How Many People Have You Been With?

A lot higher than 50+ but I focused on pulling girls for over a year and went out 2-5 times a week, got married way too young and after that ended I went nuts! I also work from home and run a business so I had the time to sometimes even meet 2-3 girls in the same day for dates etc.

If a girl is hot her numbers are usually a lot higher than they will let on because most dudes at least in their only. 20s have 1-5 kills and brand girls as whores because they like sex. Meanwhile if these same guys got as many offers as the average hot 20 year old girl he would have 100s and 100s of kills without trying. 40ish kills isn’t out of the ordinary nowadays for girls

[quote]Blackaggar wrote:
A lot higher than 50+ but I focused on pulling girls for over a year and went out 2-5 times a week, got married way too young and after that ended I went nuts! I also work from home and run a business so I had the time to sometimes even meet 2-3 girls in the same day for dates etc.

If a girl is hot her numbers are usually a lot higher than they will let on because most dudes at least in their only. 20s have 1-5 kills and brand girls as whores because they like sex. Meanwhile if these same guys got as many offers as the average hot 20 year old girl he would have 100s and 100s of kills without trying. 40ish kills isn’t out of the ordinary nowadays for girls [/quote]

Yeah well, the chances of a woman with 10+ partners of being satisfied within a marriage are 20% or less.

Any sort of investment on a mans part should pretty much be out of the question at that point.

No rings for sluts is what I am saying, and I aint even mad, its just good business sense, the odds are not in my favor.

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Blackaggar wrote:
A lot higher than 50+ but I focused on pulling girls for over a year and went out 2-5 times a week, got married way too young and after that ended I went nuts! I also work from home and run a business so I had the time to sometimes even meet 2-3 girls in the same day for dates etc.

If a girl is hot her numbers are usually a lot higher than they will let on because most dudes at least in their only. 20s have 1-5 kills and brand girls as whores because they like sex. Meanwhile if these same guys got as many offers as the average hot 20 year old girl he would have 100s and 100s of kills without trying. 40ish kills isn’t out of the ordinary nowadays for girls [/quote]

Yeah well, the chances of a woman with 10+ partners of being satisfied within a marriage are 20% or less.

Any sort of investment on a mans part should pretty much be out of the question at that point.

No rings for sluts is what I am saying, and I aint even mad, its just good business sense, the odds are not in my favor. [/quote]

I would have to say this to be true in a lot of cases in my experience although I never thought of it that way. I wonder if that’s true of guys as well. Marriage isn’t something I would be looking for in a long ass time so it doesn’t bother me how many kills a girl has but I also my trust auto goes down the higher the number lol

[quote]Blackaggar wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Blackaggar wrote:
A lot higher than 50+ but I focused on pulling girls for over a year and went out 2-5 times a week, got married way too young and after that ended I went nuts! I also work from home and run a business so I had the time to sometimes even meet 2-3 girls in the same day for dates etc.

If a girl is hot her numbers are usually a lot higher than they will let on because most dudes at least in their only. 20s have 1-5 kills and brand girls as whores because they like sex. Meanwhile if these same guys got as many offers as the average hot 20 year old girl he would have 100s and 100s of kills without trying. 40ish kills isn’t out of the ordinary nowadays for girls [/quote]

Yeah well, the chances of a woman with 10+ partners of being satisfied within a marriage are 20% or less.

Any sort of investment on a mans part should pretty much be out of the question at that point.

No rings for sluts is what I am saying, and I aint even mad, its just good business sense, the odds are not in my favor. [/quote]

I would have to say this to be true in a lot of cases in my experience although I never thought of it that way. I wonder if that’s true of guys as well. Marriage isn’t something I would be looking for in a long ass time so it doesn’t bother me how many kills a girl has but I also my trust auto goes down the higher the number lol[/quote]

What is true for guys is that the divorce rate is rising for guys with more notches.

Just waaaayyyyyy less so than for women.

The ability to being happily married does not seem to be affected at all.

P1 Sexual intercourse alone makes people one flesh (1 Corinthians 6:16).
P2 One flesh is the marriage union (Matthew 19:6; Genesis 2:24).
C1 Therefore, sexual intercourse alone is the marriage union.

Refute the logic.

