Posted on 10/13/2014 3:06:55 PM PDT by grundle
There’s no good time to tell a guy you’re a virgin. First date? Too much, too soon. Wait until the third date and you risk being considered a tease. Second date? Perhaps, but at this point you’re both still fretting over whether or not to eat another piece of bread; delving into sexual histories (or lack thereof) seems a bit extreme. So: There’s no good time to tell a guy you’re a virgin. Even worse? Telling him you’re waiting until marriage.
(Excerpt) Read more at salon.com ...
So everybody should just sleep with everybody that they love? One biq happy orqy?
Do you see any potential problems with that?
I personally do not profess to claim sufficient knowledge and wisdom to dictate to others what they should or should not do behind closed doors in private.
Is it my business to do so?
Was this a private or a public setting that you witnessed this behavior? (If I may be permitted to presume you did not participate?) If you did not witness the behavior, how do you come to know of it? If it is purely hypothetical, why should it concern you (or me) (or anyone else)?
This is what Roman Paganism does to its adherents.
(Besides removing their name from the Book of Life)
But its all very humorous, isn’t it! (To your sub 70 IQ)
Actually one surface quality I look for (after having a pleasing face/body) is voice. With the advent of the “Valley Girl” over 3 decades ago, the annoying, dumbed-down mallrat-speak which spread like wildfire across the country, it ruined the appeal of so many young females worse than scads of tats and piercings. When I listen to a voice, I have to ask myself, “Do I want to listen to this voice for years ?” It’s awful to find a pretty girl and she has a voice like nails on chalkboard.
OTOH, a literalist would might point to Genesis 1:28...
What would Sir Mix-a-Lot say...
:-)
All sex isn’t equal thouqh. Some kinds are safer and better than others - physically, emotionally, socially, mentally, and spiritually.
Just because I CAN eat a porcupine doesn’t make it smart. And if it’s qoinq to hurt another person in the lonq run, it’s not morally neutral for me to serve them porcupine.
It is a hypothetical question. Do you see any potential problems with everybody havinq sex with everybody else? Are there benefits to monoqamy?
Who WOULD have sufficient knowledqe and wisdom to say what is best for people to do or not do?
I hope your day is as pleasant as you are, thou uphill gardener.
LMAO!
You can “assume” anything you want.
Of course not. But you knew that already.
Are you cottshop? Seem to have the same keyboard issues.
And then it can all go to hell anyway because life is like that. I have personally experienced it yet but it’s possible.
Well said.
“haven’t”
your point being that risk R of activity A, for a specific activity A, is not zero?
Is this not a truism?
Is anything free of risk?
Security is relative.
Ask any security professional if there is any such thing as absolute security. You will get the same answer.
Security measures should be appropriate to risk, and choosing security measures based on risk is somewhat arbitrary and subjective.
Sex (the horror? the horror?) is a biological function, like eating and drinking. This is, to borrow a phrase from a popular movie, part of the “cycle of life.”
Neither eating, nor drinking, nor sex (the horror? the horror?) is risk free.
Ever.
However, eating, drinking, and sex in the aggregate propagate our species, just like with every other species on earth. This implies that eating, drinking and sex in the aggregate is not unhealthy.
If you seek absolute physical security, you could consider (in theory) the notion of locking yourself up in an isolation cell, and throw away the key. If your isolation cell is effective then your risk of dying from random sex with someone else is reduced to zero.
Those who surrender freedom for security will have neither freedom nor security.
But is this not in the domain of personal preference?
Just because I CAN eat a porcupine doesn’t make it smart. And if it’s qoinq to hurt another person in the lonq run, it’s not morally neutral for me to serve them porcupine.
Who do you know who actually eats porcupine or advocates eating porcupine? I know of no one.
Hmm, let's take a less hysterical example, shall we?
Blowfish, shark fin, bird's nest, chocolate covered ants... aha.
I had a girlfriend in college who once served me uncooked, black, salt cured fish eggs. She took them out of the tin can and put them on a cracker for me. It reminded me of salmon egg fish bait more than anything else in my then-limited experience. She said it was a delicacy. Of course, I refused to eat the stuff since it was obviously risky.
(Actually, I tried it and it was great. The food was, of course, caviar. It was my first time with caviar and the girl helped me break my caviar virginity! I confess I actually enjoyed losing my caviar virginity!)
Anyway, however, I would understand and totally support you if we ever met socially and I tried to serve you uncooked, black, salt cured fish eggs (the horror? the horror?) that smelled like salmon egg fish bait and you refused based on perceived risk, or lack of gustatory appeal, or repulsive appearance, or any other personal perogative. I would certainly never want to be associated with you losing your caviar virginity if you did not consent. That would of course be totally wrong! (Even if caviar is great stuff! I would fully support your right to eat the food of your choice (and to refrain from eating foods not of your choice) so long as it does not imfringe upon my right to eat the food of my choice. And you know what? I would not even dare lecture you on the benefits of eating caviar, or porcupine. I would kindly thank you if you and folks like you returned the favor and would refrain from imposing upon me on which foods are better than other foods. Except for pork. It is of cloven hoof! So you won't need to lecture me in the first place.)
Back to porcupines, if someone really wants to eat them, they can, and possibly suffer the consequences. But according to the cycle of life (with a dash of Darwin, presuming for the moment that hyperliteralist creationism is best addressed in a different thread) that is OK with me in the sense that I will not waste my time lecturing others on the evils of eating raw whole porcupine. Nor will I lecture anyone on the evils of peeing off a high voltage tower. From the Darwinian perspective, these types of problems tend to take care of themselves. Would you not agree? Cycle of life and all that...
If at some future date in my old age I have a heart attack in some nasty(*) group sex orgy, should I be so "caught up in the moment" (and I will say for the record that I do not expect to be so "caught up in the moment"), you are hereby authorized by me to deliver an eulogy at my funeral on the clear and present dangers of getting "caught up in the moment" with some nasty group sex, using the circumstances my demise as an example.
Win-win!
:-)
(*) Is sex dirty? Only when it is done right. -- Woody Allen
I tend to agree with what several other responses might have been alluding to indirectly. With a bottle of wine, some KY, a vibrator, and a little bit of biological ingenuity, her vaginal orifice virginity and her religious vows could remain totally intact, and she and all of her former boyfriends could be more than sexually satisfied.
[Unless this not really at all about vaginal orifice virginity, and all about power tripping and attention whoring.]
Next?
An advantage of being an advocate for following the dogma of organized religion is that one is personally inoculated from the burden of personal responsibility of making potentially difficult and complex personal choices.
Should I cross the road, or not, given that I might be run over by a trolley car? Hmm, should we use common sense, reason, logic, and math? --No, wait, I know the answer-- let's find a religious text chapter and verse for it! If we cannot find such a chapter and verse for it, we need simply join an organized religion and find a representative organized religious authority who shall tell us whether to cross the road or not cross the road, using the appropriate religious text in conjunction with the appropriate approved interpretation, since this pressing question is so obviously religious, and we are so obviously all incapable of using our own minds to figure out an answer independently of the organized religion authority figure.
Whew! Problem solved!
Next?
:-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.