# Do you think it's okay..........



## -Cp (Apr 27, 2006)

For a Married couple to watch porn together? Is it part of a "healthy sex life"?


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 27, 2006)

-Cp said:
			
		

> For a Married couple to watch porn together? Is it part of a "healthy sex life"?



Why of course !


----------



## dmp (Apr 27, 2006)

I don't like how your question is worded.   


It'd be like asking "Is Choclate part of a healthy lifestyle?"

No clear answer.

Is consuming chocolate a detriment to a healthy lifestyle?

Is watching porn harmful to a married couple's sex life?  That what you are asking?


----------



## -Cp (Apr 27, 2006)

dilloduck said:
			
		

> Why of course !




You don't feel as if it cheapens sex?


----------



## 5stringJeff (Apr 27, 2006)

Porn, no.

Instructional sex videos, maybe.  I've never seen one, but that's about where I'd draw the line.


----------



## dmp (Apr 27, 2006)

-Cp said:
			
		

> You don't feel as if it cheapens sex?




there's not much _cheaper, less full-filling, un-productive_ sex than 'lifeless' sex.  The Cheapest sex is when one spouse begrudgingly 'allows' the other to 'get off'.  If watching Pr0n gets a couple intensely excited about _eachother_ than pr0n is okay.  Contextually, sure.   

See? Catholics got it wrong.  Sex isn't for 'just procreation' - Sex is THE bonding action which drives a man's spirit to join with the soul of the woman.  Sex is what bonds and nurtures and heals.   

Sex is a SYMPTOM of something deeper.  A man and Woman (should) have sex because that's the natural result of how they FEEL towards eachother.   A Man and Woman (should) have sex because sex is the perfect expression of the uniting of their hearts, minds and bodies.   

OF COURSE sex happens just cuz somebody 'needs some' - but HELPING your spouse with that need should NEVER be a chore; if it IS a chore, I'd bet something is'nt right - or at least not as wonderfual as God intended a marriage to be.  

So? My answer?

I dunno.


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 27, 2006)

-Cp said:
			
		

> You don't feel as if it cheapens sex?



Cheapens?? You mean degrades it morally somehow?


----------



## 5stringJeff (Apr 27, 2006)

dmp said:
			
		

> there's not much _cheaper, less full-filling, un-productive_ sex than 'lifeless' sex.  The Cheapest sex is when one spouse begrudgingly 'allows' the other to 'get off'.  If watching Pr0n gets a couple intensely excited about _eachother_ than pr0n is okay.  Contextually, sure.
> 
> See? Catholics got it wrong.  Sex isn't for 'just procreation' - Sex is THE bonding action which drives a man's spirit to join with the soul of the woman.  Sex is what bonds and nurtures and heals.
> 
> ...



While I agree that sex in marriage can be emotionally unfulfilling, porn is not the answer.  Porn just gets the couple excited about other people, not about each other.


----------



## Nienna (Apr 27, 2006)

dmp said:
			
		

> there's not much _cheaper, less full-filling, un-productive_ sex than 'lifeless' sex.  The Cheapest sex is when one spouse begrudgingly 'allows' the other to 'get off'.  If watching Pr0n gets a couple intensely excited about _eachother_ than pr0n is okay.  Contextually, sure.
> 
> See? Catholics got it wrong.  Sex isn't for 'just procreation' - Sex is THE bonding action which drives a man's spirit to join with the soul of the woman.  Sex is what bonds and nurtures and heals.
> 
> ...


This is exactly right, D.

I think it also depends on the type of porn, too. If it's ultraviolent or weird stuff, I don't see how that could possibly help ANYONE in any circumstance have a positive, healthy view of sex "as it's meant to be."


----------



## Nienna (Apr 27, 2006)

gop_jeff said:
			
		

> While I agree that sex in marriage can be emotionally unfulfilling, porn is not the answer.  Porn just gets the couple excited about other people, not about each other.


That's true. There is definitely an element of privacy in "sacred sex."


----------



## Annie (Apr 27, 2006)

dmp said:
			
		

> there's not much _cheaper, less full-filling, un-productive_ sex than 'lifeless' sex.  The Cheapest sex is when one spouse begrudgingly 'allows' the other to 'get off'.  If watching Pr0n gets a couple intensely excited about _eachother_ than pr0n is okay.  Contextually, sure.
> 
> See? Catholics got it wrong.  Sex isn't for 'just procreation' - Sex is THE bonding action which drives a man's spirit to join with the soul of the woman.  Sex is what bonds and nurtures and heals.
> 
> ...




Speaking just to inform, not defensive or attacking, I think you have the Catholic teachings on sex WITHIN marriage wrong. The following is pretty good, I mean it sounds a lot like what you have spoken about regarding sex, marriage, and love:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/MARRIAGE/MORMAR.TXT


----------



## Joz (Apr 27, 2006)

Where do you draw the  line?  How do you know how porn will affect your partner.  There is a distinct relationship to porn & addiction as with any other 'drug'.  What might start out as a little fun might turn into a full blown problem.

I believe that there are much better ways to stimulate your partner.  And if they aren't interested, then I think a counselor might be in need.  And if they won't see a counselor then you have some serious decisions to make.

I would hate like the dickens to think that the partner I was with needed something else other than ME to get him interested in me. I think that's pretty crappy.


----------



## jillian (Apr 27, 2006)

I don't understand why the conflict. If two people enjoy that. It's their business. If not, then no problem either.

Y'all are thinking way too much. There's nothing supernatural about it. *sigh*


----------



## Joz (Apr 27, 2006)

jillian said:
			
		

> I don't understand why the conflict. If two people enjoy that. It's their business. If not, then no problem either.
> 
> Y'all are thinking way too much. There's nothing supernatural about it. *sigh*


Just for starters, might want to check these out.


http://www.firesofdarkness.com/

http://www.no-porn.com/

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic.../11/18/national1907EST0715.DTL&type=printable


----------



## Mr. P (Apr 27, 2006)

It okay for a Married couple to do whatever they what in *THEIR* bedroom.


----------



## jillian (Apr 27, 2006)

Joz said:
			
		

> Just for starters, might want to check these out.
> 
> 
> http://www.firesofdarkness.com/
> ...



Thanks for your effort. But there are people addicted to alcohol. There are people addicted to gambling. That doesn't mean no one should ever have a drink or play a game of black jack.

And, like I said. It's between the two people. Doesn't hurt anyone if they aren't interested in that. Doesn't hurt anyone if they are.

And, no offense intended, but some Christian conservative who's all het up about this stuff is a bit too Carrie Nation for me.


----------



## Joz (Apr 27, 2006)

jillian said:
			
		

> Thanks for your effort. But there are people addicted to alcohol. There are people addicted to gambling. That doesn't mean no one should ever have a drink or play a game of black jack.
> 
> And, like I said. It's between the two people. Doesn't hurt anyone if they aren't interested in that. Doesn't hurt anyone if they are.
> 
> And, no offense intended, but some Christian conservative who's all het up about this stuff is a bit too Carrie Nation for me.


I understand your reasoning and I respect your opinion.

You are quite correct that there are all kinds of addictions.  I've know people to take a drink and not have one for years.  I've also known people who can't get thru the day without adding to their inevititable wet brain-ness.   I'm not saying that all bars or gambling casinos should close.  But, I also know some who have a consuming porn addiction.   There needs to be caution when taking something extra [such as porn] into the marital bed.


----------



## jillian (Apr 27, 2006)

Joz said:
			
		

> I understand your reasoning and I respect your opinion.
> 
> You are quite correct that there are all kinds of addictions.  I've know people to take a drink and not have one for years.  I've also known people who can't get thru the day without adding to their inevititable wet brain-ness.   I'm not saying that all bars or gambling casinos should close.  But, I also know some who have a consuming porn addiction.   There needs to be caution when taking something extra [such as porn] into the marital bed.



Well, I don't know anyone who's ever disclosed an addiction to porn. On the other hand, maybe they didn't find it problematic if they were. I wouldn't know.

But I hear what you're saying. I really do think that people make these things far more complex than need be. 

Anyway...have a dinner to attend tonight. Nice speaking with you.

Laterz.


----------



## Annie (Apr 27, 2006)

Just reading the exchange between Jillian and Joz, I think moderation is the key. I don't know how many studies have shown that men are more arosed by visual images than women. At the same time, 'romantic novels' can get many a lady in the mood, so in my mind a lot would depend on the meaning of 'pornography' which is so broad as to include kiddies and S & M, while at the same time, some soft core stuff, with at least a bit of a story. 

Without a definition of 'porn' I think we'll get no where, slowly.


----------



## Kagom (Apr 27, 2006)

-Cp said:
			
		

> For a Married couple to watch porn together? Is it part of a "healthy sex life"?


I say "yes" unless it's at an obsessive amount, then I'd say you're both addicted!

Seriously, nothing wrong with adding a little spice to things.


----------



## GotZoom (Apr 27, 2006)

I can't give an answer to this without more info.  

Porn.  Like anything else, there are different types of "Adult" videos.

Are we talking about XXX, 12 people having an orgy, some guy brings in a german shepherd to join the party type porn?

Or are we talking about two people, living out fantasies, sex in the elevator and CEO's office when he isn't around porn?

I don't see anything healthy or entertaining about the first example.  I don't care if both people are all for watching something like that, I just don't see how that would help or excite anybody. 

Now..the second one; if both people are interested in watching that - they feel it might help them or just want to watch it to be entertained with a movie one night, then why not.


----------



## Joz (Apr 27, 2006)

Kagom said:
			
		

> I say "yes" unless it's at an obsessive amount, then I'd say you're both addicted!
> 
> Seriously, nothing wrong with adding a little spice to things.


You mean to tell me you can't find some other way to "spice things up" than to watch someone else roll around???




			
				Kathianne said:
			
		

> ....I don't know how many studies have shown that men are more arosed by visual images than women. At the same time, 'romantic novels' can get many a lady in the mood.....


 I'm not saying that a man should never look at a picture of a naked woman, nor a woman do a little reading.  What I'm afraid of is that the reading or viewing becomes a substitute for the _real _thing.  There is nothing more enjoyable than your partner finding you desirable and vise versa.  And yes, after many years of being together sex, as with life, can get quite routine.   A relationship takes constant work.  Good marriages, good sex, rarely 'just happens'.  And it is the rare couple who is interested in doing the work that makes this happen.


----------



## dmp (Apr 27, 2006)

jillian said:
			
		

> I don't understand why the conflict. If two people enjoy that. It's their business. If not, then no problem either.
> 
> Y'all are thinking way too much. There's nothing supernatural about it. *sigh*




You missed the point of the question.

The question is: Is a couple HURTING their love-life by watching porn - even together?  Is that selling short what God intended a sexual relationship to be?



If you aren't a believer you may not understand, however.


----------



## dmp (Apr 27, 2006)

What if a couple made their OWN porn and watched it on tv while they were doin' it?


----------



## Joz (Apr 27, 2006)

dmp said:
			
		

> What if a couple made their OWN porn and watched it on tv while they were doin' it?


I think that would be better.  Or how about the ol' mirror over the bed.
I am still having trouble understanding why the actual sex act, gettin' sweaty with someone you love, can't be a good time???


----------



## dmp (Apr 27, 2006)

Joz said:
			
		

> I think that would be better.  Or how about the ol' mirror over the bed.
> I am still having trouble understanding why the actual sex act, gettin' sweaty with someone you love, can't be a good time???




