[euchomai]

Originally Posted by Monique

Of course I am for a lot of sex before marriage and after your marriage is over. For myself I wish I had made better choices.

Imagine a man that has never done it; he will never know how to satisfy his partner and since she is also a virgin she won't know that she can have some orgasm.

That is about the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard! You get better at something by doing it again and again. While I've been married we've gotten better, am I missing something... Nah. We try all kinds of stuff out, I don't need to learn from some girl I hooked up with half drunk anyway. I don't need to be with 20 people to get good at sex, I can be with my girl over and over again and have fun. Good at sex means it feels good and then repeat, repeat and if possible, repeat again. Trust me, you can get good at it.

[Cadaver]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

I confess I've never been married, but by all appearances, sex is much more enjoyable than marriage.

Personally, I'd settle for sex after marriage!

[JoshuaZ]

You could look at it this way: Until the last 100 years of civilization we all would have been married off and having kids by age 15. Plus we would all probably be dead from working in the fields by age 30. If we were lucky.

So yeah. Waiting until we're 30 to have sex is a new idea for western civilization.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

Looking at those poll results Jesus is turning over in his grave.

That would require him to actually BE in a grave.

[jcadam]

Originally Posted by Kevin

That would require him to actually BE in a grave.

Don't feed the troll.

[xenu]

Go for it and have fun.
It's not sacred. It's not a gift.
It's perfectly natural.

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

Looking at those poll results Jesus is turning over in his grave.

Stop looking at the polls SHOS, you're making some people nervous.

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by SirCastor

I tend to disagree, Kissing a person on the lips tends not to bond a person to another person in the intimate way that sex does. Sex is an expression of love to a partner, and the emotion, physical, and mental connection that comes with it is very powerful...

That is a very "female" view of things, you know. Interesting. I've had this happen to me in an affair about a year ago, where this girl would absolutely refuse to "sleep" with me (though we did everything else in the book, - and with everything, I mean a lot more than just kissing).

As it turned out, she didn't like the fact that I wasn't into commitment at the time, and she needed to feel "special" in order to sleep with someone (pretty much along the lines of what you just wrote).

For me, it's not that simple. I've felt very strong bonds and emotional ties to women I never did a lot more with than talk and have fun, to some others, with which I slept a lot etc. I never really cared whether or not they disappeared the next day. With yet others it was both (I'm sure quite a few of you can relate to this)

I guess the bottom line for me is that it pretty much revolves around the emotional ties you let yourself have with someone. Sex is only as powerful as you let it be.

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by JoshuaZ

You could look at it this way: Until the last 100 years of civilization we all would have been married off and having kids by age 15.

That's a very good point. In that context "no sex until marriage" and "''til death do us part" actually makes sense.

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by euchomai

While I've been married we've gotten better, am I missing something... Nah.

How do you know?

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by Rolling Bones

What do you mean by sex anyway?

IS dry humping and sucking on boobies OK?

Hey, if that's what you're into...*g*

But, no, actually I was talking about getting into a gorilla costume and defacating all over your partner. I thought that was pretty clear, no?

[E's Lil Theorem]

Yes for me. But, I don't discriminate against femmes who want to wait until after marriage. Actually, I've dated a few of them - some of which are still waiting for marriage

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by wolfen

Secondly, people nullify reality by stating "Well I never experienced" this or that, as though that makes a general statement untrue.

I totally agree. It's all about the sampling rate.

Originally Posted by wolfen

Thirdly, I think a certain amount of age and self-awareness go a long way in understanding the issues of either choice.

The problem being, that you can't turn back time.

Originally Posted by wolfen

A 50-something with a large pool of life experience might see a young guy making mistakes and KNOW they're mistakes.

Yes, but what seems like a mistake at 50, might have been the right choice 30 years earlier. I know that some girls I really wanted to date at age 16, I wouldn't touch with a 10 ft. pole now (not that I have a 10...LOL). The choices we make are always relative to space and time. There really isn't one "right choice". Personally, I tend to realize these days, that I'd rather take the chance of doing something wrong, than regretting to never even have tried.

Originally Posted by wolfen

Would arguing the point help the young guy grow up any faster? Prolly not.

Do you know what's the "right choice" for that particular person, at that point in time? Prolly not.

Originally Posted by wolfen

Like I'm going to convince him to keep it in his pants? C'mon.

Again, the question is, - how would you know that it is the right choice for him.

Originally Posted by wolfen

We've all lusted after things that turned out to be less than we hoped.

Yep, very true. But at times, for me at least, they have been so much more.

Originally Posted by wolfen

Satisfaction cannot be discovered through continual reinforcement of lack.

It also can't necessarily be discovered, by arbitrarly assigning values to various experiences.

[JoshuaZ]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

That's a very good point. In that context "no sex until marriage" and "''til death do us part" actually makes sense.

I always found the whole 'Till death do us part' thing. But really, it makes perfect sense. If you're promoting a 'heaven' where you'll see all your loved ones you start to run into some tricky issues. Like if your spouse dies and you get remarried. You can't be married to TWO people in heaven. So remember kids, you're not really married to anyone forever. Only until you die. In heaven you can sleep with anyone.

[moonmonkey]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

Looking at those poll results Jesus is turning over in his grave.

Im pretty sure he had sex with a prostitute in the bible, so he can't exactly have a go at me if I want to have pre-marital relationship with a post graduate.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by xenu

Go for it and have fun.
It's not sacred. It's not a gift.
It's perfectly natural.

Précisément. I agree completely.

We’ve evolved into one of the very few species of mammals that thoroughly enjoy sex, and can have sex for the pure enjoyment in it—I see no reason, then, to wait until some ultimately unnatural institution we’ve invented kicks in, in order to actually enjoy it. As long as you’re careful to avoid some of the not so pleasant consequences sex can have (viz. unwanted pregnancies and/or STDs), I see no reason whatsoever to wait until marriage. But then again, I tend to think the whole concept of ‘marriage’ is rather silly to begin with.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

Stop looking at the polls SHOS, you're making some people nervous.

Why would a forum poll make ANYONE nervous?

How old are you again?

Actually I am shocked that there is actually 22 people that DID vote that said waiting was best in this forum. Just think Kronos, there are 22 people in here AT LEAST that thinks JUST like me.

Originally Posted by moonmonkey

Im pretty sure he had sex with a prostitute in the bible, so he can't exactly have a go at me if I want to have pre-marital relationship with a post graduate.

I'd go back and read it again.

[moonmonkey]

Maybe its the Davinchi code I was thinking off.

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by moonmonkey

Maybe its the Davinchi code I was thinking off.

Are you kidding? Zombie Jeebus was a black man in Africa who could walk on water. He was probably hitting it like Ron Jeremy on crack.

[Dakar]

Yay. STDs and pregnancy aren't a concern if you have a head on your shoulders. I imagine anyone here who cites them as a concern would be a responsible enough person that they'd never have to worry about them anyway, should they engage in premarital sex.

I might add you engage in premarital sex and still only engage in it with people whom you love. All it does it guarantee you'll be doing it with a lot fewer people, which is probably a good thing anyway.

Remember, just because you've had sex before marriage doesn't mean you're a slut.

[wolfen]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

It also can't necessarily be discovered, by arbitrarly assigning values to various experiences.

This is the crux of your argument, so I'll focus here.

Secondly, you seem to value (arbitrarily) the exploration of diverse experiences. As though the wisdom gleaned might somehow help you alleviate that "but how do I know what I'm missing if I don't try it" bug. That's a rather unhealthy mindframe. Go tell your child to play in traffic because, after all, how do *I* know what's good for him? Maybe he'll enjoy the experience.

Your absorption of moral relativism is also a relatviely new invention of mankind. The idea that a mass media could radically alter the moral compass of an entire generation is novel. AKA not time tested. And the disintegration of many cultures is often foreshadowed by their excesses. Do you think they thought they were excesses at the time?

The slipperiest position anyone can take is that everything is individual-dependent. I used to uphold that idea and thought I was quite clever. Had it all figured out. So I'm only going to try to argue one thing: your ideas are relatively new. So far, they aren't proving to be very good overall. Highest incidences of depression, suicide, debt, and an assortment of mental/medical/moral ailments all escalating on the idea that the individual was "doing what felt right at the time."

Yes, let's look at AIDS in Africa and ask ourselves, is the rape of some woman on the road ok because it felt like the right decision to the AIDS infected man? Of course not. Therefore, your whole argument is (as you say) arbitrary. It's dependent on the idea that *you* possess the key to proper behavior. Either that, or what's good for each individual can be entertained by the whole system regardless of its usefulness to that system.

