughts until maybe when the game is over or they make a nice play. like in porn when the money shot comes or the chick squirts all over the camera
i also don't really see the problem with being objectified either. i'm objectified on a daily basis by strangers until i speak to them or whatever.
I know Jews who hate Jews (Coheneran). Point match. :evil:
i'm an indian who hates most indians
but anyway
my girl friends say they watch it as a way to help them get pleasure
not because they intensely hate women or whatever point you're trying to make
A Spoonful Supreme
06-10-2006, 11:22 PM
I think that's faulty reasoning. P0rn serves to objectify women, that's what it's there for. Violent video games don't exist for you to kill people. Real people, anyway.
I don't get it, that made no sense.
Hababi
06-10-2006, 11:24 PM
not because they intensely hate women or whatever point you're trying to make
Um d00d it's not just me. There's a reason why most women's groups view p0rn as being harmful. When social conservatives and feminists agree on something, it's fact :p
A Spoonful Supreme
06-10-2006, 11:26 PM
Untrue, it's still just an opinion.
I Am a Hat
06-10-2006, 11:30 PM
Um d00d it's not just me. There's a reason why most women's groups view p0rn as being harmful. When social conservatives and feminists agree on something, it's fact :p
hey instead of doing what you're doing maybe you should address points that people make
also feminism is a disease
MattSharpIsCool
06-10-2006, 11:30 PM
I just wanted to post this.
The internet is not goverened by the same rules as traditional media. For example, the FCC can regulate what is said on a radio morning show. But if you listen to that same morning show streamed over the internet, and someone says "****" or something along those lines, they dont have to censor it.
So judging by that, I dont think they really can enforce any regulations or laws on a site like this one. But I could be wrong.
I personally dont see any reason for the site. I hate crap like that.
free_thinkers_are_dangerous
06-10-2006, 11:30 PM
We welcome you to our site. We ask that you review these Terms of Use, which are intended to constitute a binding license agreement that conditions your use of this site (the "Agreement"). We have tried to avoid unnecessary legal verbiage. Our goal is to protect our rights in order to provide you with access to the free service available at this site. If you do not wish to be bound by this Agreement after you have read it, please leave the site. If you remain on this site, or return thereafter, you agree to be bound by this Agreement.
1. Responsible conduct. You agree to act responsibly at this site and to treat other visitors with respect. As a Registered User, you agree that:
a. You are solely responsible for the content or information you publish, display or otherwise communicate in any manner (hereinafter, "post") on the Service, or transmit to other Registered Users.
b. You will not post on the Service, or transmit to other Registered Users, any defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, obscene, profane, offensive, sexually oriented, threatening, harassing, racially offensive, or illegal material, or any material that infringes or violates another party's rights (including, but not limited to, intellectual property rights, and rights of privacy and publicity).
c. You will use the Service in a manner consistent with any and all applicable local, state, national and international laws and regulations, including, but not limited to, United States export control laws. You are not located in, under the control of, or a national or resident of any country which the United States has (i) embargoed goods, (ii) identified as a "Specially Designated National", or (iii) placed on the Commerce Department's Table of Deny Orders. Membership in, and use of, the Service is void where prohibited.
d. You will not provide inaccurate, misleading or false information to the Company or to any other Registered User. If information provided to the Company, or another Registered User, subsequently becomes inaccurate, misleading or false, you will promptly notify the Company of such information
They're certainly covering their own arses.
Stupid site imo, but if your would-be girlfriend takes it seriously you're better off not dating her. Overall it won't doom any relationships that were going somewhere good.
Hababi
06-10-2006, 11:33 PM
Are we objectifying the musicians we listen to, or our favorite actors?
Usually you're somewhat logical :p This time though, logic is betraying you. When I listen to Eva Cassidy, I'm not watching her being mounted by a man saying, "eat this giant c0ck, b1tch." P0rn is designed to objectify women, it's designed to give an artificial stimulation by presenting women as one dimensional sex objects. And arguing against that is just plain silly.
Um d00d it's not just me. There's a reason why most women's groups view p0rn as being harmful. When social conservatives and feminists agree on something, it's fact :p
stop hiding behind that dumb smiley come on
Usually you're somewhat logical :p This time though, logic is betraying you. When I listen to Eva Cassidy, I'm not watching her being mounted by a man saying, "eat this giant c0ck, b1tch." P0rn is designed to objectify women, it's designed to give an artificial stimulation by presenting women as one dimensional sex objects. And arguing against that is just plain silly.
what do you know about stimulation or sex
i thought you were too good for stuff like that
Reaganista
06-10-2006, 11:41 PM
because he's sexist
When social conservatives and feminists agree on something, it's fact
actually all feminists who are of any merit whatsoever think pron should be everywhere.
the only ones who are anti-pron are femine supremascist types.
it's designed to give an artificial stimulation by presenting women as one dimensional sex objects
ok
1. does that mean eva cassidy is a one dimensional singing object?
2. what about pron where the woman does other stuff besides ****, like kill terrorists or cast magic spells?
Steerpike
06-11-2006, 12:01 AM
Usually you're somewhat logical :p This time though, logic is betraying you. When I listen to Eva Cassidy, I'm not watching her being mounted by a man saying, "eat this giant c0ck, b1tch." P0rn is designed to objectify women, it's designed to give an artificial stimulation by presenting women as one dimensional sex objects. And arguing against that is just plain silly.
I watch pron and I still treat women like people.
What I don't understand is why you seem to think that people are so friggin' helpless. The way you talk, it sounds as if the only thing keeping you from calling women bitches is the fact that you don't watch Jenna Jameson movies. Are you really that stupid, impressionable, and devoid of free will and independent thought?
Hababi
06-11-2006, 12:24 AM
The way you talk, it sounds as if the only thing keeping you from calling women bitches is the fact that you don't watch Jenna Jameson movies.
No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm not saying that you're a sexist if you watch p0rn, just that you're a hypocrit. If you respect women, you won't choose to be entertained by the crass exploitation of p0rnography.
No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm not saying that you're a sexist if you watch p0rn, just that you're a hypocrit. If you respect women, you won't choose to be entertained by the crass exploitation of p0rnography.
No, that's just silly :p
Hababi
06-11-2006, 12:31 AM
No, that's just silly
Copycat n00b
If the woman consents to making porn, aren't you just disrespecting her choice?
Consenting to be exploited doesn't make them any less exploited.
I Am a Hat
06-11-2006, 12:34 AM
No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm not saying that you're a sexist if you watch p0rn, just that you're a hypocrit. If you respect women, you won't choose to be entertained by the crass exploitation of p0rnography.
there's nothing wrong with female sexuality
you just CAN'T imagine a woman as a sexual being can you? the way you view sex is the reason you don't understand how people can have respect for someone they also have crazy sexual lust for.
you're a virgin right? and you can't get any girls to like you either right?
there's nothing wrong with female sexuality
you just CAN'T imagine a woman as a sexual being can you? the way you view sex is the reason you don't understand how people can have respect for someone they also have crazy sexual lust for.
you're a virgin right? and you can't get any girls to like you either right?
*dives behind the trenches*
Hababi
06-11-2006, 12:37 AM
you're a virgin right?
Yes and I'll remain so until I marry. I'm not a hormone crazed douche bag, kthnx.
Sex is fine. In the context of marriage. The way it's intended to be. Of course you immature nymphomaniacs can't understand that though :p
and you're saying she's choosing to be exploited?
