JOshawa, that’s about the stupidest thing I’ve read on this forum in the past year. (And remember, there was a recommendation that Franco Columbu play Arnold’s son in the next Conan moive. Your post is stupider than that.)
Sheesh.
Your exactly right Char I feel dumber for having read JOshawa posts. I should’ve stopped after glancing at the topic.
Joel- Careful or you’ll start another Grammar police debate!
I have morals.
I always ask if a girl has a husband or boyfriend before I eat her pussy.
To char-dawg:
How exactly is my post stupid when it is true? Try picking up a biology text book and see for yourself that what I said in my second post is true, (I assume that’s what you thought was stupid).
JOshawa:
A biology text book from what decade?
Whoah! Another slippery ground thread. 1) The definitions game. How do you define ‘morals’ ? Answer: It doesn’t matter. Why? Because you have your own, which is different from your neighbour, which is different from his neighboour…ad nauseum. The world can’t (and wouldn’t ever) be able to be unanimous on the definition of ONE word, like ‘peace’. Imagine entering the abstracts of life like morals…yet another combination of, guess what, words. 2) The actions game. The proof of the pudding of everybody’s definition of morals is in actions (and I would add, most often than not, getting caught). Everybody defines his morals by his actions (take note, never listen to what they say, look at what they do). Be my guest if you you want to bet or speculate of somebody’s definitions (and convictions of) on something you can’t verify (morals), unless you follow the person 24/7, which is not possible, so you’ll never be sure. But you can look at what you see (their actions) which are always worth more than words. 3) The consequences. Morals, or lack of, via actions, always have consequences. For example: however you define ‘faithfulness’ won’t help you at all if, for example, you are unfaithful to your wife and, lo and behold, you get an STD on an extramarrital affair. Are the defintions of ‘faithfulness’ going to help you then? I guess not. 4) Bottom line: Stop wasting time asking questions about morals. It won’t change anything anyway. Everybody is his own judge, jury and executionner. Let your actions define who you are. They always do. Far better bet that speculating and leading your life by ‘others’ defitions.
To Patricia:
How about Raven & Johnson’s Biology text published in 2002? Or if you want you could always ask my Biology prof, Soren Nielson, Acadia University.
He might be able to clue you in on what I was talking about.
You think it’s bad at college, try living in So Cal. It’s Darwinism at it’s finest here. Everyone is fucking everyone and they all look like cast members on Melrose Place. Hell, in my complex it’s always a toss up to see who’s coming out of whom’s place at 5am. Gotta love the walk of shame…
Hey, nephorm - If you ever head out this way, I’ll show you all the spots where anyone can get laid by an… cough… ahem… “aspiring actress” for the price of a glass of White Zinfandel and a few minutes of chatting.
JOshawa: Do you bother to think about the bullshit you read in books? How many professors have chided our other collegiates for consuming “damaging amounts of protein” and other garbage nutritional advice? Just because something is published doesn’t make it any more valid than the Sunday Comics. Dr. Suess got published. Dr. Spock got published. Need I say more?
As for your evolutionary theories and all, I can see the sense in the male of the species spreading his seed as far and wide as possible. However, how would you explain guys fucking ugly and/or fat chicks? Makes no evolutionary sense at all. How would you explain guys fucking women over age 35? They are past their prime childbearing age and the rate of birth defects and complications increases rather dramatically every year after 40. Makes no evolutionary sense at all. If you’re going to use the Darwinism/evolutionary nonsense as your foundation, answer me this… Wouldn’t it make perfect evolutionary sense for females to attach themselves (marry) the older, richer, better able to provide males (ensuring material support for their offspring) and then fuck the shit out of all the young studs (ensuring conception with the most genetically viable)? Sounds to me like a perfect, logical, evolutionary reason for females not only being sluts but being golddiggers as well!
So anyway, random sex… Under common sense precautions, I’m all for it. 
Hey Karma, How old are you, my future wife grew up in littleton CO.
“Its a small world after all, its a small world after all…”
“However, how would you explain guys fucking ugly and/or fat chicks?”
Alcohol.
“How would you explain guys fucking women over age 35?”
Stifler’s mom.
“So anyway, random sex… Under common sense precautions, I’m all for it. ;-)”
Me too. Are you free at 8:30?
Mike Oxlong
The only women who fall into the slut category by my definition are women who are sexually out of control. Everybody knows the type, the girl who doesn’t sleep around (in general terms) for fun, but rather out of sheer compulsivity. These girls tend to have deep seated emotional problems and fucked up childhoods and they make it known through there behaviors in both sexual and non-sexual spheres.
By the way, I think it was DanC who made a nice post on moral relitivism. Thank you.
Just because Augustine-- a former sexual compulsive alcoholic with physically abusive, alcoholic parents, turned ascetic borne again nut-- says sex for pleasure is amoral does not mean it to be so.
