I don't like the idea of viewing every person you like as a simple practice object, someone you'd have sex just because they are your first and you "know" they are not going to be your last anyway. I also do not like the idea of lowering a guy or a girl for having little sex experience - they may just be more choosy on their partners than those who fuck everything left and right. I just dislike this viewpoint here. Having sex with one person to practice for the next person. That's cynical social BS, along with shaving and other rubbish. Has no use for true loving couples.
I tihnk that the main thing that people aren't seeing in this thread is that they don't see that sex is supposed to be a thing that really ties people together and that their souls are then linked. I when people think it's just "saving the human race" so then they go rape some random woman on the street.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Federer lost Wimbledon. Why? Becase none of you bastards cheered for him...
Intimate times yes you have described. However what you talking about sounds to me like things you do with your lover. There should be no behavior nor action that is required for anyone to do in a (real)ationship. But to be intimate with someone on all levels to love them to have been loved buy them and to make love to them usually all some together. Unless your dating a u-nick.
Or unless your a kid which in that case I can agree no sex require ya don't need to be getting young girls pregnant and ruining lives….So if you’re a kid keep it in your pants, but if your grown and on your own let is hang out and get plenty of practice because you’ll want to have your shit together for the one your meet and really fall for….
You have horrible english. Understood very little of what you are trying to say.
Quote from "SngBuddha" »
Don't you realize that monogamy is not human nature? Honestly... when you look at animals (which humans are, in case you need reminding) and study humans from the past, there is no "one partner" and "life long commitment". Fact of nature is, you grow old, you grow apart, you move on. Personally I think society is backwards in forcing everyone to have one spouse... but I guess I just have to deal with that eh? And I'm not talking one man with a ton of wives; the wives would be free to have as many men as they want too. Sex is just sex.
I lied, I don't believe in monogamy, nor will I ever have multiple spouses. But every once in a while I do look at their point of view, and it does seem to make a lot of sense haha. I do think life long commitments are against human nature but whatever.
That's not necessarily true. 8% of mammals are actually exclusive to a mate. 90% of birds are monogamists. Human monogamy has been going on for quite some time. It's more of a socialized institution. It's developed as a culture. But there is no particular pattern that is innate to our species.
Quote from "whiteghost21" »
If i may butt in really quickly, how is this argument on topic? Keep it to pms, no one needs to see this bickering.
Don't be a hippocrite. There's no need role play as a moderator. You're not contributing to the discussion either.
You have horrible english. Understood very little of what you are trying to say.
That's not necessarily true. 8% of mammals are actually exclusive to a mate. 90% of birds are monogamists. Human monogamy has been going on for quite some time. It's more of a socialized institution. It's developed as a culture. But there is no particular pattern that is innate to our species.
Originally it was females who were in control. (Speaking of way way back in time, before the Abrahamic religions were a twinkle in your eye.) Women were seen as the life givers and what-have-you. Then men learned that it was because of them that women became pregnant, and learned that if you force a women to stay only with you then that child is for sure yours, rather then the woman just saying that it is. This began both the rise of monogamy and the fall of female power. This also coincides with the rise of Abrahamic religions.
Quote from "SpanishBard" »
Don't be a hippocrite. There's no need role play as a moderator. You're not contributing to the discussion either.
Well at least he...well nevermind. If I state my mind I'll get one of them bs infractions...
Originally it was females who were in control. (Speaking of way way back in time, before the Abrahamic religions were a twinkle in your eye.) Women were seen as the life givers and what-have-you. Then men learned that it was because of them that women became pregnant, and learned that if you force a women to stay only with you then that child is for sure yours, rather then the woman just saying that it is. This began both the rise of monogamy and the fall of female power. This also coincides with the rise of Abrahamic religions.
Well at least he...well nevermind. If I state my mind I'll get one of them bs infractions...
I tried researching this information to have a better response. I found a difficult time finding any information on women dominance. Perhaps you have an article you could share? This is random. I was thinking about how we propose to women. We get on one knee and ask them in a bit of a begging very modest way. To me, it seems very praisal of women.