Yes. Just like prostitutes do.
*dives behind the trenches*
There's an IED waiting for you
Reaganista
06-11-2006, 12:39 AM
Consenting to be exploited doesn't make them any less exploited.
then why aren't you a communist?
you know Eva Cassidy was exploited, btw
Steerpike
06-11-2006, 12:39 AM
No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm not saying that you're a sexist if you watch p0rn, just that you're a hypocrit. If you respect women, you won't choose to be entertained by the crass exploitation of p0rnography.
Women don't need self-appointed crusaders like you to coddle and protect them.
Yes and I'll remain so until I marry. I'm not a hormone crazed douche bag, kthnx.
That's the excuse all virgins who can't get any use :p
Sex is fine. In the context of marriage. The way it's intended to be. Of course you immature nymphomaniacs can't understand that though :p
If being an immature nymophomaniac means I'm not a sexually repressed homophonic bigot, I'm dancing with joy!
Seriously, if you stopped treating this sex thing so seriously and just got laid or even just made out with someone you love, you'd be a lot happier.
And not so crazy.
Steerpike
06-11-2006, 12:41 AM
Yes. Just like prostitutes do.
Have you ever seen the inside of the whore houses in Nevada? Damn, those are really nice places to work. There's no exploitation going on there. All the women who work there are intelligent, clean, independent, and social. They just like to **** and they're getting paid for it.
Hababi
06-11-2006, 12:42 AM
If being an immature nymophomaniac means I'm not a sexually repressed homophonic bigot, I'm dancing with joy!
I hope you contract syphilis :evil:
That's the excuse all virgins who can't get any use
...Or responsible, mature people :p
And for the last time, Steve, if you're going to use a psychological term like nymphomaniac, use it properly.
I hope you contract syphilis :evil:
I remain exclusive to my partner and she does the same.
You can't say the same since, well, you've never experienced the joys of love!
...Or responsible, mature people :p
If being responsible and mature means being sexually repressed and bigoted, go you :p
I Am a Hat
06-11-2006, 12:46 AM
Yes and I'll remain so until I marry. I'm not a hormone crazed douche bag, kthnx.
Sex is fine. In the context of marriage. The way it's intended to be. Of course you immature nymphomaniacs can't understand that though :p
your wife isn't going to be sexually attracted to you
i'm actually serious about that
she WILL NOT be happy with her sex life with you. i'm not insulting you either, its just a ****ing fact. i'm scared that your kids aren't actually going to be yours
your wife isn't going to be sexually attracted to you
i'm actually serious about that
she WILL NOT be happy with her sex life with you. i'm not insulting you either, its just a ****ing fact. i'm scared that your kids aren't actually going to be yours
i'm guessing for him
sexual experience is like golf
the less you have the more you're a winner!
:p
Reaganista
06-11-2006, 12:49 AM
I'm sure he'll marry someone who's equally frightened of their own genitals
I'm sure he'll marry someone who's equally freightened of their own genitals
Ahahahah.
Steve isn't frightened. He's just morally just.
Or something :p
Hababi
06-11-2006, 12:50 AM
I remain exclusive to my partner and she does the same.
Every time you copulate with her, you are copulating with everyone she ever had sex with.
And for the last time, Steve, if you're going to use a psychological term like nymphomaniac, use it properly.
Ok, nympho.
zero you do realize life isn't always in black and white, right
In terms of sex, it is. Sex outside of marriage is bad. If you truly love the person, you'll wait until you're married. And you'll save your virginity for that one true love.
Steerpike
06-11-2006, 12:51 AM
Has anyone else noticed that religion is the only institution that aggressively insists we need permission to enjoy food, sex, and success?
Every time you copulate with her, you are copulating with everyone she ever had sex with.
Not only is that hilariously inaccurate in biological terms, we were both virgins in the beginning of our lovely relationship.
Good going.
Ok, nympho.
Don't be jealous :p
In terms of sex, it is. Sex outside of marriage is bad. If you truly love the person, you'll wait until you're married. And you'll save your virginity for that one true love.
Haha, there is no such thing as a one true love. There are countless possibilities, but circumstances (mostly) out of your control limit the number of women you ever fall in love with.
If you have ever been in any sort of relationship with a female, you would realize this.
free_thinkers_are_dangerous
06-11-2006, 12:53 AM
Sex outside of marriage is bad.
Why?
If you truly love the person, you'll wait until you're married.
Why?
And you'll save your virginity for that one true love.
Why?
... my point is that you base this stuff on your beliefs and your idea of what sex is or should be. That's fine by me - if you want to waste your sexual prime on yourself, I'm not going to stop you. But if you want to try to convince anybody else of your ideas, you're going to need to do a little more explaining than simply "that's the way it is" or "because Jesus said so."
I respect Steve's decision to wait until he's married. It's quite a noble ideal.
But I feel very sorry for his wife.
Clearly, Krishna was a raging nymphomaniac like myself :-\
Hababi
06-11-2006, 01:00 AM
to make it special. Otherwise it's just another lay. And to avoid awkward comparisons, "Well she's alright but I've had better."
Haha, there is no such thing as a one true love.
Not to a nympho.
If you have ever been in any sort of relationship with a female, you would realize this.
I have been, and I understand it, better than you, in fact. You confuse love and lust...which is probably why you support the gay agenda. People often fall into lust. Only rarely does one fall in love.
Steerpike
06-11-2006, 01:03 AM
I have been, and I understand it, better than you, in fact. You confuse love and lust...which is probably why you support the gay agenda. People often fall into lust. Only rarely does one fall in love.
Nicely done. Dismiss every single person on the planet who does not conform to your idealist world view in one fell swoop while at the same portraying both heterosexual and homosexual sex as both being sinful.
Jesus, how can a man come to be so terrified of his own junk?
Hababi
06-11-2006, 01:04 AM
I could only assume better sex comes with experience
So get that experience when you're married. Then you'll have something to look forward to in your old age :p
Steerpike
06-11-2006, 01:05 AM
Then you'll have something to look forward to in your old age :p
Ew, I don't know how, but I suddenly became sterile.
to make it special. Otherwise it's just another lay. And to avoid awkward comparisons, "Well she's alright but I've had better."
Why are you attaching such importance to a mere physical pleasure function? That sounds more nymphomaniacal than anything I've said :-\
Not to a nympho.
Nymphomaniacs, along with all other similar psychological disorders, let their obsession interfere with their normal life. And that doesn't describe me. If you knew actually anything about psychology, this would be painfully obvious.
Just because I'm not afraid of what my girlfriend and I were born with doesn't mean I'm a nymphomaniac.
I function damn well in every aspect of life.
And easily a lot better than you :p
There's a thing called middle ground, Steve!
I have been, and I understand it, better than you, in fact. You confuse love and lust...which is probably why you support the gay agenda. People often fall into lust. Only rarely does one fall in love.
Oh poor Steve, you know nothing about me. I'd tell you to ask my girlfriend or my ex's whether I confuse love or lust, but I don't think they'd appreciate that :-\
Well, if you want to start making baseless assumptions about me:
All I have to say is that we've all seen your picture Steve.
:p
Hababi
06-11-2006, 01:10 AM
There's a thing called middle ground, Steve!
Yeah, I'm on it. Between life long chastity and hormone induced immorality.