1 Corinthians 6:15-16 says: Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Then taking the members of Christ, shall I make [them] members of a harlot? Let it not be! Or do you not know that he being joined to a harlot is one body? For He says, The two [shall be] into one flesh. Paul references Genesis 2:24. Here are some questions to consider:

(a) Have the harlot and the one being joined to the harlot become one body, one flesh?

(b) Has the cleaving made them one flesh?

(c) Is the cleaving and becoming one flesh a marriage to a wife?

(d) If the answer to (c) is no, then why did Paul use Genesis 2:24 to prove his point?

What does sexual intercourse really mean? The truth we should be telling our children is the seriousness of sexual intercourse - that once you have had sexual intercourse with one person, you have married that person, and if the two of you split up, you must never have sexual intercourse again with another person. The consequences of that first sex act last a lifetime. That is how serious sexual intercourse is.

If the person to whom you are currently married - whether or not this marriage is state or “church” sanctioned or you are “shacking up” or just having a “casual and uncommitted relationship” with someone - is not the first person with whom you have had sexual intercourse, then you are currently living in adultery and have been for however long you have been with this person while the first person to whom you lost your virginity is still living. Will you justify your wickedness? (http://www.outsidethecamp.org/marriage.htm;

Marriage as a Divine institution – Agrammatos)

“And He said to them, Whoever may dismiss his wife and marries another commits adultery against her. And if a woman puts away her husband and marries another, she commits adultery” (Mark 10:11-12).

“For the married woman was bound by Law to the living husband; but if the husband dies, she is set free from the Law of the husband. So then, if the husband is living, she will be called an adulteress if she becomes another man’s. But if the husband dies, she is free from the Law, so as for her not to be an adulteress by becoming another man’s” (Romans 7:2-3).

“Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled; but God will judge fornicators and adulterers” (Hebrews 13:4).

And THAT’s another reason I think religion is stupid!

If you want to go through life just fucking ONE SINGLE PERSON based on what some stupid fucking book says, be my guest, buddy. Knock your self out. It AMAZES me how fucking stupid religious people are…

[quote]opeth7opeth wrote:
[/quote]

MWAHAHA.

I grew up in a Christian household and still obey the ten comandments, but that was hilarious.

[quote] angry chicken wrote:

And THAT’s another reason I think religion is stupid!

If you want to go through life just fucking ONE SINGLE PERSON based on what some stupid fucking book says, be my guest, buddy. Knock your self out. It AMAZES me how fucking stupid religious people are…

nighthawkz wrote:

MWAHAHA.

I grew up in a Christian household and still obey the ten comandments, but that was hilarious.[/quote]

Bloated buffoons can sneer and scoff. But they cannot argue rationally. How shocking.

[quote]opeth7opeth wrote:

Refute the logic.

[/quote]

What are we supposed to refute? That post lost me and I tried to read it a few times.

There are some real shitty people in this thread. Talking out 1 side of their face saying
“My number is personal”, “I should have had more” “look how many I’ve slept with”
and out the other saying
“a woman is a slut over 10” “cant put a ring on a woman who likes cock” “whore, slut, over 40!” etc etc

Screen names about getting the D and denigrating women give me a break.

Women aren’t sluts for enjoying sex; no more than men are.

I’d never judge a woman for their count because I wouldn’t want them to judge mine.

For you guys trashing the women who enjoy sex I’m sure your sex life is fan-fucking-tastic.

[quote]MementoMori wrote:
There are some real shitty people in this thread. Talking out 1 side of their face saying
“My number is personal”, “I should have had more” “look how many I’ve slept with”
and out the other saying
“a woman is a slut over 10” “cant put a ring on a woman who likes cock” “whore, slut, over 40!” etc etc

Screen names about getting the D and denigrating women give me a break.

Women aren’t sluts for enjoying sex; no more than men are.

I’d never judge a woman for their count because I wouldn’t want them to judge mine.

For you guys trashing the women who enjoy sex I’m sure your sex life is fan-fucking-tastic.
[/quote]
What?

Guys brag about kills then call women sluts.

Morons.

[quote]MementoMori wrote:
There are some real shitty people in this thread. Talking out 1 side of their face saying
“My number is personal”, “I should have had more” “look how many I’ve slept with”
and out the other saying
“a woman is a slut over 10” “cant put a ring on a woman who likes cock” “whore, slut, over 40!” etc etc

Screen names about getting the D and denigrating women give me a break.