Kerri's Question:
I am looking for information about a period of time in our very early history (Approx. 7000 BC) where women were dominant in society. I found one web site, but did not find links to others. Do you possibly know of any sites I can go to on the Internet, pertaining to this era? Thank you, and I will keep searching. Lyn's Answer:
Did you use the link on our WEB site to Diotima? Its references do not go back that far, but they may have people there who know about good sites. Since there is an interest in stuff about goddesses, some sites may include information about prehistoric goddess worship.
Two fairly credible resources you could look up are:
"Women in Prehistory," Margaret Ehrneberg, British Museum Publications, 1989.
Also, "The Creation of Patriarchy," Gerda Lerner, Oxford University Press, 1986
16 for me.All I hear is "come here babe, let's have sex".
For a marriage proposal? That doesn't sound right. I think couples are more relaxed and casual about marriage. So there's less sentimental value. I don't know. I'd do the knee thing, is that lame?
Give, expecting nothing thereof. ------------ BoD - Come have some fun! Folks will always come and go, so enjoy them while they're meant to be in your life.
I tried researching this information to have a better response. I found a difficult time finding any information on women dominance. Perhaps you have an article you could share? This is random. I was thinking about how we propose to women. We get on one knee and ask them in a bit of a begging very modest way. To me, it seems very praisal of women.
The whole one knee tradition is irrelevant to your argument. It is a pretty modern tradition (so far as I know) relative to the time period you were talking about... the birth of the Abrahamic religions. There could be many many other reasons why that tradition started. Then again, it could be a sound connection... can't really disprove it.
And I think that LinkX was merely drawing a connection... not everything has to be absolutely supported by facts to be believed if it is logically based (religion anyone?).
I guess the defining part of this argument is if you are religious or not, because of all the ties of marriage with religion. Myself, not being religious and instead basing off of what I consider innate human nature, I think sex is just plainly and simply sex... it should be casual and should not be restricted to married couples.
Quote from "Atrumentis" »
Question: When do people in general start thinking sexual thoughts?
I'd go with puberty... which, as the others above me have demonstrated, usually occurs from 12-16.
The whole one knee tradition is irrelevant to your argument. It is a pretty modern tradition (so far as I know) relative to the time period you were talking about... the birth of the Abrahamic religions. There could be many many other reasons why that tradition started. Then again, it could be a sound connection... can't really disprove it.
And I think that LinkX was merely drawing a connection... not everything has to be absolutely supported by facts to be believed if it is logically based (religion anyone?).
I guess the defining part of this argument is if you are religious or not, because of all the ties of marriage with religion. Myself, not being religious and instead basing off of what I consider innate human nature, I think sex is just plainly and simply sex... it should be casual and should not be restricted to married couples.
I'd go with puberty... which, as the others above me have demonstrated, usually occurs from 12-16.
The knee thing wasn't part of the arguement. You fail at reading. The rest of your post is pretty cryptic, somewhat hard to read. You're drawing similarities between marriage - sex - belief system. Mind you, marriage may have been a religious tradition, but it's turned into a sentimental tradition. Marriage is common among folks whether they draw any relationship to the fact that it's a religious ceremony.
I guess the defining part of this argument is if you are religious or not
The knee thing wasn't part of the arguement. You fail at reading. The rest of your post is pretty cryptic, somewhat hard to read. You're drawing similarities between marriage - sex - belief system. Mind you, marriage may have been a religious tradition, but it's turned into a sentimental tradition. Marriage is common among folks whether they draw any relationship to the fact that it's a religious ceremony.
Religion plays a small role.
Yea I see now, my mistake. Your post was kind of ambiguous because when you said "this is random"; I thought you were saying that his notion of women dominance was "random" when instead you were describing your next point. My bad, I misunderstood, but it's not like your English was flawless so you can't just say that I "fail at reading"
As to the rest of my post, I was trying to say that LinkX's point doesn't necessarily have to be stated in some "study" or on a website to be valid. You refuted his argument because he had no article to support it. He could have drawn the conclusion himself, and is just offering it as a possible connection between two things (the fall of women dominance and monogamy).
Stating that religion has a small role in perceptions of sex is an understatement in my opinion. Many people sanctify sex because it is supposed to be the ultimate sense of connection, as described by their religion. When religion defines sex as a sacred act, the ultimate bond between two people, saying that it has a small role on the perception of sex is absurd.
