Sexual history doesn't matter? Who would marry a porn star?
Now I know the tough guys and smart mouths will jump on this topic to say something childish and ignorant, but after they get that off there flat chests and school boy snickering lets see some real digging here.
Would you marry and look at a porn star as a future wife and mother of your children?
My point is if you knew what a women’s sexual history is you would definitely consider it in judging them. That’s just being honest. You make your own compromises at that point.
A porn star example is just taking the issue to its extreme, yet is just as insightful to the question. You see, it’s not a difference in KIND, but in DEGREE! It’s about what you could know and what that knowledge would mean to you.
If a women’s sexual history means nothing yet you would never marry a porn star or see them as a prospect for having and raising YOUR children then it’s really a matter of honesty. Your honesty with yourself, and a women’s honesty with you about her life and the choices she has made.
Ignorance maybe bliss but people really don't change. As the old saying goes, the more things change the more things stay the same. What really changes is opportunities. When your young you have greater opportunities than when you get older.
Age is NOT an excuse.
It’s about character.
A former porn star has a questionable employment history.
so your contention....to take it to the extreme, as you did.....is that the only suitable spouse is a virgin?
I'm sorry, but you are beginning seem like a tool
What a waste of time reading this thread. He's not content to pollute other threads with his drivel. Now he's got to start them for himself...TO ARGUE THE SAME POINT!!!
What a waste of time reading this thread. He's not content to pollute other threads with his drivel. Now he's got to start them for himself...TO ARGUE THE SAME POINT!!!
Seems to me the issue was never resloved. Is it your opinion that because you says it is then it so.
I am only apply a different perspective to the question same question posed in a diffent string.
so your contention....to take it to the extreme, as you did.....is that the only suitable spouse is a virgin?
I'm sorry, but you are beginning seem like a tool
No never said that nor is that the issue.
The issue is a womens sexual history and if men used it to judge women.
Get it?
Maybe you're not aware--there ARE married porn stars, both active and retired.
So why not resolve your point in the other threads? My point is, why start another thread to argue THE SAME POINT?
I would marry a porn star. The main requirement would be that I loved her and she loved me.
The heart wants what it wants.
I sometimes wish my husband was a porn star. I like to watch. ;)
as in, you'd like to watch your husband bang other chicks? hawt
If your husband's attractive, I wish he was too--there are too many ugly guys in porn. :lol:
Sure I'd marry a porn star if it was true love.
And what is the difference between herpes and true love?
Herpes is forever!
lumber...you know how it is. A little voyeurism never hurt anyone. ;) Secret mirrors and stuff. Besides, I know he's devoted to me. To be honest though, I don't think he'd ever want to have sex with another woman, although he might if I asked him to. lol
Seems to me the issue was never resloved. Is it your opinion that because you says it is then it so.
I am only apply a different perspective to the question same question posed in a diffent string.
The thing you seem to be missing, is that the *issue* will never be resolved.
There's nothing to resolve because there is no wrong or right answer...there are just personal opinions and beliefs.
If you are waiting for everyone to come in and go ..."gee bmw, I see where you are coming from, I'm going to make sure I get the full sexual history of my perspective girlfriends/boyfriends from now on and judge them accordingly"....I think you should pack up your bat n ball and call it a day.
I asked the question because my circle of friends are very open minded and we are very like minded. At times I wonder whether we live in our own little world and if we are that far from the *norm* that I have lost touch with the mainstream goings on.
although he might if I asked him to.
Do Ya Think ??
maybe what bothers me the most about your tone is the assumed stance that sex is bad. 'judging women by their (this is the correct usage of the possesive form of the word, btw) sexual history' sounds like you have a preconception that the more sex a person has had, the harder it would be to justify having a relationship with them.
Ignorance maybe bliss but people really don't change. As the old saying goes, the more things change the more things stay the same. What really changes is opportunities. When your young you have greater opportunities than when you get older.
Age is NOT an excuse.
It’s about character.
so this means that old porn stars are of inferior character, and if given the chance, they'll what? have an orgie behind your back? i assume someone cheated on you? was she a big whore?
l~snip~ To be [COLOR=Red]honest[/COLOR] though, I don't think he'd ever want to have sex with another woman, ~snip~
you misspelled [COLOR=Red]deluded.
[/COLOR];)
Perhaps you are underestimating the powers of Aliantha... :cool:
Talking to bm about women is like talking to a Klanner about black people.
... but after they get that off there flat chests and school boy snickering lets see some real digging here.
Can't help here, my chest hasn't been flat since I was 15. If gender isn't too important I can join in the snickering though.
Would you marry and look at a porn star as a future wife and mother of your children?
Sorry folks, got to agree with bmwmcaw there. I am highly unlikely to marry a porn star and let her be the Mother of my children.
Questions for bmwmcaw:
1) Would you marry a drug addict or alcoholic who had no sexual history?
2) Would you marry a virgin with a mental disease such as schizophrenia or bi-polar disorder?
3) Would you marry a woman with a violent past but who had never engaged in sexual activity?
4) Would you marry a member of a cult such as Scientology or Satanism but who had never had sex?
The point of these questions is that I think you are attaching way too much significance to a relatively minor part of what makes up a person. Being a virgin does not guarantee that a woman will be a good mother and wife. Nor does it guarantee that she will not cheat on you. Much more important is that the woman in question is loving, self-respecting as well as respectful of others, self-confident, empathetic, kind and has the same moral values as you do. If you find someone like that, chances are excellent that she will be faithful and raise happy, healthy children.
Stormie
Hmmm - I find it rather interesting that BM has these firm unyielding stances on the issue, yet also an utter refusal to admit what we all think may be the reason behind his "opinion". "someone cheated on you? was she a big whore?" lumberjim
Can't give an honest answer. Never met one!
Odds of me ever meeting one? Zero percent.
The question isn't whether I would marry a porn star, but whether I would be attracted to one in the first place. I wouldn't, personally. I've dated 2 strippers (pardon, DANCErs), and they weren't nearly the well-adjusted free spirits they always want people to think they are. Doesn't mean they aren't valuable as people. But they got issues.
I couldn't be truly intimate with someone who is currently having sex with strangers for money.
I could theoretically be intimate with someone who used to be a porn star, but they would have to be clearly and completely done with that phase of their life.
If I fell for her and we both tested negative, sure, no problem.
Thing is, I don't think porn or sex for fun are immoral, so I'm not the right person to ask your, obviously, loaded question to.
btw, it's clear that bmw has women issues, but the point of view he's expressing isn't nearly as hateful as you're making it out to be. If you act as judgemental as he does, how are you better? There's a lot of anger there, it would be worth the discussion to find out more about it rather than defaulting to snide one-liners and harumphs. Misogyny can be caused by things other than "he's just an asshole".
so your contention....to take it to the extreme, as you did.....is that the only suitable spouse is a virgin?
I'm sorry, but you are beginning seem like a tool
That wasn't the question.
Read the post.
Thing is, I don't think porn or sex for fun are immoral, so I'm not the right person to ask your, obviously, loaded question to.
I'm the opposite. I think porn and sex for fun are not only immoral, but have quite possibly done more damage to individuals' lives and society at large than anything else. Wherever you find a sex crime, you find porn somewhere in the mix. Porn is dehumanizing, and it perpetuates the idea that you can fuck anyone at anytime with no mental, spiritual, or social consequences. Tain't so.
lol taint.
Questions for bmwmcaw:
1) Would you marry a drug addict or alcoholic who had no sexual history?
2) Would you marry a virgin with a mental disease such as schizophrenia or bi-polar disorder?
3) Would you marry a woman with a violent past but who had never engaged in sexual activity?
4) Would you marry a member of a cult such as Scientology or Satanism but who had never had sex?
The point of these questions is that I think you are attaching way too much significance to a relatively minor part of what makes up a person. Being a virgin does not guarantee that a woman will be a good mother and wife. Nor does it guarantee that she will not cheat on you. Much more important is that the woman in question is loving, self-respecting as well as respectful of others, self-confident, empathetic, kind and has the same moral values as you do. If you find someone like that, chances are excellent that she will be faithful and raise happy, healthy children.
Stormie
Its about character.
Why is it people seem so ready to disregard a persons character. No matter what your history is, it is part of who YOU are. If you or anyone else looks past it and feel comfortable with it then more power to you.
Your history matters because it is and always will be the best guide to your future. You are what you think and what you think determines what choices you make.
Being a virgin is IRRELAVANT!
People can run but cannot hide from their past. Under stress every human being reverts to their basic personality. All the layers of conditioned responses and masks we wear fall by the wayside. Your social and economic up bringing, your parents education level, the mentors or people you looked too to form the person you are, your self-images and your choices.
That’s why the question is asked in the first place on this string and others. Does sexual history matter and like everything else in life it does.
People on this board have evaded the issue or tried by belittlement of the topic or me, but the facts and the obvious cannot be denied. To do so is at your own peril. The divorce rate and broken families in the country is an indication of the level of denial that we have wittiness and read on this message board. The media glamorizes sex to the point where it seems as cheap and easy as changing underwear. It would seem the marketers of sex have a cadre' of followers on this board.
Sex without love is hollow and vacant. Love without faith, without commitment, without respect, now that’s what leads to meaningless sexual relationships that decay ones soul and denies a future partner that special uniqueness. To abstract sex cheapens everyone. That’s not me saying that; listen to your own heart.
Justify, rationalize, make light of won’t change what you feel in your heart and see in your soul.
I believe the threads were a discussion on the norm. A porn star is not considered the norm by the standards of the initial threads concerning these subjects. I also doubt when these threads were started. The idea of a porn star didn't even come to mind. I would guess that most of the posts people made were based on current relationships and not hypothetical relationships.
Would the average person (however defined) marry a porn star? First they would have to meet the porn star. Then they could take it from there.
As for me. Would I marry a porn star or a hooker? Fuck no! Why? Because they are a porn star or a hooker.
btw, it's clear that bmw has women issues, but the point of view he's expressing isn't nearly as hateful as you're making it out to be. If you act as judgemental as he does, how are you better? There's a lot of anger there, it would be worth the discussion to find out more about it rather than defaulting to snide one-liners and harumphs. Misogyny can be caused by things other than "he's just an asshole".