Women aren’t sluts for enjoying sex; no more than men are.

I’d never judge a woman for their count because I wouldn’t want them to judge mine.

For you guys trashing the women who enjoy sex I’m sure your sex life is fan-fucking-tastic.

[/quote]

No.

Getting laid is easy for even semi attractive women, it requires work for men.

Its not so much that they enjoy sex, it is because they lack impulse control.

Personally, I think the women who have a higher N-count are far easier to bed than the rest, not because they are “easier”, which they are not, its is just that they are guided by their instincts so much that you can play them like a fiddle if you know how.

[quote]opeth7opeth wrote:
Bloated buffoons can sneer and scoff. But they cannot argue rationally. How shocking.[/quote]

OK, I’ll play. But first we have to establish ground rules: namely, that I don’t believe everything that is written in the Bible is correct, especially the old testament. Because if you do, you can only argue about interpretations of scripture. That being said, look at a few non-religious reasons for staying with your first partner till death does you apart.

The old testament was written for an antique culture of goat herders and later city dwellers (I’m using none of these in a derogatory sense here) who had to establish firm ground rules for their society; an important one being hereditary customs. Just look at the story of Jacob and Esau. The tricky thing is that if you abandon monogamy, you’ll always have a pretty good idea who the mother is - the father, however, is harder to ascertain without modern technology.

A bit tricky if your concept of property depends on knowing just that. Put differently: while I believe that there is a higher deity up there, I also believe that the Bible is a book written by men, designed to establish social control in many instances and furthermore obscured by translation - seriously, there’s a reason scholars have been arguing (and killing people) about the finer points for two thousand years. If you choose to believe otherwise, fair enough. Just try not to rub it into people’s faces, otherwise they might feel the urge to rub back.

(Whether or not, from a social POV, having many sexual partners in life is a bad thing is an entirely different matter. I don’t agree with orion but he’s entitled to think the way he does - I get it.)

[quote]opeth7opeth wrote:

[quote] angry chicken wrote:

And THAT’s another reason I think religion is stupid!

If you want to go through life just fucking ONE SINGLE PERSON based on what some stupid fucking book says, be my guest, buddy. Knock your self out. It AMAZES me how fucking stupid religious people are…

nighthawkz wrote:

MWAHAHA.

I grew up in a Christian household and still obey the ten comandments, but that was hilarious.[/quote]

Bloated buffoons can sneer and scoff. But they cannot argue rationally. How shocking.[/quote]

Oh boy, it’s Sunday and I get to have some fun with a Christian! So you want to argue rationally… Oh really? I would LOVE to.

OK, please explain to me RATIONALLY why I should believe anything the bible says.

Let’s start with this one:

According to John 3:18 and 36, salvation is obtained by faith alone and that repentance will save us (2 Peter 3:9). But then in Matthew 19:16 Jesus says you have to follow the commandments if you want eternal life. (and aren’t the Commandments from the OT? Are we still following that or not?)

Which one is it?

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

Oh boy, it’s Sunday and I get to have some fun with a Christian! So you want to argue rationally… Oh really? I would LOVE to.

OK, please explain to me RATIONALLY why I should believe anything the bible says.

Let’s start with this one:

According to John 3:18 and 36, salvation is obtained by faith alone and that repentance will save us (2 Peter 3:9). But then in Matthew 19:16 Jesus says you have to follow the commandments if you want eternal life. (and aren’t the Commandments from the OT? Are we still following that or not?)

Which one is it?
[/quote]

Galatians 3:21-24 teaches that God’s promise of salvation by Jesus Christ is not contrary to His law (commandments). All of God’s Law is summarized in these two commandments: You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and You shall love your neighbor as yourself (Matthew 22:37-39). God demands perfect obedience to the Law (perfect righteousness) and pronounces a curse on those who do not have perfect righteousness: Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things having been written in the book of the Law, to do them (Galatians 3:10). Those who die under this curse shall drink of the wine of the anger of God having been mixed undiluted in the cup of His wrath. And he will be tormented by fire and brimstone before the holy angels and before the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever (Revelation 14:10-11).

