Free Love

[SantaDuJuan]

Oh, hello.

Is sex secrade to you?
I'm asking because well I'm in highschool, I see alot of girls I'd like to do my thing with. But then I think to myself. It'd be my first time. I want to remebmer as something good. I don't want to spoil all the ones after it.

But then sometimes, I just don't care.

So I'm asking all you philosophical joes, is sex a sacrade to you?
Be serious, explain your answers.


And to me it's more person than sacrade, but also something you shouldn't just have with someone for sexaul pleasure.

[Give me Beer]

Sacred!

I won't claim my English is perfect, but seriously, "sacrade?"

Sorry. :)

[666Ozzfan]

I think that especially your first time should be with someone you know, like and trust. i.e. - not some random you pick up from the bar down the road. Get to know the person and let it develop. And also, I'd advise that it not be a result of getting drunk.

To me, sex is great. It is the most fun thing you can do with your physical body. It's open, it's innocent (depending on the person/s involved), its the most amazing way to show your love for a person, for yourself, and for life. I love sex, it is a wonderful experience. I think it's funny that people would rather see a man dying without a whimper on the battlefield, than a woman making love with a whimper in the street.

And the best way to express sexual energy?

Lovingly. Openly. Playfully. Joyfully. Outrageously. Passionately. Sacredly. Romantically. Humorously. Spontaneously. Touchingly. Creatively. Unabashedly. Sensually. And most of all.... Frequently.

So yes, in the sense of sex as an act of love for self, another and life, I see it as sacred. Not in the sense of "no sex before marriage" type of sacred.

Hope this helps :D

[sexymuffin]

it doesn't matter who you have sex with the first time because it's never as good as the sex you have afterwards

srsly

[666Ozzfan]

But I view it the way that you wouldn't really like to feel ashamed of having sex with someone you didn't like. And depending on age, there's the rumours and such that aren't fun to deal with. It may not be as good, but wouldn't you want it to be with someone you feel comfortable with? Less chance of embarrasment in the bedroom for your first time that way as well.

[Alf™]

That's true, not many people want to have sex with the town bicycle and then have her going round spreading rumours bout you.

[PerpetualBurn]

And the best way to express sexual energy?

Lovingly. Openly. Playfully. Joyfully. Outrageously. Passionately. Sacredly. Romantically. Humorously. Spontaneously. Touchingly. Creatively. Unabashedly. Sensually. And most of all.... Frequently.

As disgustingly cheesy as this sounds, I can't help but wonder where your balls went.

Sometimes sex can be rough and ready. And that's fantastic.

Some girls just need a spanking.

[666Ozzfan]

As disgustingly cheesy as this sounds, I can't help but wonder where your balls went.

Sometimes sex can be rough and ready. And that's fantastic.

Some girls just need a spanking.

You mean creatively and outrageously?

I'm pretty sure that covers that. Including all things kinky. Ever strapped a girl down?

[PerpetualBurn]

Oh so you were attempting to look like an experienced lover but actually being intentionally cheesy and vague okay.

[666Ozzfan]

You think I'm not? I've definitely had my share!

[PerpetualBurn]

And the internet is the best place to tell people about this. Because everyone is honest here.

On topic: Sex is very much not sacred. It is an act that can be physically pleasurable but is also very much an emotive act when performed within a monogamous relationship. Either way, I find it hard to believe that anyone is repressed enough to think that there's something wrong with a quick shag.

[666Ozzfan]

No, nothing wrong with it

[Der Übermensch]

Its nice to have a good first time, but I think most people don't, or a least people I know. Seriously, I'm practicly the only person I know who doesn't have a story about how godawful it was.

[AmericanWeiner]

I've been toying with the idea of "quick shags" but I'm in that limbo where I've had one girl so I still feel kinda pure because it was a close relationship and I've never done a "quick shag" but on the other hand I'm not a virgin so my hormones are telling me "hey man, she wants it. give it. you're not a virgin anymore."

if it doesn't happen before my next serious relationship it'll probably happen before (if) I get into a third one.

Its nice to have a good first time, but I think most people don't, or a least people I know. Seriously, I'm practicly the only person I know who doesn't have a story about how godawful it was.

Mine was actually really good.

[peeted]

i don't know about sex being sacred but i know i regret loosing my virginity to someone i don't really like, your first time should be with someone you realy like and trust. Im all for quickies but not for a 1st time.

[dirtypirate337]

I think it's very much context sensitive. It can be genuinely sacred and even religious to some people. But to others it can be nothing but a good time. Theres nothing wrong with either way, it just depends on the people.

[neal_672]

Mine was actually really good.


Ditto.

I'm on the same lines as everyone else here i think, the first time is easier if it's with someone you love and care about, i've only ever had one person (and am still with her as it happens) but i wouldn't care if we ever broke up about sleeping around because it's no longer a big deal to me except with this one person.

[ATC]

Wow, what a bunch of hippies.
Sex is not sacred. Sex is just plain sex. It does not mean the same thing to everyone nor should it. As for your first time, it's not any more important than your 362nd. The ones you remember are ones which are memorable for extrinsic reasons (like after the best show ever, at her folk's in the basement etc) That said, my first time sucked. I was drunk as hell and kept slipping out. It was memorable for that reason, I guess.

[AmericanWeiner]

Perhaps you shouldn't project your experiences on others?

[Mr. Ron]

I believe sex is a sacred thing, because all sorts of emotions are tied into it. So, I think it shouldn't be taken very lightly, since things could go wrong.

[Chrysostom]

Sex isn't sacred, it's animalistic. It's the most animal thing we humans get up to. It's that simple. People seem to me to impose far too many outside emotions etc. on to something which at the end of the day is about making babies. It has no deeper meaning.

[Mr. Ron]

Sex isn't sacred, it's animalistic. It's the most animal thing we humans get up to. It's that simple. People seem to me to impose far too many outside emotions etc. on to something which at the end of the day is about making babies. It has no deeper meaning.

Have you ever made love before? making love and having sex are two different things, man.

[Trojan Kahn]

Oh, hello.

Is sex secrade to you?
I'm asking because well I'm in highschool, I see alot of girls I'd like to do my thing with. But then I think to myself. It'd be my first time. I want to remebmer as something good. I don't want to spoil all the ones after it.

But then sometimes, I just don't care.

So I'm asking all you philosophical joes, is sex a sacrade to you?
Be serious, explain your answers.


And to me it's more person than sacrade, but also something you shouldn't just have with someone for sexaul pleasure.

what the hell does secrade mean?

[Chrysostom]

Have you ever made love before? making love and having sex are two different things, man.

Perhaps I'm a cynic but I don't see that they are. The phrase 'make love' seems to me to be something people have invented and used either to make themselves feel better when confronted with the knowledge they're engaging in an animalistic act, or its used to impose greater meaning on something which doesn't have a greater meaning.

[lfantwister]

Perhaps I'm a cynic but I don't see that they are. The phrase 'make love' seems to me to be something people have invented and used either to make themselves feel better when confronted with the knowledge they're engaging in an animalistic act, or its used to impose greater meaning on something which doesn't have a greater meaning.

Sex creates deeper connections with people. Apparently for some people the connections aren't deeper than physical pleasure, but I guess for other's its a emotional climax as well.

But personally I'm with Chysostom on this one

[SantaDuJuan]

what the hell does secrade mean?

Is there reason you didn't answer the question when and instead corrected my spelling?

Anyways, thanks guys for resssponding.

[666Ozzfan]

Isn't it such a delicious way to reproduce? Best way I can think of - beats exchanging DNA the way some bacteria do....

[Secumbro]

I think that especially your first time should be with someone you know, like and trust. i.e. - not some random you pick up from the bar down the road. Get to know the person and let it develop. And also, I'd advise that it not be a result of getting drunk.

To me, sex is great. It is the most fun thing you can do with your physical body. It's open, it's innocent (depending on the person/s involved), its the most amazing way to show your love for a person, for yourself, and for life. I love sex, it is a wonderful experience. I think it's funny that people would rather see a man dying without a whimper on the battlefield, than a woman making love with a whimper in the street.

And the best way to express sexual energy?

Lovingly. Openly. Playfully. Joyfully. Outrageously. Passionately. Sacredly. Romantically. Humorously. Spontaneously. Touchingly. Creatively. Unabashedly. Sensually. And most of all.... Frequently.

So yes, in the sense of sex as an act of love for self, another and life, I see it as sacred. Not in the sense of "no sex before marriage" type of sacred.

Hope this helps :D

I'd have to agree to the last emoticon.

[Scythe404]

I think that especially your first time should be with someone you know, like and trust. i.e. - not some random you pick up from the bar down the road. Get to know the person and let it develop. And also, I'd advise that it not be a result of getting drunk.

To me, sex is great. It is the most fun thing you can do with your physical body. It's open, it's innocent (depending on the person/s involved), its the most amazing way to show your love for a person, for yourself, and for life. I love sex, it is a wonderful experience. I think it's funny that people would rather see a man dying without a whimper on the battlefield, than a woman making love with a whimper in the street.

And the best way to express sexual energy?

Lovingly. Openly. Playfully. Joyfully. Outrageously. Passionately. Sacredly. Romantically. Humorously. Spontaneously. Touchingly. Creatively. Unabashedly. Sensually. And most of all.... Frequently.

So yes, in the sense of sex as an act of love for self, another and life, I see it as sacred. Not in the sense of "no sex before marriage" type of sacred.

Hope this helps :D

Ah, young love. To me, this kind of mindset is the main difference between your early romances and your later, adult world ones. Your earliest are always innocent and pure; you're not yet jaded by experiences in the world and the harsher aspects of long-term relationships, and are at a stage in life where the maddening insincerities that our society seems to necessitate have not yet become part of your everyday life.

Two people can live completely for one another because at this point in their lives they're still growing and becoming who they are, and that other person often becomes embedded directly into that emotional growth.

When you're older, you enter a relationship with the burden of all the experiences you've ever had in your life. All the heartbreak, distrust, anger, regret and frustration that is the inevitable downside to all those other great emotions. And the other person in your relationship brings their burdens with them too. Their experiences have built walls around them that may never be broken down. People often don't think very hard about concepts like trust and love, and even in the longest relationships you or your partner may just ignorantly and casually stroll through, never even really knowing each other.