Reaganista
06-11-2006, 01:11 AM
Every time you copulate with her, you are copulating with everyone she ever had sex with.
don't you mean fornicate?
:evil:
Yeah, I'm on it. Between life long chastity and hormone induced immorality.
From the sound of it, it seems like you're suffering from the sexual disorder aversion to sex.
I'll forward all this to my ab psych professor for further evaluation.
There's therapy and counselling! Don't lose hope :p
Steerpike
06-11-2006, 01:13 AM
From the sound of it, it seems like you're suffering from the sexual disorder aversion to sex.
I'll forward all this to my ab psych professor for further evaluation.
There's therapy and counselling! Don't lose hope :p
Could we also send this message to the Christian Coalition? Whatever helps keep unwanted self-appointed despots out of my bedroom.
Hababi
06-11-2006, 01:14 AM
From the sound of it, it seems like you're suffering from the sexual disorder aversion to sex.
Not at all. I'm anticipating having sex...
With the woman that I marry, the one woman who I will love in my life. The way it is meant to be.
Not at all. I'm anticipating having sex...
With the woman that I marry, the one woman who I will love in my life. The way it is meant to be.
I sincerely wish you the best of luck.
But you'll have an incredibly tough time with that.
At least, in America.
Your goal sounds like something feasible in Saudi Arabia or something.
Middle eastern girls are quite hot, heh.
Hababi
06-11-2006, 01:18 AM
But you'll have an incredibly tough time with that.
Well we come from different social circles :p
Actually, I'm friends with a lot of sexually active people. One of which got his girlfriend pregnant and got married, all before reaching 21 and lacking any type of college degree.
But I'm also friends with a lot of people who share my view on sex and marriage. A lot of people do. I'm guessing you don't know any social conservatives...
Steerpike
06-11-2006, 01:18 AM
Not at all. I'm anticipating having sex...
With the woman that I marry, the one woman who I will love in my life. The way it is meant to be.
If that's honestly what works for you, no one's going to stop you from persuing that. But by the same token, don't try to tell us what we should and shouldn't do with our lives and bodies.
Hababi
06-11-2006, 01:20 AM
Middle eastern girls are quite hot, heh.
Eh. Indian girls are quite hot. Saudi girls...meh...Plus I'd never marry a Muslim, or any non Christian :o
But by the same token, don't try to tell us what we should and shouldn't with our lives and bodies.
I'm not saying I want to force you to. But I'm saying that's the right way to do things, the moral way of living.
Reaganista
06-11-2006, 01:22 AM
Not at all. I'm anticipating having sex...
With the woman that I marry, the one woman who I will love in my life. The way it is meant to be
even if that's true I doubt you'll find a similarly appointed woman who isn't sex averted. unless she's got a whole host of other problems that scare away everybody else.
btw, could you please at least pretend to have married a reformed lesbian, heroin addled, sun-worshipping rap artist/pron star? like 10 years from now just shoot me an email explaining how you finally found true evangelical love and your life is great with DJ Lixx and your three mulatto children in the church youth group. I would love that
even if that's true I doubt you'll find a similarly appointed woman who isn't sex averted. unless she's got a whole host of other problems that scare away everybody else.
btw, could you please at least pretend to have married a reformed lesbian, heroin addled, sun-worshipping rap artist/pron star? like 10 years from now just shoot me an email explaining how you finally found true evangelical love and your life is great with DJ Lixx and your three mulatto children in the church youth group. I would love that
*dies laughing*
Steerpike
06-11-2006, 01:24 AM
I'm not saying I want to force you to. But I'm saying that's the right way to do things, the moral way of living.
That's the trouble with using the word "moral." It means a lot of things. It's open to debate.
You've thoroughly made the point that you think sex out of wedlock makes people hormone-driven, insincere, and dominated by lust instead of love. I don't agree with that. I know people who have sex outside of marriage, and they're happy and successful.
But if that's how you get down, then far be it from me to tell you otherwise. In the grandscheme of things, another person's sex life when nobody is getting hurt is a non-issue.
Hababi
06-11-2006, 01:27 AM
You've thoroughly made the point that you think sex out of wedlock makes people hormone-driven, insincere, and dominated by lust instead of love. I don't agree with that. I know people who have sex outside of marriage, and they're happy and successful.
Well, Dboon makes the best case for having sex before marriage. I just disagree with him :p
another person's sex life when nobody is getting hurt is a non-issue.
It's not as if I let it affects friendships. But I'd be extremely hesitant to be intimate with a girl (woman now, since I'm turning 21 this month :o ) who's been sexually active. If I marry a woman who's been sexually active, I'd probably ask her to be tested.
Sex is a lot like cooking.
It releases many of the same neurotransmitters, takes up a lot of time (well, at least I hope it does for you :p) and energy, and timing/attention to detail is critical.
Sure, a girl might find it endearing that you're cooking your first ever meal for her, but man, I can't think of anyone who would put up with a shitty dinner :-P
"Freshly Baked"
06-11-2006, 03:47 AM
Two In The Pink, One In The Stink
Nature is just very beautiful
I hate bitchy chick sites. I'm sure most of these chicks where just sad because they were on Meatholes with a dogbone in their mouths getting choked by some guy with a pony tail. So they air out Dirty laundry about Johnny Pisface. Really lame[/virgin]
Atomic Rain
06-11-2006, 03:50 AM
Sex is a lot like cooking.
It releases many of the same neurotransmitters, takes up a lot of time (well, at least I hope it does for you :p) and energy, and timing/attention to detail is critical.
Sure, a girl might find it endearing that you're cooking your first ever meal for her, but man, I can't think of anyone who would put up with a shitty dinner :-P
She couldn't taste the difference anyway, if she's like him.
Besides, have you never seen that website with advice for young ameri-catholic brides? The gist of it is, "If the number of times you have sex is equal to the number of kids you have, you're a winner!"
PerpetualBurn
06-11-2006, 05:05 AM
Consenting to be exploited doesn't make them any less exploited.
This is the very definition of sexist.
It assumes that men can consent to something, enjoy it, yet women are too weak and delicate to even be able to consent to the act.
There's lesbian p0rn. No men to demean women there. Of course you're too overtly homophobic to even enjoy that.
How about some hardcore domination p0rn for you? How about some women beating men senseless to get you off? It's out there. Does this demean men not women?
There's nothing wrong with p0rn even if certain scenarios displayed make you uncomfortable.
coheneran
06-11-2006, 05:43 AM
I know Jews who hate Jews (Coheneran). Point match. :evil:
Hardly. I don't hate all Jews, I hate all the capitalist Jews.
Fair enough, I hate all Jews.
/I am allowed
Atomic Rain
06-11-2006, 06:00 AM
Every time you copulate with her, you are copulating with everyone she ever had sex with.
Every time you kiss a girl, you're kissing everyone she's ever made out with.
EWWW!! Broadway kissed a boy!
(I'm assuming (hoping) that this 21 year old man telling us that our opinions and lifestyles are immoral has actually kissed a girl in his lifetime)
PerpetualBurn
06-11-2006, 06:17 AM
Hardly. I don't hate all Jews, I hate all the capitalist Jews.
Fair enough, I hate all Jews.
/I am allowed
No you're not you racist tosser.
coheneran
06-11-2006, 07:25 AM
Fine, fine. Not ALL Jews are capitalist. Marx wasn't. And neither am I.
