RE: Do you agree?

RE: Do you agree? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

[Poll]

Do you agree?

Yes

53% (7)

46% (6)

Total Votes : 13

(last vote on : 9/1/2014 9:20:23 AM)
(Poll will run till: -- )

Message

Zonie63 -> RE: Do you agree? (8/26/2014 9:17:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BenevolentM quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 Has marriage become less important or obsolete in today's modern society, as BenevolentM suggests? For some people, that might be true. A lot of people stay single all their lives, and I know many people who were married in the past but don't ever want to get remarried. I don't think it has much to do with washing machines, though. Washing machines, vibrators, etc. help empower people to be single. There is less incentive to have a relationship or remain in one. Well, there's a lot more people densely packed - more variety, more leisure time (thanks in part to washing machines), more money, more recreation, more diversions, more distractions, etc. In addition, many people have to spend a lot more time in school, getting an education, pursuing a career, while putting off marriage until later in life. Although, there were options for those who didn't really want to get married back in the old days. It wasn't an absolute necessity to get married. Men could join monasteries, and women could join convents. Men could also become mountain men or perhaps join the Foreign Legion.

FieryOpal -> RE: Do you agree? (8/27/2014 6:02:01 AM)
[Brackets mine] quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx [Post#52] So for the most part you do not feel that a woman would have a child to cement the relationship...seal the deal? .... Your position seems to be that men marry for sex and women marry for love. Why is it that men are all slutty assholes and women are not? Do you realize that by alleging entrapment on the part of a woman to "force" a man to marry her that you are actually supporting the position against pre-marital sex, don't you? This hypothetical woman could not "seal the deal" by getting pregnant if the deal were, in fact, already sealed. Unless, of course, you are advocating that a woman employ this type of trickery to "catch herself a man," in which event can it be safely assumed you are pro-premarital sex and pro-marriage via feminine ruse? As for my position on why people get married, I believe I have clearly stated that Westerners usually get married for love. Quite frankly, I wouldn't know why you are pondering that "men are all slutty assholes and women are not." Has this been your anecdotal experience in life? Perhaps it is because men and women are not the same. [:)] quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx [Post#58] quote: ORIGINAL: FieryOpal [Post#55] quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx [Post#51] quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx [Post#44&56] Is it possible that some women don't know how to make love to their husbands? ... I have noticed that women also fuck. That isn't what you asked. You questioned whether or not it was a wife's responsibility to also partake in love-making efforts, not whether women like to fuck for the sake of fucking. It's called a quickie, in case you are unfamiliar with this term. [:D] Nope that was someone else. I am talking about fucking. Why do you feel that all fucking is a quickie...I am acquainted with some who fuck for hours. No, that was you who asked this twice, and the discussion was about the difference between making love and having sex. You have reduced this activity down to the act of fucking, then wonder why men get a bad rap for having so-called (by you) "slutty" attitudes. I never said that "all" fucking is a quickie; you are putting words in my mouth. Nor do I sit there and time the duration of the average quickie. That would be up to each couple to determine for themselves. quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx [Post#56] Which part is his part and which part is her part? This would be up to each couple to decide and to work out for themselves. Once decided upon, however, then it can be ascertained whether each one is fulfilling his or her part of the bargain. If the masturbatory husband you referred to previously needs extra time for himself, then he should have negotiated his private time in advance. quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx [Post#57] quote: ORIGINAL: FieryOpal [Post#50] Last I checked 30% is roughly 1/3. Unofficially, this makes a ratio of 3:1 husband cheaters vice wife cheaters. So why do those who sit down to pee get a pass and the only ones you castigate are the ones who stand up to pee? Nobody gave cheating wives a pass. I am against infidelity regardless of who instigates it; I am against any forms of uninformed consent. The likelihood that the number of cheating husbands is significantly higher than the number of cheating wives is not a definitive measure based on one informal and unreliable on-line source, and so this is sheer speculation. It could be that the numbers are more evenly divided, but who can tell with any certainty?[sm=dunno.gif] quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx [Post#58] You seem to be saying that all men are sluts and all women can tap into that sluttyness at will. I have been saying no such thing. I haven't labeled anyone a slut or their behavior as being slutty. The only poster who has been doing so is you. [sm=frown.gif]

mnottertail -> RE: Do you agree? (8/27/2014 8:53:08 AM)
See? this is why I solicit blowjobs. I cant run the quote machine that deep. I ain't naive, I am just shallow.

GoddessManko -> RE: Do you agree? (8/27/2014 10:05:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail See? this is why I solicit blowjobs. I cant run the quote machine that deep. I ain't naive, I am just shallow. You know it's quite funny, because I do SO love your commentary usually. I meant to inquire on another thread that since you're the proclaimed Minister of Blowjobs, do you give, receive or both? In any case, you must be quite the expert dear. [:D]

PeonForHer -> RE: Do you agree? (8/27/2014 10:24:28 AM)
quote: You seem to be saying that all men are sluts and all women can tap into that sluttyness at will. quote: I have been saying no such thing. I haven't labeled anyone a slut or their behavior as being slutty. The only poster who has been doing so is you. Eh? Are you saying that Thompson isn't a slut? I won't tolerate that kind of foul calumny said of the man. Thompson, straighten her out.

FieryOpal -> RE: Do you agree? (8/27/2014 10:40:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: FieryOpal quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx You seem to be saying that all men are sluts and all women can tap into that sluttyness at will. I have been saying no such thing. I haven't labeled anyone a slut or their behavior as being slutty. The only poster who has been doing so is you. Eh? Are you saying that Thompson isn't a slut? I won't tolerate that kind of foul calumny said of the man. Thompson, straighten her out. Sweetie, he can have honorary slut-of-the-year...um-m, -decade award on this side of the pond AND on yours. [sm=lol.gif] [ETA clarity]

PeonForHer -> RE: Do you agree? (8/27/2014 3:26:32 PM)
Well I'm a slut. Or I try to be. I even have slutty pictures on my profile. Actually, I'm not quite sure what a 'male slut' is, thinking about it. I don't drop my keks for just any woman - though, admittedly, no woman has actually said that to me, yet. Not one who's been standing in front of me, anyway.

FieryOpal -> RE: Do you agree? (8/27/2014 4:56:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer Well I'm a slut. Or I try to be. I even have slutty pictures on my profile. Actually, I'm not quite sure what a 'male slut' is, thinking about it. I don't drop my keks for just any woman - though, admittedly, no woman has actually said that to me, yet. Not one who's been standing in front of me, anyway. There are different kinds of male sl-ts, depending on how they want to be objectified, either by function or by body part. (No need for me to list the names here.) What that means - and peon, you can chime in with your PoV to keep me on track with this, if you wish - is that the sl-t is always ready to serve/service his Dominant in this manner. Now, you might contend that a sub should be all-purpose sl-t, and that is an aspiration to be aimed for, undoubtedly. That's excellent of you to be a dedicated sl-t, because that's what we Dommes want, and not just by being devoted to your Mistress. Dedicated, because you are owned. If you were a free agent acting like a promiscuous trollop who indiscriminately offers his submission to just any Top who happens to come along, then you would be no better than a cheap (as in worthless) vanilla sl-t horndog. If say, a poly Domme wants to lend you out or permits you to have physical contact with one of her femsubs, then that is her prerogative (if this is within your pre-defined limits), because you are her sl-t. So yes, there is a distinction with a D/s sl-t from your average, run-of-the-mill common sl-tty-vanilla male who thinks with his sl-tty-vanilla little head. [sm=m23.gif]

thompsonx -> RE: Do you agree? (8/28/2014 3:52:36 PM)
ORIGINAL: FieryOpal quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer ORIGINAL: FieryOpal quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx You seem to be saying that all men are sluts and all women can tap into that sluttyness at will. Thompson, straighten her out. Sweetie, he can have honorary slut-of-the-year...um-m, -decade award on this side of the pond AND on yours. [sm=lol.gif] Young lady there is nothing honorary about that title.

thompsonx -> RE: Do you agree? (8/28/2014 3:57:14 PM)
ORIGINAL: GoddessManko quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail See? this is why I solicit blowjobs. I cant run the quote machine that deep. I ain't naive, I am just shallow. You know it's quite funny, because I do SO love your commentary usually. I meant to inquire on another thread that since you're the proclaimed Minister of Blowjobs, do you give, receive or both? In any case, you must be quite the expert dear. [:D] According to the c mails he wallpapers with he is only on the rx end of things and there is no price point for quantity. A blow job showin' is a blow job owin'.

thompsonx -> RE: Do you agree? (8/28/2014 4:00:43 PM)
ORIGINAL: PeonForHer Thompson, straighten her out. I should think I would have better luck trying to straighten out a sack of pretzles...that one is terminally twisted....a rather engratiating aspect of her persona...actually the sort I fancy.

PeonForHer -> RE: Do you agree? (8/28/2014 5:47:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: PeonForHer Thompson, straighten her out. I should think I would have better luck trying to straighten out a sack of pretzles...that one is terminally twisted....a rather engratiating aspect of her persona...actually the sort I fancy. Well, for my money, I think you're in there, old boy. She obviously has the hots for you. Sausage time for Thompson! [:)]

FieryOpal -> RE: Do you agree? (8/28/2014 8:45:10 PM)
[Brackets mine] quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx [Post#43] quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 I can assure you that a woman in love with you as a person rather than a paying client has a whole different feel to it and it really is not the same - it's not even the same league!! This would be your opinion to which you are entitled. quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx [Post#51] quote: ORIGINAL: FieryOpal quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: FieryOpal Sexual experience or inexperience aside, as a general rule, women need to feel they are in love or else pair-bonded before having sex with a man, That would be your opinion but not necessarily the truth. Men do not ordinarily have this requirement in order to have sex. This would be your opinion. It is not fact until you bring proof. quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx [Post#58] quote: ORIGINAL: FieryOpal Are you assisting me in making my case that men aren't nearly as selective as women are when it comes to choosing sex partners? [8D] Getting laid is fairly easy for females, if they so desire to, yes.* * Not necessarily so with a man (which is why is so easy for us to find a willing male sexual partner). That you think men are not selective is your opinion and not necessarily the truth. That you think ugly fat chicks can get laid easily is also a giant fantasy. A fool learns from his own mistakes; a wise man[/woman] learns from the mistakes of fools. - Bismarck [Fixed coding]

HeartAndSoul31 -> RE: Do you agree? (8/29/2014 6:43:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BenevolentM quote: ORIGINAL: HeartAndSoul31 Absolutely. Although we learn many lessons good and bad in the multiple relationships through our life we have, the more we have that are unsuccessful the further we get from trust. It is very difficult or impossible in some accounts to forget disappointments or betrayals, even if you forgive them. Unfortunately if we have not encountered often integrity, loyalty, trustworthiness, honesty, reliance the first reaction naturally is distrust out of instinct. Take BenevolentM for example. It's very obvious someone has greatly disappointed him. Women are now reduced to only having sexual value. I bet he didn't always have this view.[:D] My views are utilitarian. A honest woman is willing to run a washing machine as if the washing machine were not a competitor of hers. Hypothetically speaking, suppose I had a lot of money. What sort of services could a woman provide me that I could not hire professionals and other servants to provide? For the wealthy such as the Bush family, it is an aire. The real question whether or not I would give money to feminist causes? I don't mind washing clothes. I'm very happy to not have to beat them against a rock in a stream, on a hot day, walking a mile to get there. Washing machines are miracles not competition. Give to whatever cause floats your boat. The only reason to get married in my eyes is love, it's really the only long term way for happiness. If you get married just to make life easier or for financial reasons, this will not bring fulfillment overtime.

BenevolentM -> RE: Do you agree? (8/30/2014 1:48:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FieryOpal quote: ORIGINAL: BenevolentM How did we get on this topic of prostitution? You opened this can of worms, buddy. [:o] quote: ORIGINAL: BenevolentM Hypothetically speaking, suppose I had a lot of money. What sort of services could a woman provide me that I could not hire professionals and other servants to provide? A post from my Why are so few people wealthy? at http://www.collarchat.com/m_4725967/tm.htm should help clarify my meaning. Professional DOES NOT EQUAL sex worker. Someone has sex on the brain. Post 17 quote: ORIGINAL: BenevolentM If you are making $100,000 USD a year, you are among the poor. There aren't many people making more than this. You need a lot more than a million dollars to be wealthy. You need at least $100,000,000 USD in order to be considered wealthy. Under that you are considered as having more money than most people which isn't saying much. How many servants can you employ on a full time basis? Typically, servants are rented because few people have enough money to employ anyone full time. Professionals are servants. If you feel that professionals are not servants, it means that you are poor. If you don't have enough money to employ people on a full time basis from your personal assets, not the business assets, you are poor. Why is this important? It is a measure of your capacity to be generous. If means you cannot be there for others in a substantive way. Your generosity by necessity is phony because it is like giving a man who is starving a dollar. Now if a thousand people give him a dollar, he would have a thousand dollars which may be enough to buy groceries for a couple of months if he has dependents, but the needy are not 0.1 percent of the population. They are far more numerous. Poverty clearly exists because there isn't enough money to go around. But it doesn't stop at groceries. There is rent and utilities. There is gasoline, automobile repairs, insurance so on and so on. You only fed the man and his small family. Your task isn't yet complete.

BenevolentM -> RE: Do you agree? (8/30/2014 2:15:48 AM)
The Trifecta of Womanhood When you have a lot of money you don't need a woman to do the dishes for you. You don't need her to do the laundry. Furthermore, you won't even need her to look after the children. That is what a governess is for. Wealth simplifies things. Companion? People of the same sex often make better companions, but there is some merit in thinking of a female as a companion if you have similar backgrounds if she too has a wealthy background, for example. Then there is her role as breeding stock. What else is there? Perhaps she is someone you could trust in a way you can't trust a professional? because she has a vested interest in being yours in a way that a stranger won't be. Companion Breeding Stock Confidant Maybe first mate where the man is the Captain Swab the deck, aye aye Captain! I suspect the idea of a woman being capable of fulfilling the role of first mate is an impractical romantic notion I possess. I have never encountered a woman capable of fulfilling such a role. Only men seem to be able to fulfill such roles. I suspect women are useless. Modern women are not good companions, terrible breeding stock, and cannot fulfill the role of a confidant.

BenevolentM -> RE: Do you agree? (8/30/2014 2:46:33 AM)
In my experience women are monsters with the exception of my mom, the Virgin Mary, the Wiccan Goddesses including those dark Goddesses I have encountered, the Daughter of Diana, and my beloved. The sort of love I felt for my beloved was the sort that is its own reward. Whether or not the love of the Wiccan Goddesses and the Daughter of Diana could be thought of as indirectly the love of Lucifier is immaterial in that I am well thought of. They have done me no wrong. Hence, I have no reason to be unkind in return. Just one of those things. They were very sweet to me. My encounters with them never became dark for whatever reason. Christ does not seem to be their cup of tea, however, in that I have not observed these spiritual worlds intermingling. It does help to know that I have been loved.

FieryOpal -> RE: Do you agree? (8/30/2014 3:13:46 AM)
When you string the words "sorts of services...woman provide..hire professionals...to provide" are you that naïve that the function of a sex worker would be EXCLUDED from your rambling musings, considering that you failed to specify these were stricty DOMESTIC services & PARENTING functions to which you were so glibly referring? quote: ORIGINAL: BenevolentM quote: ORIGINAL: FieryOpal quote: ORIGINAL: BenevolentM How did we get on this topic of prostitution? You opened this can of worms, buddy. [:o] quote: ORIGINAL: BenevolentM Hypothetically speaking, suppose I had a lot of money. What sort of services could a woman provide me that I could not hire professionals and other servants to provide? A post from my Why are so few people wealthy? at http://www.collarchat.com/m_4725967/tm.htm should help clarify my meaning. Professional DOES NOT EQUAL sex worker. Someone has sex on the brain. Post 17 quote: ORIGINAL: BenevolentM If you are making $100,000 USD a year, you are among the poor. There aren't many people making more than this. You need a lot more than a million dollars to be wealthy. You need at least $100,000,000 USD in order to be considered wealthy. Under that you are considered as having more money than most people which isn't saying much. How many servants can you employ on a full time basis? Typically, servants are rented because few people have enough money to employ anyone full time. Professionals are servants. If you feel that professionals are not servants, it means that you are poor. If you don't have enough money to employ people on a full time basis from your personal assets, not the business assets, you are poor. Why is this important? It is a measure of your capacity to be generous. If means you cannot be there for others in a substantive way. Your generosity by necessity is phony because it is like giving a man who is starving a dollar. Now if a thousand people give him a dollar, he would have a thousand dollars which may be enough to buy groceries for a couple of months if he has dependents, but the needy are not 0.1 percent of the population. They are far more numerous. Poverty clearly exists because there isn't enough money to go around. But it doesn't stop at groceries. There is rent and utilities. There is gasoline, automobile repairs, insurance so on and so on. You only fed the man and his small family. Your task isn't yet complete. [sm=offtopic.gif] Your bastardized post is from a different thread where the topic of wealth is not relevant to this discussion concerning relationship quality for those who elect to have fewer partners prior to marriage. Please do not bring the many fallacies contained in that LATER thread into this one, s'il vous plait.[sm=offtopic2.gif]

BenevolentM -> RE: Do you agree? (8/30/2014 3:23:23 AM)
I take this as an admission that you have sex on the brain.

FieryOpal -> RE: Do you agree? (8/30/2014 3:39:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BenevolentM <snipped for additional asininity> I suspect women are useless. Modern women are not good companions, terrible breeding stock, and cannot fulfill the role of a confidant. With this sort of warped mentality, it is no wonder you haven't found your soul mate or a kindred female spirit in this life...without becoming a gravedigger. [8D] quote: ORIGINAL: BenevolentM In my experience women are monsters with the exception of.... Puh-leez spare us--another ad hoc spokesman for the "Men's Lib" Movement. [:'(] (Whose mascot is the 3-headed mutant dog Cerberus, guarding the Gates of Hades) Or would that be the Secret Society of Misogynists chapter of it?[sm=pigsfly.gif] Here's your calling card fresh off the press: [image]local://upfiles/1774587/DC31E05ECB374270ADA55709995AFF00.jpg[/image]

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Spam Policy

0.0625