Jesus Christ perfectly obeyed the precepts of the law and suffered its just penal demands:

“Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us; for it has been written, Cursed is everyone having been hung on a tree” (Galatians 3:13).

Your sins are abominable in the sight of God. Even if you strive to do your best to love God and love your neighbor, you cannot do these things perfectly, and even your best efforts at religion and morality are abominable if you believe that any part of salvation is based on these things. Your sins must be punished. They have either already been punished in the person of the substitute, Jesus Christ, or they will be punished when God sends you to hell. Those for whom Jesus Christ died, whose sins have already been punished, will believe this gospel. Those for whom He did not die, whose sins have not yet been punished, will not believe. All those for whom Jesus Christ died will go to heaven. All those for whom Jesus Christ did not die will go to hell (http://www.outsidethecamp.org/life.htm; http://www.outsidethecamp.org/ccfindex.htm).

Many people (e.g., angry chicken, “rich young ruler,” unbelieving Jews) do not understand the function or purpose of God’s law). The function of God’s law is to show forth God’s perfect standard of righteousness that His people may:

  1. Learn their natural inability to meet that standard, [Deu 9:4-6; Psa 130:3; Isa 64:6; Dan 9:5-11; Rom 3:19-20; 5:13,20; 7:7-13; Gal 3:10-12; 4:24-25; Jam 2:10-11]

  2. Rest in a Substitute who would and did meet that standard on their behalf, [Psa 32:1-2; 34:19-20; 130:4; Isa 53:11; Joh 8:56; Rom 3:21-22; 7:24-25; 2Co 5:21; Gal 3:19; Heb 7:25-27; 11:24-28; 1Pe 2:21-24]

  3. And strive to obey Him out of love, thankfulness, and a desire to glorify Him. [Exo 20:20; Deu 6:1-25; 8:1-18; 10:12-13; 13:4; Jos 1:8; 23:6; 1Sa 15:22; Psa 1:2; 119:2,4-6,10-11,16,55,60,72,77,97,109,112,129,166-168; Ecc 12:13; Mat 22:37-40; Joh 14:15,21; Rom 6:1-2,11-13; 1Co 6:20; Eph 5:15-21; Heb 12:28-29]

Here is point #2 above unpacked a bit:

  1. When He became incarnate, Jesus Christ was made subject to the law of God and was obliged to obey all its precepts. He did this perfectly, to the minutest detail. [Psalm 40:8; Isa 50:5; Mat 3:15; 2Co 5:21; Gal 4:4; Heb 2:14-15; 4:15; 7:26; 1Pe 2:22-23; 1Jo 3:4-5]

  2. The consummate act of obedience that Jesus Christ paid to the law was in suffering the ultimate penalty for the disobedience of His people that the law demanded. Thus, while upon the cross, Jesus Christ, as a perfect representative, substitute, and sacrifice for His people, became a curse for His people and suffered the unmitigated fury of God the Father, which was equivalent to suffering the very pains of hell. This was not for any guilt He had contracted Himself but for the sins of His people. Their guilt was imputed to Him, and He suffered the penalty their sins deserved. His finished work on the cross appeased God’s wrath in full toward all for whom He died and paid the ransom price in full for all for whom He died, guaranteeing the salvation of all for whom He died. [Gen 22:13; Exo 12:3-13; Lev 16:21-22; 17:11; Psa 22:1-18; 32:1; Isa 53:1-12; Dan 9:24-26; Zec 13:7; Mat 26:28; 27:35-50; Mar 15:24-37; Luk 23:33-46; 24:46; Joh 11:49-52; 19:16-30; Act 17:3; 20:28; Rom 3:24-25; 5:6-11; 1Co 1:30; 5:7; 6:20; 15:3; 2Co 5:21; Gal 1:4; 2:20; 3:13; 4:5; Eph 1:7; 2:13-17; Col 1:14,20-22; 2:13-14; 1Th 5:10; 1Ti 2:6; Tit 2:14; Heb 2:9-10,17; 9:12-14,26-28; 10:10-18; 13:12; 1Pe 1:18-19; 2:24; 3:18; 1Jo 1:7; 2:2; 3:5; 4:10; Rev 1:5; 5:9]

