so.

p<genki>s

*cries* Is that all I meant to you?!

16 mate, and yes I couldn't get "a" job anywhere, but now I'm starting something else. I spoke to some of my friends about my problem, and they said they will help me start a hamburger cart around the corner of my house, which will be awesome since its a busy street in a residencial area with little competition.

Well good luck with that!

Make sure that you sell veggie burgers for those Mexican vegetarians.

Meh, I don't value marriage and I only value sex because it's fun.

lol....

Yeah, good luck with that. A residential area is a bad place for that kind of thing. Seriously.

I dunno man, if I wasn't on a diet and didn't feel like making my own food, and I was high while playing an mmorpg, I might look out the window and think... HOTDOGS!

Of course ATM I'm on a diet, love cooking, don't smoke and don't play mmorpgs

Marriage to me is two people declaring their undying love to each other and pledging to try and spend the rest of their lives together.
Sex to me is a step towards that. Marriage is much bigger then sex.
Don't get me wrong, I don't beleive sex is some small thing. I could never have a one night stand with someone. I wouldn't have sex with someone only because I found them physically attractive.
But to me, sex is a step towards love. Marriage comes after love.


(I only just woke up so if that sounds mumbled or nonsensical then that's why)

_

i prefer the "try before you buy" thing.

I hate the 'try before you buy' line.
It's like saying the relationship will onyl be good if the sex is good.
It's totally the other way around. If you really love each other, if you have a great relationship, then you will have great sex. If you don't love each other, if you secretly resent one another for whatever reason, or if you are simply with each other because you're too afraid to be alone or whatever, then the sex will be bad.

I sat down and asked myself, why have I had sex before marriage, in order to try and answer your question. It took me a few minutes and I couldnt really think of an answer besides the obvious its fun and it feels good being that intimate with another human being. As well as I might live long enough to get married, anything can happen. I also don't think too much of marriage. Nowadays it seems more like a bureaucratic mess of paperwork and a hassle than a holy union with someone.

I dont know how else to put it. One night stands are fine with me, but I'm also very committed if I choose to have a girlfriend.

meh, its only a shag, its masturbation with a woman as the aide.

I think if you got her in the bed the day of the wedding, and she had a sticking sack of elephant skin for a cooch you'd have second thoughts.

Marriage isn't about sex. It's about love. Love isn't about sex. Sex is about love.

Lust doesn't belong anywhere in any of it.

Viper Wins

Rob wins.

.

what, idealistic? That's tragic, really

Actually I honestly don't know what I was thinking when I posted that, so disregard.

The trouble with that is that you could find yourself with someone who has a vastly different sexual appitite that you do, and that can lead to a lot of problems. To say that a great relationship will always equate to great sex is not an accurate statement in the least. Neither is saying that having sex with someone you don't love will be bad.

You'd like to think so, wouldn't you?

But that doesn't add up at all.

Instinct > Insititution.

We're just animals, nothing more. Nothing less.

Here's the reply of all replies boys... Get it while it's hot.


Sex before marriage. Bad in the eyes of religion, yet not so bad to society. I believe the main reason that the bible tries to prevent such actions, is to prevent ******* children. I say this in the literal term, and for those of you who do not know what that is, meaning, a child without a father. One would assume that in times without any effective means of birth control, sex without bearing a child would be a 50:50 chance at best. So yeah, why wouldn't this be forbidden. Though, times have changed, technology has vastly increased, and chances of pregnancy, if not desired, are down to a mere .00001% when contraceptives are used correctly.

So while that has been a plus on the "Try it before you buy it.." scale. There is a downside.

You travel along, 'trying' women as you may until you find the one you want to marry. The question is... how many men 'tried' her before you got to her? Perhaps that doesn't bother many of you. I however do not have any interest in women who will engage in sexual activity within a relationship (or lack thereof) within 6 months. Enough time to at least find out if there is an emotional, and/or spiritual connection to be made.

Something you should think about next time you are 'trying' someones future wife, stop and wonder ... "who is trying my wife out right now?"

edit: My sensored word was b a s ta r d... since i used it in the LITERAL term, i do not believe it should be sensored.

I'm not even sure I agree with you, but that's one of the best posts I've seen on this website. Congratulations.

:p

I'm a "no sex before marriage" guy, and I honestly don't care nor feel like discussing why.

Agreed.

Though I do not really get bothered by how many guys have "tried" her as you put it. Obviously if she tells me she's ****ed 30 in a year, then chances are I wont date her for the sheer fact that she's probably going to end up cheating on me. But when I start dating a girl, I make her take a std's test. If she's clean then its all good. Me and some friend who is a girl were having fun listing how many we'd been with a few weeks back and it turns out I'm a man whore with 36 girls in 6 years. >.< If girls stopped at how many girls I tried, I'd be lonely as heck right now. But I'm clean so they are happy.

Plus the more practice you get the better you get. If any of you have sex with a girl who was a virgin before, you'll know its about as boring as watching the Super Mario Bros movie by Uwe Bowlorwtvr.

How did this slip by for 3 pages? No. Not at all. If females produced anitbodies to fight semen, species would terminate themselves. Sperm has a hard enough time surviving long enough to make it through the uterus and into the fallopian tubes, the last thing any organism would need is a natural way to target and kill these cells.

Oh sweet jesus...

50:50? Women have a 28 day cycle. Of those 28 days, there are around 12 hours that a woman can have a child. Let's humor you a bit, and throw in the maximum length sperm can survive in the female body: 5 days. So of the 672 hours of the cycle, there is only a 120 hour window for a man to inject his sperm and hope that fertilization will happen. That's less than an 18% chance of the woman getting pregnant at any given time. That completely exludes the whole "how often the man has ejaculated before intercourse," "time of year," "tempurature," "mood," "quality of sex" factors (to name a few). Realistically, you'd have to have the grace of whatever god is listening to you to create a child after one attempt.

No, I remember seeing something saying that women do in fact produce something kind of like this. Of course it isn't very effective because the species would die out otherwise, but something like this goes on, if only I could find the link...

Are you sure you're not thinking of the antibodies to pathogens transfered from the man to the woman via semen? I know there is a very small percentage of women who have a natural antibody against sperm, but that is not the norm at all.

yeah, most whores love cum

I could be. I don't really remember.

I don't think it makes a big difference to his argument, because even if it's only an 18% of getting a woman pregnant it's still a big risk.

18% under the best of circumstances, which assumes you're a true romeo and not only know how to push all her buttons, but that your sperm will survive in her for 5 days (for most of us guys, we'd be lucky to push 2 days).

[Edit: I'd also like to ask, who's argument? There are a few opinions going on here...]

Not antibodies, but the body naturally destroys sperm. Bartholin's fluid is created in the vagina in order to help the sperm survive the journey, but between the heat and the other factors, semen doesn't always make it.

Ummm...Bartholin's fluid is primarily a lube. Alkaline fluids from the prostate help the sperm survive in the vagina's acidic environment. Now then, he said the woman's body fights the semen. That sounds like an active defense to me, one that really does not exist in the normal biology of humans. I'm truly and honestly not looking for an A & P lesson here, I've done that for more than 2 years. I don't need people popping in saying "well, not this per se, but rather like this..." I'm more than aware of how it all works. I was pointing out that no, the female body does not try to fight sperm. That would be a burden on the reproductive capabilities of any species.

It doesn't try, but it's naturally not a good environment for the sperm. That's what he meant, I'm sure.

No, it's not a good environment. But the semen takes care of that. I don't think that's what he ment at all. Read his post. He suggests it stresses the female immune system. 1: That's not true, as we've both just agreed upon, it's mostly passive. 2: Exposing the body to a variety of pathogen vectors strengthens it, not weakens it (You know those boogers your kid brother eats? It's probably the healthiest thing he can do, it exposes his immune system to a wide variety of pathogens he encountered throughout the day).

does that mean "a lot of cock" in laymans terms?