It CAN be a GREAT Time...I think watching OTHERS have sex can stimulate people into feeling naughty or more 'in the mood' or whatever...can add excitement I suppose.


----------



## jillian (Apr 27, 2006)

Joz said:
			
		

> I think that would be better.  Or how about the ol' mirror over the bed.
> I am still having trouble understanding why the actual sex act, gettin' sweaty with someone you love, can't be a good time???



Who says it can't be a _great_ time? One has nothing to do with the other.


----------



## jillian (Apr 27, 2006)

dmp said:
			
		

> You missed the point of the question.
> 
> The question is: Is a couple HURTING their love-life by watching porn - even together?  Is that selling short what God intended a sexual relationship to be?
> 
> ...



I'm a believer, but not in what you believe. But it's cool. I understood (and answered) the question. As I said, I just don't think it has to be that complicated.

Basically, I second what GotZoom said.


----------



## Joz (Apr 27, 2006)

jillian said:
			
		

> Who says it can't be a _great_ time? One has nothing to do with the other.


Sometimes my words don't coincide with my tho'ts.  What I meant was, why can't this be enough?  Why does involving "others" need to be introduced into the act?  There's dating, & role playing & toys & places & dressing up that can be used without resorting to porn.


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 27, 2006)

Joz said:
			
		

> Sometimes my words don't coincide with my tho'ts.  What I meant was, why can't this be enough?  Why does involving "others" need to be introduced into the act?  There's dating, & role playing & toys & places & dressing up that can be used without resorting to porn.



I don't think it's a question of need as much it is a question of option. No one is for making it mandatory.


----------



## jillian (Apr 27, 2006)

Joz said:
			
		

> Sometimes my words don't coincide with my tho'ts.  What I meant was, why can't this be enough?  Why does involving "others" need to be introduced into the act?  There's dating, & role playing & toys & places & dressing up that can be used without resorting to porn.




What he (Dillo) said ^^^^^^^^^^^^

It's not about "resorting". It's about what two consenting adults might find fun. Nothing more, nothing less. If they don't think it's fun, then its not an issue. If they do think it's fun, then it's not an issue.


----------



## manu1959 (Apr 27, 2006)

are you all telling me that when having sex with your wife husband or whatever you have never ever had a thought of another person......mental porn

live and let live folks.....what difference does it make wht other poelple do if it has zero effect on you


----------



## Annie (Apr 27, 2006)

manu1959 said:
			
		

> are you all telling me that when having sex with your wife husband or whatever you have never ever had a thought of another person......mental porn
> 
> live and let live folks.....what difference does it make wht other poelple do if it has zero effect on you


What? I would never fantasize, what is that anywho?


----------



## dmp (Apr 27, 2006)

jillian said:
			
		

> What he (Dillo) said ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> It's not about "resorting". It's about what two consenting adults might find fun. Nothing more, nothing less. If they don't think it's fun, then its not an issue. If they do think it's fun, then it's not an issue.




you KEEP missing the point, brother.

It's not about 'should' or 'could' or 'can'...

It's about 'is it HURTFUL to a relationship.

(sigh)


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 27, 2006)

dmp said:
			
		

> you KEEP missing the point, brother.
> 
> It's not about 'should' or 'could' or 'can'...
> 
> ...



Not anymore than a .44 mag in your top drawer.


----------



## jillian (Apr 27, 2006)

dmp said:
			
		

> you KEEP missing the point, brother.
> 
> It's not about 'should' or 'could' or 'can'...
> 
> ...



I keep answering you, girlfriend.   

If they're into it, it's fine and not hurtful.  

If they're not...they won't use it and it ain't no thang. 

Serious question, why do you think it's such a big deal either way?


----------



## dmp (Apr 27, 2006)

jillian said:
			
		

> I keep answering you, girlfriend.
> 
> If they're into it, it's fine and not hurtful.
> 
> ...




It's clear you have a very narrow view on things.

Does Smoking hurt people? Years ago ppl had the same reaction as you do now, with this.  "Sure! If they're into it, cool!"

What you're having trouble coming to grips with is this:  Often things we may THINK are harmless can come back to bite us in the arse. 

think BIGGER than yourself.


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 27, 2006)

dmp said:
			
		

> It's clear you have a very narrow view on things.
> 
> Does Smoking hurt people? Years ago ppl had the same reaction as you do now, with this.  "Sure! If they're into it, cool!"
> 
> ...



Whoa dude----you're pushing the newbie a little hard aren't ya?


----------



## Annie (Apr 27, 2006)

dilloduck said:
			
		

> Whoa dude----you're pushing the newbie a little hard aren't ya?


Nearly 500 posts doesn't qualify for 'newbie' status, ya think?


----------



## manu1959 (Apr 27, 2006)

dmp said:
			
		

> you KEEP missing the point, brother.
> 
> It's not about 'should' or 'could' or 'can'...
> 
> ...



isn't up to the couple to decide what is hurtful?


----------



## manu1959 (Apr 27, 2006)

Kathianne said:
			
		

> Nearly 500 posts doesn't qualify for 'newbie' status, ya think?



O K ms twenty two thou  sand


----------



## -Cp (Apr 27, 2006)

manu1959 said:
			
		

> isn't up to the couple to decide what is hurtful?



No, because that's subjective relativism.... and that ALWAYS leads to a path down the wrong road...


----------



## Joz (Apr 27, 2006)

...."I was absolutely shocked by what I found. I talked to people whose lives were really destroyed by pornography. Even the people who didn't bottom out--total porn addiction, marriages breaking up, people losing their jobs, which did happen--even the people who didn't go to that extreme were profoundly affected by porn. Sometimes they realized they were, but often they didn't realize the effects pornography had on them."...........


http://www.beliefnet.com/story/177/story_17736_1.html


And yet another


1)  Pornography feeds lust of the eyes and lust of the flesh, which are never satisfied.  It leaves the viewer craving more and more in order to achieve the same "sexual high."  It easily enslaves people to their own cravings and opens the door to other forms of evil, like anger, abuse, violence, hatred, lying, envy, compulsiveness and selfishness.   The power behind porn is revealed when the porn addict tries to stop their habit - its virtually impossible without help.

http://www.porn-free.org/porn_is_bad.htm


----------



## manu1959 (Apr 27, 2006)

-Cp said:
			
		

> No, because that's subjective relativism.... and that ALWAYS leads to a path down the wrong road...



so who do you let decide for you that you are not on the wrong road and don't say god


----------



## Abbey Normal (Apr 27, 2006)

Joz said:
			
		

> ...."I was absolutely shocked by what I found. I talked to people whose lives were really destroyed by pornography. Even the people who didn't bottom out--total porn addiction, marriages breaking up, people losing their jobs, which did happen--even the people who didn't go to that extreme were profoundly affected by porn. Sometimes they realized they were, but often they didn't realize the effects pornography had on them."...........
> 
> 
> http://www.beliefnet.com/story/177/story_17736_1.html
> ...



I have heard that marriage counselors are being kept quite busy with couples in crisis over husbands' Internet porn addictions. Sorry, no linky-poo.


----------



## manu1959 (Apr 27, 2006)

Abbey Normal said:
			
		

> I have heard that marriage counselors are being kept quite busy with couples in crisis over husbands' Internet porn addictions. Sorry, no linky-poo.



yes tis always the man.......


----------



## dmp (Apr 27, 2006)

manu1959 said:
			
		

> isn't up to the couple to decide what is hurtful?




No - what the couple FEELS is besides the point.   What REALLY IS HAPPENING is the point.


----------



## jillian (Apr 27, 2006)

Kathianne said:
			
		

> Nearly 500 posts doesn't qualify for 'newbie' status, ya think?



Heh! OK, so I'm loquatious.  :happy2:


----------



## manu1959 (Apr 27, 2006)

dmp said:
			
		

> No - what the couple FEELS is besides the point.   What REALLY IS HAPPENING is the point.



what is really happing is the copule has discussed the issue and feels everything is fine.....

you post pics of hot chicks....porn in somes book....if you fantizie of others....porn in somes book......if you have sex other than for procreation...porn in somes book...if you have sex for procreation and enjoy it...porn in somes book....where is the line ?


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 27, 2006)

manu1959 said:
			
		

> what is really happing is the copule has discussed the issue and feels everything is fine.....
> 
> you post pics of hot chicks....porn in somes book....if you fantizie of others....porn in somes book......if you have sex other than for procreation...porn in somes book...if you have sex for procreation and enjoy it...porn in somes book....where is the line ?



Cmon MANU!!-----Will porn make you do crazy shit that will in turn cause you to wreck your relationship? You know--like the hairy palms thing except it happens to your mind like a drug. Will it take you over ??  Don't get lost in the details.


----------



## manu1959 (Apr 28, 2006)

dilloduck said:
			
		

> Cmon MANU!!-----Will porn make you do crazy shit that will in turn cause you to wreck your relationship? You know--like the hairy palms thing except it happens to your mind like a drug. Will it take you over ??  Don't get lost in the details.



porn is god way of saying trade up or close your eyes and trade up.....ladder therory


----------



## -Cp (Apr 28, 2006)

manu1959 said:
			
		

> so who do you let decide for you that you are not on the wrong road and don't say god




The one whom created me knows best I think...


----------



## Nienna (Apr 28, 2006)

You guys are really getting to me... I WOKE UP thinking about this debate on the board! 

I am with Cp, Starla, & Jeff. If the primary purpose of sex is the physical manifestation of the spiritual marital bond, then any EXTERNAL stimulation is, at best, distracting, and at worst, destructive to that bond. A couple should completely focus on joining themselves, one to the other, during that act.

If you believe sex is primarily about pleasure, you will, of course, disagree. I guess the next step in the debate is: What is the main purpose of sex?


----------



## Nienna (Apr 28, 2006)

manu1959 said:
			
		

> so who do you let decide for you that you are not on the wrong road and don't say god


Manu, my good man... could you go to work and leave your heart at home? If you take away "God" as an option, how can a Christian answer this?


----------



## JOKER96BRAVO (Apr 28, 2006)

mom4 said:
			
		

> You guys are really getting to me... I WOKE UP thinking about this debate on the board!
> 
> I am with Cp, Starla, & Jeff. If the primary purpose of sex is the physical manifestation of the spiritual marital bond, then any EXTERNAL stimulation is, at best, distracting, and at worst, destructive to that bond. A couple should completely focus on joining themselves, one to the other, during that act.
> 
> If you believe sex is primarily about pleasure, you will, of course, disagree. I guess the next step in the debate is: What is the main purpose of sex?


If your talking F#$% vs "making love", I believe there is a time for both.
Sex doesn't always have to be about bonding.


----------



## Said1 (Apr 28, 2006)

Abbey Normal said:
			
		

> I have heard that marriage counselors are being kept quite busy with couples in crisis over husbands' Internet porn addictions. Sorry, no linky-poo.




I know a newly married don't-live-together-because-the-kids-hater-her couple who are in this situation. The wedding was held off because of live internet porn "chatting".

My ex-husband asked me what that was, after showing him, his answer "cheating".


----------



## JOKER96BRAVO (Apr 28, 2006)

Said1 said:
			
		

> I know a newly married don't-live-together-because-the-kids-hater-her couple who are in this situation. The wedding was held off because of live internet porn "chatting".
> 
> My ex-husband asked me what that was, after showing him, his answer "cheating".