  3. The perfect righteousness that Jesus Christ established is imputed to every one of God’s people in time. Because of this imputed righteousness, they are declared blameless before God and reconciled to God. Christ’s righteousness imputed demands God’s favor and fellowship toward them. [Job 29:14; Psa 32:2; 85:10-11; Isa 53:11; 61:10; Jer 23:5-6; Rom 3:21-22; 4:6-8; 5:9-11,17-19; 8:1,31-39; 1Co 1:30; 2Co 5:18-21; Eph 5:25-27; Col 1:21-22; Tit 3:6-7]

  4. The Father set His seal of approval upon the work of Jesus Christ on the cross by resurrecting Him from the dead and exalting Him to sit at the Father’s right hand. [Job 19:25-27; Psa 16:10; Luk 24:4-7; Act 1:22; 2:24-33; 3:15; 4:10,33; 5:31; 10:40; 13:30-37; 17:3,31; Rom 1:4; 4:24-25; 5:10; 6:4,9-10; 8:34; 10:9; 14:9; 1Co 15:20-28; 2Co 5:15; Gal 1:1; Eph 1:20; Col 2:12; 1Th 1:10; 2Ti 2:8; Heb 1:3; 10:12; 12:2; 1Pe 1:21]

  5. From there Jesus Christ rules and intercedes for His people until the day He judges the world and until the final enemy, death, is subdued beneath His feet. [Psa 96:13; 110:1,6; Mat 25:31-46; Act 10:42; 17:31; Rom 8:34; 2Co 5:10; 2Ti 4:1]

  6. Those who deny the effectual work of Jesus Christ, claiming instead that the blood of Jesus Christ atoned for everyone without exception (including those in hell), deny the very heart of the gospel. They do not believe that it is the work of Jesus Christ alone that makes the difference between salvation and damnation; instead, these self-righteous boasters believe that it is the effort of the sinner that makes the difference between salvation and damnation. These blasphemers deny that Jesus Christ made full satisfaction for sins and that Jesus Christ accomplished and ensured salvation for all whom He represented. They trample underfoot the precious blood of Jesus Christ, treating it as something of no value. They glory and boast in themselves, for whatever one believes makes the difference between salvation and damnation is what one glories and boasts in. There is not a single one of these blasphemers who is a child of God. [Psa 25:14; 74:18; 94:4; 139:20; Pro 30:12-13; Isa 28:14-18; 42:8; 48:11; Joh 16:8-14; Rom 3:27-28; 4:2; 10:3; 16:17-18; 1Co 2:12; 2Co 10:3-6; Gal 1:8-9; 6:14; Eph 2:8-9; Phi 3:18-19; 1Ti 4:1; 2Ti 3:2-5; 4:3-4; Heb 10:29; 1Jo 2:22-23; 4:6; 2Jo 9]

So then, what does it mean to have faith in Jesus Christ? This:

Faith is not a condition of or prerequisite to salvation; instead, faith believes that Jesus Christ alone met all the conditions for salvation. Faith is the instrument through which a believer receives the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ and is justified. No man is justified before God by works. Salvation by grace alone through faith alone is diametrically opposed to salvation by works. Scripture rejects the lie that man is able to keep the law of God or even a mere summary of the law as a means of gaining God’s favor, let alone that he is able to obey the law beyond what God requires. [Isa 45:24-25; 51:5; Luk 17:10; Joh 1:12-13; 5:24; 6:29; Act 13:39; Rom 3:20-28; 4:1-5,14-25; 5:1; 9:16,30-33; 11:6; Gal 2:16; 3:6-12; 5:2-6; Eph 2:8-9; Phi 3:9; Heb 11:4,7]

All that shit is well and good, but WHY SHOULD I BELIEVE IT?

What makes it any more valid than say, Scientology? If you say L. Ron Hubbard is wrong, what is to prevent me from saying Paul is wrong?

PROVE IT.

(oh, that’s right, YOU CAN’T)

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
All that shit is well and good, but WHY SHOULD I BELIEVE IT?

What makes it any more valid than say, Scientology? If you say L. Ron Hubbard is wrong, what is to prevent me from saying Paul is wrong?

PROVE IT.

(oh, that’s right, YOU CAN’T)[/quote]

You and I both begin our reasoning from an axiomatic starting point. Every religion, philosophy, or system of thought reasons from an indemonstrable starting point (or first principle). Genesis to Revelation is my axiom. I presuppose the truth of Scripture and make my judgments by it. Whether or not you possess sufficient candor to admit it, you too, have an axiom whereby you reason that Paul is in error.