Hababi
06-11-2006, 11:01 AM
Sure, a girl might find it endearing that you're cooking your first ever meal for her, but man, I can't think of anyone who would put up with a ****ty dinner :-P
If it was their first meal, too, then there wouldn't be a problem :p
Think of it this way: if you fast for thirty days, it doesn't matter what you eat--it's going to taste pretty darn good. You could get that crappy salad from McDonalds, and it'd taste like the greatest thing you ever ate. Thus, no risk of dissappointment.
Now, compare it to living in NYC for 10 years, having all the wonderful restaurants there and enjoying all sorts of different cousines...then moving to a smaller town in Nebraska. There's a nice diner there, it makes pretty good food, but it's not like what you had in NYC. And it kinda makes you wish you were back in NYC. And that ain't good.
enjoy it, yet women are too weak and delicate to even be able to consent to the act.
D00d I'm not saying they don't consent. I'm saying they consent to being exploited. Same as prostitutes. It's an inherently exploitive industry.
Zero, sex is gonna be so awkward for you the first time around. You have so many laid out impressions and ideas of what it should be like that the key word to describe your actual experience will be "fumble." You're hopelessly rigid in selecting your circumstances and criteria, none of which are conducive to the sharing of experience that is sex. It's about giving your partner pleasure and getting it in return out of mutual love, not some big scary thing that God frowns upon unless you enter into a human-invented agreement called modern marriage.
Sex is enormously complex emotionally and physically. With your total lack of preparation for dealing with any of the mental or physical aspects or consequences of it, the experience for you will most likely be disappointing, confused, and embarrassing, and no doubt nine months later your wife will give birth to a son who will grow up to be a social conservative.
If it was their first meal, too, then there wouldn't be a problem :p
No, they'd still know what's good from what's bad. Trust me.
That's the entire point I'm making.
Think of it this way: if you fast for thirty days, it doesn't matter what you eat--it's going to taste pretty darn good. You could get that crappy salad from McDonalds, and it'd taste like the greatest thing you ever ate. Thus, no risk of dissappointment.
Girls don't operate like that at all. Just like you'll know if you enjoyed a movie despite never seeing one before in your life, they'll "instinctively" know a good lay from a bad one.
Mr. Ron
06-11-2006, 11:10 AM
Don't listen to Cain, Zero. Just go for the clit and you'll be fine.
:p jk jk
Don't listen to Cain, Zero. Just go for the clit and you'll be fine.
:p jk jk
And no, the clit isn't a code word for the belly button :p
Don't listen to Cain, Zero. Just go for the clit and you'll be fine.
i think the advanced sexual dysfunction that would result from a complete lack of experience coupled with a rigid set of criteria for sex to even be appropriate much less desired will quickly negate any sexual stimulation the partner would otherwise feel by getting her clit batted around
EDIT: lol who changed the thread title
Dave de Sylvia
06-11-2006, 11:18 AM
no doubt nine months later your wife will give birth to a son who will grow up to be a social conservative.
hahaha
Sex Advice For Zerokewl ITT
hahahahahaha
The_Passenger
06-11-2006, 11:19 AM
:lol::lol:
Good one who ever changed the thread title.
Mr. Ron
06-11-2006, 11:19 AM
i think the advanced sexual dysfunction that would result from a complete lack of experience coupled with a rigid set of criteria for sex to even be appropriate much less desired will quickly negate any sexual stimulation the partner would otherwise feel by getting her clit batted around
Again...I was kidding.
Really, it's all about pre-sexual actions. Massages, playing, stroking, tickleing are all great ways to get her hott even before you dive into the more sexual things.
Krishna approves of the thread title change and current direction of the discussion :-P
D00d I'm not saying they don't consent. I'm saying they consent to being exploited. Same as prostitutes. It's an inherently exploitive industry.
Yup. The women are exploiting the immense sexual appetite of men with blue balls to make cash.
Mr. Ron
06-11-2006, 11:25 AM
Well.....even if zero is rigid about sex, if he finds a equally rigid conseravtive female will it matter?
Well.....even if zero is rigid about sex, if he finds a equally rigid conseravtive female will it matter?
Well, unlike Eggo, I don't doubt that he'll be able to find someone.
I'm just saying that it's gonna not be at all what he expected the first few times, and it'll probably disappoint and discourage him. Unless of course he finds the one brilliantly amazing woman who is
1.) attractive enough in a physical way to keep zero up in the face of potential awkwardness
2.) attractive enough in a sensual way to keep zero excited in the face of potential awkwardness
3.) attractive (and attracted) enough in an emotional way to get married to zero
4.) have just as little experience as zero does so that the first time may conform to that completely unrealistic (but yes, still possible) ideal of keeping purity for one another and then discovering each other through first-time sex
Given the range of insecurities and concerns both men and women feel today, I'd say that the sheer turning of the social tide demands that it's better for humans psychologically to gain experience with love before marriage, especially if your only reason for avoiding sex and love is because of a superficial religious requirement that you only superficially believe in.
You'd be surprised at how deeply your expectations can affect a first-time marriage or sexual encounter for the worse. I personally have had trouble having or even wanting sex because it didn't conform to my ideas of what it would be like. I've since moved mostly beyond that because my emotional state of mind has changed for the better about my partner (who is the first and only person I have ever had sex with). But it took a lot of work, soul-searching, and mental and emotional anguish, and this is for a kid who is quite horny much of the time. Unless zero's requirements are filled to the letter I can only imagine what it'll be like for him.
Mr. Ron
06-11-2006, 11:35 AM
Well, unlike Eggo, I don't doubt that he'll be able to find someone.
I'm just saying that it's gonna not be at all what he expected the first few times, and it'll probably disappoint and discourage him. Unless of course he finds the one brilliantly amazing woman who is
1.) attractive enough in a physical way to keep zero up in the face of potential awkwardness
2.) attractive enough in a sensual way to keep zero excited in the face of potential awkwardness
3.) attractive (and attracted) enough in an emotional way to get married to zero
4.) have just as little experience as zero does so that the first time may conform to that completely unrealistic (but yes, still possible) ideal of keeping purity for one another and then discovering each other through first-time sex
Given the range of insecurities and concerns both men and women feel today, I'd say that the sheer turning of the social tide demands that it's better for humans psychologically to gain experience with love before marriage, especially if your only reason for avoiding sex and love is because of a superficial religious requirement that you only superficially believe in.
True, but I personally believe that there is someone for everyone out there. It might seem like some fairy tale view, but I think it's true.
True, but I personally believe that there is someone for everyone out there. It might seem like some fairy tale view, but I think it's true.
I think it's true too. But I also think that many people never find that person, or do and are kept from being with them by some circumstance. I also think that if you put enough work in you can build an amazing relationship even if it wasn't all that amazing to begin with.
Hababi
06-11-2006, 11:44 AM
:lol: At the new thread title.
especially if your only reason for avoiding sex and love is because of a superficial religious requirement that you only superficially believe in.
Well I don't consider it superficial and are you sure you don't mean superflous (it isn't that either :p).
Sexual purity is fundamental to Christian living, as much so as any other of Christ's commands. That some choose not to honor it does not indict its standing.
You'd be surprised at how deeply your expectations can affect a first-time marriage or sexual encounter for the worse.
All the better to wait until you have found a deeper, lasting emotional connection with a woman. That takes time, and end the end, is worth it.