Who is "you"?
However, once you know you are a mysogynist... get it fixed.
I'm the opposite. I think porn and sex for fun are not only immoral, but have quite possibly done more damage to individuals' lives and society at large than anything else. Wherever you find a sex crime, you find porn somewhere in the mix. Porn is dehumanizing, and it perpetuates the idea that you can fuck anyone at anytime with no mental, spiritual, or social consequences. Tain't so.
lol taint.
Prove it.
Attaching morality to sex is what propagates the problems we have with misogyny in our society.
Porn can be dehuminzing... it can also be celebratory. Just depends on how it is done and/or viewed.
Wherever you find heroin junkies & alcoholics you find cigarettes... they just cause heroin & alcohol addiction!!!
Who is "you"?
However, once you know you are a mysogynist... get it fixed.
Prove it.
Attaching morality to sex is what propagates the problems we have with misogyny in our society.
Porn can be dehuminzing... it can also be celebratory. Just depends on how it is done and/or viewed.
Wherever you find heroin junkies & alcoholics you find cigarettes... they just cause heroin & alcohol addiction!!!
"mysogynist" what a cop-out. Dettaching morality from sex has degraded all men and women.
Why is sex immoral and awful and degrading, but, say, walking on the beach, or a nice hot bath, or a massage, or a great song not immoral? It's all just pleasure and a way to get it. True, sex entails certain things to ensure safety and whatnot, but still, I dont and never will see how sex, in any circumstance, is immoral, EXCEPT in cases of cheating on significant others. Which is a whole different ballpark.
you misspelled [COLOR=Red]deluded.
[/COLOR];)
You're suggesting I'm deluded because I honestly believe he wouldn't have sex with someone else?
I guess I must be deluded then. ;) (and it's got nothing to do with 'the powers of Aliantha') lol
Who is "you"?
not you you. "you" as in "one"
Wherever you find heroin junkies & alcoholics you find cigarettes... they just cause heroin & alcohol addiction!!!
For your analogy accurately reflect mine, it would have to say "Wherever you find heroin junkies, you find people selling drugs." Pornographers sell images of flesh. There's no context, no acknowledgement of the mental and emotional component of sex. This is fuel for rapists and pedos, IMO.
I think it depends how far back you want to go if you want to say sex between willing partners in any form is immoral.
If, as has been suggested, sex is for the purposes of procreation, then who put the caveat of marriage or fidelity on procreation? Society? Maybe...unless you really believe God did it.
Then again, if sex is the communion between two people and it's a magical thing which will bring everlasting memories of love and commitment, then yeah, don't go getting your rocks off just because you find someone attractive to the point that you can't bear to not touch them.
If on the other hand you believe that sex is a physical act which can be interpreted in many different ways, for many different purposes, then go ahead and make your own judgement call about which is for physical pleasure, and which is for spiritual pleasure.
I believe there is a distinction and that they are also interchangeable.
Pornographers sell images of flesh. There's no context, no acknowledgement of the mental and emotional component of sex. This is fuel for rapists and pedos, IMO.
Porn Up, Rape DownI think bmw has listened to this song too many times:
I made it through the wilderness
Somehow I made it through
Didn't know how lost I was
Until I found you
I was beat, incomplete
I'd been had, I was sad and blue
But you made me feel
Yeah, you made me feel
Shiny and new
Chorus:
Like a virgin
Touched for the very first time
Like a virgin
When your heart beats
Next to mine
Gonna give you all my love, boy
My fear is fading fast
Been saving it all for you
'Cause only love can last
You're so fine and you're mine
Make me strong, yeah you make me bold
Oh your love thawed out
Yeah, your love thawed out
What was scared and cold
(chorus)
Oooh, oooh, oooh
You're so fine and you're mine
I'll be yours 'till the end of time
'Cause you made me feel
Yeah, you made me feel
I've nothing to hide
(chorus)
Like a virgin, ooh, ooh
Like a virgin
Feels so good inside
When you hold me, and your heart beats, and you love me
Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh
Ooh, baby
Can't you hear my heart beat
For the very first time?
I thought rape was about power and control.
It is Brianna. It's just that men are now comming to accept that they have less power and virtually no control anyway. ;)
What really changes is opportunities. When your young you have greater opportunities than when you get older.
Age is NOT an excuse.
It’s about character.
I was really trying to stay out of this, but, oh well.
I'm a million years old, and I still have plenty of opportunities. In my age bracket about the only people who don't have a sexual past are nuns or priests or someone who has something deeply emotionally wrong with them.
Any man who expects me to have sat around waiting for him for forty years, singing "Someday my prince will come" has a screw loose.
You seem to believe that sex is inherently immoral unless its between a man and wife. Period. Most of us disagree with that. Why do you keep belaboring the same point over and over again? Much as you might wish it, we are not going back to the age when women wore chastity belts.
No, I probably wouldn't marry some aging porn star, but I seriously doubt if I'd marry you either.
Why don't you go and find yourself some nice girl who thinks like you do, marry her, and move on to the next topic? This one was getting old three threads ago. :right:
jinx: lies, damn lies, and statistics :lol:
Rape is about power and control. Much of porn is, too. With or without official academic backing, I think common sense shows that hardcore porn reinforces a negative view of women, encourages unhealthy impulses in men (the power and control thing), and reduces the act of sex to simply "getting off". If viewing porn reduces the urge to act on sexual impulses, why don't we let pedos have all the kiddie porn they want? We could grandfather in all the porn that's already been produced and use it to rehabilitate molesters.
I realize that most people these days don't see sex as anything major. I also know that kids are becoming sexually active at younger and younger ages, having babies that their own parents must raise, getting abortions and getting diseased. The divorce rate is skyrocketing, with more marriages failing than succeeding. It's become chic to applaud any and all forms of sexuality (there are a few taboos left, but they'll be gone in 20 years) and deride people who cling to the hilarious notion that sex is better between 2 people who are committed to each other for life.
I just don't see that it's making us any happier. We keep searching for something that satisfies us, and it's never enough. We want to see more sex on TV, more sex on the internet, more sex more sex more sex. We have more sex in more places, in more orifices, with as many colors and flavors of partner as we can manage, yet we wonder privately why we never find real love.
Yes, some of you have managed it. Congrats.
We don't let pedo's have kiddie porn because children are not adults, cannot give consent and no one is saying they are not damaged by this exploitation. I don't think we are talking about children or child porn here. As far as kids having sex younger and younger 'these days', every generation thinks the ones before were somehow "better"--I don't think so. Like the Good Old Days That Never Were--yeah, like before Penicillin and ibuprophen and child car seats and Child Labor Laws?
I think everyone should make peace with their own lives and sexuality. Have I made mistakes? Oh, my, yes! Am I sorry for them? Not in the way you'd think--I learned from each.
Obviously I'm not talking about people who use and abuse children or people who hurt (emotionally, physically or spiritually) others. I'm talking about two informed consenting adults.
I know there are factions out there that wish to legislate human sexuality. I also know it will never work. Human beings are human beings and act pretty much the same all throughout history. Not much new under the sun.
Oh, BTW, I, too, believe hard core porn degrades women.
I agree with Bri that there is nothing new under the sun except for better birth control. In the old days, there was stil porn, there were still serial killers with a sexually twisted motivation - think Jack the Ripper or the predator who lured and killed young women during the Chicago Worlds Fair at the turn of the last century (I think the book about him was called The White Death - I'll look it up if anyone cares). People were still coveting their neighbor's wives and husbands and acting out on those desires. Little girls could end up as prostitutes in the big cities or be married off at the age of 12. Lesbians and Gays have been with us since at least Greek and Roman times, and I'm sure they were around for longer than that. I could go on, but you get the idea.
My parents HAD to get married because I was conceived in the age before the pill or easy abortions. They stayed married because divorce was practically a sin up until the late 60's. A more unhappy couple you have never seen.
I think things are better now when people can experiment a little until they find the one who is "right" for them.
And Noodle, if you don't like all the sex on TV, you can always turn to PBS or the History Channel or read Proust and turn off the TV completely.
My theory is that when the attempt to regulate morality comes into conflict with biological instincts, the inevitable drive of nature will find one way or another to assert it's dominance, in one possible scenario through the development of undesiarable deviant behavior.
I believe that pornography is just another symptom of our instincts over-compensating for the artificial behavioral barriers we've constructed.
I don't long for the "good old days" or have a hissy fit if there's a butt on TV. The argument isn't that simplistic. Wondering if the hypersexualization of our society is a bad thing is not the same thing as saying "sex is dirty". I slightly resent having to waste my time explaining that, to be honest.
Lots of things were wrong in society in the 50s. Also the 40s, the 60s, the 90s, and so forth. But one of the things we seem to have lost is respect for our own bodies and those of others. What's wrong with a little mystery? What's wrong with modesty? What about salacious material is so worthy that we feel we must defend it from any criticism? For that matter, what is so unworthy about virginity that we mock it like some kind of mental illness?
I'm not in 6th grade, and I'm not Amish. I can say with some degree of certainty that I've almost seen it all. I'm just not all that impressed. Why is that viewpoint less enlightened somehow?
... I slightly resent having to waste my time explaining that, to be honest.
What's wrong with a little mystery? What's wrong with modesty? What about salacious material is so worthy that we feel we must defend it from any criticism?
No offense intended, I assure you. I apologize if I have offended you.
There is NOTHING wrong with a little mystery--I, myself, ADORE mystery and glances and handshakes and little notes. Nothing wrong with modesty, either. I wish more girls at my University would practice a bit of it. Nipples and dicks are all I see. Salacious material is an accepted form of entertainment for adults who know better but still like it. I did say earlier that hardcore porn DOES degrade women. I guess you were too busy being pissed off to notice.
PS-you've not seen it all unless you've been intimate and tried to actually rehabilitate the lowest of the low. Child molesters, addicts of every stripe who sell their babies to
white slavers so they can get another hit. Child abusers...