“For the wrath of God is revealed from Heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because the thing which may be known of God is clearly revealed within them, for God revealed it to them. For the unseen things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being realized by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, for them to be without excuse” (Romans 1:18-20).

God reveals enough of His attributes in nature (His eternal power and Godhead) to leave people without excuse for their sin and unbelief, but this is not the same as proving God’s existence from nature. In order to believe the God of the Bible, God must reveal Himself to that person. He will then interpret nature in a way consistent with his belief in God and see that all the things in creation are evidences of the Creator God.

Romans 1:18-20 teaches that the problem is not a lack of evidence or proof; the problem is that unbelievers have manufactured their own set of presuppositions (assumptions, premises, axioms) that suppress the truth about God.

To the somewhat astute reader, this is what some may call Biblical presuppositional apologetics 101. The proof, facts, or evidence do not lead us to our various assumptions, presuppositions, or axioms. Rather, our various assumptions, presuppositions, or axioms affect how we view the “proof,” “facts,” or “evidence.”

[quote]nighthawkz wrote:

[quote]opeth7opeth wrote:
Bloated buffoons can sneer and scoff. But they cannot argue rationally. How shocking.[/quote]

OK, I’ll play. But first we have to establish ground rules: namely, that I don’t believe everything that is written in the Bible is correct, especially the old testament. Because if you do, you can only argue about interpretations of scripture. That being said, look at a few non-religious reasons for staying with your first partner till death does you apart.

The old testament was written for an antique culture of goat herders and later city dwellers (I’m using none of these in a derogatory sense here) who had to establish firm ground rules for their society; an important one being hereditary customs. Just look at the story of Jacob and Esau. The tricky thing is that if you abandon monogamy, you’ll always have a pretty good idea who the mother is - the father, however, is harder to ascertain without modern technology.

A bit tricky if your concept of property depends on knowing just that. Put differently: while I believe that there is a higher deity up there, I also believe that the Bible is a book written by men, designed to establish social control in many instances and furthermore obscured by translation - seriously, there’s a reason scholars have been arguing (and killing people) about the finer points for two thousand years. If you choose to believe otherwise, fair enough. Just try not to rub it into people’s faces, otherwise they might feel the urge to rub back.

(Whether or not, from a social POV, having many sexual partners in life is a bad thing is an entirely different matter. I don’t agree with orion but he’s entitled to think the way he does - I get it.)[/quote]

Clearly your “higher deity” is an idol forged in the fires of your vain imagination (so much for your professed adherence to the ten commandments).

“Wherefore should the heathen say, Where is now their God? But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased. Their idols are silver and gold, the work of men’s hands. They have mouths, but they speak not: eyes have they, but they see not: They have ears, but they hear not: noses have they, but they smell not: They have hands, but they handle not: feet have they, but they walk not: neither speak they through their throat. They that make them are like unto them; so is every one that trusteth in them” (Psalm 115:2-8).

Methinks Jesus’ view of the Old Testament is a “bit different” than yours:

“And the Pharisees came near to Him, tempting Him, and saying to Him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every reason? But answering, He said to them, Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning created them male and female? And He said, For this reason a man shall leave father and mother, and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. So that they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, let not man separate. They said to Him, ‘Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce, and to put her away?’ He said to them, In view of your hardheartedness, Moses allowed you to put away your wives. But from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, Whoever shall put away his wife, if not for fornication, and shall marry another, that one commits adultery. And the one who marries her who was put away commits adultery. His disciples said to Him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. But He said to them, Not all make room for this Word, but those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother’s womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who made eunuchs of themselves for the sake of the kingdom of Heaven. He who is able to receive, let him receive it” (Matthew 19:3-12).

Give me a break. Men and women both enjoy sex and both can have it easily.

Impulse control?? They’re human beings who enjoy sex. Just because they don’t enjoy sex with you doesn’t make them animals.

It’s people like you who shame women into enjoying sex less than they should. Luckily you make me look like a million bucks. Still as much as that may benefit me, I’d still prefer you just keep quiet instead of spouting misogyny and chauvinism.