U peepil r soooo smart. This is a grate debate. I hope eventchulee I care enuf about subject to get upset two.
Karma:
I would say that a published scientific textbook meant for use in intro biology courses at university would be more credible than the Sunday comics. I didn’t say that the only reason people have sex is to increase their fitness or whatever, I was merely explaining why it is okay for guys to be polygamous, and not be labeled sluts - it’s in their genes to act that way, while it isn’t for women. This may sound a bit chauvinistic, but at least this Darwinism view has been scientifically proven, and until someone provides some substantial, and real, scientific evidence that contradicts it, then I will continue to believe it.
I think guys fuck fat ugly chicks b/c they either cannot find a hot chick; for pleasure only; or as I already said to increase their fitness. A fat ugly chick is just as capable of producing offspring as a hot chick aren’t they? And fitness is defined as the number of offspring an individual leaves behind for the succeeding generation, so why doesn’t that make evolutionary sense?
For older women though, who are incapable of producing offspring I would say that it’s just for pleasure purposes only. Then again how many 20 year old guys do you know that is fucking 60 year old grandmas down the street?
As far as your theory of:
“Wouldn’t it make perfect evolutionary sense for females to attach themselves (marry) the older, richer, better able to provide males (ensuring material support for their offspring) and then fuck the shit out of all the young studs (ensuring conception with the most genetically viable)?”
I think that the above theory would make sense for females only, as no male is going to provide for some other male’s kid. That’s why infanticide is practiced so much in the animal kingdom - to decrease competing male’s fitness and to increase their own. A male is not going to nurture and care for another male’s offspring. How would that increase his fitness? It would only decrease it from the increased competition; plus the female would be less willing to reproduce any offspring for that male, as they would be trying to ensure their own fitness by nurturing and providing for the other male’s offspring. For those reasons I doubt your theory would justify females being sluts and gold diggers. Female species might go for it, but males would not, hence it does not make any evolutionary sense.
BFA: I’m 29 but grew up in the Pacific Northwest, not Littleton. I’ve been here about 6 years. It’s extremely doubtful I’d know your bride-to-be… but congrats on finding one worth marrying!
CMC: DUH! I know full well the reasons behind fucking ugly/fat/old chicks. But I’m glad you set the record straight, since I doubt JOshawa’d be able to come up with the most obvious answers under the sun.
Oh, and sorry, but I’ll be working at 8:30…
~karma~: I must decline as well. My dog just bit me and I have gas. I’ll be repairing my mangled foot and popping Beano tablets for the next few hours.
Well, even though I’m a old, 37-year old woman, I still like to think of myself as fuckable. ahem excuse the french. Maybe should have used desirable.
But I agree with Joel. Thys hol thred is wyierd. Now where’s that “Fun with Metaphors” thread?
A few thoughts to this already been argued ad nauseum topic. 1. Since when has morality become a bad idea? Most of us that have had sex outside of marriage. Is it a bad thing to wait. No. Is it a bad thing to behave irresponsibly? Yes. With the rise of unwed motherhood, herpes, teenage pregnancy( a little different than unwed motherhood), and various other stds, does anyone really think most people are behaving carefully.
2. It does seem to me that most people don’t take care in sexual relationships or encounters. What should we do. I really don’t know. I’ve always argued that money can smooth over problems caused by poor judgement. Look at all the unmarried hollywood types having kids. Life is a lot easier when you can afford nannies, private boarding schools, etc.
I know plenty of singles moms without that advantage that have a helluva struggle.
Morality is more important to the people with less economic clout. Rich people have advantages that can pay off their mistakes that poor people can’t. The problem is people tend to have the attitude if someone else is doing something, well it’s alright for me to do whatever. Sorry folks, but Mick Jagger has a gazillion or so to send his kids to the finest Swiss boarding schools. I can’t.
Look how many people have cell phones now. I see welfare cases coming in my office with prepaid, no credit check cell phones. I don’t really care that they have them, it just seems that it’s a status thing to them. Rich people had cell phones in 1985. Now it’s 2003.
Personally, I have not waited until I’ve married. I have had sex while dating. I’ve always kept it in a relationship. No drunken hookups, no one night stands etc. Why, didn’t want the risk. I heard that 1/4 of college students have herpes along with 1/9 of the adult population. I took that info seriously as a kid. I took pregnancy seriously. I’ve also completed my schooling, setup my business survived a divorce and fire while continuing to thrive. Why? I was careful and stuck tothe plan. I just think that to many people are getting to reckless and then wonder why they have it so hard. At 39 my life is easy because of decisions I made at 12-21. I’m not going to preach morals, but when have they become a bad idea?
Bohdi: I just might take you up on that.
Dude,
Before I met my wife I ended up having sex with some girls that I was just good friends with. We had sex,great sex, there was no attachment and we still had a good friendship. I think that as long as your safe who cares. What’s wrong with it? Religion? What if you’re not religious then are you really committing a sin???