Now net chat or any other porn without the spouses consent is not cool.
Having said that, I feel the same way about toys for individual use, without 
consent of course. The healthiest sexual relationship is an honest one.


----------



## Said1 (Apr 28, 2006)

JOKER96BRAVO said:
			
		

> Now net chat or any other porn without the spouses consent is not cool.




Misread. Ignore previous comment.


----------



## Said1 (Apr 28, 2006)

JOKER96BRAVO said:
			
		

> .
> Having said that, I feel the same way about toys for individual use, without
> consent of course. The healthiest sexual relationship is an honest one.



I agree. I'd be PISSED if my husband didn't ask first.


----------



## Nienna (Apr 28, 2006)

JOKER96BRAVO said:
			
		

> If your talking F#$% vs "making love", I believe there is a time for both.
> Sex doesn't always have to be about bonding.


Sex *IS* a bond. Your *intention* doesn't have to be "bonding." Many people do it just for the release. But, the bond can't be avoided. People are *joining* their bodies during the act.


----------



## JOKER96BRAVO (Apr 28, 2006)

mom4 said:
			
		

> Sex *IS* a bond. Your *intention* doesn't have to be "bonding." Many people do it just for the release. But, the bond can't be avoided. People are *joining* their bodies during the act.


Physical, yes.
Emotional, not always on both ends.


----------



## Nienna (Apr 28, 2006)

JOKER96BRAVO said:
			
		

> Physical, yes.
> Emotional, not always on both ends.


True.

People with different beliefs may disagree, but my POV is that we are spiritual creatures living inside our bodies. Whatever we do in our bodies affects our souls. So, bonding bodies=bonding souls. 

If the emotions are wrong, the whole thing is messed up. But, that act still affects the PEOPLE involved.


----------



## dmp (Apr 28, 2006)

mom4 said:
			
		

> People are *joining* their bodies during the act.




TTIWWOP.




Course, that'd be Pr0n.


----------



## JOKER96BRAVO (Apr 28, 2006)

dmp said:
			
		

> TTIWWOP.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


TTI Whaaat????
Sorry for being net jive retarded.


----------



## GotZoom (Apr 28, 2006)

JOKER96BRAVO said:
			
		

> TTI Whaaat????
> Sorry for being net jive retarded.



This Thread Is Worthless WithOut Pics.


----------



## dmp (Apr 28, 2006)




----------



## The ClayTaurus (Apr 28, 2006)

All I know is, it's Peanut Butter Jelly time.


----------



## GotZoom (Apr 28, 2006)

The ClayTaurus said:
			
		

> All I know is, it's Peanut Butter Jelly time.



You ever hear the story about the lonely birthday girl and the peanut butter?


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Apr 28, 2006)

GotZoom said:
			
		

> You ever hear the story about the lonely birthday girl and the peanut butter?


Seriously, dude. Stop watching that shit. It'll destroy your marriage


----------



## GotZoom (Apr 28, 2006)

The ClayTaurus said:
			
		

> Seriously, dude. Stop watching that shit. It'll destroy your marriage



LMAO!

Heard the story on the radio one morning - about 3 years ago.


----------



## dmp (Apr 28, 2006)

GotZoom said:
			
		

> LMAO!
> 
> Heard the story on the radio one morning - about 3 years ago.




Ruf!


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Apr 28, 2006)

The ClayTaurus said:
			
		

> All I know is, it's Peanut Butter Jelly time.


Or, should I say... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Perhaps a cheering section to watch...


----------



## GotZoom (Apr 28, 2006)

dmp said:
			
		

> Ruf!



Ahh....you have heard it I see.

Would have loved to be a fly on the wall when the lights came on.


----------



## GotZoom (Apr 28, 2006)

The ClayTaurus said:
			
		

> Or, should I say...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think people watching would be considered Pr0n.


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Apr 28, 2006)

GotZoom said:
			
		

> LMAO!
> 
> Heard the story on the radio one morning - about 3 years ago.


Sure ya did Sparky, sure ya did.


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Apr 28, 2006)

GotZoom said:
			
		

> Ahh....you have heard it I see.
> 
> Would have loved to be a fly on the wall when the lights came on.


Really, that's funny, cuz I don't think I'd want to be within 10 miles of that. I'd rather watch this.


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Apr 28, 2006)

GotZoom said:
			
		

> I think people watching would be considered Pr0n.


Perhaps, but it would be well-coordinated and synchronized, at least.


----------



## GotZoom (Apr 28, 2006)

The ClayTaurus said:
			
		

> Perhaps, but it would be well-coordinated and synchronized, at least.



Quit watching Pr0n and clean out your Inbox.


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Apr 28, 2006)

GotZoom said:
			
		

> Quit watching Pr0n and clean out your Inbox.


All clear. Maybe if you'd stop sending me every horse video you _come_ across I wouldn't be so inundated. Freak.


----------



## GotZoom (Apr 28, 2006)

The ClayTaurus said:
			
		

> All clear. Maybe if you'd stop sending me every horse video you _come_ across I wouldn't be so inundated. Freak.



If you would watch them, you would see they aren't horse videos. 

Fruit videos.  You are the one with the banana fetish. 

Sheesh.


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Apr 28, 2006)

GotZoom said:
			
		

> If you would watch them, you would see they aren't horse videos.
> 
> Fruit videos.  You are the one with the banana fetish.
> 
> Sheesh.


Oh well in that case!



*watches*




Those aren't fruit videos, those are fruity HORSE videos! Damn you man!


----------



## Joz (Apr 28, 2006)

mom4 said:
			
		

> True.
> People with different beliefs may disagree, but my POV is that we are spiritual creatures living inside our bodies. Whatever we do in our bodies affects our souls. So, bonding bodies=bonding souls.
> If the emotions are wrong, the whole thing is messed up. But, that act still affects the PEOPLE involved.


Mom, you said so much in this paragraph I don't know where to start!

While sex isn't _as _emotional for men as women, it is the _mature_ man that realizes the act affects him emotionally as well.  Men are better able to 'compartmentalize' therefore more easily able to seperate act from emotion.  
Sex was created to fill a need in man.  Thru sex man gets love, intimacy, continuity.  

So many men, young & not-so-young I've talked with 'cry in their beer' (so to speak) because: "the love of their life, left them."  If it isn't emotional, why should it matter?  Find another to replace her.  And some try quite quickly to do this, thinking this will fill the emptiness of that lost love. But there needs to be a mourning period, a time of emotional healing. 

And (finally) sex is not an emotion.  Sex is a drive; something that can be controlled.   Emotions are a result, a reaction.


----------



## Bonnie (Apr 28, 2006)

I suppose I always wonder why couples who have a great sex life to begin with would need or want porn??


----------



## dmp (Apr 28, 2006)

Joz said:
			
		

> While sex isn't _as _emotional for men as women, it is the _mature_ man that realizes the act affects him emotionally as well.  Men are better able to 'compartmentalize' therefore more easily able to seperate act from emotion.
> Sex was created to fill a need in man.  Thru sex man gets love, intimacy, continuity.




'generally' speaking...not all men.


----------



## JOKER96BRAVO (Apr 28, 2006)

Bonnie said:
			
		

> I suppose I always wonder why couples who have a great sex life to begin with would need or want porn??


In a one-sided situation, you wouldn't. However, I know women
and men alike who both enjoy adult films and enjoy watching them together.
Same for couples who like to role play.


----------



## Joz (Apr 28, 2006)

dmp said:
			
		

> 'generally' speaking...not all men.


Generally speaking.




			
				JOKER96BRAVO said:
			
		

> In a one-sided situation, you wouldn't. However, I know women and men alike who both enjoy adult films and enjoy watching them together. Same for couples who like to role play.


Role playing does not have the same effect as does porn.

Personally, now, I don't see why any of us are arguing this point. It isn't any different than say, abortion or homosexuality.  If two people consent, what's it to anybody else?  Where's the harm?


----------



## Bonnie (Apr 28, 2006)

JOKER96BRAVO said:
			
		

> In a one-sided situation, you wouldn't. However, I know women
> and men alike who both enjoy adult films and enjoy watching them together.
> Same for couples who like to role play.



Hey whatever makes people happy right


----------



## JOKER96BRAVO (Apr 28, 2006)

Joz said:
			
		

> Role playing does not have the same effect as does porn.


Please explain.


----------



## GotZoom (Apr 28, 2006)

JOKER96BRAVO said:
			
		

> Please explain.



Playing "escaped convict and the warden's wife" is different than playing "Larry Flynt and the audition couch."


----------



## Bonnie (Apr 28, 2006)

> dmp...See? Catholics got it wrong. Sex isn't for 'just procreation' - Sex is THE bonding action which drives a man's spirit to join with the soul of the woman. Sex is what bonds and nurtures and heals.



Um Darin hate to break it to you but Catholics do not see sex as simply a means to make babies, the church encourages married couples to have great sex often and sees it as the one of the most important parts of married life.  I think many people just assume otherwise because of 
the stereotyping of Catholics.....


----------



## JOKER96BRAVO (Apr 28, 2006)

GotZoom said:
			
		

> Playing "escaped convict and the warden's wife" is different than playing "Larry Flynt and the audition couch."


Not so.
Men are considered "visual" creatures for the most part.
Dressing up and doing it, has the same affect as watching someone 
dress up and do it. The influence used for stimulation is all role playing.


----------



## Joz (Apr 28, 2006)

JOKER96BRAVO said:
			
		

> Please explain.


What harm is there if I dress up like a maid and seduce the man-of-the-house?  Or when Mm gives me a peck before going up on stage for him to "keep that thought" ?  That is 'spice' between the two of us. 
When you introduce porn into your life, you are allowing someone else into the marital bed with you. The intimacy _between two people _ has been violated.

"Pornography feeds lust of the eyes and lust of the flesh, which are never satisfied. It leaves the viewer craving more and more in order to achieve the same "sexual high." It easily enslaves people to their own cravings and opens the door to other forms of evil, like anger, abuse, violence, hatred, lying, envy, compulsiveness and selfishness. The power behind porn is revealed when the porn addict tries to stop their habit - its virtually impossible without help."

http://www.porn-free.org/porn_is_bad.htm


----------



## JOKER96BRAVO (Apr 28, 2006)

Joz said:
			
		

> What harm is there if I dress up like a maid and seduce the man-of-the-house?  Or when Mm gives me a peck before going up on stage for him to "keep that thought" ?  That is 'spice' between the two of us.
> When you introduce porn into your life, you are allowing someone else into the marital bed with you. The intimacy _between two people _ has been violated.
> 
> "Pornography feeds lust of the eyes and lust of the flesh, which are never satisfied. It leaves the viewer craving more and more in order to achieve the same "sexual high." It easily enslaves people to their own cravings and opens the door to other forms of evil, like anger, abuse, violence, hatred, lying, envy, compulsiveness and selfishness. The power behind porn is revealed when the porn addict tries to stop their habit - its virtually impossible without help."
> ...


Same goes for making the man lust after something different.
You as a maid, is not REALLY you. Might as well watch some other 
girl dressed as a maid, same stimulation


----------



## Bonnie (Apr 28, 2006)

JOKER96BRAVO said:
			
		

> Same goes for making the man lust after something different.
> You as a maid, is not REALLY you. Might as well watch some other
> girl dressed as a maid, same stimulation



That has flaws though because if Joz were to dress up in lingerie what's the difference, it's still *her* in the outfit not some other woman, so therefore it is JOz who is being lusted after right??


