Moniker wrote:I don't have a point. I have a QUESTION! There is a different dynamic here.. that's all I'm saying. Do you understand? Posted for years on other boards and there's just something different about how people respond to me here. Understand?
Yeah, here the jackass quotient is definitely too high. Like most other boards where apologists and critics meet to 'chat.'
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
Coggins7 wrote:One who is indiscriminate and casual in their choice of sexual partners. Or, in other words, sexual indiscriminateness. As an ex stripper, you surely must understand that concept, as the places you danced at were top loaded with individuals with precisely that temperament.
Well most of the men that frequented the clubs were married. So, I'm guessing they weren't really promiscuous. I know I've been with the "average" number of men in my lifetime and most of my relationships were long term, for the most part. 3+ years to the longest being 9 years. Anyway, enough about me. What's up with the guys?
Oh, and there's been plenty of women that talk about masturbation on this forum. PLENTY. And there are sexual innuendos, double entendres, etc... that I find sorta silly for the most part. And yanno what Coggies, for MONTHS I never posted ANYTHING of a sexual nature. Ever, ever, ever... and then only when it was relevant.
I don't remember you here until this week. But then, I've restricted my posting to a few times in a one or two week period.
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.
I view it like trying to keep a huge, inflated ball completely immersed in a swimming pool. You can throw yourself on it, push it down as hard as you can, or even pretend it's not there, but it keeps popping back up to the surface regardless. Of course the huge ball (no pun intended, but it's a funny pun now that I notice it) is the human sex drive. When devout Mormons try to push it under, it keeps popping back up. I have frequently noticed that whenever this topic comes up on boards, which it does regularly, a certain number of LDS men are obviously being titillated by it, even while dripping with disdain and judgment.
OTOH, exLDS often didn't go through the natural stage of sexual exploration as a young adult and seem determined to make up for it.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
Tori wrote:And you perceive yourself to be a moral, faithful member?
I find your comments disgusting and pathetic, Charity.
\
Hey, it was Ric who said there should be premarital sex. I think men generally are pretty hypocritical about such things, and just wanted to know, since he thought it was a great idea, if he thought it was a great idea for his wife, too. That is a reasonable question to ask. And you notice, he hasn't answered, though he has responded to that post. I have a idea it is because he is stuck in a corner.
I wasn't asking for a number. He could just say, if I want to have other sexual partners before marriage, she can have the same license.
Jersey Girl wrote:Suppose a school teacher were to privately ask your teenager if they masturbate?
In that context, what would you call it?
One word that is very popular in LDS circles comes to mind: INAPPROPRIATE (to say the very least).
Or in legalize:
Sexual abuse of a minor by a person in a position of trust.
Edited to clarify the last line.
LDS parents know what a bishops interview entails ( and I will here note that not all bishops ask detailed questions. At times that stick to "Do you have any problems with the law of chastity?" Others may be more detailed. Also, a wise bishop will keep it age appropriate) so if they readily allow their child to have the annual bishops interview then how is that abuse? A parent is free to restrict the bishop as to what is discussed.
beastie wrote:I view it like trying to keep a huge, inflated ball completely immersed in a swimming pool. You can throw yourself on it, push it down as hard as you can, or even pretend it's not there, but it keeps popping back up to the surface regardless. Of course the huge ball (no pun intended, but it's a funny pun now that I notice it) is the human sex drive. When devout Mormons try to push it under, it keeps popping back up. I have frequently noticed that whenever this topic comes up on boards, which it does regularly, a certain number of LDS men are obviously being titillated by it, even while dripping with disdain and judgment.
OTOH, exLDS often didn't go through the natural stage of sexual exploration as a young adult and seem determined to make up for it.
Yah, well, that's pretty much it -- I suppose. Your pun was/is funny, by the way. :)
And you perceive yourself to be a moral, faithful member?
I find your comments disgusting and pathetic, Charity.
Are you implying that promiscuity isn't scuzzy?
Define promiscuity, please.
That depends on who you ask. A dr. with the CDC, when asked about gay men spreading HIV defined it as 500 partners or more. I think that is a little over the top.
For people who practice pre-marital chastity and mongamy, 2 is getting there. 3 is definitely promiscuous.
charity wrote:For people who practice pre-marital chastity and mongamy, 2 is getting there. 3 is definitely promiscuous.
At one time?
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”