I, personally, respect Christian attitude...right up till they tell me I'm a bad person 'coz I'm not exactly like them.
or the predator who lured and killed young women during the Chicago Worlds Fair at the turn of the last century (I think the book about him was called The White Death - I'll look it up if anyone cares).
H. H. Holmes, in "Devil in the White City". Good book.
It could make an interesting two movies; one about the fair, and the other about him, with odd little cameos connecting them.
This is so easily solved. Look. Make sure she's a virgin so she won't laugh at your willy and will avert her pretty face instead of brazenly LOOKING at you while you're doing the nasty, vile 'deed' and you'll know she's ONLY doing it because it's her 'duty'; I'm sure she's thinking of England--that's how you know you've got a really good specimen and a worthy vessel for your sperm.
H. H. Holmes, in "Devil in the White City". Good book.
It could make an interesting two movies; one about the fair, and the other about him, with odd little cameos connecting them.
Thanks, HM. I knew it had "White" somewhere in the title. It WAS a good book, and it would make a true crime movie that would keep you looking over your shoulder for weeks! :eek:
This is so easily solved. Look. Make sure she's a virgin so she won't laugh at your willy and will avert her pretty face instead of brazenly LOOKING at you while you're doing the nasty, vile 'deed' and you'll know she's ONLY doing it because it's her 'duty'; I'm sure she's thinking of England--that's how you know you've got a really good specimen and a worthy vessel for your sperm.
:eek6:
fapfapfapfapfapfapfapfap
:hide:
fapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfap
My point of view is that it doesn't really matter to me what anyone thinks about my sexual history...it all depends on how I feel about it. Of course, I wouldn't want my husband or future husband or whatever to look down on me because of it, but i'm willing to bet unless he's perfect that he has mistakes, sexually or otherwise in his past that he wouldn't want me to judge either. For me, the past is the past, and unless he has a disease or a kid that i need to deal with because of it, it will remain his past and mine will remain my past...
there's nothing you can do to change the past, so why spend all your time worrying about it?
I was really trying to stay out of this, but, oh well.
I'm a million years old, and I still have plenty of opportunities. In my age bracket about the only people who don't have a sexual past are nuns or priests or someone who has something deeply emotionally wrong with them.
Any man who expects me to have sat around waiting for him for forty years, singing "Someday my prince will come" has a screw loose.
You seem to believe that sex is inherently immoral unless its between a man and wife. Period. Most of us disagree with that. Why do you keep belaboring the same point over and over again? Much as you might wish it, we are not going back to the age when women wore chastity belts.
No, I probably wouldn't marry some aging porn star, but I seriously doubt if I'd marry you either.
Why don't you go and find yourself some nice girl who thinks like you do, marry her, and move on to the next topic? This one was getting old three threads ago. :right:
I see the contradiction in your statements and I hope you do to.
I never implied that sex was immoral unless people where married. However, sex for sex sake is intemperate. It’s irresponsible. It cheapens the intimacy that is supposedly the purpose of sex.
It isn't about adult choice its about honesty. Would you engage in sexual intercourse if it was stated right up front that the episode was pure recreational and the pairing will dissolve immediately afterwards?
I think nobody would honestly say yes given those terms because you cannot abstract sex. The risk of pregnancy and the responsibility that comes with it, no matter how slight, plays in the background of your thoughts. I never met a person that engaged in sex without SOME emotional component, unless they where buying a hooker.
Its that emotional component that seeds the moral question.
Freedom means you are going to be around what others like... sometimes you may not like that. If you don't like freedom, and many cannot handle it, they should move to a dictatorship or theocracy.
Rape is about hatred of the opposite sex and self hate, porn can be a symptom of that because those with these illnesses can use it for that purpose. Just like alcohol can be misused, that does not mean it should be illegal any more than anything else that can be potentially be misused should be made to be illegal (see the owning of the antis in the gun threads and past tobacco threads) anti is anti freedom.
The analogy of cigarettes and heroin and alcoholism with porn and deviant behavior is accurate.
My wife and I have been together for over sixteen years, monogamous, porn is fun and exciting and spicy, nothing more. How you use it is up to the individual.... that is what freedom is about.
I never implied that sex was immoral unless people where married. However, sex for sex sake is intemperate. It’s irresponsible. It cheapens the intimacy that is supposedly the purpose of sex.
It isn't about adult choice its about honesty. Would you engage in sexual intercourse if it was stated right up front that the episode was pure recreational and the pairing will dissolve immediately afterwards?
I think nobody would honestly say yes given those terms because you cannot abstract sex. The risk of pregnancy and the responsibility that comes with it, no matter how slight, plays in the background of your thoughts. I never met a person that engaged in sex without SOME emotional component, unless they where buying a hooker.
Its that emotional component that seeds the moral question.
In a way I see what you mean. But, since the thread is about sexual "history" then your point is rather irrelevant.
A person may be all about the intimacy and love that makes sex wonderful; but you're saying that their history, which may have included some impetuous fancies of youth, should come into play in current relationships. Following up with that, that person who may have had some (delicious) youthful indiscretion, cannot be honest about it because this new person (who may be fulfilling in every other way) can't handle that truth.
We grow. We grow. We grow. The point isn't "where have you been?" The point is "where are you now?"
I see the contradiction in your statements and I hope you do to.
I see the contradiction in
your statements and
I hope
you do to. This ought to be productive.
As to whether it is degrading or celebrating the female and/or male form/sexuality depends on who is watching it.
Similarly,
I think nobody would honestly say yes given those terms because you cannot abstract sex.
Corrected:
I
demand everybody else should honestly say yes
thus accepting my principles given those terms because
I cannot abstract sex.
The risk of pregnancy and the responsibility that comes with it, no matter how slight, plays in the background of your thoughts.
Corrected:
The risk of pregnancy and the responsibility that comes with it, no matter how slight, plays in the background of
my thoughts
because I need some secular basis for demanding a moral position, no matter how flimsy it is.
I never met a person that engaged in sex without SOME emotional component, unless they where buying a hooker.
Corrected:
You people are a bunch of lousy heathen, so I automatically win. The only problem is, I can't stop fantasizing about you.
:eek6:
fapfapfapfapfapfapfapfap
:hide:
fapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfap
Of all the posts I've ever read...THAT is the most eloquent.
And, BTW--WTF? Too hot in the kitchen for ya, Noodle?
S'ok. You can always run to Mama.
No! Wait! I'm divining noodle's response to my post (my mean, UNchristian-like post...measured as it is...)
:lol:
There. That's what he thinks.
noodle thinks we are all lost until we embrace his own very specific version of morality.
Undertoad -:notworthy
Where is the "hammer hitting the nail" smilie????? Cuz you TOTALLY nailed it!!
It is Brianna. It's just that men are now comming to accept that they have less power and virtually no control anyway. ;)
If by "just now" you mean since I got married and had kids, then, yeah.
lol...that's funny BigV. Of course that's not what I meant. ;)
In fact, any bloke here who doesn't think he's a 'sally' is 'deluded'. :D
*Now where did I put that big huge dildo and my whip*
vessel for your sperm.
let us consider this phrase on it's own merit.
Is that a 'boat' to put your 'se[a]men' in?
I see the contradiction in your statements and I hope you do to.
I never implied that sex was immoral unless people where married. However, sex for sex sake is intemperate. It’s irresponsible. It cheapens the intimacy that is supposedly the purpose of sex.
It isn't about adult choice its about honesty. Would you engage in sexual intercourse if it was stated right up front that the episode was pure recreational and the pairing will dissolve immediately afterwards?
I think nobody would honestly say yes given those terms because you cannot abstract sex. The risk of pregnancy and the responsibility that comes with it, no matter how slight, plays in the background of your thoughts. I never met a person that engaged in sex without SOME emotional component, unless they where buying a hooker.
Its that emotional component that seeds the moral question.
No, I don't see the contradiction in my statements, but its been an off day for me around the Cellar, today, so feel free to enlighten me.
I don't have to worry about pregnancy, anymore, but I still don't say "yes" to a man whom I've just met. In my younger days I had a couple of one night stands out of curiosity as much as anything else, and I decided the experience was not for me. When I get into a relationship with someone, it usually lasts for a while. I was married for 20 years, but before that I was engaged for two years, so I wasn't a virgin when I married.
If some people want to have sex just to have sex, and both parties know beforehand and agree, I have no problem with that as long as they are both consenting adults. Live and let live is my motto. :cool:
By the way, to answer the thread title, yes, yes I would. I dont like the thought of my girlfriend having sex with other people, nor do i like the thought of other people watching, but if she were to decide thats what she wants to do then I would support her, because I love her and it would still be worth it, because I love her for who she IS, not who she does.
ok...now I'm confused about you Ibram. First you're gay but now you have a g/f. Are you batting for both teams??? ;)
Not gay, bi. You've got it there. I'm more on the gay side of it when it comes to personality, and in fact I would be unbelievably gay if I didnt love the womenfolk so much.
Well geez...I was just joking with that post, but thanks for your honesty Ibram. Sorry if I seemed to be prying. It definitely wasn't my intent. :)
Nah, its cool, I like telling people. Makes me feel freeeeee!
Hmmm...if I told people I was bi I wonder if it'd have the same effect. Mind you, hubby keeps telling me I'm too expensive, so maybe I should try it. ;)
I'm torn - I kinda have a little crush on noodle coz he's hawt, but I would probably scare the bejesus outta him n that amuses me :D
Or the bejesus in him would scare you, one of the two. :)
noodle thinks we are all lost until we embrace his own very specific version of morality.
You're still trying to get me to say this, but I haven't, and I won't. You have a beef with Christianity, and I'm happy to be your whipping post if that's what you want. But I hope you tire of it soon, because I'm running out of alternatives to "stfu".
if you follow my version of morality, you will be in dire straits indeed. I do have an idea what I'm
supposed to strive for, but I'm not very good at it yet.
I'm torn - I kinda have a little crush on noodle coz he's hawt, but I would probably scare the bejesus outta him n that amuses me :D
I really don't think I'm much of a looker. I've got a huge misshapen head and no upper lip. But your compliment is greatly appreciated :blush:
As for scaring me, good luck. I hang out with death metal bands. Wearing a "Satan sucks" tshirt from a local biker church. Plus they're all gay for me.