----------



## GotZoom (Apr 28, 2006)

JOKER96BRAVO said:
			
		

> Not so.
> Men are considered "visual" creatures for the most part.
> Dressing up and doing it, has the same affect as watching someone
> dress up and do it. The influence used for stimulation is all role playing.



I was actually kidding but since you posted this I will ask....

Would you feel the same if one spouse wanted the other spouse to dress up as a 14 year old?


----------



## JOKER96BRAVO (Apr 28, 2006)

Bonnie said:
			
		

> That has flaws though because if Joz were to dress up in lingerie what's the difference, it's still *her* in the outfit not some other woman, so therefore it is JOz who is being lusted after right??


Lingerie is not role playing.


----------



## JOKER96BRAVO (Apr 28, 2006)

GotZoom said:
			
		

> I was actually kidding but since you posted this I will ask....
> 
> Would you feel the same if one spouse wanted the other spouse to dress up as a 14 year old?


That's just sick, but some people get off on that.


----------



## Bonnie (Apr 28, 2006)

JOKER96BRAVO said:
			
		

> Lingerie is not role playing.




Says who?  Maid, Nurse, Cop, whatever, it's still Joz in the outfit, it's not another woman getting a man aroused and then him using Joz's body just for the sexual release.


----------



## JOKER96BRAVO (Apr 28, 2006)

Bonnie said:
			
		

> Says who?  Maid, Nurse, Cop, whatever, it's still Joz in the outfit, it's not another woman getting a man aroused and then him using Joz's body just for the sexual release.


Role playing involves pretending to be someone else, not just dress up. 
EXAMPLE:
Maid enters room dusting and acting provacative.
After some visual stimulation man says something like 
"I've got some wood you can polish."

With that said, the man is arroused by the maid,
which can be done by any image of a maid acting sexual.


----------



## Joz (Apr 28, 2006)

JOKER96BRAVO said:
			
		

> Role playing involves pretending to be someone else, not just dress up.
> EXAMPLE:
> Maid enters room dusting and acting provacative.
> After some visual stimulation man says something like
> ...


That is NOT me pretending to be someone else.  That is me pretending to have another occupation.  There is quite a difference.

And what about a man dressing up & pretending to be a human being???


----------



## GotZoom (Apr 28, 2006)

JOKER96BRAVO said:
			
		

> Role playing involves pretending to be someone else, not just dress up.
> EXAMPLE:
> Maid enters room dusting and acting provacative.
> After some visual stimulation man says something like
> ...



What if the husband walks into the room to find his wife dusting. 

She is wearing her "housekeeping" outfit.  Could be the usual sweatsuit, short shorts and t-shirt, or being naked.

He looks at her and says, "I've got some wood for you to polish."

And she says ok.

Same thing?


----------



## Bonnie (Apr 28, 2006)

JOKER96BRAVO said:
			
		

> Role playing involves pretending to be someone else, not just dress up.
> EXAMPLE:
> Maid enters room dusting and acting provacative.
> After some visual stimulation man says something like
> ...



But it's still Joz in the maid outfit acting sexy, it's Joz not another woman, it's Joz the man is looking at and getting visually stimulated by not a porn actress.  He is still looking at and fantasizing about Joz whether she is naked, wearing a miners hat, wearing only shoes, wearing a raincoat.


----------



## manu1959 (Apr 28, 2006)

Joz said:
			
		

> That is NOT me pretending to be someone else.  That is me pretending to have another occupation.  There is quite a difference.
> 
> And what about a man dressing up & pretending to be a human being???



now that is just sick :bangheads


----------



## manu1959 (Apr 28, 2006)

Bonnie said:
			
		

> But it's still Joz in the maid outfit acting sexy, it's Joz not another woman, it's Joz the man is looking at and getting visually stimulated by not a porn actress.  He is still looking at and fantasizing about Joz whether she is naked, wearing a miners hat, wearing only shoes, wearing a raincoat.




stop it !!!!!!!!!!!!!! my wood needs polishing now


----------



## JOKER96BRAVO (Apr 28, 2006)

GotZoom said:
			
		

> What if the husband walks into the room to find his wife dusting.
> 
> She is wearing her "housekeeping" outfit.  Could be the usual sweatsuit, short shorts and t-shirt, or being naked.
> 
> ...


No. Role playing has not been established.


----------



## dmp (Apr 28, 2006)

Bonnie said:
			
		

> But it's still Joz in the maid outfit acting sexy, it's Joz not another woman, it's Joz the man is looking at and getting visually stimulated by not a porn actress.  He is still looking at and fantasizing about Joz whether she is naked, wearing a miners hat, wearing only shoes, wearing a raincoat.




:wank:

 :kiss2:  :kiss2:  :kiss2:  :kiss2:


----------



## JOKER96BRAVO (Apr 28, 2006)

By agreeing to act out a role for your loved one, you are playing out their
fantasy TO DO IT WITH A MAID! Not "to do it with my wife dressed as a
maid".


----------



## Bonnie (Apr 28, 2006)

dmp said:
			
		

> :wank:
> 
> :kiss2:  :kiss2:  :kiss2:  :kiss2:




  

That's *me* with the whip not *anyone* else


----------



## manu1959 (Apr 28, 2006)

Bonnie said:
			
		

> That's *me* with the whip not *anyone* else



who is the purple dude staring at the other chicks rack?


----------



## Joz (Apr 28, 2006)

JOKER96BRAVO said:
			
		

> By agreeing to act out a role for your loved one, you are playing out their
> fantasy TO DO IT WITH A MAID! Not "to do it with my wife dressed as a
> maid".


What if Mm asks me to wear high heels?  Only high heels.  Is he still making love to me in high heels or is he making love to the high heels?  mm is NOT a very visual man so realize this is all hypothetical.


----------



## Bonnie (Apr 28, 2006)

JOKER96BRAVO said:
			
		

> By agreeing to act out a role for your loved one, you are playing out their
> fantasy TO DO IT WITH A MAID! Not "to do it with my wife dressed as a
> maid".



How is that so?  Are you saying that if your wife was to dress up as a nurse you wouldn't see her face or be turned on by her playing a nurse, but simply by the outfit itself and your wife in the nurses' outfit has no relevance?? :scratch:


----------



## Bonnie (Apr 28, 2006)

manu1959 said:
			
		

> who is the purple dude staring at the other chicks rack?




Whomever you want it to be :cof:


----------



## GotZoom (Apr 28, 2006)

JOKER96BRAVO said:
			
		

> No. Role playing has not been established.



LMAO!

I didn't realize you were such an authority on roll playing and exactly what parameters must be met to establish actual roll playing.


----------



## GotZoom (Apr 28, 2006)

Bonnie said:
			
		

> How is that so?  Are you saying that if your wife was to dress up as a nurse you wouldn't see her face or be turned on by her playing a nurse, but simply by the outfit itself and your wife in the nurses' outfit has no relevance?? :scratch:



Apparently it's the "outfit" that establishes the parameters for actual role-playing.


----------



## JOKER96BRAVO (Apr 28, 2006)

Joz said:
			
		

> What if Mm asks me to wear high heels?  Only high heels.  Is he still making love to me in high heels or is he making love to the high heels?  mm is NOT a very visual man so realize this is all hypothetical.


That's dress up, not role playing.
No if you were pretending to be a hooker....


----------



## Joz (Apr 28, 2006)

Bonnie said:
			
		

> But it's still Joz in the maid outfit acting sexy, it's Joz not another woman, it's Joz the man is looking at and getting visually stimulated by not a porn actress.  He is still looking at and fantasizing about Joz whether she is naked, wearing a miners hat, wearing only shoes, wearing a raincoat.


I don't own a raincoat.    :rotflmao:


----------



## JOKER96BRAVO (Apr 28, 2006)

GotZoom said:
			
		

> Apparently it's the "outfit" that establishes the parameters for actual role-playing.


NEGATIVE
It's a combination of things but mainly pretending to be someone else.


----------



## Joz (Apr 28, 2006)

JOKER96BRAVO said:
			
		

> That's dress up, not role playing.
> No if you were pretending to be a hooker....


So you're saying that if Mm & I are out, I go to the ladies room and when I return, I come up behind him & whisper in his ear, "Hey Sailor, come here often?" that I'm wrong?


----------



## JOKER96BRAVO (Apr 28, 2006)

Bonnie said:
			
		

> How is that so?  Are you saying that if your wife was to dress up as a nurse you wouldn't see her face or be turned on by her playing a nurse, but simply by the outfit itself and your wife in the nurses' outfit has no relevance?? :scratch:


None...
Wouldn't you like to think that it was actually you in the outfit that turned
him on. Truth is, you could have any woman in the room dressed like a nurse 
and get the same results.


----------



## dmp (Apr 28, 2006)

Joz said:
			
		

> So you're saying that if Mm & I are out, I go to the ladies room and when I return, I come up behind him & whisper in his ear, "Hey Sailor, come here often?" that I'm wrong?




You're absoLUTELY right to do that.


----------



## JOKER96BRAVO (Apr 28, 2006)

Joz said:
			
		

> So you're saying that if Mm & I are out, I go to the ladies room and when I return, I come up behind him & whisper in his ear, "Hey Sailor, come here often?" that I'm wrong?


I never said it was wrong


----------



## Bonnie (Apr 28, 2006)

JOKER96BRAVO said:
			
		

> None...
> Wouldn't you like to think that it was actually you in the outfit that turned
> him on. Truth is, you could have any woman in the room dressed like a nurse
> and get the same results.



LOL Your a freeky deeky JB.  So tell me then what is it your wife could do that would turn you on?


----------



## Bonnie (Apr 28, 2006)

Joz said:
			
		

> What if Mm asks me to wear high heels?  Only high heels.  Is he still making love to me in high heels or is he making love to the high heels?  mm is NOT a very visual man so realize this is all hypothetical.



I think JB is saying it is pointless and you should just leave the leave the heels in the corner let MM look at the heels and let him have his fun that way on his own???

OR he could be saying that he thinks MM should just take you naked as is no heels, no role playing and get turned on that way au natural?  Which is also a novel idea IMO.


----------



## JOKER96BRAVO (Apr 28, 2006)

Bonnie said:
			
		

> LOL Your a freeky deeky JB.  So tell me then what is it your wife could do that would turn you on?


Lots of stuff, but I would never require her to act as someone else.


----------



## JOKER96BRAVO (Apr 28, 2006)

Bonnie said:
			
		

> I think JB is saying it is pointless and you should just leave the leave the heels in the corner let MM look at the heels and let him have his fun that way on his own???
> 
> OR he could be saying that he thinks MM should just take you naked as is no heels, no role playing and get turned on that way au natural?  Which is also a novel idea IMO.


What I'm actually saying is there's no difference in getting turned on by the
image of a Nurse be it movies or a real person. The arrousal comes from the
image and how one connects the image to a personal fantasy.

If one thinks porn is bad then they could equally think role playing is bad.
I'm personaly ok with both.


----------



## manu1959 (Apr 28, 2006)

Bonnie said:
			
		

> Whomever you want it to be :cof:



hmmmmmmmm.....menage a three stooges...very cool


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Apr 28, 2006)

I think Joker's point is there a difference between just wearing a french maid outfit to bed, or in the bedroom, and wearing a french maid outfit and actually act like a maid, only to be taken advantage of while you're dusting or whatever.


