[quote]Makavali wrote:
I suppose with your views on sex you would see it that way.[/quote]
More like my manners. But in the end, it’s you who is suddenly shy.[/quote]
Sex = Nothing to be shy about.
Calling my girlfriend a whore = Something I might get offended at.
You like to think yourself a worldly, civilized type, but in the end you are the same as the rest of us, just less honest about it.[/quote]
Nope. I’m nothing like you.
[/quote]
Opposed thumbs?
Both eyes in the front, allowing for somewhat adequate depth perception?
Do you walk on your hind legs?
Do you see colors, especially in the range where it would help you to decide whether a fruit is ripe or not?
[quote]Makavali wrote:
I suppose with your views on sex you would see it that way.[/quote]
More like my manners. But in the end, it’s you who is suddenly shy.[/quote]
Sex = Nothing to be shy about.
Calling my girlfriend a whore = Something I might get offended at.
You like to think yourself a worldly, civilized type, but in the end you are the same as the rest of us, just less honest about it.[/quote]
Nope. I’m nothing like you.
[/quote]
Opposed thumbs?
Both eyes in the front, allowing for somewhat adequate depth perception?
Do you walk on your hind legs?
Do you see colors, especially in the range where it would help you to decide whether a fruit is ripe or not?[/quote]
Because obviously he was speaking anatomically. But, funny, funny Mr. Funny Funnster!
[quote]Makavali wrote:
I suppose with your views on sex you would see it that way.[/quote]
More like my manners. But in the end, it’s you who is suddenly shy.[/quote]
Sex = Nothing to be shy about.
Calling my girlfriend a whore = Something I might get offended at.
You like to think yourself a worldly, civilized type, but in the end you are the same as the rest of us, just less honest about it.[/quote]
Nope. I’m nothing like you.
[/quote]
I agree, you are NOTHING like most of us. Yet you feel entitled to inflict YOUR narrow view of the world on us to the point where, if you had your way, you’d change the laws of the country in which we ALL live in. So that it jives with your narrow little world view…
You see, HERE’s the difference between you and I: I don’t give a flying fuck WHAT you believe. I will fight to protect your right to believe it. But don’t try and shove YOUR beliefs (most of which can be dis-proven by science) down my throat or down the throat of my kids, and don’t try and restrict MY freedom.
Where I respect your beliefs and encourage your freedom to believe what you will, you think that because some ancient peasants told a bunch of people that a man in the sky gave him a bunch of rules (self serving, infantile, jealous rules - kinda like the same level of evolution as the people who SAID the man in the sky told them these things, imagine that) that YOU have got it all figured out and that YOUR way is the correct and only way (cuz the man in the sky said so) so you feel perfectly justified in wallowing in your blind, self indulgent humility and passing judgement on perfectly sane people, attempting to restrict our freedoms, and being a pain in the ass in general.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
I suppose with your views on sex you would see it that way.[/quote]
More like my manners. But in the end, it’s you who is suddenly shy.[/quote]
Sex = Nothing to be shy about.
Calling my girlfriend a whore = Something I might get offended at.
You like to think yourself a worldly, civilized type, but in the end you are the same as the rest of us, just less honest about it.[/quote]
Nope. I’m nothing like you.
[/quote]
Opposed thumbs?
Both eyes in the front, allowing for somewhat adequate depth perception?
Do you walk on your hind legs?
Do you see colors, especially in the range where it would help you to decide whether a fruit is ripe or not?[/quote]
Because obviously he was speaking anatomically. But, funny, funny Mr. Funny Funnster!
[/quote]
Yeah, well, what you are mostly is your physiology and you share that with us heathens.
You have a frontal cortex an amygdala, a hypothalamus and who know whatever other unspeakable things are lodged between your ears.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
I suppose with your views on sex you would see it that way.[/quote]
More like my manners. But in the end, it’s you who is suddenly shy.[/quote]
Sex = Nothing to be shy about.
Calling my girlfriend a whore = Something I might get offended at.
You like to think yourself a worldly, civilized type, but in the end you are the same as the rest of us, just less honest about it.[/quote]
Nope. I’m nothing like you.
[/quote]
Opposed thumbs?
Both eyes in the front, allowing for somewhat adequate depth perception?
Do you walk on your hind legs?
Do you see colors, especially in the range where it would help you to decide whether a fruit is ripe or not?[/quote]
Because obviously he was speaking anatomically. But, funny, funny Mr. Funny Funnster!
[/quote]
Yeah, well, what you are mostly is your physiology and you share that with us heathens.
You have a frontal cortex an amygdala, a hypothalamus and who know whatever other unspeakable things are lodged between your ears.
Then it’s not a committed, it’s called concubinage. [/quote]
So you’re calling my girlfriend a concubine? I’m sure she’ll love that.[/quote]
And, I don’t believe I called your girlfriend a concubine, pointed out the relationship resembled concubinage. Sorry if I went too far and didn’t make it clear.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
The only possible way this will have anything to do with the soft, temporal “circumcision ban” in Germany, is when “busting a nut in my girlfriend” really means “circumcise her labia” in New Zealand.
Dudes, I get it - you hate sex.
It makes you feel ickily biological.
Don’t let your pious joylessnes creep into every thread-crevasse in PWI.
[/quote]
Catholics love sex…that’s why there are so many of us. Come at us, bro.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
When it comes to how people are in terms of sexual habits/relations not a chance. He’s demonstrated it several times in this forum.
[/quote]
Now I am social awkward because I do not have pre-marital sex? Is that what you are saying?
[quote]therajraj wrote:
When it comes to how people are in terms of sexual habits/relations not a chance. He’s demonstrated it several times in this forum.
[/quote]
Now I am social awkward because I do not have pre-marital sex? Is that what you are saying?[/quote]
No I am saying you have no clue as to what goes on between men and women in terms of relationships and sex.
Catholics love sex solely for the purposes of procreation and the bonding effect between man and woman…making love…that’s why there are so many of us. Come at us, bro.[/quote]
Fixed.[/quote]
Edited: so that you don’t look like you don’t know a damn thing about Catholic theology on the marital act.
There are two ends within which the marital act is to be orientated to: first bonding and the second babies. You can’t remove one or the other without corrupting the act. This is why Catholics say no to IVF and contraceptives. One because it removes the end of ‘making love’ from the marital act and the other because it removes the possibility of babies.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
The only possible way this will have anything to do with the soft, temporal “circumcision ban” in Germany, is when “busting a nut in my girlfriend” really means “circumcise her labia” in New Zealand.
Dudes, I get it - you hate sex.
It makes you feel ickily biological.
Don’t let your pious joylessnes creep into every thread-crevasse in PWI.
[/quote]
Catholics love sex…that’s why there are so many of us. Come at us, bro.[/quote]
Correction - you love unprotected sex. Within strict parameters.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Newsflash: Women want to have sex just as badly as men. [/quote]
Never said they didn’t, congratulations on making a straw man argument that’s not even close to what I said.[/quote]
You didn’t have to say it, you implied it through your comment about sexual encounters being initiated primarily by men.
[/quote]
Lol. Okay, thanks for letting me know my implications. That is a rather far reaching implication though on my part.[/quote]
Are you denying that’s what you said?
Saying men initiate all (or most) sexual encounters implies women are either docile (which implies you know nothing of women), or that women don’t like sex as much as men.
I’m not Christian at all. I’m entirely pagan and I do think one of the strengths America used to have was strong marriage commitments and a stigma against pre-marital sex. Also, I think it helped that sex wasn’t totally in your face. The divorce rate is crazy and causing economical and social problems. Now I totally get women’s rights and agree with all that but I really feel that hippy generation totally threw the baby out with the bath water when it comes to marriage, family units, and how they work together.
The early years of marriage can be some of the hardest from vicarious experience and one the things that I strongly think would help is to not have had sex with anyone else before that for both partners. That way, the ‘magic’ is still there. Also, if you’ve ‘tasted better fruit’ before temptation is strong to go out and find something like that again. You don’t even have to married for years for that one to be true.
I do get that it’s near impossible in the hyper-sexualized society for two virgin partners to marry as virgins and consumate (sp?). I’m going out on a limb hear but I’d also suggest that even within churches it can be difficult but maybe more of a possibility. Truth be told though from my church experience there were better opportunities for it there than with the people hung out with at high school. But anyway I really do agree that it’s going to be near impossible for most to every marry and have kids without having pre-marital sex.
Now the question is that now that Pandora’s box has been let loose, can it be closed again?