I fear nothing but spiders and mimes.
and me. you fear me. admit it................all of you
I do have an idea what I'm supposed to strive for, but I'm not very good at it yet.
Wow that's a really profound statement - my response may not belong on this thread, but my bro & I were discussing that last night. As a somewhat religious person (God and I have an understanding) I find it incredibly difficult for me to hold up to my beliefs. To be able to do what I think I should all the time - its rather confusing and I'm rather confused (as you all know) but interesting nonetheless. Lately, I wonder if its that way for ev-1 or is it just me?
Lately, I wonder if its that way for ev-1 or is it just me?
:fsm: shall smite thee with the noodley appendage of wrath, oh foul chat-speaker.
I fear nothing but spiders and mimes.
Weird. cos I fear speeders and memes...
Wow that's a really profound statement - my response may not belong on this thread, but my bro & I were discussing that last night. As a somewhat religious person (God and I have an understanding) I find it incredibly difficult for me to hold up to my beliefs. To be able to do what I think I should all the time - its rather confusing and I'm rather confused (as you all know) but interesting nonetheless. Lately, I wonder if its that way for ev-1 or is it just me?
Without wishing to speak for anyone but myself, you are not alone, yesman!
Wow that's a really profound statement - my response may not belong on this thread, but my bro & I were discussing that last night. As a somewhat religious person (God and I have an understanding) I find it incredibly difficult for me to hold up to my beliefs. To be able to do what I think I should all the time - its rather confusing and I'm rather confused (as you all know) but interesting nonetheless. Lately, I wonder if its that way for ev-1 or is it just me?
I'm right there with ya too yesman.
So amidst all our banter what are we supposed to do? Is it simply chalked up to "A weakness of the flesh?" I cannot believe that its that simple. I strive to be a good person and a faithful friend, co-worker, partner, father, and so on. My reality seems to say that I am, and the people around me also tell me that, but in the quiet of the night I often wonder. Its not that I do anything horrible or lead a double life - its just - Ugghh I can never really explain it in words - its just a feeling I guess.
So amidst all our banter what are we supposed to do? Is it simply chalked up to "A weakness of the flesh?" I cannot believe that its that simple. I strive to be a good person and a faithful friend, co-worker, partner, father, and so on. My reality seems to say that I am, and the people around me also tell me that, but in the quiet of the night I often wonder. Its not that I do anything horrible or lead a double life - its just - Ugghh I can never really explain it in words - its just a feeling I guess.
But isn't it that feeling that keeps you trying to stay up to the mark? And what if it were easy? What difference would that make (we appear to have effected a successful threadjack here :D )?
So amidst all our banter what are we supposed to do? Is it simply chalked up to "A weakness of the flesh?" I cannot believe that its that simple. I strive to be a good person and a faithful friend, co-worker, partner, father, and so on. My reality seems to say that I am, and the people around me also tell me that, but in the quiet of the night I often wonder. Its not that I do anything horrible or lead a double life - its just - Ugghh I can never really explain it in words - its just a feeling I guess.
That vague, unsettling notion that there's something more? That "goodness" is a real thing, but might be unattainable by any amount of purely human effort? When God starts talking to someone, that's commonly the first part of the dialogue. Talk back. Make sure your mind's open first, then ask what's going on. If you're listening, an answer will come.
Notice I didn't mention religion.
That vague, unsettling notion that there's something more? That "goodness" is a real thing, but might be unattainable by any amount of purely human effort?
Thats an intersting point - I wonder if that was supposed to be the design all along. Then again maybe not?? Thats where my question is coming from.
I think that all the wondering, worrying, asking is pointless...we'll never know the true design because we weren't the ones that designed it. If you know right from wrong, and you know what you believe, go with that, do your best. Do it with the right intentions. The motive behind what you do says a lot more than the actual action itself, in the end at least, and probably weighs on how you actually feel about yourself afterwards.
I found this article today - perhaps it explains BM's position. Since he hasn't been posting - I'll do it for him (even though I TOTALLY DISAGREE)
Outrage as Muslim cleric likens women to 'uncovered meat'
By RICHARD SHEARS
A Muslim cleric's claim that women who do not wear the veil are like 'uncovered meat' who attract sexual predators sparked outrage around Australia yesterday.
Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali, the nation's most senior Muslim cleric, compared immodestly-dressed women who do not wear the Islamic headdress with meat that is left uncovered in the street and is then eaten by cats.
Politicians including Prime Minister John Howard, community leaders and a large number of Muslims condemned the mufti's comments amid calls that he should be deported to Egypt, his country of origin.
He has since been forced to apologise for his remarks.
In a Ramadam sermon in a Sydney mosque, Sheik al-Hilali suggested that a group of Muslim men recently jailed for many years for gang rapes were not entirely to blame.
There were women, he said, who 'sway suggestively' and wore make-up and immodest dress "and then you get a judge without mercy and gives you 65 years. But the problem, but the problem all began with who?" he said, referring to the women victims.
Addressing 500 worshippers on the topic of adultery, Sheik al-Hilali added: "If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it..whose fault is it - the cats or the uncovered meat?
"The uncovered meat is the problem."
He went on: "If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab (veil), no problem would have occurred."
Women, he said, were 'weapons' used by Satan to control men.
Not sure if that belongs here, but I thought I'd post it and see what you guys/gals and others thought.
Politicians including Prime Minister John Howard, community leaders and a large number of Muslims condemned the mufti's comments amid calls that he should be deported to Egypt, his country of origin.
He has since been forced to apologise for his remarks.
The majority of Muslims disagree and find such remarks offensive.
Not that much different from the 'she was asking for it' or 'no really meant yes' defense used in many US rape cases.
Women, he said, were 'weapons' used by Satan to control men.
:haha:
Wow that's a really profound statement - my response may not belong on this thread, but my bro & I were discussing that last night. As a somewhat religious person (God and I have an understanding) I find it incredibly difficult for me to hold up to my beliefs. To be able to do what I think I should all the time - its rather confusing and I'm rather confused (as you all know) but interesting nonetheless. Lately, I wonder if its that way for ev-1 or is it just me?
Self-doubt and self-examination are what keep us from becoming monsters. Really, it's healthy.;)
My husband sometimes thinks Satan is in control of me.
Women, he said, were 'weapons' used by Satan to control men.
It's a dirty job, but somebody has to do it.
Luckily, I'm up for it.
I found this article today - perhaps it explains BM's position. Since he hasn't been posting - I'll do it for him (even though I TOTALLY DISAGREE)
[COLOR="DimGray"]Outrage as Muslim cleric likens women to 'uncovered meat'
By RICHARD SHEARS
A Muslim cleric's claim that women who do not wear the veil are like 'uncovered meat' who attract sexual predators sparked outrage around Australia yesterday.
Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali, the nation's most senior Muslim cleric, compared immodestly-dressed women who do not wear the Islamic headdress with meat that is left uncovered in the street and is then eaten by cats.
Politicians including Prime Minister John Howard, community leaders and a large number of Muslims condemned the mufti's comments amid calls that he should be deported to Egypt, his country of origin.
He has since been forced to apologise for his remarks.
In a Ramadam sermon in a Sydney mosque, Sheik al-Hilali suggested that a group of Muslim men recently jailed for many years for gang rapes were not entirely to blame.
There were women, he said, who 'sway suggestively' and wore make-up and immodest dress "and then you get a judge without mercy and gives you 65 years. But the problem, but the problem all began with who?" he said, referring to the women victims.
Addressing 500 worshippers on the topic of adultery, Sheik al-Hilali added: "If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it..whose fault is it - the cats or the uncovered meat?
"The uncovered meat is the problem."
He went on: "If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab (veil), no problem would have occurred."
Women, he said, were 'weapons' used by Satan to control men.
1) Don't presume to speak for me.
2) The outrage towards those remaks come from the P.C. police.
3) Any father tell his daughters this same self-evident fact; If you dress like a slut you'll be treated as one. The analogy by the cleric may have sounded as if it condoned the assualt but reality it did not. It only, and poorly, made the conduct of the women an issue to be considered.
Date rape, morning after regret, substance abuse that leads to moral and ethical breakdowns in behavior on both indivuduals should be equally weighted in the degree on guilt and fault.
Thats what I think this cleric was saying. As for the devil comment, well, I've heard may women make the same observation of their "sisters" in gender. I think every women would admit that the power men give them in the sex department is intoxicating. But like any power, it can move, and is subject to gross coruption.[/COLOR]Great, so we have the decision equivalent of "he was robbed while waving a gold chain, whos fault". Let me start this with the required statement of 'I do not condone rape under any circumstances whatsoever'. Now that we have that on record can we address the posibility that dressing provocitavly inherently raises the risk of sexual assault? It makes sense.
What is provocative, 9th? According to the cleric, it's swaying suggestively, wearing makeup, and not wearing the Islamic headdress. By that argument, American women must be sexually assaulted in vastly higher numbers than Muslim women... but they aren't. It would seem clear that the risk of sexual assault is directly proportional to the men's lack of self-control, not the dress of the women.
Going outside of my house inherently raises my risk of being mugged. That doesn't make it my responsibility to stay indoors.
Right, now I'm not saying it causes anything. It's a risk, and I want to acknoledge the fact that it can be a stupid risk without using some forsight. Again, it's like saying that wearing a really expensive suit and a Rolex in a bad part of town is a stupid thing to do. In most places there's no problem, and it certainly doesn't take one iota of culpability off of the muggers.
Where I live is quite hot most of the year and women commonly wear fewer clothes than in other parts of the world. A big part of this is due to the humidity. Why should women sweat like pigs just because some men think it's unseemly for them to show skin?
Using Muslim clerical logic, there should be about fifty rapes per Pagan festival each year. Lots of nekkid womens there. I'll let you know when we have our first one.
If every woman in Australia was raped because she was showing flesh, there'd be no unraped women here.
My husband sometimes thinks Satan is in control of me.