You can dress up in anything, and then there is acting as something you are not. And in that context, I guess I agree with Joker.


If you get turned on by your wife pretending to have an occupation that she does not, and to act in a way that she normally does not, than that is lusting after something which your wife is not. She's pretending for you.


----------



## Joz (Apr 28, 2006)

When is a wife NOT a maid???


----------



## Bonnie (Apr 28, 2006)

JOKER96BRAVO said:
			
		

> What I'm actually saying is there's no difference in getting turned on by the
> image of a Nurse be it movies or a real person. The arrousal comes from the
> image and how one connects the image to a personal fantasy.
> 
> ...



Actually I agree with you, nothing makes me happier than to know someone is turned on by me as is without role playing and costumes


----------



## Joz (Apr 28, 2006)

Which brings us back full circle.

Does porn harm a marriage?


----------



## GotZoom (Apr 28, 2006)

The ClayTaurus said:
			
		

> I think Joker's point is there a difference between just wearing a french maid outfit to bed, or in the bedroom, and wearing a french maid outfit and actually act like a maid, only to be taken advantage of while you're dusting or whatever.
> 
> 
> You can dress up in anything, and then there is acting as something you are not. And in that context, I guess I agree with Joker.
> ...



And everyone else is saying....  It's still your wife.  

Doesn't matter what she is wearing..what she is pretending to be..what she is saying or doing.......it's still your wife.

What two people want to do in the privacy of their own home is up to them.

If they both agree..and they both like it, then more power to them.


----------



## Joz (Apr 28, 2006)

GotZoom said:
			
		

> ......
> What two people want to do in the privacy of their own home is up to them.
> 
> If they both agree..and they both like it, then more power to them.


To which I will reiterate, why argue the homosexual issue if it's okay between two adults?


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Apr 28, 2006)

GotZoom said:
			
		

> And everyone else is saying....  It's still your wife.
> 
> Doesn't matter what she is wearing..what she is pretending to be..what she is saying or doing.......it's still your wife.
> 
> ...


Oh I totally agree. I have no problem with porn either. I just understand where joker is coming from, logically, with how the reasoning behind why porn is bad might be flawed, because you're fantasizing about someone else.

Your wife as a police officer really isn't who your wife is, it's a fantasy of your wife.

That's all.


Personally I don't think you wipe the slate either way and say it's ok or it's not ok. I know of marriages that work with and without porn, and know of marriages that have failed with and without porn.


----------



## manu1959 (Apr 28, 2006)

Joz said:
			
		

> To which I will reiterate, why argue the homosexual issue if it's okay between two adults?



as long as no one is dressing up in a maids outfit i really don't care


----------



## JOKER96BRAVO (Apr 28, 2006)

The ClayTaurus said:
			
		

> Oh I totally agree. I have no problem with porn either. I just understand where joker is coming from, logically, with how the reasoning behind why porn is bad might be flawed, because you're fantasizing about someone else.
> 
> Your wife as a police officer really isn't who your wife is, it's a fantasy of your wife.
> 
> ...


Well said.
It really all comes down to mutual agreement.
How far is too far for you hun?


----------



## dmp (Apr 28, 2006)

Me role-playing


----------



## GotZoom (Apr 28, 2006)

Joz said:
			
		

> To which I will reiterate, why argue the homosexual issue if it's okay between two adults?



For many people, that is a morality issue.  

Hmm...what if a guy wants his wife to dress up as a man.  Or vice versa.

Never mind.


----------



## GotZoom (Apr 28, 2006)

dmp said:
			
		

> Me role-playing



There goes my appetite.


----------



## dmp (Apr 28, 2006)

JOKER96BRAVO said:
			
		

> Well said.
> It really all comes down to mutual agreement.
> How far is too far for you hun?




But it's NOT about mutual agreement - that's not what -Cp's question is about. 

It's about what may CAUSE harm - not about 'what somebody FEELS may harm them'

Can watching porn together actually HURT a couple's life together - REGARDLESS of what they THINK is happening.


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Apr 28, 2006)

JOKER96BRAVO said:
			
		

> Well said.
> It really all comes down to mutual agreement.
> How far is too far for you hun?


WHO YOU CALLIN' HUN, PUNK?!!??!!??!


----------



## archangel (Apr 28, 2006)

Joz said:
			
		

> Sometimes my words don't coincide with my tho'ts.  What I meant was, why can't this be enough?  Why does involving "others" need to be introduced into the act?  There's dating, & role playing & toys & places & dressing up that can be used without resorting to porn.





There are those that do and those that fantacize...me I prefer doing rather than dreaming!


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Apr 28, 2006)

dmp said:
			
		

> Me role-playing


TERHOOTS!


----------



## dmp (Apr 28, 2006)

My boobs make my eyes do this:


----------



## Bonnie (Apr 28, 2006)

archangel said:
			
		

> There are those that do and those that fantacize...me I prefer doing rather than dreaming!



Me TOOO!!!


----------



## manu1959 (Apr 28, 2006)

dmp said:
			
		

> Me role-playing



damn dude.....get a perscripiton for som estrogen


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 28, 2006)

dmp said:
			
		

> But it's NOT about mutual agreement - that's not what -Cp's question is about.
> 
> It's about what may CAUSE harm - not about 'what somebody FEELS may harm them'
> 
> Can watching porn together actually HURT a couple's life together - REGARDLESS of what they THINK is happening.



Depends on the people watching. Any "sin" or "danger" would come from them--not a picture or movie.


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Apr 28, 2006)

D's picture is eerily similar to the album cover of Aphex Twin's "Come to Daddy"


----------



## 5stringJeff (Apr 28, 2006)

dmp said:
			
		

> Me role-playing



Nice rack, sweetheart!  Come here often??


----------



## -Cp (Apr 28, 2006)

I'd contend that couples who feel the need to add porn to their relationship are doing so to seek out a form of escapism - never mind the fact that they're watching fornication, committing mental adultry etc... 

I'll contend that Porn can easily sneak in and cheapen the sexual side of marriage because it paints a picture that's not real, can cause depression in one or both of the spouses if the other doesn't seem to be "as adequate" as the person on-screen...

We, as a culture love to medicate our minds with things that aren't real... Why do you think porn, video games and TV are such huge industries? 

Rather than focus ALL of our attention on our spouse - whom we vowed to love, cherish, honor and respect, many couples say "oh, it's okay to add porn because that helps spice things up"... 

If you need spices go look in your kitchen cabinet.... 

If you want good sex, make it your mission to tend to your spouses emotional, physical and spiritual needs.. 

Sex is a spiritual experience, and there's no better way to have awesome sex than when both people have a proper relationship with their maker. Why? Because when you're filled with perfect love, the love Corinthians talks about, you'll have no selfish desires whatsoever.... 

I'll contend that many people are very selfish when it comes to sexual fullfillment. 

Next time you want to add porn to your sexual time, instead, try adding a dose of complete unselfishness to it and see what happens!


----------



## Abbey Normal (Apr 28, 2006)

Then of course there is this infamous Bible verse:

"But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to 
lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in 
his heart."
Matthew 5:28, KJV


----------



## dmp (Apr 28, 2006)

-Cp said:
			
		

> I'd contend that couples who feel the need to add porn to their relationship are doing so to seek out a form of escapism - nevermind the fact that they're watching fornication, committing mental adultry etc...
> 
> I'll contend that Porn can easily sneak in and cheapen the sexual side of marriage because it paints a picture that's not real, can cause depression in one or both of the spouses if the other doesn't seem to be "as adequate" as the person on-screen...
> 
> ...




A lot of that is said by people who have a bad sex life.   You want good things to be good in the area of Spiritual, physical and emotional needs? 
Tend to your spouses Sexual and Intimate needs.  They ALL Fuel off eachother. 



Sex is JUST as important as any OTHER 'need' in a marriage.  I bet it's MORE important than most physical needs (like food, shelter, etc.). It's NEVER "just sex".  A clear sign of a person with jacked up mental proccesses regarding sex is if they use the word 'just' just before the word 'sex' in a way which dismisses the event.

"All you think about is SEX!"

"It's JUST sex??!!"

I attend to my spouses sexual needs because I enjoy making her FEEL good. I enjoy BEING that release - that strength - that source of passion.  

Too often people are guilty of having sex in hopes the feelings would come along later.  Again, SEX is a symptom of a feeling.  Sex is a symptom of a husband and wife's LOVE and DESIRE and NEED for one-another.   Where there is NO sex there exists a husband or wife who may be in need of SERIOUS professional help, assuming all esle is okay (they aren't going thru Chemo, etc.).


----------



## dmp (Apr 28, 2006)

Abbey Normal said:
			
		

> Then of course there is this infamous Bible verse:
> 
> "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to
> lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in
> ...




Then of course is the fact that sexual arrousal is not lust.  They aren't tied together.


----------



## Abbey Normal (Apr 28, 2006)

dmp said:
			
		

> Then of course is the fact that sexual arrousal is not lust.  They aren't tied together.



Honest question- how are they different?


----------



## dmp (Apr 28, 2006)

Abbey Normal said:
			
		

> Honest question- how are they different?




They aren't tied together.  I can be aroused by an upside-down coke bottle; doesn't mean I'm LUSTING after the coke bottle, right?

I believe nobody can 'lust' without deep-seeded, burning, consuming desire.  Lust...Covet...those things.  They stem from the heart, not the genitals.


----------



## Abbey Normal (Apr 28, 2006)

dmp said:
			
		

> They aren't tied together.  I can be aroused by an upside-down coke bottle; doesn't mean I'm LUSTING after the coke bottle, right?
> 
> I believe nobody can 'lust' without deep-seeded, burning, consuming desire.  Lust...Covet...those things.  They stem from the heart, not the genitals.



You guys really can compartmentalize! I will have to contemplate this differentiation with my feminine connection-making white-matter brain.


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 28, 2006)

dmp said:
			
		

> They aren't tied together.  I can be aroused by an upside-down coke bottle; doesn't mean I'm LUSTING after the coke bottle, right?
> 
> I believe nobody can 'lust' without deep-seeded, burning, consuming desire.  Lust...Covet...those things.  They stem from the heart, not the genitals.



cmon folks--animals have sex


----------



## GotZoom (Apr 28, 2006)

dmp said:
			
		

> I can be aroused by an upside-down coke bottle; doesn't mean I'm LUSTING after the coke bottle, right?



Really?  

Sorry..I just don't see it.


----------



## 5stringJeff (Apr 28, 2006)

dmp said:
			
		

> They aren't tied together.  I can be aroused by an upside-down coke bottle; doesn't mean I'm LUSTING after the coke bottle, right?
> 
> I believe nobody can 'lust' without deep-seeded, burning, consuming desire.  Lust...Covet...those things.  They stem from the heart, not the genitals.



And when you're watching porn, you're not lusting after the actresses in the movie?


----------



## dmp (Apr 28, 2006)

Abbey Normal said:
			
		

> You guys really can compartmentalize! I will have to contemplate this differentiation with my feminine connection-making white-matter brain.



It's not guys.  It's 'people'.  You're confusing sexual excitement with lust, dear. Unlike me having sex, lust takes TIME.  