Girls don't operate like that at all. Just like you'll know if you enjoyed a movie despite never seeing one before in your life, they'll "instinctively" know a good lay from a bad one.
Hey you're the one that compared it to a meal, don't go and change the analogy to a movie now :p
Sex isn't supposed to be about just physical pleasure, either.
coheneran
06-11-2006, 11:50 AM
Don't listen to Cain, Zero. Just go for the clit and you'll be fine.
:p jk jk
You've obviously never been with a real woman. What you wanna do is pretend her nipples are radio tuning knobs, and just go nuts. :p
Sex isn't supposed to be about just physical pleasure, either.
You're right, but it does have a major part to do with it.
Mr. Ron
06-11-2006, 11:51 AM
You've obviously never been with a real woman. What you wanna do is pretend her nipples are radio tuning knobs, and just go nuts. :p
You're right, but it does have a major part to do with it.
I WAS JOKING.
PerpetualBurn
06-11-2006, 11:58 AM
D00d I'm not saying they don't consent. I'm saying they consent to being exploited. Same as prostitutes. It's an inherently exploitive industry
Well you just ignored a huge part of my argument and poorly adressed the rest. You may well think it's exploitative, but the fact that you single out one sex that must be protected in the industry as if the other isn't doing the exact same thing, is sexist.
And anyway, what industry doesn't exploit it's employees? It's no more exploitative than sport. People with desirable physical form and ability perform for my enjoyment. I also enjoy the "sport" recreationally with a select group of other "athletes".
Anyway, p0rn is the one industry where women genuinely out earn men. More power to p0rn and feminism.
coheneran
06-11-2006, 11:58 AM
I WAS JOKING.
Me too, hence the :p. Chill dude.
PerpetualBurn
06-11-2006, 11:59 AM
Sex isn't supposed to be about just physical pleasure, either.
Sometimes it is about you and a partner copping off for a quickie. Talk about frigid...
coheneran
06-11-2006, 12:00 PM
And anyway, what industry doesn't exploit it's employees? It's no more exploitative than sport. People with desirable physical form and ability perform for my enjoyment. I also enjoy the "sport" recreationally with a select group of other "athletes".
If we have a poll, I'll nominate that for best analogy.
Mr. Ron
06-11-2006, 12:00 PM
Me too, hence the :p. Chill dude.
imma gonna beet yew up
coheneran
06-11-2006, 12:01 PM
Oh noes! I'm so e-scared! What are you gonna do, reach through the aetherweb and hit me?
Well I don't consider it superficial and are you sure you don't mean superflous (it isn't that either :p).
Sexual purity is fundamental to Christian living, as much so as any other of Christ's commands. That some choose not to honor it does not indict its standing.
No, that's what I'm talking about. You're obeying a rule that you think you have to obey to live like "a Christian," as opposed to feeling as though it is an innately good thing to do. Your tone of posting in handling challenges to this really doesn't make it seem like you earnestly believe in the goodness of such a lifestyle.
All the better to wait until you have found a deeper, lasting emotional connection with a woman. That takes time, and end the end, is worth it.
Okay this is true. If that's honestly what you want to do, nobody's going to tell you that you're wrong.
Plenty of people will tell you that you're wrong by using your beliefs to lord over the actions of others and call pre-marital sex practitioners nymphomaniacs. Just so we're clear on boundaries. I know you probably don't care about people disagreeing with you, but the arrogance you litter ll over your posts contributes to much more fury than is neccesary.
Sex isn't supposed to be about just physical pleasure, either.
It's about emotional fulfillment through sharing physical pleasure. You still need the physical pleasure.
Mr. Ron
06-11-2006, 12:05 PM
Oh noes! I'm so e-scared! What are you gonna do, reach through the aetherweb and hit me?
.....maybe.
coheneran
06-11-2006, 12:06 PM
Lol.
I am going to this, it looks interesting:
http://londonsocialcentre.org.uk/cgi-bin/view_listing.cgi?sessionId=77b6be95770b53efc7f6ab0 c7180a6fb&listingId=144
Zero, is phone sex acceptable under Christian laws?
neal_672
06-11-2006, 12:06 PM
Sex isn't supposed to be about just physical pleasure, either.
No it's not just about that, but the majority of the time it is pretty much just about that. I can safely say that i "make love" far less often than just straight up (lolz) pleasurable sex. I wouldn't tell your future wife you think that either, i can't imagien you'd get it very often if you weren't putting emphasis on pleasure :p
Mr. Ron
06-11-2006, 12:09 PM
really guys....if zero wants to remain a virgin until marriage, then I have no problem with that. I respect people that can do that.
/awaits flames.
coheneran
06-11-2006, 12:11 PM
No it's not just about that, but the majority of the time it is pretty much just about that. I can safely say that i "make love" far less often than just straight up (lolz) pleasurable sex. I wouldn't tell your future wife you think that either, i can't imagien you'd get it very often if you weren't putting emphasis on pleasure :p
He didn't say that, he was saying that it's not JUST about physical pleasure, and he's right. It's just a statement trying to assert some sort of fact we all agree on.
coheneran
06-11-2006, 12:12 PM
really guys....if zero wants to remain a virgin until marriage, then I have no problem with that. I respect people that can do that.
/awaits flames.
Don't encourage him! Sexual repression is a short step away from authoritarian behaviour, according to Wilhelm Reich.
neal_672
06-11-2006, 12:15 PM
really guys....if zero wants to remain a virgin until marriage, then I have no problem with that. I respect people that can do that.
/awaits flames.
No no i agree that it's his choice. The fact he's damning us all for not doing as he does is what's riling me, no doubt it's all carefully planned but still, i'll have sex if i want to :lol:
neal_672
06-11-2006, 12:16 PM
He didn't say that, he was saying that it's not JUST about physical pleasure, and he's right. It's just a statement trying to assert some sort of fact we all agree on.
Which was exactly what i said, i agree it's not just about that, but, like i said, the majority of the time it is.
Hababi
06-11-2006, 12:20 PM
No, that's what I'm talking about. You're obeying a rule that you think you have to obey to live like "a Christian," as opposed to feeling as though it is an innately good thing to do. Your tone of posting in handling challenges to this really doesn't make it seem like you earnestly believe in the goodness of such a lifestyle.
Even if I wasn't a Christian, I'd still value chastity, because I think it's healthiest, both physically and mentally. If everyone waited until marriage to have sex, there would be no STD's. Now you'll say, "but no way everyone's going to do that." True, but that doesn't change the fact that it would be better if everyone did practice that lifestyle.
It's about emotional fulfillment through sharing physical pleasure. You still need the physical pleasure.
And I'll still get it :p Sure, the first few times will be, um, learning experiences. But that's what marriage is: a life long learning process.
Mr. Ron
06-11-2006, 12:22 PM
My GF wants to wait till marriage to have sex. I'm totally cool with that. I think sex is a small aspect of relationships, actually. But a part of them no less.
coheneran
06-11-2006, 12:32 PM
I don't understand the point in waiting to be married. Sex is more a consummation of love than a wedding can ever be.
Hababi
06-11-2006, 12:37 PM
Sex is more a consummation of love than a wedding can ever be.
How is it a consummation of love if you have it with every single girlfriend you have? If you're all about pre marital sex, then that's what that would entail. You complain about divorces, but how many girlfriends are you going to have till you get married? At least 5 or 6, probably. So, consummate 5 or 6 times? That's like having a 5th or 6 marriage, if it carries as much (or more, as you surmise) authority as marriage.
so you've consummated with your hand? :o :p
Steerpike
06-11-2006, 12:42 PM
If everyone waited until marriage to have sex, there would be no STD's.
... Wow.
How is it a consummation of love if you have it with every single girlfriend you have?
Now, see, this is exactly what we're talking about. You clearly think very, very little of our will, intelligence, and our philosophy.
coheneran
06-11-2006, 12:53 PM
How is it a consummation of love if you have it with every single girlfriend you have? If you're all about pre marital sex, then that's what that would entail. You complain about divorces, but how many girlfriends are you going to have till you get married? At least 5 or 6, probably. So, consummate 5 or 6 times? That's like having a 5th or 6 marriage, if it carries as much (or more, as you surmise) authority as marriage.
so you've consummated with your hand? :o :p
If you consider masturbation as sex, but I don't.
Well, maybe I was in love with my partner when we had sex. But consummate was the wrong word, I just checked the dictionary. What I mean instead of consummate is that sex is as much a symbol of love as a wedding is. I'm not against divorces, you must have me confused with someone else.:p Like I said, if I love my partner, what's wrong with having sex with him/her? And don't get me started about the conventional definition of love. Eww, it's so messed up!
PS: Mexico is kicking Iran's arse, 3-1 style. Iran just brought in a sub.
Mr. Ron
06-11-2006, 12:54 PM
I don't understand the point in waiting to be married. Sex is more a consummation of love than a wedding can ever be.
Well, this isn't even coming from a religious standpoint (because i'm not), but I do think that virginity is a special thing....especially with girls. if they want to wait for the right guy or till marriage, then more power to them.
Hababi
06-11-2006, 12:57 PM
Now, see, this is exactly what we're talking about. You clearly think very, very little of our will, intelligence, and our philosophy.
No, just Coheneran's ;)
PS: Mexico is kicking Iran's arse, 3-1 style. Iran just brought in a sub.
They got lucky, really. Iran screwed up, but for the first 75 minutes, Mexico was pretty flat.
coheneran
06-11-2006, 12:57 PM
Well, this isn't even coming from a religious standpoint (because i'm not), but I do think that virginity is a special thing....especially with girls. if they want to wait for the right guy or till marriage, then more power to them.
If that's what someone wants, if it's not hurting anyone else I have no problem with it.
From my experience, sexually active and open people are much happier than they were before they started ****ing around.
Dave de Sylvia
06-11-2006, 12:58 PM
Ugh, Iran had it coming. You can't play that negatively in the world cup and not expect to be punished.
Hababi
06-11-2006, 01:00 PM
Ugh, Iran had it coming. You can't play that negatively in the world cup and not expect to be punished.
Look at it this way: If they don't make the next round, they'll have time to check out the Holocaust museum before returning to loony land, so they can see first hand just how wrong their psycho president is :p
Dave de Sylvia
06-11-2006, 01:02 PM
:lol:
If they're allowed back in loony land
coheneran
06-11-2006, 01:03 PM
Look at it this way: If they don't make the next round, they'll have time to check out the Holocaust museum before returning to loony land, so they can see first hand just how wrong their psycho president is :p
Harsh.
Mr. Ron
06-11-2006, 01:03 PM
Look at it this way: If they don't make the next round, they'll have time to check out the Holocaust museum before returning to loony land, so they can see first hand just how wrong their psycho president is :p
Hahahaha
coheneran
06-11-2006, 01:04 PM
Today's debates are much more friendly and easy-going, it's quite a pleasure. Has anyone else noticed this?
Mexico is getting too many free kicks.
Mr. Ron
06-11-2006, 01:07 PM
Thats the way its supposed to be. I like it.
Hababi
06-11-2006, 01:07 PM
Today's debates are much more friendly and easy-going, it's quite a pleasure. Has anyone else noticed this?
It's the World Cup factor.
Mr. Ron
06-11-2006, 01:08 PM
Germany is going to own all.
coheneran
06-11-2006, 01:11 PM
Tommorow: USA vs Czech Republic.
Euro-commies to win!
Dave de Sylvia
06-11-2006, 01:13 PM
Thats the way its supposed to be. I like it.
You like Mexico getting too many free kicks?
Mr. Ron
06-11-2006, 01:14 PM
You like Mexico getting too many free kicks?
No you silly gooooooooooooooooooooooooooose.
Hababi
06-11-2006, 01:16 PM
Tommorow: USA vs Czech Republic.
Euro-commies to win!
I predict a tie :cool:
coheneran
06-11-2006, 01:19 PM
Just as humiliating for neo-liberal Tway.
Even if I wasn't a Christian, I'd still value chastity, because I think it's healthiest, both physically and mentally. If everyone waited until marriage to have sex, there would be no STD's.
You're kidding me right?
Thank Brahma you're not a pre-med major.
Mr. Ron
06-11-2006, 01:22 PM
You're kidding me right?
Thank Brahma you're not a pre-med major.
At first glance I thought you said "Thank Ramen."
Delicious.
coheneran
06-11-2006, 01:24 PM
I had some Ramen noodles a couple hours ago.
coheneran
06-11-2006, 01:26 PM
Are they ever? They were snackful. Do you guys get UFO Noodles from Japan?
Mr. Ron
06-11-2006, 01:26 PM
Dumb white people :mad:
Whatev darky.
Mr. Ron
06-11-2006, 01:27 PM
Are they ever? They were snackful.
Ninja edit. hehehe
Hababi
06-11-2006, 01:37 PM
You're kidding me right?
Thank Brahma you're not a pre-med major.
The spread of STD's is due to sexual promiscuity. That's one of the chief reasons God set up marriage and chastity--He understood that it was healthiest for people.
The spread of STD's is due to sexual promiscuity. That's one of the chief reasons God set up marriage and chastity--He understood that it was healthiest for people.
Nearly all STDs, like any other disease, are spread in more than just one way.
Of course, I know fundie types don't trust science unless it's the pseudo crap that supports their fundie views.
Mr. Ron
06-11-2006, 01:42 PM
The spread of STD's is due to sexual promiscuity. That's one of the chief reasons God set up marriage and chastity--He understood that it was healthiest for people.
Oh, so gay people making sandwiches can't spread the HIV/AIDS virus then? Cool.
Dave de Sylvia
06-11-2006, 01:43 PM
Oh, so gay people making sandwiches can't spread the HIV/AIDS virus then? Cool.
New motto for the sandwich industry: "Spread butter, not AIDS"
coheneran
06-11-2006, 01:44 PM
The spread of STD's is due to sexual promiscuity. That's one of the chief reasons God set up marriage and chastity--He understood that it was healthiest for people.
Doesn't it make more sense then to just eliminate STDs as a whole and allow sexual freedom?
PerpetualBurn
06-11-2006, 01:49 PM
New motto for the sandwich industry: "Spread butter, not AIDS"
I look forward to the new McDonald's Chicken McChastity burger. There's wholesome moral fibre in every bite.
BOTTOM LINE: I think pretty much everyone in here has views about sex that should be respected and are perfectly viable, because nobody in here is advocating the treatment of women as pieces of meat. It's clear that everybody here has good perceptions of what sex means and what makes it special. I don't think anybody here has had their lives made worse for what they choose to do about love and sex because it's a heartfelt personal choice.
Now, if Zero can just stop making stuff up to convince people that his way of handling sex is the factual, end-all ONLY WAY TO LIVE, maybe we'd all be a little nicer to him about his beliefs, because I for one think that, without the arrogance, it's a beautiful thing to wait until marriage. I totally agree with Mr. Ron's perceptions as well...I feel like they're all decent ways to live, as long as the person is decent.
Just quit making **** up about STD's and we'll all be fine.
Dave de Sylvia
06-11-2006, 01:55 PM
You guys need to lighten up. Disregarding The Sandwich Hypothesis, this is probably one of Zero's more traditionally logical beliefs.
Steerpike
06-11-2006, 02:02 PM
Nearly all STDs, like any other disease, are spread in more than just one way.
Of course, I know fundie types don't trust science unless it's the pseudo crap that supports their fundie views.
"This is the kind of science I like: the kind with the word pseudo in front of it."
-Steven Colbert, The Colbert Report
Knifeboy
06-11-2006, 02:07 PM
http://www.wulffmorgenthaler.com/strip.aspx?id=c9e2f2dc-0cb4-4d76-a4f4-c04bc2ffb184
Hababi
06-11-2006, 02:14 PM
Nearly all STDs, like any other disease, are spread in more than just one way.
How are they primarily spread? They don't call the MtOWTD's. Take AIDS. AIDS is spread through more than just sex, but most of the cases come through sexual intercourse. If there was no sexual promiscuity, AIDS would not be crisis.
coheneran
06-11-2006, 02:17 PM
How are they primarily spread? They don't call the MtOWTD's. Take AIDS. AIDS is spread through more than just sex, but most of the cases come through sexual intercourse. If there was no sexual promiscuity, AIDS would not be crisis.
Actually, HIV is spread primarily through blood transfusions, then childbirth, then needle-sharing, THEN anal sex, according to wiki.
-1up!-
06-11-2006, 02:18 PM
"This is the kind of science I like: the kind with the word pseudo in front of it."
-Steven Colbert, The Colbert Report
I stumbled on his show some days ago, by luck (I pretty much never listen to the TV) He's great! I feel I could get hooked to his Report.
Hababi
06-11-2006, 02:22 PM
Dude read the freaking article :p
"Sexual contact
The majority of HIV infections are acquired through unprotected sexual relations between partners, one of whom has HIV."
The risk is higher being exposed to AIDS infected blood in transfusion. Not the occurance.
coheneran
06-11-2006, 02:29 PM
Dude read the freaking article :p
"Sexual contact
The majority of HIV infections are acquired through unprotected sexual relations between partners, one of whom has HIV."
The risk is higher being exposed to AIDS infected blood in transfusion. Not the occurance.
Ah, my bad. Still, me and my friends are pretty promiscuous (not as much as I'd like) and we've yet to contract any sort of STI or STD. Thank fook for condoms.
Hababi
06-11-2006, 02:46 PM
Ah, my bad. Still, me and my friends are pretty promiscuous (not as much as I'd like) and we've yet to contract any sort of STI or STD. Thank fook for condoms.
So now going back to that point that you made earlier, do you honestly believe that you "consumated your love", in a more authoritative manner than through marriage, with each, erm, female you fornicated with?
coheneran
06-11-2006, 02:49 PM
So now going back to that point that you made earlier, do you honestly believe that you "consumated your love", in a more authoritative manner than through marriage, with each, erm, female you fornicated with?
You mean am I in love with every person I ****?
Hababi
06-11-2006, 02:51 PM
You mean am I in love with every person I ****?
You were the one extolling the virtue of sex above marriage, not me.
What's going to happen when you get married and find out that your wife is only the fourth best sex partner you've ever had?
Answer: You're going to cheat on her.
PS My new nickname for you: the lecherous liberal
Why are you still on our nuts about this?
We've all made it clear that we respect your decision, so what's stopping you from doing the same?
My religion gave the world the Kama Sutra and epics of love like the Ramayana or the tales of Krishna. If you can follow your religion (what has it done in the name of love anyway besides spread AIDS in Africa and gave us a bunch of pedophilic priests :p?), why can't I follow mine?
You were the one extolling the virtue of sex above marriage, not me.
What's going to happen when you get married and find out that your wife is only the fourth best sex partner you've ever had?
Answer: You're going to cheat on her.
PS My new nickname for you: the lecherous liberal
lmao
You honestly do not understand women. Or men who aren't sexually repressed or averse for that matter.
My new nickname for you: the 40 year old virgin.
Hababi
06-11-2006, 02:59 PM
We've all made it clear that we respect your decision, so what's stopping you from doing the same?
It seems to me that what you're asking for is for me to say, "Well this is what I practice myself but there's nothing bad with your decision either." Well that's your viewpoint, not mine. I don't agree with it. I think that sexual promiscuity is wrong, morally. And it is less healthy than abstinence, factually, regardless of whatever junk you want to throw out.
Or even better, what's going to happen when you can't please your poor wife because you're so inexperienced/awkward?
Answer: She's going to cheat on you.
And then you're going to go nuts and ban the whole forum >:[
It seems to me that what you're asking for is for me to say, "Well this is what I practice myself but there's nothing bad with your decision either." Well that's your viewpoint, not mine. I don't agree with it. I think that sexual promiscuity is wrong, morally. And it is less healthy than abstinence, factually, regardless of whatever junk you want to throw out.
You're in the same boat as us apparently if your wife cheats on you and you have no idea about it.
Unlike you, I know my girlfriend won't cheat on me and I won't cheat on her.
And in terms of health, I guess you could always read this and then dismiss it as more pseudoscience. (http://www.forbes.com/2003/10/08/cz_af_1008health.html)
Queens University is one of the most highly regarded research institutions out there though :-\
coheneran
06-11-2006, 03:04 PM
You were the one extolling the virtue of sex above marriage, not me.
What's going to happen when you get married and find out that your wife is only the fourth best sex partner you've ever had?
Answer: You're going to cheat on her.
PS My new nickname for you: the lecherous liberal
I don't find marriage that attractive, but I can see why some people do.
Back to my promiscuity; I don't sleep with just anyone who catches my eye, and I'm not shallow about the people I sleep with.
As for cheating; never cheated on anyone, not planning to, because I don't like being in a monogamous relationship. The whole concept of only allowed to be in love with one person at a time is silly to me, since people have shown a capacity to be in love with a number of people at once. I take the hippie approach to this: Spread the love. I wouldn't cheat on someone because I wouldn't want to be in a relationship where I'd consider myself cheating if I was with someone else. The paranoia of being cheated on comes from insecurities about oneself.
If I was ever in a state of mind in which I'd feel that my partner is the person I want to be with until I die, I wouldn't give two flying ****s whether they gave a good blowjob.
Knifeboy
06-11-2006, 03:05 PM
And it is less healthy than abstinence, factually
That's not true, unless you masturbate... Never ejaculating is very unhealthy
Iskandar
06-11-2006, 03:06 PM
What's going to happen when you get married and find out that your wife is only the fourth best sex partner you've ever had?
Answer: You're going to cheat on her.
Not really. That can be remedied with practice. :p
Hababi
06-11-2006, 03:07 PM
Or even better, what's going to happen when you can't please your poor wife because you're so inexperienced/awkward?
You can't comprehend that carnal pleasures don't drive everyone's thinking. :eek: Shocking, I know! Now, they seem to drive Coheneran's, which is why I made that assesement of his future fidelity, or lack there of. With that mindset, unless his wife is the best lay of his life, he's going to cheat.
Hey, at least I didn't say he was going to become a rapist or something of the sort :)
As for your link, I could easily find a dozen articles to counter that, of the same quality, but I won't bother. You were trying to dodge the STD issue, but at least you've stopped doing that.
Hababi
06-11-2006, 03:09 PM
That's not true, unless you masturbate... Never ejaculating is very unhealthy
The sex drive is the only self satisfying one. It'll take care of itself, if one has the discipline to let it. Masturbation is wrong, too, but is much wiser than promiscuous sex. It isn't necessarily unhealthy (there's actually a study out saying that men who masturbate regularly reduce their risk of pancreas cancer), it just doesn't match up with Christian morals
coheneran
06-11-2006, 03:10 PM
And in terms of health, I guess you could always read this and then dismiss it as more pseudoscience. (http://www.forbes.com/2003/10/08/cz_af_1008health.html)
Queens University is one of the most highly regarded research institutions out there though :-\
"-Better teeth: Seminal plasma contains zinc, calcium and other minerals shown to retard tooth decay. Since this is a family Web site, we will omit discussion of the mineral delivery system. Suffice it to say that it could be a far richer, more complex and more satisfying experience than squeezing a tube of Crest--even Tartar Control Crest. Researchers have noted, parenthetically, that sexual etiquette usually demands the brushing of one's teeth before and/or after intimacy, which, by itself, would help promote better oral hygiene."
Hahahahaha!
You can't comprehend that carnal pleasures don't drive everyone's thinking. :eek: Shocking, I know! Now, they seem to drive Coheneran's, which is why I made that assesement of his future fidelity, or lack there of.
And you simply can't comprehend that maybe, just maybe your wife won't be pleased by your naive and tyro attempts in bed. It works both ways, Steve.
With that mindset, unless his wife is the best lay of his life, he's going to cheat.
Oh, so in your world, the person with whom you have the best sex with is the person you love?
What.
The.
****.
Love is more than just sex, Steve.
As for your link, I could easily find a dozen articles to counter that, of the same quality, but I won't bother. You were trying to dodge the STD issue, but at least you've stopped doing that.
I'm not promiscuous and neither is my girlfriend so I have nothing to worry about when it comes to STDs.
Go find me articles of that same quality right now, v-boy.
"-Better teeth: Seminal plasma contains zinc, calcium and other minerals shown to retard tooth decay. Since this is a family Web site, we will omit discussion of the mineral delivery system. Suffice it to say that it could be a far richer, more complex and more satisfying experience than squeezing a tube of Crest--even Tartar Control Crest. Researchers have noted, parenthetically, that sexual etiquette usually demands the brushing of one's teeth before and/or after intimacy, which, by itself, would help promote better oral hygiene."
Hahahahaha!
That part wasn't from the Queens University study :-P
Reaganista
06-11-2006, 03:12 PM
Masturbation is wrong, too, but is much wiser than promiscuous sex.
you'll go blind lol
what has it done in the name of love anyway besides spread AIDS in Africa and gave us a bunch of pedophilic priests
catholic schoolgirl uniforms are hott
catholic schoolgirl uniforms are hott
Oh damn...True :-D
Iskandar
06-11-2006, 03:14 PM
Masturbation is wrong, too, but is much wiser than promiscuous sex. It isn't necessarily unhealthy (there's actually a study out saying that men who masturbate regularly reduce their risk of pancreas cancer), it just doesn't match up with Christian morals
Show me where in either the Old or New Testaments there is a statement that prohibits or even discourages masturbation.
Are Christian morals based around sexual repression?
coheneran
06-11-2006, 03:15 PM
You can't comprehend that carnal pleasures don't drive everyone's thinking. :eek: Shocking, I know! Now, they seem to drive Coheneran's, which is why I made that assesement of his future fidelity, or lack there of. With that mindset, unless his wife is the best lay of his life, he's going to cheat.
So I'M driven by carnal pleasures? I've just been "extolling the virtues" of love and seeing past a person's looks, how am I going to cheat on someone just because I've had better sex? Like Dropper said, it can be worked on, and that's not even the issue. If I loved someone in a way that I'd want to be with them until I die, why would I care that they're not the best lay of my life? You've contradicted yourself.
Atomic Rain
06-11-2006, 03:15 PM
The sex drive is the only self satisfying one. It'll take care of itself, if one has the discipline to let it. Masturbation is wrong, too, but is much wiser than promiscuous sex. It isn't necessarily unhealthy (there's actually a study out saying that men who masturbate regularly reduce their risk of pancreas cancer), it just doesn't match up with Christian morals
Please, please, give a good reason for this
you don't spread anything, you don't hurt anyone, I really don't see how it's wrong.
Unless every sperm is sacred :rolleyes:
Hababi
06-11-2006, 03:17 PM
And you simply can't comprehend that maybe, just maybe your wife won't be pleased by your naive and tyro attempts in bed. It works both ways, Steve.
And you simply can't understand that not everyone thinks as you think they do. How many social conservatives do you know? Not counting the internets.
Oh, so in your world, the person with whom you have the best sex with is the person you love?
You're totally missing the point. Like, you're off in Bangladesh and the point is in Kansas.
you'll go blind lol
No, I don't believe that :p
It's not unhealthy, it's just un Christ-like.
Iskandar
06-11-2006, 03:19 PM
It's not unhealthy, it's just un Christ-like.
Humans aren't Christ-like.
There is nothing in the Bible that prohibits masturbation; if I were a Christian I'd still do it.
Hababi
06-11-2006, 03:20 PM
Show me where in either the Old or New Testaments there is a statement that prohibits or even discourages masturbation.
There aren't any. But God makes clear that He gave you sperm to procreate, and that if you use them outside of marriage, it's wrong.
Some Christians don't think masturbation is wrong. And not just pseudo Christians, some Bible believing people believe that. Hey, maybe they're right. It's one thing that I won't say for 100% certain. But here's the bottom line: Do you think that Jesus masturbated? I don't. And, we're supposed to be Christ like in our life style. I don't see how that involves masturbation.
coheneran
06-11-2006, 03:21 PM
My biggest problem with morality is that it is an outside influence. Ethics, on the other hand, are an individual set of reactions to our take on the world. Morality is someone else's ethics.
Hababi
06-11-2006, 03:21 PM
Are Christian morals based around sexual repression?
No.
:p
And you simply can't understand that not everyone thinks as you think they do. How many social conservatives do you know? Not counting the internets.
That's the exact point I'm making about you. Your wife might not end up feeling the same way about sex and pleasure as you, and that's why she might cheat on you. Of course, she might be just as inept and naive too. I'm just putting the possibilities out there.
I know quite a few social conservatives, but if you want to talk about anecdotal evidence:
How can you talk about something so complex as sex without even going to third base? :p
You're totally missing the point. Like, you're off in Bangladesh and the point is in Kansas.
It's quite convenient for you to tell me that and nothing else.
To use your (completely never recycled) "witticisms:"
Don't be silly!
No.
:p
Why is it that the freakiest porn and fetishes are found in one of the most sexually repressed countries (America)? :p
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.