The sexual aspects of both stages of your life are reflected by the kinds of relationships you have in them. Sex can be a fun, purely physical and flighty kind of thing done for the hell of it, it can be a compulsory part of a trite relationship, or an expression of deep passion between two people who really understand each other.

It's what you make of it, and how you deal with your partners; what they mean to you and you to them. It's only a means to an end, whether that end be pleasure, process or love. The best advice? Love a lot, and love often, and if you're lucky enough to find someone with a similar philosophy, you'll have yourself some great romps and a few things more valuable, too.

Sex isn't sacred, it's animalistic. It's the most animal thing we humans get up to. It's that simple. People seem to me to impose far too many outside emotions etc. on to something which at the end of the day is about making babies. It has no deeper meaning.

That's a depressingly bleak outlook. Hopefully you'll find someone someday who'll change your mind. :)

[MattSharpIsCool]

I've been with an ex-girlfriend, and I've done the one-time thing once. I think its safe to say they were completely different.

Yes, when it boils down to it, sex is just how creatures reproduce. But there are so many emotions connected with it at the same time. Whilst doing someone, you release a chemical, as do they, that forms a connection. If it was a purely animal act, do you think you would be able to remember who your first was 70 years later?

When I was with the ex, it was an important thing. It was an incredible way to show each other how we felt. When I put it in the other girl, it was really nothing, just a good time.

I pretty much agree with everyone else. Your first time is something special. Try and make it count for something.

[sexymuffin]

I've been with an ex-girlfriend, and I've done the one-time thing once. I think its safe to say they were completely different.

Yes, when it boils down to it, sex is just how creatures reproduce. But there are so many emotions connected with it at the same time. Whilst doing someone, you release a chemical, as do they, that forms a connection. If it was a purely animal act, do you think you would be able to remember who your first was 70 years later?

When I was with the ex, it was an important thing. It was an incredible way to show each other how we felt. When I put it in the other girl, it was really nothing, just a good time.

I pretty much agree with everyone else. Your first time is something special. Try and make it count for something.

that's all society's influence.

[I Am a Hat]

sex doesn't count if there were no 'feelings' and you don't talk about it

[RandyfromPennywise]

I find it hard to believe that anyone is repressed enough to think that there's something wrong with a quick shag.

Actually, I am... For better or worse.

[thirdeyeblindislit]

Everybody has urges, it's normal. And it is kinda wierd to write a thread like this but whatever. :lol:

Well I think that sex is 100% sacred. And not only your first time, but most if not all times afterward. If you just decided to, in your words, "do your thing" with some random girl (or boy I guess) without any feelings, than you will end up hurting somebody, and human emotions are really nothing to play with.

Hope that helps. :thumb:

[lfantwister]

Well I think that sex is 100% sacred. And not only your first time, but most if not all times afterward. If you just decided to, in your words, "do your thing" with some random girl (or boy I guess) without any feelings, than you will end up hurting somebody, and human emotions are really nothing to play with.
I would disagree. If you don't attach emotional connections to every sexual act you'll find it's a fun thing to do that doesn't always have to have deep underlying feelings.

[Chrysostom]

That's a depressingly bleak outlook. Hopefully you'll find someone someday who'll change your mind. :)

No it isn't. It's a realistic outlook. If these emotions that people attach to sex were a natural part of it and not something we impose upon it, then no one would get bored with their regular squeeze and go and have an affair.

[FA]

Sacred!

I won't claim my English is perfect, but seriously, "sacrade?"

Sorry. :)

not to mention he said "is sex a sacrade to you?"

And to answer you question...not really, but if I ever fall in love for real or become married.....it might be.

[Scythe404]

No it isn't. It's a realistic outlook. If these emotions that people attach to sex were a natural part of it and not something we impose upon it, then no one would get bored with their regular squeeze and go and have an affair.

Well, of course it's something we impose upon it. I'm sorry, but that's what we call culture. That's how we live our lives anywhere on this planet. That's how anyone anywhere in existence lives their lives. A word has meaning because we give it meaning, and because people believe in that meaning.

How do we learn to eat, dress, and speak? Our culture. We may have drives that tell us when we're hungry or horny, but that doesn't explain to us how we go about getting and properly eating that food, or how we go about getting laid. It all has to do with our culture, and what our culture believes concerning that act; they eat and screw differently in say, India, because they believe different things than us.

Our culture attaches emotion to sex because of its traditional and largely religiously rooted respect for human life, and the recognition of the trust people require of one another to let each other in to each other physically. We give true, passionate lovemaking its credence because of what it symbolizes: A deep, emotional connection between two people who love and trust each other.

Just the same way we give the act of belching its credence as impolite and disgusting. Now, you may choose to view sex differently, of course, but that doesn't mean other people don't and, thus, can't have a profound emotional experience with it. You chose your outlook, and compared to the joy and passion I personally believe comes with true lovemaking because of the emotions it represents, I see that outlook as pretty damn bleak, sir.

[Reaganista]

we should stop treating sex like it's magical or secret or whatever

people should be ****ing in the streets

[666Ozzfan]

^^^yes, agreed. Its the most fun you can really have with your body, without taking drugs etc.

I think its stupid that people are happy to allow kids to see naked violence on TV, but hide naked love making.

[Chameleon]

Perhaps I'm a cynic but I don't see that they are. The phrase 'make love' seems to me to be something people have invented and used either to make themselves feel better when confronted with the knowledge they're engaging in an animalistic act, or its used to impose greater meaning on something which doesn't have a greater meaning.


You're basically saying that humans don't feel emotion based on communication. Which is like saying people don't actually enjoy other peoples' company, since if you feel emotionally connected to somebody (who you love) and you have sex with them, it just heightens the experience.

There's nothing wrong with one night stands, as long as she's up for it, but I think it's pointless to deny that there can be deeper connections.


Also, about people who are making the "animalistic" argument... we are not animals, we are conditioned against behaving like animals, as in the wild, we would murder. Sex would effectively be rape, since there would be no such thing as consent. There would basically be no society, so I wish people would stop using that ridiculous argument to justify their behaviour.

[lfantwister]

There's nothing wrong with one night stands, as long as she's up for it, but I think it's pointless to deny that there can be deeper connections.
123

[Reaganista]

I think its stupid that people are happy to allow kids to see naked violence on TV, but hide naked love making.
i think kids should be exposed to both
constantly

[PerpetualBurn]

Actually, I am... For better or worse.

Consult a therapist.

[-1up!-]

Yes I've always thought ridiculous how violence is shown to kids with no restraint whatsoever but sex is still taboo in front of kids. It's the very basis of our instinct, our most profound nature, and we hide it to our siblings...Wtf.

[Imagination]

Yes I've always thought ridiculous how violence is shown to kids with no restraint whatsoever but sex is still taboo in front of kids. It's the very basis of our instinct, our most profound nature, and we hide it to our siblings...Wtf.
Yeah... pretty complicated. If given the choice of presenting violence or sex to my kid I would choose violence. I can't think of the words to correctly explain why. I gtg bye.

[666Ozzfan]

How can we hide one of our most natural "processes", and natural "things". Sex is very natural and very enjoyable. As is the naked body. It's ok for kids to see dragon-ball-z for example, with alot of violence, but let them see dad naked, and he's a pervert/paedophile. Why not tell them what sex is when they ask? When my mother was pregnant with my little brother, they said "Mum's got a baby in her tummy" Of course I ask how it got there. A simple question. I got a simple answer, on the basics of intercourse. I was 2 years old. Am I screwed up now because of it? NO! I believe I ended up better for it.

The time to tell a kid about sex, is when they ask. To lie about it and hide the fact is to say to the child "sex is bad and shameful" but obviously makes them more curious. And by the time the parents think it's time, the child already knows, because of what friends have told him/her at school.

[Chrysostom]

we should stop treating sex like it's magical or secret or whatever

Exactly.

[Africa]

Is this free love confined to intercourse? There is also free intangible love, and there are restrictions on that as well, though varied in different cultures.

we should stop treating sex like it's magical or secret or whatever

If we didn't make love out to be sacred and magic then we would feel less need to restrict ourselves to certain individuals we love to share the sacred magic with... lol

[666Ozzfan]

Go baltane (31st Oct for southern hemisphere dwellers - 6 months later for you people on the top side of the world). Basically a big sextival - anyone you want. It's a pagan thing.

[RandyfromPennywise]

Consult a therapist.

Yeah, ah, nah.

[Reaganista]

If we didn't make love out to be sacred and magic then we would feel less need to restrict ourselves to certain individuals we love to share the sacred magic with... lol
we should feel less need to restrict ourselves

[Africa]

we should feel less need to restrict ourselves

Lol you want kids to feel less restricted and experience free sexual love. That's kind of sick you know.

[PerpetualBurn]

Yeah, ah, nah.

Well then you could stop acting like an idiot and try to justify your position.

[Reaganista]

Lol you want kids to feel less restricted and experience free sexual love. That's kind of sick you know.
you're kind of repressed you know

[anticipatious_phoenix]

Oh, hello.

Is sex secrade to you?
I'm asking because well I'm in highschool, I see alot of girls I'd like to do my thing with. But then I think to myself. It'd be my first time. I want to remebmer as something good. I don't want to spoil all the ones after it.

But then sometimes, I just don't care.

So I'm asking all you philosophical joes, is sex a sacrade to you?
Be serious, explain your answers.


And to me it's more person than sacrade, but also something you shouldn't just have with someone for sexaul pleasure.

Make sure it is with someone special. Like your girlfriend. Wait around for it, because the time will beright for you at some point. My ex-fiance and I met in high school. I was his first, and he was 17. Honestly, I liked that better than anyone after him. I am sad he wasn't my first, and I was really unhappy with my first time, so I usually tell everyone he was mine when they ask. Don't just throw yourself at people, because that's no good. In the meantime, hold it special to you and don't worry. :)

[Africa]

you're kind of repressed you know

You kind of quote people without their usernames in their quote you know.

[Iskandar]

Lol you want kids to feel less restricted and experience free sexual love. That's kind of sick you know.
I want people to be free to make their own choices about things like this.

[Africa]

Even if they're like nine years old?

[Iskandar]

Even if they're like nine years old?
If they're free to choose and understand what it is through education by school and parent, they'll do things like that when they're ready. So, no, nine-year olds probably wouldn't because they wouldn't be ready.