			
				GotZoom said:
			
		

> Really?
> 
> Sorry..I just don't see it.



:wank:
Ass - I'm at WORK and now I'm all sticky



			
				gop_jeff said:
			
		

> And when you're watching porn, you're not lusting after the actresses in the movie?



Me? No.  

Becoming sexually AROUSED while watching porn makes me want to have sex...but not with the woman on TV.


----------



## 5stringJeff (Apr 28, 2006)

dmp said:
			
		

> Me? No.
> 
> Becoming sexually AROUSED while watching porn makes me want to have sex...but not with the woman on TV.



I find that very hard to believe.


----------



## Said1 (Apr 28, 2006)

gop_jeff said:
			
		

> I find that very hard to believe.




Why?


----------



## dmp (Apr 28, 2006)

gop_jeff said:
			
		

> I find that very hard to believe.




I don't know what else to say...but maybe you are confused a bit?  I dunno why this is so...pardon the pun, HARD to get.

Do you honestly see NO difference in sexual arrousal and lust?


----------



## 5stringJeff (Apr 28, 2006)

dmp said:
			
		

> I don't know what else to say...but maybe you are confused a bit?  I dunno why this is so...pardon the pun, HARD to get.
> 
> Do you honestly see NO difference in sexual arrousal and lust?



You're telling me that you can/do/have/whatever watched porn and not felt a feeling of lust towards the females portrayed therein?


----------



## dmp (Apr 28, 2006)

gop_jeff said:
			
		

> You're telling me that you can/do/have/whatever watched porn and not felt a feeling of lust towards the females portrayed therein?




That's exactly what i'm telling you.  I've SEEN a pr0n where I thought "MAN! I'd like to be nailing THAT chick!" which means "I'm sexually desiring her!" I have watched pr0n and felt a feeling of sexual arousal/desire for my WIFE, however.  

That is not Lust - that is a condition of sexual arousal.  

Lust - lust   (emphasis mine)
n.

   1. *Intense or unrestrained* sexual craving.
         a.An overwhelming desire or craving: a lust for power.
         b. Intense eagerness or enthusiasm: a lust for life.

sinful longing; the inward sin which leads to the falling away from God (Rom.
1:21). "Lust, the origin of sin, has its place in the heart, not of necessity,
but because it is the centre of all moral forces and impulses and of spiritual
activity." In Mark 4:19 "lusts" are objects of desire.

I'm saying watching a Pr0n won't necessarily cause lust.  I'm saying I can be VERY aroused without LUSTING.  Arousal is a physical condition - lust is an 'inward' condition.


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 28, 2006)

Men and women have sex drives---it is hard wired into us. It's primary function is to continue the species. Sex is not love. It is not a sin to acknowledge sex drives. Religions and societies have placed "rules" on sex. So many if fact that people are confused as hell. When one of just says the  word sex it may mean something COMPLETELY different to someone else. It's an area that society just can't get a grip on. Do what you think is right --be a giver not a taker--don't hurt other people--you aren't always gonna be satisfied.


----------



## Joz (Apr 28, 2006)

dilloduck said:
			
		

> Men and women have sex drives---it is hard wired into us.


Which means it an be controlled.  





> It's primary function is to continue the species.


Who said.  Because God said to multiply?


> Sex is not love.


Right. 





> Do what you think is right --be a giver not a taker--don't hurt other people--you aren't always gonna be satisfied.


If more people tended to the needs of their spouse there would be little room for a third party of any kind.  There is NO one so unselfish as to not want something from sex in return, but that doesn't always come in the form of a climax.   But marriage is a need-meeting relationship.


----------



## JOKER96BRAVO (Apr 28, 2006)

gop_jeff said:
			
		

> You're telling me that you can/do/have/whatever watched porn and not felt a feeling of lust towards the females portrayed therein?


Let's try it this way.
You can be physically aroused by a nice breeze, but you don't lust 
for the wind. 

A big girl can tie you down and stroke you till arousal
but you don't have to lust for her.


----------



## GotZoom (Apr 28, 2006)

JOKER96BRAVO said:
			
		

> Let's try it this way.
> You can be physically aroused by a nice breeze, but you don't lust
> for the wind.



Where do you live?

I'm moving there.


----------



## JOKER96BRAVO (Apr 28, 2006)

GotZoom said:
			
		

> Where do you live?
> 
> I'm moving there.


In general....NOT ME!


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 28, 2006)

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by dilloduck
> Men and women have sex drives---it is hard wired into us.
> 
> Which means it an be controlled.



No it doesn't


> Quote:
> It's primary function is to continue the species.
> 
> Who said. Because God said to multiply?



No

Quote:
Sex is not love.  

Right. 
Quote:
Do what you think is right --be a giver not a taker--don't hurt other people--you aren't always gonna be satisfied.  



> If more people tended to the needs of their spouse there would be little room for a third party of any kind. There is NO one so unselfish as to not want something from sex in return, but that doesn't always come in the form of a climax. But marriage is a need-meeting relationship.



Marriage is to raise children and take care of THEIR needs and the needs of others. Adults should be able to fend for themselves.


----------



## GotZoom (Apr 28, 2006)

JOKER96BRAVO said:
			
		

> In general....NOT ME!



I was going to say...if the breeze in Colorado is that nice....


----------



## JOKER96BRAVO (Apr 28, 2006)

GotZoom said:
			
		

> I was going to say...if the breeze in Colorado is that nice....


It's a COLD breeze today so, fat chance.
(we even got a few snow fluries.)


----------



## Nienna (Apr 28, 2006)

Bonnie said:
			
		

> Um Darin hate to break it to you but Catholics do not see sex as simply a means to make babies, the church encourages married couples to have great sex often and sees it as the one of the most important parts of married life.  I think many people just assume otherwise because of
> the stereotyping of Catholics.....


Darin has mentioned this a few times... not 100% positive where he gets this idea, but I think it might be from a debate with liberalogic (I think the thread was Bible Topics). LL said he was raised Catholic, and this POV was what was taught in their classes, that sex was solely for procreation. 

_*I*_ was raised Catholic, and we weren't taught this. But maybe this is where D got the idea?


----------



## dmp (Apr 28, 2006)

mom4 said:
			
		

> Darin has mentioned this a few times... not 100% positive where he gets this idea, but I think it might be from a debate with liberalogic (I think the thread was Bible Topics). LL said he was raised Catholic, and this POV was what was taught in their classes, that sex was solely for procreation.
> 
> _*I*_ was raised Catholic, and we weren't taught this. But maybe this is where D got the idea?



Going by what I 'think' I know.   Maybe you and Bonnie, a gallon of salad dressing, and a couple midgets can prove me wrong?

:


----------



## Nienna (Apr 28, 2006)

dmp said:
			
		

> Going by what I 'think' I know.   Maybe you and Bonnie, a gallon of salad dressing, and a couple midgets can prove me wrong?
> 
> :


I DO have a thing for midgets... as long as it isn't midget porn. BC porn is wrong, you know.


----------



## Bonnie (Apr 28, 2006)

mom4 said:
			
		

> I DO have a thing for midgets... as long as it isn't midget porn. BC porn is wrong, you know.



Salad dressing is messy, how about pudding at least that tastes good :tng:


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 28, 2006)

dmp said:
			
		

> Going by what I 'think' I know.   Maybe you and Bonnie, a gallon of salad dressing, and a couple midgets can prove me wrong?
> 
> :


 

Salad dressing is addictive and will *DEFINATELY* ruin you marriage !!!!


----------



## Nienna (Apr 28, 2006)

Bonnie said:
			
		

> Salad dressing is messy, how about pudding at least that tastes good :tng:


Butterscotch? Do you like butterscotch pudding?

Tell you what, Bonnie, let's skip the salad dressing/midget threesome, and go out for some pudding and some "girl talk." What do you say?


----------



## dmp (Apr 28, 2006)

mom4 said:
			
		

> I DO have a thing for midgets... as long as it isn't midget porn. BC porn is wrong, you know.






			
				Bonnie said:
			
		

> Salad dressing is messy, how about pudding at least that tastes good :tng:




Holy LORD...my HEART!! You two will be the DEATH of me....but what a way to go, eh?? eh??


----------



## dmp (Apr 28, 2006)

mom4 said:
			
		

> Butterscotch? Do you like butterscotch pudding?
> 
> Tell you what, Bonnie, let's skip the salad dressing/midget threesome, and go out for some pudding and some "girl talk." What do you say?




[bonnie voice = on]
"No thanks dear - it'd be MUCH more fun and fulfilling to kidnap Darin for a weekend...say...some place tropical?"

[/voice]


----------



## Bonnie (Apr 28, 2006)

dmp said:
			
		

> [bonnie voice = on]
> "No thanks dear - it'd be MUCH more fun and fulfilling to kidnap Darin for a weekend...say...some place tropical?"
> 
> [/voice]



How did you know that was me :tng: ????


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 28, 2006)

dmp said:
			
		

> [bonnie voice = on]
> "No thanks dear - it'd be MUCH more fun and fulfilling to kidnap Darin for a weekend...say...some place tropical?"
> 
> [/voice]



Even *TALKING* about porn will ruin you life !!!


----------



## dmp (Apr 28, 2006)

Bonnie said:
			
		

> How did you know that was me :tng: ????




Cuz I recognize my Bonnie's voice....and it's a sweet voice - New Jersey Accent and all....it's wicked-cool.


----------



## Bonnie (Apr 28, 2006)

dmp said:
			
		

> Cuz I recognize my Bonnie's voice....and it's a sweet voice - New Jersey Accent and all....it's wicked-cool.




LOL Hey I dont have a Jersey accent.....Really


----------



## Joz (Apr 29, 2006)

dilloduck said:
			
		

> No it doesn't


So what does it mean?
Desires CAN be controlled.  You get hungry.  You'd _love_ a hot fudge sundae, but you're on a diet.  So you *control* your appetite and chose something else to eat. 
You feel amourous but you & your partner are at a fundraiser.  You *control * your sexual urge until you get home.  

A friend dies, you are sad.  You might put a smile on your face, but you are sad.
Your son wins a trophy.  Try as you might, you can't help NOT feeling proud.  These are emotions.  They are reactions.  

Desires CAN be controlled.  We are human beings.  That is what sets us apart from other animals.  We can be reasoned with. (well at least some of us.) 


> Marriage is to raise children and take care of THEIR needs and the needs of others. Adults should be able to fend for themselves.


You are hung up on this woman-needs-to-be-able-to-care-for-herself-crap. I agree.  Times have changed.  Women used to marry for security.  But today it is the unwise girl who doesn't get an education of some sort so she _can_ stand on her own feet.  But does that mean she shouldn't get married?   And what about a marriage that has no children?  

Marriage was given to man because GOD said that man should NOT BE ALONE.  He created Eve with the sole purpose of being a companion to Adam.  They were to fulfil each others NEEDS.  Needs for friendship, intimacy, and yes, continuity.


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 29, 2006)

Joz said:
			
		

> So what does it mean?
> Desires CAN be controlled.  You get hungry.  You'd _love_ a hot fudge sundae, but you're on a diet.  So you *control* your appetite and chose something else to eat.
> You feel amourous but you & your partner are at a fundraiser.  You *control * your sexual urge until you get home.
> 
> ...