I have asked my wife the same thing.:eyebrow:
It's a dirty job, but somebody has to do it.
Luckily, I'm up for it.
No one has to do it, nope... I'm fine. I don't need people who don't play by basic rules of logic mucking with the life. Control and anguish are not the same thing BTW.
Using Muslim clerical logic, there should be about fifty rapes per Pagan festival each year. Lots of nekkid womens there. I'll let you know when we have our first one.
Y'know, maybe the cleric was just saying that his brother muslems are weak-willed?
Y'know, maybe the cleric was just saying that his brother muslems are weak-willed?
Or that they are a bunch of alley-cats?
Still, if all men really want is some fly-blown piece of manky scrag end I suppose they're welcome to it. I may not still be vacuum wrapped, but I'm fresh baby ;)
Or that they are a bunch of alley-cats?
Still, if all men really want is some fly-blown piece of manky scrag end I suppose they're welcome to it. I may not still be vacuum wrapped, but I'm fresh baby ;)
"fly-blown piece of manky scrag end "
Can you post a pic of that or a link to a pic? I'm dying to see what the hell that is. Is it any relation to Nip-tack-paddy-wak-give a dog a bone?
BM, it would most likely be the female version of YOU. Try looking into the mirror and you shall have your answer.
BM, it would most likely be the female version of YOU. Try looking into the mirror and you shall have your answer.
I know what you are but what am I?
Are you 5 years old, you pussy whipped momas-boy?
Its really sad when someone picks a verbal argument with you and you have to explain your insults because they are above their comprehension. Uh, you better try pickin on someone else. I'm outta your league. Try one of the girls - oops, never mind, you already got your ass kicked by them too. Hmmm, Perhaps there is a kiddie blog somewhere so at least you could have a fightin chance.
Two year olds can be very annoying...
I think that their are certain risks involved with how you dress and where you are. If you are in Deep Ellum (club district of Dallas) for example w/out a full force of body guards girls, expect some trouble and don't forget your pepper spray. But if your in your house or a low crime area you have less chance of being accosted no matter how you dress. The clothes you put on are not the real root of the problem but they can persuede a man to go after you rather than some other woman. Rape is a man's problem b/c (normally) they are the sick bastards who commit it. Rape is a woman's problem b/c (normmally) they are the victim. Both men and women have a responsibility to prevent such an occurance.
Two year olds can be very annoying...
My two year old cousin has better come-backs than BMW. She's a wicked little smartass...runs in the family. [size=1]so does insanity and alcoholism, but sssh[/size]
Well here's the double standard.
A man walks around without a shirt on and is sexualised by a woman and it ends there.
A woman walks around without a shirt on (or with a skimpy top on) and is sexualised by a man and it ends there, except if the man is a COMPLETE FUCKING IDIOT who thinks that because she dresses that way she must be hot to trot.
Well here's the double standard.
A man walks around without a shirt on and is sexualised by a woman and it ends there.
A woman walks around without a shirt on (or with a skimpy top on) and is sexualised by a man and it ends there, except if the man is a COMPLETE FUCKING IDIOT who thinks that because she dresses that way she must be hot to trot.
Is that what happens in your country, cause I'm on my way, skirt on, to get "sexualized."
In the USA women are predominately the target of sexual assault due to the all the points about the sexual differences I have espoused on this board. You can’t have a double standard when the situation is unequal to start with. Different situation will have different outcomes and standards.
You'd rather be sexualised by men than women?
As to your second point: the issue is that the simple fact that there is a double standard in modern western society is what is wrong. When women are expected to go out and earn a living and support their lazy arsed husbands etc, I'd say there's a huge problem. Not the fact that a woman should do that - because it works both ways - but that a woman can still be expected to do so and also be the wilting little wallflower that you picture women as being.
That's the point.
You'd rather be sexualised by men than women?
As to your second point: the issue is that the simple fact that there is a double standard in modern western society is what is wrong. When women are expected to go out and earn a living and support their lazy arsed husbands etc, I'd say there's a huge problem. Not the fact that a woman should do that - because it works both ways - but that a woman can still be expected to do so and also be the wilting little wallflower that you picture women as being.
That's the point.
"You'd rather be sexualised by men than women?"
Respect? From you! LOL
You can't even quote your own writings accurately, least interpet mine, and can't understand what your reading.
Sorry to hear about your lazy arsed husband. Better luck next time. Reach out to Brianna, she's got a lot of experience flipping guys.:D
You'd rather be sexualised by men than women?
As to your second point: the issue is that the simple fact that there is a double standard in modern western society is what is wrong. When women are expected to go out and earn a living and support their lazy arsed husbands etc, I'd say there's a huge problem. Not the fact that a woman should do that - because it works both ways - but that a woman can still be expected to do so and also be the wilting little wallflower that you picture women as being.
That's the point.
To your other point, there is no double standard. I will not regurgitate every iota of details again. Reread my responses and statements and come back and refute them.
:vomit:
Funny Shawnee - thats exactly what I see when any of bm's posts are on my screen.
Using Muslim clerical logic, there should be about fifty rapes per Pagan festival each year. Lots of nekkid womens there. I'll let you know when we have our first one.
First reported one at your festival, you mean, els. There is a lot of social pressure at a pagan festival to, uh, how shall I put it ... share, be open, etc. etc. etc.
I do know of at least one reported rape in that environment. Usually, however, the male predators get away with it because of the above-described notion.
"You'd rather be sexualised by men than women?"
Respect? From you! LOL
You can't even quote your own writings accurately, least interpet mine, and can't understand what your reading.
Sorry to hear about your lazy arsed husband. Better luck next time. Reach out to Brianna, she's got a lot of experience flipping guys.:D
You're the one that said you were going to go put a skirt on and get sexualised.
As to interpreting what you've posted, I have done so. I understand exactly what you're trying to suggest.
You don't know anything about my personal life, so sorry you're wrong on that point. There was nothing personal about the point I was making. It was an academic response to a social issue.
Refute the point and get back to me when you've developed a reasonable argument, otherwise just don't bother responding at all thanks.
You're the one that said you were going to go put a skirt on and get sexualised.
As to interpreting what you've posted, I have done so. I understand exactly what you're trying to suggest.
You don't know anything about my personal life, so sorry you're wrong on that point. There was nothing personal about the point I was making. It was an academic response to a social issue.
Refute the point and get back to me when you've developed a reasonable argument, otherwise just don't bother responding at all thanks.
Jesus-H-Christ, I have to spell it out for you. This is why people can't talk to me. They can't even remember what they said let alone reply with any substabstance.
Here..You said this:
Originally Posted by Aliantha
Well here's the double standard.
A man walks around without a shirt on and is sexualised by a woman and it ends there.
A woman walks around without a shirt on (or with a skimpy top on) and is sexualised by a man and it ends there, except if the man is a COMPLETE FUCKING IDIOT who thinks that because she dresses that way she must be hot to trot.
DO YOU NOTICE WHERE YOU SAID>
"man walks around without a shirt on and is sexualised by a woman "
A
W O M A N!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Then I said:
Is that what happens in your country, cause I'm on my way, skirt on, to get "sexualized."
Then you replied:
You'd rather be sexualised by men than women?
Now do you and yesman play in the same sandbox because having to treat and talk to you both like a little child is not what I here for.
Grow up.
POST #117
Is that what happens in your country, cause I'm on my way, skirt on, to get "sexualized." ~snip
POST #125
Jesus-H-Christ, I have to spell it out for you. This is why people can't talk to me. They can't even remember what they said let alone reply with any substabstance.
Here..You said this:
DO YOU NOTICE WHERE YOU SAID>
"man walks around without a shirt on and is sexualised by a woman "
A W O M A N!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Then I said:
Is that what happens in your country, cause I'm on my way, skirt on, to get "sexualized."
~snip
Twice you said you were going the Australia with a [COLOR="Magenta"]
skirt [/COLOR]on.
Now do you understand the response? :eyebrow:
POST #117
POST #125
Twice you said you were going the Australia with a [COLOR="Magenta"]skirt [/COLOR]on.
Now do you understand the response? :eyebrow:
Another poster that CAN"T READ!
READ THE STRING STUPID BEFORE YOU CHIME IN!
Aliantha made the reference to the skirt in the context of her perceptions of a double standard, I was only making light of her description and she twisted it around to insult me. NOW YOU WANT TO DO THE SAME THING>>AH!
Oh dear lord...
Aliantha mentions men going without shirts being sexualized by women, and women going without shirts being sexualized by men...
Then BM starts babbling about going to Australia with a SKIRT on (wrong half of the anatomy) and gets all pissy when laughed at.
I assure you BMW, that you're the one having difficulties with comprehension, but that's ok. It doesn't make any difference really. I was clear in my communication; everyone else can understand my point; you're the only one who's confused.
Anyway, as I said, when you've got something to add to the point, get back to me, otherwise, don't bother responding. :)
Oh, and one more thing, I have not insulted you once other than to point out - in response to your own comment - that it seems you come from a family that doesn't value respectful communication.
Putting the "stab" back in substance......Wait there was never a.........
I assure you BMW, that you're the one having difficulties with comprehension, but that's ok. It doesn't make any difference really. I was clear in my communication; everyone else can understand my point; you're the only one who's confused.
Anyway, as I said, when you've got something to add to the point, get back to me, otherwise, don't bother responding. :)
Oh, and one more thing, I have not insulted you once other than to point out - in response to your own comment - that it seems you come from a family that doesn't value respectful communication.
How am I having difficulties? You twisted my sentence to insult me and now want to stand by your insult. FU!
Show me where I confused your statement that I wanted to be sexualized by men! It was quite clear I was responding to your statement regarding men wearing skirts and being sexualized by WOMEN.
You purposely rework the response to insult me and I find it more insulting that you have the gall to sit there and continue to stand behind it. FU twice!
As for the rest of the cheap shot jack-offs on this board.
You want to insult me, fine, but don't cry foul when I throw an insult back at you. Thats what a double standard is.
I also want to thank all those copy editors who find it within themselves to correct my grammar and spelling.