Example: Many devout Christians and Catholics feel that sex is a holy act that should only be between a married couple.
Millions of people have their views and opinions of sex skewed or influenced by what their religion tells them. I'm not attacking them, merely stating that religion undeniably plays a significant part in this topic.
Hopefully I made my point a bit clearer this time go round
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
what are u talking about?
View My Character
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZRQEtAyiTM
You have to admit that he's good.
and shaving, do you mean shaving the pubic regions?
You have horrible english. Understood very little of what you are trying to say.
That's not necessarily true. 8% of mammals are actually exclusive to a mate. 90% of birds are monogamists. Human monogamy has been going on for quite some time. It's more of a socialized institution. It's developed as a culture. But there is no particular pattern that is innate to our species.
Don't be a hippocrite. There's no need role play as a moderator. You're not contributing to the discussion either.
John - Where is your other half? I miss fbim so.
I have no comment.
I said what I wanted to say. Believe what you want. I don't care.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZRQEtAyiTM
You have to admit that he's good.
Originally it was females who were in control. (Speaking of way way back in time, before the Abrahamic religions were a twinkle in your eye.) Women were seen as the life givers and what-have-you. Then men learned that it was because of them that women became pregnant, and learned that if you force a women to stay only with you then that child is for sure yours, rather then the woman just saying that it is. This began both the rise of monogamy and the fall of female power. This also coincides with the rise of Abrahamic religions.
Well at least he...well nevermind. If I state my mind I'll get one of them bs infractions...
Haha, aww, I love this situation fbim has got himself into. Its the best thing that has happened for a while.
and I don't mean that in a bad way, I mean it in a good way, with actual love, not mocking-love.
When did you? When puberty starts to hit I guess. Age 12ish I'm thinking?
I think it's cute.
lol, I prefer not to have myself associated with sex, so I won't answer. Also, I would go for the knee-proposal thing too.
But the reason for both of those things is because I'm just old fashioned.
Hell no that isn't lame!!!
Folks will always come and go, so enjoy them while they're meant to be in your life.
The whole one knee tradition is irrelevant to your argument. It is a pretty modern tradition (so far as I know) relative to the time period you were talking about... the birth of the Abrahamic religions. There could be many many other reasons why that tradition started. Then again, it could be a sound connection... can't really disprove it.
And I think that LinkX was merely drawing a connection... not everything has to be absolutely supported by facts to be believed if it is logically based (religion anyone?).
I guess the defining part of this argument is if you are religious or not, because of all the ties of marriage with religion. Myself, not being religious and instead basing off of what I consider innate human nature, I think sex is just plainly and simply sex... it should be casual and should not be restricted to married couples.
I'd go with puberty... which, as the others above me have demonstrated, usually occurs from 12-16.
The knee thing wasn't part of the arguement. You fail at reading. The rest of your post is pretty cryptic, somewhat hard to read. You're drawing similarities between marriage - sex - belief system. Mind you, marriage may have been a religious tradition, but it's turned into a sentimental tradition. Marriage is common among folks whether they draw any relationship to the fact that it's a religious ceremony.
Religion plays a small role.
Yea I see now, my mistake. Your post was kind of ambiguous because when you said "this is random"; I thought you were saying that his notion of women dominance was "random" when instead you were describing your next point. My bad, I misunderstood, but it's not like your English was flawless so you can't just say that I "fail at reading"
As to the rest of my post, I was trying to say that LinkX's point doesn't necessarily have to be stated in some "study" or on a website to be valid. You refuted his argument because he had no article to support it. He could have drawn the conclusion himself, and is just offering it as a possible connection between two things (the fall of women dominance and monogamy).
Stating that religion has a small role in perceptions of sex is an understatement in my opinion. Many people sanctify sex because it is supposed to be the ultimate sense of connection, as described by their religion. When religion defines sex as a sacred act, the ultimate bond between two people, saying that it has a small role on the perception of sex is absurd.
Example: Many devout Christians and Catholics feel that sex is a holy act that should only be between a married couple.
Millions of people have their views and opinions of sex skewed or influenced by what their religion tells them. I'm not attacking them, merely stating that religion undeniably plays a significant part in this topic.
Hopefully I made my point a bit clearer this time go round