You can't control the drive itself --what you can control is how you respond to it. People make sex drive into something almost evil. It has been responsible for the species to remain in existence.
If men and women spend all thier time taking care of each other they become 2 selfish people arguing whose turn it is. They should concentrate on working as a team and use thier combined strength to help others. I get sick of hearing people whine about what they can't get thier spouse to do for them. A spouse is NOT a parent, for God's sake and being married does not mean your mission is over.


----------



## Joz (Apr 29, 2006)

dilloduck said:
			
		

> You can't control the drive itself -*-what you can control is how you respond to it.*


Which is called, "controlling the desire".



> People make sex drive into something almost evil. It has been responsible for the species to remain in existence.


What people?  You mean people in general?


> If men and women spend all thier time taking care of each other they become 2 selfish people arguing whose turn it is. They should concentrate on working as a team and use thier combined strength to help others. I get sick of hearing people whine about what they can't get thier spouse to do for them. A spouse is NOT a parent, for God's sake and being married does not mean your mission is over.


I think you need to take a hard look at why you're choosing the kinds of women you are.  Apparently your 'type' keeps score.  That is not true love.


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 29, 2006)

Joz said:
			
		

> Which is called, "controlling the desire".
> 
> What people?  You mean people in general?
> I think you need to take a hard look at why you're choosing the kinds of women you are.  Apparently your 'type' keeps score.  That is not true love.



Then perhaps you will be kind enough to explain "true" love to me.


----------



## Joz (Apr 29, 2006)

Love is kind & gentle & patient.  It doesn't keep score of wrong doings, but forgives.  It is not jealous.  Love does not purposely behave badly towards another.


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 29, 2006)

Joz said:
			
		

> Love is kind & gentle & patient.  It doesn't keep score of wrong doings, but forgives.  It is not jealous.  Love does not purposely behave badly towards another.



well--do that and all your problems should be solved, huh?


----------



## Joz (Apr 29, 2006)

dilloduck said:
			
		

> well--do that and all your problems should be solved, huh?


You want me to say that if you do A, B & C that you will get YYY results.  Life isn't that simple.
And you know that's not what I'm saying.

What I _am_ saying is that [once again] people have needs & wants.  And since the average person is not a mind reader, those needs & wants must be made known; and sometimes that's very difficult.  And too, sometimes it's difficult for a mate to meet those needs.  But if the couple is committed to the vows they made at the marriage altar they will work on meeting those needs while allowing both people the freedom to be who they are.

And to answer your question from the other thread.  Am I still grieving?  Yes, I still have difficult days. As far as being with Mm, yes I'm happy.  Do I get pissed at him?  Sure do.  Do I get my feelings hurt?  Yep.  Do I do things that irritate the crap put of him?  Hey, it's me.  

No relationship on this earth is perfect.  And if you end one relationship you usually trade those problems for a new set.  You just try to find that percentage where the good outways the bad.


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 29, 2006)

Joz said:
			
		

> You want me to say that if you do A, B & C that you will get YYY results.  Life isn't that simple.
> And you know that's not what I'm saying.
> 
> What I _am_ saying is that [once again] people have needs & wants.  And since the average person is not a mind reader, those needs & wants must be made known; and sometimes that's very difficult.  And too, sometimes it's difficult for a mate to meet those needs.  But if the couple is committed to the vows they made at the marriage altar they will work on meeting those needs while allowing both people the freedom to be who they are.



And I'll say one more time----I don't think the purpose marriage should be to scratch each others back. People should expect more from themselves and less from others. A marriage is supposed to be a union of strength--not one that constantly has to fix itself. If it IS broke, then fix the weak link and move on.


----------



## Joz (Apr 29, 2006)

dilloduck said:
			
		

> And I'll say one more time----I don't think the purpose marriage should be to scratch each others back. People should expect more from themselves and less from others. A marriage is supposed to be a union of strength--not one that constantly has to fix itself. If it IS broke, then fix the weak link and move on.


Marriage does get it's strength from the union.  What you're describing is emotionally, physically, & mentally seperate entities living is the same house.  If you aren't willing to "scratch each other's backs" then you aren't really serious out having a marriage.  You will never become one that way.

And marriage must be attended to constantly.  I'm not referring to putting it under a microsope.  But if those things that aren't so important to me but are to you are addressed then there wouldn't be so many breaks that need mending.


----------



## Nienna (Apr 29, 2006)

Joz said:
			
		

> Marriage does get it's strength from the union.  What you're describing is emotionally, physically, & mentally seperate entities living is the same house.  If you aren't willing to "scratch each other's backs" then you aren't really serious out having a marriage.  You will never become one that way.
> 
> And marriage must be attended to constantly.  I'm not referring to putting it under a microsope.  But if those things that aren't so important to me but are to you are addressed then there wouldn't be so many breaks that need mending.


I back you 100% here, Starla. This is a good description of a healthy relationship. Adults "taking care of themselves" is a description of college roommates. If the only need you have from another adult is sexual release, why bother with a "relationship"? Marriage is NOT only for raising children. It is a support system that frees you to be a better person.


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 29, 2006)

Joz said:
			
		

> Marriage does get it's strength from the union.  What you're describing is emotionally, physically, & mentally seperate entities living is the same house.  If you aren't willing to "scratch each other's backs" then you aren't really serious out having a marriage.  You will never become one that way.
> 
> And marriage must be attended to constantly.  I'm not referring to putting it under a microsope.  But if those things that aren't so important to me but are to you are addressed then there wouldn't be so many breaks that need mending.



IMHO--if your marriage needs contstant attention, you married the wrong person. Be willing to help each other and EXEPECTING help from each other are 2 diffferent things. Sometimes even married people have to do things for themselves. This comes a shocker to those who thought marriage would solve everything for them. Too busy anticipating all that good, legal and sinless stuff I guess.


----------



## Nienna (Apr 29, 2006)

dilloduck said:
			
		

> IMHO--if your marriage needs contstant attention, you married the wrong person. Be willing to help each other and EXEPECTING help from each other are 2 diffferent things. Sometimes even married people have to do things for themselves. This comes a shocker to those who thought marriage would solve everything for them. Too busy anticipating all that good, legal and sinless stuff I guess.


There are definitely relationships like this, and it's sad. You are right about one thing, dillo... no human being will EVER be able to satisfy all the needs of another human being. If those are someone's expectations, then, you're right, they need to detach and find Another deity to worship.

But, it's not right to live parallel lives within a marriage, either. Why else do people GET married if they have NO expectations from each other? I think it is entirely reasonable to expect that one's spouse will be responsible for meeting SOME of your needs. Of course, there must also be grace and forgiveness if one fails the other. That's LOVE. But seriously, why ELSE would you enter a committed relationship if you don't expect the other person to satisfy some of your needs?


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 29, 2006)

mom4 said:
			
		

> There are definitely relationships like this, and it's sad. You are right about one thing, dillo... no human being will EVER be able to satisfy all the needs of another human being. If those are someone's expectations, then, you're right, they need to detach and find Another deity to worship.
> 
> But, it's not right to live parallel lives within a marriage, either. Why else do people GET married if they have NO expectations from each other? I think it is entirely reasonable to expect that one's spouse will be responsible for meeting SOME of your needs. Of course, there must also be grace and forgiveness if one fails the other. That's LOVE. But seriously, why ELSE would you enter a committed relationship if you don't expect the other person to satisfy some of your needs?



Some is fine---and if the courtship was honest, the other had probably shown a natural and willing propensity to do those few things. Some mates don't need constant attention to know the are loved, appreciated or whatever. Why get commited? Two can often do larger tasks than one if they dont constantly whine about not getig thier fair share. To me a loving person takes care of him/her self as much as possible as to not burden the other. If you love em---dont ask em to do crap for ya all the time. If they love you they will--just maybe not on demand.


----------



## Abbey Normal (Apr 29, 2006)

dilloduck said:
			
		

> Some is fine---and if the courtship was honest, the other had probably shown a natural and willing propensity to do those few things. Some mates don't need constant attention to know the are loved, appreciated or whatever. Why get commited? Two can often do larger tasks than one if they dont constantly whine about not getig thier fair share. To me a loving person takes care of him/her self as much as possible as to not burden the other. If you love em---dont ask em to do crap for ya all the time. If they love you they will--just maybe not on demand.



Why do men sometimes marry simpering fools, who admit they have dreamed all their lives of their wedding day, and then expect them to take care of themselves?


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 29, 2006)

Abbey Normal said:
			
		

> Why do men sometimes marry simpering fools, who admit they have dreamed all their lives of their wedding day, and then expect them to take care of themselves?



Why does anyone marry someone who won't take responsibility for themselves?


----------



## Abbey Normal (Apr 29, 2006)

dilloduck said:
			
		

> Why does anyone marry someone who won't take responsibility for themselves?



Dunno. I sure didn't.


----------



## Nienna (Apr 29, 2006)

dilloduck said:
			
		

> Some is fine---and if the courtship was honest, the other had probably shown a natural and willing propensity to do those few things. Some mates don't need constant attention to know the are loved, appreciated or whatever. Why get commited? Two can often do larger tasks than one if they dont constantly whine about not getig thier fair share. To me a loving person takes care of him/her self as much as possible as to not burden the other. If you love em---dont ask em to do crap for ya all the time. If they love you they will--just maybe not on demand.


But, if you are in a marriage, your first responsibility is to each other. If you are going to work as a team, you've got to make sure all your players are in good shape. A weak player weakens the ability of the team. It's the teammates responsibility to look out for one another, to position each according to his/her strengths, and to fill in the weak spots.

I am *NOT* (and I'm sure Starla wasn't, either) advocating whining, nagging, mind games, petulence, etc. That is SELFISHNESS, the OPPOSITE of love. But, both have to make themselves aware of their spouse's needs, and attempt to *give* if a relationship is going to have any depth.


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 29, 2006)

mom4 said:
			
		

> But, if you are in a marriage, your first responsibility is to each other. If you are going to work as a team, you've got to make sure all your players are in good shape. A weak player weakens the ability of the team. It's the teammates responsibility to look out for one another, to position each according to his/her strengths, and to fill in the weak spots.
> 
> I am *NOT* (and I'm sure Starla wasn't, either) advocating whining, nagging, mind games, petulence, etc. That is SELFISHNESS, the OPPOSITE of love. But, both have to make themselves aware of their spouse's needs, and attempt to *give* if a relationship is going to have any depth.



I disagree---your first responsiblilty is to your maker and yourself. If that situation is tight you are in a much better position to give to the other when the other needs it.


----------



## Nienna (Apr 29, 2006)

dilloduck said:
			
		

> I disagree---your first responsiblilty is to your maker and yourself. If that situation is tight you are in a much better position to give to the other when the other needs it.


I *TOTALLY* agree that your first responsibility is to your Maker. And you should focus on what you are responsible for GIVING. And be aware of what you need. But I don't believe we should be always "looking out for number one."


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 29, 2006)

mom4 said:
			
		

> I *TOTALLY* agree that your first responsibility is to your Maker. And you should focus on what you are responsible for GIVING. And be aware of what you need. But I don't believe we should be always "looking out for number one."



In my mind looking out for #1 does not mean making sure you have everything you want. It means that you are taking responsibilty to do you own work. If I am seriously neglecting my responsibilties to take care of yours, I'm not sure I have done either one of us any favors.


----------



## Nienna (Apr 29, 2006)

dilloduck said:
			
		

> In my mind looking out for #1 does not mean making sure you have everything you want. It means that you are taking responsibilty to do you own work. If I am seriously neglecting my responsibilties to take care of yours, I'm not sure I have done either one of us any favors.


Dillo... I'm getting that weird feeling again. I get it whenever I debate with  you. Are we actually disagreeing? It just don't feel like it.


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 29, 2006)

mom4 said:
			
		

> Dillo... I'm getting that weird feeling again. I get it whenever I debate with  you. Are we actually disagreeing? It just don't feel like it.



Just rearranging words.


----------



## Joz (Apr 29, 2006)

dilloduck said:
			
		

> In my mind looking out for #1 does not mean making sure you have everything you want. It means that you are taking responsibilty to do you own work. If I am seriously neglecting my responsibilties to take care of yours, I'm not sure I have done either one of us any favors.





> ...... Sometimes even married people have to do things for themselves. This comes a shocker to those who thought marriage would solve everything for them. Too busy anticipating all that good, legal and sinless stuff I guess.



What if something happens to me & I can no longer work a job, do the housework, have sex, be a companion; stand on my own feet?  What happens if I can no longer be responsible for myself?


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 29, 2006)

Joz said:
			
		

> What if something happens to me & I can no longer work a job, do the housework, have sex, be a companion; stand on my own feet?  What happens if I can no longer be responsible for myself?



I guess you'll find out if anyone wants to take care of ya.


----------



## Joz (Apr 29, 2006)

Abbey Normal said:
			
		

> Why do men sometimes marry simpering fools...


And I also wonder why some men marry these nasty, bitchy intolerable, nags.  But they do.  And those kinds make every gathering miserable.


----------



## Joz (Apr 29, 2006)

dilloduck said:
			
		

> I guess you'll find out if anyone wants to take care of ya.


No, you were saying that both people must be able to pull their own weight in a marriage.  What if that's impossible?  By your reasoning any person with a handicap should never marry.


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 29, 2006)

Joz said:
			
		

> No, you were saying that both people must be able to pull their own weight in a marriage.  What if that's impossible?  By your reasoning any person with a handicap should never marry.



What handicap do you have?


----------



## Joz (Apr 29, 2006)

dilloduck said:
			
		

> What handicap do you have?


Wow, I don't know if the board has that much bandwidth.

Not everyone I know agrees with what * I * see as a handicap.  For starters, 1)  My ability to tolerate *ssholes for so long.  But there is a breaking point.  2)  I am flexible on most things; but if I believe in something I am VERY stubborn, unmoving.  3)  My shyness/self-consiousness makes me appear aloof & uncaring.


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 29, 2006)

Joz said:
			
		

> Wow, I don't know if the board has that much bandwidth.
> 
> Not everyone I know agrees with what * I * see as a handicap.  For starters, 1)  My ability to tolerate *ssholes for so long.  But there is a breaking point.  2)  I am flexible on most things; but if I believe in something I am VERY stubborn, unmoving.  3)  My shyness/self-consiousness makes me appear aloof & uncaring.



You see these as something you can do nothing about and want a mate that can accept these traits?


----------



## Joz (Apr 29, 2006)

dilloduck said:
			
		

> You see these as something you can do nothing about and want a mate that can accept these traits?


That's what I meant when I said,  just because I see them a certain way doesn't mean others do.  I just went & asked Mm.  
He said that I have a _great_ ability to tolerate *ssholes and he is grateful for that since we are around so many.  He thinks that my stubbornness is strength (sometimes  ) & not _entirely_ a bad thing.  And he can't figure out where the aloofness comes from as he has watched me interact with so many; which proves that I do work on things that I can. 
Should a mate accept these traits?  They are a _minute_ part of who I am.  Yes, I expect Mm to accept these, as I do his.


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 29, 2006)

Joz said:
			
		

> That's what I meant when I said,  just because I see them a certain way doesn't mean others do.  I just went & asked Mm.
> He said that I have a _great_ ability to tolerate *ssholes and he is grateful for that since we are around so many.  He thinks that my stubbornness is strength (sometimes  ) & not _entirely_ a bad thing.  And he can't figure out where the aloofness comes from as he has watched me interact with so many; which proves that I do work on things that I can.
> Should a mate accept these traits?  They are a _minute_ part of who I am.  Yes, I expect Mm to accept these, as I do his.



All's well that ends well! Tell him I said "hi" !


----------



## Joz (Apr 30, 2006)

dmp said:
			
		

> Then of course is the fact that sexual arrousal is not lust. They aren't tied together.





			
				AbbeyNormal said:
			
		

> Honest question- how are they different?



So Abbey, did you ever come to a conclusion to dmp's statement?  
I think they're two seperate things, also.


----------



## Shattered (Apr 30, 2006)

Joz said:
			
		

> Wow, I don't know if the board has that much bandwidth.
> 
> Not everyone I know agrees with what * I * see as a handicap.  For starters, 1)  My ability to tolerate *ssholes for so long.  But there is a breaking point.  2)  I am flexible on most things; but if I believe in something I am VERY stubborn, unmoving.  3)  <b>My shyness/self-consiousness makes me appear aloof & uncaring.</b>



I've never seen a single thing from you that would leave me to believe you're the least bit shy about <i>anything</i>.

I think that's one handicap you can remove.


----------



## Joz (Apr 30, 2006)

Shattered said:
			
		

> I've never seen a single thing from you that would leave me to believe you're the least bit shy about <i>anything</i>.
> 
> I think that's one handicap you can remove.


This statement is sooo cool on many levels.

First it shows that you_ really_ don't know me.  That we form an opinion on what we think we see & pass our opinion about a person on how we _perceive_ them.  (the recent T-shirt discussion in chat)  
But it does show that my stubborness overrides my shyness, in many cases.  Maybe in person it isn't so much shyness as something else?  
It also shows that if someone was up to no good they can become anything they want over the Internet.  Hence the capture of pedophiles.

(to dillo: Tho' Mm sees my stubborness as strength, my ex sees it as pride.  Maybe it's a bit of both, maybe it's neither)


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 30, 2006)

Joz said:
			
		

> This statement is sooo cool on many levels.
> 
> First it shows that you_ really_ don't know me.  That we form an opinion on what we think we see & pass our opinion about a person on how we _perceive_ them.  (the recent T-shirt discussion in chat)
> But it does show that my stubborness overrides my shyness, in many cases.  Maybe in person it isn't so much shyness as something else?
> ...



well tell your ex to fuck off  and go watch some porn !! :teeth:


----------



## Shattered (Apr 30, 2006)

Joz said:
			
		

> This statement is sooo cool on many levels.
> 
> First it shows that you_ really_ don't know me.  That we form an opinion on what we think we see & pass our opinion about a person on how we _perceive_ them.  (the recent T-shirt discussion in chat)
> But it does show that my stubborness overrides my shyness, in many cases.  Maybe in person it isn't so much shyness as something else?
> ...



I know that I formed my opinion based on how I've seen you project yourself to others, and in various threads, as well as PMs.  If that's not an opinion you want someone to form, perhaps you're projecting the wrong image.  Just my opinion - you're not shy.


----------



## Joz (May 1, 2006)

Shattered said:
			
		

> I know that I formed my opinion based on how I've seen you project yourself to others, and in various threads, as well as PMs.  If that's not an opinion you want someone to form, perhaps you're projecting the wrong image.  Just my opinion - you're not shy.


I understand the only thing you have to go on is our association here.  And some of the people that know me would agree with you, but that is only on a certain level of familiarity.  
When I graduated high school, one of the teachers I'd known all 4 years, wrote in my year book that I was a hard person to get to know....but that it was worth it.
That is why I said maybe it's something else and not shyness.  I was hoping you might have something else to add.


----------



## Joz (May 1, 2006)

dilloduck said:
			
		

> well tell your ex to fuck off  and go watch some porn !! :teeth:


The only reason I mentioned it was because you had asked me if I expected Mm to accept my traits.  Sometimes it's just how others perceive us and other times it's just how much a person can live with.  The ex perceives I'm stubborn because I wouldn't go back to him and he feels that's because of pride.  It isn't.


----------



## Nienna (May 1, 2006)

Joz said:
			
		

> I understand the only thing you have to go on is our association here.  And some of the people that know me would agree with you, but that is only on a certain level of familiarity.
> When I graduated high school, one of the teachers I'd known all 4 years, wrote in my year book that I was a hard person to get to know....but that it was worth it.
> That is why I said maybe it's something else and not shyness.  I was hoping you might have something else to add.


Starla, you are probably like me. There is a difference between shyness and reserve. A shy person has a lot of FEAR about meeting new people or being in new situations. But once she feels comfortable, may be incredibly open and talkative (That's me  ). A reserved person always holds himself apart; others may _never_ fully understand what goes on in in his mind, no matter how long they have known him (My BIL is this way). These are just my definitions.


----------



## Nienna (May 1, 2006)

Wow! This thread has really gone off-topic!


----------



## Joz (May 1, 2006)

mom4 said:
			
		

> Starla, you are probably like me. There is a difference between shyness and reserve. A shy person has a lot of FEAR about meeting new people or being in new situations. But once she feels comfortable, may be incredibly open and talkative (That's me  ). A reserved person always holds himself apart; others may _never_ fully understand what goes on in in his mind, no matter how long they have known him (My BIL is this way). These are just my definitions.


Thanks Mom.  I think you've hit upon the right description.  Couple that with a little self-conciousness..... 
Mm playing these clubs doesn't help.  I don't drink, therefore I don't get up and shake my derriere (I do slow dance) so I do ALOT of watching.  Mm knows half the country and when he's talking to someone, I don't just go & jump in a conversation.  Most of the time it's shop or _guy_ talk.  I appear to be a real oddball, I think.


----------



## Joz (May 1, 2006)

For being on stage, Mm is very 'reserved' in his private life.  It's a wonder we ever got to know each other.  And sometimes it's still difficult.
People think they _know_ him & spew information (as _they _see it) about him as tho' it is gospel.

He just said, as far as your comment Mom, that we tend to listen to a person talk and think, _Oh you're one of those  people.....not rational or in my sane world, _ so we just don't bother.


----------



## Bonnie (May 1, 2006)

mom4 said:
			
		

> Starla, you are probably like me. There is a difference between shyness and reserve. A shy person has a lot of FEAR about meeting new people or being in new situations. But once she feels comfortable, may be incredibly open and talkative (That's me  ). A reserved person always holds himself apart; others may _never_ fully understand what goes on in in his mind, no matter how long they have known him (My BIL is this way). These are just my definitions.



I would have to say I am reserved, but not aloof, more just selective about whom I open up to or about what I open up about. I always had a small circle of very good friends with whom I would confide in, and a larger circle of acquaintances that I would never consider opening up to. Shyness is in all of us which comes from insecurity, but the more secure we become the more the shyness goes away,   IMO


----------



## Joz (May 1, 2006)

Bonnie said:
			
		

> I would have to say I am reserved, but not aloof, more just selective about whom I open up to or about what I open up about. *I always had a small circle of very good friends with whom I would confide in*, and a larger circle of acquaintances that I would never consider opening up to. Shyness is in all of us which comes from insecurity, but the more secure we become the more the shyness goes away,   IMO


And I am envious of this.  I know women who know intimate details about each other and never judge; are the closet of friends.
I learned at a very early age not to trust.  I will open up but only so much.  I never bare my soul....to anyone.


----------

