# sex on the first date



## TNHarley

Would you continue dating/marry a significant other you had sex with on the first date?
Is used to be taboo, but people are slowly opening their minds to the most natural human act available.
Personally, it wouldn't bother me.


----------



## cereal_killer

Yes and am


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

The wife and I did the deed on the first date .......25 years ago.


----------



## Iron Head

You numb nuts, if the bitch will fuck you on the first date then you obviously go back for more.


----------



## TNHarley

HereWeGoAgain said:


> The wife and I did the deed on the first date .......25 years ago.


Congrats!


----------



## TNHarley

I didn't on the first, but the second. Of course, our second date was laying in my bed all day watching tv. And I am one charming SOB 
(god I hope she isn't stalking me)


----------



## turzovka

TNHarley said:


> Would you continue dating/marry a significant other you had sex with on the first date?
> Is used to be taboo, but people are slowly opening their minds to the most natural human act available.
> Personally, it wouldn't bother me.



Kind of an odd question.  It seems to imply that there may be something unsettling about a girl who would be willing to have sex with you on the first date ---- but on the other hand, the fact that you were willing is no reflection on your character?  It is you who gets to decide if she is good enough for “honorable you.”

To answer your question--  I would feel far worse about myself than the girl.  I would not reject the girl, however, because of those events. 

I am, however, very disheartened by all of the unmarried couples who live together.  It is so wrong.  And, yes, one of my own children is currently one of them.


----------



## TNHarley

turzovka said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you continue dating/marry a significant other you had sex with on the first date?
> Is used to be taboo, but people are slowly opening their minds to the most natural human act available.
> Personally, it wouldn't bother me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kind of an odd question.  It seems to imply that there may be something unsettling about a girl who would be willing to have sex with you on the first date ---- but on the other hand, the fact that you were willing is no reflection on your character?  It is you who gets to decide if she is good enough for “honorable you.”
> 
> To answer your question--  I would feel far worse about myself than the girl.  I would not reject the girl, however, because of those events.
> 
> I am, however, very disheartened by all of the unmarried couples who live together.  It is so wrong.  And, yes, one of my own children is currently one of them.
Click to expand...

 I am so glad religious nutballs are dying out here.


----------



## TNHarley

turzovka said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you continue dating/marry a significant other you had sex with on the first date?
> Is used to be taboo, but people are slowly opening their minds to the most natural human act available.
> Personally, it wouldn't bother me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kind of an odd question.  It seems to imply that there may be something unsettling about a girl who would be willing to have sex with you on the first date ---- but on the other hand, the fact that you were willing is no reflection on your character?  It is you who gets to decide if she is good enough for “honorable you.”
> 
> To answer your question--  I would feel far worse about myself than the girl.  I would not reject the girl, however, because of those events.
> 
> I am, however, very disheartened by all of the unmarried couples who live together.  It is so wrong.  And, yes, one of my own children is currently one of them.
Click to expand...

 BTW, I didn't specify females. You just assumed 
From the OP you didn't comprend : Would you continue dating/marry a *significant other* you had sex with on the first date?


----------



## turzovka

TNHarley said:


> turzovka said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you continue dating/marry a significant other you had sex with on the first date?
> Is used to be taboo, but people are slowly opening their minds to the most natural human act available.
> Personally, it wouldn't bother me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kind of an odd question.  It seems to imply that there may be something unsettling about a girl who would be willing to have sex with you on the first date ---- but on the other hand, the fact that you were willing is no reflection on your character?  It is you who gets to decide if she is good enough for “honorable you.”
> 
> To answer your question--  I would feel far worse about myself than the girl.  I would not reject the girl, however, because of those events.
> 
> I am, however, very disheartened by all of the unmarried couples who live together.  It is so wrong.  And, yes, one of my own children is currently one of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BTW, I didn't specify females. You just assumed
> From the OP you didn't comprend : Would you continue dating/marry a *significant other* you had sex with on the first date?
Click to expand...


I assumed nothing.   Except that I assumed you were a male and put the same question to yourself?    

Or does not your own opinion count?       You were discussing hypothetically someone you had sex with on the first date and how that affected YOUR opinion of him or her.    Right?

By the way, let not me being a religious zealot stop you from having fun over it.   I have no problem with that, and I am sure you will gladly take on some mud slung your way, too.


----------



## TNHarley

turzovka said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turzovka said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you continue dating/marry a significant other you had sex with on the first date?
> Is used to be taboo, but people are slowly opening their minds to the most natural human act available.
> Personally, it wouldn't bother me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kind of an odd question.  It seems to imply that there may be something unsettling about a girl who would be willing to have sex with you on the first date ---- but on the other hand, the fact that you were willing is no reflection on your character?  It is you who gets to decide if she is good enough for “honorable you.”
> 
> To answer your question--  I would feel far worse about myself than the girl.  I would not reject the girl, however, because of those events.
> 
> I am, however, very disheartened by all of the unmarried couples who live together.  It is so wrong.  And, yes, one of my own children is currently one of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BTW, I didn't specify females. You just assumed
> From the OP you didn't comprend : Would you continue dating/marry a *significant other* you had sex with on the first date?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I assumed nothing.   Except that I assumed you were a male and put the same question to yourself?
> 
> Or does not your own opinion count?       You were discussing hypothetically someone you had sex with on the first date and how that affected YOUR opinion of him or her.    Right?
> 
> By the way, let not me being a religious zealot stop you from having fun over it.   I have no problem with that, and I am sure you will gladly take on some mud slung your way, too.
Click to expand...

 what?


----------



## turzovka

TNHarley said:


> turzovka said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turzovka said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you continue dating/marry a significant other you had sex with on the first date?
> Is used to be taboo, but people are slowly opening their minds to the most natural human act available.
> Personally, it wouldn't bother me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kind of an odd question.  It seems to imply that there may be something unsettling about a girl who would be willing to have sex with you on the first date ---- but on the other hand, the fact that you were willing is no reflection on your character?  It is you who gets to decide if she is good enough for “honorable you.”
> 
> To answer your question--  I would feel far worse about myself than the girl.  I would not reject the girl, however, because of those events.
> 
> I am, however, very disheartened by all of the unmarried couples who live together.  It is so wrong.  And, yes, one of my own children is currently one of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BTW, I didn't specify females. You just assumed
> From the OP you didn't comprend : Would you continue dating/marry a *significant other* you had sex with on the first date?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I assumed nothing.   Except that I assumed you were a male and put the same question to yourself?
> 
> Or does not your own opinion count?       You were discussing hypothetically someone you had sex with on the first date and how that affected YOUR opinion of him or her.    Right?
> 
> By the way, let not me being a religious zealot stop you from having fun over it.   I have no problem with that, and I am sure you will gladly take on some mud slung your way, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what?
Click to expand...

What, what?   

couldn't explain it any better


----------



## ChrisL

No, I would think he was a dirty whore!


----------



## TNHarley

ChrisL said:


> No, I would think he was a dirty whore!


 You sound like a dude.
"man, I fucked this girl on the first date. What a whore!" LOL


----------



## ChrisL

All of you guys are sluts, and we marry you!


TNHarley said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I would think he was a dirty whore!
> 
> 
> 
> You sound like a dude.
> "man, I fucked this girl on the first date. What a whore!" LOL
Click to expand...


That was the point.


----------



## TNHarley

ChrisL said:


> All of you guys are sluts, and we marry you!
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I would think he was a dirty whore!
> 
> 
> 
> You sound like a dude.
> "man, I fucked this girl on the first date. What a whore!" LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was the point.
Click to expand...

 haha


----------



## Katzndogz

I saw my second husband in an elevator and had sex with him in the elevator before "hello".  We got married a month after I got rid of my first husband.  We were married for 14 years.


----------



## ChrisL

Tipsycatlover said:


> I saw my second husband in an elevator and had sex with him in the elevator before "hello".  We got married a month after I got rid of my first husband.  We were married for 14 years.



Was this before or after you threatened him with your switch blade?


----------



## ChrisL

Tipsycatlover said:


> I saw my second husband in an elevator and had sex with him in the elevator before "hello".  We got married a month after I got rid of my first husband.  We were married for 14 years.



How old were you?  10?


----------



## Katzndogz

ChrisL said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> I saw my second husband in an elevator and had sex with him in the elevator before "hello".  We got married a month after I got rid of my first husband.  We were married for 14 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How old were you?  10?
Click to expand...


No.  I was 15 when I married my first husband and 16 when I married my second husband.  He was cute, and looked like a goofy country  boy that I could manipulate enough to do anything I wanted.  Better, he was in the Navy and gone 9 months out of the year. 

After all, I still had the same mother.  I had to do something.


----------



## ChrisL

Tipsycatlover said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> I saw my second husband in an elevator and had sex with him in the elevator before "hello".  We got married a month after I got rid of my first husband.  We were married for 14 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How old were you?  10?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  I was 15 when I married my first husband and 16 when I married my second husband.  He was cute, and looked like a goofy country  boy that I could manipulate enough to do anything I wanted.  Better, he was in the Navy and gone 9 months out of the year.
> 
> After all, I still had the same mother.  I had to do something.
Click to expand...


Oops.  Caught you in a lie.  You told me you were 13 when you first married.    Tough keeping all those lies straight, eh?


----------



## Katzndogz

ChrisL said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> I saw my second husband in an elevator and had sex with him in the elevator before "hello".  We got married a month after I got rid of my first husband.  We were married for 14 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How old were you?  10?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  I was 15 when I married my first husband and 16 when I married my second husband.  He was cute, and looked like a goofy country  boy that I could manipulate enough to do anything I wanted.  Better, he was in the Navy and gone 9 months out of the year.
> 
> After all, I still had the same mother.  I had to do something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oops.  Caught you in a lie.  You told me you were 13 when you first married.    Tough keeping all those lies straight, eh?
Click to expand...

No.  I told you I was 13 when I took my first lover.  Look it up.  Surely you don't think that women have to marry all their lovers, or even their first lover.  I'm kind of amused at your idea that I married my first lover.

I'm surprised that you don't remember that because your post was "Where were your parents!"


----------



## WinterBorn

Tipsycatlover said:


> I saw my second husband in an elevator and had sex with him in the elevator before "hello".  We got married a month after I got rid of my first husband.  We were married for 14 years.



GO Tipsy!!    Gotta love a woman who goes after what she wants.    Sounds like quite an elevator ride.  lol


----------



## ChrisL

Tipsycatlover said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> I saw my second husband in an elevator and had sex with him in the elevator before "hello".  We got married a month after I got rid of my first husband.  We were married for 14 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How old were you?  10?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  I was 15 when I married my first husband and 16 when I married my second husband.  He was cute, and looked like a goofy country  boy that I could manipulate enough to do anything I wanted.  Better, he was in the Navy and gone 9 months out of the year.
> 
> After all, I still had the same mother.  I had to do something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oops.  Caught you in a lie.  You told me you were 13 when you first married.    Tough keeping all those lies straight, eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I told you I was 13 when I took my first lover.  Look it up.  Surely you don't think that women have to marry all their lovers, or even their first lover.  I'm kind of amused at your idea that I married my first lover.
> 
> I'm surprised that you don't remember that because your post was "Where were your parents!"
Click to expand...


Oh, like you carried a switch blade at 6 years old and beat up your teachers and parents and siblings?    You are demented.


----------



## ChrisL

WinterBorn said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> I saw my second husband in an elevator and had sex with him in the elevator before "hello".  We got married a month after I got rid of my first husband.  We were married for 14 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GO Tipsy!!    Gotta love a woman who goes after what she wants.    Sounds like quite an elevator ride.  lol
Click to expand...


Ha ha!  You have NO idea.


----------



## WinterBorn

ChrisL said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> I saw my second husband in an elevator and had sex with him in the elevator before "hello".  We got married a month after I got rid of my first husband.  We were married for 14 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GO Tipsy!!    Gotta love a woman who goes after what she wants.    Sounds like quite an elevator ride.  lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha ha!  You have NO idea.
Click to expand...


Eh, I don't need to know.  I avoid the social drama whenever I can.   But I do like a woman who isn't afraid to get wild, and will usually comment on it when I see it discussed.


----------



## ChrisL

WinterBorn said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> I saw my second husband in an elevator and had sex with him in the elevator before "hello".  We got married a month after I got rid of my first husband.  We were married for 14 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GO Tipsy!!    Gotta love a woman who goes after what she wants.    Sounds like quite an elevator ride.  lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha ha!  You have NO idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Eh, I don't need to know.  I avoid the social drama whenever I can.   But I do like a woman who isn't afraid to get wild, and will usually comment on it when I see it discussed.
Click to expand...


She was 13 years old.


----------



## WinterBorn

ChrisL said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> I saw my second husband in an elevator and had sex with him in the elevator before "hello".  We got married a month after I got rid of my first husband.  We were married for 14 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GO Tipsy!!    Gotta love a woman who goes after what she wants.    Sounds like quite an elevator ride.  lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha ha!  You have NO idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Eh, I don't need to know.  I avoid the social drama whenever I can.   But I do like a woman who isn't afraid to get wild, and will usually comment on it when I see it discussed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She was 13 years old.
Click to expand...


According to her she was 16 and had been married for a year.


----------



## ChrisL

WinterBorn said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> I saw my second husband in an elevator and had sex with him in the elevator before "hello".  We got married a month after I got rid of my first husband.  We were married for 14 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GO Tipsy!!    Gotta love a woman who goes after what she wants.    Sounds like quite an elevator ride.  lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha ha!  You have NO idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Eh, I don't need to know.  I avoid the social drama whenever I can.   But I do like a woman who isn't afraid to get wild, and will usually comment on it when I see it discussed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She was 13 years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to her she was 16 and had been married for a year.
Click to expand...


She was 13 when she first took a 26-year-old lover.  Wild, right?  That's real sexy stuff.


----------



## ChrisL

I'm sorry but she ruined the "sexy" in this thread.    There is nothing "cool" about a 13-year-old getting banged by a 26-year-old man, especially a 13-year-old child with mental problems.


----------



## WinterBorn

ChrisL said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> GO Tipsy!!    Gotta love a woman who goes after what she wants.    Sounds like quite an elevator ride.  lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ha ha!  You have NO idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Eh, I don't need to know.  I avoid the social drama whenever I can.   But I do like a woman who isn't afraid to get wild, and will usually comment on it when I see it discussed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She was 13 years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to her she was 16 and had been married for a year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She was 13 when she first took a 26-year-old lover.  Wild, right?  That's real sexy stuff.
Click to expand...


I didn't respond to that, I responded to her post about the elevator.


----------



## ChrisL

WinterBorn said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ha ha!  You have NO idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eh, I don't need to know.  I avoid the social drama whenever I can.   But I do like a woman who isn't afraid to get wild, and will usually comment on it when I see it discussed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She was 13 years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to her she was 16 and had been married for a year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She was 13 when she first took a 26-year-old lover.  Wild, right?  That's real sexy stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't respond to that, I responded to her post about the elevator.
Click to expand...


So?  Now you know.


----------



## ChrisL

15 is still a child anyways.  Fifteen year old girls are still children.  So are 16-year-old girls.  These are mentally and emotionally still children, like it or not.


----------



## WinterBorn

ChrisL said:


> 15 is still a child anyways.  Fifteen year old girls are still children.  So are 16-year-old girls.  These are mentally and emotionally still children, like it or not.



16 is the legal age of consent in most states.


----------



## ChrisL

WinterBorn said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 15 is still a child anyways.  Fifteen year old girls are still children.  So are 16-year-old girls.  These are mentally and emotionally still children, like it or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 16 is the legal age of consent in most states.
Click to expand...


So?  I was a 16-year-old girl.  I know what I'm talking about.


----------



## WinterBorn

ChrisL said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 15 is still a child anyways.  Fifteen year old girls are still children.  So are 16-year-old girls.  These are mentally and emotionally still children, like it or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 16 is the legal age of consent in most states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So?  I was a 16-year-old girl.  I know what I'm talking about.
Click to expand...


ok, so you were still a child at 16.  Obviously some people in many states think differently.

But let's be real, I made the comment when I read the post.  I didn't read on and go back to make the comment.   Tipsy is well over 16 now.   I don't see whether it matters if she was 16 or 60.


----------



## ChrisL

Yup, I remember quite well being a 16-year-old child and all the old perverts.


----------



## ChrisL

WinterBorn said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 15 is still a child anyways.  Fifteen year old girls are still children.  So are 16-year-old girls.  These are mentally and emotionally still children, like it or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 16 is the legal age of consent in most states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So?  I was a 16-year-old girl.  I know what I'm talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ok, so you were still a child at 16.  Obviously some people in many states think differently.
> 
> But let's be real, I made the comment when I read the post.  I didn't read on and go back to make the comment.   Tipsy is well over 16 now.   I don't see whether it matters if she was 16 or 60.
Click to expand...


Well, it doesn't, but her story is fucked up, not exciting or sexy.  It's a big turn off.


----------



## westwall

cereal_killer said:


> Yes and am






Me too!  We had to see if we had chemistry.  We did!  Still together after 28 years!


----------



## ChrisL

WinterBorn said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 15 is still a child anyways.  Fifteen year old girls are still children.  So are 16-year-old girls.  These are mentally and emotionally still children, like it or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 16 is the legal age of consent in most states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So?  I was a 16-year-old girl.  I know what I'm talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ok, so you were still a child at 16.  Obviously some people in many states think differently.
> 
> But let's be real, I made the comment when I read the post.  I didn't read on and go back to make the comment.   Tipsy is well over 16 now.   I don't see whether it matters if she was 16 or 60.
Click to expand...


Hey, I wouldn't know all this if she didn't tell everyone.  She also told about how her parents couldn't wait to get rid of her because she was a psychopath who tried to kill her brother and beat up her teachers and her parents were frightened of her.  At least that's her story.  

Oh, and there's the part about her carrying a switch blade and threatening people at 6 years old.   

If you believe HALF of the things you read here, you are QUITE naive anyways.


----------



## ChrisL

I do know this much.  People just LOVE to talk about themselves.


----------



## eagle1462010

Hang on.............

Zip.............

Yep.............Been there done that and I'm still married to her.............


----------



## Katzndogz

ChrisL said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> I saw my second husband in an elevator and had sex with him in the elevator before "hello".  We got married a month after I got rid of my first husband.  We were married for 14 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How old were you?  10?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  I was 15 when I married my first husband and 16 when I married my second husband.  He was cute, and looked like a goofy country  boy that I could manipulate enough to do anything I wanted.  Better, he was in the Navy and gone 9 months out of the year.
> 
> After all, I still had the same mother.  I had to do something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oops.  Caught you in a lie.  You told me you were 13 when you first married.    Tough keeping all those lies straight, eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I told you I was 13 when I took my first lover.  Look it up.  Surely you don't think that women have to marry all their lovers, or even their first lover.  I'm kind of amused at your idea that I married my first lover.
> 
> I'm surprised that you don't remember that because your post was "Where were your parents!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, like you carried a switch blade at 6 years old and beat up your teachers and parents and siblings?    You are demented.
Click to expand...

What is wrong with you?  I have no siblings.   Where did you make that up from?


----------



## ChrisL

Tipsycatlover said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> How old were you?  10?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I was 15 when I married my first husband and 16 when I married my second husband.  He was cute, and looked like a goofy country  boy that I could manipulate enough to do anything I wanted.  Better, he was in the Navy and gone 9 months out of the year.
> 
> After all, I still had the same mother.  I had to do something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oops.  Caught you in a lie.  You told me you were 13 when you first married.    Tough keeping all those lies straight, eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I told you I was 13 when I took my first lover.  Look it up.  Surely you don't think that women have to marry all their lovers, or even their first lover.  I'm kind of amused at your idea that I married my first lover.
> 
> I'm surprised that you don't remember that because your post was "Where were your parents!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, like you carried a switch blade at 6 years old and beat up your teachers and parents and siblings?    You are demented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is wrong with you?  I have no siblings.   Where did you make that up from?
Click to expand...


Well you said something to that effect.  You said that your parents were afraid of you because you were violent and wanted to rid themselves of you.  So who were you threatening?


----------



## Katzndogz

ChrisL said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 15 is still a child anyways.  Fifteen year old girls are still children.  So are 16-year-old girls.  These are mentally and emotionally still children, like it or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 16 is the legal age of consent in most states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So?  I was a 16-year-old girl.  I know what I'm talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ok, so you were still a child at 16.  Obviously some people in many states think differently.
> 
> But let's be real, I made the comment when I read the post.  I didn't read on and go back to make the comment.   Tipsy is well over 16 now.   I don't see whether it matters if she was 16 or 60.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, I wouldn't know all this if she didn't tell everyone.  She also told about how her parents couldn't wait to get rid of her because she was a psychopath who tried to kill her brother and beat up her teachers and her parents were frightened of her.  At least that's her story.
> 
> Oh, and there's the part about her carrying a switch blade and threatening people at 6 years old.
> 
> If you believe HALF of the things you read here, you are QUITE naive anyways.
Click to expand...

Okay you have me mixed up with someone else.  I never had a brother. 

I did start carrying a switchblade at 6 and still do.  

Get your people straight.  I was always an only child.


----------



## ChrisL

Tipsycatlover said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> How old were you?  10?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I was 15 when I married my first husband and 16 when I married my second husband.  He was cute, and looked like a goofy country  boy that I could manipulate enough to do anything I wanted.  Better, he was in the Navy and gone 9 months out of the year.
> 
> After all, I still had the same mother.  I had to do something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oops.  Caught you in a lie.  You told me you were 13 when you first married.    Tough keeping all those lies straight, eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I told you I was 13 when I took my first lover.  Look it up.  Surely you don't think that women have to marry all their lovers, or even their first lover.  I'm kind of amused at your idea that I married my first lover.
> 
> I'm surprised that you don't remember that because your post was "Where were your parents!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, like you carried a switch blade at 6 years old and beat up your teachers and parents and siblings?    You are demented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is wrong with you?  I have no siblings.   Where did you make that up from?
Click to expand...


Um, the question is  . . .  what is wrong with YOU that you think it's cool for children to bed down with adults.


----------



## ChrisL

Tipsycatlover said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 15 is still a child anyways.  Fifteen year old girls are still children.  So are 16-year-old girls.  These are mentally and emotionally still children, like it or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 16 is the legal age of consent in most states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So?  I was a 16-year-old girl.  I know what I'm talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ok, so you were still a child at 16.  Obviously some people in many states think differently.
> 
> But let's be real, I made the comment when I read the post.  I didn't read on and go back to make the comment.   Tipsy is well over 16 now.   I don't see whether it matters if she was 16 or 60.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, I wouldn't know all this if she didn't tell everyone.  She also told about how her parents couldn't wait to get rid of her because she was a psychopath who tried to kill her brother and beat up her teachers and her parents were frightened of her.  At least that's her story.
> 
> Oh, and there's the part about her carrying a switch blade and threatening people at 6 years old.
> 
> If you believe HALF of the things you read here, you are QUITE naive anyways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay you have me mixed up with someone else.  I never had a brother.
> 
> I did start carrying a switchblade at 6 and still do.
> 
> Get your people straight.  I was always an only child.
Click to expand...


So who did you threaten then?  Your teachers?  Your parents?  I'll have to go hunt down that series of posts you made, telling us all about your problems.


----------



## danielpalos

TNHarley said:


> Would you continue dating/marry a significant other you had sex with on the first date?
> Is used to be taboo, but people are slowly opening their minds to the most natural human act available.
> Personally, it wouldn't bother me.


Yes, but she has to tell me she really likes me.


----------



## Katzndogz

ChrisL said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I was 15 when I married my first husband and 16 when I married my second husband.  He was cute, and looked like a goofy country  boy that I could manipulate enough to do anything I wanted.  Better, he was in the Navy and gone 9 months out of the year.
> 
> After all, I still had the same mother.  I had to do something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oops.  Caught you in a lie.  You told me you were 13 when you first married.    Tough keeping all those lies straight, eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I told you I was 13 when I took my first lover.  Look it up.  Surely you don't think that women have to marry all their lovers, or even their first lover.  I'm kind of amused at your idea that I married my first lover.
> 
> I'm surprised that you don't remember that because your post was "Where were your parents!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, like you carried a switch blade at 6 years old and beat up your teachers and parents and siblings?    You are demented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is wrong with you?  I have no siblings.   Where did you make that up from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you said something to that effect.  You said that your parents were afraid of you because you were violent and wanted to rid themselves of you.  So who were you threatening?
Click to expand...

My parents were absolutely terrified of me.  I threatened just about anyone that got close enough to thteaten.  I was incredibly violent as a child.  As a teen I was an out of control monster in training.  My poor parents thought a man would settle me down.  At least they wouldn't be responsible for me any longer in case I did something terrible.

In a strange way, they were right.  A suitable lover was exactly what I needed.  I chose the man personally.


----------



## ChrisL

Tipsycatlover said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oops.  Caught you in a lie.  You told me you were 13 when you first married.    Tough keeping all those lies straight, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I told you I was 13 when I took my first lover.  Look it up.  Surely you don't think that women have to marry all their lovers, or even their first lover.  I'm kind of amused at your idea that I married my first lover.
> 
> I'm surprised that you don't remember that because your post was "Where were your parents!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, like you carried a switch blade at 6 years old and beat up your teachers and parents and siblings?    You are demented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is wrong with you?  I have no siblings.   Where did you make that up from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you said something to that effect.  You said that your parents were afraid of you because you were violent and wanted to rid themselves of you.  So who were you threatening?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My parents were absolutely terrified of me.  I threatened just about anyone that got close enough to thteaten.  I was incredibly violent as a child.  As a teen I was an out of control monster in training.  My poor parents thought a man would settle me down.  At least they wouldn't be responsible for me any longer in case I did something terrible.
> 
> In a strange way, they were right.  A suitable lover was exactly what I needed.  I chose the man personally.
Click to expand...


I don't think so.  You're parents should have been arrested for child abuse.


----------



## Katzndogz

ChrisL said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I told you I was 13 when I took my first lover.  Look it up.  Surely you don't think that women have to marry all their lovers, or even their first lover.  I'm kind of amused at your idea that I married my first lover.
> 
> I'm surprised that you don't remember that because your post was "Where were your parents!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, like you carried a switch blade at 6 years old and beat up your teachers and parents and siblings?    You are demented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is wrong with you?  I have no siblings.   Where did you make that up from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you said something to that effect.  You said that your parents were afraid of you because you were violent and wanted to rid themselves of you.  So who were you threatening?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My parents were absolutely terrified of me.  I threatened just about anyone that got close enough to thteaten.  I was incredibly violent as a child.  As a teen I was an out of control monster in training.  My poor parents thought a man would settle me down.  At least they wouldn't be responsible for me any longer in case I did something terrible.
> 
> In a strange way, they were right.  A suitable lover was exactly what I needed.  I chose the man personally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think so.  You're parents should have been arrested for child abuse.
Click to expand...

They weren't.   

I made my own decisions and lived my own life under my own direction.  I did very well too.


----------



## ChrisL

Tipsycatlover said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, like you carried a switch blade at 6 years old and beat up your teachers and parents and siblings?    You are demented.
> 
> 
> 
> What is wrong with you?  I have no siblings.   Where did you make that up from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you said something to that effect.  You said that your parents were afraid of you because you were violent and wanted to rid themselves of you.  So who were you threatening?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My parents were absolutely terrified of me.  I threatened just about anyone that got close enough to thteaten.  I was incredibly violent as a child.  As a teen I was an out of control monster in training.  My poor parents thought a man would settle me down.  At least they wouldn't be responsible for me any longer in case I did something terrible.
> 
> In a strange way, they were right.  A suitable lover was exactly what I needed.  I chose the man personally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think so.  You're parents should have been arrested for child abuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They weren't.
> 
> I made my own decisions and lived my own life under my own direction.  I did very well too.
Click to expand...


That IS child abuse, sorry to tell you.  Your parents could have been and probably should have arrested and charged, and you should have been placed in the custody of the state.


----------



## ChrisL

Tipsycatlover said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, like you carried a switch blade at 6 years old and beat up your teachers and parents and siblings?    You are demented.
> 
> 
> 
> What is wrong with you?  I have no siblings.   Where did you make that up from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you said something to that effect.  You said that your parents were afraid of you because you were violent and wanted to rid themselves of you.  So who were you threatening?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My parents were absolutely terrified of me.  I threatened just about anyone that got close enough to thteaten.  I was incredibly violent as a child.  As a teen I was an out of control monster in training.  My poor parents thought a man would settle me down.  At least they wouldn't be responsible for me any longer in case I did something terrible.
> 
> In a strange way, they were right.  A suitable lover was exactly what I needed.  I chose the man personally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think so.  You're parents should have been arrested for child abuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They weren't.
> 
> I made my own decisions and lived my own life under my own direction.  I did very well too.
Click to expand...


You also should have been seeing a psychiatrist.  You have some serious mental issues.


----------



## Katzndogz

ChrisL said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is wrong with you?  I have no siblings.   Where did you make that up from?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well you said something to that effect.  You said that your parents were afraid of you because you were violent and wanted to rid themselves of you.  So who were you threatening?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My parents were absolutely terrified of me.  I threatened just about anyone that got close enough to thteaten.  I was incredibly violent as a child.  As a teen I was an out of control monster in training.  My poor parents thought a man would settle me down.  At least they wouldn't be responsible for me any longer in case I did something terrible.
> 
> In a strange way, they were right.  A suitable lover was exactly what I needed.  I chose the man personally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think so.  You're parents should have been arrested for child abuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They weren't.
> 
> I made my own decisions and lived my own life under my own direction.  I did very well too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You also should have been seeing a psychiatrist.  You have some serious mental issues.
Click to expand...

Oh. No doubt!    I may have taken a lover at 13.  But I never intended on keeping him.  I was always going to throw him back.  Just like I threw two husbands back in the pond.  They were good for whatever I needed them for.  But when I was done, I was done. 

When someone asks if a person would marry someone they had sex with on the first date, the answer depends on who is playing who?  For what?   How good are they at playing?


----------



## ChrisL

Tipsycatlover said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well you said something to that effect.  You said that your parents were afraid of you because you were violent and wanted to rid themselves of you.  So who were you threatening?
> 
> 
> 
> My parents were absolutely terrified of me.  I threatened just about anyone that got close enough to thteaten.  I was incredibly violent as a child.  As a teen I was an out of control monster in training.  My poor parents thought a man would settle me down.  At least they wouldn't be responsible for me any longer in case I did something terrible.
> 
> In a strange way, they were right.  A suitable lover was exactly what I needed.  I chose the man personally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think so.  You're parents should have been arrested for child abuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They weren't.
> 
> I made my own decisions and lived my own life under my own direction.  I did very well too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You also should have been seeing a psychiatrist.  You have some serious mental issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh. No doubt!    I may have taken a lover at 13.  But I never intended on keeping him.  I was always going to throw him back.  Just like I threw two husbands back in the pond.  They were good for whatever I needed them for.  But when I was done, I was done.
> 
> When someone asks if a person would marry someone they had sex with on the first date, the answer depends on who is playing who?  For what?   How good are they at playing?
Click to expand...


Why can't you just like someone?  A relationship isn't supposed to be about what you can get from the other person.  It is supposed to be about WANTING to spend time and be with that particular person.  You miss that person when he is not around.  You think about him fondly.  You would be terribly hurt if anything happened to him.  You really don't want to spend time with anyone else.  That is what love is.


----------



## Katzndogz

ChrisL said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> My parents were absolutely terrified of me.  I threatened just about anyone that got close enough to thteaten.  I was incredibly violent as a child.  As a teen I was an out of control monster in training.  My poor parents thought a man would settle me down.  At least they wouldn't be responsible for me any longer in case I did something terrible.
> 
> In a strange way, they were right.  A suitable lover was exactly what I needed.  I chose the man personally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think so.  You're parents should have been arrested for child abuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They weren't.
> 
> I made my own decisions and lived my own life under my own direction.  I did very well too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You also should have been seeing a psychiatrist.  You have some serious mental issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh. No doubt!    I may have taken a lover at 13.  But I never intended on keeping him.  I was always going to throw him back.  Just like I threw two husbands back in the pond.  They were good for whatever I needed them for.  But when I was done, I was done.
> 
> When someone asks if a person would marry someone they had sex with on the first date, the answer depends on who is playing who?  For what?   How good are they at playing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why can't you just like someone?  A relationship isn't supposed to be about what you can get from the other person.  It is supposed to be about WANTING to spend time and be with that particular person.  You miss that person when he is not around.  You think about him fondly.  You would be terribly hurt if anything happened to him.  You really don't want to spend time with anyone else.  That is what love is.
Click to expand...

Why can't you just like someone.  Well gee, I've liked most of the guys I've dated.  I liked two of them that I married.  I would have been terribly hurt if something happened to them.   I was upset when my last husband died.

Still, the primary purpose for a relationship to me is,  what can I get.  What kind of good can you do for me.  When he can no longer meet the need I chose him for, he's done, out the door.   

The difference between you and I  is that you are a very nice woman who appreciates a good man in a loving relationship.  Am I right?

I am a predator.   I have always been a predator.  Likely, I will die an old predator.  I don't form relationships.   I hunt prey.   Sex is bait.  It's always been bait.   Nothing more.  What can he do for me?  What advantage can I get?    Love is not nearly as satisfying as getting what I want.  And once I get what I want, I simply don't love them any more.  Like a housecat that catches a mouse and rips its head off.  Then loses interest in the carcass.
See how different we really are?


----------



## ChrisL

Tipsycatlover said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think so.  You're parents should have been arrested for child abuse.
> 
> 
> 
> They weren't.
> 
> I made my own decisions and lived my own life under my own direction.  I did very well too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You also should have been seeing a psychiatrist.  You have some serious mental issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh. No doubt!    I may have taken a lover at 13.  But I never intended on keeping him.  I was always going to throw him back.  Just like I threw two husbands back in the pond.  They were good for whatever I needed them for.  But when I was done, I was done.
> 
> When someone asks if a person would marry someone they had sex with on the first date, the answer depends on who is playing who?  For what?   How good are they at playing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why can't you just like someone?  A relationship isn't supposed to be about what you can get from the other person.  It is supposed to be about WANTING to spend time and be with that particular person.  You miss that person when he is not around.  You think about him fondly.  You would be terribly hurt if anything happened to him.  You really don't want to spend time with anyone else.  That is what love is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why can't you just like someone.  Well gee, I've liked most of the guys I've dated.  I liked two of them that I married.  I would have been terribly hurt if something happened to them.   I was upset when my last husband died.
> 
> Still, the primary purpose for a relationship to me is,  what can I get.  What kind of good can you do for me.  When he can no longer meet the need I chose him for, he's done, out the door.
> 
> The difference between you and I  is that you are a very nice woman who appreciates a good man in a loving relationship.  Am I right?
> 
> I am a predator.   I have always been a predator.  Likely, I will die an old predator.  I don't form relationships.   I hunt prey.   Sex is bait.  It's always been bait.   Nothing more.  What can he do for me?  What advantage can I get?    Love is not nearly as satisfying as getting what I want.  And once I get what I want, I simply don't love them any more.  Like a housecat that catches a mouse and rips its head off.  Then loses interest in the carcass.
> See how different we really are?
Click to expand...


How old are you?  Are you a child?


----------



## Anathema

Very tough to say. I was never a proponent of sex on the first date. Only did it once in roughly 25 years of dating. Didn't do it with the woman who became my wife. Had a,tital of three dates with the woman I did have sex with on the first date.


----------



## Katzndogz

ChrisL said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> They weren't.
> 
> I made my own decisions and lived my own life under my own direction.  I did very well too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You also should have been seeing a psychiatrist.  You have some serious mental issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh. No doubt!    I may have taken a lover at 13.  But I never intended on keeping him.  I was always going to throw him back.  Just like I threw two husbands back in the pond.  They were good for whatever I needed them for.  But when I was done, I was done.
> 
> When someone asks if a person would marry someone they had sex with on the first date, the answer depends on who is playing who?  For what?   How good are they at playing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why can't you just like someone?  A relationship isn't supposed to be about what you can get from the other person.  It is supposed to be about WANTING to spend time and be with that particular person.  You miss that person when he is not around.  You think about him fondly.  You would be terribly hurt if anything happened to him.  You really don't want to spend time with anyone else.  That is what love is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why can't you just like someone.  Well gee, I've liked most of the guys I've dated.  I liked two of them that I married.  I would have been terribly hurt if something happened to them.   I was upset when my last husband died.
> 
> Still, the primary purpose for a relationship to me is,  what can I get.  What kind of good can you do for me.  When he can no longer meet the need I chose him for, he's done, out the door.
> 
> The difference between you and I  is that you are a very nice woman who appreciates a good man in a loving relationship.  Am I right?
> 
> I am a predator.   I have always been a predator.  Likely, I will die an old predator.  I don't form relationships.   I hunt prey.   Sex is bait.  It's always been bait.   Nothing more.  What can he do for me?  What advantage can I get?    Love is not nearly as satisfying as getting what I want.  And once I get what I want, I simply don't love them any more.  Like a housecat that catches a mouse and rips its head off.  Then loses interest in the carcass.
> See how different we really are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How old are you?
Click to expand...

Just had a birthday.   I am 69!    So I have definitely had my day and what a day it was too.  I wouldn't change a second of it.  

Well maybe a few seconds here and there.


----------



## Katzndogz

Anathema said:


> Very tough to say. I was never a proponent of sex on the first date. Only did it once in roughly 25 years of dating. Didn't do it with the woman who became my wife. Had a,tital of three dates with the woman I did have sex with on the first date.


I have certainly had sex on the first date more than one time.   Usually because I had already prowled around and chosen my target to meet a particular need.


----------



## ChrisL

Tipsycatlover said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You also should have been seeing a psychiatrist.  You have some serious mental issues.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh. No doubt!    I may have taken a lover at 13.  But I never intended on keeping him.  I was always going to throw him back.  Just like I threw two husbands back in the pond.  They were good for whatever I needed them for.  But when I was done, I was done.
> 
> When someone asks if a person would marry someone they had sex with on the first date, the answer depends on who is playing who?  For what?   How good are they at playing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why can't you just like someone?  A relationship isn't supposed to be about what you can get from the other person.  It is supposed to be about WANTING to spend time and be with that particular person.  You miss that person when he is not around.  You think about him fondly.  You would be terribly hurt if anything happened to him.  You really don't want to spend time with anyone else.  That is what love is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why can't you just like someone.  Well gee, I've liked most of the guys I've dated.  I liked two of them that I married.  I would have been terribly hurt if something happened to them.   I was upset when my last husband died.
> 
> Still, the primary purpose for a relationship to me is,  what can I get.  What kind of good can you do for me.  When he can no longer meet the need I chose him for, he's done, out the door.
> 
> The difference between you and I  is that you are a very nice woman who appreciates a good man in a loving relationship.  Am I right?
> 
> I am a predator.   I have always been a predator.  Likely, I will die an old predator.  I don't form relationships.   I hunt prey.   Sex is bait.  It's always been bait.   Nothing more.  What can he do for me?  What advantage can I get?    Love is not nearly as satisfying as getting what I want.  And once I get what I want, I simply don't love them any more.  Like a housecat that catches a mouse and rips its head off.  Then loses interest in the carcass.
> See how different we really are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How old are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just had a birthday.   I am 69!    So I have definitely had my day and what a day it was too.  I wouldn't change a second of it.
> 
> Well maybe a few seconds here and there.
Click to expand...


Well you have a childish view, and that is probably due to your history with men.  You have been soured at a very young age because you weren't actually ready for any kind of adult commitment.


----------



## charwin95

Is there a protocol of this first date? Is there a cut off date? 
I had sex with first date when I was 15 when I lost my virginity, first date when I was 16, 17 , 18, and so on and so on. 
I was 25 years old when I met my wife of 34 years and still going strong. We made love after at least ( I think)  8 or 10 dates.


----------



## ChrisL

Tipsycatlover said:


> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very tough to say. I was never a proponent of sex on the first date. Only did it once in roughly 25 years of dating. Didn't do it with the woman who became my wife. Had a,tital of three dates with the woman I did have sex with on the first date.
> 
> 
> 
> I have certainly had sex on the first date more than one time.   Usually because I had already prowled around and chosen my target to meet a particular need.
Click to expand...


Oh geesh, I should just sit back and let YOU two argue.  Now that might be interesting.


----------



## Anathema

Tipsycatlover said:


> I have certainly had sex on the first date more than one time.   Usually because I had already prowled around and chosen my target to meet a particular need.



To me the point of dating was alwaya the search for a wife, not just a set of holes. Even in high school and college. Different sets if priorities.


----------



## Anathema

ChrisL said:


> Oh geesh, I should just sit back and let YOU two argue.  Now that might be interesting.



No argument necessary, just two different sets of priorities.


----------



## Katzndogz

Anathema said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have certainly had sex on the first date more than one time.   Usually because I had already prowled around and chosen my target to meet a particular need.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To me the point of dating was alwaya the search for a wife, not just a set of holes. Even in high school and college. Different sets if priorities.
Click to expand...

I have always felt a little badly about dating men that wanted to settle down.  Almost as if I was cheating them somehow.   It never stopped me, but I had a shred of sympathy for about 5 seconds.


----------



## Katzndogz

ChrisL said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh. No doubt!    I may have taken a lover at 13.  But I never intended on keeping him.  I was always going to throw him back.  Just like I threw two husbands back in the pond.  They were good for whatever I needed them for.  But when I was done, I was done.
> 
> When someone asks if a person would marry someone they had sex with on the first date, the answer depends on who is playing who?  For what?   How good are they at playing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't you just like someone?  A relationship isn't supposed to be about what you can get from the other person.  It is supposed to be about WANTING to spend time and be with that particular person.  You miss that person when he is not around.  You think about him fondly.  You would be terribly hurt if anything happened to him.  You really don't want to spend time with anyone else.  That is what love is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why can't you just like someone.  Well gee, I've liked most of the guys I've dated.  I liked two of them that I married.  I would have been terribly hurt if something happened to them.   I was upset when my last husband died.
> 
> Still, the primary purpose for a relationship to me is,  what can I get.  What kind of good can you do for me.  When he can no longer meet the need I chose him for, he's done, out the door.
> 
> The difference between you and I  is that you are a very nice woman who appreciates a good man in a loving relationship.  Am I right?
> 
> I am a predator.   I have always been a predator.  Likely, I will die an old predator.  I don't form relationships.   I hunt prey.   Sex is bait.  It's always been bait.   Nothing more.  What can he do for me?  What advantage can I get?    Love is not nearly as satisfying as getting what I want.  And once I get what I want, I simply don't love them any more.  Like a housecat that catches a mouse and rips its head off.  Then loses interest in the carcass.
> See how different we really are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How old are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just had a birthday.   I am 69!    So I have definitely had my day and what a day it was too.  I wouldn't change a second of it.
> 
> Well maybe a few seconds here and there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you have a childish view, and that is probably due to your history with men.  You have been soured at a very young age because you weren't actually ready for any kind of adult commitment.
Click to expand...

I could not have been soured because I was always in charge.

I will say that if I had been more experienced and realized what a superlative lover my first was, i might have handled things differently.  No one told me that I would have to go 30 years before I found another.


----------



## Moonglow

Do hookers count as a date?


----------



## Searcher44

Ahhh.....that question takes me back to the good old 50's...


----------



## Katzndogz

Searcher44 said:


> Ahhh.....that question takes me back to the good old 50's...


That's the last time it was important.


----------



## Anathema

Tipsycatlover said:


> I have always felt a little badly about dating men that wanted to settle down.  Almost as if I was cheating them somehow.   It never stopped me, but I had a shred of sympathy for about 5 seconds.



Can I assume that you were not open about the fact that you weren't looking for a relationship? 

Honestly, I generally found it pretty easy to figure out who was and wasn't looking long-term in short order. I was kooking for something very specific and if it wasn't there i has no problem bailing, even in the middle of a date if things went badly.


----------



## Katzndogz

Anathema said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have always felt a little badly about dating men that wanted to settle down.  Almost as if I was cheating them somehow.   It never stopped me, but I had a shred of sympathy for about 5 seconds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can I assume that you were not open about the fact that you weren't looking for a relationship?
> 
> Honestly, I generally found it pretty easy to figure out who was and wasn't looking long-term in short order. I was kooking for something very specific and if it wasn't there i has no problem bailing, even in the middle of a date if things went badly.
Click to expand...

Of course not.  I was very careful to act as if I was though if I knew that was what he wanted.  After all I was not dating men willy-nilly.  I made my choices very carefully, depending on what it was I needed at the time.   Being exactly what the poor dear wanted was part of the game.   As I said, as a predator I was well versed in using camouflage.


----------



## Anathema

Tipsycatlover said:


> Of course not.  I was very careful to act as if I was though if I knew that was what he wanted.  After all I was not dating men willy-nilly.  I made my choices very carefully, depending on what it was I needed at the time.   Being exactly what the poor dear wanted was part of the game.   As I said, as a predator I was well versed in using camouflage.



Ok, then I have a question........

At the best point in my life I was a thirty-six year old professional making about $75K a year, with no savings and living in a one-bedroom rented condo. I was in good shape but I have a brutally obvious birth defect. I was looking for a housewife and homemaker who was willing to take a traditional and supporting role in a relationship where sex was not a highly important function of the relationship and children were not sn interest of mine at all.

Would you have even taken a second look at someone like me? I don't think so. Nor do I believe you would have had anything significant to offer me.


----------



## Katzndogz

I never held myself out as a housewife or homemaker for more than a couple of hours.  I was a high powered criminal defense attorney who just liked to have the men in,my life do things for me and give me shiney presents.  Presents that I  could obviously buy myself.  

You talk about a second look.  For what?   If you were in a position to benefit me, say you knew a certain judge and what would grab his interest.  You could look like Quasimodo and live in a cave.  Once my case was done, why, you would be done too.


----------



## waltky

*sex on the first date *

Uncle Ferd all for it...

... says he ain't plannin' on gettin' married anyway.


----------



## Katzndogz

Don't get me all wrong.  It's wonderful when people meet and fall in love.   Nothing is sweeter than a really long term marriage where the people care for one another. 

It's touching that people still think about things like sex on the first date and what it means to a relationship. 

It is just nothing that I would ever experience.


----------



## Anathema

Tipsycatlover said:


> I never held myself out as a housewife or homemaker for more than a couple of hours.  I was a high powered criminal defense attorney who just liked to have the men in,my life do things for me and give me shiney presents.  Presents that I  could obviously buy myself.
> 
> You talk about a second look.  For what?   If you were in a position to benefit me, say you knew a certain judge and what would grab his interest.  You could look like Quasimodo and live in a cave.  Once my case was done, why, you would be done too.



In other words we would never have had any reason to interact st all. I have no monet, power, or contacts with either.

You are/were the type of woman I believe has been destroying our society for the last century. I hope you enjoyed this life because your next one will not be anywhere near as pleasant. Whereas my mother, who is your sge, will receive the fruits of her life as a devoted mother, housewife, and now grandmother. 

Have a nice day.


----------



## danielpalos

i think it may be a "blessing in disguise" to not have women come up to me when it is inconvenient, and insist it is my turn.  now, i know i don't have to play any "female games" if there is no porn in it for me.


----------



## Jarlaxle

WinterBorn said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> I saw my second husband in an elevator and had sex with him in the elevator before "hello".  We got married a month after I got rid of my first husband.  We were married for 14 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GO Tipsy!!    Gotta love a woman who goes after what she wants.    Sounds like quite an elevator ride.  lol
Click to expand...


Yeah, if you're into bunny boilers.


----------



## Jarlaxle

WinterBorn said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 15 is still a child anyways.  Fifteen year old girls are still children.  So are 16-year-old girls.  These are mentally and emotionally still children, like it or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 16 is the legal age of consent in most states.
Click to expand...


It's also the age that my grandmother got married.


----------



## Jarlaxle

ChrisL said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I told you I was 13 when I took my first lover.  Look it up.  Surely you don't think that women have to marry all their lovers, or even their first lover.  I'm kind of amused at your idea that I married my first lover.
> 
> I'm surprised that you don't remember that because your post was "Where were your parents!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, like you carried a switch blade at 6 years old and beat up your teachers and parents and siblings?    You are demented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is wrong with you?  I have no siblings.   Where did you make that up from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you said something to that effect.  You said that your parents were afraid of you because you were violent and wanted to rid themselves of you.  So who were you threatening?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My parents were absolutely terrified of me.  I threatened just about anyone that got close enough to thteaten.  I was incredibly violent as a child.  As a teen I was an out of control monster in training.  My poor parents thought a man would settle me down.  At least they wouldn't be responsible for me any longer in case I did something terrible.
> 
> In a strange way, they were right.  A suitable lover was exactly what I needed.  I chose the man personally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think so.  You're parents should have been arrested for child abuse.
Click to expand...


No, she should just have been locked in the mental ward where she belongs for the rest of her life.  24 hours a day, 365 days a year in a straitjacket, in a padded cell with the door welded closed.


----------



## ChrisL

Jarlaxle said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 15 is still a child anyways.  Fifteen year old girls are still children.  So are 16-year-old girls.  These are mentally and emotionally still children, like it or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 16 is the legal age of consent in most states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's also the age that my grandmother got married.
Click to expand...


Way too young, immature and selfish to be married at that age.  Still just a child.


----------



## ChrisL

Jarlaxle said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, like you carried a switch blade at 6 years old and beat up your teachers and parents and siblings?    You are demented.
> 
> 
> 
> What is wrong with you?  I have no siblings.   Where did you make that up from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you said something to that effect.  You said that your parents were afraid of you because you were violent and wanted to rid themselves of you.  So who were you threatening?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My parents were absolutely terrified of me.  I threatened just about anyone that got close enough to thteaten.  I was incredibly violent as a child.  As a teen I was an out of control monster in training.  My poor parents thought a man would settle me down.  At least they wouldn't be responsible for me any longer in case I did something terrible.
> 
> In a strange way, they were right.  A suitable lover was exactly what I needed.  I chose the man personally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think so.  You're parents should have been arrested for child abuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, she should just have been locked in the mental ward where she belongs for the rest of her life.  24 hours a day, 365 days a year in a straitjacket, in a padded cell with the door welded closed.
Click to expand...


Yeah, if you believe all that bullshit.  Personally, I think poster is a bullshitter.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Tipsycatlover said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think so.  You're parents should have been arrested for child abuse.
> 
> 
> 
> They weren't.
> 
> I made my own decisions and lived my own life under my own direction.  I did very well too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You also should have been seeing a psychiatrist.  You have some serious mental issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh. No doubt!    I may have taken a lover at 13.  But I never intended on keeping him.  I was always going to throw him back.  Just like I threw two husbands back in the pond.  They were good for whatever I needed them for.  But when I was done, I was done.
> 
> When someone asks if a person would marry someone they had sex with on the first date, the answer depends on who is playing who?  For what?   How good are they at playing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why can't you just like someone?  A relationship isn't supposed to be about what you can get from the other person.  It is supposed to be about WANTING to spend time and be with that particular person.  You miss that person when he is not around.  You think about him fondly.  You would be terribly hurt if anything happened to him.  You really don't want to spend time with anyone else.  That is what love is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why can't you just like someone.  Well gee, I've liked most of the guys I've dated.  I liked two of them that I married.  I would have been terribly hurt if something happened to them.   I was upset when my last husband died.
> 
> Still, the primary purpose for a relationship to me is,  what can I get.  What kind of good can you do for me.  When he can no longer meet the need I chose him for, he's done, out the door.
> 
> The difference between you and I  is that you are a very nice woman who appreciates a good man in a loving relationship.  Am I right?
> 
> I am a predator.   I have always been a predator.  Likely, I will die an old predator.  I don't form relationships.   I hunt prey.   Sex is bait.  It's always been bait.   Nothing more.  What can he do for me?  What advantage can I get?    Love is not nearly as satisfying as getting what I want.  And once I get what I want, I simply don't love them any more.  Like a housecat that catches a mouse and rips its head off.  Then loses interest in the carcass.
> See how different we really are?
Click to expand...


You are a psychopath.


----------



## ChrisL

Jarlaxle said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> They weren't.
> 
> I made my own decisions and lived my own life under my own direction.  I did very well too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You also should have been seeing a psychiatrist.  You have some serious mental issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh. No doubt!    I may have taken a lover at 13.  But I never intended on keeping him.  I was always going to throw him back.  Just like I threw two husbands back in the pond.  They were good for whatever I needed them for.  But when I was done, I was done.
> 
> When someone asks if a person would marry someone they had sex with on the first date, the answer depends on who is playing who?  For what?   How good are they at playing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why can't you just like someone?  A relationship isn't supposed to be about what you can get from the other person.  It is supposed to be about WANTING to spend time and be with that particular person.  You miss that person when he is not around.  You think about him fondly.  You would be terribly hurt if anything happened to him.  You really don't want to spend time with anyone else.  That is what love is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why can't you just like someone.  Well gee, I've liked most of the guys I've dated.  I liked two of them that I married.  I would have been terribly hurt if something happened to them.   I was upset when my last husband died.
> 
> Still, the primary purpose for a relationship to me is,  what can I get.  What kind of good can you do for me.  When he can no longer meet the need I chose him for, he's done, out the door.
> 
> The difference between you and I  is that you are a very nice woman who appreciates a good man in a loving relationship.  Am I right?
> 
> I am a predator.   I have always been a predator.  Likely, I will die an old predator.  I don't form relationships.   I hunt prey.   Sex is bait.  It's always been bait.   Nothing more.  What can he do for me?  What advantage can I get?    Love is not nearly as satisfying as getting what I want.  And once I get what I want, I simply don't love them any more.  Like a housecat that catches a mouse and rips its head off.  Then loses interest in the carcass.
> See how different we really are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a psychopath.
Click to expand...


If the stories are true, I would have to agree.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Anathema said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh geesh, I should just sit back and let YOU two argue.  Now that might be interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No argument necessary, just two different sets of priorities.
Click to expand...


No...you and Tipsy are two sides of the same coin.  You are both psychopaths.


----------



## danielpalos

ChrisL said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 15 is still a child anyways.  Fifteen year old girls are still children.  So are 16-year-old girls.  These are mentally and emotionally still children, like it or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 16 is the legal age of consent in most states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's also the age that my grandmother got married.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Way too young, immature and selfish to be married at that age.  Still just a child.
Click to expand...

was it simple conspiracy and collusion?  any clue and any Cause as to why the common law conforms to Nature instead of Nurture on this one?


----------



## ChrisL

danielpalos said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 15 is still a child anyways.  Fifteen year old girls are still children.  So are 16-year-old girls.  These are mentally and emotionally still children, like it or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 16 is the legal age of consent in most states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's also the age that my grandmother got married.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Way too young, immature and selfish to be married at that age.  Still just a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> was it simple conspiracy and collusion?  any clue and any Cause as to why the common law conforms to Nature instead of Nurture on this one?
Click to expand...


Stop quoting me, daniel.  You are a psychopath too.  Perhaps Tipsy would be interested in your . . . . sickness.


----------



## Jarlaxle

ChrisL said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 15 is still a child anyways.  Fifteen year old girls are still children.  So are 16-year-old girls.  These are mentally and emotionally still children, like it or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 16 is the legal age of consent in most states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's also the age that my grandmother got married.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Way too young, immature and selfish to be married at that age.  Still just a child.
Click to expand...


It lasted 40 years.  For the next 40, the first and last things she did every day was touch their wedding portrait on her dresser. (The finish was actually rubbed off the top of the frame where she touched it.)


----------



## Delta4Embassy

TNHarley said:


> Would you continue dating/marry a significant other you had sex with on the first date?
> Is used to be taboo, but people are slowly opening their minds to the most natural human act available.
> Personally, it wouldn't bother me.



Overwhelming majority of my sexual relationships started with sex first meeting. We'd chatted online extensively prior so the relevance or importance these days about first face-to-face meetings is considerably less than in times past. 

Though I'd also add the only woman I ever asked to marry me was the one who, it having gotten late I invited to sleep over in my queen-sized bed with me promising her I wouldn't lay a hand on her. And I didn't. She told me the next morning she was disappointed I didn't try anything. "I gave you my word. But it's morning now so if you wanna..."  We had sex then.


----------



## ChrisL

Jarlaxle said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 15 is still a child anyways.  Fifteen year old girls are still children.  So are 16-year-old girls.  These are mentally and emotionally still children, like it or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 16 is the legal age of consent in most states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's also the age that my grandmother got married.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Way too young, immature and selfish to be married at that age.  Still just a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It lasted 40 years.  For the next 40, the first and last things she did every day was touch their wedding portrait on her dresser. (The finish was actually rubbed off the top of the frame where she touched it.)
Click to expand...


Yes, well women didn't have a lot of options back in the old days.  That doesn't mean that they were ready to be moms and wives at 15 or 16 years old.


----------



## ChrisL

Delta4Embassy said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you continue dating/marry a significant other you had sex with on the first date?
> Is used to be taboo, but people are slowly opening their minds to the most natural human act available.
> Personally, it wouldn't bother me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overwhelming majority of my sexual relationships started with sex first meeting. We'd chatted online extensively prior so the relevance or importance these days about first face-to-face meetings is considerably less than in times past.
> 
> Though I'd also add the only woman I ever asked to marry me was the one who, it having gotten late I invited to sleep over in my queen-sized bed with me promising her I wouldn't lay a hand on her. And I didn't. She told me the next morning she was disappointed I didn't try anything. "I gave you my word. But it's morning now so if you wanna..."  We had sex then.
Click to expand...


I think that nowadays, sex on the first date is not unusual at all.  In fact, it is expected sometimes.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

ChrisL said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you continue dating/marry a significant other you had sex with on the first date?
> Is used to be taboo, but people are slowly opening their minds to the most natural human act available.
> Personally, it wouldn't bother me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overwhelming majority of my sexual relationships started with sex first meeting. We'd chatted online extensively prior so the relevance or importance these days about first face-to-face meetings is considerably less than in times past.
> 
> Though I'd also add the only woman I ever asked to marry me was the one who, it having gotten late I invited to sleep over in my queen-sized bed with me promising her I wouldn't lay a hand on her. And I didn't. She told me the next morning she was disappointed I didn't try anything. "I gave you my word. But it's morning now so if you wanna..."  We had sex then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that nowadays, sex on the first date is not unusual at all.  In fact, it is expected sometimes.
Click to expand...


I'd be reluctant to think of it as expected or obligatory so much as if after chatted and writing each other for some length of time things have gotten flirty and both wanna do stuff for real then that's what's going on. Otherwise why get together in person at all?


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Think getting sex out of the way early in relationships is better than it coming about later on after you've both gotten emotionally invested in each other. If you're not sexually compatible but really dig one another it's just gonna hurt more or become a kind of giving-in to them even though the sex is horrible because you don't wanna hurt their feelings. Better then to find out if you are sexually compatible up front before the attachment forms.


----------



## ChrisL

Delta4Embassy said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you continue dating/marry a significant other you had sex with on the first date?
> Is used to be taboo, but people are slowly opening their minds to the most natural human act available.
> Personally, it wouldn't bother me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overwhelming majority of my sexual relationships started with sex first meeting. We'd chatted online extensively prior so the relevance or importance these days about first face-to-face meetings is considerably less than in times past.
> 
> Though I'd also add the only woman I ever asked to marry me was the one who, it having gotten late I invited to sleep over in my queen-sized bed with me promising her I wouldn't lay a hand on her. And I didn't. She told me the next morning she was disappointed I didn't try anything. "I gave you my word. But it's morning now so if you wanna..."  We had sex then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that nowadays, sex on the first date is not unusual at all.  In fact, it is expected sometimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd be reluctant to think of it as expected or obligatory so much as if after chatted and writing each other for some length of time things have gotten flirty and both wanna do stuff for real then that's what's going on. Otherwise why get together in person at all?
Click to expand...


Well, I'm not talking about you.  A lot of people do expect to have sex on the first date nowadays.  It is the age of the "hookup."


----------



## ChrisL

Delta4Embassy said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you continue dating/marry a significant other you had sex with on the first date?
> Is used to be taboo, but people are slowly opening their minds to the most natural human act available.
> Personally, it wouldn't bother me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overwhelming majority of my sexual relationships started with sex first meeting. We'd chatted online extensively prior so the relevance or importance these days about first face-to-face meetings is considerably less than in times past.
> 
> Though I'd also add the only woman I ever asked to marry me was the one who, it having gotten late I invited to sleep over in my queen-sized bed with me promising her I wouldn't lay a hand on her. And I didn't. She told me the next morning she was disappointed I didn't try anything. "I gave you my word. But it's morning now so if you wanna..."  We had sex then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that nowadays, sex on the first date is not unusual at all.  In fact, it is expected sometimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd be reluctant to think of it as expected or obligatory so much as if after chatted and writing each other for some length of time things have gotten flirty and both wanna do stuff for real then that's what's going on. Otherwise why get together in person at all?
Click to expand...


This is more applicable to the younger generations, late teens and early twenties.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

ChrisL said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you continue dating/marry a significant other you had sex with on the first date?
> Is used to be taboo, but people are slowly opening their minds to the most natural human act available.
> Personally, it wouldn't bother me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overwhelming majority of my sexual relationships started with sex first meeting. We'd chatted online extensively prior so the relevance or importance these days about first face-to-face meetings is considerably less than in times past.
> 
> Though I'd also add the only woman I ever asked to marry me was the one who, it having gotten late I invited to sleep over in my queen-sized bed with me promising her I wouldn't lay a hand on her. And I didn't. She told me the next morning she was disappointed I didn't try anything. "I gave you my word. But it's morning now so if you wanna..."  We had sex then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that nowadays, sex on the first date is not unusual at all.  In fact, it is expected sometimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd be reluctant to think of it as expected or obligatory so much as if after chatted and writing each other for some length of time things have gotten flirty and both wanna do stuff for real then that's what's going on. Otherwise why get together in person at all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is more applicable to the younger generations, late teens and early twenties.
Click to expand...


Been here about 16 years now, have had (thinks) about half a dozen lovers in that time. All but the one I mentioned above were over 50. Like dem older womens what can I say.  And we all had great sex first date. Best sex of my life in fact was with an older women who did something I'd never experienced before.  So I'd say it's more an older person thing than younger. 

What I've been reading says the younger folks aren't having sex as much at all as their parents do or did. Course it might be what they consider sex doesn't include things like oral.


----------



## ChrisL

Delta4Embassy said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you continue dating/marry a significant other you had sex with on the first date?
> Is used to be taboo, but people are slowly opening their minds to the most natural human act available.
> Personally, it wouldn't bother me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overwhelming majority of my sexual relationships started with sex first meeting. We'd chatted online extensively prior so the relevance or importance these days about first face-to-face meetings is considerably less than in times past.
> 
> Though I'd also add the only woman I ever asked to marry me was the one who, it having gotten late I invited to sleep over in my queen-sized bed with me promising her I wouldn't lay a hand on her. And I didn't. She told me the next morning she was disappointed I didn't try anything. "I gave you my word. But it's morning now so if you wanna..."  We had sex then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that nowadays, sex on the first date is not unusual at all.  In fact, it is expected sometimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd be reluctant to think of it as expected or obligatory so much as if after chatted and writing each other for some length of time things have gotten flirty and both wanna do stuff for real then that's what's going on. Otherwise why get together in person at all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is more applicable to the younger generations, late teens and early twenties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Been here about 16 years now, have had (thinks) about half a dozen lovers in that time. All but the one I mentioned above were over 50. Like dem older womens what can I say.  And we all had great sex first date. Best sex of my life in fact was with an older women who did something I'd never experienced before.  So I'd say it's more an older person thing than younger.
> 
> What I've been reading says the younger folks aren't having sex as much at all as their parents do or did. Course it might be what they consider sex doesn't include things like oral.
Click to expand...


What are you talking about?  I am saying that sex on the first date is a young person, not an old person thing.  It is common for young people to hook up nowadays with no expectations.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

ChrisL said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Overwhelming majority of my sexual relationships started with sex first meeting. We'd chatted online extensively prior so the relevance or importance these days about first face-to-face meetings is considerably less than in times past.
> 
> Though I'd also add the only woman I ever asked to marry me was the one who, it having gotten late I invited to sleep over in my queen-sized bed with me promising her I wouldn't lay a hand on her. And I didn't. She told me the next morning she was disappointed I didn't try anything. "I gave you my word. But it's morning now so if you wanna..."  We had sex then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that nowadays, sex on the first date is not unusual at all.  In fact, it is expected sometimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd be reluctant to think of it as expected or obligatory so much as if after chatted and writing each other for some length of time things have gotten flirty and both wanna do stuff for real then that's what's going on. Otherwise why get together in person at all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is more applicable to the younger generations, late teens and early twenties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Been here about 16 years now, have had (thinks) about half a dozen lovers in that time. All but the one I mentioned above were over 50. Like dem older womens what can I say.  And we all had great sex first date. Best sex of my life in fact was with an older women who did something I'd never experienced before.  So I'd say it's more an older person thing than younger.
> 
> What I've been reading says the younger folks aren't having sex as much at all as their parents do or did. Course it might be what they consider sex doesn't include things like oral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you talking about?  I am saying that sex on the first date is a young person, not an old person thing.  It is common for young people to hook up nowadays with no expectations.
Click to expand...


Why Millennials have sex with fewer partners than their parents did

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/18/why-generation-y-less-sex

Study Find that Teens are Having Less Sex - The Millennial Legacy

3 sources from sequential years reporting the same trend.


----------



## ChrisL

In fact, if you asked some younger people about "dating", they would look at you as if you had 3 heads.  A lot of times these younger people go out with large groups, get drunk, and go home with someone at the end of the night.  I have a 20-year-old son, so I know all about this kind of stuff.  He and I are very close and we talk about everything.


----------



## ChrisL

Delta4Embassy said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that nowadays, sex on the first date is not unusual at all.  In fact, it is expected sometimes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be reluctant to think of it as expected or obligatory so much as if after chatted and writing each other for some length of time things have gotten flirty and both wanna do stuff for real then that's what's going on. Otherwise why get together in person at all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is more applicable to the younger generations, late teens and early twenties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Been here about 16 years now, have had (thinks) about half a dozen lovers in that time. All but the one I mentioned above were over 50. Like dem older womens what can I say.  And we all had great sex first date. Best sex of my life in fact was with an older women who did something I'd never experienced before.  So I'd say it's more an older person thing than younger.
> 
> What I've been reading says the younger folks aren't having sex as much at all as their parents do or did. Course it might be what they consider sex doesn't include things like oral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you talking about?  I am saying that sex on the first date is a young person, not an old person thing.  It is common for young people to hook up nowadays with no expectations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why Millennials have sex with fewer partners than their parents did
> 
> Why is Generation Y having less sex? | Hannah Slapper
> 
> Study Find that Teens are Having Less Sex - The Millennial Legacy
> 
> 3 sources from sequential years reporting the same trend.
Click to expand...


Not true at all.  Just look at college kids????  Hello?


----------



## ChrisL

Delta4Embassy said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that nowadays, sex on the first date is not unusual at all.  In fact, it is expected sometimes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be reluctant to think of it as expected or obligatory so much as if after chatted and writing each other for some length of time things have gotten flirty and both wanna do stuff for real then that's what's going on. Otherwise why get together in person at all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is more applicable to the younger generations, late teens and early twenties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Been here about 16 years now, have had (thinks) about half a dozen lovers in that time. All but the one I mentioned above were over 50. Like dem older womens what can I say.  And we all had great sex first date. Best sex of my life in fact was with an older women who did something I'd never experienced before.  So I'd say it's more an older person thing than younger.
> 
> What I've been reading says the younger folks aren't having sex as much at all as their parents do or did. Course it might be what they consider sex doesn't include things like oral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you talking about?  I am saying that sex on the first date is a young person, not an old person thing.  It is common for young people to hook up nowadays with no expectations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why Millennials have sex with fewer partners than their parents did
> 
> Why is Generation Y having less sex? | Hannah Slapper
> 
> Study Find that Teens are Having Less Sex - The Millennial Legacy
> 
> 3 sources from sequential years reporting the same trend.
Click to expand...


Lol.  You know, Delta, kids aren't going to admit to getting drunk and having promiscuous sex.


----------



## danielpalos

ChrisL said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 15 is still a child anyways.  Fifteen year old girls are still children.  So are 16-year-old girls.  These are mentally and emotionally still children, like it or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 16 is the legal age of consent in most states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's also the age that my grandmother got married.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Way too young, immature and selfish to be married at that age.  Still just a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> was it simple conspiracy and collusion?  any clue and any Cause as to why the common law conforms to Nature instead of Nurture on this one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop quoting me, daniel.  You are a psychopath too.  Perhaps Tipsy would be interested in your . . . . sickness.
Click to expand...

stop being rude to me; i have low numbers and deserve more respect, just for that.


----------



## ChrisL

danielpalos said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 16 is the legal age of consent in most states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's also the age that my grandmother got married.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Way too young, immature and selfish to be married at that age.  Still just a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> was it simple conspiracy and collusion?  any clue and any Cause as to why the common law conforms to Nature instead of Nurture on this one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop quoting me, daniel.  You are a psychopath too.  Perhaps Tipsy would be interested in your . . . . sickness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> stop being rude to me; i have low numbers and deserve more respect, just for that.
Click to expand...


You are the one who is rude here, daniel.  I don't appreciate your comments at all, nor do I find you humorous.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

ChrisL said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be reluctant to think of it as expected or obligatory so much as if after chatted and writing each other for some length of time things have gotten flirty and both wanna do stuff for real then that's what's going on. Otherwise why get together in person at all?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is more applicable to the younger generations, late teens and early twenties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Been here about 16 years now, have had (thinks) about half a dozen lovers in that time. All but the one I mentioned above were over 50. Like dem older womens what can I say.  And we all had great sex first date. Best sex of my life in fact was with an older women who did something I'd never experienced before.  So I'd say it's more an older person thing than younger.
> 
> What I've been reading says the younger folks aren't having sex as much at all as their parents do or did. Course it might be what they consider sex doesn't include things like oral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you talking about?  I am saying that sex on the first date is a young person, not an old person thing.  It is common for young people to hook up nowadays with no expectations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why Millennials have sex with fewer partners than their parents did
> 
> Why is Generation Y having less sex? | Hannah Slapper
> 
> Study Find that Teens are Having Less Sex - The Millennial Legacy
> 
> 3 sources from sequential years reporting the same trend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not true at all.  Just look at college kids????  Hello?
Click to expand...



"Millennials are having less sex than their baby boomer parents, study reveals

    * Millennials have had an average of eight pre-marital partners
    * Those born in the 1970s have an average of 10 pre-marital partners
    * People born in the 1950s and 1960s have an average of 11 sexual partners
    * Wider acceptance of sexuality among youth in addition to sexual knowledge has lead to less sex"
Millennials are having less sex than their baby boomer parents

Dunno what to tell ya.


----------



## danielpalos

ChrisL said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's also the age that my grandmother got married.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Way too young, immature and selfish to be married at that age.  Still just a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> was it simple conspiracy and collusion?  any clue and any Cause as to why the common law conforms to Nature instead of Nurture on this one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop quoting me, daniel.  You are a psychopath too.  Perhaps Tipsy would be interested in your . . . . sickness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> stop being rude to me; i have low numbers and deserve more respect, just for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who is rude here, daniel.  I don't appreciate your comments at all, nor do I find you humorous.
Click to expand...

how was my post rude?  just more lies on your part; that is rude when i have the lowest numbers.


----------



## ChrisL

Delta4Embassy said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is more applicable to the younger generations, late teens and early twenties.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Been here about 16 years now, have had (thinks) about half a dozen lovers in that time. All but the one I mentioned above were over 50. Like dem older womens what can I say.  And we all had great sex first date. Best sex of my life in fact was with an older women who did something I'd never experienced before.  So I'd say it's more an older person thing than younger.
> 
> What I've been reading says the younger folks aren't having sex as much at all as their parents do or did. Course it might be what they consider sex doesn't include things like oral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you talking about?  I am saying that sex on the first date is a young person, not an old person thing.  It is common for young people to hook up nowadays with no expectations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why Millennials have sex with fewer partners than their parents did
> 
> Why is Generation Y having less sex? | Hannah Slapper
> 
> Study Find that Teens are Having Less Sex - The Millennial Legacy
> 
> 3 sources from sequential years reporting the same trend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not true at all.  Just look at college kids????  Hello?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Millennials are having less sex than their baby boomer parents, study reveals
> 
> * Millennials have had an average of eight pre-marital partners
> * Those born in the 1970s have an average of 10 pre-marital partners
> * People born in the 1950s and 1960s have an average of 11 sexual partners
> * Wider acceptance of sexuality among youth in addition to sexual knowledge has lead to less sex"
> Millennials are having less sex than their baby boomer parents
> 
> Dunno what to tell ya.
Click to expand...


Don't know how to tell you that kids lie.  Nobody wants to admit that they get trashed and have sex.


----------



## ChrisL

Delta4Embassy said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is more applicable to the younger generations, late teens and early twenties.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Been here about 16 years now, have had (thinks) about half a dozen lovers in that time. All but the one I mentioned above were over 50. Like dem older womens what can I say.  And we all had great sex first date. Best sex of my life in fact was with an older women who did something I'd never experienced before.  So I'd say it's more an older person thing than younger.
> 
> What I've been reading says the younger folks aren't having sex as much at all as their parents do or did. Course it might be what they consider sex doesn't include things like oral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you talking about?  I am saying that sex on the first date is a young person, not an old person thing.  It is common for young people to hook up nowadays with no expectations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why Millennials have sex with fewer partners than their parents did
> 
> Why is Generation Y having less sex? | Hannah Slapper
> 
> Study Find that Teens are Having Less Sex - The Millennial Legacy
> 
> 3 sources from sequential years reporting the same trend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not true at all.  Just look at college kids????  Hello?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Millennials are having less sex than their baby boomer parents, study reveals
> 
> * Millennials have had an average of eight pre-marital partners
> * Those born in the 1970s have an average of 10 pre-marital partners
> * People born in the 1950s and 1960s have an average of 11 sexual partners
> * Wider acceptance of sexuality among youth in addition to sexual knowledge has lead to less sex"
> Millennials are having less sex than their baby boomer parents
> 
> Dunno what to tell ya.
Click to expand...


I get accounts from my son about what goes on out there.  Lol.  He knows more than you about his generation, I'm sure.


----------



## ChrisL

danielpalos said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Way too young, immature and selfish to be married at that age.  Still just a child.
> 
> 
> 
> was it simple conspiracy and collusion?  any clue and any Cause as to why the common law conforms to Nature instead of Nurture on this one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop quoting me, daniel.  You are a psychopath too.  Perhaps Tipsy would be interested in your . . . . sickness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> stop being rude to me; i have low numbers and deserve more respect, just for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who is rude here, daniel.  I don't appreciate your comments at all, nor do I find you humorous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how was my post rude?  just more lies on your part; that is rude when i have the lowest numbers.
Click to expand...


All of your posts related to women are rude and disgusting.


----------



## danielpalos

ChrisL said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> was it simple conspiracy and collusion?  any clue and any Cause as to why the common law conforms to Nature instead of Nurture on this one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop quoting me, daniel.  You are a psychopath too.  Perhaps Tipsy would be interested in your . . . . sickness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> stop being rude to me; i have low numbers and deserve more respect, just for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who is rude here, daniel.  I don't appreciate your comments at all, nor do I find you humorous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how was my post rude?  just more lies on your part; that is rude when i have the lowest numbers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of your posts related to women are rude and disgusting.
Click to expand...

no, they aren't; most of your posts to me are rude and disgusting; and i have the lowest numbers; Only Bad girls do that.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

ChrisL said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Been here about 16 years now, have had (thinks) about half a dozen lovers in that time. All but the one I mentioned above were over 50. Like dem older womens what can I say.  And we all had great sex first date. Best sex of my life in fact was with an older women who did something I'd never experienced before.  So I'd say it's more an older person thing than younger.
> 
> What I've been reading says the younger folks aren't having sex as much at all as their parents do or did. Course it might be what they consider sex doesn't include things like oral.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are you talking about?  I am saying that sex on the first date is a young person, not an old person thing.  It is common for young people to hook up nowadays with no expectations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why Millennials have sex with fewer partners than their parents did
> 
> Why is Generation Y having less sex? | Hannah Slapper
> 
> Study Find that Teens are Having Less Sex - The Millennial Legacy
> 
> 3 sources from sequential years reporting the same trend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not true at all.  Just look at college kids????  Hello?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Millennials are having less sex than their baby boomer parents, study reveals
> 
> * Millennials have had an average of eight pre-marital partners
> * Those born in the 1970s have an average of 10 pre-marital partners
> * People born in the 1950s and 1960s have an average of 11 sexual partners
> * Wider acceptance of sexuality among youth in addition to sexual knowledge has lead to less sex"
> Millennials are having less sex than their baby boomer parents
> 
> Dunno what to tell ya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I get accounts from my son about what goes on out there.  Lol.  He knows more than you about his generation, I'm sure.
Click to expand...


Ah. Science based on a single participant sample group. That explains a lot.


----------



## ChrisL

danielpalos said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop quoting me, daniel.  You are a psychopath too.  Perhaps Tipsy would be interested in your . . . . sickness.
> 
> 
> 
> stop being rude to me; i have low numbers and deserve more respect, just for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who is rude here, daniel.  I don't appreciate your comments at all, nor do I find you humorous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how was my post rude?  just more lies on your part; that is rude when i have the lowest numbers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of your posts related to women are rude and disgusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, they aren't; most of your posts to me are rude and disgusting; and i have the lowest numbers; Only Bad girls do that.
Click to expand...


Okay, look.  I find you disgusting, K?  Now, stop quoting me or you will placed on ignore.


----------



## ChrisL

Delta4Embassy said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are you talking about?  I am saying that sex on the first date is a young person, not an old person thing.  It is common for young people to hook up nowadays with no expectations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why Millennials have sex with fewer partners than their parents did
> 
> Why is Generation Y having less sex? | Hannah Slapper
> 
> Study Find that Teens are Having Less Sex - The Millennial Legacy
> 
> 3 sources from sequential years reporting the same trend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not true at all.  Just look at college kids????  Hello?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Millennials are having less sex than their baby boomer parents, study reveals
> 
> * Millennials have had an average of eight pre-marital partners
> * Those born in the 1970s have an average of 10 pre-marital partners
> * People born in the 1950s and 1960s have an average of 11 sexual partners
> * Wider acceptance of sexuality among youth in addition to sexual knowledge has lead to less sex"
> Millennials are having less sex than their baby boomer parents
> 
> Dunno what to tell ya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I get accounts from my son about what goes on out there.  Lol.  He knows more than you about his generation, I'm sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah. Science based on a single participant sample group. That explains a lot.
Click to expand...


Hey, it's an account from someone out there living in the world.    Not some older gentleman on the internet.


----------



## danielpalos

ChrisL said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> stop being rude to me; i have low numbers and deserve more respect, just for that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one who is rude here, daniel.  I don't appreciate your comments at all, nor do I find you humorous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how was my post rude?  just more lies on your part; that is rude when i have the lowest numbers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of your posts related to women are rude and disgusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, they aren't; most of your posts to me are rude and disgusting; and i have the lowest numbers; Only Bad girls do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, look.  I find you disgusting, K?  Now, stop quoting me or you will placed on ignore.
Click to expand...

ok; social coward.  you can ignore me.


----------



## ChrisL

danielpalos said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one who is rude here, daniel.  I don't appreciate your comments at all, nor do I find you humorous.
> 
> 
> 
> how was my post rude?  just more lies on your part; that is rude when i have the lowest numbers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of your posts related to women are rude and disgusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, they aren't; most of your posts to me are rude and disgusting; and i have the lowest numbers; Only Bad girls do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, look.  I find you disgusting, K?  Now, stop quoting me or you will placed on ignore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ok; social coward.  you can ignore me.
Click to expand...


It has nothing to do with "coward."  I just don't like you.  GETTING the point yet?


----------



## danielpalos

ChrisL said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> how was my post rude?  just more lies on your part; that is rude when i have the lowest numbers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of your posts related to women are rude and disgusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, they aren't; most of your posts to me are rude and disgusting; and i have the lowest numbers; Only Bad girls do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, look.  I find you disgusting, K?  Now, stop quoting me or you will placed on ignore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ok; social coward.  you can ignore me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has nothing to do with "coward."  I just don't like you.  GETTING the point yet?
Click to expand...

yes, it does.  only social cowards and Bad girls are rude to mostly nice guys with low numbers.


----------



## ChrisL

danielpalos said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> All of your posts related to women are rude and disgusting.
> 
> 
> 
> no, they aren't; most of your posts to me are rude and disgusting; and i have the lowest numbers; Only Bad girls do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, look.  I find you disgusting, K?  Now, stop quoting me or you will placed on ignore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ok; social coward.  you can ignore me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has nothing to do with "coward."  I just don't like you.  GETTING the point yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, it does.  only social cowards and Bad girls are rude to mostly nice guys with low numbers.
Click to expand...


Okay, on ignore you go, fucking weirdo.  Go bother someone else with your nonsensical postings.


----------



## danielpalos

ChrisL said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> no, they aren't; most of your posts to me are rude and disgusting; and i have the lowest numbers; Only Bad girls do that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, look.  I find you disgusting, K?  Now, stop quoting me or you will placed on ignore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ok; social coward.  you can ignore me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has nothing to do with "coward."  I just don't like you.  GETTING the point yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, it does.  only social cowards and Bad girls are rude to mostly nice guys with low numbers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, on ignore you go, fucking weirdo.  Go bother someone else with your nonsensical postings.
Click to expand...

thank you; Bad girl.  no need to keep wasting bandwith.


----------



## Katzndogz

ChrisL said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 15 is still a child anyways.  Fifteen year old girls are still children.  So are 16-year-old girls.  These are mentally and emotionally still children, like it or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 16 is the legal age of consent in most states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's also the age that my grandmother got married.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Way too young, immature and selfish to be married at that age.  Still just a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> was it simple conspiracy and collusion?  any clue and any Cause as to why the common law conforms to Nature instead of Nurture on this one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop quoting me, daniel.  You are a psychopath too.  Perhaps Tipsy would be interested in your . . . . sickness.
Click to expand...

Anyone who doesn't agree with you is a psychopath.  What you are is insane with jealousy.  You spent your teen years fighting acne playing with barbie dolls pretending the Ken doll was fucking Barbie.


----------



## danielpalos

Tipsycatlover said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 16 is the legal age of consent in most states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's also the age that my grandmother got married.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Way too young, immature and selfish to be married at that age.  Still just a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> was it simple conspiracy and collusion?  any clue and any Cause as to why the common law conforms to Nature instead of Nurture on this one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop quoting me, daniel.  You are a psychopath too.  Perhaps Tipsy would be interested in your . . . . sickness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone who doesn't agree with you is a psychopath.  What you are is insane with jealousy.  You spent your teen years fighting acne playing with barbie dolls pretending the Ken doll was fucking Barbie.
Click to expand...

yup; just a Bad girl without a clue or a Cause.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Tipsycatlover said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 16 is the legal age of consent in most states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's also the age that my grandmother got married.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Way too young, immature and selfish to be married at that age.  Still just a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> was it simple conspiracy and collusion?  any clue and any Cause as to why the common law conforms to Nature instead of Nurture on this one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop quoting me, daniel.  You are a psychopath too.  Perhaps Tipsy would be interested in your . . . . sickness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone who doesn't agree with you is a psychopath.  What you are is insane with jealousy.  You spent your teen years fighting acne playing with barbie dolls pretending the Ken doll was fucking Barbie.
Click to expand...


Off your meds again, girl?


----------



## Anathema

ChrisL said:


> In fact, if you asked some younger people about "dating", they would look at you as if you had 3 heads.  A lot of times these younger people go out with large groups, get drunk, and go home with someone at the end of the night.  I have a 20-year-old son, so I know all about this kind of stuff.  He and I are very close and we talk about everything.



Sounds like you need to do more talking and him more listening if thats the way he lives his life. Unless you're approvi g of that sort of behavior.


----------



## ChrisL

Tipsycatlover said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 16 is the legal age of consent in most states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's also the age that my grandmother got married.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Way too young, immature and selfish to be married at that age.  Still just a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> was it simple conspiracy and collusion?  any clue and any Cause as to why the common law conforms to Nature instead of Nurture on this one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop quoting me, daniel.  You are a psychopath too.  Perhaps Tipsy would be interested in your . . . . sickness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone who doesn't agree with you is a psychopath.  What you are is insane with jealousy.  You spent your teen years fighting acne playing with barbie dolls pretending the Ken doll was fucking Barbie.
Click to expand...


Well, you are obviously a psychopath by your own admission.  Daniel?  Who knows what the fuck he's talking about.  All I know is that I am NOT giving him a turn.  Perhaps you would like to.


----------



## ChrisL

Anathema said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, if you asked some younger people about "dating", they would look at you as if you had 3 heads.  A lot of times these younger people go out with large groups, get drunk, and go home with someone at the end of the night.  I have a 20-year-old son, so I know all about this kind of stuff.  He and I are very close and we talk about everything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like you need to do more talking and him more listening if thats the way he lives his life. Unless you're approvi g of that sort of behavior.
Click to expand...


He doesn't do that.  He just tells me what things are like out there.  My son has a steady girl.


----------



## Anathema

ChrisL said:


> He doesn't do that.  He just tells me what things are like out there.  My son has a steady girl.



If he was my son and he was hanging with people who did that, he'd have trouble from me. Whether ge was acrually doing it or not.


----------



## Katzndogz

Jarlaxle said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's also the age that my grandmother got married.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Way too young, immature and selfish to be married at that age.  Still just a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> was it simple conspiracy and collusion?  any clue and any Cause as to why the common law conforms to Nature instead of Nurture on this one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop quoting me, daniel.  You are a psychopath too.  Perhaps Tipsy would be interested in your . . . . sickness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone who doesn't agree with you is a psychopath.  What you are is insane with jealousy.  You spent your teen years fighting acne playing with barbie dolls pretending the Ken doll was fucking Barbie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Off your meds again, girl?
Click to expand...

You're the meth head.  Or are you taking it by anal suppositories now?


----------



## ChrisL

Anathema said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> He doesn't do that.  He just tells me what things are like out there.  My son has a steady girl.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If he was my son and he was hanging with people who did that, he'd have trouble from me. Whether ge was acrually doing it or not.
Click to expand...


Yeah well, we all know about you.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Tipsycatlover said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Way too young, immature and selfish to be married at that age.  Still just a child.
> 
> 
> 
> was it simple conspiracy and collusion?  any clue and any Cause as to why the common law conforms to Nature instead of Nurture on this one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop quoting me, daniel.  You are a psychopath too.  Perhaps Tipsy would be interested in your . . . . sickness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone who doesn't agree with you is a psychopath.  What you are is insane with jealousy.  You spent your teen years fighting acne playing with barbie dolls pretending the Ken doll was fucking Barbie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Off your meds again, girl?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're the meth head.  Or are you taking it by anal suppositories now?
Click to expand...


Projecting.  Shouldn't you be boiling your neighbor's rabbit?


----------



## jon_berzerk

i dont kiss an tell 

even if it was a long time ago


----------



## Anathema

ChrisL said:


> Yeah well, we all know about you.



The actions and decisions of the child reflect directly on the parents and other family members.


----------



## ChrisL

Anathema said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah well, we all know about you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The actions and decisions of the child reflect directly on the parents and other family members.
Click to expand...


My son is an adult.


----------



## Katzndogz

Jarlaxle said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> was it simple conspiracy and collusion?  any clue and any Cause as to why the common law conforms to Nature instead of Nurture on this one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop quoting me, daniel.  You are a psychopath too.  Perhaps Tipsy would be interested in your . . . . sickness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone who doesn't agree with you is a psychopath.  What you are is insane with jealousy.  You spent your teen years fighting acne playing with barbie dolls pretending the Ken doll was fucking Barbie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Off your meds again, girl?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're the meth head.  Or are you taking it by anal suppositories now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Projecting.  Shouldn't you be boiling your neighbor's rabbit?
Click to expand...

Now now.  I love animals.  It's people I can't stand.  And no, I am not boiling my neighbor either.  Does the topic interest you so little that you have to engage in personal attacks rather than discussion?  Or can you just not contol your masturbatory fantasies?


----------



## Jarlaxle

Bitch, I am pointing and laughing at you.  You're the crazy fuck running around the park with a pair of Depends on your head.


----------



## ChrisL

Sorry, but I had to do it.  It's not psychopathy, it is antisocial personality disorder.  

Antisocial Personality Disorder Symptoms

Antisocial personality disorder is characterized by a long-standing pattern of a disregard for other people’s rights, often crossing the line and violating those rights. It usually begins in childhood or as a teen and continues into their adult lives.

Antisocial personality disorder is often referred to as psychopathy or sociopathy in popular culture. However, neither psychopathy nor sociopathy are recognized professional labels used for diagnosis.


Individuals with Antisocial Personality Disorder frequently lack empathy and tend to be callous, cynical, and contemptuous of the feelings, rights, and sufferings of others. They may have an inflated and arrogant self-appraisal (e.g., feel that ordinary work is beneath them or lack a realistic concern about their current problems or their future) and may be excessively opinionated, self-assured, or cocky. They may display a glib, superficial charm and can be quite voluble and verbally facile (e.g., using technical terms or jargon that might impress someone who is unfamiliar with the topic).

Lack of empathy, inflated self-appraisal, and superficial charm are features that have been commonly included in traditional conceptions of psychopathy and may be particularly distinguishing of Antisocial Personality Disorder in prison or forensic settings where criminal, delinquent, or aggressive acts are likely to be nonspecific. These individuals may also be irresponsible and exploitative in their sexual relationships.


----------



## Katzndogz

Jarlaxle said:


> Bitch, I am pointing and laughing at you.  You're the crazy fuck running around the park with a pair of Depends on your head.


That's a good one.  Post the pic.  But you're nothing but a cheap internet liar swigging Nyquil.


----------



## danielpalos

ChrisL said:


> Sorry, but I had to do it.  It's not psychopathy, it is antisocial personality disorder.
> 
> Antisocial Personality Disorder Symptoms
> 
> Antisocial personality disorder is characterized by a long-standing pattern of a disregard for other people’s rights, often crossing the line and violating those rights. It usually begins in childhood or as a teen and continues into their adult lives.
> 
> Antisocial personality disorder is often referred to as psychopathy or sociopathy in popular culture. However, neither psychopathy nor sociopathy are recognized professional labels used for diagnosis.
> 
> 
> Individuals with Antisocial Personality Disorder frequently lack empathy and tend to be callous, cynical, and contemptuous of the feelings, rights, and sufferings of others. They may have an inflated and arrogant self-appraisal (e.g., feel that ordinary work is beneath them or lack a realistic concern about their current problems or their future) and may be excessively opinionated, self-assured, or cocky. They may display a glib, superficial charm and can be quite voluble and verbally facile (e.g., using technical terms or jargon that might impress someone who is unfamiliar with the topic).
> 
> Lack of empathy, inflated self-appraisal, and superficial charm are features that have been commonly included in traditional conceptions of psychopathy and may be particularly distinguishing of Antisocial Personality Disorder in prison or forensic settings where criminal, delinquent, or aggressive acts are likely to be nonspecific. These individuals may also be irresponsible and exploitative in their sexual relationships.


dear; you have to be able to understand the terms you read.


----------



## Anathema

ChrisL said:


> My son is an adult.



I'm 41 years old. What I do still reflects on my mother (my father is deceased) so far as our family and social circle see it.


----------



## Katzndogz

danielpalos said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but I had to do it.  It's not psychopathy, it is antisocial personality disorder.
> 
> Antisocial Personality Disorder Symptoms
> 
> Antisocial personality disorder is characterized by a long-standing pattern of a disregard for other people’s rights, often crossing the line and violating those rights. It usually begins in childhood or as a teen and continues into their adult lives.
> 
> Antisocial personality disorder is often referred to as psychopathy or sociopathy in popular culture. However, neither psychopathy nor sociopathy are recognized professional labels used for diagnosis.
> 
> 
> Individuals with Antisocial Personality Disorder frequently lack empathy and tend to be callous, cynical, and contemptuous of the feelings, rights, and sufferings of others. They may have an inflated and arrogant self-appraisal (e.g., feel that ordinary work is beneath them or lack a realistic concern about their current problems or their future) and may be excessively opinionated, self-assured, or cocky. They may display a glib, superficial charm and can be quite voluble and verbally facile (e.g., using technical terms or jargon that might impress someone who is unfamiliar with the topic).
> 
> Lack of empathy, inflated self-appraisal, and superficial charm are features that have been commonly included in traditional conceptions of psychopathy and may be particularly distinguishing of Antisocial Personality Disorder in prison or forensic settings where criminal, delinquent, or aggressive acts are likely to be nonspecific. These individuals may also be irresponsible and exploitative in their sexual relationships.
> 
> 
> 
> dear; you have to be able to understand the terms you read.
Click to expand...

ChrisL is consumed with me.  I'm pretty much all the poor dear thinks about.  Such jealousy might be because she was a homely girl lucky to find the one guy willing to marry her.


----------



## ChrisL

Anathema said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> My son is an adult.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm 41 years old. What I do still reflects on my mother (my father is deceased) so far as our family and social circle see it.
Click to expand...


What do you think my son is doing?  He isn't doing anything, fool.  Stop insinuating there is something wrong with my parenting.


----------



## danielpalos

ChrisL said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's also the age that my grandmother got married.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Way too young, immature and selfish to be married at that age.  Still just a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> was it simple conspiracy and collusion?  any clue and any Cause as to why the common law conforms to Nature instead of Nurture on this one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop quoting me, daniel.  You are a psychopath too.  Perhaps Tipsy would be interested in your . . . . sickness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone who doesn't agree with you is a psychopath.  What you are is insane with jealousy.  You spent your teen years fighting acne playing with barbie dolls pretending the Ken doll was fucking Barbie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you are obviously a psychopath by your own admission.  Daniel?  Who knows what the fuck he's talking about.  All I know is that I am NOT giving him a turn.  Perhaps you would like to.
Click to expand...

you only say that because i was blessed with a large vocabulary instead of a large penis.  i know how Bad girls are.


----------



## ChrisL

Tipsycatlover said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but I had to do it.  It's not psychopathy, it is antisocial personality disorder.
> 
> Antisocial Personality Disorder Symptoms
> 
> Antisocial personality disorder is characterized by a long-standing pattern of a disregard for other people’s rights, often crossing the line and violating those rights. It usually begins in childhood or as a teen and continues into their adult lives.
> 
> Antisocial personality disorder is often referred to as psychopathy or sociopathy in popular culture. However, neither psychopathy nor sociopathy are recognized professional labels used for diagnosis.
> 
> 
> Individuals with Antisocial Personality Disorder frequently lack empathy and tend to be callous, cynical, and contemptuous of the feelings, rights, and sufferings of others. They may have an inflated and arrogant self-appraisal (e.g., feel that ordinary work is beneath them or lack a realistic concern about their current problems or their future) and may be excessively opinionated, self-assured, or cocky. They may display a glib, superficial charm and can be quite voluble and verbally facile (e.g., using technical terms or jargon that might impress someone who is unfamiliar with the topic).
> 
> Lack of empathy, inflated self-appraisal, and superficial charm are features that have been commonly included in traditional conceptions of psychopathy and may be particularly distinguishing of Antisocial Personality Disorder in prison or forensic settings where criminal, delinquent, or aggressive acts are likely to be nonspecific. These individuals may also be irresponsible and exploitative in their sexual relationships.
> 
> 
> 
> dear; you have to be able to understand the terms you read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ChrisL is consumed with me.  I'm pretty much all the poor dear thinks about.  Such jealousy might be because she was a homely girl lucky to find the one guy willing to marry her.
Click to expand...


Yes, I spend my time thinking about 70 year old antisocial people.    A woman my age who looks like me has nothing better to do?  Hmm.  Anyway, you are the one who put all of this out there for people to read.  You fit the diagnosis to a T.  Do you disagree?


----------



## Katzndogz

Anathema said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> My son is an adult.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm 41 years old. What I do still reflects on my mother (my father is deceased) so far as our family and social circle see it.
Click to expand...

41 is not old.  It's quite young.


----------



## Wry Catcher

turzovka said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you continue dating/marry a significant other you had sex with on the first date?
> Is used to be taboo, but people are slowly opening their minds to the most natural human act available.
> Personally, it wouldn't bother me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kind of an odd question.  It seems to imply that there may be something unsettling about a girl who would be willing to have sex with you on the first date ---- but on the other hand, the fact that you were willing is no reflection on your character?  It is you who gets to decide if she is good enough for “honorable you.”
> 
> To answer your question--  I would feel far worse about myself than the girl.  I would not reject the girl, however, because of those events.
> 
> I am, however, very disheartened by all of the unmarried couples who live together.  It is so wrong.  And, yes, one of my own children is currently one of them.
Click to expand...


Take heart, living together is the best way to get to know each other.  I had two SO's I lived with before I met, lived with and then married my current wife of 41 years.

Your child is smart to test the care before buying it.


----------



## danielpalos

Tipsycatlover said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but I had to do it.  It's not psychopathy, it is antisocial personality disorder.
> 
> Antisocial Personality Disorder Symptoms
> 
> Antisocial personality disorder is characterized by a long-standing pattern of a disregard for other people’s rights, often crossing the line and violating those rights. It usually begins in childhood or as a teen and continues into their adult lives.
> 
> Antisocial personality disorder is often referred to as psychopathy or sociopathy in popular culture. However, neither psychopathy nor sociopathy are recognized professional labels used for diagnosis.
> 
> 
> Individuals with Antisocial Personality Disorder frequently lack empathy and tend to be callous, cynical, and contemptuous of the feelings, rights, and sufferings of others. They may have an inflated and arrogant self-appraisal (e.g., feel that ordinary work is beneath them or lack a realistic concern about their current problems or their future) and may be excessively opinionated, self-assured, or cocky. They may display a glib, superficial charm and can be quite voluble and verbally facile (e.g., using technical terms or jargon that might impress someone who is unfamiliar with the topic).
> 
> Lack of empathy, inflated self-appraisal, and superficial charm are features that have been commonly included in traditional conceptions of psychopathy and may be particularly distinguishing of Antisocial Personality Disorder in prison or forensic settings where criminal, delinquent, or aggressive acts are likely to be nonspecific. These individuals may also be irresponsible and exploitative in their sexual relationships.
> 
> 
> 
> dear; you have to be able to understand the terms you read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ChrisL is consumed with me.  I'm pretty much all the poor dear thinks about.  Such jealousy might be because she was a homely girl lucky to find the one guy willing to marry her.
Click to expand...

everybody knows i am only in it for the full body massage practice; she just likes to be a drama queen.


----------



## Anathema

ChrisL said:


> What do you think my son is doing?  He isn't doing anything, fool.  Stop insinuating there is something wrong with my parenting.



Feom what you've indicated, he's hanging around with people who have questionable moral character. 

Where I come from that indicares a potential lack of moral education and indoctrination by the parents. 

Either that or the child has gone rogue and may need to be excommunicated from the family.


----------



## ChrisL

Anathema said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think my son is doing?  He isn't doing anything, fool.  Stop insinuating there is something wrong with my parenting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Feom what you've indicated, he's hanging around with people who have questionable moral character.
> 
> Where I come from that indicares a potential lack of moral education and indoctrination by the parents.
> 
> Either that or the child has gone rogue and may need to be excommunicated from the family.
Click to expand...


He is not a child.  He is an adult.


----------



## Anathema

Tipsycatlover said:


> 41 is not old.  It's quite young.



I'm into the last quarter century of my life. Almost 2/3 of my life is gone. So old may be a relative term.


----------



## Katzndogz

ChrisL said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but I had to do it.  It's not psychopathy, it is antisocial personality disorder.
> 
> Antisocial Personality Disorder Symptoms
> 
> Antisocial personality disorder is characterized by a long-standing pattern of a disregard for other people’s rights, often crossing the line and violating those rights. It usually begins in childhood or as a teen and continues into their adult lives.
> 
> Antisocial personality disorder is often referred to as psychopathy or sociopathy in popular culture. However, neither psychopathy nor sociopathy are recognized professional labels used for diagnosis.
> 
> 
> Individuals with Antisocial Personality Disorder frequently lack empathy and tend to be callous, cynical, and contemptuous of the feelings, rights, and sufferings of others. They may have an inflated and arrogant self-appraisal (e.g., feel that ordinary work is beneath them or lack a realistic concern about their current problems or their future) and may be excessively opinionated, self-assured, or cocky. They may display a glib, superficial charm and can be quite voluble and verbally facile (e.g., using technical terms or jargon that might impress someone who is unfamiliar with the topic).
> 
> Lack of empathy, inflated self-appraisal, and superficial charm are features that have been commonly included in traditional conceptions of psychopathy and may be particularly distinguishing of Antisocial Personality Disorder in prison or forensic settings where criminal, delinquent, or aggressive acts are likely to be nonspecific. These individuals may also be irresponsible and exploitative in their sexual relationships.
> 
> 
> 
> dear; you have to be able to understand the terms you read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ChrisL is consumed with me.  I'm pretty much all the poor dear thinks about.  Such jealousy might be because she was a homely girl lucky to find the one guy willing to marry her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I spend my time thinking about 70 year old antisocial people.    A woman my age who looks like me has nothing better to do?  Hmm.  Anyway, you are the one who put all of this out there for people to read.  You fit the diagnosis to a T.  Do you disagree?
Click to expand...

I don't care one way or the other.  You aren't real enough to care about.  Arrested developmental anal retentives like yourself have no idea that others aren't like them.  I remind them.  It's you.  Can't you see that?  You are absolutely consumed with jealousy because you were a homely child.   The thought of a girl maturing faster than you did is pushing you to the edge of your own sanity.  What you really want is more.  All the gory little details.  You just can't admit it.


----------



## ChrisL

Tipsycatlover said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but I had to do it.  It's not psychopathy, it is antisocial personality disorder.
> 
> Antisocial Personality Disorder Symptoms
> 
> Antisocial personality disorder is characterized by a long-standing pattern of a disregard for other people’s rights, often crossing the line and violating those rights. It usually begins in childhood or as a teen and continues into their adult lives.
> 
> Antisocial personality disorder is often referred to as psychopathy or sociopathy in popular culture. However, neither psychopathy nor sociopathy are recognized professional labels used for diagnosis.
> 
> 
> Individuals with Antisocial Personality Disorder frequently lack empathy and tend to be callous, cynical, and contemptuous of the feelings, rights, and sufferings of others. They may have an inflated and arrogant self-appraisal (e.g., feel that ordinary work is beneath them or lack a realistic concern about their current problems or their future) and may be excessively opinionated, self-assured, or cocky. They may display a glib, superficial charm and can be quite voluble and verbally facile (e.g., using technical terms or jargon that might impress someone who is unfamiliar with the topic).
> 
> Lack of empathy, inflated self-appraisal, and superficial charm are features that have been commonly included in traditional conceptions of psychopathy and may be particularly distinguishing of Antisocial Personality Disorder in prison or forensic settings where criminal, delinquent, or aggressive acts are likely to be nonspecific. These individuals may also be irresponsible and exploitative in their sexual relationships.
> 
> 
> 
> dear; you have to be able to understand the terms you read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ChrisL is consumed with me.  I'm pretty much all the poor dear thinks about.  Such jealousy might be because she was a homely girl lucky to find the one guy willing to marry her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I spend my time thinking about 70 year old antisocial people.    A woman my age who looks like me has nothing better to do?  Hmm.  Anyway, you are the one who put all of this out there for people to read.  You fit the diagnosis to a T.  Do you disagree?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't care one way or the other.  You aren't real enough to care about.  Arrested developmental anal retentives like yourself have no idea that others aren't like them.  I remind them.  It's you.  Can't you see that?  You are absolutely consumed with jealousy because you were a homely child.   The thought of a girl maturing faster than you did is pushing you to the edge of your own sanity.  What you really want is more.  All the gory little details.  You just can't admit it.
Click to expand...


Lol.  I was not a homely child.  I was a cheerleader and a dancer and was very popular actually.    Obviously you do care, as you shared all of that information with a bunch of strangers.  

I'm sorry, but you are the one with the problem here, obviously.  Shall I go retrieve your posts where you describe every symptom of antisocial personality disorder?  Just trying to help.  I told you, your guardians should have put you in therapy, not married you off.  They didn't do you any favors.


----------



## Anathema

ChrisL said:


> He is not a child.  He is an adult.



His age is immaterial. He was/is your responsibility to properly educate on morals and values. That is how my family and community see things.

You may not agree but that's how we see and deal with things.


----------



## ChrisL

Anathema said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> He is not a child.  He is an adult.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His age is immaterial. He was/is your responsibility to properly educate on morals and values. That is how my family and community see things.
> 
> You may not agree but that's how we see and deal with things.
Click to expand...


And I have.  My son is perfectly fine, thanks.  He works full time.  He is responsible and a good person.


----------



## ChrisL

Anathema said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> He is not a child.  He is an adult.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His age is immaterial. He was/is your responsibility to properly educate on morals and values. That is how my family and community see things.
> 
> You may not agree but that's how we see and deal with things.
Click to expand...


His age is not immaterial.  He is an adult and makes his own decisions about his life now.  That is called "growing up."


----------



## Anathema

ChrisL said:


> His age is not immaterial.  He is an adult and makes his own decisions about his life now.  That is called "growing up."



As I said, in my family and community you are always answerable to your parents, regardless of your age.

I was 27 years old when my dad passed. I was answerable to him until the day he died. If I'd ever been arrested or gotten a ticket as an adult I'd have preferred to deal with the cops than my dad.

I make my own decisions but I need to take the consequences with my family into account when I do. A second cousin of mine was "excommunicated" for going to law school. Another family member was cut off for being arrested because a passenger in his car had weed on him.


----------



## ChrisL

Anathema said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> His age is not immaterial.  He is an adult and makes his own decisions about his life now.  That is called "growing up."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I said, in my family and community you are always answerable to your parents, regardless of your age.
> 
> I was 27 years old when my dad passed. I was answerable to him until the day he died. If I'd ever been arrested or gotten a ticket as an adult I'd have preferred to deal with the cops than my dad.
Click to expand...


Well, he should have let you grow up.  Maybe you would be a better and more stable person.  You talk about how you freak out and throw things and hit your wife, so . . . I don't think you have any room to talk about such things.  You are very childish and unstable person.


----------



## ChrisL

Anathema said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> His age is not immaterial.  He is an adult and makes his own decisions about his life now.  That is called "growing up."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I said, in my family and community you are always answerable to your parents, regardless of your age.
> 
> I was 27 years old when my dad passed. I was answerable to him until the day he died. If I'd ever been arrested or gotten a ticket as an adult I'd have preferred to deal with the cops than my dad.
Click to expand...


Let me just tell you that my son has more control over himself than you obviously do.  I'll bet he is more of an adult than you will ever be.


----------



## Katzndogz

ChrisL said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but I had to do it.  It's not psychopathy, it is antisocial personality disorder.
> 
> Antisocial Personality Disorder Symptoms
> 
> Antisocial personality disorder is characterized by a long-standing pattern of a disregard for other people’s rights, often crossing the line and violating those rights. It usually begins in childhood or as a teen and continues into their adult lives.
> 
> Antisocial personality disorder is often referred to as psychopathy or sociopathy in popular culture. However, neither psychopathy nor sociopathy are recognized professional labels used for diagnosis.
> 
> 
> Individuals with Antisocial Personality Disorder frequently lack empathy and tend to be callous, cynical, and contemptuous of the feelings, rights, and sufferings of others. They may have an inflated and arrogant self-appraisal (e.g., feel that ordinary work is beneath them or lack a realistic concern about their current problems or their future) and may be excessively opinionated, self-assured, or cocky. They may display a glib, superficial charm and can be quite voluble and verbally facile (e.g., using technical terms or jargon that might impress someone who is unfamiliar with the topic).
> 
> Lack of empathy, inflated self-appraisal, and superficial charm are features that have been commonly included in traditional conceptions of psychopathy and may be particularly distinguishing of Antisocial Personality Disorder in prison or forensic settings where criminal, delinquent, or aggressive acts are likely to be nonspecific. These individuals may also be irresponsible and exploitative in their sexual relationships.
> 
> 
> 
> dear; you have to be able to understand the terms you read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ChrisL is consumed with me.  I'm pretty much all the poor dear thinks about.  Such jealousy might be because she was a homely girl lucky to find the one guy willing to marry her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I spend my time thinking about 70 year old antisocial people.    A woman my age who looks like me has nothing better to do?  Hmm.  Anyway, you are the one who put all of this out there for people to read.  You fit the diagnosis to a T.  Do you disagree?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't care one way or the other.  You aren't real enough to care about.  Arrested developmental anal retentives like yourself have no idea that others aren't like them.  I remind them.  It's you.  Can't you see that?  You are absolutely consumed with jealousy because you were a homely child.   The thought of a girl maturing faster than you did is pushing you to the edge of your own sanity.  What you really want is more.  All the gory little details.  You just can't admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol.  I was not a homely child.  I was a cheerleader and a dancer and was very popular actually.    Obviously you do care, as you shared all of that information with a bunch of strangers.
> 
> I'm sorry, but you are the one with the problem here, obviously.  Shall I go retrieve your posts where you describe every symptom of antisocial personality disorder?  Just trying to help.  I told you, your guardians should have put you in therapy, not married you off.  They didn't do you any favors.
Click to expand...

The one stewing is you!  Why are you so jealous?   Anyone can be a cheerleader and pay for dance class.   

My sharing all that information with strangers has certainly hit you hard because no one else cares a bit.  You are the only one still diddling yourself.


----------



## Katzndogz

Anathema said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> His age is not immaterial.  He is an adult and makes his own decisions about his life now.  That is called "growing up."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I said, in my family and community you are always answerable to your parents, regardless of your age.
> 
> I was 27 years old when my dad passed. I was answerable to him until the day he died. If I'd ever been arrested or gotten a ticket as an adult I'd have preferred to deal with the cops than my dad.
> 
> I make my own decisions but I need to take the consequences with my family into account when I do. A second cousin of mine was "excommunicated" for going to law school. Another family member was cut off for being arrested because a passenger in his car had weed on him.
Click to expand...

I can't imagine being answerable to anyone.  I have never been answerable to another person. 

Why was your family member excommunicated for going to law school?  My mother was dead when I went to law school.  My dad was very upset when I started law school.   He said my mother would have been disappointed in me.  Not that I cared one way or the other.  No one is going to make decisions for me better than the ones I make for myself.


----------



## ChrisL

Tipsycatlover said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> dear; you have to be able to understand the terms you read.
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL is consumed with me.  I'm pretty much all the poor dear thinks about.  Such jealousy might be because she was a homely girl lucky to find the one guy willing to marry her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I spend my time thinking about 70 year old antisocial people.    A woman my age who looks like me has nothing better to do?  Hmm.  Anyway, you are the one who put all of this out there for people to read.  You fit the diagnosis to a T.  Do you disagree?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't care one way or the other.  You aren't real enough to care about.  Arrested developmental anal retentives like yourself have no idea that others aren't like them.  I remind them.  It's you.  Can't you see that?  You are absolutely consumed with jealousy because you were a homely child.   The thought of a girl maturing faster than you did is pushing you to the edge of your own sanity.  What you really want is more.  All the gory little details.  You just can't admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol.  I was not a homely child.  I was a cheerleader and a dancer and was very popular actually.    Obviously you do care, as you shared all of that information with a bunch of strangers.
> 
> I'm sorry, but you are the one with the problem here, obviously.  Shall I go retrieve your posts where you describe every symptom of antisocial personality disorder?  Just trying to help.  I told you, your guardians should have put you in therapy, not married you off.  They didn't do you any favors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The one stewing is you!  Why are you so jealous?   Anyone can be a cheerleader and pay for dance class.
> 
> My sharing all that information with strangers has certainly hit you hard because no one else cares a bit.  You are the only one still diddling yourself.
Click to expand...


Why do you think I am jealous of a 69-year-old woman who has a personality disorder?  You seem very unhappy to be honest, and your life sounds like nothing that anyone would be "envious" of.


----------



## Anathema

ChrisL said:


> Well, he should have let you grow up.  Maybe you would be a better and more stable person.  You talk about how you freak out and throw things and hit your wife, so . . . I don't think you have any room to talk about such things.  You are very childish and unstable person.



If he'd let me "grow up" as you suggest, I'd be a serial killer. I throw things because the other option is breaking PEOPLE. 

My wife and I have a lifestyle you could never understand, even if you wanted to. She hasn't required any physical discipline in almost two years.

If you think I'm childish and unstable NOW, you dont want to think about what I'd be like if I hadnt had that locked-down discipline as a child.


----------



## ChrisL

Tipsycatlover said:


> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> His age is not immaterial.  He is an adult and makes his own decisions about his life now.  That is called "growing up."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I said, in my family and community you are always answerable to your parents, regardless of your age.
> 
> I was 27 years old when my dad passed. I was answerable to him until the day he died. If I'd ever been arrested or gotten a ticket as an adult I'd have preferred to deal with the cops than my dad.
> 
> I make my own decisions but I need to take the consequences with my family into account when I do. A second cousin of mine was "excommunicated" for going to law school. Another family member was cut off for being arrested because a passenger in his car had weed on him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can't imagine being answerable to anyone.  I have never been answerable to another person.
> 
> Why was your family member excommunicated for going to law school?  My mother was dead when I went to law school.  My dad was very upset when I started law school.   He said my mother would have been disappointed in me.  Not that I cared one way or the other.  No one is going to make decisions for me better than the ones I make for myself.
Click to expand...


Because he is a male chauvinist.  That's why.  He has told me that he hits on his wife when she "misbehaves."


----------



## ChrisL

Anathema said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, he should have let you grow up.  Maybe you would be a better and more stable person.  You talk about how you freak out and throw things and hit your wife, so . . . I don't think you have any room to talk about such things.  You are very childish and unstable person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If he'd let me "grow up" as you suggest, I'd be a serial killer. I throw things because the other option is breaking PEOPLE.
> 
> My wife and I have a lifestyle you could never understand, even if you wanted to. She hasn't required any physical discipline in almost two years.
> 
> If you think I'm childish and unstable NOW, you dont want to think about what I'd be like if I hadnt had that locked-down discipline as a child.
Click to expand...


Well then you have a psychiatric disorder, buddy.  That is not normal.  

I don't want to understand, believe that.  I think you are incredibly dysfunctional person.  

You need to get help too before you hurt somebody.


----------



## Anathema

Tipsycatlover said:


> Why was your family member excommunicated for going to law school?  My mother was dead when I went to law school.  My dad was very upset when I started law school.   He said my mother would have been disappointed in me.  Not that I cared one way or the other.  No one is going to make decisions for me better than the ones I make for myself.




She's female. That's not on the limited list of appropriate professions for a woman beyond housewife and mother.


----------



## Anathema

ChrisL said:


> I think you are incredibly dysfunctional person.
> 
> You need to get help too before you hurt somebody.



Actually I am quite functional, thank you. Thats what should scare you the most. I could be the guy at the other end of the supermarket aisle.

No help necessary or accepted.


----------



## ChrisL

Anathema said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are incredibly dysfunctional person.
> 
> You need to get help too before you hurt somebody.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I am quite functional, thank you. Thats what should scare you the most. I could be the guy at the other end of the supermarket aisle.
> 
> No help necessary or accepted.
Click to expand...


Yeah, obviously you need to be locked up.  You should turn yourself into the nearest mental health facility and tell them about your delusions and paranoia.


----------



## Jarlaxle

ChrisL said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but I had to do it.  It's not psychopathy, it is antisocial personality disorder.
> 
> Antisocial Personality Disorder Symptoms
> 
> Antisocial personality disorder is characterized by a long-standing pattern of a disregard for other people’s rights, often crossing the line and violating those rights. It usually begins in childhood or as a teen and continues into their adult lives.
> 
> Antisocial personality disorder is often referred to as psychopathy or sociopathy in popular culture. However, neither psychopathy nor sociopathy are recognized professional labels used for diagnosis.
> 
> 
> Individuals with Antisocial Personality Disorder frequently lack empathy and tend to be callous, cynical, and contemptuous of the feelings, rights, and sufferings of others. They may have an inflated and arrogant self-appraisal (e.g., feel that ordinary work is beneath them or lack a realistic concern about their current problems or their future) and may be excessively opinionated, self-assured, or cocky. They may display a glib, superficial charm and can be quite voluble and verbally facile (e.g., using technical terms or jargon that might impress someone who is unfamiliar with the topic).
> 
> Lack of empathy, inflated self-appraisal, and superficial charm are features that have been commonly included in traditional conceptions of psychopathy and may be particularly distinguishing of Antisocial Personality Disorder in prison or forensic settings where criminal, delinquent, or aggressive acts are likely to be nonspecific. These individuals may also be irresponsible and exploitative in their sexual relationships.
> 
> 
> 
> dear; you have to be able to understand the terms you read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ChrisL is consumed with me.  I'm pretty much all the poor dear thinks about.  Such jealousy might be because she was a homely girl lucky to find the one guy willing to marry her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I spend my time thinking about 70 year old antisocial people.    A woman my age who looks like me has nothing better to do?  Hmm.  Anyway, you are the one who put all of this out there for people to read.  You fit the diagnosis to a T.  Do you disagree?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't care one way or the other.  You aren't real enough to care about.  Arrested developmental anal retentives like yourself have no idea that others aren't like them.  I remind them.  It's you.  Can't you see that?  You are absolutely consumed with jealousy because you were a homely child.   The thought of a girl maturing faster than you did is pushing you to the edge of your own sanity.  What you really want is more.  All the gory little details.  You just can't admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol.  I was not a homely child.  I was a cheerleader and a dancer and was very popular actually.    Obviously you do care, as you shared all of that information with a bunch of strangers.
> 
> I'm sorry, but you are the one with the problem here, obviously.  Shall I go retrieve your posts where you describe every symptom of antisocial personality disorder?  Just trying to help.  I told you, your guardians should have put you in therapy, not married you off.  They didn't do you any favors.
Click to expand...


Actually, they should probably have treated her like Joe Kennedy treated Rosemary.


----------



## ChrisL

We have so much mental illness in our country.  It's really sad, and something needs to be done.  These people should be separated from the rest of civilized society.


----------



## ChrisL

Jarlaxle said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> dear; you have to be able to understand the terms you read.
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL is consumed with me.  I'm pretty much all the poor dear thinks about.  Such jealousy might be because she was a homely girl lucky to find the one guy willing to marry her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I spend my time thinking about 70 year old antisocial people.    A woman my age who looks like me has nothing better to do?  Hmm.  Anyway, you are the one who put all of this out there for people to read.  You fit the diagnosis to a T.  Do you disagree?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't care one way or the other.  You aren't real enough to care about.  Arrested developmental anal retentives like yourself have no idea that others aren't like them.  I remind them.  It's you.  Can't you see that?  You are absolutely consumed with jealousy because you were a homely child.   The thought of a girl maturing faster than you did is pushing you to the edge of your own sanity.  What you really want is more.  All the gory little details.  You just can't admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol.  I was not a homely child.  I was a cheerleader and a dancer and was very popular actually.    Obviously you do care, as you shared all of that information with a bunch of strangers.
> 
> I'm sorry, but you are the one with the problem here, obviously.  Shall I go retrieve your posts where you describe every symptom of antisocial personality disorder?  Just trying to help.  I told you, your guardians should have put you in therapy, not married you off.  They didn't do you any favors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, they should probably have treated her like Joe Kennedy treated Rosemary.
Click to expand...


I don't know anything about.  Before my time, I think.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Anathema said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> His age is not immaterial.  He is an adult and makes his own decisions about his life now.  That is called "growing up."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I said, in my family and community you are always answerable to your parents, regardless of your age.
> 
> I was 27 years old when my dad passed. I was answerable to him until the day he died. If I'd ever been arrested or gotten a ticket as an adult I'd have preferred to deal with the cops than my dad.
> 
> I make my own decisions but I need to take the consequences with my family into account when I do. A second cousin of mine was "excommunicated" for going to law school. Another family member was cut off for being arrested because a passenger in his car had weed on him.
Click to expand...


Your family is a bunch of psychos...this is not news.  That sounds like the kind of family you might WANT to get away from.


----------



## Anathema

ChrisL said:


> Because he is a male chauvinist.  That's why.  He has told me that he hits on his wife when she "misbehaves."



You're right thst I and almost my whole family are male  chauvinists. Even the women. 

We have a system of discipline and its upper levels include corporal punishment.


----------



## ChrisL

Anathema said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because he is a male chauvinist.  That's why.  He has told me that he hits on his wife when she "misbehaves."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're right thst I and almost my whole family are male  chauvinists. Even the women.
> 
> We have a system of discipline and its upper levels include corporal punishment.
Click to expand...


You may not realize this, but you are a very, very sick man and you need to do yourself and everyone else a favor and seek help.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Anathema said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, he should have let you grow up.  Maybe you would be a better and more stable person.  You talk about how you freak out and throw things and hit your wife, so . . . I don't think you have any room to talk about such things.  You are very childish and unstable person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If he'd let me "grow up" as you suggest, I'd be a serial killer. I throw things because the other option is breaking PEOPLE.
> 
> My wife and I have a lifestyle you could never understand, even if you wanted to. She hasn't required any physical discipline in almost two years.
> 
> If you think I'm childish and unstable NOW, you dont want to think about what I'd be like if I hadnt had that locked-down discipline as a child.
Click to expand...


Oh, people understand your "lifestyle" quite well: your wife is a live-in maid, cook, penis holster, and punching bag.  With any luck, she';ll spike your dinner with Dcon someday soon, or pour a stock pot of boiling water over you while you sleep.

You are a poster child for abortion.


----------



## ChrisL

Anathema said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because he is a male chauvinist.  That's why.  He has told me that he hits on his wife when she "misbehaves."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're right thst I and almost my whole family are male  chauvinists. Even the women.
> 
> We have a system of discipline and its upper levels include corporal punishment.
Click to expand...


I know you, you know, Tigger.


----------



## Jarlaxle

ChrisL said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL is consumed with me.  I'm pretty much all the poor dear thinks about.  Such jealousy might be because she was a homely girl lucky to find the one guy willing to marry her.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I spend my time thinking about 70 year old antisocial people.    A woman my age who looks like me has nothing better to do?  Hmm.  Anyway, you are the one who put all of this out there for people to read.  You fit the diagnosis to a T.  Do you disagree?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't care one way or the other.  You aren't real enough to care about.  Arrested developmental anal retentives like yourself have no idea that others aren't like them.  I remind them.  It's you.  Can't you see that?  You are absolutely consumed with jealousy because you were a homely child.   The thought of a girl maturing faster than you did is pushing you to the edge of your own sanity.  What you really want is more.  All the gory little details.  You just can't admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol.  I was not a homely child.  I was a cheerleader and a dancer and was very popular actually.    Obviously you do care, as you shared all of that information with a bunch of strangers.
> 
> I'm sorry, but you are the one with the problem here, obviously.  Shall I go retrieve your posts where you describe every symptom of antisocial personality disorder?  Just trying to help.  I told you, your guardians should have put you in therapy, not married you off.  They didn't do you any favors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, they should probably have treated her like Joe Kennedy treated Rosemary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know anything about.  Before my time, I think.
Click to expand...


He had her lobotomized.


----------



## ChrisL

Jarlaxle said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I spend my time thinking about 70 year old antisocial people.    A woman my age who looks like me has nothing better to do?  Hmm.  Anyway, you are the one who put all of this out there for people to read.  You fit the diagnosis to a T.  Do you disagree?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care one way or the other.  You aren't real enough to care about.  Arrested developmental anal retentives like yourself have no idea that others aren't like them.  I remind them.  It's you.  Can't you see that?  You are absolutely consumed with jealousy because you were a homely child.   The thought of a girl maturing faster than you did is pushing you to the edge of your own sanity.  What you really want is more.  All the gory little details.  You just can't admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol.  I was not a homely child.  I was a cheerleader and a dancer and was very popular actually.    Obviously you do care, as you shared all of that information with a bunch of strangers.
> 
> I'm sorry, but you are the one with the problem here, obviously.  Shall I go retrieve your posts where you describe every symptom of antisocial personality disorder?  Just trying to help.  I told you, your guardians should have put you in therapy, not married you off.  They didn't do you any favors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, they should probably have treated her like Joe Kennedy treated Rosemary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know anything about.  Before my time, I think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He had her lobotomized.
Click to expand...


Wow.  That's kind of harsh, I think.  I don't think they practice that procedure anymore, except for in cases of severe brain damage.


----------



## Katzndogz

Anathema said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are incredibly dysfunctional person.
> 
> You need to get help too before you hurt somebody.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I am quite functional, thank you. Thats what should scare you the most. I could be the guy at the other end of the supermarket aisle.
> 
> No help necessary or accepted.
Click to expand...

Is that it?  The person standing behind them in the supermarket checkout line might not be like them.   Everyone is dysfunctional but them.

That pretty much describes these mass shooters.


----------



## Anathema

Jarlaxle said:


> Oh, people understand your "lifestyle" quite well: your wife is a live-in maid, cook, penis holster, and punching bag.  With any luck, she';ll spike your dinner with Dcon someday soon, or pour a stock pot of boiling water over you while you sleep.



The penis-holster part is irrelevant and she's not a punching bag. At its worst, its spanking or slapping;  and even that is after multiple other options have been tried.


----------



## ChrisL

Anathema said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, people understand your "lifestyle" quite well: your wife is a live-in maid, cook, penis holster, and punching bag.  With any luck, she';ll spike your dinner with Dcon someday soon, or pour a stock pot of boiling water over you while you sleep.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The penis-holster part is irrelevant and she's not a punching bag. At its worst, its spanking or slapping;  and even that is after multiple other options have been tried.
Click to expand...


What makes you think you have the right to strike another person when not in self defense?  Who do you think you are?  Keep your damn hands to yourself.  If your parents didn't teach you that . . . .


----------



## Jarlaxle

ChrisL said:


> Wow.  That's kind of harsh, I think.  I don't think they practice that procedure anymore, except for in cases of severe brain damage.



Not for Tipsy.


----------



## ChrisL

Anathema said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, people understand your "lifestyle" quite well: your wife is a live-in maid, cook, penis holster, and punching bag.  With any luck, she';ll spike your dinner with Dcon someday soon, or pour a stock pot of boiling water over you while you sleep.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The penis-holster part is irrelevant and she's not a punching bag. At its worst, its spanking or slapping;  and even that is after multiple other options have been tried.
Click to expand...


Why don't you try to love and cherish your wife?  She should be special to you.  You should never want to harm her.


----------



## ChrisL

Jarlaxle said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  That's kind of harsh, I think.  I don't think they practice that procedure anymore, except for in cases of severe brain damage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not for Tipsy.
Click to expand...


I think she has some serious issues to work out.  A lobotomy?  Not.


----------



## Anathema

ChrisL said:


> What makes you think you have the right to strike another person when not in self defense?  Who do you think you are?  Keep your damn hands to yourself.  If your parents didn't teach you that . . . .



Our pre-nup and the fact thst she's a woman. I'm her Husband. That's who I am. 

My parents taught me that corporal punishment is a necessary snd useful part of life.


----------



## ChrisL

Anathema said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you think you have the right to strike another person when not in self defense?  Who do you think you are?  Keep your damn hands to yourself.  If your parents didn't teach you that . . . .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our pre-nup and the fact thst she's a woman. I'm her Husband. That's who I am.
> 
> My parents taught me that corporal punishment is a necessary snd useful part of life.
Click to expand...


Well they are wrong.  You have no right to talk of anyone else's parenting or relationships, that is FOR sure.  You don't seem to realize it, but everyone else does.  You are dysfunctional and have serious issues to work on.  I suggest you go to counseling and this time, stick it out.  It's not an "instant gratification" kind of thing.  It takes time.


----------



## Jarlaxle

ChrisL said:


> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, people understand your "lifestyle" quite well: your wife is a live-in maid, cook, penis holster, and punching bag.  With any luck, she';ll spike your dinner with Dcon someday soon, or pour a stock pot of boiling water over you while you sleep.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The penis-holster part is irrelevant and she's not a punching bag. At its worst, its spanking or slapping;  and even that is after multiple other options have been tried.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you try to love and cherish your wife?  She should be special to you.  You should never want to harm her.
Click to expand...


He is a sociopath and not capable of love.


----------



## Jarlaxle

ChrisL said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  That's kind of harsh, I think.  I don't think they practice that procedure anymore, except for in cases of severe brain damage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not for Tipsy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think she has some serious issues to work out.  A lobotomy?  Not.
Click to expand...


She is a psychopath and beyond help.  A rusty ice pick through the eyesocket is better than a high body count.


----------



## Katzndogz

Anathema said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, he should have let you grow up.  Maybe you would be a better and more stable person.  You talk about how you freak out and throw things and hit your wife, so . . . I don't think you have any room to talk about such things.  You are very childish and unstable person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If he'd let me "grow up" as you suggest, I'd be a serial killer. I throw things because the other option is breaking PEOPLE.
> 
> My wife and I have a lifestyle you could never understand, even if you wanted to. She hasn't required any physical discipline in almost two years.
> 
> If you think I'm childish and unstable NOW, you dont want to think about what I'd be like if I hadnt had that locked-down discipline as a child.
Click to expand...

 
I always took the breaking people part.  I never damaged property.  The only discipline I ever had was my first boyfriend who showed me that I could discipline myself.  I could never stay with a man that let me beat him up.  I stayed with a few that could put up a good fight though and knew how to take a punch.  Sadly, my real love was edged weapons.   Still is.  

Now of course I have learned all my lessons.  I live only with my dog.  I have no desire nor need for my privacy to be assaulted.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Tipsycatlover said:


> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are incredibly dysfunctional person.
> 
> You need to get help too before you hurt somebody.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I am quite functional, thank you. Thats what should scare you the most. I could be the guy at the other end of the supermarket aisle.
> 
> No help necessary or accepted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that it?  The person standing behind them in the supermarket checkout line might not be like them.   Everyone is dysfunctional but them.
> 
> That pretty much describes these mass shooters.
Click to expand...


I'm a little surprised Anachronism hasn't gone postal yet.


----------



## ChrisL

God, you two . . . . pretty sad.


----------



## Katzndogz

Jarlaxle said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  That's kind of harsh, I think.  I don't think they practice that procedure anymore, except for in cases of severe brain damage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not for Tipsy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think she has some serious issues to work out.  A lobotomy?  Not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She is a psychopath and beyond help.  A rusty ice pick through the eyesocket is better than a high body count.
Click to expand...

Some day you will act on your fantasies and we'll be talking about a first grade class full of dead children and you dead of a self inflicted gunshot.


----------



## Katzndogz

Anathema said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you think you have the right to strike another person when not in self defense?  Who do you think you are?  Keep your damn hands to yourself.  If your parents didn't teach you that . . . .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our pre-nup and the fact thst she's a woman. I'm her Husband. That's who I am.
> 
> My parents taught me that corporal punishment is a necessary snd useful part of life.
Click to expand...


You have a pre nup that provides for corporal punishment?  You can't really have a provision like that you know.


----------



## Anathema

ChrisL said:


> Why don't you try to love and cherish your wife?  She should be special to you.  You should never want to harm her.



Neither she nor I believe in love. I cherish her but that doesn't mean the rules are violatable. You folks place too much value on emotion instead of Right and Wrong.


----------



## Anathema

Tipsycatlover said:


> You have a pre nup that provides for corporal punishment?  You can't really have a provision like that you know.



We have a pre-nup that gives me total control of legal decisions made in the relationship and the power to enforce those decisions. She knows that failing to accept discipline means a divorce and going back to the hole i pulled her out of.


----------



## ChrisL

Anathema said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have a pre nup that provides for corporal punishment?  You can't really have a provision like that you know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have a pre-nup that gives me total control of legal decisions made in the relationship and the power to enforce those decisions. She knows that failing to accept discipline means a divorce and going back to the hole i pulled her out of.
Click to expand...


I feel SO sorry for her.  That is fucking sad.


----------



## Katzndogz

I was divorced in 1976.  When a man I was dating started talking either love or marriage, it was my cue to get out.  There's only one right or wrong.  That's whatever I say it is.  I married in 2005 for medical and business reasons.   We didn't live together until the last year of his life.  

I'm not the marrying kind.  I never was.


----------



## ChrisL

Anathema said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have a pre nup that provides for corporal punishment?  You can't really have a provision like that you know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have a pre-nup that gives me total control of legal decisions made in the relationship and the power to enforce those decisions. She knows that failing to accept discipline means a divorce and going back to the hole i pulled her out of.
Click to expand...


You are a pathetic excuse for a man, I must say.  That seems to be quite common around these parts, though.  No surprises there.  It's actually just kind of depressing to tell the truth.  I mean, I can't even get upset with the things you are saying because they are just SO . . . . pathetic.


----------



## ChrisL

Tipsycatlover said:


> I was divorced in 1976.  When a man I was dating started talking either love or marriage, it was my cue to get out.  There's only one right or wrong.  That's whatever I say it is.  I married in 2005 for medical and business reasons.   We didn't live together until the last year of his life.
> 
> I'm not the marrying kind.  I never was.



There is nothing wrong with wanting to live alone and not be in a serious relationship.  The problem is when you use and hurt people and don't even care.  That is just cruelty and extremely selfish.


----------



## Katzndogz

Anathema said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have a pre nup that provides for corporal punishment?  You can't really have a provision like that you know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have a pre-nup that gives me total control of legal decisions made in the relationship and the power to enforce those decisions. She knows that failing to accept discipline means a divorce and going back to the hole i pulled her out of.
Click to expand...

Ohhh so if she doesn't let you hit her, you would divorce her.  I see.  It does make sense.  It's no different than many other quid pro quos.  Some men want sex.  Some men want a neat freak house.  The fear of being alone overcomes any feeling of self preservation.   It's good that you found each other.


----------



## ChrisL

Tipsycatlover said:


> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have a pre nup that provides for corporal punishment?  You can't really have a provision like that you know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have a pre-nup that gives me total control of legal decisions made in the relationship and the power to enforce those decisions. She knows that failing to accept discipline means a divorce and going back to the hole i pulled her out of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ohhh so if she doesn't let you hit her, you would divorce her.  I see.  It does make sense.  It's no different than many other quid pro quos.  Some men want sex.  Some men want a neat freak house.  The fear of being alone overcomes any feeling of self preservation.   It's good that you found each other.
Click to expand...


I feel sorry for her.


----------



## Katzndogz

ChrisL said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was divorced in 1976.  When a man I was dating started talking either love or marriage, it was my cue to get out.  There's only one right or wrong.  That's whatever I say it is.  I married in 2005 for medical and business reasons.   We didn't live together until the last year of his life.
> 
> I'm not the marrying kind.  I never was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with wanting to live alone and not be in a serious relationship.  The problem is when you use and hurt people and don't even care.  That is just cruelty and extremely selfish.
Click to expand...

Some days you're the butcher.  Some days you're the cow.  Be the butcher as much as possible. 

Every person that is used and possibly hurt by that use, would have absolutely no thought for someone they were using and hurting.


----------



## Katzndogz

ChrisL said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have a pre nup that provides for corporal punishment?  You can't really have a provision like that you know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have a pre-nup that gives me total control of legal decisions made in the relationship and the power to enforce those decisions. She knows that failing to accept discipline means a divorce and going back to the hole i pulled her out of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ohhh so if she doesn't let you hit her, you would divorce her.  I see.  It does make sense.  It's no different than many other quid pro quos.  Some men want sex.  Some men want a neat freak house.  The fear of being alone overcomes any feeling of self preservation.   It's good that you found each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I feel sorry for her.
Click to expand...

Not because of her choice in husbands.   She is likely tickled pink with that.

She never learned proper survival techniques.  That's enough to be sorry for.


----------



## ChrisL

Tipsycatlover said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was divorced in 1976.  When a man I was dating started talking either love or marriage, it was my cue to get out.  There's only one right or wrong.  That's whatever I say it is.  I married in 2005 for medical and business reasons.   We didn't live together until the last year of his life.
> 
> I'm not the marrying kind.  I never was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with wanting to live alone and not be in a serious relationship.  The problem is when you use and hurt people and don't even care.  That is just cruelty and extremely selfish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some days you're the butcher.  Some days you're the cow.  Be the butcher as much as possible.
> 
> Every person that is used and possibly hurt by that use, would have absolutely no thought for someone they were using and hurting.
Click to expand...


Don't you see that you have this viewpoint because of your life?  You hurt others to avoid letting them hurt you.  That much is obvious.


----------



## ChrisL

Tipsycatlover said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have a pre nup that provides for corporal punishment?  You can't really have a provision like that you know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have a pre-nup that gives me total control of legal decisions made in the relationship and the power to enforce those decisions. She knows that failing to accept discipline means a divorce and going back to the hole i pulled her out of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ohhh so if she doesn't let you hit her, you would divorce her.  I see.  It does make sense.  It's no different than many other quid pro quos.  Some men want sex.  Some men want a neat freak house.  The fear of being alone overcomes any feeling of self preservation.   It's good that you found each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I feel sorry for her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not because of her choice in husbands.   She is likely tickled pink with that.
> 
> She never learned proper survival techniques.  That's enough to be sorry for.
Click to expand...


I think she was probably raised that way.  She is Latino.  It is common in some Latino countries for women to be . . . . well second-class to their husbands for lack of a better term.


----------



## Anathema

ChrisL said:


> I suggest you go to counseling and this time, stick it out.  It's not an "instant gratification" kind of thing.  It takes time.



Not going to happen on so many levels.


----------



## ChrisL

Anathema said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you go to counseling and this time, stick it out.  It's not an "instant gratification" kind of thing.  It takes time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not going to happen on so many levels.
Click to expand...


It couldn't hurt and can only help.  You shouldn't be hitting people.  It's not right.  Your wife is a human being, not a dog.  Recognize that.


----------



## ChrisL

I'm sorry to say, but the two of you demonstrate a lot of symptoms of that which adults who were abused as children would display.  Protective of your feelings, so much so that you will throw away another person at the first sign of "feeling" something for them for one.  Striking out at other people who love you when angry in a physical and violent manner is another.  Now, I'm no psychiatrist, but I do have a lot of experience with psychiatry, and while I cannot make a diagnosis, I can certainly recognize the symptoms.  

More at the link . . . . Childhood trauma and abuse can have many effects on adult health

*Abuse-related conditions*



The negative impact of child abuse on adult mental health has been documented for over 150 years,*, and, over the last thirty years, in particular, numerous research studies have documented the link between child abuse and mental illness in later life. At present, there is no single diagnosis or condition that describes the psychological effects of child abuse. When in contact with mental health services, many adult survivors of child abuse find themselves diagnosed with multiple psychological conditions, many of which have considerable overlap.

The psychological impact of abuse on a child depends on a range of factors, including: the type of abuse, the severity of abuse, the relationship of the child to the abuser/s, the child's family environment and their relationship with their parents or other caregivers, and whether the child has previous experiences of abuse, or a history of support, care and love. These factors can soften, or exacerbate, the impact of abuse on a child's psychological wellbeing, and the likelihood that they will develop mental illness later in life.

Below is a list of a range of psychological conditions that are associated with child abuse. Please read on to find out more about them.


Post-traumatic stress disorder
Panic attacks
Depression
Dissociation
Dissociative Identity Disorder
Bipolar
Schizophrenia
Eating disorders
Personality disorders
*Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder*
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is a psychological condition that develops after a person has been harmed or exposed to danger, and they have been unable to protect themselves. PTSD is particularly likely to develop when a person experiences fear, helplessness and powerless, which are all common features of child abuse.

PTSD has three main symptoms:


*Hyperarousal *is similar to the jumpy feeling that drinking too much coffee causes. We might experience it as anxiety, agitation or irritability. It is commonly known as the state of ‘fight or flight’.
*Intrusions *occur when traumatic experiences dating from a person’s past, break through into their consciousness and are experienced as though they are occurring in the present. They are called "flashbacks".
*Avoidance *is an attempt to defend oneself against danger by limiting contact with the world. This can involve withdrawing from others or narrowing the range of thoughts and feelings a person allows him/herself to acknowledge. Avoidance can take the form of repression (locking the memory of a traumatic event away), denial (failing to acknowledge that an event which occurred, actually happened), dissociation (altered perception) or amnesia (memory loss). Survivors subconsciously use any or all of these techniques to survive the trauma of their abuse.


----------



## Anathema

Tipsycatlover said:


> Ohhh so if she doesn't let you hit her, you would divorce her.  I see.  It does make sense.  It's no different than many other quid pro quos.  Some men want sex.  Some men want a neat freak house.  The fear of being alone overcomes any feeling of self preservation.   It's good that you found each other.



She hasn't been hit in about 2 years. Since before we were married. It is part of the upper levels of our discipline structure. We understand each others needs and what is expected from the other. Makes more sense to us than basing a relationship on stupid emotions.


----------



## Anathema

ChrisL said:


> It couldn't hurt and can only help.  You shouldn't be hitting people.  It's not right.  Your wife is a human being, not a dog.  Recognize that.



Actually it could hurt, especially if it worked. 

I prefer dogs over human beings.


----------



## Katzndogz

Anathema said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ohhh so if she doesn't let you hit her, you would divorce her.  I see.  It does make sense.  It's no different than many other quid pro quos.  Some men want sex.  Some men want a neat freak house.  The fear of being alone overcomes any feeling of self preservation.   It's good that you found each other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She hasn't been hit in about 2 years. Since before we were married. It is part of the upper levels of our discipline structure. We understand each others needs and what is expected from the other. Makes more sense to us than basing a relationship on stupid emotions.
Click to expand...

It does make sense.  I have handled thousands of divorces, marital agreements and family law needs.  The most successful relationships is where each party has a pathology and the pathologies are compatible.  Those marriages never end, no matter how peculiar they look to an outsider.   

I do not believe in PTSD.  It's one of those made up syndromes to give psychologists a new way to make money.


----------



## Jarlaxle

ChrisL said:


> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have a pre nup that provides for corporal punishment?  You can't really have a provision like that you know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have a pre-nup that gives me total control of legal decisions made in the relationship and the power to enforce those decisions. She knows that failing to accept discipline means a divorce and going back to the hole i pulled her out of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I feel SO sorry for her.  That is fucking sad.
Click to expand...


Her best bet now is probably suicide.


----------



## Jarlaxle

ChrisL said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was divorced in 1976.  When a man I was dating started talking either love or marriage, it was my cue to get out.  There's only one right or wrong.  That's whatever I say it is.  I married in 2005 for medical and business reasons.   We didn't live together until the last year of his life.
> 
> I'm not the marrying kind.  I never was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with wanting to live alone and not be in a serious relationship.  The problem is when you use and hurt people and don't even care.  That is just cruelty and extremely selfish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some days you're the butcher.  Some days you're the cow.  Be the butcher as much as possible.
> 
> Every person that is used and possibly hurt by that use, would have absolutely no thought for someone they were using and hurting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't you see that you have this viewpoint because of your life?  You hurt others to avoid letting them hurt you.  That much is obvious.
Click to expand...


Here's a question to ponder: between the crazy cat lady and the psycho living in the 12th century, which poster would net a shrink a longer career analyzing them?


----------



## Jarlaxle

ChrisL said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have a pre nup that provides for corporal punishment?  You can't really have a provision like that you know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have a pre-nup that gives me total control of legal decisions made in the relationship and the power to enforce those decisions. She knows that failing to accept discipline means a divorce and going back to the hole i pulled her out of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ohhh so if she doesn't let you hit her, you would divorce her.  I see.  It does make sense.  It's no different than many other quid pro quos.  Some men want sex.  Some men want a neat freak house.  The fear of being alone overcomes any feeling of self preservation.   It's good that you found each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I feel sorry for her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not because of her choice in husbands.   She is likely tickled pink with that.
> 
> She never learned proper survival techniques.  That's enough to be sorry for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think she was probably raised that way.  She is Latino.  It is common in some Latino countries for women to be . . . . well second-class to their husbands for lack of a better term.
Click to expand...


Sometimes.

Of course, my wife is also Latino.


----------



## Katzndogz

I too prefer dogs to people.   That's the reason I closed the law office and trained as a dog groomer.  I started disliking people so much, I could barely be in the same room with another person.  My husband was a very friendly, likeable person.   He handled all of the client relations and I loved up the puppies.


----------



## Katzndogz

Jarlaxle said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was divorced in 1976.  When a man I was dating started talking either love or marriage, it was my cue to get out.  There's only one right or wrong.  That's whatever I say it is.  I married in 2005 for medical and business reasons.   We didn't live together until the last year of his life.
> 
> I'm not the marrying kind.  I never was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with wanting to live alone and not be in a serious relationship.  The problem is when you use and hurt people and don't even care.  That is just cruelty and extremely selfish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some days you're the butcher.  Some days you're the cow.  Be the butcher as much as possible.
> 
> Every person that is used and possibly hurt by that use, would have absolutely no thought for someone they were using and hurting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't you see that you have this viewpoint because of your life?  You hurt others to avoid letting them hurt you.  That much is obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's a question to ponder: between the crazy cat lady and the psycho living in the 12th century, which poster would net a shrink a longer career analyzing them?
Click to expand...

You.


----------



## Jarlaxle

ChrisL said:


> I'm sorry to say, but the two of you demonstrate a lot of symptoms of that which adults who were abused as children would display.  Protective of your feelings, so much so that you will throw away another person at the first sign of "feeling" something for them for one.  Striking out at other people who love you when angry in a physical and violent manner is another.  Now, I'm no psychiatrist, but I do have a lot of experience with psychiatry, and while I cannot make a diagnosis, I can certainly recognize the symptoms.
> 
> More at the link . . . . Childhood trauma and abuse can have many effects on adult health
> 
> *Abuse-related conditions*
> 
> 
> 
> The negative impact of child abuse on adult mental health has been documented for over 150 years,*, and, over the last thirty years, in particular, numerous research studies have documented the link between child abuse and mental illness in later life. At present, there is no single diagnosis or condition that describes the psychological effects of child abuse. When in contact with mental health services, many adult survivors of child abuse find themselves diagnosed with multiple psychological conditions, many of which have considerable overlap.
> 
> The psychological impact of abuse on a child depends on a range of factors, including: the type of abuse, the severity of abuse, the relationship of the child to the abuser/s, the child's family environment and their relationship with their parents or other caregivers, and whether the child has previous experiences of abuse, or a history of support, care and love. These factors can soften, or exacerbate, the impact of abuse on a child's psychological wellbeing, and the likelihood that they will develop mental illness later in life.
> 
> Below is a list of a range of psychological conditions that are associated with child abuse. Please read on to find out more about them.
> 
> 
> Post-traumatic stress disorder
> Panic attacks
> Depression
> Dissociation
> Dissociative Identity Disorder
> Bipolar
> Schizophrenia
> Eating disorders
> Personality disorders
> *Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder*
> Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is a psychological condition that develops after a person has been harmed or exposed to danger, and they have been unable to protect themselves. PTSD is particularly likely to develop when a person experiences fear, helplessness and powerless, which are all common features of child abuse.
> 
> PTSD has three main symptoms:
> 
> 
> *Hyperarousal *is similar to the jumpy feeling that drinking too much coffee causes. We might experience it as anxiety, agitation or irritability. It is commonly known as the state of ‘fight or flight’.
> *Intrusions *occur when traumatic experiences dating from a person’s past, break through into their consciousness and are experienced as though they are occurring in the present. They are called "flashbacks".
> *Avoidance *is an attempt to defend oneself against danger by limiting contact with the world. This can involve withdrawing from others or narrowing the range of thoughts and feelings a person allows him/herself to acknowledge. Avoidance can take the form of repression (locking the memory of a traumatic event away), denial (failing to acknowledge that an event which occurred, actually happened), dissociation (altered perception) or amnesia (memory loss). Survivors subconsciously use any or all of these techniques to survive the trauma of their abuse.



Yeah, I have a few of those.  Likely having the beginnings of CTE can't help, either.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Tipsycatlover said:


> You.



Not like it's a secret I'm fucked up...I have probably been clinically depressed since high school.  My fucked-up mind doesn't manifest as psychopathy, like yours.

You truly are a poster child for abortion.


----------



## Katzndogz

Jarlaxle said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> You.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not like it's a secret I'm fucked up...I have probably been clinically depressed since high school.  My fucked-up mind doesn't manifest as psychopathy, like yours.
> 
> You truly are a poster child for abortion.
Click to expand...

Do something about your depression before you are the next school shooter.


----------



## Anathema

Jarlaxle said:


> Here's a question to ponder: between the crazy cat lady and the psycho living in the 12th century, which poster would net a shrink a longer career analyzing them?



Probably Tipsy, by a big margin. Remember that I have a .45ACP cartridge with my initials engraved on it.


----------



## Katzndogz

ChrisL said:


> I'm sorry to say, but the two of you demonstrate a lot of symptoms of that which adults who were abused as children would display.  Protective of your feelings, so much so that you will throw away another person at the first sign of "feeling" something for them for one.  Striking out at other people who love you when angry in a physical and violent manner is another.  Now, I'm no psychiatrist, but I do have a lot of experience with psychiatry, and while I cannot make a diagnosis, I can certainly recognize the symptoms.
> 
> More at the link . . . . Childhood trauma and abuse can have many effects on adult health
> 
> *Abuse-related conditions*
> 
> 
> 
> The negative impact of child abuse on adult mental health has been documented for over 150 years,*, and, over the last thirty years, in particular, numerous research studies have documented the link between child abuse and mental illness in later life. At present, there is no single diagnosis or condition that describes the psychological effects of child abuse. When in contact with mental health services, many adult survivors of child abuse find themselves diagnosed with multiple psychological conditions, many of which have considerable overlap.
> 
> The psychological impact of abuse on a child depends on a range of factors, including: the type of abuse, the severity of abuse, the relationship of the child to the abuser/s, the child's family environment and their relationship with their parents or other caregivers, and whether the child has previous experiences of abuse, or a history of support, care and love. These factors can soften, or exacerbate, the impact of abuse on a child's psychological wellbeing, and the likelihood that they will develop mental illness later in life.
> 
> Below is a list of a range of psychological conditions that are associated with child abuse. Please read on to find out more about them.
> 
> 
> Post-traumatic stress disorder
> Panic attacks
> Depression
> Dissociation
> Dissociative Identity Disorder
> Bipolar
> Schizophrenia
> Eating disorders
> Personality disorders
> *Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder*
> Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is a psychological condition that develops after a person has been harmed or exposed to danger, and they have been unable to protect themselves. PTSD is particularly likely to develop when a person experiences fear, helplessness and powerless, which are all common features of child abuse.
> 
> PTSD has three main symptoms:
> 
> 
> *Hyperarousal *is similar to the jumpy feeling that drinking too much coffee causes. We might experience it as anxiety, agitation or irritability. It is commonly known as the state of ‘fight or flight’.
> *Intrusions *occur when traumatic experiences dating from a person’s past, break through into their consciousness and are experienced as though they are occurring in the present. They are called "flashbacks".
> *Avoidance *is an attempt to defend oneself against danger by limiting contact with the world. This can involve withdrawing from others or narrowing the range of thoughts and feelings a person allows him/herself to acknowledge. Avoidance can take the form of repression (locking the memory of a traumatic event away), denial (failing to acknowledge that an event which occurred, actually happened), dissociation (altered perception) or amnesia (memory loss). Survivors subconsciously use any or all of these techniques to survive the trauma of their abuse.


I have not a single one of those symptoms.  Not one.


----------



## Katzndogz

Anathema said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a question to ponder: between the crazy cat lady and the psycho living in the 12th century, which poster would net a shrink a longer career analyzing them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably Tipsy, by a big margin. Remember that I have a .45ACP cartridge with my initials engraved on it.
Click to expand...

I do love my guns!  It's the last defense protecting my solitude.  

I have always been a survivor.  Anything that gets in my way will be run over by a lawn mower.  I have been responsible for my own survival all my life.  I despise weakness of any kind.  Men who want to get married are inherently weak.  Love makes people weak.  Need makes people weak.  
I love my dog and she's really bossy.


----------



## Wry Catcher

ChrisL said:


> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you go to counseling and this time, stick it out.  It's not an "instant gratification" kind of thing.  It takes time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not going to happen on so many levels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It couldn't hurt and can only help.  You shouldn't be hitting people.  It's not right.  Your wife is a human being, not a dog.  Recognize that.
Click to expand...


Point of order, dogs should not be abused either.  I wrote two VAWA Grants, managed both and supervised a unit of LE under both.  One disgusting behavior of abusers is to harm or kill the victims pet.


----------



## Moonglow




----------



## Katzndogz

Wry Catcher said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you go to counseling and this time, stick it out.  It's not an "instant gratification" kind of thing.  It takes time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not going to happen on so many levels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It couldn't hurt and can only help.  You shouldn't be hitting people.  It's not right.  Your wife is a human being, not a dog.  Recognize that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Point of order, dogs should not be abused either.  I wrote two VAWA Grants, managed both and supervised a unit of LE under both.  One disgusting behavior of abusers is to harm or kill the victims pet.
Click to expand...

I saw a lot of that among couples that were breaking up.  Kittens in mucrowaves, bleach in the fishbowl.   Dogs with broken necks.   People are disgusting.


----------



## Dot Com

Tipsycatlover said:


> I too prefer dogs to people.   That's the reason I closed the law office and trained as a dog groomer.  I started disliking people so much, I could barely be in the same room with another person.  My husband was a very friendly, likeable person.   He handled all of the client relations and I loved up the puppies.


so its true?


----------



## Katzndogz

I'm not sad as long as everyone keeps their bullshit away from me.  I have a very low bullshit tolerance.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Anathema said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a question to ponder: between the crazy cat lady and the psycho living in the 12th century, which poster would net a shrink a longer career analyzing them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably Tipsy, by a big margin. Remember that I have a .45ACP cartridge with my initials engraved on it.
Click to expand...


Sooner the better.  Please put us out of your misery.


----------



## danielpalos

ChrisL said:


> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are incredibly dysfunctional person.
> 
> You need to get help too before you hurt somebody.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I am quite functional, thank you. Thats what should scare you the most. I could be the guy at the other end of the supermarket aisle.
> 
> No help necessary or accepted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, obviously you need to be locked up.  You should turn yourself into the nearest mental health facility and tell them about your delusions and paranoia.
Click to expand...

you obviously have no clue and no Cause.


----------



## danielpalos

ChrisL said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was divorced in 1976.  When a man I was dating started talking either love or marriage, it was my cue to get out.  There's only one right or wrong.  That's whatever I say it is.  I married in 2005 for medical and business reasons.   We didn't live together until the last year of his life.
> 
> I'm not the marrying kind.  I never was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with wanting to live alone and not be in a serious relationship.  The problem is when you use and hurt people and don't even care.  That is just cruelty and extremely selfish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some days you're the butcher.  Some days you're the cow.  Be the butcher as much as possible.
> 
> Every person that is used and possibly hurt by that use, would have absolutely no thought for someone they were using and hurting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't you see that you have this viewpoint because of your life?  You hurt others to avoid letting them hurt you.  That much is obvious.
Click to expand...

projecting much; have any anger management issues with older men who wouldn't play your games?


----------



## Katzndogz

ChrisL said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was divorced in 1976.  When a man I was dating started talking either love or marriage, it was my cue to get out.  There's only one right or wrong.  That's whatever I say it is.  I married in 2005 for medical and business reasons.   We didn't live together until the last year of his life.
> 
> I'm not the marrying kind.  I never was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with wanting to live alone and not be in a serious relationship.  The problem is when you use and hurt people and don't even care.  That is just cruelty and extremely selfish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some days you're the butcher.  Some days you're the cow.  Be the butcher as much as possible.
> 
> Every person that is used and possibly hurt by that use, would have absolutely no thought for someone they were using and hurting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't you see that you have this viewpoint because of your life?  You hurt others to avoid letting them hurt you.  That much is obvious.
Click to expand...

I don't hurt anyone.  It's not my responsibility to make sure someone else isn't hurt.  It's their responsibility.


----------



## ChrisL

Wry Catcher said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you go to counseling and this time, stick it out.  It's not an "instant gratification" kind of thing.  It takes time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not going to happen on so many levels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It couldn't hurt and can only help.  You shouldn't be hitting people.  It's not right.  Your wife is a human being, not a dog.  Recognize that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Point of order, dogs should not be abused either.  I wrote two VAWA Grants, managed both and supervised a unit of LE under both.  One disgusting behavior of abusers is to harm or kill the victims pet.
Click to expand...


Yes, it was just a figure of speech.  I don't want him to hit dogs either.


----------



## ChrisL

Tipsycatlover said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was divorced in 1976.  When a man I was dating started talking either love or marriage, it was my cue to get out.  There's only one right or wrong.  That's whatever I say it is.  I married in 2005 for medical and business reasons.   We didn't live together until the last year of his life.
> 
> I'm not the marrying kind.  I never was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with wanting to live alone and not be in a serious relationship.  The problem is when you use and hurt people and don't even care.  That is just cruelty and extremely selfish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some days you're the butcher.  Some days you're the cow.  Be the butcher as much as possible.
> 
> Every person that is used and possibly hurt by that use, would have absolutely no thought for someone they were using and hurting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't you see that you have this viewpoint because of your life?  You hurt others to avoid letting them hurt you.  That much is obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't hurt anyone.  It's not my responsibility to make sure someone else isn't hurt.  It's their responsibility.
Click to expand...


You said that you did.  That you lie and use men to get what you want and then throw them away like trash.  That is no way to treat people.  If you want to be alone, then be alone.


----------



## Katzndogz

ChrisL said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was divorced in 1976.  When a man I was dating started talking either love or marriage, it was my cue to get out.  There's only one right or wrong.  That's whatever I say it is.  I married in 2005 for medical and business reasons.   We didn't live together until the last year of his life.
> 
> I'm not the marrying kind.  I never was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with wanting to live alone and not be in a serious relationship.  The problem is when you use and hurt people and don't even care.  That is just cruelty and extremely selfish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some days you're the butcher.  Some days you're the cow.  Be the butcher as much as possible.
> 
> Every person that is used and possibly hurt by that use, would have absolutely no thought for someone they were using and hurting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't you see that you have this viewpoint because of your life?  You hurt others to avoid letting them hurt you.  That much is obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't hurt anyone.  It's not my responsibility to make sure someone else isn't hurt.  It's their responsibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said that you did.  That you lie and use men to get what you want and then throw them away like trash.  That is no way to treat people.  If you want to be alone, then be alone.
Click to expand...

 Of course.  It's the natural way of things.  I get what I want.  He gets a few weeks or months of having a beautiful dynamic girlfriend.  Everyone should walk away a winner.  Unless the poor thing thought that this was going to be forever.  Then it can be rather sad.  I never told anyone this was forever.  

Surely you know that not every relationship lasts forever.


----------



## Katzndogz

Once a man that I intended on hanging onto a while longer left.  It happens.  No one asked me if my feelings were hurt.  They weren't but no one asked either.


----------



## danielpalos

Tipsycatlover said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with wanting to live alone and not be in a serious relationship.  The problem is when you use and hurt people and don't even care.  That is just cruelty and extremely selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> Some days you're the butcher.  Some days you're the cow.  Be the butcher as much as possible.
> 
> Every person that is used and possibly hurt by that use, would have absolutely no thought for someone they were using and hurting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't you see that you have this viewpoint because of your life?  You hurt others to avoid letting them hurt you.  That much is obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't hurt anyone.  It's not my responsibility to make sure someone else isn't hurt.  It's their responsibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said that you did.  That you lie and use men to get what you want and then throw them away like trash.  That is no way to treat people.  If you want to be alone, then be alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course.  It's the natural way of things.  I get what I want.  He gets a few weeks or months of having a beautiful dynamic girlfriend.  Everyone should walk away a winner.  Unless the poor thing thought that this was going to be forever.  Then it can be rather sad.  I never told anyone this was forever.
> 
> Surely you know that not every relationship lasts forever.
Click to expand...

works for me.


----------



## Bonzi

wouldn't you have to be pretty special to have sex on the 1st date? just sayin'.....


----------



## ChrisL

Bonzi said:


> wouldn't you have to be pretty special to have sex on the 1st date? just sayin'.....



What do you mean?  Not really, anyone can have sex.  Lol.


----------



## Katzndogz

Bonzi said:


> wouldn't you have to be pretty special to have sex on the 1st date? just sayin'.....


That is so cute.  Almost romantic,  even.


----------



## ChrisL

Tipsycatlover said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with wanting to live alone and not be in a serious relationship.  The problem is when you use and hurt people and don't even care.  That is just cruelty and extremely selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> Some days you're the butcher.  Some days you're the cow.  Be the butcher as much as possible.
> 
> Every person that is used and possibly hurt by that use, would have absolutely no thought for someone they were using and hurting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't you see that you have this viewpoint because of your life?  You hurt others to avoid letting them hurt you.  That much is obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't hurt anyone.  It's not my responsibility to make sure someone else isn't hurt.  It's their responsibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said that you did.  That you lie and use men to get what you want and then throw them away like trash.  That is no way to treat people.  If you want to be alone, then be alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course.  It's the natural way of things.  I get what I want.  He gets a few weeks or months of having a beautiful dynamic girlfriend.  Everyone should walk away a winner.  Unless the poor thing thought that this was going to be forever.  Then it can be rather sad.  I never told anyone this was forever.
> 
> Surely you know that not every relationship lasts forever.
Click to expand...


My grandparents did.  A lot of people's relationships last forever.  BTW, at almost 70 years old, I don't know how "beautiful and dynamic" you are.


----------



## Katzndogz

ChrisL said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some days you're the butcher.  Some days you're the cow.  Be the butcher as much as possible.
> 
> Every person that is used and possibly hurt by that use, would have absolutely no thought for someone they were using and hurting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you see that you have this viewpoint because of your life?  You hurt others to avoid letting them hurt you.  That much is obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't hurt anyone.  It's not my responsibility to make sure someone else isn't hurt.  It's their responsibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said that you did.  That you lie and use men to get what you want and then throw them away like trash.  That is no way to treat people.  If you want to be alone, then be alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course.  It's the natural way of things.  I get what I want.  He gets a few weeks or months of having a beautiful dynamic girlfriend.  Everyone should walk away a winner.  Unless the poor thing thought that this was going to be forever.  Then it can be rather sad.  I never told anyone this was forever.
> 
> Surely you know that not every relationship lasts forever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My grandparents did.  A lthis HTML class. Value is http://www.dailystarot of people's relationships last forever.  BTW, at almost 70 years old, I don't know how "beautiful and dynamic" you are.
Click to expand...

I don't date any more either. I can't be bothered.  I don't want to end up like your grandma.


----------



## ChrisL

Tipsycatlover said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you see that you have this viewpoint because of your life?  You hurt others to avoid letting them hurt you.  That much is obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't hurt anyone.  It's not my responsibility to make sure someone else isn't hurt.  It's their responsibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said that you did.  That you lie and use men to get what you want and then throw them away like trash.  That is no way to treat people.  If you want to be alone, then be alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course.  It's the natural way of things.  I get what I want.  He gets a few weeks or months of having a beautiful dynamic girlfriend.  Everyone should walk away a winner.  Unless the poor thing thought that this was going to be forever.  Then it can be rather sad.  I never told anyone this was forever.
> 
> Surely you know that not every relationship lasts forever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My grandparents did.  A lthis HTML class. Value is http://www.dailystarot of people's relationships last forever.  BTW, at almost 70 years old, I don't know how "beautiful and dynamic" you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't date any more either. I can't be bothered.  I don't want to end up like your grandma.
Click to expand...


Well, my grandfather died quite a few years back, but as far as I know she seemed perfectly happy with her marriage to my grandfather.  They lived a full and happy life together.


----------



## Katzndogz

ChrisL said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't hurt anyone.  It's not my responsibility to make sure someone else isn't hurt.  It's their responsibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said that you did.  That you lie and use men to get what you want and then throw them away like trash.  That is no way to treat people.  If you want to be alone, then be alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course.  It's the natural way of things.  I get what I want.  He gets a few weeks or months of having a beautiful dynamic girlfriend.  Everyone should walk away a winner.  Unless the poor thing thought that this was going to be forever.  Then it can be rather sad.  I never told anyone this was forever.
> 
> Surely you know that not every relationship lasts forever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My grandparents did.  A lthis HTML class. Value is http://www.dailystarot of people's relationships last forever.  BTW, at almost 70 years old, I don't know how "beautiful and dynamic" you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't date any more either. I can't be bothered.  I don't want to end up like your grandma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, my grandfather died quite a few years back, but as far as I know she seemed perfectly happy with her marriage to my grandfather.  They lived a full and happy life together.
Click to expand...

That's the point.  Why would I want to end up like your grandma?i was divorced in 1976.  Really never made that mistake again.  
I took care of my husband when he died.  But until he got sick we didn't live together.   It was extremely hard.  Likely karma for all the men I walked out on.


----------



## Katzndogz

That's the problem.  One guy.  Wash his socks, cook his food, and he doesn't leave!  The same silly face next to you every morning.  The best part about not being married are the magic words,  it's time to leave.


----------



## Bonzi

Tipsycatlover said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> wouldn't you have to be pretty special to have sex on the 1st date? just sayin'.....
> 
> 
> 
> That is so cute.  Almost romantic,  even.
Click to expand...

 
I try to be a hard ass, but I'm a candy-ass romantic deep down


----------



## Bonzi

Tipsycatlover said:


> That's the problem.  One guy.  Wash his socks, cook his food, and he doesn't leave!  The same silly face next to you every morning.  The best part about not being married are the magic words,  it's time to leave.


 
seriously... some people are not meant to be married.....
for differing reasons....


----------



## danielpalos

if only there were nice and honest women to be found who like full body massage with happy ending, and don't mind if their boy friends get all the practice they want.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> if only there were nice and honest women to be found who like full body massage with happy ending, and don't mind if their boy friends get all the practice they want.



There are those girls.   Now, when you add the qualifier of "nice girl", you often eliminate those girls who are free with their sexuality.  Many times the term just implies a certain look.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> if only there were nice and honest women to be found who like full body massage with happy ending, and don't mind if their boy friends get all the practice they want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are those girls.   Now, when you add the qualifier of "nice girl", you often eliminate those girls who are free with their sexuality.  Many times the term just implies a certain look.
Click to expand...

no equality of terms, either; i got it.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> if only there were nice and honest women to be found who like full body massage with happy ending, and don't mind if their boy friends get all the practice they want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are those girls.   Now, when you add the qualifier of "nice girl", you often eliminate those girls who are free with their sexuality.  Many times the term just implies a certain look.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no equality of terms, either; i got it.
Click to expand...


Do you just make up what you want to see in other people's posts?

Terms have various meanings.   Your term "good girl" could very well mean a girl who isn't going to have sex before marriage.  In that case, your desires are ridiculous.

Define "good girl".  You know, so we can continue this without issues of bad communication.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> if only there were nice and honest women to be found who like full body massage with happy ending, and don't mind if their boy friends get all the practice they want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are those girls.   Now, when you add the qualifier of "nice girl", you often eliminate those girls who are free with their sexuality.  Many times the term just implies a certain look.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no equality of terms, either; i got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you just make up what you want to see in other people's posts?
> 
> Terms have various meanings.   Your term "good girl" could very well mean a girl who isn't going to have sex before marriage.  In that case, your desires are ridiculous.
> 
> Define "good girl".  You know, so we can continue this without issues of bad communication.
Click to expand...

define good guy.  a bible says we can find one in a thousand, but that only applies to males.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> if only there were nice and honest women to be found who like full body massage with happy ending, and don't mind if their boy friends get all the practice they want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are those girls.   Now, when you add the qualifier of "nice girl", you often eliminate those girls who are free with their sexuality.  Many times the term just implies a certain look.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no equality of terms, either; i got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you just make up what you want to see in other people's posts?
> 
> Terms have various meanings.   Your term "good girl" could very well mean a girl who isn't going to have sex before marriage.  In that case, your desires are ridiculous.
> 
> Define "good girl".  You know, so we can continue this without issues of bad communication.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> define good guy.  a bible says we can find one in a thousand, but that only applies to males.
Click to expand...


You are the one looking for a "good girl" who will have sex with you.   As I pointed out, by many people's standards a "good girll" won't have sex right away or even until marriage.

You are the one looking for the good girl.  Describe what you mean.


----------



## ChrisL

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> if only there were nice and honest women to be found who like full body massage with happy ending, and don't mind if their boy friends get all the practice they want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are those girls.   Now, when you add the qualifier of "nice girl", you often eliminate those girls who are free with their sexuality.  Many times the term just implies a certain look.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no equality of terms, either; i got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you just make up what you want to see in other people's posts?
> 
> Terms have various meanings.   Your term "good girl" could very well mean a girl who isn't going to have sex before marriage.  In that case, your desires are ridiculous.
> 
> Define "good girl".  You know, so we can continue this without issues of bad communication.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> define good guy.  a bible says we can find one in a thousand, but that only applies to males.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one looking for a "good girl" who will have sex with you.   As I pointed out, by many people's standards a "good girll" won't have sex right away or even until marriage.
> 
> You are the one looking for the good girl.  Describe what you mean.
Click to expand...


He is either a TROLL or insane.  You are not going to be able to "reason" with him.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> if only there were nice and honest women to be found who like full body massage with happy ending, and don't mind if their boy friends get all the practice they want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are those girls.   Now, when you add the qualifier of "nice girl", you often eliminate those girls who are free with their sexuality.  Many times the term just implies a certain look.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no equality of terms, either; i got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you just make up what you want to see in other people's posts?
> 
> Terms have various meanings.   Your term "good girl" could very well mean a girl who isn't going to have sex before marriage.  In that case, your desires are ridiculous.
> 
> Define "good girl".  You know, so we can continue this without issues of bad communication.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> define good guy.  a bible says we can find one in a thousand, but that only applies to males.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one looking for a "good girl" who will have sex with you.   As I pointed out, by many people's standards a "good girll" won't have sex right away or even until marriage.
> 
> You are the one looking for the good girl.  Describe what you mean.
Click to expand...

ok.  a bible says there aren't any.


----------



## danielpalos

ChrisL said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are those girls.   Now, when you add the qualifier of "nice girl", you often eliminate those girls who are free with their sexuality.  Many times the term just implies a certain look.
> 
> 
> 
> no equality of terms, either; i got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you just make up what you want to see in other people's posts?
> 
> Terms have various meanings.   Your term "good girl" could very well mean a girl who isn't going to have sex before marriage.  In that case, your desires are ridiculous.
> 
> Define "good girl".  You know, so we can continue this without issues of bad communication.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> define good guy.  a bible says we can find one in a thousand, but that only applies to males.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one looking for a "good girl" who will have sex with you.   As I pointed out, by many people's standards a "good girll" won't have sex right away or even until marriage.
> 
> You are the one looking for the good girl.  Describe what you mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He is either a TROLL or insane.  You are not going to be able to "reason" with him.
Click to expand...

dear, why not just go off with all of the other ones.  you are not in a good mood with me, right now.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are those girls.   Now, when you add the qualifier of "nice girl", you often eliminate those girls who are free with their sexuality.  Many times the term just implies a certain look.
> 
> 
> 
> no equality of terms, either; i got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you just make up what you want to see in other people's posts?
> 
> Terms have various meanings.   Your term "good girl" could very well mean a girl who isn't going to have sex before marriage.  In that case, your desires are ridiculous.
> 
> Define "good girl".  You know, so we can continue this without issues of bad communication.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> define good guy.  a bible says we can find one in a thousand, but that only applies to males.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one looking for a "good girl" who will have sex with you.   As I pointed out, by many people's standards a "good girll" won't have sex right away or even until marriage.
> 
> You are the one looking for the good girl.  Describe what you mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ok.  a bible says there aren't any.
Click to expand...


The bible also doesn't advocate equality.   And I think few women with a biblical nature are going to allow you to give them a full body massage with a happy ending.

In other words, your use of the bible as a reference is not relevant.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> no equality of terms, either; i got it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you just make up what you want to see in other people's posts?
> 
> Terms have various meanings.   Your term "good girl" could very well mean a girl who isn't going to have sex before marriage.  In that case, your desires are ridiculous.
> 
> Define "good girl".  You know, so we can continue this without issues of bad communication.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> define good guy.  a bible says we can find one in a thousand, but that only applies to males.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one looking for a "good girl" who will have sex with you.   As I pointed out, by many people's standards a "good girll" won't have sex right away or even until marriage.
> 
> You are the one looking for the good girl.  Describe what you mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ok.  a bible says there aren't any.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The bible also doesn't advocate equality.   And I think few women with a biblical nature are going to allow you to give them a full body massage with a happy ending.
> 
> In other words, your use of the bible as a reference is not relevant.
Click to expand...

it is if it has to do with equality; in other words, if all are equal before a god or the law; how can we take Iron Age morals seriously in modern times.


----------



## Katzndogz

The more primitive the time, the less equality between men and women is possible.


----------



## danielpalos

Tipsycatlover said:


> The more primitive the time, the less equality between men and women is possible.


did women like it more?


----------



## Katzndogz

danielpalos said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> The more primitive the time, the less equality between men and women is possible.
> 
> 
> 
> did women like it more?
Click to expand...

Who knows!  They didn't have a choice.   For most women, day to day living was just not survivable without a man.   Modern men have lost a great deal of masculinity, by design, to create equality.   I would imagine that a woman of today transported back in time would hate it, and not live very long.


----------



## danielpalos

Tipsycatlover said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> The more primitive the time, the less equality between men and women is possible.
> 
> 
> 
> did women like it more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who knows!  They didn't have a choice.   For most women, day to day living was just not survivable without a man.   Modern men have lost a great deal of masculinity, by design, to create equality.   I would imagine that a woman of today transported back in time would hate it, and not live very long.
Click to expand...

what about the chics that are into "rough sex"?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you just make up what you want to see in other people's posts?
> 
> Terms have various meanings.   Your term "good girl" could very well mean a girl who isn't going to have sex before marriage.  In that case, your desires are ridiculous.
> 
> Define "good girl".  You know, so we can continue this without issues of bad communication.
> 
> 
> 
> define good guy.  a bible says we can find one in a thousand, but that only applies to males.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one looking for a "good girl" who will have sex with you.   As I pointed out, by many people's standards a "good girll" won't have sex right away or even until marriage.
> 
> You are the one looking for the good girl.  Describe what you mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ok.  a bible says there aren't any.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The bible also doesn't advocate equality.   And I think few women with a biblical nature are going to allow you to give them a full body massage with a happy ending.
> 
> In other words, your use of the bible as a reference is not relevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is if it has to do with equality; in other words, if all are equal before a god or the law; how can we take Iron Age morals seriously in modern times.
Click to expand...


No it does not.  If you are using the bible as a guide, women will not be equal whether they ask to be used or not.


----------



## Katzndogz

danielpalos said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> The more primitive the time, the less equality between men and women is possible.
> 
> 
> 
> did women like it more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who knows!  They didn't have a choice.   For most women, day to day living was just not survivable without a man.   Modern men have lost a great deal of masculinity, by design, to create equality.   I would imagine that a woman of today transported back in time would hate it, and not live very long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what about the chics that are into "rough sex"?
Click to expand...

That has nothing to do with equality.   Today rough sex is an exercise of some cruelty.  I doubt that in primitive times there was any sex where men were sensitive and emotional.


----------



## Katzndogz

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> define good guy.  a bible says we can find one in a thousand, but that only applies to males.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one looking for a "good girl" who will have sex with you.   As I pointed out, by many people's standards a "good girll" won't have sex right away or even until marriage.
> 
> You are the one looking for the good girl.  Describe what you mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ok.  a bible says there aren't any.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The bible also doesn't advocate equality.   And I think few women with a biblical nature are going to allow you to give them a full body massage with a happy ending.
> 
> In other words, your use of the bible as a reference is not relevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is if it has to do with equality; in other words, if all are equal before a god or the law; how can we take Iron Age morals seriously in modern times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it does not.  If you are using the bible as a guide, women will not be equal whether they ask to be used or not.
Click to expand...

Without the artificial structure of imposed equality, women and men would never be equal.  

In Biblical times, telling women they are the equal of men would be like telling them to kill themselves.


----------



## WinterBorn

Tipsycatlover said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one looking for a "good girl" who will have sex with you.   As I pointed out, by many people's standards a "good girll" won't have sex right away or even until marriage.
> 
> You are the one looking for the good girl.  Describe what you mean.
> 
> 
> 
> ok.  a bible says there aren't any.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The bible also doesn't advocate equality.   And I think few women with a biblical nature are going to allow you to give them a full body massage with a happy ending.
> 
> In other words, your use of the bible as a reference is not relevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is if it has to do with equality; in other words, if all are equal before a god or the law; how can we take Iron Age morals seriously in modern times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it does not.  If you are using the bible as a guide, women will not be equal whether they ask to be used or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Without the artificial structure of imposed equality, women and men would never be equal.
> 
> In Biblical times, telling women they are the equal of men would be like telling them to kill themselves.
Click to expand...


The reason women would die is because they lacked the upper body strength and they were weakened by child birth or by having to take care of young ones.   In our modern times, upper body strength is not a requirement for survival, and women can make use of their financial ability to pay for help with child care and day care.

In other words, the situation is radically different.

If we dropped most modern men off in biblical times they would not survive either.


----------



## Katzndogz

WinterBorn said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> ok.  a bible says there aren't any.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The bible also doesn't advocate equality.   And I think few women with a biblical nature are going to allow you to give them a full body massage with a happy ending.
> 
> In other words, your use of the bible as a reference is not relevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is if it has to do with equality; in other words, if all are equal before a god or the law; how can we take Iron Age morals seriously in modern times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it does not.  If you are using the bible as a guide, women will not be equal whether they ask to be used or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Without the artificial structure of imposed equality, women and men would never be equal.
> 
> In Biblical times, telling women they are the equal of men would be like telling them to kill themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The reason women would die is because they lacked the upper body strength and they were weakened by child birth or by having to take care of young ones.   In our modern times, upper body strength is not a requirement for survival, and women can make use of their financial ability to pay for help with child care and day care.
> 
> In other words, the situation is radically different.
> 
> If we dropped most modern men off in biblical times they would not survive either.
Click to expand...

I absolutely agree.  Masculinity is being deliberately bred out of the species.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> define good guy.  a bible says we can find one in a thousand, but that only applies to males.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one looking for a "good girl" who will have sex with you.   As I pointed out, by many people's standards a "good girll" won't have sex right away or even until marriage.
> 
> You are the one looking for the good girl.  Describe what you mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ok.  a bible says there aren't any.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The bible also doesn't advocate equality.   And I think few women with a biblical nature are going to allow you to give them a full body massage with a happy ending.
> 
> In other words, your use of the bible as a reference is not relevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is if it has to do with equality; in other words, if all are equal before a god or the law; how can we take Iron Age morals seriously in modern times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it does not.  If you are using the bible as a guide, women will not be equal whether they ask to be used or not.
Click to expand...

dear, i said, god or the law.


----------



## danielpalos

Tipsycatlover said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> The more primitive the time, the less equality between men and women is possible.
> 
> 
> 
> did women like it more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who knows!  They didn't have a choice.   For most women, day to day living was just not survivable without a man.   Modern men have lost a great deal of masculinity, by design, to create equality.   I would imagine that a woman of today transported back in time would hate it, and not live very long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what about the chics that are into "rough sex"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That has nothing to do with equality.   Today rough sex is an exercise of some cruelty.  I doubt that in primitive times there was any sex where men were sensitive and emotional.
Click to expand...

didn't rough times require rough sex?


----------



## Katzndogz

danielpalos said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> The more primitive the time, the less equality between men and women is possible.
> 
> 
> 
> did women like it more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who knows!  They didn't have a choice.   For most women, day to day living was just not survivable without a man.   Modern men have lost a great deal of masculinity, by design, to create equality.   I would imagine that a woman of today transported back in time would hate it, and not live very long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what about the chics that are into "rough sex"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That has nothing to do with equality.   Today rough sex is an exercise of some cruelty.  I doubt that in primitive times there was any sex where men were sensitive and emotional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> didn't rough times require rough sex?
Click to expand...

Your fantasies have the best of you.


----------



## danielpalos

Tipsycatlover said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> did women like it more?
> 
> 
> 
> Who knows!  They didn't have a choice.   For most women, day to day living was just not survivable without a man.   Modern men have lost a great deal of masculinity, by design, to create equality.   I would imagine that a woman of today transported back in time would hate it, and not live very long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what about the chics that are into "rough sex"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That has nothing to do with equality.   Today rough sex is an exercise of some cruelty.  I doubt that in primitive times there was any sex where men were sensitive and emotional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> didn't rough times require rough sex?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your fantasies have the best of you.
Click to expand...

it is about sex on the first date.


----------



## Katzndogz

danielpalos said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who knows!  They didn't have a choice.   For most women, day to day living was just not survivable without a man.   Modern men have lost a great deal of masculinity, by design, to create equality.   I would imagine that a woman of today transported back in time would hate it, and not live very long.
> 
> 
> 
> what about the chics that are into "rough sex"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That has nothing to do with equality.   Today rough sex is an exercise of some cruelty.  I doubt that in primitive times there was any sex where men were sensitive and emotional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> didn't rough times require rough sex?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your fantasies have the best of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about sex on the first date.
Click to expand...

Which hasn't got anything to do with rough sex, unless you imagine that women on the first date need rough sex to persuade them.


----------



## ChrisL

Tipsycatlover said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> what about the chics that are into "rough sex"?
> 
> 
> 
> That has nothing to do with equality.   Today rough sex is an exercise of some cruelty.  I doubt that in primitive times there was any sex where men were sensitive and emotional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> didn't rough times require rough sex?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your fantasies have the best of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about sex on the first date.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which hasn't got anything to do with rough sex, unless you imagine that women on the first date need rough sex to persuade them.
Click to expand...


I think you and daniel would make a good couple.  LOL.


----------



## Katzndogz

ChrisL said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> That has nothing to do with equality.   Today rough sex is an exercise of some cruelty.  I doubt that in primitive times there was any sex where men were sensitive and emotional.
> 
> 
> 
> didn't rough times require rough sex?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your fantasies have the best of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about sex on the first date.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which hasn't got anything to do with rough sex, unless you imagine that women on the first date need rough sex to persuade them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you and daniel would make a good couple.  LOL.
Click to expand...


You and daniel perhaps.  You both have similar ideas about needs.   The delusion of a loving relationship infects you both.


----------



## ChrisL

Tipsycatlover said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> didn't rough times require rough sex?
> 
> 
> 
> Your fantasies have the best of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about sex on the first date.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which hasn't got anything to do with rough sex, unless you imagine that women on the first date need rough sex to persuade them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you and daniel would make a good couple.  LOL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and daniel perhaps.  You both have similar ideas about needs.   The delusion of a loving relationship infects you both.
Click to expand...


Lol.  YOU and daniel are exactly the same!    He wants to USE women and you want men to use you and you use them.  A match made in heaven.


----------



## ChrisL

Tipsycatlover said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> didn't rough times require rough sex?
> 
> 
> 
> Your fantasies have the best of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about sex on the first date.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which hasn't got anything to do with rough sex, unless you imagine that women on the first date need rough sex to persuade them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you and daniel would make a good couple.  LOL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and daniel perhaps.  You both have similar ideas about needs.   The delusion of a loving relationship infects you both.
Click to expand...


Actually, daniel is always asking women to use him for practice and fun.    You two should make a date.


----------



## Katzndogz

What's fun?  In your mind?    I assure you that it's not my idea of fun.  Didn't I tell you that sex was nothing more than bait?   

I'm not fishing.  I have no need of bait and bait is never fun.


----------



## Bonzi

danielpalos said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> The more primitive the time, the less equality between men and women is possible.
> 
> 
> 
> did women like it more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who knows!  They didn't have a choice.   For most women, day to day living was just not survivable without a man.   Modern men have lost a great deal of masculinity, by design, to create equality.   I would imagine that a woman of today transported back in time would hate it, and not live very long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what about the chics that are into "rough sex"?
Click to expand...

 
even chicks that like rough sex (modern women) won't stand for being told what to do etc.  The only way you could order a woman around is by threatening their life (now) - cause women are not intimidated otherwise.


----------



## ChrisL

Tipsycatlover said:


> What's fun?  In your mind?    I assure you that it's not my idea of fun.  Didn't I tell you that sex was nothing more than bait?
> 
> I'm not fishing.  I have no need of bait and bait is never fun.



Oh, lighten up, I'm just joking.  Kind of.


----------



## Katzndogz

Bonzi said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> The more primitive the time, the less equality between men and women is possible.
> 
> 
> 
> did women like it more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who knows!  They didn't have a choice.   For most women, day to day living was just not survivable without a man.   Modern men have lost a great deal of masculinity, by design, to create equality.   I would imagine that a woman of today transported back in time would hate it, and not live very long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what about the chics that are into "rough sex"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> even chicks that like rough sex (modern women) won't stand for being told what to do etc.  The only way you could order a woman around is by threatening their life (now) - cause women are not intimidated otherwise.
Click to expand...

Men today have been feminized.  They aren't about to tell a woman what to do.


----------



## Katzndogz

ChrisL said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's fun?  In your mind?    I assure you that it's not my idea of fun.  Didn't I tell you that sex was nothing more than bait?
> 
> I'm not fishing.  I have no need of bait and bait is never fun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, lighten up, I'm just joking.  Kind of.
Click to expand...

There's nothing wrong with you that a little education wouldn't fix.


----------



## TNHarley

19 - 0!


----------



## Bonzi

Tipsycatlover said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> The more primitive the time, the less equality between men and women is possible.
> 
> 
> 
> did women like it more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who knows!  They didn't have a choice.   For most women, day to day living was just not survivable without a man.   Modern men have lost a great deal of masculinity, by design, to create equality.   I would imagine that a woman of today transported back in time would hate it, and not live very long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what about the chics that are into "rough sex"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> even chicks that like rough sex (modern women) won't stand for being told what to do etc.  The only way you could order a woman around is by threatening their life (now) - cause women are not intimidated otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Men today have been feminized.  They aren't about to tell a woman what to do.
Click to expand...

 
It's why our kids are a mess.
No authority figure.  No discipline.
They effectively have 2 mothers.....


----------



## Katzndogz

Two nurturing sensitive mothers who want to bolster their self esteem.


----------



## danielpalos

Tipsycatlover said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> what about the chics that are into "rough sex"?
> 
> 
> 
> That has nothing to do with equality.   Today rough sex is an exercise of some cruelty.  I doubt that in primitive times there was any sex where men were sensitive and emotional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> didn't rough times require rough sex?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your fantasies have the best of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about sex on the first date.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which hasn't got anything to do with rough sex, unless you imagine that women on the first date need rough sex to persuade them.
Click to expand...

don't real men "persuade" women?


----------



## danielpalos

ChrisL said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> That has nothing to do with equality.   Today rough sex is an exercise of some cruelty.  I doubt that in primitive times there was any sex where men were sensitive and emotional.
> 
> 
> 
> didn't rough times require rough sex?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your fantasies have the best of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about sex on the first date.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which hasn't got anything to do with rough sex, unless you imagine that women on the first date need rough sex to persuade them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you and daniel would make a good couple.  LOL.
Click to expand...

it is due to my good customer service skills and happy camper policy.


----------



## danielpalos

Tipsycatlover said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> didn't rough times require rough sex?
> 
> 
> 
> Your fantasies have the best of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about sex on the first date.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which hasn't got anything to do with rough sex, unless you imagine that women on the first date need rough sex to persuade them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you and daniel would make a good couple.  LOL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and daniel perhaps.  You both have similar ideas about needs.   The delusion of a loving relationship infects you both.
Click to expand...

sorry about that; i claim it is due to low numbers and lack of practice.  i don't mind In n Out burger, too.


----------



## danielpalos

ChrisL said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your fantasies have the best of you.
> 
> 
> 
> it is about sex on the first date.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which hasn't got anything to do with rough sex, unless you imagine that women on the first date need rough sex to persuade them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you and daniel would make a good couple.  LOL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and daniel perhaps.  You both have similar ideas about needs.   The delusion of a loving relationship infects you both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol.  YOU and daniel are exactly the same!    He wants to USE women and you want men to use you and you use them.  A match made in heaven.
Click to expand...

i call it barter.


----------



## Katzndogz

Barter, it depends on what you have to barter.  

One poor soul covered $6000 of vet fees for my sick cat.  He could afford it.  He didn't realize where he stood until he popped out that ring and I walked out.

I couldn't even say anything.  I just walked out of the restaurant.   That kind of barter?


----------



## danielpalos

Tipsycatlover said:


> What's fun?  In your mind?    I assure you that it's not my idea of fun.  Didn't I tell you that sex was nothing more than bait?
> 
> I'm not fishing.  I have no need of bait and bait is never fun.


neither are serious relationships; y'all have to be doing me everyday and twice on Sundays, for that.


----------



## danielpalos

ChrisL said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your fantasies have the best of you.
> 
> 
> 
> it is about sex on the first date.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which hasn't got anything to do with rough sex, unless you imagine that women on the first date need rough sex to persuade them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you and daniel would make a good couple.  LOL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and daniel perhaps.  You both have similar ideas about needs.   The delusion of a loving relationship infects you both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, daniel is always asking women to use him for practice and fun.    You two should make a date.
Click to expand...

i only make appointments.


----------



## danielpalos

Bonzi said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> The more primitive the time, the less equality between men and women is possible.
> 
> 
> 
> did women like it more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who knows!  They didn't have a choice.   For most women, day to day living was just not survivable without a man.   Modern men have lost a great deal of masculinity, by design, to create equality.   I would imagine that a woman of today transported back in time would hate it, and not live very long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what about the chics that are into "rough sex"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> even chicks that like rough sex (modern women) won't stand for being told what to do etc.  The only way you could order a woman around is by threatening their life (now) - cause women are not intimidated otherwise.
Click to expand...

i guess i have to watch more rough sex porn videos to educate myself and formulate a rebuttal.


----------



## danielpalos

ChrisL said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's fun?  In your mind?    I assure you that it's not my idea of fun.  Didn't I tell you that sex was nothing more than bait?
> 
> I'm not fishing.  I have no need of bait and bait is never fun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, lighten up, I'm just joking.  Kind of.
Click to expand...

i wish women had a better sense of humor.


----------



## Katzndogz

danielpalos said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's fun?  In your mind?    I assure you that it's not my idea of fun.  Didn't I tell you that sex was nothing more than bait?
> 
> I'm not fishing.  I have no need of bait and bait is never fun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, lighten up, I'm just joking.  Kind of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i wish women had a better sense of humor.
Click to expand...

I have none.  Don't even try.


----------



## danielpalos

Tipsycatlover said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's fun?  In your mind?    I assure you that it's not my idea of fun.  Didn't I tell you that sex was nothing more than bait?
> 
> I'm not fishing.  I have no need of bait and bait is never fun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, lighten up, I'm just joking.  Kind of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i wish women had a better sense of humor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have none.  Don't even try.
Click to expand...

how about strip chess


----------



## Katzndogz

You


danielpalos said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's fun?  In your mind?    I assure you that it's not my idea of fun.  Didn't I tell you that sex was nothing more than bait?
> 
> I'm not fishing.  I have no need of bait and bait is never fun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, lighten up, I'm just joking.  Kind of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i wish women had a better sense of humor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have none.  Don't even try.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how about strip chess
Click to expand...

You would have to back up 30 years, then I would have spit you out like a bent toothpick.


----------



## danielpalos

Tipsycatlover said:


> You
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's fun?  In your mind?    I assure you that it's not my idea of fun.  Didn't I tell you that sex was nothing more than bait?
> 
> I'm not fishing.  I have no need of bait and bait is never fun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, lighten up, I'm just joking.  Kind of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i wish women had a better sense of humor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have none.  Don't even try.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how about strip chess
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You would have to back up 30 years, then I would have spit you out like a bent toothpick.
Click to expand...

just use them and lose them?


----------



## Katzndogz

danielpalos said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> You
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, lighten up, I'm just joking.  Kind of.
> 
> 
> 
> i wish women had a better sense of humor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have none.  Don't even try.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how about strip chess
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You would have to back up 30 years, then I would have spit you out like a bent toothpick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just use them and lose them?
Click to expand...


Mostly!  Yes.  There was I think only one that I would have kept, but that was a total fabrication.  None of it was real. 

But now, face it, there is something really gross and creepy about old people loving up.


----------



## WinterBorn

Tipsycatlover said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> You
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> i wish women had a better sense of humor.
> 
> 
> 
> I have none.  Don't even try.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how about strip chess
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You would have to back up 30 years, then I would have spit you out like a bent toothpick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just use them and lose them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mostly!  Yes.  There was I think only one that I would have kept, but that was a total fabrication.  None of it was real.
> 
> But now, face it, there is something really gross and creepy about old people loving up.
Click to expand...


It is not gross and creepy to the old people.  And anyone else's opinion doesn't matter.


----------



## Katzndogz

WinterBorn said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> You
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have none.  Don't even try.
> 
> 
> 
> how about strip chess
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You would have to back up 30 years, then I would have spit you out like a bent toothpick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just use them and lose them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mostly!  Yes.  There was I think only one that I would have kept, but that was a total fabrication.  None of it was real.
> 
> But now, face it, there is something really gross and creepy about old people loving up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not gross and creepy to the old people.  And anyone else's opinion doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

I'm old and it would be really gross and creepy to me.


----------



## Bonzi

well the good news is you don't have to have sex or watch old people have sex!


----------



## Katzndogz

Bonzi said:


> well the good news is you don't have to have sex or watch old people have sex!


I take full advantage of it too.


----------



## Bonzi

Tipsycatlover said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> well the good news is you don't have to have sex or watch old people have sex!
> 
> 
> 
> I take full advantage of it too.
Click to expand...

 
none? of any kind? or just not with other people???


----------



## danielpalos

Tipsycatlover said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> You
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> i wish women had a better sense of humor.
> 
> 
> 
> I have none.  Don't even try.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how about strip chess
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You would have to back up 30 years, then I would have spit you out like a bent toothpick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just use them and lose them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mostly!  Yes.  There was I think only one that I would have kept, but that was a total fabrication.  None of it was real.
> 
> But now, face it, there is something really gross and creepy about old people loving up.
Click to expand...

so, why is it so difficult for women to simply be honest in modern times and insist it is their turn for a free sample from us?


----------



## danielpalos

Tipsycatlover said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> You
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> how about strip chess
> 
> 
> 
> You would have to back up 30 years, then I would have spit you out like a bent toothpick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just use them and lose them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mostly!  Yes.  There was I think only one that I would have kept, but that was a total fabrication.  None of it was real.
> 
> But now, face it, there is something really gross and creepy about old people loving up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not gross and creepy to the old people.  And anyone else's opinion doesn't matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm old and it would be really gross and creepy to me.
Click to expand...

i think you just need to insist mr.sexy practice Yoni massage, and get really good at it if he wants to keep sticking around.


----------



## ABikerSailor

TNHarley said:


> Would you continue dating/marry a significant other you had sex with on the first date?
> Is used to be taboo, but people are slowly opening their minds to the most natural human act available.
> Personally, it wouldn't bother me.



It wouldn't bother me either.  I remember one time a girl asked me if I would think less of her if she jumped my bones that night.  I told her there was no way that I could think less of her without thinking less of myself as well, because I'm participating in it with her.

And yeah.................I've had women that had sex with me the first night that I continued to date for a while.  

But then again...........I'm not a prude and understand the difference between a physical act that feels good, and a genuine relationship with someone you truly appreciate.  

And...........fwiw..............I'll have sex with someone quicker than I will enter into an exclusive relationship with them.  Why?  Sex is easy, and all that's required is that you like the person at the time you're having sex.  Relationships?  Much harder to build, because in addition to physical attraction, you need stuff like trust, honesty and a mutual respect for each other.


----------



## danielpalos

Bonzi said:


> well the good news is you don't have to have sex or watch old people have sex!


i know; i love modern Information Age times.


----------



## Bonzi

danielpalos said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> well the good news is you don't have to have sex or watch old people have sex!
> 
> 
> 
> i know; i love modern Information Age times.
Click to expand...

 
oh just shut the fuck up already! damn!


----------



## Katzndogz

ABikerSailor said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you continue dating/marry a significant other you had sex with on the first date?
> Is used to be taboo, but people are slowly opening their minds to the most natural human act available.
> Personally, it wouldn't bother me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wouldn't bother me either.  I remember one time a girl asked me if I would think less of her if she jumped my bones that night.  I told her there was no way that I could think less of her without thinking less of myself as well, because I'm participating in it with her.
> 
> And yeah.................I've had women that had sex with me the first night that I continued to date for a while.
> 
> But then again...........I'm not a prude and understand the difference between a physical act that feels good, and a genuine relationship with someone you truly appreciate.
> 
> And...........fwiw..............I'll have sex with someone quicker than I will enter into an exclusive relationship with them.  Why?  Sex is easy, and all that's required is that you like the person at the time you're having sex.  Relationships?  Much harder to build, because in addition to physical attraction, you need stuff like trust, honesty and a mutual respect for each other.
Click to expand...

Ah an incurable romantic.

No liking someone at the time you are having sex with them is not a requirement.   Gosh, every hooker and every trick knows that much.


----------



## danielpalos

Bonzi said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> well the good news is you don't have to have sex or watch old people have sex!
> 
> 
> 
> i know; i love modern Information Age times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> oh just shut the fuck up already! damn!
Click to expand...

too much competition for free, free chic?


----------



## danielpalos

Tipsycatlover said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you continue dating/marry a significant other you had sex with on the first date?
> Is used to be taboo, but people are slowly opening their minds to the most natural human act available.
> Personally, it wouldn't bother me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wouldn't bother me either.  I remember one time a girl asked me if I would think less of her if she jumped my bones that night.  I told her there was no way that I could think less of her without thinking less of myself as well, because I'm participating in it with her.
> 
> And yeah.................I've had women that had sex with me the first night that I continued to date for a while.
> 
> But then again...........I'm not a prude and understand the difference between a physical act that feels good, and a genuine relationship with someone you truly appreciate.
> 
> And...........fwiw..............I'll have sex with someone quicker than I will enter into an exclusive relationship with them.  Why?  Sex is easy, and all that's required is that you like the person at the time you're having sex.  Relationships?  Much harder to build, because in addition to physical attraction, you need stuff like trust, honesty and a mutual respect for each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah an incurable romantic.
> 
> No liking someone at the time you are having sex with them is not a requirement.   Gosh, every hooker and every trick knows that much.
Click to expand...

why is it soo difficult to get Good customer service for free from free chics?  have they no social morals for free.


----------



## Bonzi

danielpalos said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> well the good news is you don't have to have sex or watch old people have sex!
> 
> 
> 
> i know; i love modern Information Age times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> oh just shut the fuck up already! damn!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> too much competition for free, free chic?
Click to expand...

 
no no carry on!


----------



## danielpalos

Bonzi said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> well the good news is you don't have to have sex or watch old people have sex!
> 
> 
> 
> i know; i love modern Information Age times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> oh just shut the fuck up already! damn!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> too much competition for free, free chic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no no carry on!
Click to expand...

thank you.  you are a dear.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Am amazed to see 20 votes and not one dissenting vote yet.


----------



## Bonzi

apparently there are no virgins on USMB.....
or anyone that would NOT have sex on a 1st date wouldn't even look at this thread!


----------



## danielpalos

how about a banter thread with chics?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> You
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have none.  Don't even try.
> 
> 
> 
> how about strip chess
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You would have to back up 30 years, then I would have spit you out like a bent toothpick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just use them and lose them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mostly!  Yes.  There was I think only one that I would have kept, but that was a total fabrication.  None of it was real.
> 
> But now, face it, there is something really gross and creepy about old people loving up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so, why is it so difficult for women to simply be honest in modern times and insist it is their turn for a free sample from us?
Click to expand...


A free sample?   You sick fuck.  That is a person.  Not some tool for your pleasure.

Honest?   If demanding a "free sample" is your version of honesty, the world would rather you lie.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you continue dating/marry a significant other you had sex with on the first date?
> Is used to be taboo, but people are slowly opening their minds to the most natural human act available.
> Personally, it wouldn't bother me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wouldn't bother me either.  I remember one time a girl asked me if I would think less of her if she jumped my bones that night.  I told her there was no way that I could think less of her without thinking less of myself as well, because I'm participating in it with her.
> 
> And yeah.................I've had women that had sex with me the first night that I continued to date for a while.
> 
> But then again...........I'm not a prude and understand the difference between a physical act that feels good, and a genuine relationship with someone you truly appreciate.
> 
> And...........fwiw..............I'll have sex with someone quicker than I will enter into an exclusive relationship with them.  Why?  Sex is easy, and all that's required is that you like the person at the time you're having sex.  Relationships?  Much harder to build, because in addition to physical attraction, you need stuff like trust, honesty and a mutual respect for each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah an incurable romantic.
> 
> No liking someone at the time you are having sex with them is not a requirement.   Gosh, every hooker and every trick knows that much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why is it soo difficult to get Good customer service for free from free chics?  have they no social morals for free.
Click to expand...


I'm sure plenty of women you know give it away for free.  Just not to you.    Hmmm....I wonder why that is?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> You
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> how about strip chess
> 
> 
> 
> You would have to back up 30 years, then I would have spit you out like a bent toothpick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just use them and lose them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mostly!  Yes.  There was I think only one that I would have kept, but that was a total fabrication.  None of it was real.
> 
> But now, face it, there is something really gross and creepy about old people loving up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so, why is it so difficult for women to simply be honest in modern times and insist it is their turn for a free sample from us?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A free sample?   You sick fuck.  That is a person.  Not some tool for your pleasure.
> 
> Honest?   If demanding a "free sample" is your version of honesty, the world would rather you lie.
Click to expand...

How is it not, dear; under Any form of Capitalism such as ours.  Only the right is that cognitively dissonant.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you continue dating/marry a significant other you had sex with on the first date?
> Is used to be taboo, but people are slowly opening their minds to the most natural human act available.
> Personally, it wouldn't bother me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wouldn't bother me either.  I remember one time a girl asked me if I would think less of her if she jumped my bones that night.  I told her there was no way that I could think less of her without thinking less of myself as well, because I'm participating in it with her.
> 
> And yeah.................I've had women that had sex with me the first night that I continued to date for a while.
> 
> But then again...........I'm not a prude and understand the difference between a physical act that feels good, and a genuine relationship with someone you truly appreciate.
> 
> And...........fwiw..............I'll have sex with someone quicker than I will enter into an exclusive relationship with them.  Why?  Sex is easy, and all that's required is that you like the person at the time you're having sex.  Relationships?  Much harder to build, because in addition to physical attraction, you need stuff like trust, honesty and a mutual respect for each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah an incurable romantic.
> 
> No liking someone at the time you are having sex with them is not a requirement.   Gosh, every hooker and every trick knows that much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why is it soo difficult to get Good customer service for free from free chics?  have they no social morals for free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure plenty of women you know give it away for free.  Just not to you.    Hmmm....I wonder why that is?
Click to expand...

a lack of capital is a common denominator.  i never have this problem when i have a petty cash fund for such purposes.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> You
> You would have to back up 30 years, then I would have spit you out like a bent toothpick.
> 
> 
> 
> just use them and lose them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mostly!  Yes.  There was I think only one that I would have kept, but that was a total fabrication.  None of it was real.
> 
> But now, face it, there is something really gross and creepy about old people loving up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so, why is it so difficult for women to simply be honest in modern times and insist it is their turn for a free sample from us?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A free sample?   You sick fuck.  That is a person.  Not some tool for your pleasure.
> 
> Honest?   If demanding a "free sample" is your version of honesty, the world would rather you lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is it not, dear; under Any form of Capitalism such as ours.  Only the right is that cognitively dissonant.
Click to expand...


Because we are discussing interpersonal relationships not commercial transactions.

And why do you keep mentioning cognitive dissonance?   Why are you supposing is struggling with contradictory beliefs?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you continue dating/marry a significant other you had sex with on the first date?
> Is used to be taboo, but people are slowly opening their minds to the most natural human act available.
> Personally, it wouldn't bother me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wouldn't bother me either.  I remember one time a girl asked me if I would think less of her if she jumped my bones that night.  I told her there was no way that I could think less of her without thinking less of myself as well, because I'm participating in it with her.
> 
> And yeah.................I've had women that had sex with me the first night that I continued to date for a while.
> 
> But then again...........I'm not a prude and understand the difference between a physical act that feels good, and a genuine relationship with someone you truly appreciate.
> 
> And...........fwiw..............I'll have sex with someone quicker than I will enter into an exclusive relationship with them.  Why?  Sex is easy, and all that's required is that you like the person at the time you're having sex.  Relationships?  Much harder to build, because in addition to physical attraction, you need stuff like trust, honesty and a mutual respect for each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah an incurable romantic.
> 
> No liking someone at the time you are having sex with them is not a requirement.   Gosh, every hooker and every trick knows that much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why is it soo difficult to get Good customer service for free from free chics?  have they no social morals for free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure plenty of women you know give it away for free.  Just not to you.    Hmmm....I wonder why that is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a lack of capital is a common denominator.  i never have this problem when i have a petty cash fund for such purposes.
Click to expand...


I am happy that you have petty cash.  It is handy.  However, I don't see what that has to do with your expectations that women "service" you.


----------



## Bonzi

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wouldn't bother me either.  I remember one time a girl asked me if I would think less of her if she jumped my bones that night.  I told her there was no way that I could think less of her without thinking less of myself as well, because I'm participating in it with her.
> 
> And yeah.................I've had women that had sex with me the first night that I continued to date for a while.
> 
> But then again...........I'm not a prude and understand the difference between a physical act that feels good, and a genuine relationship with someone you truly appreciate.
> 
> And...........fwiw..............I'll have sex with someone quicker than I will enter into an exclusive relationship with them.  Why?  Sex is easy, and all that's required is that you like the person at the time you're having sex.  Relationships?  Much harder to build, because in addition to physical attraction, you need stuff like trust, honesty and a mutual respect for each other.
> 
> 
> 
> Ah an incurable romantic.
> 
> No liking someone at the time you are having sex with them is not a requirement.   Gosh, every hooker and every trick knows that much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why is it soo difficult to get Good customer service for free from free chics?  have they no social morals for free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure plenty of women you know give it away for free.  Just not to you.    Hmmm....I wonder why that is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a lack of capital is a common denominator.  i never have this problem when i have a petty cash fund for such purposes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am happy that you have petty cash.  It is handy.  However, I don't see what that has to do with your expectations that women "service" you.
Click to expand...

 
He's just saying if he had money on hand all the time he'd just get hookers.
But when he doesn't, that women should be benevolent - or at a minimum, "put out" if they are willing to accept "nicities" in other areas......


----------



## WinterBorn

Bonzi said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah an incurable romantic.
> 
> No liking someone at the time you are having sex with them is not a requirement.   Gosh, every hooker and every trick knows that much.
> 
> 
> 
> why is it soo difficult to get Good customer service for free from free chics?  have they no social morals for free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure plenty of women you know give it away for free.  Just not to you.    Hmmm....I wonder why that is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a lack of capital is a common denominator.  i never have this problem when i have a petty cash fund for such purposes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am happy that you have petty cash.  It is handy.  However, I don't see what that has to do with your expectations that women "service" you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's just saying if he had money on hand all the time he'd just get hookers.
> But when he doesn't, that women should be benevolent - or at a minimum, "put out" if they are willing to accept "nicities" in other areas......
Click to expand...


Yeah well, he also said he will not believe that women are serious about wanting equality until they walk up to him and ask to be used by him.  So he is a bit of a sick fuck.


----------



## Bonzi

WinterBorn said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> why is it soo difficult to get Good customer service for free from free chics?  have they no social morals for free.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure plenty of women you know give it away for free.  Just not to you.    Hmmm....I wonder why that is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a lack of capital is a common denominator.  i never have this problem when i have a petty cash fund for such purposes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am happy that you have petty cash.  It is handy.  However, I don't see what that has to do with your expectations that women "service" you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's just saying if he had money on hand all the time he'd just get hookers.
> But when he doesn't, that women should be benevolent - or at a minimum, "put out" if they are willing to accept "nicities" in other areas......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah well, he also said he will not believe that women are serious about wanting equality until they walk up to him and ask to be used by him.  So he is a bit of a sick fuck.
Click to expand...

 
I am not sure why, but I think it's funny.
Maybe because it's so ridiculous and outlandish...hard to believe he's serious.... I mean, really? LOL!

But let's think about this for a minute..... women want equal rights (most I would assume) - anyway, if I walked up to a man and asked him to "use me" how is that making myself equal to man?  I don't get it.....


----------



## ChrisL

WinterBorn said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> why is it soo difficult to get Good customer service for free from free chics?  have they no social morals for free.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure plenty of women you know give it away for free.  Just not to you.    Hmmm....I wonder why that is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a lack of capital is a common denominator.  i never have this problem when i have a petty cash fund for such purposes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am happy that you have petty cash.  It is handy.  However, I don't see what that has to do with your expectations that women "service" you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's just saying if he had money on hand all the time he'd just get hookers.
> But when he doesn't, that women should be benevolent - or at a minimum, "put out" if they are willing to accept "nicities" in other areas......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah well, he also said he will not believe that women are serious about wanting equality until they walk up to him and ask to be used by him.  So he is a bit of a sick fuck.
Click to expand...


Yet . . .  you keep trying to "reason" with him.  What's the definition of insanity?


----------



## ChrisL

Bonzi said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure plenty of women you know give it away for free.  Just not to you.    Hmmm....I wonder why that is?
> 
> 
> 
> a lack of capital is a common denominator.  i never have this problem when i have a petty cash fund for such purposes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am happy that you have petty cash.  It is handy.  However, I don't see what that has to do with your expectations that women "service" you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's just saying if he had money on hand all the time he'd just get hookers.
> But when he doesn't, that women should be benevolent - or at a minimum, "put out" if they are willing to accept "nicities" in other areas......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah well, he also said he will not believe that women are serious about wanting equality until they walk up to him and ask to be used by him.  So he is a bit of a sick fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not sure why, but I think it's funny.
> Maybe because it's so ridiculous and outlandish...hard to believe he's serious.... I mean, really? LOL!
> 
> But let's think about this for a minute..... women want equal rights (most I would assume) - anyway, if I walked up to a man and asked him to "use me" how is that making myself equal to man?  I don't get it.....
Click to expand...


When are you people going to realize that this poster is either a troll, or just off his rocker?  Either ignore him or make fun of him.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> just use them and lose them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mostly!  Yes.  There was I think only one that I would have kept, but that was a total fabrication.  None of it was real.
> 
> But now, face it, there is something really gross and creepy about old people loving up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so, why is it so difficult for women to simply be honest in modern times and insist it is their turn for a free sample from us?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A free sample?   You sick fuck.  That is a person.  Not some tool for your pleasure.
> 
> Honest?   If demanding a "free sample" is your version of honesty, the world would rather you lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is it not, dear; under Any form of Capitalism such as ours.  Only the right is that cognitively dissonant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because we are discussing interpersonal relationships not commercial transactions.
> 
> And why do you keep mentioning cognitive dissonance?   Why are you supposing is struggling with contradictory beliefs?
Click to expand...

commercial transactions are interpersonal.  i keep mentioning cognitive dissonance because it seems to be true, for those of the opposing view.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wouldn't bother me either.  I remember one time a girl asked me if I would think less of her if she jumped my bones that night.  I told her there was no way that I could think less of her without thinking less of myself as well, because I'm participating in it with her.
> 
> And yeah.................I've had women that had sex with me the first night that I continued to date for a while.
> 
> But then again...........I'm not a prude and understand the difference between a physical act that feels good, and a genuine relationship with someone you truly appreciate.
> 
> And...........fwiw..............I'll have sex with someone quicker than I will enter into an exclusive relationship with them.  Why?  Sex is easy, and all that's required is that you like the person at the time you're having sex.  Relationships?  Much harder to build, because in addition to physical attraction, you need stuff like trust, honesty and a mutual respect for each other.
> 
> 
> 
> Ah an incurable romantic.
> 
> No liking someone at the time you are having sex with them is not a requirement.   Gosh, every hooker and every trick knows that much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why is it soo difficult to get Good customer service for free from free chics?  have they no social morals for free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure plenty of women you know give it away for free.  Just not to you.    Hmmm....I wonder why that is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a lack of capital is a common denominator.  i never have this problem when i have a petty cash fund for such purposes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am happy that you have petty cash.  It is handy.  However, I don't see what that has to do with your expectations that women "service" you.
Click to expand...

honesty too difficult of a concept, person on the Right?


----------



## danielpalos

Bonzi said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah an incurable romantic.
> 
> No liking someone at the time you are having sex with them is not a requirement.   Gosh, every hooker and every trick knows that much.
> 
> 
> 
> why is it soo difficult to get Good customer service for free from free chics?  have they no social morals for free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure plenty of women you know give it away for free.  Just not to you.    Hmmm....I wonder why that is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a lack of capital is a common denominator.  i never have this problem when i have a petty cash fund for such purposes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am happy that you have petty cash.  It is handy.  However, I don't see what that has to do with your expectations that women "service" you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's just saying if he had money on hand all the time he'd just get hookers.
> But when he doesn't, that women should be benevolent - or at a minimum, "put out" if they are willing to accept "nicities" in other areas......
Click to expand...

dear, it is about equality; if women can get used by all of the other ones, why don't women do the exact same thing in the name of equality with guys?  not really into equality?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> why is it soo difficult to get Good customer service for free from free chics?  have they no social morals for free.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure plenty of women you know give it away for free.  Just not to you.    Hmmm....I wonder why that is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a lack of capital is a common denominator.  i never have this problem when i have a petty cash fund for such purposes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am happy that you have petty cash.  It is handy.  However, I don't see what that has to do with your expectations that women "service" you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's just saying if he had money on hand all the time he'd just get hookers.
> But when he doesn't, that women should be benevolent - or at a minimum, "put out" if they are willing to accept "nicities" in other areas......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah well, he also said he will not believe that women are serious about wanting equality until they walk up to him and ask to be used by him.  So he is a bit of a sick fuck.
Click to expand...

still full of fallacy?


----------



## danielpalos

Bonzi said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure plenty of women you know give it away for free.  Just not to you.    Hmmm....I wonder why that is?
> 
> 
> 
> a lack of capital is a common denominator.  i never have this problem when i have a petty cash fund for such purposes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am happy that you have petty cash.  It is handy.  However, I don't see what that has to do with your expectations that women "service" you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's just saying if he had money on hand all the time he'd just get hookers.
> But when he doesn't, that women should be benevolent - or at a minimum, "put out" if they are willing to accept "nicities" in other areas......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah well, he also said he will not believe that women are serious about wanting equality until they walk up to him and ask to be used by him.  So he is a bit of a sick fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not sure why, but I think it's funny.
> Maybe because it's so ridiculous and outlandish...hard to believe he's serious.... I mean, really? LOL!
> 
> But let's think about this for a minute..... women want equal rights (most I would assume) - anyway, if I walked up to a man and asked him to "use me" how is that making myself equal to man?  I don't get it.....
Click to expand...

dear, it is because guys are willing to go up to women and ask them for sex.


----------



## Bonzi

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mostly!  Yes.  There was I think only one that I would have kept, but that was a total fabrication.  None of it was real.
> 
> But now, face it, there is something really gross and creepy about old people loving up.
> 
> 
> 
> so, why is it so difficult for women to simply be honest in modern times and insist it is their turn for a free sample from us?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A free sample?   You sick fuck.  That is a person.  Not some tool for your pleasure.
> 
> Honest?   If demanding a "free sample" is your version of honesty, the world would rather you lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is it not, dear; under Any form of Capitalism such as ours.  Only the right is that cognitively dissonant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because we are discussing interpersonal relationships not commercial transactions.
> 
> And why do you keep mentioning cognitive dissonance?   Why are you supposing is struggling with contradictory beliefs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> commercial transactions are interpersonal.  i keep mentioning cognitive dissonance because it seems to be true, for those of the opposing view.
Click to expand...

 
If you can pay for a hooker fine.
People interact in different ways, moral or immoral.
People may view what you do as immoral.  So what?  Your choice.
Get over it.


----------



## danielpalos

ChrisL said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure plenty of women you know give it away for free.  Just not to you.    Hmmm....I wonder why that is?
> 
> 
> 
> a lack of capital is a common denominator.  i never have this problem when i have a petty cash fund for such purposes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am happy that you have petty cash.  It is handy.  However, I don't see what that has to do with your expectations that women "service" you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's just saying if he had money on hand all the time he'd just get hookers.
> But when he doesn't, that women should be benevolent - or at a minimum, "put out" if they are willing to accept "nicities" in other areas......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah well, he also said he will not believe that women are serious about wanting equality until they walk up to him and ask to be used by him.  So he is a bit of a sick fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet . . .  you keep trying to "reason" with him.  What's the definition of insanity?
Click to expand...

repeating historical mistakes and claiming you are not really like that, afterward?


----------



## Bonzi

danielpalos said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> a lack of capital is a common denominator.  i never have this problem when i have a petty cash fund for such purposes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am happy that you have petty cash.  It is handy.  However, I don't see what that has to do with your expectations that women "service" you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's just saying if he had money on hand all the time he'd just get hookers.
> But when he doesn't, that women should be benevolent - or at a minimum, "put out" if they are willing to accept "nicities" in other areas......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah well, he also said he will not believe that women are serious about wanting equality until they walk up to him and ask to be used by him.  So he is a bit of a sick fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not sure why, but I think it's funny.
> Maybe because it's so ridiculous and outlandish...hard to believe he's serious.... I mean, really? LOL!
> 
> But let's think about this for a minute..... women want equal rights (most I would assume) - anyway, if I walked up to a man and asked him to "use me" how is that making myself equal to man?  I don't get it.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, it is because guys are willing to go up to women and ask them for sex.
Click to expand...

 
really????? you do that?  How's that working for you?


----------



## Bonzi

danielpalos said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> a lack of capital is a common denominator.  i never have this problem when i have a petty cash fund for such purposes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am happy that you have petty cash.  It is handy.  However, I don't see what that has to do with your expectations that women "service" you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's just saying if he had money on hand all the time he'd just get hookers.
> But when he doesn't, that women should be benevolent - or at a minimum, "put out" if they are willing to accept "nicities" in other areas......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah well, he also said he will not believe that women are serious about wanting equality until they walk up to him and ask to be used by him.  So he is a bit of a sick fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not sure why, but I think it's funny.
> Maybe because it's so ridiculous and outlandish...hard to believe he's serious.... I mean, really? LOL!
> 
> But let's think about this for a minute..... women want equal rights (most I would assume) - anyway, if I walked up to a man and asked him to "use me" how is that making myself equal to man?  I don't get it.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, it is because guys are willing to go up to women and ask them for sex.
Click to expand...

 
I'm sure if a woman really wanted sex with a man she would be willing to go up and ask as well.
I still don't see your point....


----------



## danielpalos

ChrisL said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> a lack of capital is a common denominator.  i never have this problem when i have a petty cash fund for such purposes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am happy that you have petty cash.  It is handy.  However, I don't see what that has to do with your expectations that women "service" you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's just saying if he had money on hand all the time he'd just get hookers.
> But when he doesn't, that women should be benevolent - or at a minimum, "put out" if they are willing to accept "nicities" in other areas......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah well, he also said he will not believe that women are serious about wanting equality until they walk up to him and ask to be used by him.  So he is a bit of a sick fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not sure why, but I think it's funny.
> Maybe because it's so ridiculous and outlandish...hard to believe he's serious.... I mean, really? LOL!
> 
> But let's think about this for a minute..... women want equal rights (most I would assume) - anyway, if I walked up to a man and asked him to "use me" how is that making myself equal to man?  I don't get it.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When are you people going to realize that this poster is either a troll, or just off his rocker?  Either ignore him or make fun of him.
Click to expand...

only trolls don't have a good argument.  and, everyone makes fun of those of the opposing view for having nothing but fallacy, in the public domain.


----------



## danielpalos

Bonzi said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am happy that you have petty cash.  It is handy.  However, I don't see what that has to do with your expectations that women "service" you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's just saying if he had money on hand all the time he'd just get hookers.
> But when he doesn't, that women should be benevolent - or at a minimum, "put out" if they are willing to accept "nicities" in other areas......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah well, he also said he will not believe that women are serious about wanting equality until they walk up to him and ask to be used by him.  So he is a bit of a sick fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not sure why, but I think it's funny.
> Maybe because it's so ridiculous and outlandish...hard to believe he's serious.... I mean, really? LOL!
> 
> But let's think about this for a minute..... women want equal rights (most I would assume) - anyway, if I walked up to a man and asked him to "use me" how is that making myself equal to man?  I don't get it.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, it is because guys are willing to go up to women and ask them for sex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> really????? you do that?  How's that working for you?
Click to expand...

i have; it works better and with greater honesty as a moral, with professional women.  free chics seem to prefer to just be hypocrites for free.


----------



## danielpalos

Bonzi said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am happy that you have petty cash.  It is handy.  However, I don't see what that has to do with your expectations that women "service" you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's just saying if he had money on hand all the time he'd just get hookers.
> But when he doesn't, that women should be benevolent - or at a minimum, "put out" if they are willing to accept "nicities" in other areas......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah well, he also said he will not believe that women are serious about wanting equality until they walk up to him and ask to be used by him.  So he is a bit of a sick fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not sure why, but I think it's funny.
> Maybe because it's so ridiculous and outlandish...hard to believe he's serious.... I mean, really? LOL!
> 
> But let's think about this for a minute..... women want equal rights (most I would assume) - anyway, if I walked up to a man and asked him to "use me" how is that making myself equal to man?  I don't get it.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, it is because guys are willing to go up to women and ask them for sex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure if a woman really wanted sex with a man she would be willing to go up and ask as well.
> I still don't see your point....
Click to expand...

how many women do it and are proud they didn't have to lie?


----------



## Bonzi

danielpalos said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's just saying if he had money on hand all the time he'd just get hookers.
> But when he doesn't, that women should be benevolent - or at a minimum, "put out" if they are willing to accept "nicities" in other areas......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah well, he also said he will not believe that women are serious about wanting equality until they walk up to him and ask to be used by him.  So he is a bit of a sick fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not sure why, but I think it's funny.
> Maybe because it's so ridiculous and outlandish...hard to believe he's serious.... I mean, really? LOL!
> 
> But let's think about this for a minute..... women want equal rights (most I would assume) - anyway, if I walked up to a man and asked him to "use me" how is that making myself equal to man?  I don't get it.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, it is because guys are willing to go up to women and ask them for sex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> really????? you do that?  How's that working for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i have; it works better and with greater honesty as a moral, with professional women.  free chics seem to prefer to just be hypocrites for free.
Click to expand...

 
that is your opinion  -  you are welcome to it.
obviously, a professional woman will say "yes" to you (for a price)
maybe a non professional woman will also say "yes" to you (for a price) - either way, immoral.
Honest?  Well, no one is100% honest, and no one actually agrees with your rationale (male or female) - find someone that agrees and supports your ridiculous arguments.


----------



## danielpalos

Bonzi said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah well, he also said he will not believe that women are serious about wanting equality until they walk up to him and ask to be used by him.  So he is a bit of a sick fuck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure why, but I think it's funny.
> Maybe because it's so ridiculous and outlandish...hard to believe he's serious.... I mean, really? LOL!
> 
> But let's think about this for a minute..... women want equal rights (most I would assume) - anyway, if I walked up to a man and asked him to "use me" how is that making myself equal to man?  I don't get it.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, it is because guys are willing to go up to women and ask them for sex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> really????? you do that?  How's that working for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i have; it works better and with greater honesty as a moral, with professional women.  free chics seem to prefer to just be hypocrites for free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that is your opinion  -  you are welcome to it.
> obviously, a professional woman will say "yes" to you (for a price)
> maybe a non professional woman will also say "yes" to you (for a price) - either way, immoral.
> Honest?  Well, no one is100% honest, and no one actually agrees with your rationale (male or female) - find someone that agrees and supports your ridiculous arguments.
Click to expand...

yes, it is my opinion; just as you all have your opinions.  

yes, professional women are honest for a capital price under our form of capitalism.  

amateur women seem to prefer lies and liars to honesty, regardless of the lies they tell us guys.  However, it is not immoral to be honest; only hypocrites are that clueless and that Causeless.


----------



## Bonzi

danielpalos said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's just saying if he had money on hand all the time he'd just get hookers.
> But when he doesn't, that women should be benevolent - or at a minimum, "put out" if they are willing to accept "nicities" in other areas......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah well, he also said he will not believe that women are serious about wanting equality until they walk up to him and ask to be used by him.  So he is a bit of a sick fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not sure why, but I think it's funny.
> Maybe because it's so ridiculous and outlandish...hard to believe he's serious.... I mean, really? LOL!
> 
> But let's think about this for a minute..... women want equal rights (most I would assume) - anyway, if I walked up to a man and asked him to "use me" how is that making myself equal to man?  I don't get it.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, it is because guys are willing to go up to women and ask them for sex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure if a woman really wanted sex with a man she would be willing to go up and ask as well.
> I still don't see your point....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how many women do it and are proud they didn't have to lie?
Click to expand...

 
I have no idea because most people (male or female) don't do go up to people and ask for sex!
(unless they are asking a hooker)

Okay..... if a girl and a guy go on a date and, the girl wants to have a nice dinner, cuddle and have a massage but hold off on having sex..... are you saying she should state this up front?  What if she doesn't even realize what she wants out of the date until they are well into the date?  Maybe she would have wanted to have sex, but, for whatever reason, not up for it or just not into the guy....?

Alternatively, if the guy goes on a date only after sex, should he just state that up front?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mostly!  Yes.  There was I think only one that I would have kept, but that was a total fabrication.  None of it was real.
> 
> But now, face it, there is something really gross and creepy about old people loving up.
> 
> 
> 
> so, why is it so difficult for women to simply be honest in modern times and insist it is their turn for a free sample from us?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A free sample?   You sick fuck.  That is a person.  Not some tool for your pleasure.
> 
> Honest?   If demanding a "free sample" is your version of honesty, the world would rather you lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is it not, dear; under Any form of Capitalism such as ours.  Only the right is that cognitively dissonant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because we are discussing interpersonal relationships not commercial transactions.
> 
> And why do you keep mentioning cognitive dissonance?   Why are you supposing is struggling with contradictory beliefs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> commercial transactions are interpersonal.  i keep mentioning cognitive dissonance because it seems to be true, for those of the opposing view.
Click to expand...


How so?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah an incurable romantic.
> 
> No liking someone at the time you are having sex with them is not a requirement.   Gosh, every hooker and every trick knows that much.
> 
> 
> 
> why is it soo difficult to get Good customer service for free from free chics?  have they no social morals for free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure plenty of women you know give it away for free.  Just not to you.    Hmmm....I wonder why that is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a lack of capital is a common denominator.  i never have this problem when i have a petty cash fund for such purposes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am happy that you have petty cash.  It is handy.  However, I don't see what that has to do with your expectations that women "service" you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> honesty too difficult of a concept, person on the Right?
Click to expand...


Honesty has nothing to do with it.   You can walk up to any girl and tell her you want her to have sex with her.   But the chances of that being successful are somewhere between slim & none.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure plenty of women you know give it away for free.  Just not to you.    Hmmm....I wonder why that is?
> 
> 
> 
> a lack of capital is a common denominator.  i never have this problem when i have a petty cash fund for such purposes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am happy that you have petty cash.  It is handy.  However, I don't see what that has to do with your expectations that women "service" you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's just saying if he had money on hand all the time he'd just get hookers.
> But when he doesn't, that women should be benevolent - or at a minimum, "put out" if they are willing to accept "nicities" in other areas......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah well, he also said he will not believe that women are serious about wanting equality until they walk up to him and ask to be used by him.  So he is a bit of a sick fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> still full of fallacy?
Click to expand...


What exactly was the fallacy in my post??


----------



## danielpalos

Bonzi said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah well, he also said he will not believe that women are serious about wanting equality until they walk up to him and ask to be used by him.  So he is a bit of a sick fuck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure why, but I think it's funny.
> Maybe because it's so ridiculous and outlandish...hard to believe he's serious.... I mean, really? LOL!
> 
> But let's think about this for a minute..... women want equal rights (most I would assume) - anyway, if I walked up to a man and asked him to "use me" how is that making myself equal to man?  I don't get it.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, it is because guys are willing to go up to women and ask them for sex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure if a woman really wanted sex with a man she would be willing to go up and ask as well.
> I still don't see your point....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how many women do it and are proud they didn't have to lie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no idea because most people (male or female) don't do go up to people and ask for sex!
> (unless they are asking a hooker)
> 
> Okay..... if a girl and a guy go on a date and, the girl wants to have a nice dinner, cuddle and have a massage but hold off on having sex..... are you saying she should state this up front?  What if she doesn't even realize what she wants out of the date until they are well into the date?  Maybe she would have wanted to have sex, but, for whatever reason, not up for it or just not into the guy....?
> 
> Alternatively, if the guy goes on a date only after sex, should he just state that up front?
Click to expand...

how do most people get sex if they don't ask?


----------



## Bonzi

If a girl walks up to a guy and says, I might be interested but not sure.  I want to have about 20 dates, maybe we'll have sex maybe not..... will the guy ask her out?  Depends if he likes a challenge.

Like all interpersonal relationships, it's "risk reward"

Men don't always get laid
Women don't always get prince charming and so on........


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> so, why is it so difficult for women to simply be honest in modern times and insist it is their turn for a free sample from us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A free sample?   You sick fuck.  That is a person.  Not some tool for your pleasure.
> 
> Honest?   If demanding a "free sample" is your version of honesty, the world would rather you lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is it not, dear; under Any form of Capitalism such as ours.  Only the right is that cognitively dissonant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because we are discussing interpersonal relationships not commercial transactions.
> 
> And why do you keep mentioning cognitive dissonance?   Why are you supposing is struggling with contradictory beliefs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> commercial transactions are interpersonal.  i keep mentioning cognitive dissonance because it seems to be true, for those of the opposing view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How so?
Click to expand...

dear, trade involves a social transaction.  it really is that simple, except to the right.


----------



## Bonzi

danielpalos said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure why, but I think it's funny.
> Maybe because it's so ridiculous and outlandish...hard to believe he's serious.... I mean, really? LOL!
> 
> But let's think about this for a minute..... women want equal rights (most I would assume) - anyway, if I walked up to a man and asked him to "use me" how is that making myself equal to man?  I don't get it.....
> 
> 
> 
> dear, it is because guys are willing to go up to women and ask them for sex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure if a woman really wanted sex with a man she would be willing to go up and ask as well.
> I still don't see your point....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how many women do it and are proud they didn't have to lie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no idea because most people (male or female) don't do go up to people and ask for sex!
> (unless they are asking a hooker)
> 
> Okay..... if a girl and a guy go on a date and, the girl wants to have a nice dinner, cuddle and have a massage but hold off on having sex..... are you saying she should state this up front?  What if she doesn't even realize what she wants out of the date until they are well into the date?  Maybe she would have wanted to have sex, but, for whatever reason, not up for it or just not into the guy....?
> 
> Alternatively, if the guy goes on a date only after sex, should he just state that up front?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how do most people get sex if they don't ask?
Click to expand...

 
You have never had a relationship where one thing just led to another?????????????????


----------



## danielpalos

Bonzi said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah well, he also said he will not believe that women are serious about wanting equality until they walk up to him and ask to be used by him.  So he is a bit of a sick fuck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure why, but I think it's funny.
> Maybe because it's so ridiculous and outlandish...hard to believe he's serious.... I mean, really? LOL!
> 
> But let's think about this for a minute..... women want equal rights (most I would assume) - anyway, if I walked up to a man and asked him to "use me" how is that making myself equal to man?  I don't get it.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, it is because guys are willing to go up to women and ask them for sex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure if a woman really wanted sex with a man she would be willing to go up and ask as well.
> I still don't see your point....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how many women do it and are proud they didn't have to lie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no idea because most people (male or female) don't do go up to people and ask for sex!
> (unless they are asking a hooker)
> 
> Okay..... if a girl and a guy go on a date and, the girl wants to have a nice dinner, cuddle and have a massage but hold off on having sex..... are you saying she should state this up front?  What if she doesn't even realize what she wants out of the date until they are well into the date?  Maybe she would have wanted to have sex, but, for whatever reason, not up for it or just not into the guy....?
> 
> Alternatively, if the guy goes on a date only after sex, should he just state that up front?
Click to expand...

Everybody knows guys want sex; it is up to women to "sell" their "relationship wares" if they are serious and not just all talk and no action.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> why is it soo difficult to get Good customer service for free from free chics?  have they no social morals for free.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure plenty of women you know give it away for free.  Just not to you.    Hmmm....I wonder why that is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a lack of capital is a common denominator.  i never have this problem when i have a petty cash fund for such purposes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am happy that you have petty cash.  It is handy.  However, I don't see what that has to do with your expectations that women "service" you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> honesty too difficult of a concept, person on the Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Honesty has nothing to do with it.   You can walk up to any girl and tell her you want her to have sex with her.   But the chances of that being successful are somewhere between slim & none.
Click to expand...

honesty has everything to do with; only the clueless and the Causeless don't realize it.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> a lack of capital is a common denominator.  i never have this problem when i have a petty cash fund for such purposes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am happy that you have petty cash.  It is handy.  However, I don't see what that has to do with your expectations that women "service" you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's just saying if he had money on hand all the time he'd just get hookers.
> But when he doesn't, that women should be benevolent - or at a minimum, "put out" if they are willing to accept "nicities" in other areas......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah well, he also said he will not believe that women are serious about wanting equality until they walk up to him and ask to be used by him.  So he is a bit of a sick fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not sure why, but I think it's funny.
> Maybe because it's so ridiculous and outlandish...hard to believe he's serious.... I mean, really? LOL!
> 
> But let's think about this for a minute..... women want equal rights (most I would assume) - anyway, if I walked up to a man and asked him to "use me" how is that making myself equal to man?  I don't get it.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, it is because guys are willing to go up to women and ask them for sex.
Click to expand...


You are a little off on things.

Yes, men do go up to women and ask them for sex.  But they don't do it with all women.  Only those they find attractive.  And they want to have the sex THEY want.

There are women who go up to men and ask for sex.  But only those men that they find attractive.  And they want to have the sex THEY want.

What you are suggesting is not about equality because you want them to ask to be used by you, regardless of whether they find you attractive and to be used for what YOU want, not them.


----------



## Bonzi

danielpalos said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure why, but I think it's funny.
> Maybe because it's so ridiculous and outlandish...hard to believe he's serious.... I mean, really? LOL!
> 
> But let's think about this for a minute..... women want equal rights (most I would assume) - anyway, if I walked up to a man and asked him to "use me" how is that making myself equal to man?  I don't get it.....
> 
> 
> 
> dear, it is because guys are willing to go up to women and ask them for sex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure if a woman really wanted sex with a man she would be willing to go up and ask as well.
> I still don't see your point....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how many women do it and are proud they didn't have to lie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no idea because most people (male or female) don't do go up to people and ask for sex!
> (unless they are asking a hooker)
> 
> Okay..... if a girl and a guy go on a date and, the girl wants to have a nice dinner, cuddle and have a massage but hold off on having sex..... are you saying she should state this up front?  What if she doesn't even realize what she wants out of the date until they are well into the date?  Maybe she would have wanted to have sex, but, for whatever reason, not up for it or just not into the guy....?
> 
> Alternatively, if the guy goes on a date only after sex, should he just state that up front?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everybody knows guys want sex; it is up to women to "sell" their "relationship wares" if they are serious and not just all talk and no action.
Click to expand...

 
So, no men really want to get married then, correct?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> a lack of capital is a common denominator.  i never have this problem when i have a petty cash fund for such purposes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am happy that you have petty cash.  It is handy.  However, I don't see what that has to do with your expectations that women "service" you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's just saying if he had money on hand all the time he'd just get hookers.
> But when he doesn't, that women should be benevolent - or at a minimum, "put out" if they are willing to accept "nicities" in other areas......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah well, he also said he will not believe that women are serious about wanting equality until they walk up to him and ask to be used by him.  So he is a bit of a sick fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> still full of fallacy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What exactly was the fallacy in my post??
Click to expand...

just an ad hominem with no reason.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure why, but I think it's funny.
> Maybe because it's so ridiculous and outlandish...hard to believe he's serious.... I mean, really? LOL!
> 
> But let's think about this for a minute..... women want equal rights (most I would assume) - anyway, if I walked up to a man and asked him to "use me" how is that making myself equal to man?  I don't get it.....
> 
> 
> 
> dear, it is because guys are willing to go up to women and ask them for sex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure if a woman really wanted sex with a man she would be willing to go up and ask as well.
> I still don't see your point....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how many women do it and are proud they didn't have to lie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no idea because most people (male or female) don't do go up to people and ask for sex!
> (unless they are asking a hooker)
> 
> Okay..... if a girl and a guy go on a date and, the girl wants to have a nice dinner, cuddle and have a massage but hold off on having sex..... are you saying she should state this up front?  What if she doesn't even realize what she wants out of the date until they are well into the date?  Maybe she would have wanted to have sex, but, for whatever reason, not up for it or just not into the guy....?
> 
> Alternatively, if the guy goes on a date only after sex, should he just state that up front?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everybody knows guys want sex; it is up to women to "sell" their "relationship wares" if they are serious and not just all talk and no action.
Click to expand...


If that is true, then both people must have something the other one wants.   We know what the women have.  But what are you offering?  Besides petty cash.


----------



## danielpalos

Bonzi said:


> If a girl walks up to a guy and says, I might be interested but not sure.  I want to have about 20 dates, maybe we'll have sex maybe not..... will the guy ask her out?  Depends if he likes a challenge.
> 
> Like all interpersonal relationships, it's "risk reward"
> 
> Men don't always get laid
> Women don't always get prince charming and so on........


it is about honesty and not having to lie for sex, dear.


----------



## danielpalos

Bonzi said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> dear, it is because guys are willing to go up to women and ask them for sex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure if a woman really wanted sex with a man she would be willing to go up and ask as well.
> I still don't see your point....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how many women do it and are proud they didn't have to lie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no idea because most people (male or female) don't do go up to people and ask for sex!
> (unless they are asking a hooker)
> 
> Okay..... if a girl and a guy go on a date and, the girl wants to have a nice dinner, cuddle and have a massage but hold off on having sex..... are you saying she should state this up front?  What if she doesn't even realize what she wants out of the date until they are well into the date?  Maybe she would have wanted to have sex, but, for whatever reason, not up for it or just not into the guy....?
> 
> Alternatively, if the guy goes on a date only after sex, should he just state that up front?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how do most people get sex if they don't ask?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have never had a relationship where one thing just led to another?????????????????
Click to expand...

are women claiming non-verbal communication is worth more in the non-porn sector for equality purposes?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am happy that you have petty cash.  It is handy.  However, I don't see what that has to do with your expectations that women "service" you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's just saying if he had money on hand all the time he'd just get hookers.
> But when he doesn't, that women should be benevolent - or at a minimum, "put out" if they are willing to accept "nicities" in other areas......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah well, he also said he will not believe that women are serious about wanting equality until they walk up to him and ask to be used by him.  So he is a bit of a sick fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> still full of fallacy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What exactly was the fallacy in my post??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just an ad hominem with no reason.
Click to expand...


No.  It was a sharing of your nonsense.  So others will be aware.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> dear, it is because guys are willing to go up to women and ask them for sex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure if a woman really wanted sex with a man she would be willing to go up and ask as well.
> I still don't see your point....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how many women do it and are proud they didn't have to lie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no idea because most people (male or female) don't do go up to people and ask for sex!
> (unless they are asking a hooker)
> 
> Okay..... if a girl and a guy go on a date and, the girl wants to have a nice dinner, cuddle and have a massage but hold off on having sex..... are you saying she should state this up front?  What if she doesn't even realize what she wants out of the date until they are well into the date?  Maybe she would have wanted to have sex, but, for whatever reason, not up for it or just not into the guy....?
> 
> Alternatively, if the guy goes on a date only after sex, should he just state that up front?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everybody knows guys want sex; it is up to women to "sell" their "relationship wares" if they are serious and not just all talk and no action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that is true, then both people must have something the other one wants.   We know what the women have.  But what are you offering?  Besides petty cash.
Click to expand...

i am not claiming i want a relationship and some women simply lie when they claim they want a serious, true love, one and only relationship.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a girl walks up to a guy and says, I might be interested but not sure.  I want to have about 20 dates, maybe we'll have sex maybe not..... will the guy ask her out?  Depends if he likes a challenge.
> 
> Like all interpersonal relationships, it's "risk reward"
> 
> Men don't always get laid
> Women don't always get prince charming and so on........
> 
> 
> 
> it is about honesty and not having to lie for sex, dear.
Click to expand...


It is about you wanting to circumvent the need to be attractive to the opposite sex.


----------



## Bonzi

WinterBorn said:


> If that is true, then both people must have something the other one wants. We know what the women have. But what are you offering? Besides petty cash.


 
He's saying that hookers want money for sex, are up front about it, clean transaction.
Whereas, dating women, the transaction should also be clean and up front.  He is saying he will give them a massage etc. but he expects to be reciprocated in kind.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's just saying if he had money on hand all the time he'd just get hookers.
> But when he doesn't, that women should be benevolent - or at a minimum, "put out" if they are willing to accept "nicities" in other areas......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah well, he also said he will not believe that women are serious about wanting equality until they walk up to him and ask to be used by him.  So he is a bit of a sick fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> still full of fallacy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What exactly was the fallacy in my post??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just an ad hominem with no reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  It was a sharing of your nonsense.  So others will be aware.
Click to expand...

nope; just a fallacy.  only the clueless and the Causeless don't get it.


----------



## Bonzi

danielpalos said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a girl walks up to a guy and says, I might be interested but not sure.  I want to have about 20 dates, maybe we'll have sex maybe not..... will the guy ask her out?  Depends if he likes a challenge.
> 
> Like all interpersonal relationships, it's "risk reward"
> 
> Men don't always get laid
> Women don't always get prince charming and so on........
> 
> 
> 
> it is about honesty and not having to lie for sex, dear.
Click to expand...

 
Then, with "free chics" I suggest you tell them your game plan up front.
If they date you anyway and don't "put out" too bad.... but I think if you were totally honest with women like you are on here, they would run away screaming....

Are you totally honest with "free chics"?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a girl walks up to a guy and says, I might be interested but not sure.  I want to have about 20 dates, maybe we'll have sex maybe not..... will the guy ask her out?  Depends if he likes a challenge.
> 
> Like all interpersonal relationships, it's "risk reward"
> 
> Men don't always get laid
> Women don't always get prince charming and so on........
> 
> 
> 
> it is about honesty and not having to lie for sex, dear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is about you wanting to circumvent the need to be attractive to the opposite sex.
Click to expand...

i am not circumventing anything; of course attraction is a consideration even under our form of capitalism.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure why, but I think it's funny.
> Maybe because it's so ridiculous and outlandish...hard to believe he's serious.... I mean, really? LOL!
> 
> But let's think about this for a minute..... women want equal rights (most I would assume) - anyway, if I walked up to a man and asked him to "use me" how is that making myself equal to man?  I don't get it.....
> 
> 
> 
> dear, it is because guys are willing to go up to women and ask them for sex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> really????? you do that?  How's that working for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i have; it works better and with greater honesty as a moral, with professional women.  free chics seem to prefer to just be hypocrites for free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that is your opinion  -  you are welcome to it.
> obviously, a professional woman will say "yes" to you (for a price)
> maybe a non professional woman will also say "yes" to you (for a price) - either way, immoral.
> Honest?  Well, no one is100% honest, and no one actually agrees with your rationale (male or female) - find someone that agrees and supports your ridiculous arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, it is my opinion; just as you all have your opinions.
> 
> yes, professional women are honest for a capital price under our form of capitalism.
> 
> amateur women seem to prefer lies and liars to honesty, regardless of the lies they tell us guys.  However, it is not immoral to be honest; only hypocrites are that clueless and that Causeless.
Click to expand...


So, in your opinion, either there is a short conversation of "I want to have sex with you" or it is all dishonest??

LOL!!!    So no attempt to determine if the other person is attractive to you?    Yeah, I'm sure that is what you prefer.

But at least when you walk up to a woman and ask her to have sex, she is being honest when she tells you 'No'.


----------



## Bonzi

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure if a woman really wanted sex with a man she would be willing to go up and ask as well.
> I still don't see your point....
> 
> 
> 
> how many women do it and are proud they didn't have to lie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no idea because most people (male or female) don't do go up to people and ask for sex!
> (unless they are asking a hooker)
> 
> Okay..... if a girl and a guy go on a date and, the girl wants to have a nice dinner, cuddle and have a massage but hold off on having sex..... are you saying she should state this up front?  What if she doesn't even realize what she wants out of the date until they are well into the date?  Maybe she would have wanted to have sex, but, for whatever reason, not up for it or just not into the guy....?
> 
> Alternatively, if the guy goes on a date only after sex, should he just state that up front?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everybody knows guys want sex; it is up to women to "sell" their "relationship wares" if they are serious and not just all talk and no action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that is true, then both people must have something the other one wants.   We know what the women have.  But what are you offering?  Besides petty cash.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i am not claiming i want a relationship and some women simply lie when they claim they want a serious, true love, one and only relationship.
Click to expand...

 
You think they just say that cause they don't want to have sex?
You think most women really do want sex, but will lie to get out of having it with you?


----------



## danielpalos

Bonzi said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If that is true, then both people must have something the other one wants. We know what the women have. But what are you offering? Besides petty cash.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's saying that hookers want money for sex, are up front about it, clean transaction.
> Whereas, dating women, the transaction should also be clean and up front.  He is saying he will give them a massage etc. but he expects to be reciprocated in kind.
Click to expand...

yes, as equals for equality purposes.  only inferiors who know they are not equal have to resort to guile.


----------



## danielpalos

Bonzi said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a girl walks up to a guy and says, I might be interested but not sure.  I want to have about 20 dates, maybe we'll have sex maybe not..... will the guy ask her out?  Depends if he likes a challenge.
> 
> Like all interpersonal relationships, it's "risk reward"
> 
> Men don't always get laid
> Women don't always get prince charming and so on........
> 
> 
> 
> it is about honesty and not having to lie for sex, dear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then, with "free chics" I suggest you tell them your game plan up front.
> If they date you anyway and don't "put out" too bad.... but I think if you were totally honest with women like you are on here, they would run away screaming....
> 
> Are you totally honest with "free chics"?
Click to expand...

are women just liars claiming they want honesty?


----------



## Bonzi

well you 2 have fun....


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> A free sample?   You sick fuck.  That is a person.  Not some tool for your pleasure.
> 
> Honest?   If demanding a "free sample" is your version of honesty, the world would rather you lie.
> 
> 
> 
> How is it not, dear; under Any form of Capitalism such as ours.  Only the right is that cognitively dissonant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because we are discussing interpersonal relationships not commercial transactions.
> 
> And why do you keep mentioning cognitive dissonance?   Why are you supposing is struggling with contradictory beliefs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> commercial transactions are interpersonal.  i keep mentioning cognitive dissonance because it seems to be true, for those of the opposing view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, trade involves a social transaction.  it really is that simple, except to the right.
Click to expand...


And the cognitive dissonance?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> dear, it is because guys are willing to go up to women and ask them for sex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> really????? you do that?  How's that working for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i have; it works better and with greater honesty as a moral, with professional women.  free chics seem to prefer to just be hypocrites for free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that is your opinion  -  you are welcome to it.
> obviously, a professional woman will say "yes" to you (for a price)
> maybe a non professional woman will also say "yes" to you (for a price) - either way, immoral.
> Honest?  Well, no one is100% honest, and no one actually agrees with your rationale (male or female) - find someone that agrees and supports your ridiculous arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, it is my opinion; just as you all have your opinions.
> 
> yes, professional women are honest for a capital price under our form of capitalism.
> 
> amateur women seem to prefer lies and liars to honesty, regardless of the lies they tell us guys.  However, it is not immoral to be honest; only hypocrites are that clueless and that Causeless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, in your opinion, either there is a short conversation of "I want to have sex with you" or it is all dishonest??
> 
> LOL!!!    So no attempt to determine if the other person is attractive to you?    Yeah, I'm sure that is what you prefer.
> 
> But at least when you walk up to a woman and ask her to have sex, she is being honest when she tells you 'No'.
Click to expand...

nope; just your straw man arguments.  know how to tell stories?


----------



## danielpalos

Bonzi said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> how many women do it and are proud they didn't have to lie?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea because most people (male or female) don't do go up to people and ask for sex!
> (unless they are asking a hooker)
> 
> Okay..... if a girl and a guy go on a date and, the girl wants to have a nice dinner, cuddle and have a massage but hold off on having sex..... are you saying she should state this up front?  What if she doesn't even realize what she wants out of the date until they are well into the date?  Maybe she would have wanted to have sex, but, for whatever reason, not up for it or just not into the guy....?
> 
> Alternatively, if the guy goes on a date only after sex, should he just state that up front?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everybody knows guys want sex; it is up to women to "sell" their "relationship wares" if they are serious and not just all talk and no action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that is true, then both people must have something the other one wants.   We know what the women have.  But what are you offering?  Besides petty cash.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i am not claiming i want a relationship and some women simply lie when they claim they want a serious, true love, one and only relationship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think they just say that cause they don't want to have sex?
> You think most women really do want sex, but will lie to get out of having it with you?
Click to expand...

no; i say that because they prefer lies and liars to honesty as a form of respect toward fellow human beings.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is it not, dear; under Any form of Capitalism such as ours.  Only the right is that cognitively dissonant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because we are discussing interpersonal relationships not commercial transactions.
> 
> And why do you keep mentioning cognitive dissonance?   Why are you supposing is struggling with contradictory beliefs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> commercial transactions are interpersonal.  i keep mentioning cognitive dissonance because it seems to be true, for those of the opposing view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, trade involves a social transaction.  it really is that simple, except to the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the cognitive dissonance?
Click to expand...

trade is not "impersonal" with any "emotional investment".


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a girl walks up to a guy and says, I might be interested but not sure.  I want to have about 20 dates, maybe we'll have sex maybe not..... will the guy ask her out?  Depends if he likes a challenge.
> 
> Like all interpersonal relationships, it's "risk reward"
> 
> Men don't always get laid
> Women don't always get prince charming and so on........
> 
> 
> 
> it is about honesty and not having to lie for sex, dear.
Click to expand...


I was sitting here thinking.  I am 55 years old and have had sex with quite a few ladies in my life.   I don't recall lying to any of them.  So you can have plenty of sex and be honest.   But you have to have something to offer or have to develop the relationship, even if it is not a long term one.


----------



## danielpalos

Bonzi said:


> well you 2 have fun....


run out of logic and reason so soon, dear?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah well, he also said he will not believe that women are serious about wanting equality until they walk up to him and ask to be used by him.  So he is a bit of a sick fuck.
> 
> 
> 
> still full of fallacy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What exactly was the fallacy in my post??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just an ad hominem with no reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  It was a sharing of your nonsense.  So others will be aware.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nope; just a fallacy.  only the clueless and the Causeless don't get it.
Click to expand...


Oh, so now you are claiming to know my motivations for posting?    lol


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a girl walks up to a guy and says, I might be interested but not sure.  I want to have about 20 dates, maybe we'll have sex maybe not..... will the guy ask her out?  Depends if he likes a challenge.
> 
> Like all interpersonal relationships, it's "risk reward"
> 
> Men don't always get laid
> Women don't always get prince charming and so on........
> 
> 
> 
> it is about honesty and not having to lie for sex, dear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was sitting here thinking.  I am 55 years old and have had sex with quite a few ladies in my life.   I don't recall lying to any of them.  So you can have plenty of sex and be honest.   But you have to have something to offer or have to develop the relationship, even if it is not a long term one.
Click to expand...

i understand that.  i merely don't want to play silly chic games if they aren't doing me everyday, and twice on Sundays.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> still full of fallacy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly was the fallacy in my post??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just an ad hominem with no reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  It was a sharing of your nonsense.  So others will be aware.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nope; just a fallacy.  only the clueless and the Causeless don't get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, so now you are claiming to know my motivations for posting?    lol
Click to expand...

gossip much for pussy, dear?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because we are discussing interpersonal relationships not commercial transactions.
> 
> And why do you keep mentioning cognitive dissonance?   Why are you supposing is struggling with contradictory beliefs?
> 
> 
> 
> commercial transactions are interpersonal.  i keep mentioning cognitive dissonance because it seems to be true, for those of the opposing view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, trade involves a social transaction.  it really is that simple, except to the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the cognitive dissonance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> trade is not "impersonal" with any "emotional investment".
Click to expand...


Correct.   But cognitive dissonance is about conflicting beliefs within a person.  Who has such a conflict?   I don't.  I understand that there is a personal element to every social interaction, and even more with sexual interaction.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a girl walks up to a guy and says, I might be interested but not sure.  I want to have about 20 dates, maybe we'll have sex maybe not..... will the guy ask her out?  Depends if he likes a challenge.
> 
> Like all interpersonal relationships, it's "risk reward"
> 
> Men don't always get laid
> Women don't always get prince charming and so on........
> 
> 
> 
> it is about honesty and not having to lie for sex, dear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was sitting here thinking.  I am 55 years old and have had sex with quite a few ladies in my life.   I don't recall lying to any of them.  So you can have plenty of sex and be honest.   But you have to have something to offer or have to develop the relationship, even if it is not a long term one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i understand that.  i merely don't want to play silly chic games if they aren't doing me everyday, and twice on Sundays.
Click to expand...


Well, there are certain things that you must do in order to have something to offer the woman.   You must be attractive and you must form some sort of line of trust.  Otherwise she will not get naked with you.   Being naked is being at her most vulnerable.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> commercial transactions are interpersonal.  i keep mentioning cognitive dissonance because it seems to be true, for those of the opposing view.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, trade involves a social transaction.  it really is that simple, except to the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the cognitive dissonance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> trade is not "impersonal" with any "emotional investment".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct.   But cognitive dissonance is about conflicting beliefs within a person.  Who has such a conflict?   I don't.  I understand that there is a personal element to every social interaction, and even more with sexual interaction.
Click to expand...

that honesty is not the problem, dear.  socialism requires social morals for free, unlike capitalism.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly was the fallacy in my post??
> 
> 
> 
> just an ad hominem with no reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  It was a sharing of your nonsense.  So others will be aware.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nope; just a fallacy.  only the clueless and the Causeless don't get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, so now you are claiming to know my motivations for posting?    lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> gossip much for pussy, dear?
Click to expand...


"...for pussy"?    Now you are supposing I am doing so in an attempt to get pussy?

You are very inventive in your accusations.   lol


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> How so?
> 
> 
> 
> dear, trade involves a social transaction.  it really is that simple, except to the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the cognitive dissonance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> trade is not "impersonal" with any "emotional investment".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct.   But cognitive dissonance is about conflicting beliefs within a person.  Who has such a conflict?   I don't.  I understand that there is a personal element to every social interaction, and even more with sexual interaction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that honesty is not the problem, dear.  socialism requires social morals for free, unlike capitalism.
Click to expand...


And when did we start discussing socialism?

I see that you have no reason for the use of the term "cognitive dissonance".   I understand.


----------



## ChrisL

Goodness!!!  How can anyone make any sense out of this nonsensical loon?    You must speak crazy.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> just an ad hominem with no reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  It was a sharing of your nonsense.  So others will be aware.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nope; just a fallacy.  only the clueless and the Causeless don't get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, so now you are claiming to know my motivations for posting?    lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> gossip much for pussy, dear?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "...for pussy"?    Now you are supposing I am doing so in an attempt to get pussy?
> 
> You are very inventive in your accusations.   lol
Click to expand...

no more "inventive" than yours, mr.deflector.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If that is true, then both people must have something the other one wants. We know what the women have. But what are you offering? Besides petty cash.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's saying that hookers want money for sex, are up front about it, clean transaction.
> Whereas, dating women, the transaction should also be clean and up front.  He is saying he will give them a massage etc. but he expects to be reciprocated in kind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, as equals for equality purposes.  only inferiors who know they are not equal have to resort to guile.
Click to expand...


Absolute nonsense.

As an example, let's suppose there are two attractive women vying for the attentions of an attractive man.   One walks up, opens her shirt, and says "You look hot, why don't we go have sex?".    They other flirts, makes eye contact, and teases a bit.

The second woman is certainly not inferior.   She knows that many men prefer a woman who knows how to play.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> dear, trade involves a social transaction.  it really is that simple, except to the right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the cognitive dissonance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> trade is not "impersonal" with any "emotional investment".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct.   But cognitive dissonance is about conflicting beliefs within a person.  Who has such a conflict?   I don't.  I understand that there is a personal element to every social interaction, and even more with sexual interaction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that honesty is not the problem, dear.  socialism requires social morals for free, unlike capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And when did we start discussing socialism?
> 
> I see that you have no reason for the use of the term "cognitive dissonance".   I understand.
Click to expand...

dear, society is social in nature.


----------



## danielpalos

ChrisL said:


> Goodness!!!  How can anyone make any sense out of this nonsensical loon?    You must speak crazy.


dear, not having a clue and a Cause is why you believe what you do.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If that is true, then both people must have something the other one wants. We know what the women have. But what are you offering? Besides petty cash.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's saying that hookers want money for sex, are up front about it, clean transaction.
> Whereas, dating women, the transaction should also be clean and up front.  He is saying he will give them a massage etc. but he expects to be reciprocated in kind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, as equals for equality purposes.  only inferiors who know they are not equal have to resort to guile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolute nonsense.
> 
> As an example, let's suppose there are two attractive women vying for the attentions of an attractive man.   One walks up, opens her shirt, and says "You look hot, why don't we go have sex?".    They other flirts, makes eye contact, and teases a bit.
> 
> The second woman is certainly not inferior.   She knows that many men prefer a woman who knows how to play.
Click to expand...

why chose those extremes but for straw man purposes.  

only inferiors who know they are not equal have to resort to guile.  this is accepted military doctrine that applies to real life situations in non-warfare scenarios.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  It was a sharing of your nonsense.  So others will be aware.
> 
> 
> 
> nope; just a fallacy.  only the clueless and the Causeless don't get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, so now you are claiming to know my motivations for posting?    lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> gossip much for pussy, dear?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "...for pussy"?    Now you are supposing I am doing so in an attempt to get pussy?
> 
> You are very inventive in your accusations.   lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no more "inventive" than yours, mr.deflector.
Click to expand...


And what have I deflected?  I have tried to stay on topic, despite your attempts to derail and hide behind nonsensical uses of less common wording.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> commercial transactions are interpersonal.  i keep mentioning cognitive dissonance because it seems to be true, for those of the opposing view.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, trade involves a social transaction.  it really is that simple, except to the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the cognitive dissonance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> trade is not "impersonal" with any "emotional investment".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct.   But cognitive dissonance is about conflicting beliefs within a person.  Who has such a conflict?   I don't.  I understand that there is a personal element to every social interaction, and even more with sexual interaction.
Click to expand...

that honesty is not the problem, dear.  socialism requires social morals for free, unlike capitalism.


WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> nope; just a fallacy.  only the clueless and the Causeless don't get it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, so now you are claiming to know my motivations for posting?    lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> gossip much for pussy, dear?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "...for pussy"?    Now you are supposing I am doing so in an attempt to get pussy?
> 
> You are very inventive in your accusations.   lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no more "inventive" than yours, mr.deflector.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what have I deflected?  I have tried to stay on topic, despite your attempts to derail and hide behind nonsensical uses of less common wording.
Click to expand...

what?  only Your inventions are inventive, mr.deflector?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If that is true, then both people must have something the other one wants. We know what the women have. But what are you offering? Besides petty cash.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's saying that hookers want money for sex, are up front about it, clean transaction.
> Whereas, dating women, the transaction should also be clean and up front.  He is saying he will give them a massage etc. but he expects to be reciprocated in kind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, as equals for equality purposes.  only inferiors who know they are not equal have to resort to guile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolute nonsense.
> 
> As an example, let's suppose there are two attractive women vying for the attentions of an attractive man.   One walks up, opens her shirt, and says "You look hot, why don't we go have sex?".    They other flirts, makes eye contact, and teases a bit.
> 
> The second woman is certainly not inferior.   She knows that many men prefer a woman who knows how to play.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why chose those extremes but for straw man purposes.
> 
> only inferiors who know they are not equal have to resort to guile.  this is accepted military doctrine that applies to real life situations in non-warfare scenarios.
Click to expand...


No, it is NOT accepted military doctrine.   Guile is used very often by superior forces.

And yes, it is an extreme example.  But then, the first woman is not so far off from what you have claimed is the only way a woman will prove she is truly interested in equality.  The second is a solid example of reality.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> How so?
> 
> 
> 
> dear, trade involves a social transaction.  it really is that simple, except to the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the cognitive dissonance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> trade is not "impersonal" with any "emotional investment".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct.   But cognitive dissonance is about conflicting beliefs within a person.  Who has such a conflict?   I don't.  I understand that there is a personal element to every social interaction, and even more with sexual interaction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that honesty is not the problem, dear.  socialism requires social morals for free, unlike capitalism.
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, so now you are claiming to know my motivations for posting?    lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> gossip much for pussy, dear?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "...for pussy"?    Now you are supposing I am doing so in an attempt to get pussy?
> 
> You are very inventive in your accusations.   lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no more "inventive" than yours, mr.deflector.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what have I deflected?  I have tried to stay on topic, despite your attempts to derail and hide behind nonsensical uses of less common wording.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what?  only Your inventions are inventive, mr.deflector?
Click to expand...


Two answers.  Yet, two answers that were not answers to the questions I asked. 

Lets try again, shall we?

" But cognitive dissonance is about conflicting beliefs within a person.  Who has such a conflict? "

"And what have I deflected?"


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If that is true, then both people must have something the other one wants. We know what the women have. But what are you offering? Besides petty cash.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's saying that hookers want money for sex, are up front about it, clean transaction.
> Whereas, dating women, the transaction should also be clean and up front.  He is saying he will give them a massage etc. but he expects to be reciprocated in kind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, as equals for equality purposes.  only inferiors who know they are not equal have to resort to guile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolute nonsense.
> 
> As an example, let's suppose there are two attractive women vying for the attentions of an attractive man.   One walks up, opens her shirt, and says "You look hot, why don't we go have sex?".    They other flirts, makes eye contact, and teases a bit.
> 
> The second woman is certainly not inferior.   She knows that many men prefer a woman who knows how to play.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why chose those extremes but for straw man purposes.
> 
> only inferiors who know they are not equal have to resort to guile.  this is accepted military doctrine that applies to real life situations in non-warfare scenarios.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is NOT accepted military doctrine.   Guile is used very often by superior forces.
> 
> And yes, it is an extreme example.  But then, the first woman is not so far off from what you have claimed is the only way a woman will prove she is truly interested in equality.  The second is a solid example of reality.
Click to expand...

only as a stratagem, not a necessity, there is a difference.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> dear, trade involves a social transaction.  it really is that simple, except to the right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the cognitive dissonance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> trade is not "impersonal" with any "emotional investment".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct.   But cognitive dissonance is about conflicting beliefs within a person.  Who has such a conflict?   I don't.  I understand that there is a personal element to every social interaction, and even more with sexual interaction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that honesty is not the problem, dear.  socialism requires social morals for free, unlike capitalism.
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> gossip much for pussy, dear?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "...for pussy"?    Now you are supposing I am doing so in an attempt to get pussy?
> 
> You are very inventive in your accusations.   lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no more "inventive" than yours, mr.deflector.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what have I deflected?  I have tried to stay on topic, despite your attempts to derail and hide behind nonsensical uses of less common wording.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what?  only Your inventions are inventive, mr.deflector?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Two answers.  Yet, two answers that were not answers to the questions I asked.
> 
> Lets try again, shall we?
> 
> " But cognitive dissonance is about conflicting beliefs within a person.  Who has such a conflict? "
> 
> "And what have I deflected?"
Click to expand...

that it is not about honesty as a form of equality.


----------



## ChrisL

danielpalos said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Goodness!!!  How can anyone make any sense out of this nonsensical loon?    You must speak crazy.
> 
> 
> 
> dear, not having a clue and a Cause is why you believe what you do.
Click to expand...


You should commit yourself to the nearest mental institution.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a girl walks up to a guy and says, I might be interested but not sure.  I want to have about 20 dates, maybe we'll have sex maybe not..... will the guy ask her out?  Depends if he likes a challenge.
> 
> Like all interpersonal relationships, it's "risk reward"
> 
> Men don't always get laid
> Women don't always get prince charming and so on........
> 
> 
> 
> it is about honesty and not having to lie for sex, dear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was sitting here thinking.  I am 55 years old and have had sex with quite a few ladies in my life.   I don't recall lying to any of them.  So you can have plenty of sex and be honest.   But you have to have something to offer or have to develop the relationship, even if it is not a long term one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i understand that.  i merely don't want to play silly chic games if they aren't doing me everyday, and twice on Sundays.
Click to expand...


If the women want to play a game before deciding if you are worthy of their charms, you can either play or do without.   It really is that simple.  You don't get to decide whether there are games played.  Only whether you play.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the cognitive dissonance?
> 
> 
> 
> trade is not "impersonal" with any "emotional investment".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct.   But cognitive dissonance is about conflicting beliefs within a person.  Who has such a conflict?   I don't.  I understand that there is a personal element to every social interaction, and even more with sexual interaction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that honesty is not the problem, dear.  socialism requires social morals for free, unlike capitalism.
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> "...for pussy"?    Now you are supposing I am doing so in an attempt to get pussy?
> 
> You are very inventive in your accusations.   lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no more "inventive" than yours, mr.deflector.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what have I deflected?  I have tried to stay on topic, despite your attempts to derail and hide behind nonsensical uses of less common wording.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what?  only Your inventions are inventive, mr.deflector?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Two answers.  Yet, two answers that were not answers to the questions I asked.
> 
> Lets try again, shall we?
> 
> " But cognitive dissonance is about conflicting beliefs within a person.  Who has such a conflict? "
> 
> "And what have I deflected?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that it is not about honesty as a form of equality.
Click to expand...


" But cognitive dissonance is about conflicting beliefs within a person.  Who has such a conflict? "

"And what have I deflected?"

Why not answer these two questions?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the cognitive dissonance?
> 
> 
> 
> trade is not "impersonal" with any "emotional investment".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct.   But cognitive dissonance is about conflicting beliefs within a person.  Who has such a conflict?   I don't.  I understand that there is a personal element to every social interaction, and even more with sexual interaction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that honesty is not the problem, dear.  socialism requires social morals for free, unlike capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And when did we start discussing socialism?
> 
> I see that you have no reason for the use of the term "cognitive dissonance".   I understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, society is social in nature.
Click to expand...


But not all social interaction is socialism.


----------



## danielpalos

ChrisL said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Goodness!!!  How can anyone make any sense out of this nonsensical loon?    You must speak crazy.
> 
> 
> 
> dear, not having a clue and a Cause is why you believe what you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should commit yourself to the nearest mental institution.
Click to expand...

i don't care what you think simply because you are not doing me.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a girl walks up to a guy and says, I might be interested but not sure.  I want to have about 20 dates, maybe we'll have sex maybe not..... will the guy ask her out?  Depends if he likes a challenge.
> 
> Like all interpersonal relationships, it's "risk reward"
> 
> Men don't always get laid
> Women don't always get prince charming and so on........
> 
> 
> 
> it is about honesty and not having to lie for sex, dear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was sitting here thinking.  I am 55 years old and have had sex with quite a few ladies in my life.   I don't recall lying to any of them.  So you can have plenty of sex and be honest.   But you have to have something to offer or have to develop the relationship, even if it is not a long term one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i understand that.  i merely don't want to play silly chic games if they aren't doing me everyday, and twice on Sundays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the women want to play a game before deciding if you are worthy of their charms, you can either play or do without.   It really is that simple.  You don't get to decide whether there are games played.  Only whether you play.
Click to expand...

i am not claiming i did; have i mentioned i also have low numbers and little practice, and especially, floozies like you should respect that.


----------



## ChrisL

danielpalos said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Goodness!!!  How can anyone make any sense out of this nonsensical loon?    You must speak crazy.
> 
> 
> 
> dear, not having a clue and a Cause is why you believe what you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should commit yourself to the nearest mental institution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i don't care what you think simply because you are not doing me.
Click to expand...


The thought makes me gag.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's saying that hookers want money for sex, are up front about it, clean transaction.
> Whereas, dating women, the transaction should also be clean and up front.  He is saying he will give them a massage etc. but he expects to be reciprocated in kind.
> 
> 
> 
> yes, as equals for equality purposes.  only inferiors who know they are not equal have to resort to guile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolute nonsense.
> 
> As an example, let's suppose there are two attractive women vying for the attentions of an attractive man.   One walks up, opens her shirt, and says "You look hot, why don't we go have sex?".    They other flirts, makes eye contact, and teases a bit.
> 
> The second woman is certainly not inferior.   She knows that many men prefer a woman who knows how to play.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why chose those extremes but for straw man purposes.
> 
> only inferiors who know they are not equal have to resort to guile.  this is accepted military doctrine that applies to real life situations in non-warfare scenarios.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is NOT accepted military doctrine.   Guile is used very often by superior forces.
> 
> And yes, it is an extreme example.  But then, the first woman is not so far off from what you have claimed is the only way a woman will prove she is truly interested in equality.  The second is a solid example of reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only as a stratagem, not a necessity, there is a difference.
Click to expand...


Whether it is a necessity or not is not relevant.  Guile has been used by superior forces for centuries, if for no other reason than to reduce casualties.

But your claim that only inferors resort to guile, and that this is accepted military doctrine is simply bullshit.   Unless you would care to show any military expert who made such a claim.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> trade is not "impersonal" with any "emotional investment".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct.   But cognitive dissonance is about conflicting beliefs within a person.  Who has such a conflict?   I don't.  I understand that there is a personal element to every social interaction, and even more with sexual interaction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that honesty is not the problem, dear.  socialism requires social morals for free, unlike capitalism.
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> no more "inventive" than yours, mr.deflector.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what have I deflected?  I have tried to stay on topic, despite your attempts to derail and hide behind nonsensical uses of less common wording.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what?  only Your inventions are inventive, mr.deflector?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Two answers.  Yet, two answers that were not answers to the questions I asked.
> 
> Lets try again, shall we?
> 
> " But cognitive dissonance is about conflicting beliefs within a person.  Who has such a conflict? "
> 
> "And what have I deflected?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that it is not about honesty as a form of equality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> " But cognitive dissonance is about conflicting beliefs within a person.  Who has such a conflict? "
> 
> "And what have I deflected?"
> 
> Why not answer these two questions?
Click to expand...

that honesty is not the problem, dear. socialism requires social morals for free, unlike capitalism.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the cognitive dissonance?
> 
> 
> 
> trade is not "impersonal" with any "emotional investment".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct.   But cognitive dissonance is about conflicting beliefs within a person.  Who has such a conflict?   I don't.  I understand that there is a personal element to every social interaction, and even more with sexual interaction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that honesty is not the problem, dear.  socialism requires social morals for free, unlike capitalism.
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> "...for pussy"?    Now you are supposing I am doing so in an attempt to get pussy?
> 
> You are very inventive in your accusations.   lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no more "inventive" than yours, mr.deflector.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what have I deflected?  I have tried to stay on topic, despite your attempts to derail and hide behind nonsensical uses of less common wording.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what?  only Your inventions are inventive, mr.deflector?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Two answers.  Yet, two answers that were not answers to the questions I asked.
> 
> Lets try again, shall we?
> 
> " But cognitive dissonance is about conflicting beliefs within a person.  Who has such a conflict? "
> 
> "And what have I deflected?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that it is not about honesty as a form of equality.
Click to expand...


It is not about equality.  You are wanting to determine the boundaries of the social interaction, and giving the woman no say in the matter.   That is not equality.


----------



## danielpalos

ChrisL said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Goodness!!!  How can anyone make any sense out of this nonsensical loon?    You must speak crazy.
> 
> 
> 
> dear, not having a clue and a Cause is why you believe what you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should commit yourself to the nearest mental institution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i don't care what you think simply because you are not doing me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The thought makes me gag.
Click to expand...

some chics look pretty hot when they are gagging.  good thing i don't care about you since you are not doing me.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes, as equals for equality purposes.  only inferiors who know they are not equal have to resort to guile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolute nonsense.
> 
> As an example, let's suppose there are two attractive women vying for the attentions of an attractive man.   One walks up, opens her shirt, and says "You look hot, why don't we go have sex?".    They other flirts, makes eye contact, and teases a bit.
> 
> The second woman is certainly not inferior.   She knows that many men prefer a woman who knows how to play.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why chose those extremes but for straw man purposes.
> 
> only inferiors who know they are not equal have to resort to guile.  this is accepted military doctrine that applies to real life situations in non-warfare scenarios.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is NOT accepted military doctrine.   Guile is used very often by superior forces.
> 
> And yes, it is an extreme example.  But then, the first woman is not so far off from what you have claimed is the only way a woman will prove she is truly interested in equality.  The second is a solid example of reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only as a stratagem, not a necessity, there is a difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whether it is a necessity or not is not relevant.  Guile has been used by superior forces for centuries, if for no other reason than to reduce casualties.
> 
> But your claim that only inferors resort to guile, and that this is accepted military doctrine is simply bullshit.   Unless you would care to show any military expert who made such a claim.
Click to expand...

It wasn't used at Cannae.  Like i said; it may be stratagem, but usually due to a perceived weakness.


----------



## Bonzi

danielpalos said:


> no; i say that because they prefer lies and liars to honesty as a form of respect toward fellow human beings.


 
Women don't prefer liars.  Many are just hopeless romantics, wishing the fairy tale love will come true for them. You can perhaps call them delusional or in denial, but, most women want Pretty Woman to be a possibility.....
Not all women are firmly grounded in reality and many are quite naïve.... 



danielpalos said:


> run out of logic and reason so soon, dear?


 
Gotta do some work today....


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> trade is not "impersonal" with any "emotional investment".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct.   But cognitive dissonance is about conflicting beliefs within a person.  Who has such a conflict?   I don't.  I understand that there is a personal element to every social interaction, and even more with sexual interaction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that honesty is not the problem, dear.  socialism requires social morals for free, unlike capitalism.
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> no more "inventive" than yours, mr.deflector.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what have I deflected?  I have tried to stay on topic, despite your attempts to derail and hide behind nonsensical uses of less common wording.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what?  only Your inventions are inventive, mr.deflector?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Two answers.  Yet, two answers that were not answers to the questions I asked.
> 
> Lets try again, shall we?
> 
> " But cognitive dissonance is about conflicting beliefs within a person.  Who has such a conflict? "
> 
> "And what have I deflected?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that it is not about honesty as a form of equality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not about equality.  You are wanting to determine the boundaries of the social interaction, and giving the woman no say in the matter.   That is not equality.
Click to expand...

it must be about equality if it happens in the non-porn sector as well; when was non-verbal communication in the non-porn sector considered more valuable than a well reasoned business plan openly discussed.


----------



## ChrisL

danielpalos said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Goodness!!!  How can anyone make any sense out of this nonsensical loon?    You must speak crazy.
> 
> 
> 
> dear, not having a clue and a Cause is why you believe what you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should commit yourself to the nearest mental institution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i don't care what you think simply because you are not doing me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The thought makes me gag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> some chics look pretty hot when they are gagging.  good thing i don't care about you since you are not doing me.
Click to expand...


If I've told you once, I've told you a thousand times, Daniel, get yourself a blowup doll.


----------



## danielpalos

Bonzi said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> no; i say that because they prefer lies and liars to honesty as a form of respect toward fellow human beings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Women don't prefer liars.  Many are just hopeless romantics, wishing the fairy tale love will come true for them. You can perhaps call them delusional or in denial, but, most women want Pretty Woman to be a possibility.....
> Not all women are firmly grounded in reality and many are quite naïve....
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> run out of logic and reason so soon, dear?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gotta do some work today....
Click to expand...

dear any appeal to any fallacy can be a lie as that form of ignorance of sublime Truth (value) discoverable through argumentation.

and,

hope you have a good day at work, dear.


----------



## danielpalos

ChrisL said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> dear, not having a clue and a Cause is why you believe what you do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should commit yourself to the nearest mental institution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i don't care what you think simply because you are not doing me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The thought makes me gag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> some chics look pretty hot when they are gagging.  good thing i don't care about you since you are not doing me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I've told you once, I've told you a thousand times, Daniel, get yourself a blowup doll.
Click to expand...

and, you have been wrong a thousand times; i can type all i want with free chics on the Internet; all i really need is nice girls who are willing to be friends, and come over and Expect me to get really good at full body massage.


----------



## ChrisL

danielpalos said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should commit yourself to the nearest mental institution.
> 
> 
> 
> i don't care what you think simply because you are not doing me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The thought makes me gag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> some chics look pretty hot when they are gagging.  good thing i don't care about you since you are not doing me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I've told you once, I've told you a thousand times, Daniel, get yourself a blowup doll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and, you have been wrong a thousand times; i can type all i want with free chics on the Internet; all i really need is nice girls who are willing to be friends, and come over and Expect me to get really good at full body massage.
Click to expand...


Stick to plastic chicks.  They are the only ones willing.


----------



## danielpalos

ChrisL said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> i don't care what you think simply because you are not doing me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The thought makes me gag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> some chics look pretty hot when they are gagging.  good thing i don't care about you since you are not doing me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I've told you once, I've told you a thousand times, Daniel, get yourself a blowup doll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and, you have been wrong a thousand times; i can type all i want with free chics on the Internet; all i really need is nice girls who are willing to be friends, and come over and Expect me to get really good at full body massage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stick to plastic chicks.  They are the only ones willing.
Click to expand...

still wrong and claiming you are not really like that, dear?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a girl walks up to a guy and says, I might be interested but not sure.  I want to have about 20 dates, maybe we'll have sex maybe not..... will the guy ask her out?  Depends if he likes a challenge.
> 
> Like all interpersonal relationships, it's "risk reward"
> 
> Men don't always get laid
> Women don't always get prince charming and so on........
> 
> 
> 
> it is about honesty and not having to lie for sex, dear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was sitting here thinking.  I am 55 years old and have had sex with quite a few ladies in my life.   I don't recall lying to any of them.  So you can have plenty of sex and be honest.   But you have to have something to offer or have to develop the relationship, even if it is not a long term one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i understand that.  i merely don't want to play silly chic games if they aren't doing me everyday, and twice on Sundays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the women want to play a game before deciding if you are worthy of their charms, you can either play or do without.   It really is that simple.  You don't get to decide whether there are games played.  Only whether you play.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i am not claiming i did; have i mentioned i also have low numbers and little practice, and especially, floozies like you should respect that.
Click to expand...


Floozy??    You just called me a "floozy"???     LMAO!!!!!

Your surrender is accepted.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolute nonsense.
> 
> As an example, let's suppose there are two attractive women vying for the attentions of an attractive man.   One walks up, opens her shirt, and says "You look hot, why don't we go have sex?".    They other flirts, makes eye contact, and teases a bit.
> 
> The second woman is certainly not inferior.   She knows that many men prefer a woman who knows how to play.
> 
> 
> 
> why chose those extremes but for straw man purposes.
> 
> only inferiors who know they are not equal have to resort to guile.  this is accepted military doctrine that applies to real life situations in non-warfare scenarios.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is NOT accepted military doctrine.   Guile is used very often by superior forces.
> 
> And yes, it is an extreme example.  But then, the first woman is not so far off from what you have claimed is the only way a woman will prove she is truly interested in equality.  The second is a solid example of reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only as a stratagem, not a necessity, there is a difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whether it is a necessity or not is not relevant.  Guile has been used by superior forces for centuries, if for no other reason than to reduce casualties.
> 
> But your claim that only inferors resort to guile, and that this is accepted military doctrine is simply bullshit.   Unless you would care to show any military expert who made such a claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It wasn't used at Cannae.  Like i said; it may be stratagem, but usually due to a perceived weakness.
Click to expand...


So it wasn't used in one battle, and you claim that makes it military doctrine?   lol    Go play, little boy.  You are obviously inventing shit.


----------



## ChrisL

danielpalos said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thought makes me gag.
> 
> 
> 
> some chics look pretty hot when they are gagging.  good thing i don't care about you since you are not doing me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I've told you once, I've told you a thousand times, Daniel, get yourself a blowup doll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and, you have been wrong a thousand times; i can type all i want with free chics on the Internet; all i really need is nice girls who are willing to be friends, and come over and Expect me to get really good at full body massage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stick to plastic chicks.  They are the only ones willing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> still wrong and claiming you are not really like that, dear?
Click to expand...


Like what?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is about honesty and not having to lie for sex, dear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was sitting here thinking.  I am 55 years old and have had sex with quite a few ladies in my life.   I don't recall lying to any of them.  So you can have plenty of sex and be honest.   But you have to have something to offer or have to develop the relationship, even if it is not a long term one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i understand that.  i merely don't want to play silly chic games if they aren't doing me everyday, and twice on Sundays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the women want to play a game before deciding if you are worthy of their charms, you can either play or do without.   It really is that simple.  You don't get to decide whether there are games played.  Only whether you play.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i am not claiming i did; have i mentioned i also have low numbers and little practice, and especially, floozies like you should respect that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Floozy??    You just called me a "floozy"???     LMAO!!!!!
> 
> Your surrender is accepted.
Click to expand...

surrender for what?  i am the one with the lowest numbers.  does abstinence and just saying "no" to silly chic trics, mean nothing to persons of alleged morals.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> why chose those extremes but for straw man purposes.
> 
> only inferiors who know they are not equal have to resort to guile.  this is accepted military doctrine that applies to real life situations in non-warfare scenarios.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is NOT accepted military doctrine.   Guile is used very often by superior forces.
> 
> And yes, it is an extreme example.  But then, the first woman is not so far off from what you have claimed is the only way a woman will prove she is truly interested in equality.  The second is a solid example of reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only as a stratagem, not a necessity, there is a difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whether it is a necessity or not is not relevant.  Guile has been used by superior forces for centuries, if for no other reason than to reduce casualties.
> 
> But your claim that only inferors resort to guile, and that this is accepted military doctrine is simply bullshit.   Unless you would care to show any military expert who made such a claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It wasn't used at Cannae.  Like i said; it may be stratagem, but usually due to a perceived weakness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So it wasn't used in one battle, and you claim that makes it military doctrine?   lol    Go play, little boy.  You are obviously inventing shit.
Click to expand...

dear, it was about having a superior force and "knowing" you should win.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolute nonsense.
> 
> As an example, let's suppose there are two attractive women vying for the attentions of an attractive man.   One walks up, opens her shirt, and says "You look hot, why don't we go have sex?".    They other flirts, makes eye contact, and teases a bit.
> 
> The second woman is certainly not inferior.   She knows that many men prefer a woman who knows how to play.
> 
> 
> 
> why chose those extremes but for straw man purposes.
> 
> only inferiors who know they are not equal have to resort to guile.  this is accepted military doctrine that applies to real life situations in non-warfare scenarios.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is NOT accepted military doctrine.   Guile is used very often by superior forces.
> 
> And yes, it is an extreme example.  But then, the first woman is not so far off from what you have claimed is the only way a woman will prove she is truly interested in equality.  The second is a solid example of reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only as a stratagem, not a necessity, there is a difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whether it is a necessity or not is not relevant.  Guile has been used by superior forces for centuries, if for no other reason than to reduce casualties.
> 
> But your claim that only inferors resort to guile, and that this is accepted military doctrine is simply bullshit.   Unless you would care to show any military expert who made such a claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It wasn't used at Cannae.  Like i said; it may be stratagem, but usually due to a perceived weakness.
Click to expand...


I checked to make sure, since I was unaware of a battle at Cannae since Hannibal's defeat of the Roman forces.

So one example in 2,200 years and you claim it is "military doctrine"????

You are not a troll.   You are simply a child trying to pretend to intellect and more.    Come back when you have some hair on your balls.


----------



## danielpalos

ChrisL said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> some chics look pretty hot when they are gagging.  good thing i don't care about you since you are not doing me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I've told you once, I've told you a thousand times, Daniel, get yourself a blowup doll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and, you have been wrong a thousand times; i can type all i want with free chics on the Internet; all i really need is nice girls who are willing to be friends, and come over and Expect me to get really good at full body massage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stick to plastic chicks.  They are the only ones willing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> still wrong and claiming you are not really like that, dear?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like what?
Click to expand...

is it true that only lesbians don't want heterosexual, full body massage?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was sitting here thinking.  I am 55 years old and have had sex with quite a few ladies in my life.   I don't recall lying to any of them.  So you can have plenty of sex and be honest.   But you have to have something to offer or have to develop the relationship, even if it is not a long term one.
> 
> 
> 
> i understand that.  i merely don't want to play silly chic games if they aren't doing me everyday, and twice on Sundays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the women want to play a game before deciding if you are worthy of their charms, you can either play or do without.   It really is that simple.  You don't get to decide whether there are games played.  Only whether you play.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i am not claiming i did; have i mentioned i also have low numbers and little practice, and especially, floozies like you should respect that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Floozy??    You just called me a "floozy"???     LMAO!!!!!
> 
> Your surrender is accepted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> surrender for what?  i am the one with the lowest numbers.  does abstinence and just saying "no" to silly chic trics, mean nothing to persons of alleged morals.
Click to expand...


I have no problem with your numbers or your abstinence.   I also have no problem with your refusal to play the games.

I simply took issue with your claims that women do not want equality unless they volunteer to submit to being used by you.  I took exception to your demands that women give you "your turn".


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> why chose those extremes but for straw man purposes.
> 
> only inferiors who know they are not equal have to resort to guile.  this is accepted military doctrine that applies to real life situations in non-warfare scenarios.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is NOT accepted military doctrine.   Guile is used very often by superior forces.
> 
> And yes, it is an extreme example.  But then, the first woman is not so far off from what you have claimed is the only way a woman will prove she is truly interested in equality.  The second is a solid example of reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only as a stratagem, not a necessity, there is a difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whether it is a necessity or not is not relevant.  Guile has been used by superior forces for centuries, if for no other reason than to reduce casualties.
> 
> But your claim that only inferors resort to guile, and that this is accepted military doctrine is simply bullshit.   Unless you would care to show any military expert who made such a claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It wasn't used at Cannae.  Like i said; it may be stratagem, but usually due to a perceived weakness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I checked to make sure, since I was unaware of a battle at Cannae since Hannibal's defeat of the Roman forces.
> 
> So one example in 2,200 years and you claim it is "military doctrine"????
> 
> You are not a troll.   You are simply a child trying to pretend to intellect and more.    Come back when you have some hair on your balls.
Click to expand...

dear, it was a clear example of that doctrine.  guile is used by inferior force against superior force.  Sun Tzu proved that.


----------



## ChrisL

danielpalos said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I've told you once, I've told you a thousand times, Daniel, get yourself a blowup doll.
> 
> 
> 
> and, you have been wrong a thousand times; i can type all i want with free chics on the Internet; all i really need is nice girls who are willing to be friends, and come over and Expect me to get really good at full body massage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stick to plastic chicks.  They are the only ones willing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> still wrong and claiming you are not really like that, dear?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> is it true that only lesbians don't want heterosexual, full body massage?
Click to expand...


Yup, I'm a lesbian.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> i understand that.  i merely don't want to play silly chic games if they aren't doing me everyday, and twice on Sundays.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the women want to play a game before deciding if you are worthy of their charms, you can either play or do without.   It really is that simple.  You don't get to decide whether there are games played.  Only whether you play.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i am not claiming i did; have i mentioned i also have low numbers and little practice, and especially, floozies like you should respect that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Floozy??    You just called me a "floozy"???     LMAO!!!!!
> 
> Your surrender is accepted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> surrender for what?  i am the one with the lowest numbers.  does abstinence and just saying "no" to silly chic trics, mean nothing to persons of alleged morals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no problem with your numbers or your abstinence.   I also have no problem with your refusal to play the games.
> 
> I simply took issue with your claims that women do not want equality unless they volunteer to submit to being used by you.  I took exception to your demands that women give you "your turn".
Click to expand...

dear, you miss the point as usual; it is about honesty, not me, personally.


----------



## danielpalos

ChrisL said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> and, you have been wrong a thousand times; i can type all i want with free chics on the Internet; all i really need is nice girls who are willing to be friends, and come over and Expect me to get really good at full body massage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stick to plastic chicks.  They are the only ones willing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> still wrong and claiming you are not really like that, dear?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> is it true that only lesbians don't want heterosexual, full body massage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup, I'm a lesbian.
Click to expand...

yup, only lesbians who hate heterosexual full body massage give me a difficult time.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is NOT accepted military doctrine.   Guile is used very often by superior forces.
> 
> And yes, it is an extreme example.  But then, the first woman is not so far off from what you have claimed is the only way a woman will prove she is truly interested in equality.  The second is a solid example of reality.
> 
> 
> 
> only as a stratagem, not a necessity, there is a difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whether it is a necessity or not is not relevant.  Guile has been used by superior forces for centuries, if for no other reason than to reduce casualties.
> 
> But your claim that only inferors resort to guile, and that this is accepted military doctrine is simply bullshit.   Unless you would care to show any military expert who made such a claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It wasn't used at Cannae.  Like i said; it may be stratagem, but usually due to a perceived weakness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So it wasn't used in one battle, and you claim that makes it military doctrine?   lol    Go play, little boy.  You are obviously inventing shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, it was about having a superior force and "knowing" you should win.
Click to expand...


Junior, it was about superior use of tactics against a force that THOUGHT they were superior.   They had superior numbers.  But their superiority was shown to be an illusion by the end of the battle.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the women want to play a game before deciding if you are worthy of their charms, you can either play or do without.   It really is that simple.  You don't get to decide whether there are games played.  Only whether you play.
> 
> 
> 
> i am not claiming i did; have i mentioned i also have low numbers and little practice, and especially, floozies like you should respect that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Floozy??    You just called me a "floozy"???     LMAO!!!!!
> 
> Your surrender is accepted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> surrender for what?  i am the one with the lowest numbers.  does abstinence and just saying "no" to silly chic trics, mean nothing to persons of alleged morals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no problem with your numbers or your abstinence.   I also have no problem with your refusal to play the games.
> 
> I simply took issue with your claims that women do not want equality unless they volunteer to submit to being used by you.  I took exception to your demands that women give you "your turn".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, you miss the point as usual; it is about honesty, not me, personally.
Click to expand...


No, it is not.   When you demand that women come up to you and ask you to use them (give you your turn) in order to prove they are serious about equality, you are not concerned with honesty.  You are concerned with coercing women in to doing what you want.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stick to plastic chicks.  They are the only ones willing.
> 
> 
> 
> still wrong and claiming you are not really like that, dear?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> is it true that only lesbians don't want heterosexual, full body massage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup, I'm a lesbian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yup, only lesbians who hate heterosexual full body massage give me a difficult time.
Click to expand...


How many women have you offered a full body massage?


----------



## TNHarley

I think this is the only thread I have ever made where I didn't read every post..


----------



## ChrisL

danielpalos said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stick to plastic chicks.  They are the only ones willing.
> 
> 
> 
> still wrong and claiming you are not really like that, dear?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> is it true that only lesbians don't want heterosexual, full body massage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup, I'm a lesbian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yup, only lesbians who hate heterosexual full body massage give me a difficult time.
Click to expand...


I'm quite sure that is not true.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> only as a stratagem, not a necessity, there is a difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whether it is a necessity or not is not relevant.  Guile has been used by superior forces for centuries, if for no other reason than to reduce casualties.
> 
> But your claim that only inferors resort to guile, and that this is accepted military doctrine is simply bullshit.   Unless you would care to show any military expert who made such a claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It wasn't used at Cannae.  Like i said; it may be stratagem, but usually due to a perceived weakness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So it wasn't used in one battle, and you claim that makes it military doctrine?   lol    Go play, little boy.  You are obviously inventing shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, it was about having a superior force and "knowing" you should win.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Junior, it was about superior use of tactics against a force that THOUGHT they were superior.   They had superior numbers.  But their superiority was shown to be an illusion by the end of the battle.
Click to expand...

the point is Hannibal did need to use guile.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> i am not claiming i did; have i mentioned i also have low numbers and little practice, and especially, floozies like you should respect that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Floozy??    You just called me a "floozy"???     LMAO!!!!!
> 
> Your surrender is accepted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> surrender for what?  i am the one with the lowest numbers.  does abstinence and just saying "no" to silly chic trics, mean nothing to persons of alleged morals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no problem with your numbers or your abstinence.   I also have no problem with your refusal to play the games.
> 
> I simply took issue with your claims that women do not want equality unless they volunteer to submit to being used by you.  I took exception to your demands that women give you "your turn".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, you miss the point as usual; it is about honesty, not me, personally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is not.   When you demand that women come up to you and ask you to use them (give you your turn) in order to prove they are serious about equality, you are not concerned with honesty.  You are concerned with coercing women in to doing what you want.
Click to expand...

dear, you are still missing the point and deflecting.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> still wrong and claiming you are not really like that, dear?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> is it true that only lesbians don't want heterosexual, full body massage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup, I'm a lesbian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yup, only lesbians who hate heterosexual full body massage give me a difficult time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many women have you offered a full body massage?
Click to expand...

i have an outstanding offer all the time.


----------



## danielpalos

ChrisL said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> still wrong and claiming you are not really like that, dear?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> is it true that only lesbians don't want heterosexual, full body massage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup, I'm a lesbian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yup, only lesbians who hate heterosexual full body massage give me a difficult time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm quite sure that is not true.
Click to expand...

it must be true since you give me a difficult time.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether it is a necessity or not is not relevant.  Guile has been used by superior forces for centuries, if for no other reason than to reduce casualties.
> 
> But your claim that only inferors resort to guile, and that this is accepted military doctrine is simply bullshit.   Unless you would care to show any military expert who made such a claim.
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't used at Cannae.  Like i said; it may be stratagem, but usually due to a perceived weakness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So it wasn't used in one battle, and you claim that makes it military doctrine?   lol    Go play, little boy.  You are obviously inventing shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, it was about having a superior force and "knowing" you should win.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Junior, it was about superior use of tactics against a force that THOUGHT they were superior.   They had superior numbers.  But their superiority was shown to be an illusion by the end of the battle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the point is Hannibal did need to use guile.
Click to expand...


And that does nothing to prove your point.  I did not claim that guile is not used by forces with inferior numbers.   You claimed that guile is not used (according to military doctrine) unless you are inferior.   That is simply not true.   Guile is used by virtually all modern military.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Floozy??    You just called me a "floozy"???     LMAO!!!!!
> 
> Your surrender is accepted.
> 
> 
> 
> surrender for what?  i am the one with the lowest numbers.  does abstinence and just saying "no" to silly chic trics, mean nothing to persons of alleged morals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no problem with your numbers or your abstinence.   I also have no problem with your refusal to play the games.
> 
> I simply took issue with your claims that women do not want equality unless they volunteer to submit to being used by you.  I took exception to your demands that women give you "your turn".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, you miss the point as usual; it is about honesty, not me, personally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is not.   When you demand that women come up to you and ask you to use them (give you your turn) in order to prove they are serious about equality, you are not concerned with honesty.  You are concerned with coercing women in to doing what you want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, you are still missing the point and deflecting.
Click to expand...


No, I am not.    You claim it is all about honesty.  But requiring women to submit to being used, just to prove they are serious about equality, is not about honesty.  It is about manipulation and your fantasies.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like what?
> 
> 
> 
> is it true that only lesbians don't want heterosexual, full body massage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup, I'm a lesbian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yup, only lesbians who hate heterosexual full body massage give me a difficult time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many women have you offered a full body massage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i have an outstanding offer all the time.
Click to expand...


That is not what I asked you.   How many women (ballpark figure) have you made the offer of a full body massage to?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like what?
> 
> 
> 
> is it true that only lesbians don't want heterosexual, full body massage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup, I'm a lesbian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yup, only lesbians who hate heterosexual full body massage give me a difficult time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm quite sure that is not true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it must be true since you give me a difficult time.
Click to expand...


So any heterosexual woman would accept a full body massage from you?   lol


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't used at Cannae.  Like i said; it may be stratagem, but usually due to a perceived weakness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it wasn't used in one battle, and you claim that makes it military doctrine?   lol    Go play, little boy.  You are obviously inventing shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, it was about having a superior force and "knowing" you should win.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Junior, it was about superior use of tactics against a force that THOUGHT they were superior.   They had superior numbers.  But their superiority was shown to be an illusion by the end of the battle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the point is Hannibal did need to use guile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that does nothing to prove your point.  I did not claim that guile is not used by forces with inferior numbers.   You claimed that guile is not used (according to military doctrine) unless you are inferior.   That is simply not true.   Guile is used by virtually all modern military.
Click to expand...

only due to the inferiority of cost concerns.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> surrender for what?  i am the one with the lowest numbers.  does abstinence and just saying "no" to silly chic trics, mean nothing to persons of alleged morals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problem with your numbers or your abstinence.   I also have no problem with your refusal to play the games.
> 
> I simply took issue with your claims that women do not want equality unless they volunteer to submit to being used by you.  I took exception to your demands that women give you "your turn".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, you miss the point as usual; it is about honesty, not me, personally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is not.   When you demand that women come up to you and ask you to use them (give you your turn) in order to prove they are serious about equality, you are not concerned with honesty.  You are concerned with coercing women in to doing what you want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, you are still missing the point and deflecting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I am not.    You claim it is all about honesty.  But requiring women to submit to being used, just to prove they are serious about equality, is not about honesty.  It is about manipulation and your fantasies.
Click to expand...

dear, you are the one stuck on terminology; it is about honesty.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> is it true that only lesbians don't want heterosexual, full body massage?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, I'm a lesbian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yup, only lesbians who hate heterosexual full body massage give me a difficult time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many women have you offered a full body massage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i have an outstanding offer all the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not what I asked you.   How many women (ballpark figure) have you made the offer of a full body massage to?
Click to expand...

i don't keep track.  but, it is much higher than the ones who accept.  i guess they are mostly just lesbians and not real women.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> is it true that only lesbians don't want heterosexual, full body massage?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, I'm a lesbian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yup, only lesbians who hate heterosexual full body massage give me a difficult time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm quite sure that is not true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it must be true since you give me a difficult time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So any heterosexual woman would accept a full body massage from you?   lol
Click to expand...

anyone that wants one.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> So it wasn't used in one battle, and you claim that makes it military doctrine?   lol    Go play, little boy.  You are obviously inventing shit.
> 
> 
> 
> dear, it was about having a superior force and "knowing" you should win.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Junior, it was about superior use of tactics against a force that THOUGHT they were superior.   They had superior numbers.  But their superiority was shown to be an illusion by the end of the battle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the point is Hannibal did need to use guile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that does nothing to prove your point.  I did not claim that guile is not used by forces with inferior numbers.   You claimed that guile is not used (according to military doctrine) unless you are inferior.   That is simply not true.   Guile is used by virtually all modern military.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only due to the inferiority of cost concerns.
Click to expand...


What?    If guile can result in a victory with fewer casualties for your men or fewer resources expended, it would be stupid not to use guile in your tactics.

And you were the one who claimed guile was only used by the inferior, and that this was military doctrine.   It is most certainly NOT military doctrine.  So spare us any more justifications of your lies.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problem with your numbers or your abstinence.   I also have no problem with your refusal to play the games.
> 
> I simply took issue with your claims that women do not want equality unless they volunteer to submit to being used by you.  I took exception to your demands that women give you "your turn".
> 
> 
> 
> dear, you miss the point as usual; it is about honesty, not me, personally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is not.   When you demand that women come up to you and ask you to use them (give you your turn) in order to prove they are serious about equality, you are not concerned with honesty.  You are concerned with coercing women in to doing what you want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, you are still missing the point and deflecting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I am not.    You claim it is all about honesty.  But requiring women to submit to being used, just to prove they are serious about equality, is not about honesty.  It is about manipulation and your fantasies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, you are the one stuck on terminology; it is about honesty.
Click to expand...


And of course, you deflect.  No, it is not about terminology.  lol


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, I'm a lesbian.
> 
> 
> 
> yup, only lesbians who hate heterosexual full body massage give me a difficult time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many women have you offered a full body massage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i have an outstanding offer all the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not what I asked you.   How many women (ballpark figure) have you made the offer of a full body massage to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i don't keep track.  but, it is much higher than the ones who accept.  i guess they are mostly just lesbians and not real women.
Click to expand...


How do you know they are lesbians or that they are not "real women"?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, I'm a lesbian.
> 
> 
> 
> yup, only lesbians who hate heterosexual full body massage give me a difficult time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm quite sure that is not true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it must be true since you give me a difficult time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So any heterosexual woman would accept a full body massage from you?   lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> anyone that wants one.
Click to expand...


But you said that only lesbians give you a difficult time when you want to offer a full body massage.   

So if a woman doesn't want a massage, does that make them a lesbian?

And since you are offering a full body massage (which would involve nudity), you want nothing in return?   You do not want any reciprocation by the women?


----------



## ChrisL

danielpalos said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stick to plastic chicks.  They are the only ones willing.
> 
> 
> 
> still wrong and claiming you are not really like that, dear?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> is it true that only lesbians don't want heterosexual, full body massage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup, I'm a lesbian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yup, only lesbians who hate heterosexual full body massage give me a difficult time.
Click to expand...


Must be a WHOLE lot of lesbians in the world.


----------



## Bonzi

danielpalos said:


> dear any appeal to any fallacy can be a lie as that form of ignorance of sublime Truth (value) discoverable through argumentation.


 
Just as you want something that is unrealistic....
Many women want something that is unrealistic....
It's not lying.    If I ceased to be married for whatever reason, and I wanted male companionship, I would not settle for anything less than what I want out of a relationship, and, if I found myself in that position (being single/dating) I would be quite forthright about my needs and expectations.  It's important to "match up" properly.  Even in a "casual sex/dating" scenario....

Perhaps it's an "age" thing...


----------



## ChrisL

Bonzi said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> dear any appeal to any fallacy can be a lie as that form of ignorance of sublime Truth (value) discoverable through argumentation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just as you want something that is unrealistic....
> Many women want something that is unrealistic....
> It's not lying.    If I ceased to be married for whatever reason, and I wanted male companionship, I would not settle for anything less than what I want out of a relationship, and, if I found myself in that position (being single/dating) I would be quite forthright about my needs and expectations.  It's important to "match up" properly.  Even in a "casual sex/dating" scenario....
> 
> Perhaps it's an "age" thing...
Click to expand...


Since you seem to understand what this loon is talking about, you want to explain what his statement means to me please?


----------



## WinterBorn

ChrisL said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> dear any appeal to any fallacy can be a lie as that form of ignorance of sublime Truth (value) discoverable through argumentation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just as you want something that is unrealistic....
> Many women want something that is unrealistic....
> It's not lying.    If I ceased to be married for whatever reason, and I wanted male companionship, I would not settle for anything less than what I want out of a relationship, and, if I found myself in that position (being single/dating) I would be quite forthright about my needs and expectations.  It's important to "match up" properly.  Even in a "casual sex/dating" scenario....
> 
> Perhaps it's an "age" thing...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since you seem to understand what this loon is talking about, you want to explain what his statement means to me please?
Click to expand...


It is simply spouting pseudo-intellectual jargon to hide the fact that he has no answer.


----------



## Bonzi

He's saying that just because the woman is ignorant doesn't mean she isn't lying.... that she can find out what men are like and really all about through research and discussion....

He's saying ignorance is no excuse....   (I think...I'm sure he will correct me if I'm wrong....)


----------



## Bonzi

ChrisL said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> dear any appeal to any fallacy can be a lie as that form of ignorance of sublime Truth (value) discoverable through argumentation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just as you want something that is unrealistic....
> Many women want something that is unrealistic....
> It's not lying.    If I ceased to be married for whatever reason, and I wanted male companionship, I would not settle for anything less than what I want out of a relationship, and, if I found myself in that position (being single/dating) I would be quite forthright about my needs and expectations.  It's important to "match up" properly.  Even in a "casual sex/dating" scenario....
> 
> Perhaps it's an "age" thing...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since you seem to understand what this loon is talking about, you want to explain what his statement means to me please?
Click to expand...

 
He's just frustrated that women don't think and act like he does.
I know the feeling, I used to feel that way about men -


----------



## ChrisL

Bonzi said:


> He's saying that just because the woman is ignorant doesn't mean she isn't lying.... that she can find out what men are like and really all about through research and discussion....
> 
> He's saying ignorance is no excuse....   (I think...I'm sure he will correct me if I'm wrong....)



Don't see how you're getting that from his statement, but okay.


----------



## ChrisL

WinterBorn said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> dear any appeal to any fallacy can be a lie as that form of ignorance of sublime Truth (value) discoverable through argumentation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just as you want something that is unrealistic....
> Many women want something that is unrealistic....
> It's not lying.    If I ceased to be married for whatever reason, and I wanted male companionship, I would not settle for anything less than what I want out of a relationship, and, if I found myself in that position (being single/dating) I would be quite forthright about my needs and expectations.  It's important to "match up" properly.  Even in a "casual sex/dating" scenario....
> 
> Perhaps it's an "age" thing...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since you seem to understand what this loon is talking about, you want to explain what his statement means to me please?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is simply spouting pseudo-intellectual jargon to hide the fact that he has no answer.
Click to expand...


That is my opinion, as well.  I can't make head nor tail out of any of his posts, to be honest.  Lol.


----------



## Katzndogz

Daniel is too caught up in equality without realizing there isn't any.


----------



## ChrisL

He's obviously retarded, that is all.


----------



## Bonzi

Tipsycatlover said:


> Daniel is too caught up in equality without realizing there isn't any.


 
Is anyone superior?
Or just not equal?


----------



## ChrisL

Bonzi said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel is too caught up in equality without realizing there isn't any.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is anyone superior?
> Or just not equal?
Click to expand...


When it comes to relationships, yes, some people are "superior" to others.


----------



## Bonzi

ChrisL said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel is too caught up in equality without realizing there isn't any.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is anyone superior?
> Or just not equal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When it comes to relationships, yes, some people are "superior" to others.
Click to expand...

 
So, someone in the relationship is always superior (or, if you prefer, dominant) - or is there a difference?


----------



## Katzndogz

Bonzi said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel is too caught up in equality without realizing there isn't any.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is anyone superior?
> Or just not equal?
Click to expand...

Equality should be a dirty word.   It is nonsense.  In reality there is no such thing as equality.  In male/female relationships there is no such thing as equality.  One is the leader, the other is the follower.  Who leads can be fluid depending on the circumstances but someone always leads.


----------



## Anathema

Bonzi said:


> So, someone in the relationship is always superior (or, if you prefer, dominant) - or is there a difference?



In ANY two-person relationship one or the othr has to be Superior. Even if it's only 51/49 because if not then most votes end up in a tie that cannot be broken.


----------



## Bonzi

Anathema said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, someone in the relationship is always superior (or, if you prefer, dominant) - or is there a difference?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In ANY two-person relationship one or the othr has to be Superior. Even if it's only 51/49 because if not then most votes end up in a tie that cannot be broken.
Click to expand...

 
Can the superiority shift?  Depending on the issue?


----------



## ChrisL

Bonzi said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel is too caught up in equality without realizing there isn't any.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is anyone superior?
> Or just not equal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When it comes to relationships, yes, some people are "superior" to others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, someone in the relationship is always superior (or, if you prefer, dominant) - or is there a difference?
Click to expand...


No, I mean all men are NOT equal when it comes to whom you want a relationship or sex with.  Would you choose danielpalos or Brad Pitt?


----------



## Bonzi

ChrisL said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel is too caught up in equality without realizing there isn't any.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is anyone superior?
> Or just not equal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When it comes to relationships, yes, some people are "superior" to others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, someone in the relationship is always superior (or, if you prefer, dominant) - or is there a difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I mean all men are NOT equal when it comes to whom you want a relationship or sex with.  Would you choose danielpalos or Brad Pitt?
Click to expand...

 
But men are more than their looks .... that being said, I would choose Chewbacca over danielpalos


----------



## ChrisL

Bonzi said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel is too caught up in equality without realizing there isn't any.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is anyone superior?
> Or just not equal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When it comes to relationships, yes, some people are "superior" to others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, someone in the relationship is always superior (or, if you prefer, dominant) - or is there a difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I mean all men are NOT equal when it comes to whom you want a relationship or sex with.  Would you choose danielpalos or Brad Pitt?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But men are more than their looks .... that being said, I would choose Chewbacca over danielpalos
Click to expand...


Chewbacca is definitely less annoying.  A little hairy for my tastes though.


----------



## Bonzi

Tipsycatlover said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel is too caught up in equality without realizing there isn't any.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is anyone superior?
> Or just not equal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Equality should be a dirty word.   It is nonsense.  In reality there is no such thing as equality.  In male/female relationships there is no such thing as equality.  One is the leader, the other is the follower.  Who leads can be fluid depending on the circumstances but someone always leads.
Click to expand...

 
I'm not sure our little friend danielpalos is look as much for EQUALITY as he is FAIRNESS.
Now, what he deems in his mind as "fair"...another story.

The equality comes in where, he's frustrated because he feels if women wanted to have the same rights as men, it should be an "even playing field" - meaning, men should not have to "woo" women and play the game.


----------



## Anathema

Bonzi said:


> Can the superiority shift?  Depending on the issue?



Yes. In fact it should. I'm not qualified to choose the cleaning products we use T home and my wife isn't qualified to decide how our cable or cell phone service should be structured.


----------



## Katzndogz

Bonzi said:


> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, someone in the relationship is always superior (or, if you prefer, dominant) - or is there a difference?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In ANY two-person relationship one or the othr has to be Superior. Even if it's only 51/49 because if not then most votes end up in a tie that cannot be broken.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can the superiority shift?  Depending on the issue?
Click to expand...

In a healthy relationship leadership should shift depending on the abilities needed.


----------



## Katzndogz

When I was younger I made all decisions.   I never wanted advice and consent.  I was single in every relationship. 

 As my practice got more demanding I made fewer and fewer decisions.  My husband chose the clothes I would wear that day, he decided what I had for dinner.  He decided what cleaning products to use and directed the housekeeper on their use.  He selected which television shows I would see.  He relieved me of the responsibility of ordinary living.

On the occasional time I did voice a decision it was final and never challenged.


----------



## Bonzi

Tipsycatlover said:


> When I was younger I made all decisions.   I never wanted advice and consent.  I was single in every relationship.
> 
> As my practice got more demanding I made fewer and fewer decisions.  My husband chose the clothes I would wear that day, he decided what I had for dinner.  He decided what cleaning products to use and directed the housekeeper on their use.  He selected which television shows I would see.  He relieved me of the responsibility of ordinary living.
> 
> On the occasional time I did voice a decision it was final and never challenged.


 
Which scenario did you prefer?


----------



## ChrisL

I make all my own decisions, and that is fine by me.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> dear, it was about having a superior force and "knowing" you should win.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Junior, it was about superior use of tactics against a force that THOUGHT they were superior.   They had superior numbers.  But their superiority was shown to be an illusion by the end of the battle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the point is Hannibal did need to use guile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that does nothing to prove your point.  I did not claim that guile is not used by forces with inferior numbers.   You claimed that guile is not used (according to military doctrine) unless you are inferior.   That is simply not true.   Guile is used by virtually all modern military.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only due to the inferiority of cost concerns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What?    If guile can result in a victory with fewer casualties for your men or fewer resources expended, it would be stupid not to use guile in your tactics.
> 
> And you were the one who claimed guile was only used by the inferior, and that this was military doctrine.   It is most certainly NOT military doctrine.  So spare us any more justifications of your lies.
Click to expand...

there is no guarantee of victory with defensive war.  it usually requires a master Tzu.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> dear, you miss the point as usual; it is about honesty, not me, personally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is not.   When you demand that women come up to you and ask you to use them (give you your turn) in order to prove they are serious about equality, you are not concerned with honesty.  You are concerned with coercing women in to doing what you want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, you are still missing the point and deflecting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I am not.    You claim it is all about honesty.  But requiring women to submit to being used, just to prove they are serious about equality, is not about honesty.  It is about manipulation and your fantasies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, you are the one stuck on terminology; it is about honesty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And of course, you deflect.  No, it is not about terminology.  lol
Click to expand...

you are still missing the honesty point, and, the proof is you can pick "best of breed" terminology for either party, it is about the concept.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> yup, only lesbians who hate heterosexual full body massage give me a difficult time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many women have you offered a full body massage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i have an outstanding offer all the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not what I asked you.   How many women (ballpark figure) have you made the offer of a full body massage to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i don't keep track.  but, it is much higher than the ones who accept.  i guess they are mostly just lesbians and not real women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you know they are lesbians or that they are not "real women"?
Click to expand...

Because real women don't day no to full body massage with happy ending just like real men don't say no to full body massage with happy ending, dear.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> yup, only lesbians who hate heterosexual full body massage give me a difficult time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm quite sure that is not true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it must be true since you give me a difficult time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So any heterosexual woman would accept a full body massage from you?   lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> anyone that wants one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you said that only lesbians give you a difficult time when you want to offer a full body massage.
> 
> So if a woman doesn't want a massage, does that make them a lesbian?
> 
> And since you are offering a full body massage (which would involve nudity), you want nothing in return?   You do not want any reciprocation by the women?
Click to expand...

dear, it is just banter.  you already lost the real arguments a long time ago.  just keep, shilling on.


----------



## danielpalos

ChrisL said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> still wrong and claiming you are not really like that, dear?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> is it true that only lesbians don't want heterosexual, full body massage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup, I'm a lesbian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yup, only lesbians who hate heterosexual full body massage give me a difficult time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Must be a WHOLE lot of lesbians in the world.
Click to expand...

not really; i just tend to meet most of them.


----------



## danielpalos

Bonzi said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> dear any appeal to any fallacy can be a lie as that form of ignorance of sublime Truth (value) discoverable through argumentation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just as you want something that is unrealistic....
> Many women want something that is unrealistic....
> It's not lying.    If I ceased to be married for whatever reason, and I wanted male companionship, I would not settle for anything less than what I want out of a relationship, and, if I found myself in that position (being single/dating) I would be quite forthright about my needs and expectations.  It's important to "match up" properly.  Even in a "casual sex/dating" scenario....
> 
> Perhaps it's an "age" thing...
Click to expand...

honesty as a form of respect toward fellow human beings is unrealistic?


----------



## danielpalos

ChrisL said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> dear any appeal to any fallacy can be a lie as that form of ignorance of sublime Truth (value) discoverable through argumentation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just as you want something that is unrealistic....
> Many women want something that is unrealistic....
> It's not lying.    If I ceased to be married for whatever reason, and I wanted male companionship, I would not settle for anything less than what I want out of a relationship, and, if I found myself in that position (being single/dating) I would be quite forthright about my needs and expectations.  It's important to "match up" properly.  Even in a "casual sex/dating" scenario....
> 
> Perhaps it's an "age" thing...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since you seem to understand what this loon is talking about, you want to explain what his statement means to me please?
Click to expand...

dear, only the clueless and the Causeless don't get it.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> dear any appeal to any fallacy can be a lie as that form of ignorance of sublime Truth (value) discoverable through argumentation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just as you want something that is unrealistic....
> Many women want something that is unrealistic....
> It's not lying.    If I ceased to be married for whatever reason, and I wanted male companionship, I would not settle for anything less than what I want out of a relationship, and, if I found myself in that position (being single/dating) I would be quite forthright about my needs and expectations.  It's important to "match up" properly.  Even in a "casual sex/dating" scenario....
> 
> Perhaps it's an "age" thing...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since you seem to understand what this loon is talking about, you want to explain what his statement means to me please?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is simply spouting pseudo-intellectual jargon to hide the fact that he has no answer.
Click to expand...

just shilling around?


----------



## Bonzi

danielpalos said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> dear any appeal to any fallacy can be a lie as that form of ignorance of sublime Truth (value) discoverable through argumentation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just as you want something that is unrealistic....
> Many women want something that is unrealistic....
> It's not lying.    If I ceased to be married for whatever reason, and I wanted male companionship, I would not settle for anything less than what I want out of a relationship, and, if I found myself in that position (being single/dating) I would be quite forthright about my needs and expectations.  It's important to "match up" properly.  Even in a "casual sex/dating" scenario....
> 
> Perhaps it's an "age" thing...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> honesty as a form of respect toward fellow human beings is unrealistic?
Click to expand...

 
Depends.  You don't tell someone they are fat because it's true do you?
I do think everyone should be honest about what they want out of a relationship, but, REALISTICALLY, people are not always going to share the 100% truth, because, we are civilized human beings.  Some things are better left unsaid, and oftentimes, concessions need to be made.

There is a line to draw in there somewhere....


----------



## danielpalos

Bonzi said:


> He's saying that just because the woman is ignorant doesn't mean she isn't lying.... that she can find out what men are like and really all about through research and discussion....
> 
> He's saying ignorance is no excuse....   (I think...I'm sure he will correct me if I'm wrong....)


i am saying keeping the guy ignorant is immoral.  a King even had wives executed for not being upfront with him.


----------



## Bonzi

danielpalos said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's saying that just because the woman is ignorant doesn't mean she isn't lying.... that she can find out what men are like and really all about through research and discussion....
> 
> He's saying ignorance is no excuse....   (I think...I'm sure he will correct me if I'm wrong....)
> 
> 
> 
> i am saying keeping the guy ignorant is immoral.  a King even had wives executed for not being upfront with him.
Click to expand...

 
Well people will lie.  Both MEN and WOMEN do it.
It is right?  Depends - there are outright lies and there are things someone may think they are OK with, but, then find out, they are NOT ok with it.   Not a lie, just an error in what they thought they could handle in a relationship.


----------



## danielpalos

Bonzi said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> dear any appeal to any fallacy can be a lie as that form of ignorance of sublime Truth (value) discoverable through argumentation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just as you want something that is unrealistic....
> Many women want something that is unrealistic....
> It's not lying.    If I ceased to be married for whatever reason, and I wanted male companionship, I would not settle for anything less than what I want out of a relationship, and, if I found myself in that position (being single/dating) I would be quite forthright about my needs and expectations.  It's important to "match up" properly.  Even in a "casual sex/dating" scenario....
> 
> Perhaps it's an "age" thing...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since you seem to understand what this loon is talking about, you want to explain what his statement means to me please?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's just frustrated that women don't think and act like he does.
> I know the feeling, I used to feel that way about men -
Click to expand...

no dear; i know i only and merely need money, not playing silly chic trics for poon. only shills for poon play your games.  and, most guys know not to take them any more seriously than any other liars.


----------



## danielpalos

Tipsycatlover said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel is too caught up in equality without realizing there isn't any.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is anyone superior?
> Or just not equal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Equality should be a dirty word.   It is nonsense.  In reality there is no such thing as equality.  In male/female relationships there is no such thing as equality.  One is the leader, the other is the follower.  Who leads can be fluid depending on the circumstances but someone always leads.
Click to expand...

it is about the social concept and equality before a god or the law, at its most fundamental in our republic.  

in any case, it should be about informed consent and voluntary social transaction under any form of capitalism.  only lousy socialists play silly social games for free.


----------



## danielpalos

Bonzi said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> dear any appeal to any fallacy can be a lie as that form of ignorance of sublime Truth (value) discoverable through argumentation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just as you want something that is unrealistic....
> Many women want something that is unrealistic....
> It's not lying.    If I ceased to be married for whatever reason, and I wanted male companionship, I would not settle for anything less than what I want out of a relationship, and, if I found myself in that position (being single/dating) I would be quite forthright about my needs and expectations.  It's important to "match up" properly.  Even in a "casual sex/dating" scenario....
> 
> Perhaps it's an "age" thing...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> honesty as a form of respect toward fellow human beings is unrealistic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Depends.  You don't tell someone they are fat because it's true do you?
> I do think everyone should be honest about what they want out of a relationship, but, REALISTICALLY, people are not always going to share the 100% truth, because, we are civilized human beings.  Some things are better left unsaid, and oftentimes, concessions need to be made.
> 
> There is a line to draw in there somewhere....
Click to expand...

dear; there is a difference between honesty as a subjective moral value and honest, constructive criticism.  only lousy socialists use social moral for free, for badness instead of goodness.


----------



## danielpalos

Bonzi said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's saying that just because the woman is ignorant doesn't mean she isn't lying.... that she can find out what men are like and really all about through research and discussion....
> 
> He's saying ignorance is no excuse....   (I think...I'm sure he will correct me if I'm wrong....)
> 
> 
> 
> i am saying keeping the guy ignorant is immoral.  a King even had wives executed for not being upfront with him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well people will lie.  Both MEN and WOMEN do it.
> It is right?  Depends - there are outright lies and there are things someone may think they are OK with, but, then find out, they are NOT ok with it.   Not a lie, just an error in what they thought they could handle in a relationship.
Click to expand...

how much error is there in simply and honestly asking for what you want?


----------



## Bonzi

danielpalos said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> dear any appeal to any fallacy can be a lie as that form of ignorance of sublime Truth (value) discoverable through argumentation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just as you want something that is unrealistic....
> Many women want something that is unrealistic....
> It's not lying.    If I ceased to be married for whatever reason, and I wanted male companionship, I would not settle for anything less than what I want out of a relationship, and, if I found myself in that position (being single/dating) I would be quite forthright about my needs and expectations.  It's important to "match up" properly.  Even in a "casual sex/dating" scenario....
> 
> Perhaps it's an "age" thing...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since you seem to understand what this loon is talking about, you want to explain what his statement means to me please?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's just frustrated that women don't think and act like he does.
> I know the feeling, I used to feel that way about men -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no dear; i know i only and merely need money, not playing silly chic trics for poon. only shills for poon play your games.  and, most guys know not to take them any more seriously than any other liars.
Click to expand...

 
You are fooling yourself if you think everyone thinks like you.
I have yet to hear one man agree with you.


----------



## Bonzi

danielpalos said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's saying that just because the woman is ignorant doesn't mean she isn't lying.... that she can find out what men are like and really all about through research and discussion....
> 
> He's saying ignorance is no excuse....   (I think...I'm sure he will correct me if I'm wrong....)
> 
> 
> 
> i am saying keeping the guy ignorant is immoral.  a King even had wives executed for not being upfront with him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well people will lie.  Both MEN and WOMEN do it.
> It is right?  Depends - there are outright lies and there are things someone may think they are OK with, but, then find out, they are NOT ok with it.   Not a lie, just an error in what they thought they could handle in a relationship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how much error is there in simply and honestly asking for what you want?
Click to expand...

 
none.  but you won't find much out there in they way of women that want to be just sex buddies.
Have you ever had a woman say she wanted to?
Maybe you can ask direct questions?  If she says one thing and does another, you have a point.


----------



## Bonzi

danielpalos said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel is too caught up in equality without realizing there isn't any.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is anyone superior?
> Or just not equal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Equality should be a dirty word.   It is nonsense.  In reality there is no such thing as equality.  In male/female relationships there is no such thing as equality.  One is the leader, the other is the follower.  Who leads can be fluid depending on the circumstances but someone always leads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about the social concept and equality before a god or the law, at its most fundamental in our republic.
> 
> in any case, it should be about informed consent and voluntary social transaction under any form of capitalism.  only lousy socialists play silly social games for free.
Click to expand...

 
People play the games they want to play.
We don't live in a controlled environment - where we have to play by any given rules, in relationships or otherwise.

Want to play it your way?  State your rules up front.  People interested and with similar "values" to yours will stick around.


----------



## ChrisL

Bonzi said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's saying that just because the woman is ignorant doesn't mean she isn't lying.... that she can find out what men are like and really all about through research and discussion....
> 
> He's saying ignorance is no excuse....   (I think...I'm sure he will correct me if I'm wrong....)
> 
> 
> 
> i am saying keeping the guy ignorant is immoral.  a King even had wives executed for not being upfront with him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well people will lie.  Both MEN and WOMEN do it.
> It is right?  Depends - there are outright lies and there are things someone may think they are OK with, but, then find out, they are NOT ok with it.   Not a lie, just an error in what they thought they could handle in a relationship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how much error is there in simply and honestly asking for what you want?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> none.  but you won't find much out there in they way of women that want to be just sex buddies.
> Have you ever had a woman say she wanted to?
> Maybe you can ask direct questions?  If she says one thing and does another, you have a point.
Click to expand...


Ask questions to whom?  His blowup doll?


----------



## danielpalos

Bonzi said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> dear any appeal to any fallacy can be a lie as that form of ignorance of sublime Truth (value) discoverable through argumentation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just as you want something that is unrealistic....
> Many women want something that is unrealistic....
> It's not lying.    If I ceased to be married for whatever reason, and I wanted male companionship, I would not settle for anything less than what I want out of a relationship, and, if I found myself in that position (being single/dating) I would be quite forthright about my needs and expectations.  It's important to "match up" properly.  Even in a "casual sex/dating" scenario....
> 
> Perhaps it's an "age" thing...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since you seem to understand what this loon is talking about, you want to explain what his statement means to me please?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's just frustrated that women don't think and act like he does.
> I know the feeling, I used to feel that way about men -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no dear; i know i only and merely need money, not playing silly chic trics for poon. only shills for poon play your games.  and, most guys know not to take them any more seriously than any other liars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are fooling yourself if you think everyone thinks like you.
> I have yet to hear one man agree with you.
Click to expand...

i already know jumping on the bandwagon is a fallacy; they all have nothing but fallacy to work with.


----------



## danielpalos

Bonzi said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's saying that just because the woman is ignorant doesn't mean she isn't lying.... that she can find out what men are like and really all about through research and discussion....
> 
> He's saying ignorance is no excuse....   (I think...I'm sure he will correct me if I'm wrong....)
> 
> 
> 
> i am saying keeping the guy ignorant is immoral.  a King even had wives executed for not being upfront with him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well people will lie.  Both MEN and WOMEN do it.
> It is right?  Depends - there are outright lies and there are things someone may think they are OK with, but, then find out, they are NOT ok with it.   Not a lie, just an error in what they thought they could handle in a relationship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how much error is there in simply and honestly asking for what you want?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> none.  but you won't find much out there in they way of women that want to be just sex buddies.
> Have you ever had a woman say she wanted to?
> Maybe you can ask direct questions?  If she says one thing and does another, you have a point.
Click to expand...

yes; all women say one thing and do another; that is the point: honesty.


----------



## danielpalos

Bonzi said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel is too caught up in equality without realizing there isn't any.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is anyone superior?
> Or just not equal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Equality should be a dirty word.   It is nonsense.  In reality there is no such thing as equality.  In male/female relationships there is no such thing as equality.  One is the leader, the other is the follower.  Who leads can be fluid depending on the circumstances but someone always leads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about the social concept and equality before a god or the law, at its most fundamental in our republic.
> 
> in any case, it should be about informed consent and voluntary social transaction under any form of capitalism.  only lousy socialists play silly social games for free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People play the games they want to play.
> We don't live in a controlled environment - where we have to play by any given rules, in relationships or otherwise.
> 
> Want to play it your way?  State your rules up front.  People interested and with similar "values" to yours will stick around.
Click to expand...

sure; only false capitalists don't believe in using money as capital.


----------



## danielpalos

ChrisL said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's saying that just because the woman is ignorant doesn't mean she isn't lying.... that she can find out what men are like and really all about through research and discussion....
> 
> He's saying ignorance is no excuse....   (I think...I'm sure he will correct me if I'm wrong....)
> 
> 
> 
> i am saying keeping the guy ignorant is immoral.  a King even had wives executed for not being upfront with him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well people will lie.  Both MEN and WOMEN do it.
> It is right?  Depends - there are outright lies and there are things someone may think they are OK with, but, then find out, they are NOT ok with it.   Not a lie, just an error in what they thought they could handle in a relationship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how much error is there in simply and honestly asking for what you want?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> none.  but you won't find much out there in they way of women that want to be just sex buddies.
> Have you ever had a woman say she wanted to?
> Maybe you can ask direct questions?  If she says one thing and does another, you have a point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ask questions to whom?  His blowup doll?
Click to expand...

no, hot chics on the internet who don't mind taking their clothes off.


----------



## shadow355

Bonzi said:


> People play the games they want to play.
> We don't live in a controlled environment - where we have to play by any given rules, in relationships or otherwise.
> 
> Want to play it your way?  State your rules up front.  People interested and with similar "values" to yours will stick around.


 

I asked a woman I was having an affair with ; if she wanted to stay in it for the long haul. We were having luch together if I am right. She said yes. I was getting a divorced, as was she. I was done wrong - stabbed in teh back and taken advantage of ; her husband treated her terribly. We found an interest in each other.

The woman i asked to stay with me was funny - smart ; and again, a sharp dresser. We got along terrifically, and we "Clicked".

After me asking her if we was in it together till the end - she started distancing herself from me, calling me on my cell phone less often, and stopped coming by my work place. I would call her, and get voice mail. After three weeks of her distancing herself from me ; I knew it was the end. About 6 weeks after I asked her to go all the way to the end with me - for a permanent relationship ; she basically disappeared.

We met for breakfast one morning, at the Metropolitan Area where I worked EMS - I believe we met on the west or southwest side of town. We were followed , and while eating breakfast we were being watched ( I will call it surveilled )......and why we were being watched - I do not know why. ( NO - I am not a criminal )

Her house - large house concerned me. Her husband had a good job ; but it was not great. Expensive.....to expensive for both of them in my opinion. I don't know their financials - and I might be wrong........but the house they lived in did set bells and whistles off in my head - real loud one afternoon as I set in her kitchen at the counter ( Corner of the counter ?? ) ; her standing between the counter and the stove ( or close to it ) and asking me if was alright / if I was OK.

 I did not see where they could afford a large home ( Brick house if I remember correctly ) in a "Very Ritzy" part of the neighborhood. The furnishings was excellent

WOMEN also, pick relationships that go no where. They just want a "companion" for awhile ; or until it gets serious.

Women at times also - are underhanded and have ulterior motives. They can be sneaky and not trustworthy.

I know.......from experience.

    Shadow 355


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Junior, it was about superior use of tactics against a force that THOUGHT they were superior.   They had superior numbers.  But their superiority was shown to be an illusion by the end of the battle.
> 
> 
> 
> the point is Hannibal did need to use guile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that does nothing to prove your point.  I did not claim that guile is not used by forces with inferior numbers.   You claimed that guile is not used (according to military doctrine) unless you are inferior.   That is simply not true.   Guile is used by virtually all modern military.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only due to the inferiority of cost concerns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What?    If guile can result in a victory with fewer casualties for your men or fewer resources expended, it would be stupid not to use guile in your tactics.
> 
> And you were the one who claimed guile was only used by the inferior, and that this was military doctrine.   It is most certainly NOT military doctrine.  So spare us any more justifications of your lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no guarantee of victory with defensive war.  it usually requires a master Tzu.
Click to expand...


Sun Tzu?   You are quoting The Art of War in defense of your claim?

Tzu said "All warfare is based on deception".     

And I have no idea why you add the qualifier of a "defensive" war.   Guile is not strictly a defensive tactic.

But I see you are not ready to admit that you lied when you made your claim about military doctrine.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many women have you offered a full body massage?
> 
> 
> 
> i have an outstanding offer all the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not what I asked you.   How many women (ballpark figure) have you made the offer of a full body massage to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i don't keep track.  but, it is much higher than the ones who accept.  i guess they are mostly just lesbians and not real women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you know they are lesbians or that they are not "real women"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because real women don't day no to full body massage with happy ending just like real men don't say no to full body massage with happy ending, dear.
Click to expand...


Bullshit.   Absolute bullshit.

If a woman does not find you attractive, she will say no to a full body massage with happy ending every day, and twice on Sunday.  It is just that simple.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm quite sure that is not true.
> 
> 
> 
> it must be true since you give me a difficult time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So any heterosexual woman would accept a full body massage from you?   lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> anyone that wants one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you said that only lesbians give you a difficult time when you want to offer a full body massage.
> 
> So if a woman doesn't want a massage, does that make them a lesbian?
> 
> And since you are offering a full body massage (which would involve nudity), you want nothing in return?   You do not want any reciprocation by the women?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, it is just banter.  you already lost the real arguments a long time ago.  just keep, shilling on.
Click to expand...


Junior, if I was shilling you wouldn't know it.

I have not lost the argument.  If I had you would not be trying to be so obtuse.

But I see you refuse to answer a simple question of whether or not your motives are completely altruistic or whether you hope for something else to happen.


----------



## ChrisL

shadow355 said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> People play the games they want to play.
> We don't live in a controlled environment - where we have to play by any given rules, in relationships or otherwise.
> 
> Want to play it your way?  State your rules up front.  People interested and with similar "values" to yours will stick around.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I asked a woman I was having an affair with ; if she wanted to stay in it for the long haul. We were having luch together if I am right. She said yes. I was getting a divorced, as was she. I was done wrong - stabbed in teh back and taken advantage of ; her husband treated her terribly. We found an interest in each other.
> 
> The woman i asked to stay with me was funny - smart ; and again, a sharp dresser. We got along terrifically, and we "Clicked".
> 
> After me asking her if we was in it together till the end - she started distancing herself from me, calling me on my cell phone less often, and stopped coming by my work place. I would call her, and get voice mail. After three weeks of her distancing herself from me ; I knew it was the end. About 6 weeks after I asked her to go all the way to the end with me - for a permanent relationship ; she basically disappeared.
> 
> We met for breakfast one morning, at the Metropolitan Area where I worked EMS - I believe we met on the west or southwest side of town. We were followed , and while eating breakfast we were being watched ( I will call it surveilled )......and why we were being watched - I do not know why. ( NO - I am not a criminal )
> 
> Her house - large house concerned me. Her husband had a good job ; but it was not great. Expensive.....to expensive for both of them in my opinion. I don't know their financials - and I might be wrong........but the house they lived in did set bells and whistles off in my head - real loud one afternoon as I set in her kitchen at the counter ( Corner of the counter ?? ) ; her standing between the counter and the stove ( or close to it ) and asking me if was alright / if I was OK.
> 
> I did not see where they could afford a large home ( Brick house if I remember correctly ) in a "Very Ritzy" part of the neighborhood. The furnishings was excellent
> 
> WOMEN also, pick relationships that go no where. They just want a "companion" for awhile ; or until it gets serious.
> 
> Women at times also - are underhanded and have ulterior motives. They can be sneaky and not trustworthy.
> 
> I know.......from experience.
> 
> Shadow 355
Click to expand...


Well you said you were having an "affair?"  WTF do you expect from a woman who would cheat on her husband?


----------



## Ernie S.

ChrisL said:


> No, I would think he was a dirty whore!


I am. When are you coming to visit?


----------



## ChrisL

shadow355 said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> People play the games they want to play.
> We don't live in a controlled environment - where we have to play by any given rules, in relationships or otherwise.
> 
> Want to play it your way?  State your rules up front.  People interested and with similar "values" to yours will stick around.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I asked a woman I was having an affair with ; if she wanted to stay in it for the long haul. We were having luch together if I am right. She said yes. I was getting a divorced, as was she. I was done wrong - stabbed in teh back and taken advantage of ; her husband treated her terribly. We found an interest in each other.
> 
> The woman i asked to stay with me was funny - smart ; and again, a sharp dresser. We got along terrifically, and we "Clicked".
> 
> After me asking her if we was in it together till the end - she started distancing herself from me, calling me on my cell phone less often, and stopped coming by my work place. I would call her, and get voice mail. After three weeks of her distancing herself from me ; I knew it was the end. About 6 weeks after I asked her to go all the way to the end with me - for a permanent relationship ; she basically disappeared.
> 
> We met for breakfast one morning, at the Metropolitan Area where I worked EMS - I believe we met on the west or southwest side of town. We were followed , and while eating breakfast we were being watched ( I will call it surveilled )......and why we were being watched - I do not know why. ( NO - I am not a criminal )
> 
> Her house - large house concerned me. Her husband had a good job ; but it was not great. Expensive.....to expensive for both of them in my opinion. I don't know their financials - and I might be wrong........but the house they lived in did set bells and whistles off in my head - real loud one afternoon as I set in her kitchen at the counter ( Corner of the counter ?? ) ; her standing between the counter and the stove ( or close to it ) and asking me if was alright / if I was OK.
> 
> I did not see where they could afford a large home ( Brick house if I remember correctly ) in a "Very Ritzy" part of the neighborhood. The furnishings was excellent
> 
> WOMEN also, pick relationships that go no where. They just want a "companion" for awhile ; or until it gets serious.
> 
> Women at times also - are underhanded and have ulterior motives. They can be sneaky and not trustworthy.
> 
> I know.......from experience.
> 
> Shadow 355
Click to expand...


She probably lied to you, Shadow.  Her husband probably treated her fine and she had no intentions on ever leaving him.  Bad idea to get involved in "those" kinds of relationships, IMO.  Leads to nothing but trouble, trouble, trouble.


----------



## ChrisL

Ernie S. said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I would think he was a dirty whore!
> 
> 
> 
> I am. When are you coming to visit?
Click to expand...


Ernie!!!


----------



## Ernie S.

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> i have an outstanding offer all the time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what I asked you.   How many women (ballpark figure) have you made the offer of a full body massage to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i don't keep track.  but, it is much higher than the ones who accept.  i guess they are mostly just lesbians and not real women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you know they are lesbians or that they are not "real women"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because real women don't day no to full body massage with happy ending just like real men don't say no to full body massage with happy ending, dear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.   Absolute bullshit.
> 
> If a woman does not find you attractive, she will say no to a full body massage with happy ending every day, and twice on Sunday.  It is just that simple.
Click to expand...




ChrisL said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I would think he was a dirty whore!
> 
> 
> 
> I am. When are you coming to visit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ernie!!!
Click to expand...

If you want to slap me, you'll have to come here.


----------



## danielpalos

shadow355 said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> People play the games they want to play.
> We don't live in a controlled environment - where we have to play by any given rules, in relationships or otherwise.
> 
> Want to play it your way?  State your rules up front.  People interested and with similar "values" to yours will stick around.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I asked a woman I was having an affair with ; if she wanted to stay in it for the long haul. We were having luch together if I am right. She said yes. I was getting a divorced, as was she. I was done wrong - stabbed in teh back and taken advantage of ; her husband treated her terribly. We found an interest in each other.
> 
> The woman i asked to stay with me was funny - smart ; and again, a sharp dresser. We got along terrifically, and we "Clicked".
> 
> After me asking her if we was in it together till the end - she started distancing herself from me, calling me on my cell phone less often, and stopped coming by my work place. I would call her, and get voice mail. After three weeks of her distancing herself from me ; I knew it was the end. About 6 weeks after I asked her to go all the way to the end with me - for a permanent relationship ; she basically disappeared.
> 
> We met for breakfast one morning, at the Metropolitan Area where I worked EMS - I believe we met on the west or southwest side of town. We were followed , and while eating breakfast we were being watched ( I will call it surveilled )......and why we were being watched - I do not know why. ( NO - I am not a criminal )
> 
> Her house - large house concerned me. Her husband had a good job ; but it was not great. Expensive.....to expensive for both of them in my opinion. I don't know their financials - and I might be wrong........but the house they lived in did set bells and whistles off in my head - real loud one afternoon as I set in her kitchen at the counter ( Corner of the counter ?? ) ; her standing between the counter and the stove ( or close to it ) and asking me if was alright / if I was OK.
> 
> I did not see where they could afford a large home ( Brick house if I remember correctly ) in a "Very Ritzy" part of the neighborhood. The furnishings was excellent
> 
> WOMEN also, pick relationships that go no where. They just want a "companion" for awhile ; or until it gets serious.
> 
> Women at times also - are underhanded and have ulterior motives. They can be sneaky and not trustworthy.
> 
> I know.......from experience.
> 
> Shadow 355
Click to expand...

capital is always simpler and we can insure promptness instead of delays and excuses.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> the point is Hannibal did need to use guile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that does nothing to prove your point.  I did not claim that guile is not used by forces with inferior numbers.   You claimed that guile is not used (according to military doctrine) unless you are inferior.   That is simply not true.   Guile is used by virtually all modern military.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only due to the inferiority of cost concerns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What?    If guile can result in a victory with fewer casualties for your men or fewer resources expended, it would be stupid not to use guile in your tactics.
> 
> And you were the one who claimed guile was only used by the inferior, and that this was military doctrine.   It is most certainly NOT military doctrine.  So spare us any more justifications of your lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no guarantee of victory with defensive war.  it usually requires a master Tzu.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sun Tzu?   You are quoting The Art of War in defense of your claim?
> 
> Tzu said "All warfare is based on deception".
> 
> And I have no idea why you add the qualifier of a "defensive" war.   Guile is not strictly a defensive tactic.
> 
> But I see you are not ready to admit that you lied when you made your claim about military doctrine.
Click to expand...

Only when well practiced due to manpower inferiorities; and, always applies in the context of an inferior force facing a superior force.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> i have an outstanding offer all the time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what I asked you.   How many women (ballpark figure) have you made the offer of a full body massage to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i don't keep track.  but, it is much higher than the ones who accept.  i guess they are mostly just lesbians and not real women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you know they are lesbians or that they are not "real women"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because real women don't day no to full body massage with happy ending just like real men don't say no to full body massage with happy ending, dear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.   Absolute bullshit.
> 
> If a woman does not find you attractive, she will say no to a full body massage with happy ending every day, and twice on Sunday.  It is just that simple.
Click to expand...

dear, you are still missing the equality point; just shilling?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it must be true since you give me a difficult time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So any heterosexual woman would accept a full body massage from you?   lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> anyone that wants one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you said that only lesbians give you a difficult time when you want to offer a full body massage.
> 
> So if a woman doesn't want a massage, does that make them a lesbian?
> 
> And since you are offering a full body massage (which would involve nudity), you want nothing in return?   You do not want any reciprocation by the women?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, it is just banter.  you already lost the real arguments a long time ago.  just keep, shilling on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Junior, if I was shilling you wouldn't know it.
> 
> I have not lost the argument.  If I had you would not be trying to be so obtuse.
> 
> But I see you refuse to answer a simple question of whether or not your motives are completely altruistic or whether you hope for something else to happen.
Click to expand...

yes, dear; i would.  shills must be full of fallacy for any Thing but their Cause.


----------



## danielpalos

ChrisL said:


> shadow355 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> People play the games they want to play.
> We don't live in a controlled environment - where we have to play by any given rules, in relationships or otherwise.
> 
> Want to play it your way?  State your rules up front.  People interested and with similar "values" to yours will stick around.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I asked a woman I was having an affair with ; if she wanted to stay in it for the long haul. We were having luch together if I am right. She said yes. I was getting a divorced, as was she. I was done wrong - stabbed in teh back and taken advantage of ; her husband treated her terribly. We found an interest in each other.
> 
> The woman i asked to stay with me was funny - smart ; and again, a sharp dresser. We got along terrifically, and we "Clicked".
> 
> After me asking her if we was in it together till the end - she started distancing herself from me, calling me on my cell phone less often, and stopped coming by my work place. I would call her, and get voice mail. After three weeks of her distancing herself from me ; I knew it was the end. About 6 weeks after I asked her to go all the way to the end with me - for a permanent relationship ; she basically disappeared.
> 
> We met for breakfast one morning, at the Metropolitan Area where I worked EMS - I believe we met on the west or southwest side of town. We were followed , and while eating breakfast we were being watched ( I will call it surveilled )......and why we were being watched - I do not know why. ( NO - I am not a criminal )
> 
> Her house - large house concerned me. Her husband had a good job ; but it was not great. Expensive.....to expensive for both of them in my opinion. I don't know their financials - and I might be wrong........but the house they lived in did set bells and whistles off in my head - real loud one afternoon as I set in her kitchen at the counter ( Corner of the counter ?? ) ; her standing between the counter and the stove ( or close to it ) and asking me if was alright / if I was OK.
> 
> I did not see where they could afford a large home ( Brick house if I remember correctly ) in a "Very Ritzy" part of the neighborhood. The furnishings was excellent
> 
> WOMEN also, pick relationships that go no where. They just want a "companion" for awhile ; or until it gets serious.
> 
> Women at times also - are underhanded and have ulterior motives. They can be sneaky and not trustworthy.
> 
> I know.......from experience.
> 
> Shadow 355
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you said you were having an "affair?"  WTF do you expect from a woman who would cheat on her husband?
Click to expand...

I believe she may have been "spooked" because the last guy said the same thing; and it didn't work out--a coincidence or "conspiracy"?


----------



## danielpalos

Ernie S. said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I would think he was a dirty whore!
> 
> 
> 
> I am. When are you coming to visit?
Click to expand...

i guess i may need to compete with table showers, huh?


----------



## danielpalos

ChrisL said:


> shadow355 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> People play the games they want to play.
> We don't live in a controlled environment - where we have to play by any given rules, in relationships or otherwise.
> 
> Want to play it your way?  State your rules up front.  People interested and with similar "values" to yours will stick around.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I asked a woman I was having an affair with ; if she wanted to stay in it for the long haul. We were having luch together if I am right. She said yes. I was getting a divorced, as was she. I was done wrong - stabbed in teh back and taken advantage of ; her husband treated her terribly. We found an interest in each other.
> 
> The woman i asked to stay with me was funny - smart ; and again, a sharp dresser. We got along terrifically, and we "Clicked".
> 
> After me asking her if we was in it together till the end - she started distancing herself from me, calling me on my cell phone less often, and stopped coming by my work place. I would call her, and get voice mail. After three weeks of her distancing herself from me ; I knew it was the end. About 6 weeks after I asked her to go all the way to the end with me - for a permanent relationship ; she basically disappeared.
> 
> We met for breakfast one morning, at the Metropolitan Area where I worked EMS - I believe we met on the west or southwest side of town. We were followed , and while eating breakfast we were being watched ( I will call it surveilled )......and why we were being watched - I do not know why. ( NO - I am not a criminal )
> 
> Her house - large house concerned me. Her husband had a good job ; but it was not great. Expensive.....to expensive for both of them in my opinion. I don't know their financials - and I might be wrong........but the house they lived in did set bells and whistles off in my head - real loud one afternoon as I set in her kitchen at the counter ( Corner of the counter ?? ) ; her standing between the counter and the stove ( or close to it ) and asking me if was alright / if I was OK.
> 
> I did not see where they could afford a large home ( Brick house if I remember correctly ) in a "Very Ritzy" part of the neighborhood. The furnishings was excellent
> 
> WOMEN also, pick relationships that go no where. They just want a "companion" for awhile ; or until it gets serious.
> 
> Women at times also - are underhanded and have ulterior motives. They can be sneaky and not trustworthy.
> 
> I know.......from experience.
> 
> Shadow 355
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She probably lied to you, Shadow.  Her husband probably treated her fine and she had no intentions on ever leaving him.  Bad idea to get involved in "those" kinds of relationships, IMO.  Leads to nothing but trouble, trouble, trouble.
Click to expand...

I have a fixed Standard of being willing to give them back.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> shadow355 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> People play the games they want to play.
> We don't live in a controlled environment - where we have to play by any given rules, in relationships or otherwise.
> 
> Want to play it your way?  State your rules up front.  People interested and with similar "values" to yours will stick around.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I asked a woman I was having an affair with ; if she wanted to stay in it for the long haul. We were having luch together if I am right. She said yes. I was getting a divorced, as was she. I was done wrong - stabbed in teh back and taken advantage of ; her husband treated her terribly. We found an interest in each other.
> 
> The woman i asked to stay with me was funny - smart ; and again, a sharp dresser. We got along terrifically, and we "Clicked".
> 
> After me asking her if we was in it together till the end - she started distancing herself from me, calling me on my cell phone less often, and stopped coming by my work place. I would call her, and get voice mail. After three weeks of her distancing herself from me ; I knew it was the end. About 6 weeks after I asked her to go all the way to the end with me - for a permanent relationship ; she basically disappeared.
> 
> We met for breakfast one morning, at the Metropolitan Area where I worked EMS - I believe we met on the west or southwest side of town. We were followed , and while eating breakfast we were being watched ( I will call it surveilled )......and why we were being watched - I do not know why. ( NO - I am not a criminal )
> 
> Her house - large house concerned me. Her husband had a good job ; but it was not great. Expensive.....to expensive for both of them in my opinion. I don't know their financials - and I might be wrong........but the house they lived in did set bells and whistles off in my head - real loud one afternoon as I set in her kitchen at the counter ( Corner of the counter ?? ) ; her standing between the counter and the stove ( or close to it ) and asking me if was alright / if I was OK.
> 
> I did not see where they could afford a large home ( Brick house if I remember correctly ) in a "Very Ritzy" part of the neighborhood. The furnishings was excellent
> 
> WOMEN also, pick relationships that go no where. They just want a "companion" for awhile ; or until it gets serious.
> 
> Women at times also - are underhanded and have ulterior motives. They can be sneaky and not trustworthy.
> 
> I know.......from experience.
> 
> Shadow 355
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> capital is always simpler and we can insure promptness instead of delays and excuses.
Click to expand...


Indeed it is.  And it is the shortest distance to an orgasm.

But the "game" can be so much fun!    I have been living with my g/f for 3+ years.  And I still enjoy the seduction.   If you consider women more than an orifice and a pair of tits, you can enjoy all they have to offer.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that does nothing to prove your point.  I did not claim that guile is not used by forces with inferior numbers.   You claimed that guile is not used (according to military doctrine) unless you are inferior.   That is simply not true.   Guile is used by virtually all modern military.
> 
> 
> 
> only due to the inferiority of cost concerns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What?    If guile can result in a victory with fewer casualties for your men or fewer resources expended, it would be stupid not to use guile in your tactics.
> 
> And you were the one who claimed guile was only used by the inferior, and that this was military doctrine.   It is most certainly NOT military doctrine.  So spare us any more justifications of your lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no guarantee of victory with defensive war.  it usually requires a master Tzu.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sun Tzu?   You are quoting The Art of War in defense of your claim?
> 
> Tzu said "All warfare is based on deception".
> 
> And I have no idea why you add the qualifier of a "defensive" war.   Guile is not strictly a defensive tactic.
> 
> But I see you are not ready to admit that you lied when you made your claim about military doctrine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only when well practiced due to manpower inferiorities; and, always applies in the context of an inferior force facing a superior force.
Click to expand...


Bullshit.   And I challenge you to show any evidence that your claim it accurate.

Deception saves lives, even for the superior force.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I would think he was a dirty whore!
> 
> 
> 
> I am. When are you coming to visit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i guess i may need to compete with table showers, huh?
Click to expand...


Dude, you couldn't compete for ChrisL's favors if you had a dick made of gold and a fist full of money.


----------



## Ernie S.

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I would think he was a dirty whore!
> 
> 
> 
> I am. When are you coming to visit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i guess i may need to compete with table showers, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, you couldn't compete for ChrisL's favors if you had a dick made of gold and a fist full of money.
Click to expand...

I had to see who you were replying to there. Is there now any question as to why I have the idiot on ignore?


----------



## WinterBorn

Ernie S. said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I would think he was a dirty whore!
> 
> 
> 
> I am. When are you coming to visit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i guess i may need to compete with table showers, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, you couldn't compete for ChrisL's favors if you had a dick made of gold and a fist full of money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I had to see who you were replying to there. Is there now any question as to why I have the idiot on ignore?
Click to expand...


Yeah, I understand.  I have him on ignore sometimes too.  Today I felt like slapping him around.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shadow355 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> People play the games they want to play.
> We don't live in a controlled environment - where we have to play by any given rules, in relationships or otherwise.
> 
> Want to play it your way?  State your rules up front.  People interested and with similar "values" to yours will stick around.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I asked a woman I was having an affair with ; if she wanted to stay in it for the long haul. We were having luch together if I am right. She said yes. I was getting a divorced, as was she. I was done wrong - stabbed in teh back and taken advantage of ; her husband treated her terribly. We found an interest in each other.
> 
> The woman i asked to stay with me was funny - smart ; and again, a sharp dresser. We got along terrifically, and we "Clicked".
> 
> After me asking her if we was in it together till the end - she started distancing herself from me, calling me on my cell phone less often, and stopped coming by my work place. I would call her, and get voice mail. After three weeks of her distancing herself from me ; I knew it was the end. About 6 weeks after I asked her to go all the way to the end with me - for a permanent relationship ; she basically disappeared.
> 
> We met for breakfast one morning, at the Metropolitan Area where I worked EMS - I believe we met on the west or southwest side of town. We were followed , and while eating breakfast we were being watched ( I will call it surveilled )......and why we were being watched - I do not know why. ( NO - I am not a criminal )
> 
> Her house - large house concerned me. Her husband had a good job ; but it was not great. Expensive.....to expensive for both of them in my opinion. I don't know their financials - and I might be wrong........but the house they lived in did set bells and whistles off in my head - real loud one afternoon as I set in her kitchen at the counter ( Corner of the counter ?? ) ; her standing between the counter and the stove ( or close to it ) and asking me if was alright / if I was OK.
> 
> I did not see where they could afford a large home ( Brick house if I remember correctly ) in a "Very Ritzy" part of the neighborhood. The furnishings was excellent
> 
> WOMEN also, pick relationships that go no where. They just want a "companion" for awhile ; or until it gets serious.
> 
> Women at times also - are underhanded and have ulterior motives. They can be sneaky and not trustworthy.
> 
> I know.......from experience.
> 
> Shadow 355
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> capital is always simpler and we can insure promptness instead of delays and excuses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed it is.  And it is the shortest distance to an orgasm.
> 
> But the "game" can be so much fun!    I have been living with my g/f for 3+ years.  And I still enjoy the seduction.   If you consider women more than an orifice and a pair of tits, you can enjoy all they have to offer.
Click to expand...

yes; capitalism is always wonderful when one has enough capital.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> only due to the inferiority of cost concerns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What?    If guile can result in a victory with fewer casualties for your men or fewer resources expended, it would be stupid not to use guile in your tactics.
> 
> And you were the one who claimed guile was only used by the inferior, and that this was military doctrine.   It is most certainly NOT military doctrine.  So spare us any more justifications of your lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no guarantee of victory with defensive war.  it usually requires a master Tzu.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sun Tzu?   You are quoting The Art of War in defense of your claim?
> 
> Tzu said "All warfare is based on deception".
> 
> And I have no idea why you add the qualifier of a "defensive" war.   Guile is not strictly a defensive tactic.
> 
> But I see you are not ready to admit that you lied when you made your claim about military doctrine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only when well practiced due to manpower inferiorities; and, always applies in the context of an inferior force facing a superior force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.   And I challenge you to show any evidence that your claim it accurate.
> 
> Deception saves lives, even for the superior force.
Click to expand...

dear; it is about defensive warfare when, "outgunned and outmanned".


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I would think he was a dirty whore!
> 
> 
> 
> I am. When are you coming to visit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i guess i may need to compete with table showers, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, you couldn't compete for ChrisL's favors if you had a dick made of gold and a fist full of money.
Click to expand...

i was bantering with dude; i really don't care about chics who are not doing me.  why not acquire and possess a sense of humor instead of simply being a shill for poon.


----------



## danielpalos

i thought only social cowards had to put people on ignore.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shadow355 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> People play the games they want to play.
> We don't live in a controlled environment - where we have to play by any given rules, in relationships or otherwise.
> 
> Want to play it your way?  State your rules up front.  People interested and with similar "values" to yours will stick around.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I asked a woman I was having an affair with ; if she wanted to stay in it for the long haul. We were having luch together if I am right. She said yes. I was getting a divorced, as was she. I was done wrong - stabbed in teh back and taken advantage of ; her husband treated her terribly. We found an interest in each other.
> 
> The woman i asked to stay with me was funny - smart ; and again, a sharp dresser. We got along terrifically, and we "Clicked".
> 
> After me asking her if we was in it together till the end - she started distancing herself from me, calling me on my cell phone less often, and stopped coming by my work place. I would call her, and get voice mail. After three weeks of her distancing herself from me ; I knew it was the end. About 6 weeks after I asked her to go all the way to the end with me - for a permanent relationship ; she basically disappeared.
> 
> We met for breakfast one morning, at the Metropolitan Area where I worked EMS - I believe we met on the west or southwest side of town. We were followed , and while eating breakfast we were being watched ( I will call it surveilled )......and why we were being watched - I do not know why. ( NO - I am not a criminal )
> 
> Her house - large house concerned me. Her husband had a good job ; but it was not great. Expensive.....to expensive for both of them in my opinion. I don't know their financials - and I might be wrong........but the house they lived in did set bells and whistles off in my head - real loud one afternoon as I set in her kitchen at the counter ( Corner of the counter ?? ) ; her standing between the counter and the stove ( or close to it ) and asking me if was alright / if I was OK.
> 
> I did not see where they could afford a large home ( Brick house if I remember correctly ) in a "Very Ritzy" part of the neighborhood. The furnishings was excellent
> 
> WOMEN also, pick relationships that go no where. They just want a "companion" for awhile ; or until it gets serious.
> 
> Women at times also - are underhanded and have ulterior motives. They can be sneaky and not trustworthy.
> 
> I know.......from experience.
> 
> Shadow 355
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> capital is always simpler and we can insure promptness instead of delays and excuses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed it is.  And it is the shortest distance to an orgasm.
> 
> But the "game" can be so much fun!    I have been living with my g/f for 3+ years.  And I still enjoy the seduction.   If you consider women more than an orifice and a pair of tits, you can enjoy all they have to offer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes; capitalism is always wonderful when one has enough capital.
Click to expand...


If purchased pussy is what you want, then you don't need to understand seduction.   Personally, I am a great fan of women who want to be there, and who know how to play.  It can be cheaper or more expensive, depending on the situation.  But always better.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> What?    If guile can result in a victory with fewer casualties for your men or fewer resources expended, it would be stupid not to use guile in your tactics.
> 
> And you were the one who claimed guile was only used by the inferior, and that this was military doctrine.   It is most certainly NOT military doctrine.  So spare us any more justifications of your lies.
> 
> 
> 
> there is no guarantee of victory with defensive war.  it usually requires a master Tzu.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sun Tzu?   You are quoting The Art of War in defense of your claim?
> 
> Tzu said "All warfare is based on deception".
> 
> And I have no idea why you add the qualifier of a "defensive" war.   Guile is not strictly a defensive tactic.
> 
> But I see you are not ready to admit that you lied when you made your claim about military doctrine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only when well practiced due to manpower inferiorities; and, always applies in the context of an inferior force facing a superior force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.   And I challenge you to show any evidence that your claim it accurate.
> 
> Deception saves lives, even for the superior force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear; it is about defensive warfare when, "outgunned and outmanned".
Click to expand...


Absolute bullshit again.

Guile is also used in offensive warfare to have the enemy surrender without firing a shot.   Or to make the enemy make mistakes.  

As I said, I challenge you to provide any evidence that what you claim is true.  So far you are only showing your ignorance of military tactics or doctrines.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I would think he was a dirty whore!
> 
> 
> 
> I am. When are you coming to visit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i guess i may need to compete with table showers, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, you couldn't compete for ChrisL's favors if you had a dick made of gold and a fist full of money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i was bantering with dude; i really don't care about chics who are not doing me.  why not acquire and possess a sense of humor instead of simply being a shill for poon.
Click to expand...


I have a sense of humor.   That is why I am playing with you.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> i thought only social cowards had to put people on ignore.



You thought wrong.   Most people put someone on ignore because they are annoying and have little to say.  It is a way of removing clutter from a thread.


----------



## ABikerSailor

So...............back to the topic....................is she dateable material if she sleeps with you on the first date, or some slut to be cut loose in the morning?

Me?  I've gotta see if we're sexually compatible before entering into a long term relationship with someone, so yeah..............if we end up working well together, it doesn't matter when we decide to have sex.  

And..............before I call her a "slut", I have to consider that I am also participating in this endeavor, and if I think badly of her, then what should I think of myself?  More to the point, what does that say about me as a human being?

Nope, sex is fun and should be participated in anytime 2 (or more) consenting people feel like it would be a fun way to spend some time.


----------



## WinterBorn

ABikerSailor said:


> So...............back to the topic....................is she dateable material if she sleeps with you on the first date, or some slut to be cut loose in the morning?
> 
> Me?  I've gotta see if we're sexually compatible before entering into a long term relationship with someone, so yeah..............if we end up working well together, it doesn't matter when we decide to have sex.
> 
> And..............before I call her a "slut", I have to consider that I am also participating in this endeavor, and if I think badly of her, then what should I think of myself?  More to the point, what does that say about me as a human being?
> 
> Nope, sex is fun and should be participated in anytime 2 (or more) consenting people feel like it would be a fun way to spend some time.



THIS!!!


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> i thought only social cowards had to put people on ignore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You thought wrong.   Most people put someone on ignore because they are annoying and have little to say.  It is a way of removing clutter from a thread.
Click to expand...

only the clueless and the Causeless say that; some of us learn to ask better questions or play word games for an hour or so:



> You can discover more about a person in an hour of play than in a year of conversation.
> 
> Plato


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is no guarantee of victory with defensive war.  it usually requires a master Tzu.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sun Tzu?   You are quoting The Art of War in defense of your claim?
> 
> Tzu said "All warfare is based on deception".
> 
> And I have no idea why you add the qualifier of a "defensive" war.   Guile is not strictly a defensive tactic.
> 
> But I see you are not ready to admit that you lied when you made your claim about military doctrine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only when well practiced due to manpower inferiorities; and, always applies in the context of an inferior force facing a superior force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.   And I challenge you to show any evidence that your claim it accurate.
> 
> Deception saves lives, even for the superior force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear; it is about defensive warfare when, "outgunned and outmanned".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolute bullshit again.
> 
> Guile is also used in offensive warfare to have the enemy surrender without firing a shot.   Or to make the enemy make mistakes.
> 
> As I said, I challenge you to provide any evidence that what you claim is true.  So far you are only showing your ignorance of military tactics or doctrines.
Click to expand...

nope; the Romans proved that at Cannae.  They should have won on general principle.


----------



## ABikerSailor

WinterBorn said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> So...............back to the topic....................is she dateable material if she sleeps with you on the first date, or some slut to be cut loose in the morning?
> 
> Me?  I've gotta see if we're sexually compatible before entering into a long term relationship with someone, so yeah..............if we end up working well together, it doesn't matter when we decide to have sex.
> 
> And..............before I call her a "slut", I have to consider that I am also participating in this endeavor, and if I think badly of her, then what should I think of myself?  More to the point, what does that say about me as a human being?
> 
> Nope, sex is fun and should be participated in anytime 2 (or more) consenting people feel like it would be a fun way to spend some time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THIS!!!
Click to expand...


Glad to see that there are some guys evolved enough to understand a good idea when they see one.


----------



## danielpalos

ABikerSailor said:


> So...............back to the topic....................is she dateable material if she sleeps with you on the first date, or some slut to be cut loose in the morning?
> 
> Me?  I've gotta see if we're sexually compatible before entering into a long term relationship with someone, so yeah..............if we end up working well together, it doesn't matter when we decide to have sex.
> 
> And..............before I call her a "slut", I have to consider that I am also participating in this endeavor, and if I think badly of her, then what should I think of myself?  More to the point, what does that say about me as a human being?
> 
> Nope, sex is fun and should be participated in anytime 2 (or more) consenting people feel like it would be a fun way to spend some time.


i only resort to single syllable words for role-play purposes; otherwise, i actually enjoy having a good argument and discovering some, sublime Truth (value) through argumentation.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> i thought only social cowards had to put people on ignore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You thought wrong.   Most people put someone on ignore because they are annoying and have little to say.  It is a way of removing clutter from a thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only the clueless and the Causeless say that; some of us learn to ask better questions or play word games for an hour or so:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can discover more about a person in an hour of play than in a year of conversation.
> 
> Plato
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I have asked questions.  You have refused to answer most of them.   And sometimes there is so little actual content that word games are a waste.


----------



## ABikerSailor

danielpalos said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> So...............back to the topic....................is she dateable material if she sleeps with you on the first date, or some slut to be cut loose in the morning?
> 
> Me?  I've gotta see if we're sexually compatible before entering into a long term relationship with someone, so yeah..............if we end up working well together, it doesn't matter when we decide to have sex.
> 
> And..............before I call her a "slut", I have to consider that I am also participating in this endeavor, and if I think badly of her, then what should I think of myself?  More to the point, what does that say about me as a human being?
> 
> Nope, sex is fun and should be participated in anytime 2 (or more) consenting people feel like it would be a fun way to spend some time.
> 
> 
> 
> i only resort to single syllable words for role-play purposes; otherwise, i actually enjoy having a good argument and discovering some, sublime Truth (value) through argumentation.
Click to expand...


Do you see some sublime Truth in my post, or are you disagreeing with it?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sun Tzu?   You are quoting The Art of War in defense of your claim?
> 
> Tzu said "All warfare is based on deception".
> 
> And I have no idea why you add the qualifier of a "defensive" war.   Guile is not strictly a defensive tactic.
> 
> But I see you are not ready to admit that you lied when you made your claim about military doctrine.
> 
> 
> 
> Only when well practiced due to manpower inferiorities; and, always applies in the context of an inferior force facing a superior force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.   And I challenge you to show any evidence that your claim it accurate.
> 
> Deception saves lives, even for the superior force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear; it is about defensive warfare when, "outgunned and outmanned".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolute bullshit again.
> 
> Guile is also used in offensive warfare to have the enemy surrender without firing a shot.   Or to make the enemy make mistakes.
> 
> As I said, I challenge you to provide any evidence that what you claim is true.  So far you are only showing your ignorance of military tactics or doctrines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nope; the Romans proved that at Cannae.  They should have won on general principle.
Click to expand...


That does nothing to prove that guile is only used by an inferior force.   In fact, it proves that a force can BE superior through the use of guile.   The Romans had more men at Cannae, and yet they were defeated.  So, obviously, they were not superior.

There have been many examples of smaller forces defeating larger forces.  But you have yet to quote any evidence that it is military doctrine that guile is only used by an inferior force.   Hell, you haven't even talked about what military holds that doctrine.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Winterborn is right.  Guile isn't necessarily used only by inferior forces.  Check out the "ghost army" of WWII that was a bunch of speakers and inflatable tanks that were used to fake out the German troops.

Guile wasn't used because the Allies were inferior, it was used to direct the Germans to where they could be hit the hardest.


----------



## Ernie S.

ABikerSailor said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> So...............back to the topic....................is she dateable material if she sleeps with you on the first date, or some slut to be cut loose in the morning?
> 
> Me?  I've gotta see if we're sexually compatible before entering into a long term relationship with someone, so yeah..............if we end up working well together, it doesn't matter when we decide to have sex.
> 
> And..............before I call her a "slut", I have to consider that I am also participating in this endeavor, and if I think badly of her, then what should I think of myself?  More to the point, what does that say about me as a human being?
> 
> Nope, sex is fun and should be participated in anytime 2 (or more) consenting people feel like it would be a fun way to spend some time.
> 
> 
> 
> i only resort to single syllable words for role-play purposes; otherwise, i actually enjoy having a good argument and discovering some, sublime Truth (value) through argumentation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you see some sublime Truth in my post, or are you disagreeing with it?
Click to expand...

He doesn't know. He just learned to type, but hasn't yet learned how to assemble a logical, cogent paragraph.

I am depending on the rest of the board to inform me if and when that happens. Until then, he remains on ignore.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> i thought only social cowards had to put people on ignore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You thought wrong.   Most people put someone on ignore because they are annoying and have little to say.  It is a way of removing clutter from a thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only the clueless and the Causeless say that; some of us learn to ask better questions or play word games for an hour or so:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can discover more about a person in an hour of play than in a year of conversation.
> 
> Plato
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have asked questions.  You have refused to answer most of them.   And sometimes there is so little actual content that word games are a waste.
Click to expand...

dear; you only beg the question and resort to red herrings.  just a shill or nothing but propaganda and rhetoric on your part.


----------



## danielpalos

ABikerSailor said:


> Winterborn is right.  Guile isn't necessarily used only by inferior forces.  Check out the "ghost army" of WWII that was a bunch of speakers and inflatable tanks that were used to fake out the German troops.
> 
> Guile wasn't used because the Allies were inferior, it was used to direct the Germans to where they could be hit the hardest.


yes; there was, or they would have just invaded; and, it was merely Axis "bad management" that allowed the Allies to successfully carry out the invasion.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only when well practiced due to manpower inferiorities; and, always applies in the context of an inferior force facing a superior force.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.   And I challenge you to show any evidence that your claim it accurate.
> 
> Deception saves lives, even for the superior force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear; it is about defensive warfare when, "outgunned and outmanned".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolute bullshit again.
> 
> Guile is also used in offensive warfare to have the enemy surrender without firing a shot.   Or to make the enemy make mistakes.
> 
> As I said, I challenge you to provide any evidence that what you claim is true.  So far you are only showing your ignorance of military tactics or doctrines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nope; the Romans proved that at Cannae.  They should have won on general principle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That does nothing to prove that guile is only used by an inferior force.   In fact, it proves that a force can BE superior through the use of guile.   The Romans had more men at Cannae, and yet they were defeated.  So, obviously, they were not superior.
> 
> There have been many examples of smaller forces defeating larger forces.  But you have yet to quote any evidence that it is military doctrine that guile is only used by an inferior force.   Hell, you haven't even talked about what military holds that doctrine.
Click to expand...

dear; there is simply no need for guile with a truly superior force.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Winterborn is right.  Guile isn't necessarily used only by inferior forces.  Check out the "ghost army" of WWII that was a bunch of speakers and inflatable tanks that were used to fake out the German troops.
> 
> Guile wasn't used because the Allies were inferior, it was used to direct the Germans to where they could be hit the hardest.
> 
> 
> 
> yes; there was, or they would have just invaded; and, it was merely Axis "bad management" that allowed the Allies to successfully carry out the invasion.
Click to expand...


You are really going to sit there and claim that the Allied forces were inferior to the Axis forces?   The Allies had superior numbers of men and machines.  Greater numbers of men were all it took for you to say the Romans were superior.

How do you make the assessment that the Allied forces were inferior?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.   And I challenge you to show any evidence that your claim it accurate.
> 
> Deception saves lives, even for the superior force.
> 
> 
> 
> dear; it is about defensive warfare when, "outgunned and outmanned".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolute bullshit again.
> 
> Guile is also used in offensive warfare to have the enemy surrender without firing a shot.   Or to make the enemy make mistakes.
> 
> As I said, I challenge you to provide any evidence that what you claim is true.  So far you are only showing your ignorance of military tactics or doctrines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nope; the Romans proved that at Cannae.  They should have won on general principle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That does nothing to prove that guile is only used by an inferior force.   In fact, it proves that a force can BE superior through the use of guile.   The Romans had more men at Cannae, and yet they were defeated.  So, obviously, they were not superior.
> 
> There have been many examples of smaller forces defeating larger forces.  But you have yet to quote any evidence that it is military doctrine that guile is only used by an inferior force.   Hell, you haven't even talked about what military holds that doctrine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear; there is simply no need for guile with a truly superior force.
Click to expand...


It saves lives and saves resources.  That alone makes it a valuable tactic.

Admit that you lied when you made the original statement about military doctrine.  You obviously based it on your own limited views and not a knowledge of military history.


----------



## Bonzi

Since sex and relationships are different for everyone, there is no "right answer"

That being said, the only issue I have with *danielpalos* is that he maligns women (in general, the one's who are not prostitutes) just because they don't behave the way HE wants them to.

Furthermore, he makes false accusations and assumption about their credibility and intent.  And generalizes.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Winterborn is right.  Guile isn't necessarily used only by inferior forces.  Check out the "ghost army" of WWII that was a bunch of speakers and inflatable tanks that were used to fake out the German troops.
> 
> Guile wasn't used because the Allies were inferior, it was used to direct the Germans to where they could be hit the hardest.
> 
> 
> 
> yes; there was, or they would have just invaded; and, it was merely Axis "bad management" that allowed the Allies to successfully carry out the invasion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are really going to sit there and claim that the Allied forces were inferior to the Axis forces?   The Allies had superior numbers of men and machines.  Greater numbers of men were all it took for you to say the Romans were superior.
> 
> How do you make the assessment that the Allied forces were inferior?
Click to expand...

there was only concentration of force, not true force superiority.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> dear; it is about defensive warfare when, "outgunned and outmanned".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolute bullshit again.
> 
> Guile is also used in offensive warfare to have the enemy surrender without firing a shot.   Or to make the enemy make mistakes.
> 
> As I said, I challenge you to provide any evidence that what you claim is true.  So far you are only showing your ignorance of military tactics or doctrines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nope; the Romans proved that at Cannae.  They should have won on general principle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That does nothing to prove that guile is only used by an inferior force.   In fact, it proves that a force can BE superior through the use of guile.   The Romans had more men at Cannae, and yet they were defeated.  So, obviously, they were not superior.
> 
> There have been many examples of smaller forces defeating larger forces.  But you have yet to quote any evidence that it is military doctrine that guile is only used by an inferior force.   Hell, you haven't even talked about what military holds that doctrine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear; there is simply no need for guile with a truly superior force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It saves lives and saves resources.  That alone makes it a valuable tactic.
> 
> Admit that you lied when you made the original statement about military doctrine.  You obviously based it on your own limited views and not a knowledge of military history.
Click to expand...

defensive war is usually a last resort and often fails to achieve the objective, without a master Tzu.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Winterborn is right.  Guile isn't necessarily used only by inferior forces.  Check out the "ghost army" of WWII that was a bunch of speakers and inflatable tanks that were used to fake out the German troops.
> 
> Guile wasn't used because the Allies were inferior, it was used to direct the Germans to where they could be hit the hardest.
> 
> 
> 
> yes; there was, or they would have just invaded; and, it was merely Axis "bad management" that allowed the Allies to successfully carry out the invasion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are really going to sit there and claim that the Allied forces were inferior to the Axis forces?   The Allies had superior numbers of men and machines.  Greater numbers of men were all it took for you to say the Romans were superior.
> 
> How do you make the assessment that the Allied forces were inferior?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there was only concentration of force, not true force superiority.
Click to expand...


The Allies had true force superiority.  The Allies had more men, more tanks, more aircraft ect ect.  

Once again, do you have any links to an expert who agrees with your claim?

Guiles is used by superior forces.  This is a fact of warfare.   The fact that you claimed it is military doctrine that only inferior forces use guile is a lie or your own ignorance.  You pick which.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolute bullshit again.
> 
> Guile is also used in offensive warfare to have the enemy surrender without firing a shot.   Or to make the enemy make mistakes.
> 
> As I said, I challenge you to provide any evidence that what you claim is true.  So far you are only showing your ignorance of military tactics or doctrines.
> 
> 
> 
> nope; the Romans proved that at Cannae.  They should have won on general principle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That does nothing to prove that guile is only used by an inferior force.   In fact, it proves that a force can BE superior through the use of guile.   The Romans had more men at Cannae, and yet they were defeated.  So, obviously, they were not superior.
> 
> There have been many examples of smaller forces defeating larger forces.  But you have yet to quote any evidence that it is military doctrine that guile is only used by an inferior force.   Hell, you haven't even talked about what military holds that doctrine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear; there is simply no need for guile with a truly superior force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It saves lives and saves resources.  That alone makes it a valuable tactic.
> 
> Admit that you lied when you made the original statement about military doctrine.  You obviously based it on your own limited views and not a knowledge of military history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> defensive war is usually a last resort and often fails to achieve the objective, without a master Tzu.
Click to expand...


Irrelevant.  Your original claim was that only inferior forces use guile, and that this is military doctrine.   Who has a military that uses this doctrine?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Winterborn is right.  Guile isn't necessarily used only by inferior forces.  Check out the "ghost army" of WWII that was a bunch of speakers and inflatable tanks that were used to fake out the German troops.
> 
> Guile wasn't used because the Allies were inferior, it was used to direct the Germans to where they could be hit the hardest.
> 
> 
> 
> yes; there was, or they would have just invaded; and, it was merely Axis "bad management" that allowed the Allies to successfully carry out the invasion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are really going to sit there and claim that the Allied forces were inferior to the Axis forces?   The Allies had superior numbers of men and machines.  Greater numbers of men were all it took for you to say the Romans were superior.
> 
> How do you make the assessment that the Allied forces were inferior?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there was only concentration of force, not true force superiority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Allies had true force superiority.  The Allies had more men, more tanks, more aircraft ect ect.
> 
> Once again, do you have any links to an expert who agrees with your claim?
> 
> Guiles is used by superior forces.  This is a fact of warfare.   The fact that you claimed it is military doctrine that only inferior forces use guile is a lie or your own ignorance.  You pick which.
Click to expand...

not during that invasion; and not in the Sicilian campaign, nor in North Africa in the beginning.  force concentration is not true force superiority.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> nope; the Romans proved that at Cannae.  They should have won on general principle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That does nothing to prove that guile is only used by an inferior force.   In fact, it proves that a force can BE superior through the use of guile.   The Romans had more men at Cannae, and yet they were defeated.  So, obviously, they were not superior.
> 
> There have been many examples of smaller forces defeating larger forces.  But you have yet to quote any evidence that it is military doctrine that guile is only used by an inferior force.   Hell, you haven't even talked about what military holds that doctrine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear; there is simply no need for guile with a truly superior force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It saves lives and saves resources.  That alone makes it a valuable tactic.
> 
> Admit that you lied when you made the original statement about military doctrine.  You obviously based it on your own limited views and not a knowledge of military history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> defensive war is usually a last resort and often fails to achieve the objective, without a master Tzu.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Irrelevant.  Your original claim was that only inferior forces use guile, and that this is military doctrine.   Who has a military that uses this doctrine?
Click to expand...

it is Only irrelevant if you want to practice, "tactics of mistake" as recounted in our historical record.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Winterborn is right.  Guile isn't necessarily used only by inferior forces.  Check out the "ghost army" of WWII that was a bunch of speakers and inflatable tanks that were used to fake out the German troops.
> 
> Guile wasn't used because the Allies were inferior, it was used to direct the Germans to where they could be hit the hardest.
> 
> 
> 
> yes; there was, or they would have just invaded; and, it was merely Axis "bad management" that allowed the Allies to successfully carry out the invasion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are really going to sit there and claim that the Allied forces were inferior to the Axis forces?   The Allies had superior numbers of men and machines.  Greater numbers of men were all it took for you to say the Romans were superior.
> 
> How do you make the assessment that the Allied forces were inferior?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there was only concentration of force, not true force superiority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Allies had true force superiority.  The Allies had more men, more tanks, more aircraft ect ect.
> 
> Once again, do you have any links to an expert who agrees with your claim?
> 
> Guiles is used by superior forces.  This is a fact of warfare.   The fact that you claimed it is military doctrine that only inferior forces use guile is a lie or your own ignorance.  You pick which.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not during that invasion; and not in the Sicilian campaign, nor in North Africa in the beginning.  force concentration is not true force superiority.
Click to expand...


The fact that the Allies did not have a superior force at every location in a world war does not change the fact that guile is often used by the superior force.

As I have repeatedly said, it conserves resources and saves lives.  Both of which are goals in warfare and actually part of military doctrine for most militaries.

Once again, what military has a doctrine such as you claim?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> That does nothing to prove that guile is only used by an inferior force.   In fact, it proves that a force can BE superior through the use of guile.   The Romans had more men at Cannae, and yet they were defeated.  So, obviously, they were not superior.
> 
> There have been many examples of smaller forces defeating larger forces.  But you have yet to quote any evidence that it is military doctrine that guile is only used by an inferior force.   Hell, you haven't even talked about what military holds that doctrine.
> 
> 
> 
> dear; there is simply no need for guile with a truly superior force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It saves lives and saves resources.  That alone makes it a valuable tactic.
> 
> Admit that you lied when you made the original statement about military doctrine.  You obviously based it on your own limited views and not a knowledge of military history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> defensive war is usually a last resort and often fails to achieve the objective, without a master Tzu.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Irrelevant.  Your original claim was that only inferior forces use guile, and that this is military doctrine.   Who has a military that uses this doctrine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is Only irrelevant if you want to practice, "tactics of mistake" as recounted in our historical record.
Click to expand...


No, it is irrelevant.   You made the claim that it is military doctrine that only an inferior force uses guile.   That is absolutely bullshit.   Whether a war is offensive or defensive does not change the fact that guile is often used by a superior force.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> dear; there is simply no need for guile with a truly superior force.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It saves lives and saves resources.  That alone makes it a valuable tactic.
> 
> Admit that you lied when you made the original statement about military doctrine.  You obviously based it on your own limited views and not a knowledge of military history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> defensive war is usually a last resort and often fails to achieve the objective, without a master Tzu.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Irrelevant.  Your original claim was that only inferior forces use guile, and that this is military doctrine.   Who has a military that uses this doctrine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is Only irrelevant if you want to practice, "tactics of mistake" as recounted in our historical record.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is irrelevant.   You made the claim that it is military doctrine that only an inferior force uses guile.   That is absolutely bullshit.   Whether a war is offensive or defensive does not change the fact that guile is often used by a superior force.
Click to expand...

yes, only an inferior force would need to use guile a truly superior force would not waste resources on guile.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It saves lives and saves resources.  That alone makes it a valuable tactic.
> 
> Admit that you lied when you made the original statement about military doctrine.  You obviously based it on your own limited views and not a knowledge of military history.
> 
> 
> 
> defensive war is usually a last resort and often fails to achieve the objective, without a master Tzu.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Irrelevant.  Your original claim was that only inferior forces use guile, and that this is military doctrine.   Who has a military that uses this doctrine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is Only irrelevant if you want to practice, "tactics of mistake" as recounted in our historical record.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is irrelevant.   You made the claim that it is military doctrine that only an inferior force uses guile.   That is absolutely bullshit.   Whether a war is offensive or defensive does not change the fact that guile is often used by a superior force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, only an inferior force would need to use guile a truly superior force would not waste resources on guile.
Click to expand...


So you are claiming that a superior force would be willing to lose more men and waste more resources just to avoid using guile?  That is nonsense.

Once again, *what military has a doctrine such as you described?*


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It saves lives and saves resources.  That alone makes it a valuable tactic.
> 
> Admit that you lied when you made the original statement about military doctrine.  You obviously based it on your own limited views and not a knowledge of military history.
> 
> 
> 
> defensive war is usually a last resort and often fails to achieve the objective, without a master Tzu.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Irrelevant.  Your original claim was that only inferior forces use guile, and that this is military doctrine.   Who has a military that uses this doctrine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is Only irrelevant if you want to practice, "tactics of mistake" as recounted in our historical record.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is irrelevant.   You made the claim that it is military doctrine that only an inferior force uses guile.   That is absolutely bullshit.   Whether a war is offensive or defensive does not change the fact that guile is often used by a superior force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, only an inferior force would need to use guile a truly superior force would not waste resources on guile.
Click to expand...


Once again you show your ignorance on the subject.  The resources for guile are nominal.  As an example, the Ghost Army (mentioned previously in this thread) had only 1,100 men.  But they managed to draw larger forces towards them and away from areas of actual military operations.  When this happened, our forces were able to move quickly and subdue areas more effectively.  The Ghost Army operated effectively from just after D-Day until the end of the war.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes; there was, or they would have just invaded; and, it was merely Axis "bad management" that allowed the Allies to successfully carry out the invasion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are really going to sit there and claim that the Allied forces were inferior to the Axis forces?   The Allies had superior numbers of men and machines.  Greater numbers of men were all it took for you to say the Romans were superior.
> 
> How do you make the assessment that the Allied forces were inferior?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there was only concentration of force, not true force superiority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Allies had true force superiority.  The Allies had more men, more tanks, more aircraft ect ect.
> 
> Once again, do you have any links to an expert who agrees with your claim?
> 
> Guiles is used by superior forces.  This is a fact of warfare.   The fact that you claimed it is military doctrine that only inferior forces use guile is a lie or your own ignorance.  You pick which.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not during that invasion; and not in the Sicilian campaign, nor in North Africa in the beginning.  force concentration is not true force superiority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that the Allies did not have a superior force at every location in a world war does not change the fact that guile is often used by the superior force.
> 
> As I have repeatedly said, it conserves resources and saves lives.  Both of which are goals in warfare and actually part of military doctrine for most militaries.
> 
> Once again, what military has a doctrine such as you claim?
Click to expand...




WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> dear; there is simply no need for guile with a truly superior force.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It saves lives and saves resources.  That alone makes it a valuable tactic.
> 
> Admit that you lied when you made the original statement about military doctrine.  You obviously based it on your own limited views and not a knowledge of military history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> defensive war is usually a last resort and often fails to achieve the objective, without a master Tzu.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Irrelevant.  Your original claim was that only inferior forces use guile, and that this is military doctrine.   Who has a military that uses this doctrine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is Only irrelevant if you want to practice, "tactics of mistake" as recounted in our historical record.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is irrelevant.   You made the claim that it is military doctrine that only an inferior force uses guile.   That is absolutely bullshit.   Whether a war is offensive or defensive does not change the fact that guile is often used by a superior force.
Click to expand...




WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> defensive war is usually a last resort and often fails to achieve the objective, without a master Tzu.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant.  Your original claim was that only inferior forces use guile, and that this is military doctrine.   Who has a military that uses this doctrine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is Only irrelevant if you want to practice, "tactics of mistake" as recounted in our historical record.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is irrelevant.   You made the claim that it is military doctrine that only an inferior force uses guile.   That is absolutely bullshit.   Whether a war is offensive or defensive does not change the fact that guile is often used by a superior force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, only an inferior force would need to use guile a truly superior force would not waste resources on guile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are claiming that a superior force would be willing to lose more men and waste more resources just to avoid using guile?  That is nonsense.
> 
> Once again, *what military has a doctrine such as you described?*
Click to expand...




WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> defensive war is usually a last resort and often fails to achieve the objective, without a master Tzu.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant.  Your original claim was that only inferior forces use guile, and that this is military doctrine.   Who has a military that uses this doctrine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is Only irrelevant if you want to practice, "tactics of mistake" as recounted in our historical record.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is irrelevant.   You made the claim that it is military doctrine that only an inferior force uses guile.   That is absolutely bullshit.   Whether a war is offensive or defensive does not change the fact that guile is often used by a superior force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, only an inferior force would need to use guile a truly superior force would not waste resources on guile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again you show your ignorance on the subject.  The resources for guile are nominal.  As an example, the Ghost Army (mentioned previously in this thread) had only 1,100 men.  But they managed to draw larger forces towards them and away from areas of actual military operations.  When this happened, our forces were able to move quickly and subdue areas more effectively.  The Ghost Army operated effectively from just after D-Day until the end of the war.
Click to expand...


dear, you only show your bias.

It is your straw man argument; you tell me.  

A truly superior force has the equivalent to a concentration of force on any given front.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are really going to sit there and claim that the Allied forces were inferior to the Axis forces?   The Allies had superior numbers of men and machines.  Greater numbers of men were all it took for you to say the Romans were superior.
> 
> How do you make the assessment that the Allied forces were inferior?
> 
> 
> 
> there was only concentration of force, not true force superiority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Allies had true force superiority.  The Allies had more men, more tanks, more aircraft ect ect.
> 
> Once again, do you have any links to an expert who agrees with your claim?
> 
> Guiles is used by superior forces.  This is a fact of warfare.   The fact that you claimed it is military doctrine that only inferior forces use guile is a lie or your own ignorance.  You pick which.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not during that invasion; and not in the Sicilian campaign, nor in North Africa in the beginning.  force concentration is not true force superiority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that the Allies did not have a superior force at every location in a world war does not change the fact that guile is often used by the superior force.
> 
> As I have repeatedly said, it conserves resources and saves lives.  Both of which are goals in warfare and actually part of military doctrine for most militaries.
> 
> Once again, what military has a doctrine such as you claim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It saves lives and saves resources.  That alone makes it a valuable tactic.
> 
> Admit that you lied when you made the original statement about military doctrine.  You obviously based it on your own limited views and not a knowledge of military history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> defensive war is usually a last resort and often fails to achieve the objective, without a master Tzu.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Irrelevant.  Your original claim was that only inferior forces use guile, and that this is military doctrine.   Who has a military that uses this doctrine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is Only irrelevant if you want to practice, "tactics of mistake" as recounted in our historical record.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is irrelevant.   You made the claim that it is military doctrine that only an inferior force uses guile.   That is absolutely bullshit.   Whether a war is offensive or defensive does not change the fact that guile is often used by a superior force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant.  Your original claim was that only inferior forces use guile, and that this is military doctrine.   Who has a military that uses this doctrine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is Only irrelevant if you want to practice, "tactics of mistake" as recounted in our historical record.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is irrelevant.   You made the claim that it is military doctrine that only an inferior force uses guile.   That is absolutely bullshit.   Whether a war is offensive or defensive does not change the fact that guile is often used by a superior force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, only an inferior force would need to use guile a truly superior force would not waste resources on guile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are claiming that a superior force would be willing to lose more men and waste more resources just to avoid using guile?  That is nonsense.
> 
> Once again, *what military has a doctrine such as you described?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant.  Your original claim was that only inferior forces use guile, and that this is military doctrine.   Who has a military that uses this doctrine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is Only irrelevant if you want to practice, "tactics of mistake" as recounted in our historical record.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is irrelevant.   You made the claim that it is military doctrine that only an inferior force uses guile.   That is absolutely bullshit.   Whether a war is offensive or defensive does not change the fact that guile is often used by a superior force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, only an inferior force would need to use guile a truly superior force would not waste resources on guile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again you show your ignorance on the subject.  The resources for guile are nominal.  As an example, the Ghost Army (mentioned previously in this thread) had only 1,100 men.  But they managed to draw larger forces towards them and away from areas of actual military operations.  When this happened, our forces were able to move quickly and subdue areas more effectively.  The Ghost Army operated effectively from just after D-Day until the end of the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> dear, you only show your bias.
> 
> It is your straw man argument; you tell me.
> 
> A truly superior force has the equivalent to a concentration of force on any given front.
Click to expand...


LMAO!!!

So now you are saying a superior force will have a superior concentration of force everywhere within the theater of war?   That is just laughable.    If a superior force has twice the number of men and resources, there can still be places where the inferior force enjoys a superior concentration of force.  To claim otherwise is simply ignorant. 

And there was no straw man in my post.  I used a legitimate example of the use of guile by a superior force.

But, yet again, please tell us what military has a doctrine such as you describe.


----------



## WinterBorn

You originally said: "only inferiors who know they are not equal have to resort to guile.* this is accepted military doctrine* that applies to real life situations in non-warfare scenarios."

You posted this as if it were fact.   It is obviously not.  Unless you can tell us what military has such a doctrine.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> there was only concentration of force, not true force superiority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Allies had true force superiority.  The Allies had more men, more tanks, more aircraft ect ect.
> 
> Once again, do you have any links to an expert who agrees with your claim?
> 
> Guiles is used by superior forces.  This is a fact of warfare.   The fact that you claimed it is military doctrine that only inferior forces use guile is a lie or your own ignorance.  You pick which.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not during that invasion; and not in the Sicilian campaign, nor in North Africa in the beginning.  force concentration is not true force superiority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that the Allies did not have a superior force at every location in a world war does not change the fact that guile is often used by the superior force.
> 
> As I have repeatedly said, it conserves resources and saves lives.  Both of which are goals in warfare and actually part of military doctrine for most militaries.
> 
> Once again, what military has a doctrine such as you claim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> defensive war is usually a last resort and often fails to achieve the objective, without a master Tzu.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Irrelevant.  Your original claim was that only inferior forces use guile, and that this is military doctrine.   Who has a military that uses this doctrine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is Only irrelevant if you want to practice, "tactics of mistake" as recounted in our historical record.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is irrelevant.   You made the claim that it is military doctrine that only an inferior force uses guile.   That is absolutely bullshit.   Whether a war is offensive or defensive does not change the fact that guile is often used by a superior force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is Only irrelevant if you want to practice, "tactics of mistake" as recounted in our historical record.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is irrelevant.   You made the claim that it is military doctrine that only an inferior force uses guile.   That is absolutely bullshit.   Whether a war is offensive or defensive does not change the fact that guile is often used by a superior force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, only an inferior force would need to use guile a truly superior force would not waste resources on guile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are claiming that a superior force would be willing to lose more men and waste more resources just to avoid using guile?  That is nonsense.
> 
> Once again, *what military has a doctrine such as you described?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is Only irrelevant if you want to practice, "tactics of mistake" as recounted in our historical record.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is irrelevant.   You made the claim that it is military doctrine that only an inferior force uses guile.   That is absolutely bullshit.   Whether a war is offensive or defensive does not change the fact that guile is often used by a superior force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, only an inferior force would need to use guile a truly superior force would not waste resources on guile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again you show your ignorance on the subject.  The resources for guile are nominal.  As an example, the Ghost Army (mentioned previously in this thread) had only 1,100 men.  But they managed to draw larger forces towards them and away from areas of actual military operations.  When this happened, our forces were able to move quickly and subdue areas more effectively.  The Ghost Army operated effectively from just after D-Day until the end of the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> dear, you only show your bias.
> 
> It is your straw man argument; you tell me.
> 
> A truly superior force has the equivalent to a concentration of force on any given front.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO!!!
> 
> So now you are saying a superior force will have a superior concentration of force everywhere within the theater of war?   That is just laughable.    If a superior force has twice the number of men and resources, there can still be places where the inferior force enjoys a superior concentration of force.  To claim otherwise is simply ignorant.
> 
> And there was no straw man in my post.  I used a legitimate example of the use of guile by a superior force.
> 
> But, yet again, please tell us what military has a doctrine such as you describe.
Click to expand...

yes, that is why it is a truly superior force, not just a technically superior force.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Allies had true force superiority.  The Allies had more men, more tanks, more aircraft ect ect.
> 
> Once again, do you have any links to an expert who agrees with your claim?
> 
> Guiles is used by superior forces.  This is a fact of warfare.   The fact that you claimed it is military doctrine that only inferior forces use guile is a lie or your own ignorance.  You pick which.
> 
> 
> 
> not during that invasion; and not in the Sicilian campaign, nor in North Africa in the beginning.  force concentration is not true force superiority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that the Allies did not have a superior force at every location in a world war does not change the fact that guile is often used by the superior force.
> 
> As I have repeatedly said, it conserves resources and saves lives.  Both of which are goals in warfare and actually part of military doctrine for most militaries.
> 
> Once again, what military has a doctrine such as you claim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant.  Your original claim was that only inferior forces use guile, and that this is military doctrine.   Who has a military that uses this doctrine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is Only irrelevant if you want to practice, "tactics of mistake" as recounted in our historical record.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is irrelevant.   You made the claim that it is military doctrine that only an inferior force uses guile.   That is absolutely bullshit.   Whether a war is offensive or defensive does not change the fact that guile is often used by a superior force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is irrelevant.   You made the claim that it is military doctrine that only an inferior force uses guile.   That is absolutely bullshit.   Whether a war is offensive or defensive does not change the fact that guile is often used by a superior force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, only an inferior force would need to use guile a truly superior force would not waste resources on guile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are claiming that a superior force would be willing to lose more men and waste more resources just to avoid using guile?  That is nonsense.
> 
> Once again, *what military has a doctrine such as you described?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is irrelevant.   You made the claim that it is military doctrine that only an inferior force uses guile.   That is absolutely bullshit.   Whether a war is offensive or defensive does not change the fact that guile is often used by a superior force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, only an inferior force would need to use guile a truly superior force would not waste resources on guile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again you show your ignorance on the subject.  The resources for guile are nominal.  As an example, the Ghost Army (mentioned previously in this thread) had only 1,100 men.  But they managed to draw larger forces towards them and away from areas of actual military operations.  When this happened, our forces were able to move quickly and subdue areas more effectively.  The Ghost Army operated effectively from just after D-Day until the end of the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> dear, you only show your bias.
> 
> It is your straw man argument; you tell me.
> 
> A truly superior force has the equivalent to a concentration of force on any given front.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO!!!
> 
> So now you are saying a superior force will have a superior concentration of force everywhere within the theater of war?   That is just laughable.    If a superior force has twice the number of men and resources, there can still be places where the inferior force enjoys a superior concentration of force.  To claim otherwise is simply ignorant.
> 
> And there was no straw man in my post.  I used a legitimate example of the use of guile by a superior force.
> 
> But, yet again, please tell us what military has a doctrine such as you describe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, that is why it is a truly superior force, not just a technically superior force.
Click to expand...


I see you are steadfastly refusing to answer the question.   What a surprise.

And your semantics are just a dodge.    Let me know when you are man enough to admit when you are wrong.


----------



## ChrisL

What?  What thread am I on here?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> not during that invasion; and not in the Sicilian campaign, nor in North Africa in the beginning.  force concentration is not true force superiority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that the Allies did not have a superior force at every location in a world war does not change the fact that guile is often used by the superior force.
> 
> As I have repeatedly said, it conserves resources and saves lives.  Both of which are goals in warfare and actually part of military doctrine for most militaries.
> 
> Once again, what military has a doctrine such as you claim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is Only irrelevant if you want to practice, "tactics of mistake" as recounted in our historical record.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is irrelevant.   You made the claim that it is military doctrine that only an inferior force uses guile.   That is absolutely bullshit.   Whether a war is offensive or defensive does not change the fact that guile is often used by a superior force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes, only an inferior force would need to use guile a truly superior force would not waste resources on guile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are claiming that a superior force would be willing to lose more men and waste more resources just to avoid using guile?  That is nonsense.
> 
> Once again, *what military has a doctrine such as you described?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes, only an inferior force would need to use guile a truly superior force would not waste resources on guile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again you show your ignorance on the subject.  The resources for guile are nominal.  As an example, the Ghost Army (mentioned previously in this thread) had only 1,100 men.  But they managed to draw larger forces towards them and away from areas of actual military operations.  When this happened, our forces were able to move quickly and subdue areas more effectively.  The Ghost Army operated effectively from just after D-Day until the end of the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> dear, you only show your bias.
> 
> It is your straw man argument; you tell me.
> 
> A truly superior force has the equivalent to a concentration of force on any given front.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO!!!
> 
> So now you are saying a superior force will have a superior concentration of force everywhere within the theater of war?   That is just laughable.    If a superior force has twice the number of men and resources, there can still be places where the inferior force enjoys a superior concentration of force.  To claim otherwise is simply ignorant.
> 
> And there was no straw man in my post.  I used a legitimate example of the use of guile by a superior force.
> 
> But, yet again, please tell us what military has a doctrine such as you describe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, that is why it is a truly superior force, not just a technically superior force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see you are steadfastly refusing to answer the question.   What a surprise.
> 
> And your semantics are just a dodge.    Let me know when you are man enough to admit when you are wrong.
Click to expand...

not at all; it is a self-evident truth.


----------



## danielpalos

ChrisL said:


> What?  What thread am I on here?


what about after sex on the first date (for free sample purposes) and it seems to work out, for now; is it ok to help out with "husbandly choring" in exchange and barter for "wifely choring"?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that the Allies did not have a superior force at every location in a world war does not change the fact that guile is often used by the superior force.
> 
> As I have repeatedly said, it conserves resources and saves lives.  Both of which are goals in warfare and actually part of military doctrine for most militaries.
> 
> Once again, what military has a doctrine such as you claim?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is irrelevant.   You made the claim that it is military doctrine that only an inferior force uses guile.   That is absolutely bullshit.   Whether a war is offensive or defensive does not change the fact that guile is often used by a superior force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are claiming that a superior force would be willing to lose more men and waste more resources just to avoid using guile?  That is nonsense.
> 
> Once again, *what military has a doctrine such as you described?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you show your ignorance on the subject.  The resources for guile are nominal.  As an example, the Ghost Army (mentioned previously in this thread) had only 1,100 men.  But they managed to draw larger forces towards them and away from areas of actual military operations.  When this happened, our forces were able to move quickly and subdue areas more effectively.  The Ghost Army operated effectively from just after D-Day until the end of the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> dear, you only show your bias.
> 
> It is your straw man argument; you tell me.
> 
> A truly superior force has the equivalent to a concentration of force on any given front.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO!!!
> 
> So now you are saying a superior force will have a superior concentration of force everywhere within the theater of war?   That is just laughable.    If a superior force has twice the number of men and resources, there can still be places where the inferior force enjoys a superior concentration of force.  To claim otherwise is simply ignorant.
> 
> And there was no straw man in my post.  I used a legitimate example of the use of guile by a superior force.
> 
> But, yet again, please tell us what military has a doctrine such as you describe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, that is why it is a truly superior force, not just a technically superior force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see you are steadfastly refusing to answer the question.   What a surprise.
> 
> And your semantics are just a dodge.    Let me know when you are man enough to admit when you are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not at all; it is a self-evident truth.
Click to expand...


Considering the amount of evidence to the contrary, it is obviously not a self-evident truth.   But at least you answered the question of whether you knew much about military doctrines or tactics.


----------



## ChrisL

danielpalos said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> What?  What thread am I on here?
> 
> 
> 
> what about after sex on the first date (for free sample purposes) and it seems to work out, for now; is it ok to help out with "husbandly choring" in exchange and barter for "wifely choring"?
Click to expand...


I don't have any idea what you are talking about, like usual.


----------



## danielpalos

ChrisL said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> What?  What thread am I on here?
> 
> 
> 
> what about after sex on the first date (for free sample purposes) and it seems to work out, for now; is it ok to help out with "husbandly choring" in exchange and barter for "wifely choring"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have any idea what you are talking about, like usual.
Click to expand...

yes, like usual.  that really is worth less in the non-porn sector.


----------



## ChrisL

danielpalos said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> What?  What thread am I on here?
> 
> 
> 
> what about after sex on the first date (for free sample purposes) and it seems to work out, for now; is it ok to help out with "husbandly choring" in exchange and barter for "wifely choring"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have any idea what you are talking about, like usual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, like usual.  that really is worth less in the non-porn sector.
Click to expand...


Drop dead.


----------



## danielpalos

ChrisL said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> What?  What thread am I on here?
> 
> 
> 
> what about after sex on the first date (for free sample purposes) and it seems to work out, for now; is it ok to help out with "husbandly choring" in exchange and barter for "wifely choring"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have any idea what you are talking about, like usual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, like usual.  that really is worth less in the non-porn sector.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Drop dead.
Click to expand...

just lousy people skills and claiming women really are not that worthless for pay purposes in the non-porn sector, chic?


----------



## ChrisL

danielpalos said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> What?  What thread am I on here?
> 
> 
> 
> what about after sex on the first date (for free sample purposes) and it seems to work out, for now; is it ok to help out with "husbandly choring" in exchange and barter for "wifely choring"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have any idea what you are talking about, like usual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, like usual.  that really is worth less in the non-porn sector.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Drop dead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just lousy people skills and claiming women really are not that worthless for pay purposes in the non-porn sector, chic?
Click to expand...


Drop dead.


----------



## danielpalos

ChrisL said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> what about after sex on the first date (for free sample purposes) and it seems to work out, for now; is it ok to help out with "husbandly choring" in exchange and barter for "wifely choring"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have any idea what you are talking about, like usual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, like usual.  that really is worth less in the non-porn sector.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Drop dead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just lousy people skills and claiming women really are not that worthless for pay purposes in the non-porn sector, chic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Drop dead.
Click to expand...

limited vocabulary as well, chic.  that is also, is worth-less in the non-porn sector.


----------



## ChrisL

danielpalos said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have any idea what you are talking about, like usual.
> 
> 
> 
> yes, like usual.  that really is worth less in the non-porn sector.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Drop dead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just lousy people skills and claiming women really are not that worthless for pay purposes in the non-porn sector, chic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Drop dead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> limited vocabulary as well, chic.  that is also, is worth-less in the non-porn sector.
Click to expand...


Drop dead.


----------



## danielpalos

ChrisL said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes, like usual.  that really is worth less in the non-porn sector.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drop dead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just lousy people skills and claiming women really are not that worthless for pay purposes in the non-porn sector, chic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Drop dead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> limited vocabulary as well, chic.  that is also, is worth-less in the non-porn sector.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Drop dead.
Click to expand...

it is a good thing words are so inexpensive, coming from wo-men, in the non-porn sector.


----------



## ChrisL

danielpalos said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Drop dead.
> 
> 
> 
> just lousy people skills and claiming women really are not that worthless for pay purposes in the non-porn sector, chic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Drop dead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> limited vocabulary as well, chic.  that is also, is worth-less in the non-porn sector.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Drop dead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is a good thing words are so inexpensive, coming from wo-men, in the non-porn sector.
Click to expand...


Auto reply:  Drop dead.


----------



## danielpalos

ChrisL said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> just lousy people skills and claiming women really are not that worthless for pay purposes in the non-porn sector, chic?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drop dead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> limited vocabulary as well, chic.  that is also, is worth-less in the non-porn sector.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Drop dead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is a good thing words are so inexpensive, coming from wo-men, in the non-porn sector.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Auto reply:  Drop dead.
Click to expand...

dear, why are you still in a Bad mood; are _all_ of the other ones lying about getting you into a really really good time?


----------



## ChrisL

danielpalos said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Drop dead.
> 
> 
> 
> limited vocabulary as well, chic.  that is also, is worth-less in the non-porn sector.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Drop dead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is a good thing words are so inexpensive, coming from wo-men, in the non-porn sector.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Auto reply:  Drop dead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, why are you still in a Bad mood; are _all_ of the other ones lying about getting you into a really really good time?
Click to expand...


Does the psychiatric facility know you are using the computer?  Maybe it's recreation time?


----------



## danielpalos

ChrisL said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> limited vocabulary as well, chic.  that is also, is worth-less in the non-porn sector.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drop dead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is a good thing words are so inexpensive, coming from wo-men, in the non-porn sector.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Auto reply:  Drop dead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, why are you still in a Bad mood; are _all_ of the other ones lying about getting you into a really really good time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does the psychiatric facility know you are using the computer?  Maybe it's recreation time?
Click to expand...

Dear, _all_ of the other ones,

please get ChrisL into better _Usury_; she is always in a bad mood.  she may not be getting used well enough.

thank you,

daniel


----------



## ChrisL

danielpalos said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Drop dead.
> 
> 
> 
> it is a good thing words are so inexpensive, coming from wo-men, in the non-porn sector.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Auto reply:  Drop dead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, why are you still in a Bad mood; are _all_ of the other ones lying about getting you into a really really good time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does the psychiatric facility know you are using the computer?  Maybe it's recreation time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear, _all_ of the other ones,
> 
> please get ChrisL into better _Usury_; she is always in a bad mood.  she may not be getting used well enough.
> 
> thank you,
> 
> daniel
Click to expand...


Don't worry about me.  You are the one with the serious problems here, Daniel.  You need psychiatric therapy, intensive psychiatric therapy.  Now, get off line and call a shrink.


----------



## danielpalos

ChrisL said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is a good thing words are so inexpensive, coming from wo-men, in the non-porn sector.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Auto reply:  Drop dead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, why are you still in a Bad mood; are _all_ of the other ones lying about getting you into a really really good time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does the psychiatric facility know you are using the computer?  Maybe it's recreation time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear, _all_ of the other ones,
> 
> please get ChrisL into better _Usury_; she is always in a bad mood.  she may not be getting used well enough.
> 
> thank you,
> 
> daniel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't worry about me.  You are the one with the serious problems here, Daniel.  You need psychiatric therapy, intensive psychiatric therapy.  Now, get off line and call a shrink.
Click to expand...

dear, projecting much and denying it and claiming you are not really like that afterward, like usual?


----------



## Ernie S.

ChrisL said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> What?  What thread am I on here?
> 
> 
> 
> what about after sex on the first date (for free sample purposes) and it seems to work out, for now; is it ok to help out with "husbandly choring" in exchange and barter for "wifely choring"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have any idea what you are talking about, like usual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, like usual.  that really is worth less in the non-porn sector.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Drop dead.
Click to expand...

He's on ignore here.


----------



## fbj

I haven't even kissed on a first date and a lot of yall were fucking on the first date

Guess I'm retarded


----------



## Anathema

fbj said:


> I haven't even kissed on a first date and a lot of yall were fucking on the first date
> 
> Guess I'm retarded



Not necessarily. You know how my wife and I ended our first date?...... with a hug and a peck on the cheek. Now, almost 4 years later we will celebrate our 18 month wedding anniversary in 2 weeks. Seems,like that worked out pretty well to me.

If you're looking for Hump-Me Dump-Me, check out Craigslist. If you want a relationship find someone who's into you fir more than your dick.


----------



## danielpalos

what about "free samples" of what a relationship might be like, if it works out.


----------



## ABikerSailor

You know..............I don't go out on dates looking to get laid.  I go out on dates as a way to get to know someone better to see if I want to continue to hang out with them, and for fun and companionship.

However..............

If she starts getting frisky and suggesting some adult activities, well, if I'm in the mood as well, I'm going to participate, whether it's the 1st date or the 10th.


----------



## danielpalos

i usually do that when i have enough money to get it somewhere else.


----------



## ChrisL

Ernie S. said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> What?  What thread am I on here?
> 
> 
> 
> what about after sex on the first date (for free sample purposes) and it seems to work out, for now; is it ok to help out with "husbandly choring" in exchange and barter for "wifely choring"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have any idea what you are talking about, like usual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, like usual.  that really is worth less in the non-porn sector.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Drop dead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's on ignore here.
Click to expand...


Probably a good idea.  The poster is pretty much useless and I really don't know what it's talking about most of the time.    It seems to think that women exist to please it or something.


----------



## ChrisL

Anathema said:


> fbj said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't even kissed on a first date and a lot of yall were fucking on the first date
> 
> Guess I'm retarded
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessarily. You know how my wife and I ended our first date?...... with a hug and a peck on the cheek. Now, almost 4 years later we will celebrate our 18 month wedding anniversary in 2 weeks. Seems,like that worked out pretty well to me.
> 
> If you're looking for Hump-Me Dump-Me, check out Craigslist. If you want a relationship find someone who's into you fir more than your dick.
Click to expand...


Honestly, I don't think most guys have an issue with that.


----------



## Ernie S.

He thinks everything he says is profound and if you can't decipher his clumsy syntax and convoluted logic, you are somehow at fault.


----------



## ChrisL

Ernie S. said:


> He thinks everything he says is profound and if you can't decipher his clumsy syntax and convoluted logic, you are somehow at fault.



Exactly!


----------



## Anathema

ChrisL said:


> Honestly, I don't think most guys have an issue with that.



Probably not. Yet so many people still can't figure out why we have such s high divorce rate and Society is falling apart.


----------



## ChrisL

Anathema said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly, I don't think most guys have an issue with that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably not. Yet so many people still can't figure out why we have such s high divorce rate and Society is falling apart.
Click to expand...


Well, about the divorce rate, I've read that some of those figures are so high because of people who are kind of dysfunctional and are married and divorced multiple times and kind of skew the stats.


----------



## Anathema

ChrisL said:


> Well, about the divorce rate, I've read that some of those figures are so high because of people who are kind of dysfunctional and are married and divorced multiple times and kind of skew the stats.



Yes, some are multiple divorces. Others are couples who plan a wedding, not a marriage.


----------



## ChrisL

Anathema said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, about the divorce rate, I've read that some of those figures are so high because of people who are kind of dysfunctional and are married and divorced multiple times and kind of skew the stats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, some are multiple divorces. Others are couples who plan a wedding, not a marriage.
Click to expand...


Oh, I totally agree with that.  Some people are in a very big hurry to get married and for all the wrong reasons.


----------



## Ernie S.

It's not like when I was a kid and most couples waited for sex until they married. There is no real reason not to take a prospective spouse for a test drive.


----------



## ChrisL

Ernie S. said:


> It's not like when I was a kid and most couples waited for sex until they married. There is no real reason not to take a prospective spouse for a test drive.



Well to me, that is just the smart thing to do.  You want to know as much as you can about a person before you commit to them for the rest of your life.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Anathema said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, about the divorce rate, I've read that some of those figures are so high because of people who are kind of dysfunctional and are married and divorced multiple times and kind of skew the stats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, some are multiple divorces. Others are couples who plan a wedding, not a marriage.
Click to expand...


Some don't even plan that far.  I remember when I was stationed with VFA-131 in Cecil Field, there was an AME2 who got divorced, walked down the hall to the JP, and was remarried ON THE SAME FREAKING DAY!!!!!!  It turned out to be a problem for me, because according to regs, when a sailor divorces someone, they remain their dependent until 2400 that day, and the new spouse (like in his case) gets to be a dependent at 0001 the following day.  He was pissed because I had to make him wait until the following day to process his new wife's ID card.

As far as multiple divorces, wanna talk about people like Larry King (that paragon of conservative talk shows), who has been divorced no less than 5 times?


----------



## ChrisL

ABikerSailor said:


> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, about the divorce rate, I've read that some of those figures are so high because of people who are kind of dysfunctional and are married and divorced multiple times and kind of skew the stats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, some are multiple divorces. Others are couples who plan a wedding, not a marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some don't even plan that far.  I remember when I was stationed with VFA-131 in Cecil Field, there was an AME2 who got divorced, walked down the hall to the JP, and was remarried ON THE SAME FREAKING DAY!!!!!!  It turned out to be a problem for me, because according to regs, when a sailor divorces someone, they remain their dependent until 2400 that day, and the new spouse (like in his case) gets to be a dependent at 0001 the following day.  He was pissed because I had to make him wait until the following day to process his new wife's ID card.
> 
> As far as multiple divorces, wanna talk about people like Larry King (that paragon of conservative talk shows), who has been divorced no less than 5 times?
Click to expand...


God, if anyone makes a mockery of marriage, it is celebrities.  Lol.


----------



## RWNJ

TNHarley said:


> Would you continue dating/marry a significant other you had sex with on the first date?
> Is used to be taboo, but people are slowly opening their minds to the most natural human act available.
> Personally, it wouldn't bother me.



Sex is something that should be reserved for marriage. That's not just a Christian view point, it's just common sense. Think about it. How many problems would disappear if everyone waited until they were married, or at LEAST until they made the commitment to marry. How many lives have been ruined because someone couldn't wait? How many babies have been murdered in the womb because of it?


----------



## ChrisL

RWNJ said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you continue dating/marry a significant other you had sex with on the first date?
> Is used to be taboo, but people are slowly opening their minds to the most natural human act available.
> Personally, it wouldn't bother me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sex is something that should be reserved for marriage. That's not just a Christian view point, it's just common sense. Think about it. How many problems would disappear if everyone waited until they were married, or at LEAST until they made the commitment to marry. How many lives have been ruined because someone couldn't wait? How many babies have been murdered in the womb because of it?
Click to expand...


That is from not using protection, in most instances, I would think.  Smart people know how to protect themselves against pregnancy and disease.


----------



## RWNJ

ChrisL said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you continue dating/marry a significant other you had sex with on the first date?
> Is used to be taboo, but people are slowly opening their minds to the most natural human act available.
> Personally, it wouldn't bother me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sex is something that should be reserved for marriage. That's not just a Christian view point, it's just common sense. Think about it. How many problems would disappear if everyone waited until they were married, or at LEAST until they made the commitment to marry. How many lives have been ruined because someone couldn't wait? How many babies have been murdered in the womb because of it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is from not using protection, in most instances, I would think.  Smart people know how to protect themselves against pregnancy and disease.
Click to expand...



The only prevention that is one hundred percent is abstinence. BTW. The failure rate of condoms is 12%. Did you know that? And the simple fact is that most don't use any kind of protection. So where does that leave us? We have become a morally degenerate society. We encourage kids to have sex, then murder their babies before they are born. No. The best policy is abstinence. You can't refute that.


----------



## danielpalos

Anathema said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly, I don't think most guys have an issue with that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably not. Yet so many people still can't figure out why we have such s high divorce rate and Society is falling apart.
Click to expand...

a lack of equality regarding sex?  what guys would have problems with women, if it was normal for women to come up to us and simply ask us for sex, just to get us to put out a free sample relationship?


----------



## ChrisL

RWNJ said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you continue dating/marry a significant other you had sex with on the first date?
> Is used to be taboo, but people are slowly opening their minds to the most natural human act available.
> Personally, it wouldn't bother me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sex is something that should be reserved for marriage. That's not just a Christian view point, it's just common sense. Think about it. How many problems would disappear if everyone waited until they were married, or at LEAST until they made the commitment to marry. How many lives have been ruined because someone couldn't wait? How many babies have been murdered in the womb because of it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is from not using protection, in most instances, I would think.  Smart people know how to protect themselves against pregnancy and disease.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The only prevention that is one hundred percent is abstinence. BTW. The failure rate of condoms is 12%. Did you know that? And the simple fact is that most don't use any kind of protection. So where does that leave us? We have become a morally degenerate society. We encourage kids to have sex, then murder their babies before they are born. No. The best policy is abstinence. You can't refute that.
Click to expand...


I can and I do refute that.  That is an unrealistic expectation for MOST people.


----------



## danielpalos

RWNJ said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you continue dating/marry a significant other you had sex with on the first date?
> Is used to be taboo, but people are slowly opening their minds to the most natural human act available.
> Personally, it wouldn't bother me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sex is something that should be reserved for marriage. That's not just a Christian view point, it's just common sense. Think about it. How many problems would disappear if everyone waited until they were married, or at LEAST until they made the commitment to marry. How many lives have been ruined because someone couldn't wait? How many babies have been murdered in the womb because of it?
Click to expand...

what about the abomination of hypocrisy instead of human sexuality?  the former is much worse than than the latter.


----------



## RWNJ

ChrisL said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you continue dating/marry a significant other you had sex with on the first date?
> Is used to be taboo, but people are slowly opening their minds to the most natural human act available.
> Personally, it wouldn't bother me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sex is something that should be reserved for marriage. That's not just a Christian view point, it's just common sense. Think about it. How many problems would disappear if everyone waited until they were married, or at LEAST until they made the commitment to marry. How many lives have been ruined because someone couldn't wait? How many babies have been murdered in the womb because of it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is from not using protection, in most instances, I would think.  Smart people know how to protect themselves against pregnancy and disease.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The only prevention that is one hundred percent is abstinence. BTW. The failure rate of condoms is 12%. Did you know that? And the simple fact is that most don't use any kind of protection. So where does that leave us? We have become a morally degenerate society. We encourage kids to have sex, then murder their babies before they are born. No. The best policy is abstinence. You can't refute that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can and I do refute that.  That is an unrealistic expectation for MOST people.
Click to expand...



What is unrealistic about it? If children are raised with the right moral guidelines, they will wait until they are married. I was raised in a Christian home. I have three sisters who were virgins when they were married. I guess to people like you, that's unnatural. And is it any more unrealistic than expecting two teenagers to use protection? You see. Their is a little something most people don't even know exists. It's called morality. It works. You should try it sometime.


----------



## ABikerSailor

RWNJ said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you continue dating/marry a significant other you had sex with on the first date?
> Is used to be taboo, but people are slowly opening their minds to the most natural human act available.
> Personally, it wouldn't bother me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sex is something that should be reserved for marriage. That's not just a Christian view point, it's just common sense. Think about it. How many problems would disappear if everyone waited until they were married, or at LEAST until they made the commitment to marry. How many lives have been ruined because someone couldn't wait? How many babies have been murdered in the womb because of it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is from not using protection, in most instances, I would think.  Smart people know how to protect themselves against pregnancy and disease.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The only prevention that is one hundred percent is abstinence. BTW. The failure rate of condoms is 12%. Did you know that? And the simple fact is that most don't use any kind of protection. So where does that leave us? We have become a morally degenerate society. We encourage kids to have sex, then murder their babies before they are born. No. The best policy is abstinence. You can't refute that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can and I do refute that.  That is an unrealistic expectation for MOST people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What is unrealistic about it? If children are raised with the right moral guidelines, they will wait until they are married. I was raised in a Christian home. I have three sisters who were virgins when they were married. I guess to people like you, that's unnatural. And is it any more unrealistic than expecting two teenagers to use protection? You see. Their is a little something most people don't even know exists. It's called morality. It works. You should try it sometime.
Click to expand...


What makes Christian morals better than Buddhist morals?  Or Taoist, or Jewish, for that matter?


----------



## ChrisL

RWNJ said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you continue dating/marry a significant other you had sex with on the first date?
> Is used to be taboo, but people are slowly opening their minds to the most natural human act available.
> Personally, it wouldn't bother me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sex is something that should be reserved for marriage. That's not just a Christian view point, it's just common sense. Think about it. How many problems would disappear if everyone waited until they were married, or at LEAST until they made the commitment to marry. How many lives have been ruined because someone couldn't wait? How many babies have been murdered in the womb because of it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is from not using protection, in most instances, I would think.  Smart people know how to protect themselves against pregnancy and disease.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The only prevention that is one hundred percent is abstinence. BTW. The failure rate of condoms is 12%. Did you know that? And the simple fact is that most don't use any kind of protection. So where does that leave us? We have become a morally degenerate society. We encourage kids to have sex, then murder their babies before they are born. No. The best policy is abstinence. You can't refute that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can and I do refute that.  That is an unrealistic expectation for MOST people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What is unrealistic about it? If children are raised with the right moral guidelines, they will wait until they are married. I was raised in a Christian home. I have three sisters who were virgins when they were married. I guess to people like you, that's unnatural. And is it any more unrealistic than expecting two teenagers to use protection? You see. Their is a little something most people don't even know exists. It's called morality. It works. You should try it sometime.
Click to expand...


I'm not a Christian and I don't think of sex as "immoral" but as a natural human way to show affection and intimacy.


----------



## RWNJ

ABikerSailor said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sex is something that should be reserved for marriage. That's not just a Christian view point, it's just common sense. Think about it. How many problems would disappear if everyone waited until they were married, or at LEAST until they made the commitment to marry. How many lives have been ruined because someone couldn't wait? How many babies have been murdered in the womb because of it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is from not using protection, in most instances, I would think.  Smart people know how to protect themselves against pregnancy and disease.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The only prevention that is one hundred percent is abstinence. BTW. The failure rate of condoms is 12%. Did you know that? And the simple fact is that most don't use any kind of protection. So where does that leave us? We have become a morally degenerate society. We encourage kids to have sex, then murder their babies before they are born. No. The best policy is abstinence. You can't refute that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can and I do refute that.  That is an unrealistic expectation for MOST people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What is unrealistic about it? If children are raised with the right moral guidelines, they will wait until they are married. I was raised in a Christian home. I have three sisters who were virgins when they were married. I guess to people like you, that's unnatural. And is it any more unrealistic than expecting two teenagers to use protection? You see. Their is a little something most people don't even know exists. It's called morality. It works. You should try it sometime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes Christian morals better than Buddhist morals?  Or Taoist, or Jewish, for that matter?
Click to expand...


Tell you what. Show me one societal ill, that is the result of human action, that is not contrary to what the Bible teaches about morality. You can't.


----------



## ChrisL

RWNJ said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is from not using protection, in most instances, I would think.  Smart people know how to protect themselves against pregnancy and disease.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only prevention that is one hundred percent is abstinence. BTW. The failure rate of condoms is 12%. Did you know that? And the simple fact is that most don't use any kind of protection. So where does that leave us? We have become a morally degenerate society. We encourage kids to have sex, then murder their babies before they are born. No. The best policy is abstinence. You can't refute that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can and I do refute that.  That is an unrealistic expectation for MOST people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What is unrealistic about it? If children are raised with the right moral guidelines, they will wait until they are married. I was raised in a Christian home. I have three sisters who were virgins when they were married. I guess to people like you, that's unnatural. And is it any more unrealistic than expecting two teenagers to use protection? You see. Their is a little something most people don't even know exists. It's called morality. It works. You should try it sometime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes Christian morals better than Buddhist morals?  Or Taoist, or Jewish, for that matter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell you what. Show me one societal ill, that is the result of human action, that is not contrary to what the Bible teaches about morality. You can't.
Click to expand...


What if a person never marries?  Should that person live a sexless life?  Should another person have to live by your personal morals to prove that they are "moral?"  No.  If you want to wait until you are married, that is fine.  By all means, but you have no right to say someone else is immoral for merely having sex.  That's silly.


----------



## RWNJ

ChrisL said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sex is something that should be reserved for marriage. That's not just a Christian view point, it's just common sense. Think about it. How many problems would disappear if everyone waited until they were married, or at LEAST until they made the commitment to marry. How many lives have been ruined because someone couldn't wait? How many babies have been murdered in the womb because of it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is from not using protection, in most instances, I would think.  Smart people know how to protect themselves against pregnancy and disease.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The only prevention that is one hundred percent is abstinence. BTW. The failure rate of condoms is 12%. Did you know that? And the simple fact is that most don't use any kind of protection. So where does that leave us? We have become a morally degenerate society. We encourage kids to have sex, then murder their babies before they are born. No. The best policy is abstinence. You can't refute that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can and I do refute that.  That is an unrealistic expectation for MOST people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What is unrealistic about it? If children are raised with the right moral guidelines, they will wait until they are married. I was raised in a Christian home. I have three sisters who were virgins when they were married. I guess to people like you, that's unnatural. And is it any more unrealistic than expecting two teenagers to use protection? You see. Their is a little something most people don't even know exists. It's called morality. It works. You should try it sometime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not a Christian and I don't think of sex as "immoral" but as a natural human way to show affection and intimacy.
Click to expand...

So how old should one be then? Can I have sex with a 12 year old? I mean, it's perfectly natural. Right?


----------



## ABikerSailor

ChrisL said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sex is something that should be reserved for marriage. That's not just a Christian view point, it's just common sense. Think about it. How many problems would disappear if everyone waited until they were married, or at LEAST until they made the commitment to marry. How many lives have been ruined because someone couldn't wait? How many babies have been murdered in the womb because of it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is from not using protection, in most instances, I would think.  Smart people know how to protect themselves against pregnancy and disease.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The only prevention that is one hundred percent is abstinence. BTW. The failure rate of condoms is 12%. Did you know that? And the simple fact is that most don't use any kind of protection. So where does that leave us? We have become a morally degenerate society. We encourage kids to have sex, then murder their babies before they are born. No. The best policy is abstinence. You can't refute that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can and I do refute that.  That is an unrealistic expectation for MOST people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What is unrealistic about it? If children are raised with the right moral guidelines, they will wait until they are married. I was raised in a Christian home. I have three sisters who were virgins when they were married. I guess to people like you, that's unnatural. And is it any more unrealistic than expecting two teenagers to use protection? You see. Their is a little something most people don't even know exists. It's called morality. It works. You should try it sometime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not a Christian and I don't think of sex as "immoral" but as a natural human way to show affection and intimacy.
Click to expand...


I think of it as a fun way to enjoy another person's company.  And, I don't really attach much of an emotional response to it, because it's more biological than anything else. 

If I like someone, and we get along and they ask if I wanna, 98 percent of the time, I'll say "sure".  The other 2 percent, I'm either very sick or physically incapacitated and can't do anything. 

And sex is only "immoral" if the dogma of your particular belief system restricts you to that.


----------



## RWNJ

ChrisL said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only prevention that is one hundred percent is abstinence. BTW. The failure rate of condoms is 12%. Did you know that? And the simple fact is that most don't use any kind of protection. So where does that leave us? We have become a morally degenerate society. We encourage kids to have sex, then murder their babies before they are born. No. The best policy is abstinence. You can't refute that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can and I do refute that.  That is an unrealistic expectation for MOST people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What is unrealistic about it? If children are raised with the right moral guidelines, they will wait until they are married. I was raised in a Christian home. I have three sisters who were virgins when they were married. I guess to people like you, that's unnatural. And is it any more unrealistic than expecting two teenagers to use protection? You see. Their is a little something most people don't even know exists. It's called morality. It works. You should try it sometime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes Christian morals better than Buddhist morals?  Or Taoist, or Jewish, for that matter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell you what. Show me one societal ill, that is the result of human action, that is not contrary to what the Bible teaches about morality. You can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What if a person never marries?  Should that person live a sexless life?
Click to expand...


I just turned 50. I've never been married, and I've never had sex. I guess this is the part where you call me a liar. That's OK. It's the truth. People are not ruled by their hormones. Like I said. If children are raised right, they will not engage in immoral behavior.


----------



## ChrisL

RWNJ said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is from not using protection, in most instances, I would think.  Smart people know how to protect themselves against pregnancy and disease.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only prevention that is one hundred percent is abstinence. BTW. The failure rate of condoms is 12%. Did you know that? And the simple fact is that most don't use any kind of protection. So where does that leave us? We have become a morally degenerate society. We encourage kids to have sex, then murder their babies before they are born. No. The best policy is abstinence. You can't refute that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can and I do refute that.  That is an unrealistic expectation for MOST people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What is unrealistic about it? If children are raised with the right moral guidelines, they will wait until they are married. I was raised in a Christian home. I have three sisters who were virgins when they were married. I guess to people like you, that's unnatural. And is it any more unrealistic than expecting two teenagers to use protection? You see. Their is a little something most people don't even know exists. It's called morality. It works. You should try it sometime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not a Christian and I don't think of sex as "immoral" but as a natural human way to show affection and intimacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So how old should one be then? Can I have sex with a 12 year old? I mean, it's perfectly natural. Right?
Click to expand...


We already have laws to cover those kinds of problems.  Adults having sex with children has consequences for the children.  That is not the same as two consenting adults agreeing to have sex with one another.  We are talking about consenting adults here.


----------



## ChrisL

RWNJ said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can and I do refute that.  That is an unrealistic expectation for MOST people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is unrealistic about it? If children are raised with the right moral guidelines, they will wait until they are married. I was raised in a Christian home. I have three sisters who were virgins when they were married. I guess to people like you, that's unnatural. And is it any more unrealistic than expecting two teenagers to use protection? You see. Their is a little something most people don't even know exists. It's called morality. It works. You should try it sometime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes Christian morals better than Buddhist morals?  Or Taoist, or Jewish, for that matter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell you what. Show me one societal ill, that is the result of human action, that is not contrary to what the Bible teaches about morality. You can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What if a person never marries?  Should that person live a sexless life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just turned 50. I've never been married, and I've never had sex. I guess this is the part where you call me a liar. That's OK. It's the truth. People are not ruled by their hormones. Like I said. If children are raised right, they will not engage in immoral behavior.
Click to expand...


I won't call you a liar, because I really don't care.  That's your problem.    Some people happen to enjoy sex, and the intimacy they share with their partner.


----------



## ABikerSailor

RWNJ said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is from not using protection, in most instances, I would think.  Smart people know how to protect themselves against pregnancy and disease.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only prevention that is one hundred percent is abstinence. BTW. The failure rate of condoms is 12%. Did you know that? And the simple fact is that most don't use any kind of protection. So where does that leave us? We have become a morally degenerate society. We encourage kids to have sex, then murder their babies before they are born. No. The best policy is abstinence. You can't refute that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can and I do refute that.  That is an unrealistic expectation for MOST people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What is unrealistic about it? If children are raised with the right moral guidelines, they will wait until they are married. I was raised in a Christian home. I have three sisters who were virgins when they were married. I guess to people like you, that's unnatural. And is it any more unrealistic than expecting two teenagers to use protection? You see. Their is a little something most people don't even know exists. It's called morality. It works. You should try it sometime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not a Christian and I don't think of sex as "immoral" but as a natural human way to show affection and intimacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So how old should one be then? Can I have sex with a 12 year old? I mean, it's perfectly natural. Right?
Click to expand...


Hyperbolic argument.  You are currently legally able to have sex only with those over the age of 18.

And no, sex isn't "perfectly natural" for someone who is 12, because they don't have the experience or the physical ability to understand what is going on or to reproduce (unless they hit puberty early).


----------



## ChrisL

ABikerSailor said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only prevention that is one hundred percent is abstinence. BTW. The failure rate of condoms is 12%. Did you know that? And the simple fact is that most don't use any kind of protection. So where does that leave us? We have become a morally degenerate society. We encourage kids to have sex, then murder their babies before they are born. No. The best policy is abstinence. You can't refute that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can and I do refute that.  That is an unrealistic expectation for MOST people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What is unrealistic about it? If children are raised with the right moral guidelines, they will wait until they are married. I was raised in a Christian home. I have three sisters who were virgins when they were married. I guess to people like you, that's unnatural. And is it any more unrealistic than expecting two teenagers to use protection? You see. Their is a little something most people don't even know exists. It's called morality. It works. You should try it sometime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not a Christian and I don't think of sex as "immoral" but as a natural human way to show affection and intimacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So how old should one be then? Can I have sex with a 12 year old? I mean, it's perfectly natural. Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hyperbolic argument.  You are currently legally able to have sex only with those over the age of 18.
> 
> And no, sex isn't "perfectly natural" for someone who is 12, because they don't have the experience or the physical ability to understand what is going on or to reproduce (unless they hit puberty early).
Click to expand...


Some girls are menstruating by age 9 or 10.  Ability to do something doesn't mean you should.  Like you said, a child doesn't have the emotional/mental capacities to handle an adult intimate relationship.


----------



## RWNJ

ABikerSailor said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is from not using protection, in most instances, I would think.  Smart people know how to protect themselves against pregnancy and disease.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only prevention that is one hundred percent is abstinence. BTW. The failure rate of condoms is 12%. Did you know that? And the simple fact is that most don't use any kind of protection. So where does that leave us? We have become a morally degenerate society. We encourage kids to have sex, then murder their babies before they are born. No. The best policy is abstinence. You can't refute that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can and I do refute that.  That is an unrealistic expectation for MOST people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What is unrealistic about it? If children are raised with the right moral guidelines, they will wait until they are married. I was raised in a Christian home. I have three sisters who were virgins when they were married. I guess to people like you, that's unnatural. And is it any more unrealistic than expecting two teenagers to use protection? You see. Their is a little something most people don't even know exists. It's called morality. It works. You should try it sometime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not a Christian and I don't think of sex as "immoral" but as a natural human way to show affection and intimacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think of it as a fun way to enjoy another person's company.  And, I don't really attach much of an emotional response to it, because it's more biological than anything else.
> 
> If I like someone, and we get along and they ask if I wanna, 98 percent of the time, I'll say "sure".  The other 2 percent, I'm either very sick or physically incapacitated and can't do anything.
> 
> And sex is only "immoral" if the dogma of your particular belief system restricts you to that.
Click to expand...


Sex is not immoral. What's immoral is who and when you have it with. It's not just religious either. Their are tribes in Africa that have similar morals that are not based on religion. Such morals used to be widespread in this country. Teen pregnancies were almost unheard of. That's because they didn't spread their legs as soon as they knew what their twat was for.


----------



## RWNJ

ChrisL said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can and I do refute that.  That is an unrealistic expectation for MOST people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is unrealistic about it? If children are raised with the right moral guidelines, they will wait until they are married. I was raised in a Christian home. I have three sisters who were virgins when they were married. I guess to people like you, that's unnatural. And is it any more unrealistic than expecting two teenagers to use protection? You see. Their is a little something most people don't even know exists. It's called morality. It works. You should try it sometime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not a Christian and I don't think of sex as "immoral" but as a natural human way to show affection and intimacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So how old should one be then? Can I have sex with a 12 year old? I mean, it's perfectly natural. Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hyperbolic argument.  You are currently legally able to have sex only with those over the age of 18.
> 
> And no, sex isn't "perfectly natural" for someone who is 12, because they don't have the experience or the physical ability to understand what is going on or to reproduce (unless they hit puberty early).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some girls are menstruating by age 9 or 10.  Ability to do something doesn't mean you should.  Like you said, a child doesn't have the emotional/mental capacities to handle an adult intimate relationship.
Click to expand...


None of what you said changes the fact that abstinence is the best course. If one is not mature enough to support a family, then they should not engage in behavior that would create one.


----------



## ChrisL

RWNJ said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is unrealistic about it? If children are raised with the right moral guidelines, they will wait until they are married. I was raised in a Christian home. I have three sisters who were virgins when they were married. I guess to people like you, that's unnatural. And is it any more unrealistic than expecting two teenagers to use protection? You see. Their is a little something most people don't even know exists. It's called morality. It works. You should try it sometime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a Christian and I don't think of sex as "immoral" but as a natural human way to show affection and intimacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So how old should one be then? Can I have sex with a 12 year old? I mean, it's perfectly natural. Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hyperbolic argument.  You are currently legally able to have sex only with those over the age of 18.
> 
> And no, sex isn't "perfectly natural" for someone who is 12, because they don't have the experience or the physical ability to understand what is going on or to reproduce (unless they hit puberty early).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some girls are menstruating by age 9 or 10.  Ability to do something doesn't mean you should.  Like you said, a child doesn't have the emotional/mental capacities to handle an adult intimate relationship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of what you said changes the fact that abstinence is the best course. If one is not mature enough to support a family, then they should not engage in behavior that would create one.
Click to expand...


In the case of children having sex, I would agree.  Adults are well aware of the risks and it is their choice to take such risks.  People have always had sex out of wedlock, hate to inform you.    Teen pregnancies have actually been on the decline since the 1970s.


----------



## RWNJ

ChrisL said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is unrealistic about it? If children are raised with the right moral guidelines, they will wait until they are married. I was raised in a Christian home. I have three sisters who were virgins when they were married. I guess to people like you, that's unnatural. And is it any more unrealistic than expecting two teenagers to use protection? You see. Their is a little something most people don't even know exists. It's called morality. It works. You should try it sometime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What makes Christian morals better than Buddhist morals?  Or Taoist, or Jewish, for that matter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell you what. Show me one societal ill, that is the result of human action, that is not contrary to what the Bible teaches about morality. You can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What if a person never marries?  Should that person live a sexless life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just turned 50. I've never been married, and I've never had sex. I guess this is the part where you call me a liar. That's OK. It's the truth. People are not ruled by their hormones. Like I said. If children are raised right, they will not engage in immoral behavior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I won't call you a liar, because I really don't care.  That's your problem.    Some people happen to enjoy sex, and the intimacy they share with their partner.
Click to expand...


Do they also enjoy the unwanted pregnancies and STD's they get? Sexually transmitted disease could virtually be wiped out if everyone would just wait until they get married. Tell me I'm wrong.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Abstinence might be the best way to prevent pregnancy, but it isn't the most practical.

In one foster family I lived in for a few years, they were a deeply religious family (Baptist), but the daughter was a total hose beast.  She did almost everyone in the school who was popular.

The Mormon family (of which the father was a Deacon in the church) that lived just down the road had a daughter named Melanie who was every bit as much of a hose beast as well.  

Nope...............being religious doesn't mean that the kids aren't going to figure out a way to have sex.


----------



## RWNJ

ChrisL said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a Christian and I don't think of sex as "immoral" but as a natural human way to show affection and intimacy.
> 
> 
> 
> So how old should one be then? Can I have sex with a 12 year old? I mean, it's perfectly natural. Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hyperbolic argument.  You are currently legally able to have sex only with those over the age of 18.
> 
> And no, sex isn't "perfectly natural" for someone who is 12, because they don't have the experience or the physical ability to understand what is going on or to reproduce (unless they hit puberty early).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some girls are menstruating by age 9 or 10.  Ability to do something doesn't mean you should.  Like you said, a child doesn't have the emotional/mental capacities to handle an adult intimate relationship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of what you said changes the fact that abstinence is the best course. If one is not mature enough to support a family, then they should not engage in behavior that would create one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the case of children having sex, I would agree.  Adults are well aware of the risks and it is their choice to take such risks.  People have always had sex out of wedlock, hate to inform you.    Teen pregnancies have actually been on the decline since the 1970s.
Click to expand...


Only because abortions are so readily available. You don't even need your parents permission if you're a minor.


----------



## ChrisL

RWNJ said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> What makes Christian morals better than Buddhist morals?  Or Taoist, or Jewish, for that matter?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell you what. Show me one societal ill, that is the result of human action, that is not contrary to what the Bible teaches about morality. You can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What if a person never marries?  Should that person live a sexless life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just turned 50. I've never been married, and I've never had sex. I guess this is the part where you call me a liar. That's OK. It's the truth. People are not ruled by their hormones. Like I said. If children are raised right, they will not engage in immoral behavior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I won't call you a liar, because I really don't care.  That's your problem.    Some people happen to enjoy sex, and the intimacy they share with their partner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do they also enjoy the unwanted pregnancies and STD's they get? Sexually transmitted disease could virtually be wiped out if everyone would just wait until they get married. Tell me I'm wrong.
Click to expand...


Most people who use protection don't get an STD.  

Plenty of instances where married people pass disease to one another.  They cheat and always have.  I think you have an idealistic view of the world that is really not the case at all.  Desiring sex is normal for people.  Some people are going to give into those temptations.


----------



## RWNJ

ABikerSailor said:


> Abstinence might be the best way to prevent pregnancy, but it isn't the most practical.
> 
> In one foster family I lived in for a few years, they were a deeply religious family (Baptist), but the daughter was a total hose beast.  She did almost everyone in the school who was popular.
> 
> The Mormon family (of which the father was a Deacon in the church) that lived just down the road had a daughter named Melanie who was every bit as much of a hose beast as well.
> 
> Nope...............being religious doesn't mean that the kids aren't going to figure out a way to have sex.



That's not what I said. The Bible says to raise up a child in the way they should go, and when they are old they will not depart from it. Apparently those parents did a poor job of raising them.


----------



## RWNJ

ChrisL said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell you what. Show me one societal ill, that is the result of human action, that is not contrary to what the Bible teaches about morality. You can't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What if a person never marries?  Should that person live a sexless life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just turned 50. I've never been married, and I've never had sex. I guess this is the part where you call me a liar. That's OK. It's the truth. People are not ruled by their hormones. Like I said. If children are raised right, they will not engage in immoral behavior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I won't call you a liar, because I really don't care.  That's your problem.    Some people happen to enjoy sex, and the intimacy they share with their partner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do they also enjoy the unwanted pregnancies and STD's they get? Sexually transmitted disease could virtually be wiped out if everyone would just wait until they get married. Tell me I'm wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most people who use protection don't get an STD.
> 
> Plenty of instances where married people pass disease to one another.  They cheat and always have.  I think you have an idealistic view of the world that is really not the case at all.  Desiring sex is normal for people.  Some people are going to give into those temptations.
Click to expand...


So, by your reasoning murder is OK because people are going to give in to temptation and do it anyway?


----------



## ChrisL

RWNJ said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if a person never marries?  Should that person live a sexless life?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just turned 50. I've never been married, and I've never had sex. I guess this is the part where you call me a liar. That's OK. It's the truth. People are not ruled by their hormones. Like I said. If children are raised right, they will not engage in immoral behavior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I won't call you a liar, because I really don't care.  That's your problem.    Some people happen to enjoy sex, and the intimacy they share with their partner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do they also enjoy the unwanted pregnancies and STD's they get? Sexually transmitted disease could virtually be wiped out if everyone would just wait until they get married. Tell me I'm wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most people who use protection don't get an STD.
> 
> Plenty of instances where married people pass disease to one another.  They cheat and always have.  I think you have an idealistic view of the world that is really not the case at all.  Desiring sex is normal for people.  Some people are going to give into those temptations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, by your reasoning murder is OK because people are going to give in to temptation and do it anyway?
Click to expand...


What???  Holy smokes.  Well, I can see that you are one of the "crazy" ones, so bye-bye now.  Lol.


----------



## Ernie S.

RWNJ said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you continue dating/marry a significant other you had sex with on the first date?
> Is used to be taboo, but people are slowly opening their minds to the most natural human act available.
> Personally, it wouldn't bother me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sex is something that should be reserved for marriage. That's not just a Christian view point, it's just common sense. Think about it. How many problems would disappear if everyone waited until they were married, or at LEAST until they made the commitment to marry. How many lives have been ruined because someone couldn't wait? How many babies have been murdered in the womb because of it?
Click to expand...

I'm 66. I'm not going to make any more babies. I'm taking my next lady for a test drive, thank you.


----------



## RWNJ

ChrisL said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just turned 50. I've never been married, and I've never had sex. I guess this is the part where you call me a liar. That's OK. It's the truth. People are not ruled by their hormones. Like I said. If children are raised right, they will not engage in immoral behavior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I won't call you a liar, because I really don't care.  That's your problem.    Some people happen to enjoy sex, and the intimacy they share with their partner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do they also enjoy the unwanted pregnancies and STD's they get? Sexually transmitted disease could virtually be wiped out if everyone would just wait until they get married. Tell me I'm wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most people who use protection don't get an STD.
> 
> Plenty of instances where married people pass disease to one another.  They cheat and always have.  I think you have an idealistic view of the world that is really not the case at all.  Desiring sex is normal for people.  Some people are going to give into those temptations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, by your reasoning murder is OK because people are going to give in to temptation and do it anyway?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What???  Holy smokes.  Well, I can see that you are one of the "crazy" ones, so bye-bye now.  Lol.
Click to expand...



Not crazy. Just using an extreme example. But it's the same reasoning. Is it not? To say it's OK because they're going to have sex anyway is just plain stupid. Wouldn't it be better to instill moral values in our youngsters instead?


----------



## ChrisL

RWNJ said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I won't call you a liar, because I really don't care.  That's your problem.    Some people happen to enjoy sex, and the intimacy they share with their partner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do they also enjoy the unwanted pregnancies and STD's they get? Sexually transmitted disease could virtually be wiped out if everyone would just wait until they get married. Tell me I'm wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most people who use protection don't get an STD.
> 
> Plenty of instances where married people pass disease to one another.  They cheat and always have.  I think you have an idealistic view of the world that is really not the case at all.  Desiring sex is normal for people.  Some people are going to give into those temptations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, by your reasoning murder is OK because people are going to give in to temptation and do it anyway?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What???  Holy smokes.  Well, I can see that you are one of the "crazy" ones, so bye-bye now.  Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not crazy. Just using an extreme example. But it's the same reasoning. Is it not? To say it's OK because they're going to have sex anyway is just plain stupid. Wouldn't it be better to instill moral values in our youngsters instead?
Click to expand...


It is not reasoning.  Sex is not a crime.  Sex is not immoral.  It is a normal human act.


----------



## ChrisL

RWNJ said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I won't call you a liar, because I really don't care.  That's your problem.    Some people happen to enjoy sex, and the intimacy they share with their partner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do they also enjoy the unwanted pregnancies and STD's they get? Sexually transmitted disease could virtually be wiped out if everyone would just wait until they get married. Tell me I'm wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most people who use protection don't get an STD.
> 
> Plenty of instances where married people pass disease to one another.  They cheat and always have.  I think you have an idealistic view of the world that is really not the case at all.  Desiring sex is normal for people.  Some people are going to give into those temptations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, by your reasoning murder is OK because people are going to give in to temptation and do it anyway?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What???  Holy smokes.  Well, I can see that you are one of the "crazy" ones, so bye-bye now.  Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not crazy. Just using an extreme example. But it's the same reasoning. Is it not? To say it's OK because they're going to have sex anyway is just plain stupid. Wouldn't it be better to instill moral values in our youngsters instead?
Click to expand...


I would only consider it an "immoral" act if you were married to someone else and cheating on that person.  THAT is immoral and shitty.  Two single adult people having sex is fine.  There is nothing wrong with it.


----------



## Bonzi

ChrisL said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do they also enjoy the unwanted pregnancies and STD's they get? Sexually transmitted disease could virtually be wiped out if everyone would just wait until they get married. Tell me I'm wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most people who use protection don't get an STD.
> 
> Plenty of instances where married people pass disease to one another.  They cheat and always have.  I think you have an idealistic view of the world that is really not the case at all.  Desiring sex is normal for people.  Some people are going to give into those temptations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, by your reasoning murder is OK because people are going to give in to temptation and do it anyway?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What???  Holy smokes.  Well, I can see that you are one of the "crazy" ones, so bye-bye now.  Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not crazy. Just using an extreme example. But it's the same reasoning. Is it not? To say it's OK because they're going to have sex anyway is just plain stupid. Wouldn't it be better to instill moral values in our youngsters instead?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would only consider it an "immoral" act if you were married to someone else and cheating on that person.  THAT is immoral and shitty.  Two single adult people having sex is fine.  There is nothing wrong with it.
Click to expand...

 
Apparently you are not supposed to even talk to others of the same sex and it's immoral to you.
OH unless it's YOU talking to a married guy on here, then it's ok.


----------



## ChrisL

Bonzi said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most people who use protection don't get an STD.
> 
> Plenty of instances where married people pass disease to one another.  They cheat and always have.  I think you have an idealistic view of the world that is really not the case at all.  Desiring sex is normal for people.  Some people are going to give into those temptations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, by your reasoning murder is OK because people are going to give in to temptation and do it anyway?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What???  Holy smokes.  Well, I can see that you are one of the "crazy" ones, so bye-bye now.  Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not crazy. Just using an extreme example. But it's the same reasoning. Is it not? To say it's OK because they're going to have sex anyway is just plain stupid. Wouldn't it be better to instill moral values in our youngsters instead?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would only consider it an "immoral" act if you were married to someone else and cheating on that person.  THAT is immoral and shitty.  Two single adult people having sex is fine.  There is nothing wrong with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently you are not supposed to even talk to others of the same sex and it's immoral to you.
> OH unless it's YOU talking to a married guy on here, then it's ok.
Click to expand...


I'm not talking about talking to people.  I'm talking about a married person who has a preoccupation with sex and dating, yet thinks she has the right to "preach" about Christianity.  The point is you are no better than any other sinner.  YOU are no more "moral" than anyone else.


----------



## Bonzi

ChrisL said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, by your reasoning murder is OK because people are going to give in to temptation and do it anyway?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What???  Holy smokes.  Well, I can see that you are one of the "crazy" ones, so bye-bye now.  Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not crazy. Just using an extreme example. But it's the same reasoning. Is it not? To say it's OK because they're going to have sex anyway is just plain stupid. Wouldn't it be better to instill moral values in our youngsters instead?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would only consider it an "immoral" act if you were married to someone else and cheating on that person.  THAT is immoral and shitty.  Two single adult people having sex is fine.  There is nothing wrong with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently you are not supposed to even talk to others of the same sex and it's immoral to you.
> OH unless it's YOU talking to a married guy on here, then it's ok.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not talking about talking to people.  I'm talking about a married person who has a preoccupation with sex and dating, yet thinks she has the right to "preach" about Christianity.  The point is you are no better than any other sinner.  YOU are no more "moral" than anyone else.
Click to expand...

 
I never said I was.


----------



## ChrisL

Bonzi said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> What???  Holy smokes.  Well, I can see that you are one of the "crazy" ones, so bye-bye now.  Lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not crazy. Just using an extreme example. But it's the same reasoning. Is it not? To say it's OK because they're going to have sex anyway is just plain stupid. Wouldn't it be better to instill moral values in our youngsters instead?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would only consider it an "immoral" act if you were married to someone else and cheating on that person.  THAT is immoral and shitty.  Two single adult people having sex is fine.  There is nothing wrong with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently you are not supposed to even talk to others of the same sex and it's immoral to you.
> OH unless it's YOU talking to a married guy on here, then it's ok.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not talking about talking to people.  I'm talking about a married person who has a preoccupation with sex and dating, yet thinks she has the right to "preach" about Christianity.  The point is you are no better than any other sinner.  YOU are no more "moral" than anyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said I was.
Click to expand...


Well, when you go around preaching about how other women should dress, which you have done, about how gay people are sinning in the eyes of your "God", then yes, that is like saying you are better and more moral.  You tell us to "find God", that we will be happier and more satisfied people if we do so, yet you all set a really piss poor example of it.  It is at least confusing.


----------



## Bonzi

ChrisL said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not crazy. Just using an extreme example. But it's the same reasoning. Is it not? To say it's OK because they're going to have sex anyway is just plain stupid. Wouldn't it be better to instill moral values in our youngsters instead?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would only consider it an "immoral" act if you were married to someone else and cheating on that person.  THAT is immoral and shitty.  Two single adult people having sex is fine.  There is nothing wrong with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently you are not supposed to even talk to others of the same sex and it's immoral to you.
> OH unless it's YOU talking to a married guy on here, then it's ok.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not talking about talking to people.  I'm talking about a married person who has a preoccupation with sex and dating, yet thinks she has the right to "preach" about Christianity.  The point is you are no better than any other sinner.  YOU are no more "moral" than anyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said I was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, when you go around preaching about how other women should dress, which you have done, about how gay people are sinning in the eyes of your "God", then yes, that is like saying you are better and more moral.  You tell us to "find God", that we will be happier and more satisfied people if we do so, yet you all set a really piss poor example of it.  It is at least confusing.
Click to expand...

 
Well just like you get to say what you want, I get to say what I want, and I don't have to answer to you.
Too bad you are confused and think I'm a bad example.  Get over it.


----------



## ChrisL

Bonzi said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would only consider it an "immoral" act if you were married to someone else and cheating on that person.  THAT is immoral and shitty.  Two single adult people having sex is fine.  There is nothing wrong with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently you are not supposed to even talk to others of the same sex and it's immoral to you.
> OH unless it's YOU talking to a married guy on here, then it's ok.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not talking about talking to people.  I'm talking about a married person who has a preoccupation with sex and dating, yet thinks she has the right to "preach" about Christianity.  The point is you are no better than any other sinner.  YOU are no more "moral" than anyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said I was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, when you go around preaching about how other women should dress, which you have done, about how gay people are sinning in the eyes of your "God", then yes, that is like saying you are better and more moral.  You tell us to "find God", that we will be happier and more satisfied people if we do so, yet you all set a really piss poor example of it.  It is at least confusing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well just like you get to say what you want, I get to say what I want, and I don't have to answer to you.
> Too bad you are confused and think I'm a bad example.  Get over it.
Click to expand...


You should just stop with your preaching.  You are no more moral and no better than anyone else.


----------



## defcon4

ChrisL said:


> You should just stop with your preaching. You are no more moral and no better than anyone else.


I happen to like her preaching, so if you don't' like it just don't read it...


----------



## ChrisL

Actually, now that I think about, that's not entirely true.  I do think you are much better than some other people.  Lol.  However, you don't have any right to go around preaching about sinning when you break some of the covenants of your own religion!  How do you expect anyone to take you seriously?


----------



## Bonzi

ChrisL said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently you are not supposed to even talk to others of the same sex and it's immoral to you.
> OH unless it's YOU talking to a married guy on here, then it's ok.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not talking about talking to people.  I'm talking about a married person who has a preoccupation with sex and dating, yet thinks she has the right to "preach" about Christianity.  The point is you are no better than any other sinner.  YOU are no more "moral" than anyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said I was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, when you go around preaching about how other women should dress, which you have done, about how gay people are sinning in the eyes of your "God", then yes, that is like saying you are better and more moral.  You tell us to "find God", that we will be happier and more satisfied people if we do so, yet you all set a really piss poor example of it.  It is at least confusing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well just like you get to say what you want, I get to say what I want, and I don't have to answer to you.
> Too bad you are confused and think I'm a bad example.  Get over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should just stop with your preaching.  You are no more moral and no better than anyone else.
Click to expand...

 
Again, I will say what I want - and you can complain, but guess what.. no one gives a shit.


----------



## ChrisL

Bonzi said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not talking about talking to people.  I'm talking about a married person who has a preoccupation with sex and dating, yet thinks she has the right to "preach" about Christianity.  The point is you are no better than any other sinner.  YOU are no more "moral" than anyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said I was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, when you go around preaching about how other women should dress, which you have done, about how gay people are sinning in the eyes of your "God", then yes, that is like saying you are better and more moral.  You tell us to "find God", that we will be happier and more satisfied people if we do so, yet you all set a really piss poor example of it.  It is at least confusing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well just like you get to say what you want, I get to say what I want, and I don't have to answer to you.
> Too bad you are confused and think I'm a bad example.  Get over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should just stop with your preaching.  You are no more moral and no better than anyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, I will say what I want - and you can complain, but guess what.. no one gives a shit.
Click to expand...


Well then you are a hypocrite.    When you tell us these things, we know not to take you seriously.  If you don't take your own religious convictions seriously, why should anyone else?


----------



## Jarlaxle

RWNJ said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is from not using protection, in most instances, I would think.  Smart people know how to protect themselves against pregnancy and disease.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only prevention that is one hundred percent is abstinence. BTW. The failure rate of condoms is 12%. Did you know that? And the simple fact is that most don't use any kind of protection. So where does that leave us? We have become a morally degenerate society. We encourage kids to have sex, then murder their babies before they are born. No. The best policy is abstinence. You can't refute that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can and I do refute that.  That is an unrealistic expectation for MOST people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What is unrealistic about it? If children are raised with the right moral guidelines, they will wait until they are married. I was raised in a Christian home. I have three sisters who were virgins when they were married. I guess to people like you, that's unnatural. And is it any more unrealistic than expecting two teenagers to use protection? You see. Their is a little something most people don't even know exists. It's called morality. It works. You should try it sometime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes Christian morals better than Buddhist morals?  Or Taoist, or Jewish, for that matter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell you what. Show me one societal ill, that is the result of human action, that is not contrary to what the Bible teaches about morality. You can't.
Click to expand...


The raving of self-righteous fucks like you.


----------



## Bonzi

ChrisL said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said I was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, when you go around preaching about how other women should dress, which you have done, about how gay people are sinning in the eyes of your "God", then yes, that is like saying you are better and more moral.  You tell us to "find God", that we will be happier and more satisfied people if we do so, yet you all set a really piss poor example of it.  It is at least confusing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well just like you get to say what you want, I get to say what I want, and I don't have to answer to you.
> Too bad you are confused and think I'm a bad example.  Get over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should just stop with your preaching.  You are no more moral and no better than anyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, I will say what I want - and you can complain, but guess what.. no one gives a shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well then you are a hypocrite.    When you tell us these things, we know not to take you seriously.  If you don't take your own religious convictions seriously, why should anyone else?
Click to expand...

 
Which part of I don't answer to you and don't give a shit what you think didn't you understand?


----------



## Jarlaxle

ABikerSailor said:


> Abstinence might be the best way to prevent pregnancy, but it isn't the most practical.
> 
> In one foster family I lived in for a few years, they were a deeply religious family (Baptist), but the daughter was a total hose beast.  She did almost everyone in the school who was popular.
> 
> The Mormon family (of which the father was a Deacon in the church) that lived just down the road had a daughter named Melanie who was every bit as much of a hose beast as well.
> 
> Nope...............being religious doesn't mean that the kids aren't going to figure out a way to have sex.



The strictest parents often have the wildest children.  In high school, I recall the daughter of a minister was the school bicycle.

OTOH, I remember another girl raised by two free-love hippies.  To the great disappointment of...well...every heterosexual and bisexual male student, Siobahn graduated a virgin.


----------



## ChrisL

Bonzi said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, when you go around preaching about how other women should dress, which you have done, about how gay people are sinning in the eyes of your "God", then yes, that is like saying you are better and more moral.  You tell us to "find God", that we will be happier and more satisfied people if we do so, yet you all set a really piss poor example of it.  It is at least confusing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well just like you get to say what you want, I get to say what I want, and I don't have to answer to you.
> Too bad you are confused and think I'm a bad example.  Get over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should just stop with your preaching.  You are no more moral and no better than anyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, I will say what I want - and you can complain, but guess what.. no one gives a shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well then you are a hypocrite.    When you tell us these things, we know not to take you seriously.  If you don't take your own religious convictions seriously, why should anyone else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which part of I don't answer to you and don't give a shit what you think didn't you understand?
Click to expand...


Do as I say, not as I do.  Gotta love it!


----------



## Bonzi

ChrisL said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well just like you get to say what you want, I get to say what I want, and I don't have to answer to you.
> Too bad you are confused and think I'm a bad example.  Get over it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should just stop with your preaching.  You are no more moral and no better than anyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, I will say what I want - and you can complain, but guess what.. no one gives a shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well then you are a hypocrite.    When you tell us these things, we know not to take you seriously.  If you don't take your own religious convictions seriously, why should anyone else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which part of I don't answer to you and don't give a shit what you think didn't you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do as I say, not as I do.  Gotta love it!
Click to expand...

 
You do it well, yes.


----------



## ChrisL

Bonzi said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should just stop with your preaching.  You are no more moral and no better than anyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I will say what I want - and you can complain, but guess what.. no one gives a shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well then you are a hypocrite.    When you tell us these things, we know not to take you seriously.  If you don't take your own religious convictions seriously, why should anyone else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which part of I don't answer to you and don't give a shit what you think didn't you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do as I say, not as I do.  Gotta love it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do it well, yes.
Click to expand...


I don't go around preaching "Christian" values, do I?


----------



## ChrisL

Just ANOTHER hypocritical self-righteous Christian.  THAT is why more and more people are falling away from religion.  It's nothing but a bunch of bullshit spewed by self-righteous douchebags.


----------



## Bonzi

I'm done talking to you. 
The only people that will talk to you are horny men hoping to get in your pants.
..... and I think you want it that way.


----------



## ChrisL

Bonzi said:


> I'm done talking to you.
> The only people that will talk to you are horny men hoping to get in your pants.
> ..... and I think you want it that way.



Am I a married woman starting threads about sex and my vagina?    Then you turn around and claim to be a "Christian"?  Do you not see your own hypocrisy?  It's amazing, really amazing.  The blind lead the blind.


----------



## ChrisL

Bonzi said:


> I'm done talking to you.
> The only people that will talk to you are horny men hoping to get in your pants.
> ..... and I think you want it that way.



So . . . why don't you tell me where are all my posts encouraging horny men to get into my pants.  I'm waiting.


----------



## ChrisL

Bonzi said:


> I'm done talking to you.
> The only people that will talk to you are horny men hoping to get in your pants.
> ..... and I think you want it that way.



Here is a partial listing of some of MY threads that I've started since being here, and anyone is welcome to go look at the rest of them.  Now, we can compare these to some of the threads you've started, and who seems more to be looking for guys to want to get in her pants?  


*Snacks . . . How often do you eat them?*
And what's your favorite? I try to limit my snack intake to one good snack per week. Like a box of cookies or some homemade treat. This week it...
Thread by: ChrisL, Oct 4, 2015, 34 replies, in forum: Food & Wine



Thread
*Your Best Halloween Costume was . . .*
A bag of jelly beans. 
Thread by: ChrisL, Oct 4, 2015, 29 replies, in forum: USMB Lounge



Thread
*Tom Brady Suspension Lifted*
 Well, Tommy Boy's suspension is no more! What do you all think?  Judge nullifies Tom Brady's DeflateGate suspension Tom Brady's...
Thread by: ChrisL, Sep 3, 2015, 194 replies, in forum: Sports



Thread
*Copycat Recipes?*
I have a great one for Rice-A-Roni. 1. Get some rice (any kind really - this is for 1-2 cups of rice - I eyeball everything usually) and some...
Thread by: ChrisL, Aug 31, 2015, 79 replies, in forum: Food & Wine



Thread
*Kanye West for POTUS??!!*
Oh, Kanye West announced he's going to run for pres in 2020.  Oh my gosh, NOOOOOOO!!! I couldn't even bring myself to post this in the...
Thread by: ChrisL, Aug 31, 2015, 66 replies, in forum: Current Events



Thread
*Corny songs ~ Afraid to admit you like? *
Here are a couple of my more corny songs that I like.  Oh, there are many, many more too. Lol!  [MEDIA] [MEDIA]
Thread by: ChrisL, Aug 25, 2015, 126 replies, in forum: Music



Thread
*Awesome Americans!!! *
Congratulations to 3 brave Americans who have been hailed as heroes by the president of France!!! I love these guys! Thanks guys for saving...
Thread by: ChrisL, Aug 23, 2015, 29 replies, in forum: Current Events



Thread
*Painting elephants.*
I love elephants. One of my favorite animals and SO intelligent. As you can see, not only can these elephants bust a move on the dance floor but...
Thread by: ChrisL, Aug 12, 2015, 13 replies, in forum: Pets



Thread
*Is Skye retarded?*
so... what I want to know now... who in this forum is a friend of that piece of shit ChrisL? Who is her friend ? so I will never never be...
Thread by: ChrisL, Aug 6, 2015, 375 replies, in forum: The Flame Zone



Thread
*Invite others to private conversation option*
I have a couple of private conversations that I would like to invite others too. I notice that my more recent conversations have the option to...
Thread by: ChrisL, Aug 6, 2015, 5 replies, in forum: Announcements and Feedback



Thread
*Best Movie Soundtracks*
I like Dirty Dancing and Platoon. Totally different genres of music, I know but I like both. Some videos to follow.  Post yours!
Thread by: ChrisL, Aug 3, 2015, 153 replies, in forum: Music



Thread
*Boys missing at sea *
Is there no thread on this. I looked, but I found nothing. Anyways, there are two 14-year-old boys who are missing at sea right now....
Thread by: ChrisL, Jul 29, 2015, 185 replies, in forum: Current Events



Thread
*Australian surfer versus Jaws . . .*
Did anyone see this? Crikey, is all I can say. This guy is one lucky bloke!  Surfer Mick Fanning escapes shark attack - CNN.com [/URL]
Thread by: [URL='http://www.usmessageboard.com/members/chrisl.50165/']ChrisL[/URL], Jul 21, 2015, 0 replies, in forum: [URL='http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/current-events.20/']Current Events[/URL]
[*][URL='http://www.usmessageboard.com/members/chrisl.50165/'][IMG]http://www.usmessageboard.com/data/avatars/s/50/50165.jpg?1444328316
Thread
*Banned Members*
It would be nice if there was a way to determine whether a poster is banned only temporarily or permanently. The reason being is that sometimes I...
Thread by: ChrisL, Jun 30, 2015, 101 replies, in forum: Announcements and Feedback



Thread
*TV Commercials that We Love*
Well, we have a thread on TV commercials that you hate, so why not have one about those that we love?  Post them up! Here's one of mine...[/URL]
Thread by: [URL='http://www.usmessageboard.com/members/chrisl.50165/']ChrisL[/URL], Jun 13, 2015, 54 replies, in forum: [URL='http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/tv-forum.119/']TV Forum[/URL]
[*][URL='http://www.usmessageboard.com/members/chrisl.50165/'][IMG]http://www.usmessageboard.com/data/avatars/s/50/50165.jpg?1444328316
Thread
*Days of the Week Songs!! *
I want to do a thread with songs about days of the week. I'll start off with these two.  [MEDIA] [MEDIA]
Thread by: ChrisL, Dec 14, 2014, 56 replies, in forum: Music



Thread
*Crazy Vegan Mother*
I think this is taking your beliefs in "veganism" or any other such thing just too far! Also, how can this woman be a vegan? She is fat???!!!!...
Thread by: ChrisL, Nov 15, 2014, 214 replies, in forum: Current Events



Thread
*Ear worms*
I was watching Good Fellas the other night, and now I have this song stuck in my head.


----------



## ChrisL

Christ woman!  How many threads have you started here?    There are pages and pages and pages of them!


----------



## danielpalos

RWNJ said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can and I do refute that.  That is an unrealistic expectation for MOST people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is unrealistic about it? If children are raised with the right moral guidelines, they will wait until they are married. I was raised in a Christian home. I have three sisters who were virgins when they were married. I guess to people like you, that's unnatural. And is it any more unrealistic than expecting two teenagers to use protection? You see. Their is a little something most people don't even know exists. It's called morality. It works. You should try it sometime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes Christian morals better than Buddhist morals?  Or Taoist, or Jewish, for that matter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell you what. Show me one societal ill, that is the result of human action, that is not contrary to what the Bible teaches about morality. You can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What if a person never marries?  Should that person live a sexless life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just turned 50. I've never been married, and I've never had sex. I guess this is the part where you call me a liar. That's OK. It's the truth. People are not ruled by their hormones. Like I said. If children are raised right, they will not engage in immoral behavior.
Click to expand...

you must be a guy, for social equality purposes; women don't seem to be able to handle that much socialism, for free.


----------



## danielpalos

ChrisL said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only prevention that is one hundred percent is abstinence. BTW. The failure rate of condoms is 12%. Did you know that? And the simple fact is that most don't use any kind of protection. So where does that leave us? We have become a morally degenerate society. We encourage kids to have sex, then murder their babies before they are born. No. The best policy is abstinence. You can't refute that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can and I do refute that.  That is an unrealistic expectation for MOST people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What is unrealistic about it? If children are raised with the right moral guidelines, they will wait until they are married. I was raised in a Christian home. I have three sisters who were virgins when they were married. I guess to people like you, that's unnatural. And is it any more unrealistic than expecting two teenagers to use protection? You see. Their is a little something most people don't even know exists. It's called morality. It works. You should try it sometime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not a Christian and I don't think of sex as "immoral" but as a natural human way to show affection and intimacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So how old should one be then? Can I have sex with a 12 year old? I mean, it's perfectly natural. Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We already have laws to cover those kinds of problems.  Adults having sex with children has consequences for the children.  That is not the same as two consenting adults agreeing to have sex with one another.  We are talking about consenting adults here.
Click to expand...

i believe the simple answer is that if they are not competent enough for a contract they are not competent enough as adults.


----------



## danielpalos

ChrisL said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can and I do refute that.  That is an unrealistic expectation for MOST people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is unrealistic about it? If children are raised with the right moral guidelines, they will wait until they are married. I was raised in a Christian home. I have three sisters who were virgins when they were married. I guess to people like you, that's unnatural. And is it any more unrealistic than expecting two teenagers to use protection? You see. Their is a little something most people don't even know exists. It's called morality. It works. You should try it sometime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not a Christian and I don't think of sex as "immoral" but as a natural human way to show affection and intimacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So how old should one be then? Can I have sex with a 12 year old? I mean, it's perfectly natural. Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hyperbolic argument.  You are currently legally able to have sex only with those over the age of 18.
> 
> And no, sex isn't "perfectly natural" for someone who is 12, because they don't have the experience or the physical ability to understand what is going on or to reproduce (unless they hit puberty early).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some girls are menstruating by age 9 or 10.  Ability to do something doesn't mean you should.  Like you said, a child doesn't have the emotional/mental capacities to handle an adult intimate relationship.
Click to expand...

Back in the good olde days, that was the reason to get women married off; they simply could not be as good socialists for free as men.


----------



## danielpalos

RWNJ said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is unrealistic about it? If children are raised with the right moral guidelines, they will wait until they are married. I was raised in a Christian home. I have three sisters who were virgins when they were married. I guess to people like you, that's unnatural. And is it any more unrealistic than expecting two teenagers to use protection? You see. Their is a little something most people don't even know exists. It's called morality. It works. You should try it sometime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a Christian and I don't think of sex as "immoral" but as a natural human way to show affection and intimacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So how old should one be then? Can I have sex with a 12 year old? I mean, it's perfectly natural. Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hyperbolic argument.  You are currently legally able to have sex only with those over the age of 18.
> 
> And no, sex isn't "perfectly natural" for someone who is 12, because they don't have the experience or the physical ability to understand what is going on or to reproduce (unless they hit puberty early).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some girls are menstruating by age 9 or 10.  Ability to do something doesn't mean you should.  Like you said, a child doesn't have the emotional/mental capacities to handle an adult intimate relationship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of what you said changes the fact that abstinence is the best course. If one is not mature enough to support a family, then they should not engage in behavior that would create one.
Click to expand...

in modern times, safe sex solves that problem.


----------



## danielpalos

RWNJ said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> So how old should one be then? Can I have sex with a 12 year old? I mean, it's perfectly natural. Right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hyperbolic argument.  You are currently legally able to have sex only with those over the age of 18.
> 
> And no, sex isn't "perfectly natural" for someone who is 12, because they don't have the experience or the physical ability to understand what is going on or to reproduce (unless they hit puberty early).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some girls are menstruating by age 9 or 10.  Ability to do something doesn't mean you should.  Like you said, a child doesn't have the emotional/mental capacities to handle an adult intimate relationship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of what you said changes the fact that abstinence is the best course. If one is not mature enough to support a family, then they should not engage in behavior that would create one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the case of children having sex, I would agree.  Adults are well aware of the risks and it is their choice to take such risks.  People have always had sex out of wedlock, hate to inform you.    Teen pregnancies have actually been on the decline since the 1970s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only because abortions are so readily available. You don't even need your parents permission if you're a minor.
Click to expand...

Prevention costs less; why is the right so against lowering our tax burden.


----------



## danielpalos

ChrisL said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, by your reasoning murder is OK because people are going to give in to temptation and do it anyway?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What???  Holy smokes.  Well, I can see that you are one of the "crazy" ones, so bye-bye now.  Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not crazy. Just using an extreme example. But it's the same reasoning. Is it not? To say it's OK because they're going to have sex anyway is just plain stupid. Wouldn't it be better to instill moral values in our youngsters instead?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would only consider it an "immoral" act if you were married to someone else and cheating on that person.  THAT is immoral and shitty.  Two single adult people having sex is fine.  There is nothing wrong with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently you are not supposed to even talk to others of the same sex and it's immoral to you.
> OH unless it's YOU talking to a married guy on here, then it's ok.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not talking about talking to people.  I'm talking about a married person who has a preoccupation with sex and dating, yet thinks she has the right to "preach" about Christianity.  The point is you are no better than any other sinner.  YOU are no more "moral" than anyone else.
Click to expand...

If only, there were nice girls of morals to be found who don't mind simply bearing true witness to us when it is our turn.


----------



## danielpalos

ChrisL said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm done talking to you.
> The only people that will talk to you are horny men hoping to get in your pants.
> ..... and I think you want it that way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Am I a married woman starting threads about sex and my vagina?    Then you turn around and claim to be a "Christian"?  Do you not see your own hypocrisy?  It's amazing, really amazing.  The blind lead the blind.
Click to expand...

I don't start them either, but i love cute pics.  my inbox welcomes you.


----------



## danielpalos

ChrisL said:


> Christ woman!  How many threads have you started here?    There are pages and pages and pages of them!


is she "funner" than you?


----------



## ChrisL

Still waiting for all of these supposedly "sex-related" posts and threads I've made to encourage men to want to get into my pants.


----------



## ChrisL

danielpalos said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christ woman!  How many threads have you started here?    There are pages and pages and pages of them!
> 
> 
> 
> is she "funner" than you?
Click to expand...


Yes.  Now go bother her.  She might invite and enjoy your attention.  I don't like it.


----------



## danielpalos

ChrisL said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christ woman!  How many threads have you started here?    There are pages and pages and pages of them!
> 
> 
> 
> is she "funner" than you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  Now go bother her.  She might invite and enjoy your attention.  I don't like it.
Click to expand...

sure; you only say that when you have nothing but fallacy with me, and not _all_ of the other ones.


----------



## ChrisL

danielpalos said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christ woman!  How many threads have you started here?    There are pages and pages and pages of them!
> 
> 
> 
> is she "funner" than you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  Now go bother her.  She might invite and enjoy your attention.  I don't like it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sure; you only say that when you have nothing but fallacy with me, and not _all_ of the other ones.
Click to expand...


Go bother somebody else.  I'm not interested in your nonsense.


----------



## danielpalos

ChrisL said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christ woman!  How many threads have you started here?    There are pages and pages and pages of them!
> 
> 
> 
> is she "funner" than you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  Now go bother her.  She might invite and enjoy your attention.  I don't like it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sure; you only say that when you have nothing but fallacy with me, and not _all_ of the other ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go bother somebody else.  I'm not interested in your nonsense.
Click to expand...

fine; then stop "harassing" me in the political threads.


----------



## ChrisL

danielpalos said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christ woman!  How many threads have you started here?    There are pages and pages and pages of them!
> 
> 
> 
> is she "funner" than you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  Now go bother her.  She might invite and enjoy your attention.  I don't like it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sure; you only say that when you have nothing but fallacy with me, and not _all_ of the other ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go bother somebody else.  I'm not interested in your nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> fine; then stop "harassing" me in the political threads.
Click to expand...


No.  THAT is what this site is for.  If you want to look for a "date" then I suggest a dating site.


----------



## danielpalos

ChrisL said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> is she "funner" than you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  Now go bother her.  She might invite and enjoy your attention.  I don't like it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sure; you only say that when you have nothing but fallacy with me, and not _all_ of the other ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go bother somebody else.  I'm not interested in your nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> fine; then stop "harassing" me in the political threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  THAT is what this site is for.  If you want to look for a "date" then I suggest a dating site.
Click to expand...

dear, i am just arguing with you; not asking you for a date.


----------



## WinterBorn

ChrisL said:


> Still waiting for all of these supposedly "sex-related" posts and threads I've made to encourage men to want to get into my pants.



I doubt your pants would fit me.


----------



## Ernie S.

ChrisL said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> is she "funner" than you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  Now go bother her.  She might invite and enjoy your attention.  I don't like it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sure; you only say that when you have nothing but fallacy with me, and not _all_ of the other ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go bother somebody else.  I'm not interested in your nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> fine; then stop "harassing" me in the political threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  THAT is what this site is for.  If you want to look for a "date" then I suggest a dating site.
Click to expand...

There IS a solution....


----------



## Ernie S.

ChrisL said:


> Still waiting for all of these supposedly "sex-related" posts and threads I've made to encourage men to want to get into my pants.


OK now you owe me 2 face slaps.


----------



## WinterBorn

Ernie S. said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for all of these supposedly "sex-related" posts and threads I've made to encourage men to want to get into my pants.
> 
> 
> 
> OK now you owe me 2 face slaps.
Click to expand...


Are you trying to get into ChrisL's pants?    Ok.  

But while you struggle with her pants, I think I will enjoy the view of her without pants.   

ChrisL, if you get cold......


----------



## Ernie S.

I'm going to leave that alone or my face will never heal.


----------



## WinterBorn

Ernie S. said:


> I'm going to leave that alone or my face will never heal.



I know I have pissed her off a time or two.   May as well keep it up.   But at least I didn't get graphic.  I can write "steamy scenes" pretty well.  Or so I'm told.  Lol


----------



## Ernie S.

WinterBorn said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to leave that alone or my face will never heal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know I have pissed her off a time or two.   May as well keep it up.   But at least I didn't get graphic.  I can write "steamy scenes" pretty well.  Or so I'm told.  Lol
Click to expand...

I don't think I've pissed her off yet. Truth be told, I'm kinda sweet on her, but like any man, I tend to read more into comments than was intended.


----------



## ChrisL

Ernie S. said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to leave that alone or my face will never heal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know I have pissed her off a time or two.   May as well keep it up.   But at least I didn't get graphic.  I can write "steamy scenes" pretty well.  Or so I'm told.  Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think I've pissed her off yet. Truth be told, I'm kinda sweet on her, but like any man, I tend to read more into comments than was intended.
Click to expand...


That is very sweet, Ernie.


----------



## RWNJ

ChrisL said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do they also enjoy the unwanted pregnancies and STD's they get? Sexually transmitted disease could virtually be wiped out if everyone would just wait until they get married. Tell me I'm wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most people who use protection don't get an STD.
> 
> Plenty of instances where married people pass disease to one another.  They cheat and always have.  I think you have an idealistic view of the world that is really not the case at all.  Desiring sex is normal for people.  Some people are going to give into those temptations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, by your reasoning murder is OK because people are going to give in to temptation and do it anyway?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What???  Holy smokes.  Well, I can see that you are one of the "crazy" ones, so bye-bye now.  Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not crazy. Just using an extreme example. But it's the same reasoning. Is it not? To say it's OK because they're going to have sex anyway is just plain stupid. Wouldn't it be better to instill moral values in our youngsters instead?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not reasoning.  Sex is not a crime.  Sex is not immoral.  It is a normal human act.
Click to expand...


Running around naked in public is natural too. But it's still immoral.


----------



## ChrisL

RWNJ said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most people who use protection don't get an STD.
> 
> Plenty of instances where married people pass disease to one another.  They cheat and always have.  I think you have an idealistic view of the world that is really not the case at all.  Desiring sex is normal for people.  Some people are going to give into those temptations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, by your reasoning murder is OK because people are going to give in to temptation and do it anyway?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What???  Holy smokes.  Well, I can see that you are one of the "crazy" ones, so bye-bye now.  Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not crazy. Just using an extreme example. But it's the same reasoning. Is it not? To say it's OK because they're going to have sex anyway is just plain stupid. Wouldn't it be better to instill moral values in our youngsters instead?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not reasoning.  Sex is not a crime.  Sex is not immoral.  It is a normal human act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Running around naked in public is natural too. But it's still immoral.
Click to expand...


Not to some.  It is subjective depending upon your "religious" views.


----------



## ABikerSailor

RWNJ said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most people who use protection don't get an STD.
> 
> Plenty of instances where married people pass disease to one another.  They cheat and always have.  I think you have an idealistic view of the world that is really not the case at all.  Desiring sex is normal for people.  Some people are going to give into those temptations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, by your reasoning murder is OK because people are going to give in to temptation and do it anyway?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What???  Holy smokes.  Well, I can see that you are one of the "crazy" ones, so bye-bye now.  Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not crazy. Just using an extreme example. But it's the same reasoning. Is it not? To say it's OK because they're going to have sex anyway is just plain stupid. Wouldn't it be better to instill moral values in our youngsters instead?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not reasoning.  Sex is not a crime.  Sex is not immoral.  It is a normal human act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Running around naked in public is natural too. But it's still immoral.
Click to expand...


Depends on what country you're in dude.  ALL the beaches in the Med and ALL the beaches I've been to in South America (Brazil, Salvador), are topless, with lots of them being full nude beaches.

The only people that I've seen in the 20 years of travel that I did with the Navy that thought being naked was "immoral" were Americans. 

Loved going overseas in the summertime.......................


----------



## RWNJ

Jarlaxle said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only prevention that is one hundred percent is abstinence. BTW. The failure rate of condoms is 12%. Did you know that? And the simple fact is that most don't use any kind of protection. So where does that leave us? We have become a morally degenerate society. We encourage kids to have sex, then murder their babies before they are born. No. The best policy is abstinence. You can't refute that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can and I do refute that.  That is an unrealistic expectation for MOST people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What is unrealistic about it? If children are raised with the right moral guidelines, they will wait until they are married. I was raised in a Christian home. I have three sisters who were virgins when they were married. I guess to people like you, that's unnatural. And is it any more unrealistic than expecting two teenagers to use protection? You see. Their is a little something most people don't even know exists. It's called morality. It works. You should try it sometime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes Christian morals better than Buddhist morals?  Or Taoist, or Jewish, for that matter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell you what. Show me one societal ill, that is the result of human action, that is not contrary to what the Bible teaches about morality. You can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The raving of self-righteous fucks like you.
Click to expand...


Please explain to me how I'm being self righteous by explaining what I believe is moral behavior, based on Scripture. Do you even know what self-righteous means?


----------



## RWNJ

ChrisL said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, by your reasoning murder is OK because people are going to give in to temptation and do it anyway?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What???  Holy smokes.  Well, I can see that you are one of the "crazy" ones, so bye-bye now.  Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not crazy. Just using an extreme example. But it's the same reasoning. Is it not? To say it's OK because they're going to have sex anyway is just plain stupid. Wouldn't it be better to instill moral values in our youngsters instead?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not reasoning.  Sex is not a crime.  Sex is not immoral.  It is a normal human act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Running around naked in public is natural too. But it's still immoral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not to some.  It is subjective depending upon your "religious" views.
Click to expand...

That's funny. I thought it was the law.


----------



## ChrisL

RWNJ said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> What???  Holy smokes.  Well, I can see that you are one of the "crazy" ones, so bye-bye now.  Lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not crazy. Just using an extreme example. But it's the same reasoning. Is it not? To say it's OK because they're going to have sex anyway is just plain stupid. Wouldn't it be better to instill moral values in our youngsters instead?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not reasoning.  Sex is not a crime.  Sex is not immoral.  It is a normal human act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Running around naked in public is natural too. But it's still immoral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not to some.  It is subjective depending upon your "religious" views.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's funny. I thought it was the law.
Click to expand...


Not in some countries.  Not in some places.  What planet are you living on?


----------



## RWNJ

danielpalos said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a Christian and I don't think of sex as "immoral" but as a natural human way to show affection and intimacy.
> 
> 
> 
> So how old should one be then? Can I have sex with a 12 year old? I mean, it's perfectly natural. Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hyperbolic argument.  You are currently legally able to have sex only with those over the age of 18.
> 
> And no, sex isn't "perfectly natural" for someone who is 12, because they don't have the experience or the physical ability to understand what is going on or to reproduce (unless they hit puberty early).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some girls are menstruating by age 9 or 10.  Ability to do something doesn't mean you should.  Like you said, a child doesn't have the emotional/mental capacities to handle an adult intimate relationship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of what you said changes the fact that abstinence is the best course. If one is not mature enough to support a family, then they should not engage in behavior that would create one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in modern times, safe sex solves that problem.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as safe sex.


----------



## ChrisL

I cannot imagine having to live with a religious person.  OMG, that sounds like hell in my opinion.  Lol.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Like I said, just about every beach in the Med is topless and many are full nude.  Does that mean they are going against the "morality of Scripture" by doing so?  Remember, Spain, Italy, and Greece (many beaches I've visited in those countries) are all good God fearing Christians, with many of them being Catholic. 

Same thing with Brazil. 

Nope, things are only "immoral" if they go against the assigned dogma of your particular belief system RWNJ.  If you drop the blinders, you'll be much happier.

Besides.................Adam and Eve were naked in the Garden, and the reason God knew they ate the apple was because they were suddenly ashamed of being naked. 

Up until the apple incident, naked was the accepted norm.  BTW..........it's HUMANS that suddenly decided being naked was "immoral".  God still puts people in this world naked.  I think if He thought being naked was "immoral", He'd have us born with fur.


----------



## ABikerSailor

RWNJ said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> So how old should one be then? Can I have sex with a 12 year old? I mean, it's perfectly natural. Right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hyperbolic argument.  You are currently legally able to have sex only with those over the age of 18.
> 
> And no, sex isn't "perfectly natural" for someone who is 12, because they don't have the experience or the physical ability to understand what is going on or to reproduce (unless they hit puberty early).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some girls are menstruating by age 9 or 10.  Ability to do something doesn't mean you should.  Like you said, a child doesn't have the emotional/mental capacities to handle an adult intimate relationship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of what you said changes the fact that abstinence is the best course. If one is not mature enough to support a family, then they should not engage in behavior that would create one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in modern times, safe sex solves that problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no such thing as safe sex.
Click to expand...


You're right..............there is no such thing as "safe sex", especially if you do it right.

I always run the risk of a pulled muscle or a possible strained back.


----------



## RWNJ

ABikerSailor said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hyperbolic argument.  You are currently legally able to have sex only with those over the age of 18.
> 
> And no, sex isn't "perfectly natural" for someone who is 12, because they don't have the experience or the physical ability to understand what is going on or to reproduce (unless they hit puberty early).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some girls are menstruating by age 9 or 10.  Ability to do something doesn't mean you should.  Like you said, a child doesn't have the emotional/mental capacities to handle an adult intimate relationship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of what you said changes the fact that abstinence is the best course. If one is not mature enough to support a family, then they should not engage in behavior that would create one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in modern times, safe sex solves that problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no such thing as safe sex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right..............there is no such thing as "safe sex", especially if you do it right.
> 
> I always run the risk of a pulled muscle or a possible strained back.
Click to expand...

Now that's funny!


----------



## charwin95

ABikerSailor said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hyperbolic argument.  You are currently legally able to have sex only with those over the age of 18.
> 
> And no, sex isn't "perfectly natural" for someone who is 12, because they don't have the experience or the physical ability to understand what is going on or to reproduce (unless they hit puberty early).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some girls are menstruating by age 9 or 10.  Ability to do something doesn't mean you should.  Like you said, a child doesn't have the emotional/mental capacities to handle an adult intimate relationship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of what you said changes the fact that abstinence is the best course. If one is not mature enough to support a family, then they should not engage in behavior that would create one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in modern times, safe sex solves that problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no such thing as safe sex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right..............there is no such thing as "safe sex", especially if you do it right.
> 
> I always run the risk of a pulled muscle or a possible strained back.
Click to expand...


Or sore tongue or locked jaw and oral vaginitis.


----------



## Ernie S.

ABikerSailor said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hyperbolic argument.  You are currently legally able to have sex only with those over the age of 18.
> 
> And no, sex isn't "perfectly natural" for someone who is 12, because they don't have the experience or the physical ability to understand what is going on or to reproduce (unless they hit puberty early).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some girls are menstruating by age 9 or 10.  Ability to do something doesn't mean you should.  Like you said, a child doesn't have the emotional/mental capacities to handle an adult intimate relationship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of what you said changes the fact that abstinence is the best course. If one is not mature enough to support a family, then they should not engage in behavior that would create one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in modern times, safe sex solves that problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no such thing as safe sex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right..............there is no such thing as "safe sex", especially if you do it right.
> 
> I always run the risk of a pulled muscle or a possible strained back.
Click to expand...

Cost me 2 weeks of work once back in my late 20s.
I considered dating only female chiropractors for a while.


----------



## Ernie S.

charwin95 said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some girls are menstruating by age 9 or 10.  Ability to do something doesn't mean you should.  Like you said, a child doesn't have the emotional/mental capacities to handle an adult intimate relationship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of what you said changes the fact that abstinence is the best course. If one is not mature enough to support a family, then they should not engage in behavior that would create one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in modern times, safe sex solves that problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no such thing as safe sex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right..............there is no such thing as "safe sex", especially if you do it right.
> 
> I always run the risk of a pulled muscle or a possible strained back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or sore tongue or locked jaw and oral vaginitis.
Click to expand...

With a lot of practice, I got past that.


----------



## danielpalos

RWNJ said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> So how old should one be then? Can I have sex with a 12 year old? I mean, it's perfectly natural. Right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hyperbolic argument.  You are currently legally able to have sex only with those over the age of 18.
> 
> And no, sex isn't "perfectly natural" for someone who is 12, because they don't have the experience or the physical ability to understand what is going on or to reproduce (unless they hit puberty early).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some girls are menstruating by age 9 or 10.  Ability to do something doesn't mean you should.  Like you said, a child doesn't have the emotional/mental capacities to handle an adult intimate relationship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of what you said changes the fact that abstinence is the best course. If one is not mature enough to support a family, then they should not engage in behavior that would create one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in modern times, safe sex solves that problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no such thing as safe sex.
Click to expand...

safer sex is ok too.


----------



## Jarlaxle

RWNJ said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most people who use protection don't get an STD.
> 
> Plenty of instances where married people pass disease to one another.  They cheat and always have.  I think you have an idealistic view of the world that is really not the case at all.  Desiring sex is normal for people.  Some people are going to give into those temptations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, by your reasoning murder is OK because people are going to give in to temptation and do it anyway?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What???  Holy smokes.  Well, I can see that you are one of the "crazy" ones, so bye-bye now.  Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not crazy. Just using an extreme example. But it's the same reasoning. Is it not? To say it's OK because they're going to have sex anyway is just plain stupid. Wouldn't it be better to instill moral values in our youngsters instead?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not reasoning.  Sex is not a crime.  Sex is not immoral.  It is a normal human act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Running around naked in public is natural too. But it's still immoral.
Click to expand...


This time of year, it's damned cold!


----------



## Muhammed

TNHarley said:


> Would you continue dating/marry a significant other you had sex with on the first date?
> Is used to be taboo, but people are slowly opening their minds to the most natural human act available.
> Personally, it wouldn't bother me.


my wife and I had sex on our first date. So the answer is yes.

If we don't have sex on the first date, then the sexual passion obviously just isn't there. And passion is very important to me in a sexual relationship. If there's no sex on the first date it isn't likely that there will be a second date.


----------



## ABikerSailor

You know, I don't really care when we have sex, I just care that we like each other enough to want to do so.  I've had sex with women that I've met that evening, and I've had sex with women after we'd been friends for a while.

One thing you DON'T tell me though is when.  I once had a girl who went out with me and on the first date, she told me that there would be no sex until the third date.  So, I went out with her, and we had a good time.  On the third date, she was hinting that she wanted me to stay, but I told her I had to get back to base.  I dated her three more times after that (for a total of 6),  and at the end of each date, I would come up with an excuse to not stay.  After the 6th, at the door, I told her that I didn't like timetables for stuff that should happen naturally, and that I had doubled her required amount of dates, but I wasn't going to be seeing her anymore because of the 3 date thing.

If we like each other and feel like having sex, then we do.  If not, we don't.  But I refuse to schedule it.


----------



## Likkmee

It depends. After the sex was over if it was decent I might ask her name and if she is married...........then go from there.


----------



## ChrisL

I would like to get to know a little bit about a person first and develop a "rapport" of some kind with the person before I just jump into bed with him!    I think that is probably the preferable way to do things, TBH.  You can be "sexually attracted" to a person before you know anything about that person, but then as you learn things about the person, you might be like "ewww."  You know what I mean?


----------



## Likkmee

ChrisL said:


> I would like to get to know a little bit about a person first and develop a "rapport" of some kind with the person before I just jump into bed with him!    I think that is probably the preferable way to do things, TBH.  You can be "sexually attracted" to a person before you know anything about that person, but then as you learn things about the person, you might be like "ewww."  You know what I mean?


 No I don't. But I learn easily ! 
Please elaborate ? Is that "eeeeew" the bad kind or the kind that draws a giggle ?


----------



## jillian

Iron Head said:


> You numb nuts, if the bitch will fuck you on the first date then you obviously go back for more.



"bitch"?

classy.... 

not.


----------



## ChrisL

Likkmee said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to get to know a little bit about a person first and develop a "rapport" of some kind with the person before I just jump into bed with him!    I think that is probably the preferable way to do things, TBH.  You can be "sexually attracted" to a person before you know anything about that person, but then as you learn things about the person, you might be like "ewww."  You know what I mean?
> 
> 
> 
> No I don't. But I learn easily !
> Please elaborate ? Is that "eeeeew" the bad kind or the kind that draws a giggle ?
Click to expand...


I mean the "ewww" like something that is a turn off kind of "ewww."    Or just like, I have absolutely nothing in common with this person and, honestly, I don't even really like this person.


----------