Skirts shirts, my eye sight ain't what it used to be. Be that as it may I don't think it changes the point enough so that it can't be understood, typo's, and grammar snafus in all.Oh dear lord...
Aliantha mentions men going without shirts being sexualized by women, and women going without shirts being sexualized by men...
Then BM starts babbling about going to Australia with a SKIRT on (wrong half of the anatomy) and gets all pissy when laughed at.
[COLOR="Red"]LEARN TO READ![/COLOR] Skirts shirts, whatever, it was the "sex with men" I took offense at.
Show me where I confused your statement that I wanted to be sexualized by men! It was quite clear I was responding to your statement regarding men wearing skirts and being sexualized by WOMEN.
Sex with men? Someone said something about sex with men? I thought sexualized was the word that was used. Sexualize = To make sexual in character or quality, not have intercourse with.
Skirts, Shirts..whatever? Aliantha never made any statement regarding men wearing
skirts. YOU DID.
HUGE difference there bud. The point being that MEN that go without their shirts are macho and hot, which is OK, but WOMEN that go without their shirts (IE: TOPLESS you nincompoop) are sluts and asking for sex which is NOT OK.
Skirts or pants are completely irrelevant.
But you are unable to admit you made a mistake so you're sticking with your erroneous babble and adding insult to injury by flinging some verbal abuse about. How pathetic.
Stormie
First reported one at your festival, you mean, els. There is a lot of social pressure at a pagan festival to, uh, how shall I put it ... share, be open, etc. etc. etc.
I do know of at least one reported rape in that environment. Usually, however, the male predators get away with it because of the above-described notion.
We're pretty adamant about educating our attendees not to do *anything* with which they are not comfortable. Anyone observed by our rather large Staff behaving inappropriately usually experiences an intervention from one of our burly, yet sensitive Safety Gods.
I cannot say definitively that sexual pressure does not occur at our Fest, or that women (or even men) sometimes succumb to that pressure, but I'd be fairly confident in saying that it probably happens less often per capita than with the public at large.
bmw...you're choosing to take offense. I have not used a swear word at you. I have patiently responded to your somewhat rude comments which have been directed at me. I have attempted to discuss the issue with you. As stormie has tried to point out, you have made an error in what you read. I never at all suggested in the course of this thread that men wear skirts in any way or how they might be viewed if they did, however, if you'd like to discuss that, then by all means, let's do so.
Otherwise (and as always), read the post, respond to it in a reasonable and thoughtful manner, or don't bother responding. :)
Oh, and just so that it's clear, I wouldn't FU if you were the last man standing or the first for that matter. I have a lot more class than that.
He screwed up, we all know it, but he's such an ass when he was called on it he flew into a hissyfit and claimed everyone else to be stupid without ever going back to see his mistake.
Even when I pointed to his mistake, to stop the wrangling, he couldn't see it....what a loser. :crazy:
I really, can't see how a woman wearing skimpy clothes invites rape. Most rape is about control not sexual attraction.
That's a good point. What about big chested women who wear low cut or tight tops and then get insulted when guys stare at their chests?
now, THAT, 9th, pisses me off. What REALLY get me are those shirts that say "my eyes are up here", but any girl who wears skimpy clothes then gets mad for gettin' looked at has a problem.
I'll agree with you both on that note.
If I wear low cut tops or short shorts, I wouldnt ever complain that guys are noticing but I DONT believe I am in any way inviting a guy to force himself on me (and I know neither of you, 9th or Ibram, are saying that I would be)
If you put the goods in the window, expect them to be oggled. ;) (she says as she sits here in her bikini)
you know zippy will be in here screaming for pics in a minute!!
I'll probably be back in the pool by then. ;) (maybe even with my kini top off lol)
have you got something in your right eye hun? :p
Sex with men? Someone said something about sex with men? I thought sexualized was the word that was used. Sexualize = To make sexual in character or quality, not have intercourse with.
Skirts, Shirts..whatever? Aliantha never made any statement regarding men wearing skirts. YOU DID.
HUGE difference there bud. The point being that MEN that go without their shirts are macho and hot, which is OK, but WOMEN that go without their shirts (IE: TOPLESS you nincompoop) are sluts and asking for sex which is NOT OK.
Skirts or pants are completely irrelevant.
But you are unable to admit you made a mistake so you're sticking with your erroneous babble and adding insult to injury by flinging some verbal abuse about. How pathetic.
Stormie
You'd rather be sexualised by men than women?
This is the quote I am insulted by. It is what I have been expressing my anger at. It is a repugnant and grotesque statement. Its not the first time a women has used the gay angle to belittle men that don’t eat out of there hands but it’s an offensive comment. Its written as a question doesn't hide its intent.
If I mistook skirt for shirt than that’s that, but my reply was in jest and she turn it into a despicable insult. I can’t even match it with profanity in response, it’s that bad. Homosexuality is an abomination of mankind.
In all my writing no matter how raw or direct it has been I have never attached on anyone in anyway such an immorality.
Here what "sexualized" can mean...
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/sexualized
Now heres the link to one of the definition...
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/sexual
This is the quote I am insulted by. It is what I have been expressing my anger at. It is a repugnant and grotesque statement. Its not the first time a women has used the gay angle to belittle men that don’t eat out of there hands but it’s an offensive comment. Its written as a question doesn't hide its intent.
If I mistook skirt for shirt than that’s that, but my reply was in jest and she turn it into a despicable insult. I can’t even match it with profanity in response, it’s that bad. Homosexuality is an abomination.
In all my writing no matter how raw or direct it has been I have never attached on anyone in anyway such an immorality.
I'm bisexual.
Youre still a jerk.
Any questions?
(psst, what do you think youre implying calling people 'sally's?)
(psst number two, do you eat shellfish? or wear polyester?
Abomination!)
(psst number three, if you think that calling or implying that someone is gay is an insult in any way, youre just proving yet again that youre a
bigoted, prejudiced, closedminded, homophobic, sexist, perverted son of a motherfucker)
You know what they say about people who preach hard against teh ghey.
About people who take really big offense at the suggestion.
Complain more, bm, and keep quoting the part you are outraged about over and over again. I'm sure it doesn't mean anything.
You know what they say about people who preach hard against teh ghey.
About people who take really big offense at the suggestion.
Complain more, bm, and keep quoting the part you are outraged about over and over again. I'm sure it doesn't mean anything.
Your probably right but if I don't stick up for myself then who will..You, fat chance.
BTW, at least that guy admitted he was wrong and his action immoral.
You know what they say about people that say you know what they say.
~snip~
BTW, at least that guy admitted he was wrong and his action immoral.
~snip~
Nah, he's just sorry he got CAUGHT.
When I hear you're gay, I don't need to stick up for you, because I don't really care what you are.
BM - you and your "holier than thou" attitude just is not going to cut it here. You may bully your opinions on whomever you hang around with wherever you are from, but not here pal - welcome to the cellar "where diverse opinions are welcome and bigotry & hate are publically refused."
...welcome to the cellar "where diverse opinions are welcome and bigotry & hate are publically refused."
Hey, that tagline isn't very funny...
Sorry - I'm in a very odd mood today - emotionally withdrawn - its been a very hard weekend.
BMW is such a drama queen. Can we plz just ignore him and get back the issue at hand? Wait...what is that again?
Unfortunately the issue at hand in this thread would be BMW's ranting, he started the damn thing after all...
BM - you and your "holier than thou" attitude just is not going to cut it here. You may bully your opinions on whomever you hang around with wherever you are from, but not here pal - welcome to the cellar "where diverse opinions are welcome and bigotry & hate are publically refused."
Better reread some of your own post then come and then come and tell me about "holier then thou" remarks.
I'll say it again; you want to take shots at me then don't act shocked when I take a few back at you. Thats not holier than thou thats standing up to people that claim to be wide minded yet are narrow in defintions. I'm not going to sit back and let my remarks be twisted and the topic evaded through cheap shots on my character.
You know what they say about people who preach hard against teh ghey.
About people who take really big offense at the suggestion.
Complain more, bm, and keep quoting the part you are outraged about over and over again. I'm sure it doesn't mean anything.
It has been shown, by more than one, scientific study, that homophobia is rooted in homosexual tendencies.
I'm sure some closet case with issues will ask that I provide proof... here is a link to
Google. Have at it.
The are very easy to find.
People who worry about other's sexuality HAVE to have issues about their own, it is the
only thing that makes sense.
Another's sexuality
cannot affect you, unless it is self-inflicted.
BMW is such a drama queen. Can we plz just ignore him and get back the issue at hand? Wait...what is that again?
Your another one that likes to take shots at people then cry foul when they throw them back.
Why even mention me just write on the topic. You can't because the opportunity to talk crap and throw insults is what you really want to do.
You get what you give in this world. Don't complain.
It has been shown, by more than one, scientific study, that homophobia is rooted in homosexual tendencies.
I'm sure some closet case with issues will ask that I provide proof... here is a link to . Have at it.
The are very easy to find.
People who worry about other's sexuality HAVE to have issues about their own, it is the only thing that makes sense.
Another's sexuality cannot affect you, unless it is self-inflicted.
Hey, Dr. Freud, is that your professional opinion or more crap mouth. Homophobia is another one of those argument control tactics. The notion that people that don't accept homosexuality are supposed to be repressing is like playing the race card or women hater to control the conversation.
It’s not my place to tell people how to live but I don't have to accept it or like it. Characterizing those that don't agree with you as physiologically deficient is the weakest hand you can play. Just like playing the race card or women hater, it’s nothing more than a cheap shot.
It’s not my place to tell people how to live but I don't have to accept it or like it.
What, exactly, does it mean when you don't "accept" homosexuality? I hear all the time that homosexuals are trying to "force" people to "accept" them, but I've bever been clear what that entails. I would have expected that if you recognize that it's not your " place to tell people how to live", then you
have accepted it.
Hey, Dr. Freud, is that your professional opinion or more crap mouth.
Um...isn't pretty much *all* of this dialogue/bullshit purely opinion? I think it is. Therefore, I think your opinion is pretty sucky. And I, like you, am entitled to my opinion.