[Mr. Ron]

If they're free to choose and understand what it is through education by school and parent, they'll do things like that when they're ready. So, no, nine-year olds probably wouldn't because they wouldn't be ready.

yeah....I was about to say....

[Africa]

If they're free to choose and understand what it is through education by school and parent, they'll do things like that when they're ready. So, no, nine-year olds probably wouldn't because they wouldn't be ready.
So you would approve if they were ready? (at nine yrs old) Given they had proper education.

[sexymuffin]

So you would approve if they were ready? (at nine yrs old) Given they had proper education.

sure why not

[Africa]

sure why not

Lolz hmm idk... think about your future kids.

"Daddy... today me and Jimmy went down to the creek and he smacked his ballz across my face and we did the nasty."

or something like that, I wouldn't want my kid telling me that.

[Iskandar]

Lolz hmm idk... think about your future kids.

"Daddy... today me and Jimmy went down to the creek and he smacked his ballz across my face and we did the nasty."

or something like that, I wouldn't want my kid telling me that.
But I doubt that would happen until they were extremely well-developed and mature for their age.

[sexymuffin]

Lolz hmm idk... think about your future kids.

"Daddy... today me and Jimmy went down to the creek and he smacked his ballz across my face and we did the nasty."

or something like that, I wouldn't want my kid telling me that.

yeah because it wouldn't happen

but if there were nine year olds with the physical and mental maturity to have sex, then why not?

[beso negro]

Go baltane (31st Oct for southern hemisphere dwellers - 6 months later for you people on the top side of the world). Basically a big sextival - anyone you want. It's a pagan thing.

Where is this?

[Iskandar]

yeah because it wouldn't happen

but if there were nine year olds with the physical and mental maturity to have sex, then why not?
Win. Maturity should be the primary factor if they're physically able, not age.

[Chrysostom]

Win. Maturity should be the primary factor if they're physically able, not age.

Plus the inclination to engage in such an act in the first place, which doesn't come until puberty around the age of 12, so fears of premature "birds and bees" lectures are, perhaps, groundless.

[Africa]

yeah because it wouldn't happen

but if there were nine year olds with the physical and mental maturity to have sex, then why not?

What nine year olds would have both of those maturities? It's basically impossible and therefore nine year old fornication is wrong.

[sexymuffin]

What nine year olds would have both of those maturities?

exactly why your point is stupid.

There are no nine year olds who could have healthy sex because they wouldn't want to number one, and number two their bodies wouldn't be ready for it.

[Iskandar]

What nine year olds would have both of those maturities? It's basically impossible and therefore nine year old fornication is wrong.
It doesn't matter that it's wrong because it won't happen. Nine year olds can barely comprehend the full implications of sex, let alone seriously desire to try it.

[Africa]

My point was just that little kids of age nine shouldn't be exposed to anything of the sort regardless of whether or not they can comprehend it, which most likely they cannot. And that there should be restrictions on "free love" for the sake of these kids.

[Iskandar]

My point was just that little kids of age nine shouldn't be exposed to anything of the sort regardless of whether or not they can comprehend it, which most likely they cannot. And that there should be restrictions on "free love" for the sake of these kids.
They should be educated on it if they're curious, in a manner reflecting their capabilities to understand.

[Africa]

Educated on it = increased probability of trying it out amirite? Shouldn't we wait just a bit? Shouldn't we teach them the sacred nature of it? Or just teach them the mere physical aspects of it, omitting that notion that a man and woman should love eachother and that they are not old enough to know about such things. Are you going to just teach little kids about free love and that having sex with anybody and everbody is okie dokie?

[Reaganista]

If they're free to choose and understand what it is through education by school and parent, they'll do things like that when they're ready. So, no, nine-year olds probably wouldn't because they wouldn't be ready.
this whole readiness thing is a bunch of bull****

if they know what sex is and they want to do it there's no moral reason for the state to stop them

[Africa]

It's pretty much agreed that nine year olds won't ever be ready, given that you know the brain doesn't stop growing for years later and they cannot possibly understand love at that point in their lives. So what the hell are you on about?

[Reaganista]

what the **** does your brain growing have to do with knowing what sex is and whether you want to do it or not?
you don't need to have reached the pinnacle of your development to make such a simple decision
just puberty. maybe
and 9 year olds reaching puberty is a bit of a stretch but it keeps getting earlier and earlier anyway

[Africa]

what the **** does your brain growing have to do with knowing what sex is and whether you want to do it or not?

I suppose it's just a coincidence that maturity increases as you age and your brain grows right?

you don't need to have reached the pinnacle of your development to make such a simple decision


Sex is a simple decision yes, get hard, stick it in, unleash the man juice, yeh simple process gotcha. Love is a little more complex. That's the predicament. You say **** love, have sex, separate the two. I say no love is important and a part of sex. Love is not understood by nine year olds and you can't argue that it is, therefore no understanding of love = nono sex for nine year olds. AND, even if they were freakishly and phenomenally mature, I still would say no sex for nine year olds because what if the bitch gets pregnant. Ever seen a nine year old mother? You think adults are bad about not having babies, hah. You're too liberal, pull your head out of your ***.

[sexymuffin]

I suppose it's just a coincidence that maturity increases as you age and your brain grows right?


Sex is a simple decision yes, get hard, stick it in, unleash the man juice, yeh simple process gotcha. Love is a little more complex. That's the predicament. You say **** love, have sex, separate the two. I say no love is important and a part of sex. Love is not understood by nine year olds and you can't argue that it is, therefore no understanding of love = nono sex for nine year olds. AND, even if they were freakishly and phenomenally mature, I still would say no sex for nine year olds because what if the bitch gets pregnant. Ever seen a nine year old mother? You think adults are bad about not having babies, hah. You're too liberal, pull your head out of your ***.

um that's all nice but that's still just your moral opinion. why should two people be in love before they have sex? Can you give me any objective reason?

[PerpetualBurn]

Sex is a simple decision yes, get hard, stick it in, unleash the man juice, yeh simple process gotcha. Love is a little more complex. That's the predicament. You say **** love, have sex, separate the two. I say no love is important and a part of sex. Love is not understood by nine year olds and you can't argue that it is, therefore no understanding of love = nono sex for nine year olds. AND, even if they were freakishly and phenomenally mature, I still would say no sex for nine year olds because what if the bitch gets pregnant. Ever seen a nine year old mother? You think adults are bad about not having babies, hah. You're too liberal, pull your head out of your ***.

It's nice to know that your balls are shrivelled and unused, but you actually don't need to be in love to have a good hard shag.

I hope that this useful bit of information will serve you well in your quest to overcome your sexual repression.

[666Ozzfan]

Where is this?

Wherever you want..... :thumb:

It's a celebration of life basically.

[Lupus]

Can you give me any objective reason?

I'll take this one.



No.

[ATM]

You're saying that kids should be completely sheltered from sex because they might attempt it, but wouldnt that same logic apply to all the violence that is on TV/in movies?

[-1up!-]

My point was just that little kids of age nine shouldn't be exposed to anything of the sort regardless of whether or not they can comprehend it, which most likely they cannot. And that there should be restrictions on "free love" for the sake of these kids.

Hide those morals we don't need to smell them.

[Reaganista]

I suppose it's just a coincidence that maturity increases as you age and your brain grows right?
hey
you didn't answer the question

Sex is a simple decision yes, get hard, stick it in, unleash the man juice, yeh simple process gotcha. Love is a little more complex. That's the predicament. You say **** love, have sex, separate the two. I say no love is important and a part of sex. Love is not understood by nine year olds and you can't argue that it is, therefore no understanding of love = nono sex for nine year olds. AND, even if they were freakishly and phenomenally mature, I still would say no sex for nine year olds because what if the bitch gets pregnant. Ever seen a nine year old mother? You think adults are bad about not having babies, hah. You're too liberal, pull your head out of your ***.
um you don't have to be in love to have sex

[-1up!-]

Educated on it = increased probability of trying it out amirite? Shouldn't we wait just a bit? Shouldn't we teach them the sacred nature of it? Or just teach them the mere physical aspects of it, omitting that notion that a man and woman should love each other and that they are not old enough to know about such things. Are you going to just teach little kids about free love and that having sex with anybody and everbody is okie dokie?

There is nothing sacred about sex, or about anything for that matter. Sex is first and foremost the satisfaction of basic instincts. Emotions are an additive, an option, a choice; but fundamentally, fornication is an animal thing.

I don't see how sex and love are not distinct things, as you imply. Why would teaching a kid the fundamentals of sex imply omitting that love exists and can be tied to sex?

What the sexually unrepressed and sensible mind will teach to a kid is not that, as you say, "it is okie dokie to have sex with anybody and everybody", but rather that there is nothing "not okay" about having sex with whom you want, when you want, given the two parties are willing and conscious of their acts.

Taking a moralistic, "sacred" approach to sex is a pre-60's train of thought.

[Africa]

The reason sex is sacred is because it is imbued with love and it is imbued with love to deter nine year olds from doing it. It's a nice a little thing our society has worked out and I say keep it that way, if it of its sacredness then wouldn't you suppose more nine year olds will do the nasty? And let's say that they won't do the nasty because no matter what they won't be ready, can you predict the monumental affect that the loss of sacredness will have on our society and its values?

[Chrysostom]

can you predict the monumental affect that the loss of sacredness will have on our society and its values?

Such as? Sex isn't seen as sacred by quite a large portion of the world's population already.

The reason sex is sacred is because it is imbued with love

Not always. Nor need it be.

it is imbued with love to deter nine year olds from doing it.

Um, no. On those occassions when it it based on love, it's down to the collective religious and moral inheritance of the world.

[Africa]

Yeah sex isn't really sacred in China and look at them.

[Chrysostom]

Yeah sex isn't really sacred in China and look at them.

Fair point. Previous post duly edited, but my point still stands.

[Africa]

Not sure what your point was.


Um, no. On those occassions when it it based on love, it's down to the collective religious and moral inheritance of the world.
This? Ambiguous.

On a side note:
http://www.global-artists.net/users/alkeholix/funny/cnn_bush.jpg
Pretty funny.

[-1up!-]

The reason sex is sacred is because it is imbued with love and it is imbued with love to deter nine year olds from doing it. It's a nice a little thing our society has worked out and I say keep it that way, if it of its sacredness then wouldn't you suppose more nine year olds will do the nasty? And let's say that they won't do the nasty because no matter what they won't be ready, can you predict the monumental affect that the loss of sacredness will have on our society and its values?

I thought it was settled in the last page... Nine year olds can hardly have sex because puberty has not likely been reached at that age. Kids don't have sex because they don't have the sexual urges, not because "it's imbued with love" or any moralistic bull****. Kids can't have sex because they're physically and chemically (hormone-wise) incapable of it, period.

Regardless of what age at which teens begin to have sex, if their body decided it was ready (through hormonal surges and the awakening of sexual needs), then by all means let them have it. There is no better judge on the body's readiness for sex than the body itself. Not you, nor me, nor society. Do you seriously think that in the long term, if we stopped hiding sex from our kids as if it was a sin, you'd see preteens ****ing everywhere on the streets?

And what, exactly, is wrong with China that would have anything to do with the importance of sex in Chinese culture?

[Africa]

I thought it was settled in the last page... Nine year olds can hardly have sex because puberty has not likely been reached at that age. Kids don't have sex because they don't have the sexual urges, not because "it's imbued with love" or any moralistic bull****. Kids can't have sex because they're physically and chemically (hormone-wise) incapable of it, period.

And what, exactly, is wrong with China that would have anything to do with the importance of sex in Chinese culture?


It doesn't matter that nine year olds aren't capable of it, they shouldn't be conditioned to do it the moment that they are ready, but that goes back to the issue of free love in general dealing with adults and free love. Kids taught that sex is completely separated from love diminishes sex to a form of recreation and makes the kids prone to doing it, and at younger ages.

Lolz sex in China is so widely accepted as not sacred that the country has an average estimate of two times more sexual parteners than the world average. They have to enact tax laws on birth to quell population growth. Some of their television programs are obscene.

Regardless of what age at which teens begin to have sex, if their body decided it was ready (through hormonal surges and the awakening of sexual needs), then by all means let them have it. There is no better judge on the body's readiness for sex than the body itself. Not you, nor me, nor society. Do you seriously think that in the long term, if we stopped hiding sex from our kids as if it was a sin, you'd see preteens ****ing everywhere on the streets?

When do you suppose they are mentally ready?

[-1up!-]

It doesn't matter that nine year olds aren't capable of it, they shouldn't be conditioned to do it the moment that they are ready

Why?

but that goes back to the issue of free love in general dealing with adults and free love. Kids taught that sex is completely separated from love diminishes sex to a form of recreation and makes the kids prone to doing it, and at younger ages.
1. Sex isn't "completely separated" from love but Sex isn't DEPENDANT on love. You see this in a very black-and-white way, which doesn't help.
2.What's wrong in kids prone to having sex at younger ages?

Lolz sex in China is so widely accepted as not sacred that the country has an average estimate of two times more sexual parteners than the world average.
So what?


They have to enact tax laws on birth to quell population growth.
I don't think tax laws on birth were created out of necessity but out of choice. China has the resources to feed a large population.

Some of their television programs are obscene.
That's your personal judgment and is irrelevant.


When do you suppose they are mentally ready?

You can hardly be mentally ready for sex without being physically ready for it. The physical and mental aspects go hand in hand in that case, because the developpement of the former transmits, through hormones, the ready signal to the latter.

[Africa]

1. Sex isn't "completely separated" from love but Sex isn't DEPENDANT on love. You see this in a very black-and-white way, which doesn't help.
2.What's wrong in kids prone to having sex at younger ages?
1. True
2. At younger ages they are not mature enough and you can't argue that little kids are mature enough, their brains aren't even fully grown for christ's sake. Not discounting life experiences you just can't argue that they're ready.
So what?
So what? Their population is rediculous. Are you not thinking economically? Are you only thinking about this sex thing on a "omgz free love hippy" level or what? Don't mean to insult just dramatically emphasizing a point.
I don't think tax laws on birth were created out of necessity but out of choice. China has the resources to feed a large population.
What are you talking about, China is a starving giant.
That's your personal judgment and is irrelevant.
Maybe, but wouldn't you consider late night Chinese television depicting a small chinese man having sex with the fat folds of an obese woman a bit obscene? Yes I've seen chinese television.
You can hardly be mentally ready for sex without being physically ready for it. The physical and mental aspects go hand in hand in that case, because the developpement of the former transmits, through hormones, the ready signal to the latter.
Physical and mental capabilities grow with eachother? Because I've seen nine year olds grow armpit hair and beards. Yeah, you're wrong about that.

[Mr. Ron]

But I doubt that would happen until they were extremely well-developed and mature for their age.

What percentage of anyone under 16 years old for that matter, is extremely well developed and informed?

[italic zero]

Love Is A Fist

[AmericanWeiner]

Fact: Right Wingers create their own problems-

If they'd let us liberals teach sex ed the right way, there'd be no problems with sex at 13 or 14.

And don't even think about bringing up abstinence training. No one listens to those zealots anyways.

[beso negro]

So what? Their population is rediculous. Are you not thinking economically? Are you only thinking about this sex thing on a "omgz free love hippy" level or what? Don't mean to insult just dramatically emphasizing a point.

Obviously those people must want children for some reason. These days, with the pill and all, it's hard to get pregnant accidentally.

Maybe, but wouldn't you consider late night Chinese television depicting a small chinese man having sex with the fat folds of an obese woman a bit obscene? Yes I've seen chinese television.

Ewww

[Africa]

If they'd let us liberals teach sex ed the right way, there'd be no problems with sex at 13 or 14.

Okay, besides the fact that it's been agreed that kids that young will not be ready for intercourse, try and imagine two thirteen year olds doing the nasty. I mean... he can barely hold a load and her vagina is bald with no hair and their voices havn't even developed yet so their sex sounds like little mice love making. I mean c'mon that's so depraved little kids having sex wtf? Pardon my slippery slope fallacy but what's next, thirteen year olds with adults? I mean if they're ready then they're ready and thirteen year olds are free game for old sickos right? Are you going to institute a law that only permits certain age groups to do the nasty?

Please... somebody exhibit some sort of intelligence here.

[PerpetualBurn]

Well, idiot, you're the one that's trying to establish the idea that all pre-pubescent kids are going to be knobbing each other left, right, and centre unless we hide all signs of sex from them.

It's kind of like saying that kids are going to turn into ninjas from watching Power Rangers.

It really isn't that big a deal.

[AmericanWeiner]

youre sick dude I dont want to imagine that

@africa

[Africa]

youre sick dude I dont want to imagine that

@africa

Lolz well you're advocating it, just painting the picture for you.
Well, idiot, you're the one that's trying to establish the idea that all pre-pubescent kids are going to be knobbing each other left, right, and centre unless we hide all signs of sex from them.

It's kind of like saying that kids are going to turn into ninjas from watching Power Rangers.

It really isn't that big a deal.

What? You're the ones saying it's alright for kids to do it at that age. Now you're argument has changed to "it's a fallacy that sexual acceptance will lead kids to have sex at early ages." I

Is it or isn't it bad for kids to engage in sexual acts at such young ages? let's not be argument shapeshifters here.

Lolz this argument makes me chuckle but not because of the visualizing little kids things here.

[PerpetualBurn]

Lol @ selective reading

[AmericanWeiner]

I'm not advocating anything besides appropriate sex ed, jackass

[666Ozzfan]

Just because a kid knows what sex is and knows how it's done (I knew when I was 2 yrs after asking how a baby got inside mum) doesn't mean they themselves are going to go on a sex rampage.

[PerpetualBurn]

What? You're the ones saying it's alright for kids to do it at that age. Now you're argument has changed to "it's a fallacy that sexual acceptance will lead kids to have sex at early ages." I

I really don't see how my argument can have changed considering that was my first post towards you. Moron.


Is it or isn't it bad for kids to engage in sexual acts at such young ages? let's not be argument shapeshifters here.

I'm not going to make a blanket statement. Individual circumstances are far more decisive.

Lolz this argument makes me chuckle but not because of the visualizing little kids things here.

Grow up, muppet. This is big boy talk.

[Africa]

I'm not advocating anything besides appropriate sex ed, jackass
Looks like you're advocating a little more than just appropriate sex ed:


If they'd let us liberals teach sex ed the right way, there'd be no problems with sex at 13 or 14.


I really don't see how my argument can have changed considering that was my first post towards you. Moron.

I was refering to the other people I'm arguing with, who coincidently have your same argument. Easy on the name calling, fag.


I'm not going to make a blanket statement. Individual circumstances are far more decisive.
Okay... provide one and we'll talk about it.


Grow up, muppet. This is big boy talk.
Lol I feel a little embarassed for you typing this.

[PerpetualBurn]

Yeah, don't quote me and the respond to everyone else in the thread bar me. That's retarded.

And in any instance in which a person is physically mature and mentally capable of informed consent, sex is fine.

[Africa]

And in any instance in which a person is physically mature and mentally capable of informed consent, sex is fine.
And that's definitely not at thirteen years old.

[sexymuffin]

Okay, besides the fact that it's been agreed that kids that young will not be ready for intercourse, try and imagine two thirteen year olds doing the nasty. I mean... he can barely hold a load and her vagina is bald with no hair and their voices havn't even developed yet so their sex sounds like little mice love making. I mean c'mon that's so depraved little kids having sex wtf? Pardon my slippery slope fallacy but what's next, thirteen year olds with adults? I mean if they're ready then they're ready and thirteen year olds are free game for old sickos right? Are you going to institute a law that only permits certain age groups to do the nasty?

Please... somebody exhibit some sort of intelligence here.

I was fourteen when I lost my virginity and there was no depravity involved


you're just ignorant.

[Africa]

I was fourteen when I lost my virginity and there was no depravity involved


you're just ignorant.
I don't get it, would you recommend everyone loose their virginity at fourteen? What are the benefits of that?

[Reaganista]

What percentage of anyone under 16 years old for that matter, is extremely well developed and informed?
um morality doesn't play percentages

[sexymuffin]

I don't get it, would you recommend everyone loose their virginity at fourteen? What are the benefits of that?

I would reccomend everyone have sex when they feel they're ready.

I was physically and emotionally ready to handle sex at fourteen and there really wasn't much anyone could do or say to convince me otherwise. When school preached abstinence to me I found health class to be a joke. Skewed facts, hyperbolized situations, it's all just a pathetic attempt to hide truth from kids because they think that kids can't handle it, when the truth is, they can.

As for the benefits, it felt good. What more does there need to be?

[Africa]

You must have been some 14 year old then, looking at my brother and sister, I say no, not even ready. And it should be the case that we live in a system adheres to this fact, not to the fact that there are a select few who are ready at such a young age. It's not like kids are being completely stopped from doing it at that age, I mean you did it. There just needs to be some conservative grounding (aka general guidelines or suggested behavior) and not a liberal dominance that promotes sex at a young age.

[Chrysostom]

You must have been some 14 year old then, looking at my brother and sister, I say no, not even ready.

Your siblings alone are hardly a representative sample of all early teens.

There just needs to be some conservative grounding (aka general guidelines or suggested behavior) and not a liberal dominance that promotes sex at a young age.

Why do you keep assuming the young 'uns will be at it like rabbits the minute they're told about sex? You have no grounds for saying that.

[sexymuffin]

You must have been some 14 year old then, looking at my brother and sister, I say no, not even ready. And it should be the case that we live in a system adheres to this fact, not to the fact that there are a select few who are ready at such a young age. It's not like kids are being completely stopped from doing it at that age, I mean you did it. There just needs to be some conservative grounding (aka general guidelines or suggested behavior) and not a liberal dominance that promotes sex at a young age.

1. your brother and sister =/= all 14 year olds
2. yes the amount of people ready at that age is low, which is why most people don't have sex that young
3. nobody is promoting sex at a young age. we're advocating education, not encouragement.

[Africa]

Why do you keep assuming the young 'uns will be at it like rabbits the minute they're told about sex? You have no grounds for saying that.

What makes you assume they won't? Or that teen pregnancy rate won't rise? Uniformed and immature adolescants are just as bad the uninformed in third world countries.

And overall, what is the point of promoting "free love" and advocating sex at younger ages for the physically and mentally capable. Are people (kids) being repressed by society not accepting sex at younger ages? What exactly are you arguing for here?we're advocating education, not encouragement.

Who are you typing on behalf of here? I'm not even sure what I'm arguing against anymore because AmericanWeiner was typing something about if Liberals could only teach sex ed 13 year olds could have sex no problem. Is he right? Isn't that what you're arguing for? Education so that the outcome is more capable-of-having-intercourse youth?

[I Am a Hat]

why does it matter if two people decide to have sex

[beso negro]

When you are 14 or 15 and you have sex, you feel like you are on the top of the world. Why deprive kids of this? Let the kids live.

The kids who grow up being deprived of life, are the ones who turn to rape and murder.

[Africa]

Lolz what are you guys like the forum idiots? And you manage to post at the same time what is there like a whistle or something that called you in here Lol? Funnyz.

[sexymuffin]

^no the idiot atm would be you :/


Who are you typing on behalf of here? I'm not even sure what I'm arguing against anymore because AmericanWeiner was typing something about if Liberals could only teach sex ed 13 year olds could have sex no problem. Is he right? Isn't that what you're arguing for? Education so that the outcome is more capable-of-having-intercourse youth?

No i'm arguing that we need to educate the younger crowd about sex without hiding things from them because we don't think they're mature enough to handle knowledge about sex. If thirteen year olds think they're mature enough to have sex, then i say let them, and there is nothing you can say that will objectively prove they're not ready for sex.

[Africa]

I see, well I'm pretty sure most thirteen year olds are just fine and happy about being oblivious to sex amirite? Why this liberal need to educate them about it?

[Mr. Ron]

When you are 14 or 15 and you have sex, you feel like you are on the top of the world. Why deprive kids of this? Let the kids live.

The kids who grow up being deprived of life, are the ones who turn to rape and murder.

Yeah, because ALL young kids who have sex feel great about it afterwards. Being young is confusing and complicated without sex alone. Not all young people click their heals and whistle a tune after their first time, even if they go into it with the mindset tha it's a good thing.

[sexymuffin]

^true, but that's something that occurs with any age group. Your first time at eighteen has just as much a possibility of being horrific as your first time at thirteen. There are plenty of people who will make mistakes regardless, that doesn't mean we need to preach to kids from the cradle that sex is a bad thing and only meant for two people who are married, because it's not.

I see, well I'm pretty sure most thirteen year olds are just fine and happy about being oblivious to sex amirite? Why this liberal need to educate them about it?

ugh because they have a right to not be clueless?

becuase just because people are happy being oblivious to something doesn't mean that that's a good thing.

unless you believe ignorance is a positive thing in society, then i suggest you revise your argument.

[Africa]

In some cases it is, people can't handle the truths about many things.

[sexymuffin]

In some cases it is, people can't handle the truths about many things.

so it's up to you to decide what people can and cannot handle?

[Africa]

so it's up to you to decide what people can and cannot handle?

No it's up to society and our pseudo-democracy what people can and cannot handle. And when we draw the line we don't draw a solid one, it's a line that people are more or less sprinkled around in terms of their values, but society dictates the line's general location. Over time the line is subject to a change in location, and in the case of this thread your argument calls for an overly dramatic and impossible change in location, at this point in time anyway. That's great that you guys are liberal visionaries, but society just isn't ready for your ideas about sexuality. But it is nice that you guys are here I mean I wouldn't want your voices to be snuffed out and all :)

[sexymuffin]

just because society isn't "ready" for proper sex education doesn't mean we need to compromise it. society will slowly learn how to accept these things.

otherwise you're proposing that someone has the authority to pick some arbitrary age when it's "right" to learn about sex, which is total crap.

[CarnageFairy]

First time I had sex I was drunk as ****.

And whoever said it gets better from there was right.

It's nice to have a steady partner. Once you get comfortable with each other the possibilities begin to open up, if you will, as it were, *nudge nudge wink wink* say no more.

[omgwtfboogie]

And the internet is the best place to tell people about this. Because everyone is honest here.

On topic: Sex is very much not sacred. It is an act that can be physically pleasurable but is also very much an emotive act when performed within a monogamous relationship. Either way, I find it hard to believe that anyone is repressed enough to think that there's something wrong with a quick shag.

Amen.

[RandyfromPennywise]

Well then you could stop acting like an idiot and try to justify your position.
I value sex highly enough to restrain myself from acting on my urges when there is a lack of meaning or feeling. For me, this means I don't like one-night stands. Further to this point I think that sex is often used for many of the wrong reasons, one of the main ones being superficially improving self-esteem.

I don't see how I was acting like an idiot, I actually thought your original comment was rather inane, but whatever.

[sexymuffin]

prove to me that it's wrong to have sex to superficially boost my self esteem.

[Reaganista]

In some cases it is, people can't handle the truths about many things.
bull****

[AmericanWeiner]

I see, well I'm pretty sure most thirteen year olds are just fine and happy about being oblivious to sex amirite? Why this liberal need to educate them about it?

lol are you some kind of joke?

imagine everyone was born with a gun sewn onto them

don't you think you'd want to teach them what it was and how to be safe with it?

OR WOULD THAT BE TOO LIBERAL

[Africa]

Lolz hey calm down dude don't overreact.

[Reaganista]

lol arguing on the internet is like competing in the special olmypics amirite

[Africa]

bull****
stfu!
lol arguing on the internet is like competing in the special olmypics amirite
Oh I'm sorry what were you saying?

[Reaganista]

stfu!
oh well in that case

[RandyfromPennywise]

prove to me that it's wrong to have sex to superficially boost my self esteem.

I see sex as something more than just a physical act, so for me I don't agree with having sex in order to boost one's self-esteem. That is to say that there is no "proof" as such; it is only opinion. If you see sex differently to me, you may not see anything wrong with using sex to boost self-esteem. Personally, I think it only further disrespects the person, diminishing self-worth and self-respect.

[AmericanWeiner]

stfu!


You should try arguing without profanity and name calling, you obviously don't the fundamentals of persuasion.

I'm laughing

[sexymuffin]

I see sex as something more than just a physical act, so for me I don't agree with having sex in order to boost one's self-esteem. That is to say that there is no "proof" as such; it is only opinion. If you see sex differently to me, you may not see anything wrong with using sex to boost self-esteem. Personally, I think it only further disrespects the person, diminishing self-worth and self-respect.

uh huh, but none of that really matters because it's all your opinion and nothing else.

[-1up!-]

No it's up to society and our pseudo-democracy what people can and cannot handle. And when we draw the line we don't draw a solid one, it's a line that people are more or less sprinkled around in terms of their values, but society dictates the line's general location. Over time the line is subject to a change in location, and in the case of this thread your argument calls for an overly dramatic and impossible change in location, at this point in time anyway. That's great that you guys are liberal visionaries, but society just isn't ready for your ideas about sexuality. But it is nice that you guys are here I mean I wouldn't want your voices to be snuffed out and all :)

Ridiculous. It's not up to society to decide what individuals can or cannot handle. They're perfectly able to make the choices.

What "society" do you talk about?, anyway? If you're arrogant enough to pretend knowing what society is ready for (or not) at least define what you mean when using the term.

[arsonist1029]

There are hookies downtown where I live. If your nice to them they give you freebies.

[Mr. Ron]

There are hookies downtown where I live. If your nice to them they give you freebies.

And std's.

[RandyfromPennywise]

uh huh, but none of that really matters because it's all your opinion and nothing else.

Ah, that's exactly what I said. The person asked me to "justify my position", thus I gave my opinion, relevant to me.

[arsonist1029]

And std's.

STDs aren't real. They are something religion made up.

[Mr. Ron]

STDs aren't real. They are something religion made up.

So those red, puss ridden welts on your dick are just Jesus kisses! I get it now!:)

[sexymuffin]

Ah, that's exactly what I said. The person asked me to "justify my position", thus I gave my opinion, relevant to me.

no, i told you to "prove" your position. Not justify it with subjective beliefs.

[Mr. Ron]

I think that people are very mistaken if they think sex is purely a physical thing that voids mental/emotional impact.

[sexymuffin]

I think that people are very mistaken if they think sex is purely a physical thing that voids mental/emotional impact.

well yeah i love the way sex feels and i love the curves of a woman but that doesn't mean i need to be 'in love' to have healthy sex.

[Mr. Ron]

well yeah i love the way sex feels and i love the curves of a woman but that doesn't mean i need to be 'in love' to have healthy sex.

I don't dispute that. What I am saying is, is that sex carries with it emotional impact with it, no matter how minor the sexual encounter is.

[sexymuffin]

I don't dispute that. What I am saying is, is that sex carries with it emotional impact with it, no matter how minor the sexual encounter is.

i disagree

[Mr. Ron]

i disagree

Hows that?

[I Am a Hat]

i disagree

well all that attraction and arousal and excitement building up and being released in a massive flood of pleasure and semen i would consider an emotion experience


i just disagree that its wrong to have that experience with someone when love is not involved.

[sexymuffin]

Hows that?

Get drunk and have sex and see how much emotion is involved

[Mr. Ron]

Get drunk and have sex and see how much emotion is involved

I bet there is quite a bit when you find out you have a virus or she's pregnant. I'm just not tlaking about DURING sex, but afterwards too.

[sexymuffin]

I bet there is quite a bit when you find out you have a virus or she's pregnant. I'm just not tlaking about DURING sex, but afterwards too.

and if she doesn't get pregnant and you don't get an std?

of course there are emotions afterwards, because you're always going to be feeling some sort of emotion in everything you do. Waking up may make you feel happy becuase now you get to face a new day, or maybe it makes you depressed, or maybe you feel apathetic towards it. people always feel things regardless of what they do, that doesn't make sex sacred

[I Am a Hat]

i don't see how the fact that emotions are involved is relevant to whether or not you should be in love and in a commited relationship

[Mr. Ron]

and if she doesn't get pregnant and you don't get an std?

of course there are emotions afterwards, because you're always going to be feeling some sort of emotion in everything you do. Waking up may make you feel happy becuase now you get to face a new day, or maybe it makes you depressed, or maybe you feel apathetic towards it. people always feel things regardless of what they do, that doesn't make sex sacred

I don't think it's sacred either. Just a powerful thing.

[sexymuffin]

I don't think it's sacred either. Just a powerful thing.

so is anything you do though if you look at it from the emotional impact point of view, because everything is going to carry emotional impact with it.

[Mr. Ron]

so is anything you do though if you look at it from the emotional impact point of view, because everything is going to carry emotional impact with it.

But somethings MORE than others. Such as sex.

[sexymuffin]

But somethings MORE than others. Such as sex.

the only reason sex affects us so much is becuase of the mixed views we're given about it. church tells us it's wrong outside of marraige, movies tell you it's alright to go a little crazy here and there, sex ed tells you it's foolish and ignorant to have sex as a teenager, so when you finally do have sex, you have to sit down and form your own opinion from there. Once you get passed that, sex is just sex. You feel good doing it, and sometimes when you do it with someone you love, you feel really good.

[Mr. Ron]

the only reason sex affects us so much is becuase of the mixed views we're given about it. church tells us it's wrong outside of marraige, movies tell you it's alright to go a little crazy here and there, sex ed tells you it's foolish and ignorant to have sex as a teenager, so when you finally do have sex, you have to sit down and form your own opinion from there. Once you get passed that, sex is just sex. You feel good doing it, and sometimes when you do it with someone you love, you feel really good.

Very true. But it's not that simple ALL the time.

[Africa]

Ridiculous. It's not up to society to decide what individuals can or cannot handle. They're perfectly able to make the choices.

What "society" do you talk about?, anyway? If you're arrogant enough to pretend knowing what society is ready for (or not) at least define what you mean when using the term.

Hehe you must not know how society works then.

[PerpetualBurn]

I value sex highly enough to restrain myself from acting on my urges when there is a lack of meaning or feeling. For me, this means I don't like one-night stands. Further to this point I think that sex is often used for many of the wrong reasons, one of the main ones being superficially improving self-esteem.

I don't see how I was acting like an idiot, I actually thought your original comment was rather inane, but whatever.

Well you're still acting like an idiot by telling me that you just don't like one-night stands.

The point was whether or not such a thing is actually wrongful when performed.

Sex is good fun, and people enjoy it, so really they might as well.

[PerpetualBurn]

Hehe you must not know how society works then.

Just because you hate freedom of information doesn't mean that you get to hide what should be publically available. This should be obvious.

[Africa]

Just because you hate freedom of information doesn't mean that you get to hide what should be publically available. This should be obvious.

I don't get to decide, society's moral majority does, how can you not see this?

[-1up!-]

Hehe you must not know how society works then.

No I have solid basics in sociology and can grasp the concept of society probably better than you can. Now stop avoiding the question and answer: what society are you referring to?

[Linkinbassist]

I think sex is a great fitness tool! It uses up vital calories, reduces the effects of headaches, lowers heart disease and its risks and is great if you suffer from disturbed sleep as it causes a sedative 10 times stronger than valium to enter the blood stream...

/Is a virgin

/sucks.

[-1up!-]

http://www.forbes.com/2003/10/08/cz_af_1008health.html

Those are plenty of reasons to **** all you want.

[Chrysostom]

http://www.forbes.com/2003/10/08/cz_af_1008health.html

Those are plenty of reasons to **** all you want.

Oh man, women have it sweet when it comes to sex. According to that article anyway.

[Africa]

No I have solid basics in sociology and can grasp the concept of society probably better than you can.
orly? Now stop avoiding the question and answer: what society are you referring to?
Our society, any society? Wtf are you talking about lolz?

[RockAndRoll]

:lol: I love this:

- 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.

[croniun]

Well you're still acting like an idiot by telling me that you just don't like one-night stands.

The point was whether or not such a thing is actually wrongful when performed.

Sex is good fun, and people enjoy it, so really they might as well.

So if something is fun and enjoyable we should do it regardless of what it is?

[-1up!-]

Our society, any society? Wtf are you talking about lolz?

So you think the Western world forms one massive block which you can call a society? You can't even describe what you refer to when talking about the concept. You have no credibility whatsoever :)

orly?

I can only conclude... YA RLY

So if something is fun and enjoyable we should do it regardless of what it is?

/quotes Dropper in the following post:

[Iskandar]

So if something is fun and enjoyable we should do it regardless of what it is?
If it does no harm, why not?

[Africa]

So you think the Western world forms one massive block which you can call a society? You can't even describe what you refer to when talking about the concept. You have no credibility whatsoever :)


U.S. society :)

[Mr. Ron]

If it does no harm, why not?

But if sex is not done in safe means?

[Iskandar]

But if sex is not done in safe means?
That's the choice of those who do it, isn't it?

(I am not entirely sure what you meant, though.)

[sexymuffin]

But if sex is not done in safe means?
then the fault is only that of the consenting individuals and no one else is hurt. We don't ban bungee jumping becuase some people screw up every once and a while.

[RandyfromPennywise]

no, i told you to "prove" your position. Not justify it with subjective beliefs.

Yeah actually you are right, I must have misread the post or something.

Proving a position would mean proving that it is the position (in this case, the position that I hold), and that is something that I can't do with you. And I can't prove to you that having sex to boost your self-esteem is wrong. I just think that it is, and as far as I am concerned, I am right.

[PerpetualBurn]

I don't get to decide, society's moral majority does, how can you not see this?

Because that's the world's most vacuous definition of morality ever offered. And because legisation should have nothing to do with morality anyway.

[PerpetualBurn]

So if something is fun and enjoyable we should do it regardless of what it is?

Well there's certainly no basis to argue that it's morally wrong.

And since a one-night-stand does no infringe on the rights of anyone, of course you should feel free to engage in the act.

That should be pretty obvious.

[Chameleon]

Yeah actually you are right, I must have misread the post or something.

Proving a position would mean proving that it is the position (in this case, the position that I hold), and that is something that I can't do with you. And I can't prove to you that having sex to boost your self-esteem is wrong. I just think that it is, and as far as I am concerned, I am right.

You are right, in the sense that you have your opinion. But for the purposes of reasonable and logical debate, you have to be able to clearly differentiate fact from opinion (morality is a subjective of opinion). It's courteous, and helpful, to point out that a specific thing is just your opinion, otherwise you'll never get anywhere.

For example, this discussion would have ended however many pages ago, if you'd just pointed out that "one-night-stands are wrong" is just your opinion, then people wouldn't have felt challenged, and they have every right to continue to argue.

After all, you don't have to justify your beliefs to anybody, so it's always enough just to outline your beliefs, and then discuss any factual issues.

[PerpetualBurn]

Opinions can be wrong.

In this case, his is.

[Chameleon]

Opinions can be wrong.

In this case, his is.

Nah, but thanks for playing.

[PerpetualBurn]

An opinion is simply something that a person holds to be true. It doesn't make sense to start saying that they can't be wrong.

[Chameleon]

An opinion is simply something that a person holds to be true. It doesn't make sense to start saying that they can't be wrong.

An opinion is more defined than that, it's an idea on a subjective matter. Sometimes things crossover and people are opinionated about facts, but I don't see any reason why you should tell this guy that his opinion on sex is wrong.

It's no more "universally unsubstantiated" than the belief that murder is wrong, if you know what I mean?

[PerpetualBurn]

Because he is taking an objective stance by saying that he believes that something is wrong. And it isn't wrong. He is.

And murder isn't wrong in a moral sense.

Opinions aren't necessarily subjective, and if they are then an opinion is wrong for making an objective stance on it.

To say "I like band X" would be fine. To say "Band X is good" whether you add some silly disclaimer about opinions or not, is wrong if there is no objective ground with which to think that.

[croniun]

Well there's certainly no basis to argue that it's morally wrong.

And since a one-night-stand does no infringe on the rights of anyone, of course you should feel free to engage in the act.

That should be pretty obvious.

What rights? Human rights, rights given by the government...?

[Chameleon]

Because he is taking an objective stance by saying that he believes that something is wrong. And it isn't wrong. He is.

And murder isn't wrong in a moral sense.

Opinions aren't necessarily subjective, and if they are then an opinion is wrong for making an objective stance on it.

To say "I like band X" would be fine. To say "Band X is good" whether you add some silly disclaimer about opinions or not, is wrong if there is no objective ground with which to think that.


Well that comes down to a matter of the English language. And since not everybody has a great grasp of the English language, perhaps when they say "Something is wrong", they just mean that they don't believe.

Murder is wrong, in some peoples' moral sense. Morals are entirely subjective, if you want to argue otherwise, please explain.

[-1up!-]

Because he is taking an objective stance by saying that he believes that something is wrong. And it isn't wrong. He is.

And murder isn't wrong in a moral sense.

Opinions aren't necessarily subjective, and if they are then an opinion is wrong for making an objective stance on it.

To say "I like band X" would be fine. To say "Band X is good" whether you add some silly disclaimer about opinions or not, is wrong if there is no objective ground with which to think that.

I don't agree. "I like band X" is an opinion and thus can't conform to the right/wrong alternative. "Band X is good" is rather a statement, but it concerns taste which is definitely subjective, so it's kind of awkward.

[RockAndRoll]

I don't agree. "I like band X" is an opinion and thus can't conform to the right/wrong alternative.
Well you could get it wrong, but it would be a sad statement about either your grasp of the english language or your own feelings if you were to.

[RandyfromPennywise]

You are right, in the sense that you have your opinion. But for the purposes of reasonable and logical debate, you have to be able to clearly differentiate fact from opinion (morality is a subjective of opinion). It's courteous, and helpful, to point out that a specific thing is just your opinion, otherwise you'll never get anywhere.

For example, this discussion would have ended however many pages ago, if you'd just pointed out that "one-night-stands are wrong" is just your opinion, then people wouldn't have felt challenged, and they have every right to continue to argue.

After all, you don't have to justify your beliefs to anybody, so it's always enough just to outline your beliefs, and then discuss any factual issues.
I appreciate your articulate response, even if it is a bit condescending. I actually never said "one-night-stands are wrong" anywhere in this thread. What I did say is that I am repressed enough to think that one-night-stands are wrong, I never actually said I think they are: I said I am repressed enough to potentially think that they are.

This is how I qualified that statement:

I value sex highly enough to restrain myself from acting on my urges when there is a lack of meaning or feeling. For me, this means I don't like one-night stands. Further to this point I think that sex is often used for many of the wrong reasons, one of the main ones being superficially improving self-esteem.

I doubt that I would ever say, unqualified, "one-night-stands are wrong", because I don't believe that. In most cases I don't agree with them, but my opinion is not '"one-night-stands are wrong", end of story'.

The reason that my words have been taken out of context is because Perpetual Burn (through no fault of his/her own) took it as though I was saying that I think that one-night-stands are wrong, whereas I was commenting on the fact that (in this issue) I am repressed... Repressed enough to believe that one-night-stands are wrong, not that I do.

My opinion is not "one-night-stands are wrong", it is: "I don't agree with the way most one-night-stands occur".

[Chameleon]

I appreciate your articulate response, even if it is a bit condescending. I actually never said "one-night-stands are wrong" anywhere in this thread. What I did say is that I am repressed enough to think that one-night-stands are wrong, I never actually said I think they are: I said I am repressed enough to potentially think that they are.

This is how I qualified that statement:



I doubt that I would ever say, unqualified, "one-night-stands are wrong", because I don't believe that. In most cases I don't agree with them, but my opinion is not '"one-night-stands are wrong", end of story'.

The reason that my words have been taken out of context is because Perpetual Burn (through no fault of his/her own) took it as though I was saying that I think that one-night-stands are wrong, whereas I was commenting on the fact that (in this issue) I am repressed... Repressed enough to believe that one-night-stands are wrong, not that I do.

My opinion is not "one-night-stands are wrong", it is: "I don't agree with the way most one-night-stands occur".

Ah I see, sorry for the misunderstanding.

Well most of my post still stands, i've seen Perpetual Burn attack peoples' rights to an opinion before. With what you've just told me, it makes most of my post even more valid, since the post itself was not even remotely about whether something is right or wrong, only whether people are allowed to believe that something is right or wrong.

And your believe is still: "And I can't prove to you that having sex to boost your self-esteem is wrong. I just think that it is, and as far as I am concerned, I am right."

So apply my post to that statement, as opposed to my original paraphrasing.

[Jon]

Absolutely One Night Stands are what its all about.

I've given up trying to compete with my sexgodmastah friend for amount of girls/week or whatever, because it gets boring and you lose some of the effect.

Also I've stopped doing his 'assignments' (ie he picks a random girl from his friends list and gives me a deadline to shag them) because I have some respect for women.

Also I am never ever having unprotected one night stands or orgies or whatever ever again. Always bring 8 condoms in one of my pockets :shifty:

[The Runner]

If two people are just looking for sex and are on the same page then I think that is fine. But using woman just to get into their pants is very low and such an asshole thing to do.

[RandyfromPennywise]

And your believe is still: "And I can't prove to you that having sex to boost your self-esteem is wrong. I just think that it is, and as far as I am concerned, I am right."

So apply my post to that statement, as opposed to my original paraphrasing.

Yeah I was being a bit arrogant there I guess.

I think a lot of the problems in this debate/thread are coming from the fact that there is little fact in anything on this topic. There is no 'proof' as such on the morality of one-night-stands (or anything "moral" for that matter I would have thought).

"Prove to me having sex to superficially boost self-esteem is wrong": What if someone is using sex to boost his/her self-esteem and therefore neglecting to address the causes of this low self-esteem? (I'm not giving any opinion on this, just posing the question because I am interested to hear sexymuffin's thoughts.)

[coheneran]

"Prove to me having sex to superficially boost self-esteem is wrong": What if someone is using sex to boost his/her self-esteem and therefore neglecting to address the causes of this low self-esteem? (I'm not giving any opinion on this, just posing the question because I am interested to hear sexymuffin's thoughts.)

I know you only want sexymuffin's thoughts, but tough:

Using sex to temporarily (I've never heard of or seen a case in which someone's self-esteem is permanently, as far as that word can be used in human context, improved) boost your self-esteem isn't morally wrong, since morality is to do with human social consequences, not individual consequences (ie. me jacking off can't be morally wrong OR right, since it doesn't affect anyone but me). I would say that it's the wrong way to go about healing your self-esteem, but if all you want is a temporary boost, then go for it. Just try not to hurt anyone.

[beso negro]

"Prove to me having sex to superficially boost self-esteem is wrong": What if someone is using sex to boost his/her self-esteem and therefore neglecting to address the causes of this low self-esteem?

First, let's throw rape out of the picture here. We all know that wouldn't help your self-esteem.

With that said, I think that the cause of low-self esteem is when people feel unattractive. Having sex with as many people as possible, would help you feel attractive obviously, thus addressing the reason for your low-self esteem. But as we know, you must be having sexual relations with people around you age group (or if you are 70, they must be atleast over 21 :p ).

EDIT: Yea, I know this theory doesn't work with people who have killed a person. I guess this will only work for persons who haven't already commited a crime as unforgiveable as murder. But I bet a murderer feels da.mn unattractive.

[Jon]

On the other hand if you have a one night stand then chances are that the other party will not take moral offence to that.

Because the people who wouldn't shag on the first date...wouldn't shag on the first date.

Most of the girls I know with as few morals as me wouldn't care if I used them, only because it was their idea to use me first.

[beso negro]

Most of the girls I know with as few morals as me wouldn't care if I used them, only because it was their idea to use me first.

I bet this guy has a high self-esteem.

[PerpetualBurn]

I appreciate your articulate response, even if it is a bit condescending. I actually never said "one-night-stands are wrong" anywhere in this thread. What I did say is that I am repressed enough to think that one-night-stands are wrong, I never actually said I think they are: I said I am repressed enough to potentially think that they are.

This is how I qualified that statement:



I doubt that I would ever say, unqualified, "one-night-stands are wrong", because I don't believe that. In most cases I don't agree with them, but my opinion is not '"one-night-stands are wrong", end of story'.

The reason that my words have been taken out of context is because Perpetual Burn (through no fault of his/her own) took it as though I was saying that I think that one-night-stands are wrong, whereas I was commenting on the fact that (in this issue) I am repressed... Repressed enough to believe that one-night-stands are wrong, not that I do.

My opinion is not "one-night-stands are wrong", it is: "I don't agree with the way most one-night-stands occur".

What a load of semantic bullshit.

[Jon]

I bet this guy has a high self-esteem.
Oh, I do.

Its because I know when something is casual, and its mutual, and I do not want to deflower catholic girls or whatever :)

Thats not to say that I take anything I can get or whatever, I just know that 99% of the time a girl will think I look hot and I'll think she looks hot and thats as far as any attraction goes.

[coheneran]

Oh, I do.

Its because I know when something is casual, and its mutual, and I do not want to deflower catholic girls or whatever :)

Thats not to say that I take anything I can get or whatever, I just know that 99% of the time a girl will think I look hot and I'll think she looks hot and thats as far as any attraction goes.

Lol, only because she can't see your real face underneath all that make-up. More like your chest has a high self-esteem.:p

[RandyfromPennywise]

What a load of semantic bullshit.

I don't know what calling something "a load of semantic bullshit" means. Would you care to expand? No, you probably wouldn't.

I think that the cause of low-self esteem is when people feel unattractive.There are many causes for low self-esteem other than feeling unattractive.

[PerpetualBurn]

It means that you were trying to weasel out of what you said.

[RandyfromPennywise]

It means that you were trying to weasel out of what you said.

Ok.

I wasn't, actually. The first post put across the wrong message, I was trying to say that I'm a fairly conservative, or reserved if you like, kind of bloke when it comes to sexy-time, but it came across as though I was saying both that, and that because of being that way I thought one-night-stands were wrong, which isn't/wasn't actually the case. And I did make it clear that anything I said was my opinion.

[PerpetualBurn]

Your opinion is wrong.

[RandyfromPennywise]

Your opinion is wrong.

/responses from me.

[PerpetualBurn]

That's an interesting way to defend your argument.

[RandyfromPennywise]

That's an interesting way to defend your argument.

Now you can call me a hypocrite as well. I think I've said enough in regards to my opinion on the subject for it to be clear why I have the opinion I do.

[PerpetualBurn]

None of those reasons were sound.

[coheneran]

Your opinion is wrong.

What are you on dude? You can't have a wrong opinion.

[RandyfromPennywise]

None of those reasons were sound.

Well from what I can gather, no reason would be sound to have an opinion against one-night-stands in your eyes.

[Mr. Ron]

What are you on dude? You can't have a wrong opinion.

Sure you can.

"It's my opinion that we should decapitate babies."

^^^^Example

[RandyfromPennywise]

Sure you can.

"It's my opinion that we should decapitate babies."

^^^^Example

Decapitating babies is wrong, an opinion stating such isn't. It can't be. Wrong to whom? It's an opinion, not fact, it is not something that can be disproven. You could challenge the opinion but it can't be wrong, as equally it can't be right.

[Mr. Ron]

Decapitating babies is wrong, an opinion stating such isn't. It can't be. Wrong to whom? It's an opinion, not fact, it is not something that can be disproven. You could challenge the opinion but it can't be wrong, as equally it can't be right.

But saying that itis good is a false statement, so it is wrong.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

Decapitating babies is wrong, an opinion stating such isn't. It can't be. Wrong to whom? It's an opinion, not fact, it is not something that can be disproven. You could challenge the opinion but it can't be wrong, as equally it can't be right.haha tell me another one

[RandyfromPennywise]

But saying that itis good is a false statement, so it is wrong.

Yeah I dunno it's kinda hard with opinions but of course that example is completely ridiculous. But yeah an opinion is not saying that it is good, it is a belief that it is good. Are they even different? I don't know. Opinions are like arseholes, everyone's got them, no one likes them. Obviously there is no concensus on whether opinion can be defined as right and wrong and this thread proves that.

[Chameleon]

Yeah I was being a bit arrogant there I guess.

I think a lot of the problems in this debate/thread are coming from the fact that there is little fact in anything on this topic. There is no 'proof' as such on the morality of one-night-stands (or anything "moral" for that matter I would have thought).

"Prove to me having sex to superficially boost self-esteem is wrong": What if someone is using sex to boost his/her self-esteem and therefore neglecting to address the causes of this low self-esteem? (I'm not giving any opinion on this, just posing the question because I am interested to hear sexymuffin's thoughts.)

Yep, the problem here though, is that it still comes down to belief. If somebody wants to ignore the cause of this low self-esteem, is it "wrong"? It might not be the best path for them to take, but it's not necessarily wrong of them.

But you can still say you believe that it's wrong, there's no concrete, logical viewpoint that would agree though.

[Chameleon]

That's an interesting way to defend your argument.

As was your method. "Your opinion is wrong".

Profound. Simply profound.

[PerpetualBurn]

I was kind of waiting for there to be some semblance of an argument for me to refute.

And on the subject of opinions: saying something objective about a subjective matter is wrong. And that's whether you add "In my opinion" or not.

When you say "In my opinion, X is good" (where there are no grounds for arguing that X is either good or bad) you are still saying that you have an objective viewpoint that you know is groundless. It's wrong.

And opinions aren't necessarily subjective. An opinion can be on anything. It is simply something which you hold to be true.

[Chameleon]

I was kind of waiting for there to be some semblance of an argument for me to refute.

As was Randyfrompennywise, i'm sure. "Your opinion is wrong", does not constitute anything but an insult, and it's certainly not something a reasonable, intelligent person would say seriously. And something tells me you weren't joking.


And on the subject of opinions: saying something objective about a subjective matter is wrong. And that's whether you add "In my opinion" or not.

When you say "In my opinion, X is good" (where there are no grounds for arguing that X is either good or bad) you are still saying that you have an objective viewpoint that you know is groundless. It's wrong.

So to clarify, if somebody says "rape is wrong", do you argue with them, on the same lines?

[PerpetualBurn]

It's quite clear that I think people should sleep with whomever they want to, provided they both consent.

And yes. Except they could argue that from a societal point, in which case they would have objective grounds.

[Chameleon]

It's quite clear that I think people should sleep with whomever they want to, provided they both consent.

And yes. Except they could argue that from a societal point, in which case they would have objective grounds.

Ok, so you believe people can only believe something which has a tangible and objective base. I tend to believe people can believe whatever the hell they want to believe, and that facts and truths should always be entirely separated from these beliefs and opinions. This, is seemingly the only real place we differ.

[coheneran]

Perp, methinks you lost this one. In my opinion.:p

[RockAndRoll]

As was Randyfrompennywise, i'm sure. "Your opinion is wrong", does not constitute anything but an insult, and it's certainly not something a reasonable, intelligent person would say seriously. And something tells me you weren't joking.
No, 'your opinion is wrong' is a completely reasonable thing to say. Just because something is your opinion doesn't mean it's not wrong. I don't see any reason to believe otherwise. Hell I could've put 'it is my opinion that' before each of my sentences in this post but that wouldn't change the fact that they can still be wrong.

I tend to believe people can believe whatever the hell they want to believe, and that facts and truths should always be entirely separated from these beliefs and opinions.

You think we should keep facts and truth entirely seperate from our beliefs? are you mad?

Perp, methinks you lost this one. In my opinion.

pfft who cares what you think? :p

[RandyfromPennywise]

As was Randyfrompennywise, i'm sure.

You took the words from under my fingertips!

[Cain]

Some girls just need a spanking.

My girlfriend wants it.

And I give it to her.

EDIT: Here's a question...for those men who treat sex as more significant than masturbating inside a naked woman, and who have also had sex with more than one person, does anybody else feel a sense of "losing your virginity" again...like losing it with that particular person?

My current girlfriend is only the second person I've had sex with but the moment I had it it was even more fireworks-like than the first time. Probably because of more experience, but it doesn't mean to me that post-virginity sex is less special.

[coheneran]

My girlfriend wants it.

And I give it to her.

EDIT: Here's a question...for those men who treat sex as more significant than masturbating inside a naked woman, and who have also had sex with more than one person, does anybody else feel a sense of "losing your virginity" again...like losing it with that particular person?

My current girlfriend is only the second person I've had sex with but the moment I had it it was even more fireworks-like than the first time. Probably because of more experience, but it doesn't mean to me that post-virginity sex is less special.

Uhh, yeah, we "in the know" call that sort of thing Good Sex.

[Cain]

Uhh, yeah, we "in the know" call that sort of thing Good Sex.

Right.

Well, that's the last time I tack a "significant" point onto the ending of a joke post.

[coheneran]

Sex is as special as you make it. All sex comes with emotions, but knowing how to handle those emotions is the difference between a monogamist and a polyamorist.

[Cain]

Sex is as special as you make it. All sex comes with emotions, but knowing how to handle those emotions is the difference between a monogamist and a polyamorist.

Oh, I know.

I'm not sure if this is a response to my response, but I assure you that the reaction I had was entirely sheepish.

Because, you're right, it's just better. :)

I still don't know why everybody attaches a lot of consideration to first sex, though. It only gets better and more special with practice, provided the right emotions are there.

[raab]

I still don't know why everybody attaches a lot of consideration to first sex, though. It only gets better and more special with practice, provided the right emotions are there.

Because you will never forget who/when/where you lost your virginity with/when/where.

[Chameleon]

No, 'your opinion is wrong' is a completely reasonable thing to say. Just because something is your opinion doesn't mean it's not wrong. I don't see any reason to believe otherwise. Hell I could've put 'it is my opinion that' before each of my sentences in this post but that wouldn't change the fact that they can still be wrong.

Again, you're not separating subjective matters from objective matters. Have you read this entire discussion, or did you just drop in to help out your buddy?

Obviously if somebody says to me "It's a fact that God exists." then i'll tell them that they are wrong. If that same person says to me that they believe that God exists, I wouldn't say the same thing since it's something they choose to belief. Obviously if God doesn't exist, then they are in fact, wrong, but while we can't prove the existance or non-existance of God (yet), we tend to hold it as a subjective matter, DESPITE the fact that he either does, or does not exist.

I do understand what you're saying, but the context of this discussion is that Randyfrompennywise happens to believe that one night stands are wrong. And while I disagree with his opinion, I have no reason to tell him that he's not entitled to his belief.

You think we should keep facts and truth entirely seperate from our beliefs? are you mad?

You misunderstand. You don't get to dictate what peoples' beliefs are, which means a lot of people are gonna believe a lot of DUMB stuff. My point is that when people debate logical matters, they should separate their beliefs from the facts that are evident. For example, when you debate with a religious person (even Kent Hovind, who is deemed a 'good' debater, does this), they invariably use scripture to answer questions, because they believe so heavily in the virtue and authenticity of scripture. In reality, it's completely worthless nowadays.

[coheneran]

Because you will never forget who/when/where you lost your virginity with/when/where.

So it's only special because it was a first? That's not very special...

[raab]

So it's only special because it was a first? That's not very special...

I think the first isn't exactly special in itself, but you kinda wanna make it special because of the fact that your gonna remember it forever. Hence you try make it special. Unless you are really desperate and you get a hooker or get wasted and do it with a random.

[coheneran]

I think the first isn't exactly special in itself, but you kinda wanna make it special because of the fact that your gonna remember it forever. Hence you try make it special. Unless you are really desperate and you get a hooker or get wasted and do it with a random.

I remember the best things more than the first things. I don't remember my first pizza, but I remember that beautiful pizza I had in France.

[The Runner]

I'm pretty sure having sex for the first time is a lot more memorable than eating pizza for the first time.

[Hababi]

Unless you're a pizza fetishist :o

Ok I don't know if such a person exists :p

[Mr. Ron]

I remember the best things more than the first things. I don't remember my first pizza, but I remember that beautiful pizza I had in France.

You would eat pizza in France.

[coheneran]

It was vegan pizza.:D

[Mr. Ron]

It was vegan pizza.:D

That doesn't matter, you ate it in France. Ewwwww!!!!

[YouGottaBeCrazy]

Nothing is more memorable than the first time you have sex with a slice of pizza.

[Mr. Ron]

Yes, the horrible scarring from the second degree burns take me way back to when I was a lad.


*memories*

[YouGottaBeCrazy]

lol

[Jon]

I'm pretty sure having sex for the first time is a lot more memorable than eating pizza for the first time.
Well yeah, but every time is going to be memorable to some degree.

The first time is only the same memorableness as the others; it just so happens that its the first time so you're all smug about it.

Doesn't mean its sacred just because its the first time.

Sex is just putting a penis inside a vagina (or whatever else you want to do, PC) I dunno why that's so highly regarded.