That's called cancer.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

Looking at those poll results Jesus is turning over in his grave.

Do you care ?

[Mastrap]

The more guys save themselves for marriage, the more horny chicks there'll be around for the rest of us. It's a win-win.

Marriage of course developed in a time where women had little, if any, possibility to amass material wealth. Virginity and the ability to bear children that were guaranteed to be the husband's were the only 'value' a young woman could bargain with to secure a life free of destitution.

And with chances high that a woman would die in childbirth and the majority of men (rather than women, which is the rule today) ending up being widowers and remarrying the whole 'until death does us part' had a far more real ring to it than it has today.

[wolfen]

Originally Posted by Mastrap

The more guys save themselves for marriage, the more horny chicks there'll be around for the rest of us. It's a win-win.

Marriage of course developed in a time where women had little, if any, possibility to amass material wealth. Virginity and the ability to bear children that were guaranteed to be the husband's were the only 'value' a young woman could bargain with to secure a life free of destitution.

And with chances high that a woman would die in childbirth and the majority of men (rather than women, which is the rule today) ending up being widowers and remarrying the whole 'until death does us part' had a far more real ring to it than it has today.

This is all a rationalization. The fact is that marriage was an instituation until the media revolution projected self-serving images to a selfish and egotistical public. It was like giving the first hit of crack to a child for free. Now all the addicts are calling it a "lifestyle." Just because you grew up with it, doesn't make it normal. An army of Jerry Springer guests should have demonstrated that to us clearly enough.

Whatever.

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by wolfen

Secondly, you seem to value (arbitrarily) the exploration of diverse experiences.

No, not arbitrarily, - quite specifically actually. I too have lived long enough to judge from my past experiences. Thank you.

Originally Posted by wolfen

That's a rather unhealthy mind-frame.

Says who? Curiosity is a key factor to emotional and psychological growth. It's not an unhealthy frame of mind at all.

Originally Posted by wolfen

Go tell your child to play in traffic because, after all, how do *I* know what's good for him? Maybe he'll enjoy the experience.

Which is, of course, the ultimate cynicism.

Think "health", – and there you've got it. Most decisions in life aren't as "black and white" as your moral authoritarian view needs them to be.

Sex, with the right person, is most of time a very healthy thing (before, after or during marriage).

Originally Posted by wolfen

The idea that a mass media could radically alter the moral compass of an entire generation is novel. AKA not time tested.

Does that automatically make it wrong/bad/unhealthy? Again, if faced with the choice of morality instilled by fear and doubt (and you can yap on all you want about the love for God or some kind of deity, – that's what it boils down to in the end), I'd rather err on the side of "experience".

Originally Posted by wolfen

And the disintegration of many cultures is often foreshadowed by their excesses. Do you think they thought they were excesses at the time?

Do you think these cultures would have lasted for ever on the strength of moralism, frugality, scarcity and self-denial. I seriously doubt it.

Originally Posted by wolfen

The slipperiest position anyone can take is that everything is individual-dependent.

Funny, that for most conservatives this only applies to issues of morality and not to fiscal conservatism. All of a sudden it's all about "personal responsibility".

Originally Posted by wolfen

...your ideas are relatively new. So far, they aren't proving to be very good overall.

A hell of a lot better than what we've had before, IMHO. Face it, - you don't know the meaning of life, and neither do I. We all need to do what balances out in the end. But would you trade slavery, serfdom, clerical fascism, authoritarianism for the possibility of "doing wrong". I sure as hell wouldn't.

Originally Posted by wolfen

...all escalating on the idea that the individual was "doing what felt right at the time."

The same can be said about self-denial and an unhealthy attitude towards one's own body and sexuality etc. Most serial killers and mass murderers had issues of that nature.

Fiscal conservatism, of course, being the "ball and chain" du jour. That's why so many moralists love to play the game of consensual blackmail. Seems to work like a charm on most people too.

Originally Posted by wolfen

Yes, let's look at AIDS in Africa and ask ourselves, is the rape of some woman on the road ok because it felt like the right decision to the AIDS infected man?

No, the question is, - would this man have raped the woman if he had had other options (was better informed etc. etc.)? Do you think so? Hell NO!

Originally Posted by wolfen

It's dependent on the idea that *you* possess the key to proper behavior.