However, because you find it offensive, I'll not go into the myriad possible sociological and psychological aberrations that would seem likely to have contributed to the formation of our respective opinions.
Gee BM, when I asked if you'd like to be sexualised by men, I didn't realise you'd be so offended.
You should get some help with that, seriously mate. You've got a problem.
Hey, Dr. Freud, is that your professional opinion or more crap mouth. Homophobia is another one of those argument control tactics. The notion that people that don't accept homosexuality are supposed to be repressing is like playing the race card or women hater to control the conversation.
It’s not my place to tell people how to live but I don't have to accept it or like it. Characterizing those that don't agree with you as physiologically deficient is the weakest hand you can play. Just like playing the race card or women hater, it’s nothing more than a cheap shot.
Youre right about the race card... insofar as saying that
Homosexuality is an abomination of mankind.
or
It is what I have been expressing my anger at. It is a repugnant and grotesque statement.
is no different than saying
How dare you imply that I was a nigger? I'm offended that you would dare say that about me, I am not one of the lesser subhumans! Being a nigger is a sin against god, and I would never accuse someone of that kind of awfulness.
Unfortunately the issue at hand in this thread would be BMW's ranting, he started the damn thing after all...
I tried to read from the beginning but it started turning foul on the first page. If its all just bmw's rant, then why are so many cellarites paying attention? I say that we all are more intelligent then to be involved in such a pointless petty squabble. Trading insult after insult is really immature and it somewhat dissapoints me that we are so easily captured by bmw's hostile posts. By being so responsive to his posts, we are only encouraging him. For example my brother and I used to have burping contests and when my sis got mad/cried we were only encouraged to burp more, louder and longer. Unfortunatly it has been a long time since my bro and I have had the chance to engage in a serious contest, and I think that I have lost my touch.
That said...
Let me address the question bmw originally psted then:
I would not marry a porn star who is currently working as such, but if they have since left that job, no longer lead a promiscuous life, and respect sex as a demonstration of equal parts emotional love, and physical passion then I would consider them. Of course I would have to find other similarties and love them as a person before I would want to dedicate my love to them. But being a former porn star in of itself is not enough to cause me to disregard them as a partner.
I already answered the thread's question, but I'll do so once more.
By the way, to answer the thread title, yes, yes I would. I dont like the thought of my girlfriend having sex with other people, nor do i like the thought of other people watching, but if she were to decide thats what she wants to do then I would support her, because I love her and it would still be worth it, because I love her for who she IS, not who she does.
Hey, Dr. Freud, is that your professional opinion or more crap mouth. Homophobia is another one of those argument control tactics. The notion that people that don't accept homosexuality are supposed to be repressing is like playing the race card or women hater to control the conversation.
It’s not my place to tell people how to live but I don't have to accept it or like it. Characterizing those that don't agree with you as physiologically deficient is the weakest hand you can play. Just like playing the race card or women hater, it’s nothing more than a cheap shot.
That little emotional outburst is pretty telling.
I tried to read from the beginning but it started turning foul on the first page. If its all just bmw's rant, then why are so many cellarites paying attention? I say that we all are more intelligent then to be involved in such a pointless petty squabble. Trading insult after insult is really immature and it somewhat dissapoints me that we are so easily captured by bmw's hostile posts. By being so responsive to his posts, we are only encouraging him. For example my brother and I used to have burping contests and when my sis got mad/cried we were only encouraged to burp more, louder and longer. Unfortunatly it has been a long time since my bro and I have had the chance to engage in a serious contest, and I think that I have lost my touch.
That said...
Let me address the question bmw originally psted then:
I would not marry a porn star who is currently working as such, but if they have since left that job, no longer lead a promiscuous life, and respect sex as a demonstration of equal parts emotional love, and physical passion then I would consider them. Of course I would have to find other similarties and love them as a person before I would want to dedicate my love to them. But being a former porn star in of itself is not enough to cause me to disregard them as a partner.
Oh yea is all me.:wstupid: It must be nice to have such selective attention.:dunce:
That little emotional outburst is pretty telling.
Do tell. If I can articulate why can't you? You got a big mouth and an insulting disposition now show everybody you got some gray matter too.
Unfortunately the issue at hand in this thread would be BMW's ranting, he started the damn thing after all...
Self-respect is not so vile a sin as self-neglect.
It appears many people on this board have very selective memories and perceptions. My rantings, and what would you call those insulting and childish retorts by other posters??????
Are those my rantings too? If you care to read carefully it wasn't me that threw the first hand full of mud. I wonder if that really matters now that the gang has decided that intelligence conversation isn't as important as ostracizing posters.
Pray tell sir. Or maybe that point is just to intelligent to address.
Stop trying to act like a victim and back up your bullshit with something other than bigotry, prejudice, and sexism.
Oh yeah, and just for good measure...
Fuckin' homophobe.
What, exactly, does it mean when you don't "accept" homosexuality? I hear all the time that homosexuals are trying to "force" people to "accept" them, but I've bever been clear what that entails. I would have expected that if you recognize that it's not your " place to tell people how to live", then you have accepted it.
No its not acceptance. Life is about choices. Respecting peoples choice, good or bad, immoral or unethical, ethical and moral, or even criminal, isn't acceptance its recognition. Once recognized its up to the law or the social norms in a particular culture of a society to determine its affect on how people treat one another.
We may not like many of the laws or social norms of a society or culture but we obey them as a civil duty. In any society no person is an island we are all part of a community link together. Norms change and cultures evolves but its the direction of the evolution which will always be in contention. Ok!:)
I know, I know, more BM rantings.:right:
Still ignoring me, bmwmcaw?
No its not acceptance.
Then what are you doing to stop it? If you recognize that it is not your place to do anything to stop it, then you have decided that you find it acceptible. You may not like it, but you've accepted it.
Oh yea is all me.:wstupid: It must be nice to have such selective attention.:dunce:
Trading insult after insult is really immature and it somewhat dissapoints me that we are so easily captured
So...tell me again how adults doing what they want to other consenting adults is going to harm our society, influence our children and generally sap us of our essential fluids? 'Cause I'm not getting it. How, precisely, is being gay an abomination? Because someone slips Part A into Part C instead of Part B? I mean, I've slipped Part A into Mrs Elspode's Part C a few times. Does that make me abominable? What if I've spilled my seed on the ground a time or two?
I'm just trying to get a handle on this whole "abomination" thing. I'm completely lost.
So...tell me again how adults doing what they want to other consenting adults is going to harm our society, influence our children and generally sap us of our essential fluids? 'Cause I'm not getting it. How, precisely, is being gay an abomination? Because someone slips Part A into Part C instead of Part B? I mean, I've slipped Part A into Mrs Elspode's Part C a few times. Does that make me abominable? What if I've spilled my seed on the ground a time or two?
I'm just trying to get a handle on this whole "abomination" thing. I'm completely lost.
Ok, I'll try an answer your failure to understand this way; Life begins at conception, life is perpetuated by members of the same species through copulation between opposite of their respective sexes. I can't even think of one species of plant or animal on this wide earth that engages in homosexual acts on a regular base, if at all.
If not just that it runs counter to everything we see around us in the natural world it and the natural order if left to grow and spread it could theoretically lead to the extinction of all mankind. Now hows that for sapping the essential fluids out of ya.:D
Objection to homosexuality and its deviant behavior isn’t just based on personal dislike but a sound argument based on the natural world.
BTW, sodomy is an abomination because that’s not how those parts are supposed to be used. Abominations and our collective recognition of them stems from gross affronts to actions that fall outside the natural order of things and our collective definitions of social norms.
Getting a little clearer now?:)
I can't even think of one species of plant or animal on this wide earth that engages in homosexual acts on a regular base, if at all.
Dolphins, for one.
In fact, most species show signs of homosexuality. Do some research if youre going to try to use science and logic to defend your bigotry.
...And 'not how theyre supposed to be used' according to who, exactly?
Loads of animals are homosexual.
Ah. guess you've been too busy to watch the DiscoveryChannel, eh? well, no matter. I'm sure your school of...whatever...has many, MANY followers...really hope none of them turn out to be Gay, though.
Remind me again *who* decided how I am supposed to use *my* parts? Don't *I* get to decide? They are, after all, mine.
I'm guessing it wasn't Nature, since my parts do, indeed, fit in places where they were, according to you, never intended to go. So...continue to enlighten me as to why sodomy is bad. And reproduction doesn't count, because I don't engage in sex for reproduction anymore.
I can't even think of one species of plant or animal on this wide earth that engages in homosexual acts on a regular base, if at all.
Most plants are bisexual.
Evolutionary biologists speculate that there may have been an evolutionary advantage to tribes with a certain number of adults disinclined to breed. This could have regulated the rate of reproduction, provided a different ratio of children to adults, provided a different atmosphere and culture. It also would have provided a natural lead for the person to decide on the color scheme of the cave, what should be painted on the walls, making sure that the skulls of the dead are lined up nicely in order of height, etc.
This goes well with the recent finding that there are more gays amongst the population of younger brothers of brothers. In a tribe with many male births, there is less need for more breeding competition amongst the males.
It really hurts your argument, bm, to draw it to your own conclusion that maybe there will arrive a time when there won't be a huge number of guys chasing the hot poon. It is to laugh. And if they all do catch teh ghey, what's your problem? Are you worried they'll convert you too? Are you worried they'll all want to fuck you up the ass? Doesn't it just mean there'll be more women left over, willing to be dominated by you?
I'm going to go out on a limb here and take a wild guess that Evolutionary arguments are probably disallowed with our pal, much the same as religious arguments are disallowed by my thinking.
The Central Park Zoo had a real problem when they ended-up with a bunch of gay penguins. It was very cute.
Evolutionary biologists speculate that there may have been an evolutionary advantage to tribes with a certain number of adults disinclined to breed. This could have regulated the rate of reproduction, provided a different ratio of children to adults, provided a different atmosphere and culture. It also would have provided a natural lead for the person to decide on the color scheme of the cave, what should be painted on the walls, making sure that the skulls of the dead are lined up nicely in order of height, etc.
