[quote]opeth7opeth wrote:
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.
[/quote]
But isn’t picking right pretty much whole ballgame? And if we each get to pick our starting point and then justifying everything as the will of god as long as it fits within the logic of the system, why isn’t ISIS justified in engaging in JIHAD and cutting off the heads of all who oppose them as long as its consistent with the teachings of the Cur’an?
AC and the others might be pricks about it, but if you are going to advocate that your book is the right one, you ought to at least explain why.
[quote]opeth7opeth wrote:
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.
[/quote]
What if he reveals himself and says its the Qur’an?
[quote]opeth7opeth wrote:
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).
[/quote]
Let me guess - you really like big bonfires and thumbscrews. Do you speak ancient Hebrew, by any chance?
[quote]MementoMori wrote:
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. [/quote]
Tsk, tsk, tsk…
I do not shame the woman of the thousand orgies, I shame the woman of the thousands cocks.
In fact, I do not even do that, I just declare her unfit for a LTR or marriage.
Does not make her a bad person, just a bad bet.
Plus, I would prefer you kept your philoginy to yourself, not only is it as far away from moderation as misoginy and therefore also a vice, in this day and age it is downright dangerous.
Yep, this is why a man who beds many women is a stud whereas a women who beds many men is a slut.
Where is the conquest for a slut?
She dolls herself up, prances to the next watering hole and says yes to the first dark, tall, handsome misteryous hunkyhandsomehandymansecretbillionair that comes along, shivering in antici-------pation, whether his 10 inch cock is tattoed or not.
Nobody gets any respect for something a trained chimp could do in his sleep.
Paying too much attention to how many sexual partners a person has been with.
You see how negative it is, do any of you expect women to be honest about such a topic? If a woman tells you she has had a certain amount of partners I think it’s a good idea to multiply that number by 2 or 3. If you aren’t comfortable with that go play with yourself.
I do not shame the woman of the thousand orgies, I shame the woman of the thousands cocks.
In fact, I do not even do that, I just declare her unfit for a LTR or marriage.
Does not make her a bad person, just a bad bet.
Plus, I would prefer you kept your philoginy to yourself, not only is it as far away from moderation as misoginy and therefore also a vice, in this day and age it is downright dangerous.
…
“I do not shame women… I just think loving them is a vice”?
I see nothing dangerous with holding women to the same standard I hold myself. If I’m capable of separating casual sex and committed relationships I assume women in general are capable as well until individuals prove otherwise
I don’t base my judgement of people’s intelligence on their sex. I see enough stupidity in this thread to know it has more to do with what’s between the ears than the legs.
Basically, the underlying TRUTH of the matter is that you can’t turn a ho into a housewife. Seriously. Why anyone disputes this is beyond me. Women who have experienced a lot of cock have a high “novelty seeking index”… It’s how they are WIRED… You think that a ring on her finger is just going to turn that off? There are so many emotional and psychological layers to this it’s not even funny.
But despite our insistence as a culture that we can ALL be special snowflakes (cough, cough BULLSHIT!!!) it comes down to this: is she a “good” girl, or a “bad” girl? A good girl can be a lady in the living room and taught to be a whore in the bedroom. A bad girl is just a whore everywhere she goes. And everybody knows it. She betrays it with the looks she gives, her body language and her lack of boundaries.
I can spot a whore a mile away. It’s just a matter of seeing how she responds when I push a few buttons. And the sad sad truth of it is that in today’s society, where the MEDIA is conditioning our younger generations to care more about which guy XYZ Kardashian is fucking than who their state senator is, more and more young women are turning into whores. Before they are even old enough to think responsibly, they’ve already had a dozen dicks up in them. And they call it “progress”… LMAO
It’s fine by me. I like fucking strange pussy and these days it’s like shooting fish in a barrel. I literally don’t have to try anymore. The biggest challenge is the schedule.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Women who have experienced a lot of cock have a high “novelty seeking index”… It’s how they are WIRED… You think that a ring on her finger is just going to turn that off? There are so many emotional and psychological layers to this it’s not even funny. [/quote]
Where do men fall in this, AC? Wouldn’t it be the same? I want a guy who goes all growly beast in the bedroom but contains his sexuality out in the world.
“I do not shame women… I just think loving them is a vice”?
I see nothing dangerous with holding women to the same standard I hold myself. If I’m capable of separating casual sex and committed relationships I assume women in general are capable as well until individuals prove otherwise
I don’t base my judgement of people’s intelligence on their sex. I see enough stupidity in this thread to know it has more to do with what’s between the ears than the legs.[/quote]
Well, due to the giant brain you have between your ears you do of course know that the term “misoginy”, as far as we know, was coined by Aristotle, who juxtaposed it with philoginy and he declared both to be a vice because like most Greek philophers he thought that moderation in all things was the way to go.
Plus, it is not a matter of intelligence, it is a matter of the different trials and tribulations men and women have to go through and to not not keel over drunk like an inverted Y belongs to the specific hurdles women have to be able to take if they want to be considered as more than a nail and bail.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Women who have experienced a lot of cock have a high “novelty seeking index”… It’s how they are WIRED… You think that a ring on her finger is just going to turn that off? There are so many emotional and psychological layers to this it’s not even funny. [/quote]
Where do men fall in this, AC? Wouldn’t it be the same? I want a guy who goes all growly beast in the bedroom but contains his sexuality out in the world. [/quote]
Studies be clear on this, moar caaaawwwwwk, moar divorce risk, less chances of being content within a marriage.
For women, not for men. *
Ze classic trade off is access to sex and reproductive resources vs providing and protecting.
Meaning a woman decides if and when it comes to sex, a man if and how much he invests in a relationship.
So, a man who decides to invest in a woman even though he has had tons of poon for almost free thinks she is super special.
A woman who makes a man pay a high price for something she gave away for free thinks he is anything but.
So, the woman is such a scenario would be “settling” the man would not be, he has found his unicorn.
Add to that that male cheating is completely irrelevant, no matter what women say (“I would divorce him immediately!!!” No, studies say you would not…), whereas female cheating pretty much means its over and its totally obvious “no rings for sluts” is which is simply not in the bible because if you stone them at the village gates a ring would be pointless.
except, come to think of it, if he had moooaaarrr caaaawk, that could be a problem for a marriage.
"Plus, it is not a matter of intelligence, it is a matter of the different trials and tribulations men and women have to go through and to not not keel over drunk like an inverted Y belongs to the specific hurdles women have to be able to take if they want to be considered as more than a nail and bail. "
It’s going to take more than Jefferies to clear this statement up.
Please use periods if you want to question my gigantic anatomy.
"Basically, the underlying TRUTH of the matter is that you can’t turn a ho into a housewife. Seriously. Why anyone disputes this is beyond me. Women who have experienced a lot of cock have a high “novelty seeking index”… It’s how they are WIRED… You think that a ring on her finger is just going to turn that off? There are so many emotional and psychological layers to this it’s not even funny. "
And can you be turned into a husband? I refuse to accept that a girl who decides to sleep with a guy because shes on vacation in Costa Rica when shes 18 cannot be a faithful wife when she’s 37.
A “kill count” is the sum total of a bunch of individual interactions. For you to shrink that down to a single number and judge someone’s entire existence is a pretty big skill.
“It’s fine by me. I like fucking strange pussy and these days it’s like shooting fish in a barrel. I literally don’t have to try anymore. The biggest challenge is the schedule.”
I like strange too, and based on people’s answers to this thread’s general question, my count is probably closer to yours than others. But I refuse to view my count in a different way than I would a woman’s.
If mine leaves me capable of being faithful then it should be fine for a woman too.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Women who have experienced a lot of cock have a high “novelty seeking index”… It’s how they are WIRED… You think that a ring on her finger is just going to turn that off? There are so many emotional and psychological layers to this it’s not even funny. [/quote]
Where do men fall in this, AC? Wouldn’t it be the same? I want a guy who goes all growly beast in the bedroom but contains his sexuality out in the world. [/quote]
This was pretty much my thought and I’ve got no bones in this fight what so ever. I could care less what anyone’s number is.
If mine leaves me capable of being faithful then it should be fine for a woman too.[/quote]
No, see my answer to Emily.
If a woman sluts it up she usually tries to have sex with a man who is as exciting and physically attractive as possible.
Moar exciting and moar attractive than she could ever hope for in a man she could get into a serious relationship.
Those are the guys who get it for free, the man she settles for, boy will he pay, in more ways than one.
Since men are not the reproductive bottleneck of our species not only do we not have such stringent requirements when it comes to short term sexual partners, we also necessarily fuck down when woman fuck up, because we aint the ones who choose.
Men with lots of previous sexual partners do not necessarily settle, women with lots of previous sexual partners practically must settle.
Our biological role is not the same, therefore our psychology is not the same, therefore your insisting that, just because you can do something she should be able to too, is wishful thinking.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Women who have experienced a lot of cock have a high “novelty seeking index”… It’s how they are WIRED… You think that a ring on her finger is just going to turn that off? There are so many emotional and psychological layers to this it’s not even funny. [/quote]
Where do men fall in this, AC? Wouldn’t it be the same? I want a guy who goes all growly beast in the bedroom but contains his sexuality out in the world. [/quote]
Em, you know as well as I do that, despite the “politically correct” view on things these days, men and women are DIFFERENT. Biologically, brain chemistry, social conditioning, hormonally… They are VERY different. So no, my dear Em, it is NOT the same.
Any robust man of good character and at least an average level of social intelligence, CAN learn to be a beast in the bedroom. And by good character, I can reduce it down to “a man who keeps his word”. That’s it.
A woman with a high novelty seeking index is not capable of having good character. She will emotionally confabulate, justify, apply reverse “chick logic”, etc… to “excuse” ANY behavior that she “wants” in the moment. She is like a butterfly flitting about from one shiny thing to another. In other words, she is not to be trusted. It’s kind of like leaving a dog alone in a room with a steak. You can trust a dog to BE a dog, but you can’t trust a dog to go against it’s nature and not eat the steak.
[quote]MementoMori wrote:
"Basically, the underlying TRUTH of the matter is that you can’t turn a ho into a housewife. Seriously. Why anyone disputes this is beyond me. Women who have experienced a lot of cock have a high “novelty seeking index”… It’s how they are WIRED… You think that a ring on her finger is just going to turn that off? There are so many emotional and psychological layers to this it’s not even funny. "
And can you be turned into a husband? [/quote] I’ve been a husband twice[quote] I refuse to accept that a girl who decides to sleep with a guy because shes on vacation in Costa Rica when shes 18 cannot be a faithful wife when she’s 37.
[/quote]No one here is saying that if a girl sleeps with A guy while on vacation ONCE when she’s 18 has ANY impact on who she is a person at age 37. But if she sleeps with A guy in Costa Rica, A guy in Mexico, A guy in Paris, A guy in Brazil, three or four guys a year that she meets at the gym, two guys a month that she meets at the club and four or five guys that she meets online every year between the ages of 18 and 25, then YES that WILL have an affect on her ability to be faithful [quote]
A “kill count” is the sum total of a bunch of individual interactions. For you to shrink that down to a single number and judge someone’s entire existence is a pretty big skill. [/quote]What can I say? I gots SKILLZ…[quote]
“It’s fine by me. I like fucking strange pussy and these days it’s like shooting fish in a barrel. I literally don’t have to try anymore. The biggest challenge is the schedule.”
I like strange too, and based on people’s answers to this thread’s general question, my count is probably closer to yours than others. But I refuse to view my count in a different way than I would a woman’s.
If mine leaves me capable of being faithful then it should be fine for a woman too.[/quote]
That’s because you suffer from the misguided perception that men and women are the SAME. They are most certainly NOT. Not saying they shouldn’t have an EQUAL standard under the law, but NO ONE is “equal” to anyone else, especially men and women. It just isn’t true.