No, it's dependent on knowing that NOBODY has the key to proper behavior, but that I am mindful of my fellow human beings, I have a right to survive and I need to think of my (long-term) health.

For better or for worse, the age of "authoritarianism" is over. It has seen it's time come and go. And I myself know quite enough about history and anthropology to judge what consequences my actions (might) have (for better or for worse).

And furthermore, people who use the argument from experience usually don't have any good points in regards to the issue at hand. I'm not saying that experience is completely useless, but it certainly isn't the killer argument in and of itself either.

I've mad my choice, it seems like you have too. Good luck.

[NYCFarmboy]

Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?

[wolfen]

You're missing the point.

You'd like to think you've learned something, and that your knowledge is applicable to others (eg, me). But when I make the same claim you say "How do I know what's good for so and so." And that I'm a moral "Authoritarian." It's hypocritical. All moral relativism turns to hypocrisy. That's the point. You cannot sustain that you are right and I am wrong and still claim to be less authoritarian than me.

And after all, why am I authoritarian? Because I am concerned about how individual decisions affect an entire system? You talk of "health" -- health applies at the macro level as well. I am not advocating the restriction of people's freedom. Not at all. Yet you keep railing against this idea (in your head). Who's pushin' down on you?

I think everyone should have choice. But I don't think we should call it all Good.

Sex, with the right person, is most of time a very healthy thing (before, after or during marriage).

You tag very vague qualifiers onto your judgments and obviously those qualifiers are what it's all about: With the right person/most of the time. Hey, you can just about lock that down if, say, you were in love with them and committed yourself to them. A very logical means of improving the odds of having "a healthy experience." After all, you're implying that the rest of the time it's not healthy anyway. And in that we have agreement. The difference is I don't have those experiences. How many times do you touch a hot stove and decide you're wiser for the experience? When do you finally decide "This is stupid!" ?

[guote]No, the question is, - would this man have raped the woman if he had had other options (was better informed etc. etc.)? Do you think so? Hell NO![/quote]

Hold on? You're saying rapists would stop raping if they were better informed? You've just decided that AIDS would not spread if people were better informed? They are WELL informed. Many of them don't want to comply. This is why I used this example -- it is the example of a people who understand the consequences of their actions and refuse to do what is right for the whole system. They take matters into their own hands and neglect the system for their own benefit. When they told Patient 0 that he was spreading a deadly disease and creating an epidemic in the United States what did he do? Get on the next flight out and have more unprotected sex. Moral relativism at its finest.

Again, if faced with the choice of morality instilled by fear and doubt (and you can yap on all you want about the love for God or some kind of deity, – that's what it boils down to in the end), I'd rather err on the side of "experience".

As for black and white thinking, I can't imagine a better example. Really, very funny. This is a fear-riddled statement. I look back over the thread and see you have a strong need to fight about this topic. It's clear that you are the one who is afraid of having some sense of freedom constrained when, in fact, nobody has made threat of doing so.

You continually point to some old-world moralism where the man must have been puttin' you down, and ascribe it to me -- someone who is simply sayin' "Hey, I've found benefits to self restraint. And secondly, it's unreasonable to believe that everyone should just do whatever they want anyway." You're painting me black, and you white.

You're the one depicting a black and white world where Old and self restrained = bad, New and hedonistic = good.

[ambush]

Originally Posted by Oisín

Précisément. I agree completely.

We’ve evolved into one of the very few species of mammals that thoroughly enjoy sex, and can have sex for the pure enjoyment in it—I see no reason, then, to wait until some ultimately unnatural institution we’ve invented kicks in, in order to actually enjoy it. As long as you’re careful to avoid some of the not so pleasant consequences sex can have (viz. unwanted pregnancies and/or STDs), I see no reason whatsoever to wait until marriage. But then again, I tend to think the whole concept of ‘marriage’ is rather silly to begin with.

Can you confirm the popular rumor that says: Asian folks have small dicks

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by ambush

Can you confirm the popular rumor that says: Asian folks have small dicks

No, that's just a rumor, as compared to facts like "Canadians have single-digit IQs"

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by wolfen

You'd like to think you've learned something, and that your knowledge is applicable to others.

No, actually that's what you're claiming. I'm only making judgments pertaining to myself, not to others.

Originally Posted by wolfen

But when I make the same claim you say "How do I know what's good for so and so."

Again, you are the one concerned with making "valuable" judgments for others based on your experience.

It's like saying "I hate Coca Cola" even-though you've never tried it, simply because somebody who is a "soda expert" told you it's bad.

I'm not saying that you have to like Coke, I'm saying that you can't make that statement, without having tried it first.

Originally Posted by wolfen

And that I'm a moral "Authoritarian." It's hypocritical.

No, it's not. Whereas you claim to know (you said so yourself) what the proper method of conduct is (for others), and what proper decisions are, I'm only claiming that I make judgments for MYSELF. BIG DIFFERENCE!

Originally Posted by wolfen

All moral relativism turns to hypocrisy.

No, it doesn't. Kant's "moral imperative" is still pretty solid.

Originally Posted by wolfen

You cannot sustain that you are right and I am wrong and still claim to be less authoritarian than me.

No, but I can say "I do as I please" and don't give a fu<k about what you think, without having to make decisions for you (or one's that necessarily effect you)

Originally Posted by wolfen

Because I am concerned about how individual decisions affect an entire system?

No, because you think there is an OBJECTIVE correct decision at all. It's the quintessence of all authoritarianism. It's not about you being wrong, and me being right. It's about believing that there is an "absolute" right and wrong at all. And since neither of us know the meaning of life, - you're the hypocrite.

Originally Posted by wolfen

You talk of "health" -- health applies at the macro level as well.

No, actually it doesn't. Again, there is no way in hell you have that kind of "macro view" of things.

Originally Posted by wolfen

I am not advocating the restriction of people's freedom. Not at all.

Buy placing your "experience" above others "instinct" in terms of decision making, that's exactly what you are doing. And no, it doesn't work the other way around. Because "instinctive" decision making is always an individual and subjective endeavor - no matter what experience a person might have.

By playing the "experience" card, you are automatically putting yourself in a privileged position opposed to people who are younger than you, or have less experience.

Originally Posted by wolfen

I think everyone should have choice. But I don't think we should call it all Good.

Again, you are assigning the value judgments, not me. I don't know if it's all good. And neither do you. It might not be a comfy spot, – but is the (intellectually) most honest.

Originally Posted by wolfen

Hey, you can just about lock that down if, say, you were in love with them and committed yourself to them.

That's a very one-dimensional interpretation of those qualifiers. In certain situations that person could be somebody you don't give a fu<k about, and it be exactly the right partner etc.

Originally Posted by wolfen

A very logical means of improving the odds of having "a healthy experience." After all, you're implying that the rest of the time it's not healthy anyway.

Again, you're interpretation. It don't even need those qualifiers to make my proposition a lot more healthy than the other option of abstinence or self-denial. What I'm not doing though, is drawing a "plan" for others to attain guaranteed personal satisfaction.

Originally Posted by wolfen

How many times do you touch a hot stove and decide you're wiser for the experience?

Once, – BUT if I enjoy the pain (okay, this is again (quite deliberately) an example that goes against health) I won't let anybody else tell me that their experience is a better judge than mine.

AND once again, – having sex before marriage isn't detrimental to anybody's health, actually it is EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE (as numerous scientific studies have found now). On the other hand we can see what self-denial and moral "shame" has led to.

I'm just saying, – here is what you can read and find out, now make your choice. You're saying, because you have more experience in life and a privileged position, you know what's best for everybody else. There's the difference.

Originally Posted by wolfen

You're saying rapists would stop raping if they were better informed?

No, not just that (but actually that's true as well), I'm furthermore stating that rapists wouldn't rape if they had other options, treatment, and most of all, if they hadn't been victims themselves.

You do know why people rape other's, – here's a hint: it's not teh Devil that made them do it.

Originally Posted by wolfen

You've just decided that AIDS would not spread if people were better informed? They are WELL informed.

And that's one of the major major reasons why the epidemic of AIDS is pretty much under control in industrialized nations.

I also believe that in most of these "virgin rape" cases in Africa, people were NOT very well informed (to make the understatement of the century)

Originally Posted by wolfen

...it is the example of a people who understand the consequences of their actions and refuse to do what is right for the whole system.

No, it's an example of how absolutely DEVASTATING superstition, misinformation, and yes, moral authoritarianism (guess who told those people that raping virgins would cure their illness?) can be.

Originally Posted by wolfen

Get on the next flight out and have more unprotected sex. Moral relativism at its finest.

This is a really STUPID individual example, which could be countered by literally MILLIONS of countering cases where people decided NOT to engage in risky sexual behavior, when they found out the consequences.

And again, - my health argument wins out here. "Patient 0" was doing something that wasn't healthy.

Originally Posted by wolfen

I look back over the thread and see you have a strong need to fight about this topic.

Not really. But this topic (as so many others) has very far reaching implications. You're right there.

Originally Posted by wolfen

"Hey, I've found benefits to self restraint. And secondly, it's unreasonable to believe that everyone should just do whatever they want anyway."

No, actually that's not what you are doing. You are saying that from your "privileged" (experienced) point of view, you automatically know what's best for everybody, and it would automatically be wrong, if people did "whatever they wanted" – no matter what the outcome.

This is a fundamentally flawed view of the world, IMO.

But hey, if it works for you – who am I to argue. Right? That's why I've already said in this thread, it's not about what you do in the end, it's the reasoning behind it.

That's something you just don't seem to be able to grasp. But slowly I am beginning to understand why you don't want a "vis-a-vis" comparison of the benefits and drawbacks of abstaining from pre-marital sex.

It's about weighing your options, and then making an informed decision. And what's even more important - having those options in the first place.

[Dakar]

Did somebody just publish a term paper?

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by ambush

Can you confirm the popular rumor that says: Asian folks have small dicks

I can’t, no; I don’t have the empirical material neither to prove nor to disprove such a rumour. I do know, however, that several studies have been carried out in this field, and that more or less all of them have found that the differences are minimal, average size varying less than one centimetre between the races.

Besides, what kind of slut do you take me for? Oy’m a goo’ geel, Oy em! [That’s Eliza Doolittle, very poorly transcribed—and this last paragraph is obviously not meant to be taken seriously]

[wolfen]

Q: How can you tell if a moral relativist is a good person?
A: He tells you he is.

---------------

Question: How do you know when you've done something wrong?
Moral Relativist: I don't understand the question.


There are so many contradictions, inconsistencies and hypocracies to your post that it would take a very very long time to sort them all out. Let's just have fun and make silly jokes? K?

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by Dakar

Did somebody just publish a term paper?

LOL.

Yeah, sorry for the long post.

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by wolfen

There are so many contradictions, inconsistencies and hypocracies to your post that it would take a very very long time to sort them all out.

Actually, no, there aren't. I've got this down fairly well and it sure isn't the first time I've discussed this issue.

Bottom line, - you don't have the answers, because in the end your faith is all you have. And I can always call you a liar. Welcome the most basic of human dilemmas.

And just to play along with the joke theme:

Masochist: Please please torture me.

Sadist: No!

[bboisvert]

Originally Posted by ambush

Can you confirm the popular rumor that says: Asian folks have small dicks

Yes they do, and a friend of mine was telling me he came across one dude fully erected, he was only 3 inchs.

Generally
Blacks are massive
Whites are in the middle
Asians are small

But since so many of us are muts its starting to blend into a middle range for most

[bboisvert]

The only good thing I see from waiting is the limited risk of getting STD's.

[hart]

funny how most people seem to accept that there is either marriage or slutty sleeping around.

I had several multi-year committed relationships before marriage with people I thought were "the one" but who turned out not to be. I don't attach a moral value to abstinence before marriage, especially in light of what "kids these days" consider to be abstinence, everything but the kitchen sink. That's not moral, it's just foolin yourself.

[wolfen]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

Actually, no, there aren't. I've got this down fairly well and it sure isn't the first time I've discussed this issue.

Bottom line, - you don't have the answers, because in the end your faith is all you have. And I can always call you a liar. Welcome the most basic of human dilemmas.

Notice the polarized thinking, again. I must be a religious nut to embrace self-restraint. No intelligent individual could reason through the facts at hand and arrive at a socially responsible, emotionally mature, and mentally healthy choice for himself. No, this must be the product of religious programming. Well done. Clearly you've got the whole thing wrapped up. And by your argument I have faith. What was it you had again? Oh yeah, no answers. Not the best platform from which to feign credibility.

I believe you have thought through your ideas. It's others' ideas that you have not thought through. You must learn to adopt, embrace, and reason through your opponent's ideas in order to understand them. Only then can you see the flaws in your own thinking.
Right now you're still going with your anger/fear reactions and just rationalizing them.

If you think you've presented a well-reasoned argument for anything, you need a lot more practice. I would be happy to indulge you privately, but not on this board. Send me a PM and I'd be happy to help you practice your reasoning skills. As an example, you really need to think thoroughly through your concept of "health." Right now it is very green and needs a lot of work. It's actually much more controversial than you present.

[as2]

Hey, I figure if you can try before you buy in the shops these days, why not do the same with yo' woman!

Rather that than try to take her back for being faulty (no you can't stick it in my ass)!

No, on a serious note, each to their own. I know friends who got laid at 15 while drunk and it was a less than pleasant affair. I also know people who are waiting for 'the one'. Whatever makes you happy. I personally went for middle ground I suppose, waiting until I was in a proper relationship, rather than having a 1 night stand just so I could say I'd got laid.

[Binarymix]

Wait? Pfft.

Do any other animals have to wait till marriage to give up their virginity? No? I didn't think so.

[Monique]

I know for you euchomai sex is fun it is always lots of fun for the guys; but do you know what to do for your wife and does she know she can have more fun alone than with a guy that is only focus on penetration.

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by wolfen

I must be a religious nut to embrace self-restraint.

Says who? Certainly not me. I was talking about "faith". Nothing more, nothing less. Your particular faith that there is an absolute "right" and "wrong".

Originally Posted by wolfen

Not the best platform from which to feign credibility.

"Feigning credibility" is your problem, - not mine.

Originally Posted by wolfen

It's others' ideas that you have not thought through.

Actually, yes, I have.

Originally Posted by wolfen

Right now you're still going with your anger/fear reactions and just rationalizing them.

O please, quit the amateur shrink babble. I know quite well what I'm doing. I've had enough philosophy classes in my time.

Originally Posted by wolfen

If you think you've presented a well-reasoned argument for anything, you need a lot more practice.

LOL. There you go again, thinking you can tell me what I need to present a "well-reasoned" argument. Tstststssss.

Originally Posted by wolfen

It's actually much more controversial than you present.

You know what, it's probably the best basis to make any kind of value judgement at all these days. You should try to think beyond this thread.

[Kevin]

A whole page, and nothing accomplished.

[wolfen]

Yes, parse out the bits you can make snyde remarks about. Don't bother yourself with that logic stuff.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by Kevin

A whole page, and nothing accomplished.

Business as Usual®

[wolfen]

Originally Posted by Kevin

A whole page, and nothing accomplished.

I don't agree. I've got the whole Duke University Philosophy Department over here reviewing Kronos' posts. Yeah, man, they think his "Nobody knows more than me" philosophy is going to revolutionize modern thought. Combined with the "I'm taking my toys and going home" and "Holding my breath until I get my way" problem solving techniques, they think there's a winning combination here.

Boy this is gonna be great! Of course, we still have to secure the rights from Kronos. But I'm sure I've gotten in his good graces enough to negotiate a sweet deal. Say...a plate of cookies and milk?

[euchomai]

Originally Posted by Monique

I know for you euchomai sex is fun it is always lots of fun for the guys; but do you know what to do for your wife and does she know she can have more fun alone than with a guy that is only focus on penetration.

I sure am glad that I'm not as cynical as you are coming off. You act as if we can't discuss how things went in bed. My wife and I communicate, we talk about what works and what doesn't. This statement applies to our home life as well as our sex life. I'm a very luck man to have the wife that I have, she communicates CLEARLY as to what she likes! Yes, WE are having great fun. How do I know? We discuss it.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by wolfen

I don't agree. I've got the whole Duke University Philosophy Department over here reviewing Kronos' posts. Yeah, man, they think his "Nobody knows more than me" philosophy is going to revolutionize modern thought. Combined with the "I'm taking my toys and going home" and "Holding my breath until I get my way" problem solving techniques, they think there's a winning combination here.

Boy this is gonna be great! Of course, we still have to secure the rights from Kronos. But I'm sure I've gotten in his good graces enough to negotiate a sweet deal. Say...a plate of cookies and milk?

Thanks, that post just made me actually

[JoshuaZ]

Originally Posted by ambush

Can you confirm the popular rumor that says: Asian folks have small dicks

1) I live in Japan.

2) Went to on onsen about a week ago.

3) Saw a lot of wang there.

4) Know several girls who are dating Japanese men, or who have dated them.

5) The rumor is correct.