This goes well with the recent finding that there are more gays amongst the population of younger brothers of brothers. In a tribe with many male births, there is less need for more breeding competition amongst the males.
It really hurts your argument, bm, to draw it to your own conclusion that maybe there will arrive a time when there won't be a huge number of guys chasing the hot poon. It is to laugh. And if they all do catch teh ghey, what's your problem? Are you worried they'll convert you too? Are you worried they'll all want to fuck you up the ass? Doesn't it just mean there'll be more women left over, willing to be dominated by you?
There is what we believe and then there is what we know. Theories, speculation, and hypothesis are well and fine but you need only look through your own eyes at the world around you. I am not an evolutionary biologist nor was I a witness to 2 million years of planetary social and biological evolution. But what I can see and can prove right now is that life is perpetuated by life forms within a species of the opposite sex. Evolutionary biology is one of many scientific disciplines that study this area.
You want to massage the issues around the edges, well, have a ball. It doesn't change the natural order that exist on this planet right here, right now.
Your statement regarding my so called fears of homosexuals and theories of repression is nothing more than a signal of retreat from the conversation. I’ve said it before, playing the homophobic, race card, or women hater is a control tactic deployed when a more thoughtful redress on the topic can’t be made. I am thoroughly not impressed. It’s precisely these kinds of retorts that many of the “gang” can’t seem to maintain some sense of self-control over themselves. When you can’t respond intelligently you resort to insults and disparaging comments.:(
You asked me whatI based my postion on and what an abomination was and I told you. Reread you response and tell me if your comments enlarged or diminished the conversation.:right:
~snip~
BTW, sodomy is an abomination because that’s not how those parts are supposed to be used.
~snip~
The logical assumption to be made from that statement would be that you are also against oral sex aka cunninglus and fellatio aka going down on or a blowjob? Because I doubt that is the primary function of the mouth and tongue.
Look at these people! They suck each other! They eat each other's saliva and dirt! — Tsonga people of southern Africa on the European practice of kissing, 1927
Bah! What about kissing??? Is that another misuse of body parts? I love kissing, have I been committing an abomination every time I kiss my partner :worried: ? Cuz you know, in some cultures and in some historic times...kissing has been either considered highly disgusting or acceptable among people of the same gender.
So who decides what is what here? If our society changes its views on what is acceptable over time, and different cultures views certain behaviors in a totally different light, then who is the ultimate abiter of what is right and what is wrong for you or for me?
Stormie
All of those things are sodomy in Biblical language.
New Study Links Homophobia with Homosexual ArousalMost plants are bisexual.
Most still require cross pollination. That’s why the produce nectar to attract the birds and the bees. Bisexual is a mischaracterization. They have (plants) both male and female organs, so to speak, but still require the opposite gender to reproduce. The male parts do hump other male parts in a plant.:cool:
But what I can see and can prove right now is that life is perpetuated by life forms within a species of the opposite sex. Evolutionary biology is one of many scientific disciplines that study this area.
I can see and prove right now that life is also perpetuated by creatures that never reproduce, if they assist ones that do in any way. A gay caveman can hunt and gather for the tribe, and protect and care for the children of the tribe. And if the youngest of a set of brothers is gay, he can expect that his genes will be passed on by his older brothers anyway.
The logical assumption to be made from that statement would be that you are also against oral sex aka cunninglus and fellatio aka going down on or a blowjob? Because I doubt that is the primary function of the mouth and tongue.
Bah! What about kissing??? Is that another misuse of body parts? I love kissing, have I been committing an abomination every time I kiss my partner :worried: ? Cuz you know, in some cultures and in some historic times...kissing has been either considered highly disgusting or acceptable among people of the same gender.
So who decides what is what here? If our society changes its views on what is acceptable over time, and different cultures views certain behaviors in a totally different light, then who is the ultimate abiter of what is right and what is wrong for you or for me?
Stormie
This kind of issue sprawl has absolutely no value in moving the conversation. If you want to engage in a conversation then making silly and non-sense points isn't going to be productive. My point wasn't just confined to the function of the part but placed in the context of what we witness in the natural world. Making ridiculous issues out of a reasonable conversation is as immature as you can get. I not even going to address those idiotic remarks.
Most still require cross pollination. That’s why the produce nectar to attract the birds and the bees.
The birds and bees decrease the percentage of masturbation. But they still have the hot gay plant sex.
They have (plants) both male and female organs, so to speak, but still require the opposite gender to reproduce. The male parts do hump other male parts in a plant.:cool:
You didn't say "to reproduce", you said "homosexual acts on a regular basis", and plants qualify. Or they would, if they had any intent. But hey, you brought them up.
I can see and prove right now that life is also perpetuated by creatures that never reproduce, if they assist ones that do in any way. A gay caveman can hunt and gather for the tribe, and protect and care for the children of the tribe. And if the youngest of a set of brothers is gay, he can expect that his genes will be passed on by his older brothers anyway.
What kind of far fetched point are you making here. Somebody still has to have babies for that imaginary gay caveman to role play, and isn't having babies the real point in perpetuation.
Take a nap and come back with something a little more thoughful.
The birds and bees decrease the percentage of masturbation. But they still have the hot gay plant sex.You didn't say "to reproduce", you said "homosexual acts on a regular basis", and plants qualify. Or they would, if they had any intent. But hey, you brought them up.
What am I on trial here?
Your statement regarding my so called fears of homosexuals and theories of repression is nothing more than a signal of retreat from the conversation.
That's OK. I have to retreat. Your response opened with nothing less than a complete denial of science as a source for proof, or even information, so we have no common ground to start from. I'm left with no other approach than to point out that, obviously, with your deep concern on the topic, chances are good that you want a big black dick in your ass. The bigger and blacker the better, I'm guessing. But don't blame me, I'm only the messenger.
If you want to engage in a conversation then making silly and non-sense points isn't going to be productive. ~snip~ I not even going to address those idiotic remarks.
That's ok. I was being as serious as your homophobic, unfactual, ridiculous comments warranted. :p
Stormie
Somebody still has to have babies for that imaginary gay caveman to role play,
His community. Gays don't stop anyone from having babies, and they can help other people's babies survive.
Gay boys have poo babies! I can't believe you're all so uneducated!!! (heard that term from a tranny, so don't think I'm being phobic or anything)
What about hermaphrodites anyway?
There's lots of fish and reptile hermaphrodites...oh, and people, made by God (if you believe that train of thought). What about them? Which bits should they use and what for?
I call BS on your 'playing the homophobia card is backing out' thing... because you are little better than a Klansman if you are homophobic, which you are, and so there is no use in arguing the merits of homosexuality with you.
Sssshh...don't get him started on the Klan. I'd bet money on him being a card carrying member. ;) And I'm not even joking! Those people are fairly fond of the word 'abomination' you know.
Almost all of the time the homophobe card IS a backing out of the conversation. There's no real to continue afterward other than "am not. Are too". The term has a meaning, but remember that it refers to a FEAR of gays.
(Sorry, I HATE when people start using that term)
Technically speaking it means fear of gays, but in use and practice it more effectively means the same thing as racist or sexist. Gayist just doesnt have the right ring to it.
Ok, I'll try an answer your failure to understand this way; Life begins at conception, life is perpetuated by members of the same species through copulation between opposite of their respective sexes. I can't even think of one species of plant or animal on this wide earth that engages in homosexual acts on a regular base, if at all.
The gay penguin article:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4352011/
Quick google search reveals lots more.
As far as homosexuality who cares. If they keep it private it doesn't matter to me what their preference is, of course that applies equally to heterosexuals. I don't need your preference shoved in my face.
As far as the original question, sure I would marry a porn star, of course I would require she be out of the business first and free from disease. BUt who cares, that was the past, sex is sex and love is much more.
BM - I have never been shocked that you have personally attacked me - NEVER. Its all you are here to do and I was the first one to offer AND substantiate an opposing position while removing virtually all of your bogus "facts and/or corroborating evidence." You then went personal. At this point, it is quite obvious to everyone, except perhaps you, that your statements have very little, if any basis at all outside your mind. I have asked you repeatedly to back up what you said and as expected you were unable to do so. As far as I'm concerned - you have nothing to add of any value and I will no longer participate in your meaningless rantings other than to defend myself and expose your BS.
That's ok. I was being as serious as your homophobic, unfactual, ridiculous comments warranted. :p
Stormie
:dedhorse:
BM - I have never been shocked that you have personally attacked me - NEVER. Its all you are here to do and I was the first one to offer AND substantiate an opposing position while removing virtually all of your bogus "facts and/or corroborating evidence." You then went personal. At this point, it is quite obvious to everyone, except perhaps you, that your statements have very little, if any basis at all outside your mind. I have asked you repeatedly to back up what you said and as expected you were unable to do so. As far as I'm concerned - you have nothing to add of any value and I will no longer participate in your meaningless rantings other than to defend myself and expose your BS.
:bs:
The gay penguin article:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4352011/
Quick google search reveals lots more.
As far as homosexuality who cares. If they keep it private it doesn't matter to me what their preference is, of course that applies equally to heterosexuals. I don't need your preference shoved in my face.
As far as the original question, sure I would marry a porn star, of course I would require she be out of the business first and free from disease. BUt who cares, that was the past, sex is sex and love is much more.
:borg:
Almost all of the time the homophobe card IS a backing out of the conversation. There's no real to continue afterward other than "am not. Are too". The term has a meaning, but remember that it refers to a FEAR of gays.
(Sorry, I HATE when people start using that term)
:drummer:
Sssshh...don't get him started on the Klan. I'd bet money on him being a card carrying member. ;) And I'm not even joking! Those people are fairly fond of the word 'abomination' you know.
:bong:
Wow, thanks for that series of insightful and thought-provoking posts.
Yeah, really enlightening, eh?
:smashfrea
Wow, thanks for that series of insightful and thought-provoking posts.
:smashfrea
Wow, thanks for that series of insightful and thought-provoking posts.
Yeah, really enlightening, eh?
:brikwall::
weeeeeeeeeeeeee, that's fun!
weeeeeeeeeeeeee, that's fun!
:rtfm: