The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
One thing that really astonishes me is the number of people who sleep around in the world today. For those of us among us who believe in the Bibile, sex outside marriage is forbidden, yet so many people, religeous and otherwise, see it their duty to have multiple sexual partners. Its only a symbol of social standing in some places in AFRICA. How can we call ourselves the civilised world when we see fit to stick our john thomas in every place we can think of. Its level with the animals, and even some of them have the decency to confine themselves to one partner. (i.e. swans)
Im not trying to push chastity and say all sexual acticity is WRONG outside marriage, but I really think that sex and similar acts are something that you should share with only someone special. The only purpose of one night stands is to get some POONTANG with whatever skank can be found on the street. (I dont mean to degrade women, I just have to write this from the male perspective, the same applies to women)
Chastity generally means that you dont do ANYTHING sexual at all outside of marraige. Personally I dont see whats wrong with a little frolic in the garden of eden if its legal, legal by the bible, and doesnt put your future in jeprody through inadvertant pregnancy. What happens if the chick you boned on a one night stand get knocked up? Its your obligation to raise the b*****d child, and wed the whench. lol. I just enjoy using biassed language. I'll stop now.
Since (as I have been informed by a good friend of mine whos a history guru) the general practise of prolific intercourse has been going on for millenia, were not really doing anything different, however if we didnt do anything different we'd still be eating leaves, not even using tools. Evolution and invention meant progress, technological and personal. Sleeping around like this means that sex isnt sacred. It becomes meaningless when you finally meet someone you marry, and all you can do is compare them to your previous partners.
I know Im on a losing side. Most of you are probably against me, but Id just like you to consider the idea of, not chastity, but, however hard it may be, not sleeping around. If you meet someone special to you, by all means, even if its not the first. At least then its actually meaningful. But having shallow, meaningless sex is....well...m**********g. YOU'LL GO BLIND SON!!
Im not trying to push chastity and say all sexual acticity is WRONG outside marriage, but I really think that sex and similar acts are something that you should share with only someone special. The only purpose of one night stands is to get some POONTANG with whatever skank can be found on the street. (I dont mean to degrade women, I just have to write this from the male perspective, the same applies to women)
Chastity generally means that you dont do ANYTHING sexual at all outside of marraige. Personally I dont see whats wrong with a little frolic in the garden of eden if its legal, legal by the bible, and doesnt put your future in jeprody through inadvertant pregnancy. What happens if the chick you boned on a one night stand get knocked up? Its your obligation to raise the b*****d child, and wed the whench. lol. I just enjoy using biassed language. I'll stop now.
Since (as I have been informed by a good friend of mine whos a history guru) the general practise of prolific intercourse has been going on for millenia, were not really doing anything different, however if we didnt do anything different we'd still be eating leaves, not even using tools. Evolution and invention meant progress, technological and personal. Sleeping around like this means that sex isnt sacred. It becomes meaningless when you finally meet someone you marry, and all you can do is compare them to your previous partners.
I know Im on a losing side. Most of you are probably against me, but Id just like you to consider the idea of, not chastity, but, however hard it may be, not sleeping around. If you meet someone special to you, by all means, even if its not the first. At least then its actually meaningful. But having shallow, meaningless sex is....well...m**********g. YOU'LL GO BLIND SON!!
Page:
In my opinion, sex isn't something that should be taken lightly and people shouldn't sleep with someone they barely know. However, it's fine to have sex with your girlfriend/boyfriend if you feel strongly enough about them, even if you're not in love.
Also, the concept of waiting until marriage before having sex with someone is a concept which I can't understand - sex is an expression of love towards another person and so there's no reason why any two people should wait until they're married before making that expression.
Also, the concept of waiting until marriage before having sex with someone is a concept which I can't understand - sex is an expression of love towards another person and so there's no reason why any two people should wait until they're married before making that expression.
\0/ /\0/\ 0/ 0
¦ ¦ ¦\ /¦\
/\ /\ /\ \/
(ymca..sort of)
well...THAT didnt work thats to no double spacing. FINE STARS IT IS
\0/**/\0/\**0/****0
*¦*****¦****¦\***/¦\
/\*****/\**/\*****\/
¦ ¦ ¦\ /¦\
/\ /\ /\ \/
(ymca..sort of)
well...THAT didnt work thats to no double spacing. FINE STARS IT IS
\0/**/\0/\**0/****0
*¦*****¦****¦\***/¦\
/\*****/\**/\*****\/
Azul wrote:
> Ashman wrote:
> That was a bit far Azul, really.
>
> I don't have a problem with your jokes most of the time but even I
> thought that was inappropriate.
>
> Oh, my heart felt apologies.
> I beg for forgiveness.
O_
_|
/\
> Ashman wrote:
> That was a bit far Azul, really.
>
> I don't have a problem with your jokes most of the time but even I
> thought that was inappropriate.
>
> Oh, my heart felt apologies.
> I beg for forgiveness.
O_
_|
/\
"i'm saying that society and in the past religion has said that you find someone and you stick with them, that goes against biology which says we're not supposed to be with out partners for our whole life" but religeon and society have nothing to do with neve rhaving sex, but rather grasping further meaning, through sex. Boilogy just preaches sex in all its forms. Different forms of life have different ways of reproduction, many not even involving sexual reproduction. The two ways to look at this issue are from the animal point of view, and the evolved point of view. If we, as humans accept that we are above animals, then we have to accept that through evolution, both moral and technological, progress is made. What you see as progress as an individual depends on the person, however I see the act of casual sex as a very primitive one, based entirely on impulse and urges, not on modern logical thought. It IS the pursuit of happiness, but as logical beings (to a certain extent) we weigh out the advantages and the advantages of only ever sleeping with one person are truly outstanding. Out of interest is there any person whos read this who likes the idea of only ever sleeping with one person? To me this idea is very appealing, and maybe thats because I've found someone I know I want to do that with, but thinking logically the chances of anyone meeting someone they'll marry at the same time they want to start having sex are so slim its non existent. This provokes the need for chastity.
Unfortunately nobody seems to agree with me on this issue, and all I can say is its your loss. I feel that doing this will not only make me happier, but also a better person. I dont find it sexually repressive, as there are other ways to vent sexual tension than the act itself. But I have no idea what it would feel like to be having sex with someone, knowing that quite recently, someone else have done that. Hey, even if youre not very good in bed, when you only have one partner youre garunteed to be the best they've ever had, and because you have one partner you have the devotion to perfect the kinky arts. lol. well, For what its worth I wish you all luck in your exploits.
Unfortunately nobody seems to agree with me on this issue, and all I can say is its your loss. I feel that doing this will not only make me happier, but also a better person. I dont find it sexually repressive, as there are other ways to vent sexual tension than the act itself. But I have no idea what it would feel like to be having sex with someone, knowing that quite recently, someone else have done that. Hey, even if youre not very good in bed, when you only have one partner youre garunteed to be the best they've ever had, and because you have one partner you have the devotion to perfect the kinky arts. lol. well, For what its worth I wish you all luck in your exploits.
Yeah i know that it would be nice if everyone could be romantic in the way they view sex but they can't, some people aren't after anymore than some fun.
As for mating for life, i'm saying that society and in the past religion has said that you find someone and you stick with them, that goes against biology which says we're not supposed to be with out partners for our whole life, we're supposed to breed, raise our kids and move on, i dont like it but i have the feeling thats the way nature intended.
Casual sex is masturbation of the ego, thats why it's preferable, you dont feel quite so alone or so selfish because you are pleasing someone else as well and sometimes people need that kick just to give them a little confidence.
As for love being a requisite, i agree with you as i'm sure do plenty of other people and i do think that as people get older they do see that it is more than just a physical act, i don't begrudge those that dont though, i'd be quite happy if i could live that lifestyle for a little while but it's not me and i don't enjoy it, some people do, good luck to them.
As for mating for life, i'm saying that society and in the past religion has said that you find someone and you stick with them, that goes against biology which says we're not supposed to be with out partners for our whole life, we're supposed to breed, raise our kids and move on, i dont like it but i have the feeling thats the way nature intended.
Casual sex is masturbation of the ego, thats why it's preferable, you dont feel quite so alone or so selfish because you are pleasing someone else as well and sometimes people need that kick just to give them a little confidence.
As for love being a requisite, i agree with you as i'm sure do plenty of other people and i do think that as people get older they do see that it is more than just a physical act, i don't begrudge those that dont though, i'd be quite happy if i could live that lifestyle for a little while but it's not me and i don't enjoy it, some people do, good luck to them.
Yeah flock. I agree with pretty much all of what youre wrote there. I can understand the other side of it too, but I just think it shouldnt be thought of that way. I just think life would be so empty like that. Although I dont think people are bad just because they do that, I get so much more out of life this way, as Im sure you do.
"Nope, it's because we seek to justify everything, thats something we have that animals dont, morality."
Heres an interesting point. (Im not arguing) If animals dont have morality then why will certain dogs rescue a drowning owner, or in trained cases know that they did something wrong. I could be because of discipline and rules, and a sense of its own surivial but the fact that a dog would link you to its own survival is very interesting.
"the fact is after a certain ammount of time the levels of hormones drop between couples"
Some couples still have the same zest for life and each other well into old age. I think maybe it just takes the right person to make a truly perfect match. Although I cant sceintifically prove that, I think suitability could affect hormone levels like that.
"if you take it to base level we aren't supposed to mate for life but we do because it's the way we are brought up" I dont understand your point about mating for life. Marriage isnt preventing mating for life (except near the start) in fact its stimulating it, and results in the completed process of mating. I agree though that most animal species use the Alpha male process of mating, although you could argue that we do too as only the fastest sperm fertilises the egg.
I dont doubt that people eventually "conform to the rules" but I just think that people have freedom of choice, and they have every right in this society to have as many sexual partners as will be with them, but I dont want that, and I dont think that our society should do that. I wouldnt under any circumstances force anyone not to do what they wanted in the situation, I just think that morally this society is falling apart. Its entirely plausable to see that society tries to force a mindset on a person, and in cases it does. Morality isnt something that can be taught. Everyone has an individual mindset and should make their own decision. Maybe Im just annoyed cos Im a solitary breed.
If you take your concept of comforming to the rules, although we dont have rules as such about it, rules are there to be obeyed, not broken is youre not ready, or if you dont feel like conforming right now.
Maybe something else that seperates us from other people is the concept that casual sex is fun. To me having sex with a complete stranger is not appealing. the sexual act is but I can do that with my hand. lol. Now the idea of actually doing it with someone I love and adore is another thing all together.
I do understand that love isnt necessarily a requisite for the sexual act, however for sex with actual meaning, not just physical stimulation, which has no comparrison, love is a requisite. Im just sorry most people dont agree.
I was raised as a catholic and the kind of oppression I experienced was more religeous than sexual in nature. I was educated in a national school with close ties to the local church and the community, and then in a school which was founded by nuns. We were fed all sorts of propagande about stem cell research in my last year there as my religeon teacher was a nun. I had an english accent in my first year and she assumed I was protestant, and started discriminating against me in class because of it. Although we never had seual education in school (which is a legal requirement) other years did, and we were never told what to do with our lives sexually. We were told that sex outside marriage was condemmed by the bible, as have most people, but we were always allowed to make our own decisions about it. well..how can they stop us?..lol. As for the community, thats something else. There are eyes everywhere, gossip, speculation. Its such a closenit parish, and so old fashioned. ek. thank god Im leaving. Now I finished that paragraph I cant remember what it was about. ah yes. on a whole the catholic church is very condemming of sexual acts, but that doesnt really stop its followers. When I was EDUMACATED we learned practically nothing about other religeons and I feel betrayed by the education system because of that. However I dont think that it changed my morals as such as most of my catholic friends are planning on sleeping round as much as possible. All they think about is sex. There is so much more to sex to me than just SEX.
"Didn't it used to be that couple got married so they could have children, celibacy might put paid to that" Depends what time youre looking at. It was more a case you got married to secure lands, and wealth and security. Not so much love. In cases people married for children (i.e. henry VII) and a lot of peasants would try to have as many as possible for a workforce, but the still people married for alliances and wealth.
I think its a real pity most people dont see sex as more than they do.
"Nope, it's because we seek to justify everything, thats something we have that animals dont, morality."
Heres an interesting point. (Im not arguing) If animals dont have morality then why will certain dogs rescue a drowning owner, or in trained cases know that they did something wrong. I could be because of discipline and rules, and a sense of its own surivial but the fact that a dog would link you to its own survival is very interesting.
"the fact is after a certain ammount of time the levels of hormones drop between couples"
Some couples still have the same zest for life and each other well into old age. I think maybe it just takes the right person to make a truly perfect match. Although I cant sceintifically prove that, I think suitability could affect hormone levels like that.
"if you take it to base level we aren't supposed to mate for life but we do because it's the way we are brought up" I dont understand your point about mating for life. Marriage isnt preventing mating for life (except near the start) in fact its stimulating it, and results in the completed process of mating. I agree though that most animal species use the Alpha male process of mating, although you could argue that we do too as only the fastest sperm fertilises the egg.
I dont doubt that people eventually "conform to the rules" but I just think that people have freedom of choice, and they have every right in this society to have as many sexual partners as will be with them, but I dont want that, and I dont think that our society should do that. I wouldnt under any circumstances force anyone not to do what they wanted in the situation, I just think that morally this society is falling apart. Its entirely plausable to see that society tries to force a mindset on a person, and in cases it does. Morality isnt something that can be taught. Everyone has an individual mindset and should make their own decision. Maybe Im just annoyed cos Im a solitary breed.
If you take your concept of comforming to the rules, although we dont have rules as such about it, rules are there to be obeyed, not broken is youre not ready, or if you dont feel like conforming right now.
Maybe something else that seperates us from other people is the concept that casual sex is fun. To me having sex with a complete stranger is not appealing. the sexual act is but I can do that with my hand. lol. Now the idea of actually doing it with someone I love and adore is another thing all together.
I do understand that love isnt necessarily a requisite for the sexual act, however for sex with actual meaning, not just physical stimulation, which has no comparrison, love is a requisite. Im just sorry most people dont agree.
I was raised as a catholic and the kind of oppression I experienced was more religeous than sexual in nature. I was educated in a national school with close ties to the local church and the community, and then in a school which was founded by nuns. We were fed all sorts of propagande about stem cell research in my last year there as my religeon teacher was a nun. I had an english accent in my first year and she assumed I was protestant, and started discriminating against me in class because of it. Although we never had seual education in school (which is a legal requirement) other years did, and we were never told what to do with our lives sexually. We were told that sex outside marriage was condemmed by the bible, as have most people, but we were always allowed to make our own decisions about it. well..how can they stop us?..lol. As for the community, thats something else. There are eyes everywhere, gossip, speculation. Its such a closenit parish, and so old fashioned. ek. thank god Im leaving. Now I finished that paragraph I cant remember what it was about. ah yes. on a whole the catholic church is very condemming of sexual acts, but that doesnt really stop its followers. When I was EDUMACATED we learned practically nothing about other religeons and I feel betrayed by the education system because of that. However I dont think that it changed my morals as such as most of my catholic friends are planning on sleeping round as much as possible. All they think about is sex. There is so much more to sex to me than just SEX.
"Didn't it used to be that couple got married so they could have children, celibacy might put paid to that" Depends what time youre looking at. It was more a case you got married to secure lands, and wealth and security. Not so much love. In cases people married for children (i.e. henry VII) and a lot of peasants would try to have as many as possible for a workforce, but the still people married for alliances and wealth.
I think its a real pity most people dont see sex as more than they do.
Fozz wrote:
> Wel flock (I like your tagline btw) thats what makes you and me
> different.
Thanks but i dont think we're that different, i dont differentiate between love and sex either but some people do and i can understand it.
> I dont differentiate between sex and love that much. Sure,
> animals have sex without love but they dont love at all. Thats what
> makes humans different.
Yes but we're different through choice, we're still animals, we can look at sex and love and link them together or we can seperate them if we want to return to base level, you may call it animalistic and you would be right but it's also a natural biological urge.
> But why do we, as humans, love, and
> animals don't? Surely it suggests some higher presence?
Nope, it's because we seek to justify everything, thats something we have that animals dont, morality.
> But if you think that sex is just mating, then why do so many couples
> JUST do it with their married partner? If its just mating surely
> people would be ok for mass orgies and multiple partners.
I dont think that at all but the married partner thing is a creation of religion, the fact is after a certain ammount of time the levels of hormones drop between couples, that is just the way it is, if you take it to base level we aren't supposed to mate for life but we do because it's the way we are brought up, society says we should find one person and stick with them and although it appears to you that people are putting about so much they will all likely settle down eventually and conform to the rules and they know it, theyre just going to have some fun before they do.
> The truth is that sex is something that couples hold sacred and has close ties to love.
Yes for couples, for people that want to attach meaning, for those that dont want that meaning it's just sex and it's fun.
> Without love sex is empty.
Unfortunatly on a personal level i agree, maybe because i want to attach meaning.
> Im not confusing the two, we just have different opinions
Indeed but you need to see that love isn't a requisite for sex, they can be seperated if personal choice requires it.
> I think the only religeon that really was oppressive about
> sex was the puritan religeon, and that was really ridiculous. (see
> 'the scarlet letter') Of course sex is completely natural, however it
> isnt just FUN, it comes with a huge amount of responsibility, you can
> have sex without being willing to be responsible for your actions.
The predominant religions of the western world, Christianity and Catholicism could never be called sexually progressive, certainly not Catholicism, i do however agree with you about being responsible for your actions, i think that has gotten lost in the carefree attitude, nothing is ever carefree.
> I really dont think chastity is necessary or even logical once
> married. Some couples actually agree not to have sex or anything like
> it for as long as they live.
Didn't it used to be that couple got married so they could have children, celibacy might put paid to that.
> I just think that it should be something
> extremely personal and loving between you and your partner, not
> something FUN to be experienced with random partners.
It comes down to personal choice, some people dont want responsibility or love, some can't find it, does that mean they should be without a base human desire ?
> I commend you for not sleeping round, and admit that trying it once was > probably a good idea. If you hadnt you might have spent your life regretting and
> wondering. But if you say youre too romantic to have sex with anyone
> but your partner then how can you say Im confusing love and sex?
I'm saying you perhaps dont want to accept that the two dont always have to go together, confusing was the wrong word.
The fact is i knew before that it wouldn't compare, i didn't like reducing sex to just that, without love it felt shallow.
I know what you're saying and i precribe to it mostly, but i can understand the other way of thinking.
> Wel flock (I like your tagline btw) thats what makes you and me
> different.
Thanks but i dont think we're that different, i dont differentiate between love and sex either but some people do and i can understand it.
> I dont differentiate between sex and love that much. Sure,
> animals have sex without love but they dont love at all. Thats what
> makes humans different.
Yes but we're different through choice, we're still animals, we can look at sex and love and link them together or we can seperate them if we want to return to base level, you may call it animalistic and you would be right but it's also a natural biological urge.
> But why do we, as humans, love, and
> animals don't? Surely it suggests some higher presence?
Nope, it's because we seek to justify everything, thats something we have that animals dont, morality.
> But if you think that sex is just mating, then why do so many couples
> JUST do it with their married partner? If its just mating surely
> people would be ok for mass orgies and multiple partners.
I dont think that at all but the married partner thing is a creation of religion, the fact is after a certain ammount of time the levels of hormones drop between couples, that is just the way it is, if you take it to base level we aren't supposed to mate for life but we do because it's the way we are brought up, society says we should find one person and stick with them and although it appears to you that people are putting about so much they will all likely settle down eventually and conform to the rules and they know it, theyre just going to have some fun before they do.
> The truth is that sex is something that couples hold sacred and has close ties to love.
Yes for couples, for people that want to attach meaning, for those that dont want that meaning it's just sex and it's fun.
> Without love sex is empty.
Unfortunatly on a personal level i agree, maybe because i want to attach meaning.
> Im not confusing the two, we just have different opinions
Indeed but you need to see that love isn't a requisite for sex, they can be seperated if personal choice requires it.
> I think the only religeon that really was oppressive about
> sex was the puritan religeon, and that was really ridiculous. (see
> 'the scarlet letter') Of course sex is completely natural, however it
> isnt just FUN, it comes with a huge amount of responsibility, you can
> have sex without being willing to be responsible for your actions.
The predominant religions of the western world, Christianity and Catholicism could never be called sexually progressive, certainly not Catholicism, i do however agree with you about being responsible for your actions, i think that has gotten lost in the carefree attitude, nothing is ever carefree.
> I really dont think chastity is necessary or even logical once
> married. Some couples actually agree not to have sex or anything like
> it for as long as they live.
Didn't it used to be that couple got married so they could have children, celibacy might put paid to that.
> I just think that it should be something
> extremely personal and loving between you and your partner, not
> something FUN to be experienced with random partners.
It comes down to personal choice, some people dont want responsibility or love, some can't find it, does that mean they should be without a base human desire ?
> I commend you for not sleeping round, and admit that trying it once was > probably a good idea. If you hadnt you might have spent your life regretting and
> wondering. But if you say youre too romantic to have sex with anyone
> but your partner then how can you say Im confusing love and sex?
I'm saying you perhaps dont want to accept that the two dont always have to go together, confusing was the wrong word.
The fact is i knew before that it wouldn't compare, i didn't like reducing sex to just that, without love it felt shallow.
I know what you're saying and i precribe to it mostly, but i can understand the other way of thinking.
Interesting point borat. i think there should be some kind of test to ensure that parents are able to bring up a child..and maybe if theyre not they can get a social services helper or something. However something like a marraige license is in breach of human rights. tricky subject
Would this be another thread where someone tries to force their religious induced morals/ideals onto the rest of the population? Perish the thought.
It's a free world, people should be able to do what they bloody well want!
My only concern is over population, which is a bigger problem than most believe. Taking a leaf out of Chinas book and limiting each family to one child at a time might be one idea. Certainly I think that perhaps some sort of test should be taken to ensure that potential parents are capable of bringing a child up correctly.
Of course, this is such a grey area, that it'd take ages to iron it all out into guidelines that would work for everyone, so I'm not even going to bother.
It's a free world, people should be able to do what they bloody well want!
My only concern is over population, which is a bigger problem than most believe. Taking a leaf out of Chinas book and limiting each family to one child at a time might be one idea. Certainly I think that perhaps some sort of test should be taken to ensure that potential parents are capable of bringing a child up correctly.
Of course, this is such a grey area, that it'd take ages to iron it all out into guidelines that would work for everyone, so I'm not even going to bother.
I have to admit I laughed at Azuls post. maybe its cos I live in a predominantly catholic area with isolated, old...priests....you know the story. My local priest actually hit alter servers on occasion(s) and nothing was done about it.
Page: