Preferably a BJ on the first date, but no sex on the third and chick gonna have to describe the acts that will happen on a 4th to get me out of the house. Granted, this is as a 38 year old adult.
The worst is when a 30something chick dates like she's 15. HUGE red flag.
V, I think he might mean head over heels in love after one date, and wanting to take it slow because of how special she imagines the relationship is. I imagine Taylor Swift acting this way.
Nope. Thats the problem with society now. People treat sex like its a handshake. Its not. Think about it, there was a lot of mutual respect between the sexes in the 1800s but people werent fucking anything with a pulse. Heres the truth casual sex is never casual and a little piece of the part that makes you 'human' dies every time you spread your legs to every Rick, Joe and Sally. Just my 2 cents .. I know most wont agree but thats ok.
Uh, no...there was not a lot of mutual respect between the sexes. LOL
Hey, if you don't care to fool around with someone, that's on you and I certainly think there is nothing wrong with that. Nor is there anything wrong with going fast...
After a yearlong experience with a psycho stalker I swore off sex on the first date. It gave me a whole new insight into dating. Two years of dating like that I went on a date with one lovely girl. Next day i told my best friend I had met the woman I was going to marry. Best decision I ever made. We are coming up on twenty years of marriage!
Ever watched leave it to beaver? I love lucy? All those shows were loosely based on archetypal life in the 40s. The father took care of the family. The mother cared for the children. Their was g, in general terms, mutual love and respect between those people. Very low divorce rates, 2parent families. A huge difference from todays society. Maybe you were raised in a jungle and have never opened a history book. Its not rocket science.
FYI - you might want to re-assess your timeline. Many women spent the majority of the 40's as defacto single mothers because of WWII. The mothers were the ones taking care of the family, while a lot of men were off fighting.
Leave it to Beaver and I Love Lucy, portrayed idealized families of the 50's. Which wasn't necessarily as happy as you want to think (Korean war, communism, nuclear threat, beginnings of civil rights movement, feminist movement, etc).
Again you're taking the comment out of context. My analogy stands. A contextual dissenting comment would be nice from one of you challenging my statement but I guess thats too much to ask for.
Eros, not taking your comment our of context. Just noting the timeline in your opinion is off, and because it is, throwing off the context of your own comment.
Yes, you are taking it out of context. Im not going to re-explain what ive stated in comments to Lucas and others. Its like beating a dead horse. If you missed those comments, they are there for review.
@Eros - mutual respect in the 1800's like women couldn't own property? Or mutual respect like women couldn't vote? Or maybe you meant mutual respect like women weren't allowed to work outside the home and were often forced into staying in abusive relationships because they couldn't afford to leave and would be ostracized even if they could? Or mutual respect like "it isn't rape if you're married"?
The only thing self explanatory is that you are a misogynistic ass hat and completely oblivious to ACTUAL history. Women are still paid less than men for the same work. We still blame rape victims. And this is after nearly 50 years of the women's rights and feminist movements.
Wow, no offense to any of you commenters but are you able to comprehend what you read? I said that the shows were loosely based on american society during that time period. I used the analogy of a tv show because I wasnt sure if warecat even read history books. Before you try debating someone, read and comprehend what is written first.
Lucas, youre taking my statement out of context and turning it into a womens lib debate. The previous comment above was for the other posters not you. I was focusing on the familial relationships between women and women from that time not all of the social evils. Also I think you and others miss my point. Im not saying put women in buggies, barefoot and pregnant. Im saying that those women and men were obviously doing something right because they arent suffering from the same social ills that american society faces. Thats all im saying.
Again youre making a non contextual reference based on my statement. I think at this point you refuse to acknowledge my analogous remarks were valid out of pure obstinance.And I disagree wholeheartedly with your last statement . Art dictates life and vice versa. Is it 100 percent a reflection of those times? Absolutely not. That is why I used the descriptor loosely based in my comment but the analogy is still applicable. I think , Lucas, we will have to agree to disagree. I meant no offense to you or anyone in my comments. Its just my opinion not biblical doctrine. :)
Women were to be seen and not heard. Filing for divorce would mean the woman would have to either become a waitress or secretary, barely making ends meet. Not to mention the stigma attached to it. The divorce rate had nothing to do with love.
Im sure situations like that occurred but it wasnt the general norm . I think you and others are digging too deeply and missing the overall intent of my statement which is the overall decline of american society and the family in general. You and others can focus on the negatives but anyhuman condition or circumstance, positive or otherwise, will have a negative. Thats just life. When I talk to women from the 40s, they were happy. They loved their husbands and vice versa. There was no dissension regarding abuse, mistreatment. Perhaps that has been Iin your family's experience but not mine.
The last couple of years I was back in the dating pool after 12+ years of marriage. I had some dates that didn't even end in a handshake and some that ended up in bed. It depended on the chemistry that I felt. It has also depended on how horny I was that night. I'll be honest that there were a couple times that I had no intention of ever seeing the person again because we weren't interested in the same type of a relationship but I was horny and they weren't bad looking. Don't judge!
Funny thing was that the first date with my now fiance ended with a handshake and a "give me a call sometime, it would be nice to know someone in the area" - and this was from him. The entire date was great and then that was how it ended. I kept wondering what I did to blow it. I sent him a quick text a couple days later to see how his training was going (he had mentioned he was going to be out of town training for a new position). He immediately responded and we called back and forth for a couple days and then went out again that next weekend when he was back in town. He asked for permission about an hour into our date to give me a kiss. We've been together ever since. Apparently he was so nervous on our first date and he thought I was way out of his league so he didn't know what to do. I tease him all the time and will give him a handshake every so often and tell him it's nice to know him. :)
Youre rather dense arent you? Its called an analogy. I chose a different period to make my analogy but Iits no less true. It appears you need to read more and comment less because its showing your apparent lack of common sense
The problem is you were talking out of your ass and got called out on it. Desi Arnaz was abusive, something you should have considered before using his show as an example. In a way it IS a perfect analogy - on screen they were a darling couple but when you take away the lights and cameras and he was an abusive bastard. Which illustrates the disconnect between television and reality in that era.
You sure get yourself rile up over the opinions of stranger s on the internet. Maybe its time for you to take keyboard break. Lol.. Btw, Im still waiting for one contextual based comment which disproves my initial assertion. When you have history and the current social situations proving your statements, you dont need to talk out your ass. Facts, in other words.
Um, Eros, I posted two actual quotes, one by a doctor and one by a writer of a handbook for women, from your beloved 1800s period of mutual respect between the sexes. Lucas posted a link to an actual 1940s manual on how to treat female employees (hint: like they don't know any better). Those are factual things.
You're beating the dead horse of how very right you are because your opinion (which, BTW, isn't a fact) is so precious to you that you can't listen to anything else. Have fun with that but remember the old chestnut that those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. See "The Handmaid's Tale."
Soe, you will really need to work on those reading comprehension skills. Its exhausting but I will try again. Perhaps english is your second language? Yours and lucas' assertions arent valide because you are replying to statements you have taken out of context. Ergo that makes your replies devoid of any valid intellectual merit.
You know, and another fucking thing while I am at it. Ask Sally goddamn Hemmings about people not fucking around in the 1800s. Oh, wait. I am sure you think she was just a slut and not someone put in the position of being propositioned by someone who OWNED in the same way I own my sofa. Should we trot out the Scarlett letter again too? Jesus.
I don't know what rock you crawled from under @Eros but please go back.
Oh, the heady days of mutual sexual respect in the 1800s!
Dr. William Acton, 1833: "The majority of women (happily for society) are not very much troubled with sexual feelings of any kind. Love of home, of children, and of domestic duties are the only passions they feel."
Eliza Duffy, 1873: "The passions of men are much stronger and more easily inflamed... the purity of women is the everlasting barrier against which the tides of man's sensual nature surge... Even as woman is supremely virtuous," she became "when once fallen, the vilest of her sex."
No, I'm pretty sure you started it. WareCat was simply pointing out for you what a incorrect statement you made. Or analogy. Whatever it was, it made me laugh in the "holy shit I cannot believe how deluded people on the internet are" way.
No actually my statements were correct assertions. He proved nothing and unfortunately neither are you. When a commenter's winning reply is youre wrong because I said so, you know you're dealing with a rocket science. Come back when you have something relevant and accurate to say. And he did start it. Try perusing the comments before attacking the innocent next time.
Not very bright are you? A 2 year would be able to glean that I know my way around a dictionary. Why would I care what warecat is? Lol.. I thought you two were boyfriends. Thanks for clarifying though even though I dont give a rats ass.
holy shit Eros! u mean i've had a penis for 30yrs & never knew it? u in fact do know everything! i take all my comments back. so y dn't u be a champ & suck my cock.
You obviously havent havent read the comments or you would be making a stupid statement like that. I will spell it out for you my mentally challenged friend. There was an analogy made to historical social situations and current social situations. The opinion part came in when I stated my assertions about the topic of discussion. Everyone commenting takes issue with the comment about social situation reference which has not been disproved. Have you kept up with me? Hopefully you understand now because im done repeating.
Let me spell it out for you: you voiced an opinion that there was mutual respect amongst the sexes in the 1800s. When challenged, you attempted to make an analogy supporting your opinion using 1950s television shows. When challenged on that, you then said you were stating facts and no one was able to disprove your facts. Then it became an assertion, then a social situation reference. Now you're resorting to calling people mentally challenged because you can't keep up with your own logic.
But thank you for being done repeating yourself. I mean, you weren't, but it was amusing. Peace!
Meritless, taken out of context, devoid of intellectual validity and of course incorrect @soe. Thats the only reply deserved for that comment. Carry on, you're quite entertaining. Lol
No offense Eros but I think you should do some more research on family ecology and development. You may feel like promiscuity is the decline of american society but that is simply your opinion, not a fact. In my opinion, the decline of american society is submissiveness in both sexes and the lack of desire for any independence or sense of self worth. Male dominance in relationships is still hugely present all over the country, I can't speak for anywhere else but an unsettling number of the married or committed couples I know (via work, school, socially, etc) still follow the relationship model of yesteryear where the woman's only value is her vagina and how well she can work an oven. The husband makes any and all decisions and the wife's duty is to support and encourage him in whatever he does while also procreating and maintaining the home. This is a hugely evolved viewpoint from past decades where women weren't even allowed to have their own opinion, their husband's opinion was their opinion. So if you think a woman having the power to make her own sexual, emotional, and intimate decisions is the decline of American society, then bring on the fiery pits of hell baby.
I think sexuality is unique to each individual and subject to the environment. You may meet some fellow in the line at Target and want to go bone him in the dressing room. Or you may develop a friendship which leads to a relationship and you want to wait a few weeks to copulate, you never know and IMHO never limit yourself to rules (within reason) or standards that you think intimacy should meet. Sometimes sex isn't about intimacy, but rather that primal, uncontrollable urge to have an all day fuck fest. If someone wants to do that, if someone is comfortable with doing that, and if someone is consenting to do that, you go and you go hard.
Ok, I came back and read the whole thing. Sorry for my flippant reply Jsierra. I was a little annoyed with the last comment I read and then I got to yours. I understand what youre saying and I really respect your opinion, I just dont agree. See how that works!! Too bad the other commenters have never heard or been taught how to disagree with someone without being disagreeable.
Eros I used to get really worked up about comments for some reason, then I sat back and realized "why the fuck am I getting this worked up?". Like someone said above, opinions are like assholes. Grody, but necessary and we all have one.
@ Jsierra your last sentence made me lmao!!! You are completely correct btw. You know, I wasn't annoyed that peoples opinions differed from mines. I expected it even. I was annoyed by the incorrect assumptions made based on my comment, the twisting of my words, and the complete dismissal of the context of what I was saying. Oh and being lied on when the words are there plain as day. I never stay annoyed long though:) I shrug it off, smile it off and keep it moving. Its only the internet and if I cant find the humor in these exchanges I need to discontinue using the internet.
Using Leave it to Beaver as an example of how a 50's house was is like saying the Cosby show is how black people in the 80's lived. Sure some did, but it wasn't the norm.
1800's, I bet the hookers were REALLY stinky back then.
"Heres the truth casual sex is never casual and a little piece of the part that makes you 'human' dies every time you spread your legs to every Rick, Joe and Sally. Just my 2 cents "
@eros: You need to direct your comments toward someone in particular, or they become even more worthless. Just because you are on a phone, many are not.
Also, since you talk about humanity dying from spreading your legs, does that mean you would be cool with sucking a guy off on the first date? You hold a couple dates on the swallowing?
Not at all. Its called standing up for yourself girls and more importantly standing up for your convictions. Everyone replied to me and was nasty to me because I made a statement they disagree with. It reflects badly on your characters that you dont know how to have a healthy disagreement with a stranger on the internet. So, no trolling needed.
Eros, not everyone was nasty to you. Also, you are the one who has inferred people are illiterate, stupid, dense, mentally challenged when questioning your assumptions; and dismissed other's opinions because their experiences were different to yours.
Lol, now you just told a lie. I feel no need to carry on the discussion so this conversation is ended. I dont make it a habit of conversing with someone who just lied on me. Feel free to keep carrying on the conversation with yourself though. Lol
No Eros. You replied to WareCat's comment about the sexes said at 1103 by offering up your I Love Lucy et al "analogy" and an inferrence about WareCat being raised in a jungle. Timestamp is 1113.
Keep in mind WareCat never attacked you. She just questioned a portion of your comment.
But hey, you keep on talking out of your ass, I'll keep on lying - it does a body good.
Its funny how you people pick the comments I made after being verbally accosted and try to make me the villain. Nice try but no dice. Also when someone attacksme, the gloves come off. One ad hominem attack deserves one in kind. Jsierra and I didnt agree but he spoke to me civilly too.
Im sorry!!! My faux pas. This is going to sound a little sexist but im a girl so I can get away with this but your response was so logically structured, rational explanations without any cattiness or verbal attacks that I immediately thought you were a guy. I know for a fact that all women dont respond to conflict that way because I dont but im a guys girl. And I know other women who function the same way. Anywho, sorry about that.
I like this thread, so much juice and heated opinion. Is there a change jar? Cuz I'm throwin in my two cents! ahem: I see valid points in both sides of the Lukas/Eros argument. The old fashioned dating/love/marriage/babies/being married for life etc thing is a nice archetype and idea, a great fantasy and something that a lot of people, including myself like and want to mold my own life after. But, we've come a loooong way. The sexual revolution, although flawed in many many ways, did have one very important and valuable redeeming quality. It allowed and encouraged women to be in touch, so to speak, with their own sexuality. Women were encouraged to embrace and explore their own libidos, their likes and dislikes, even (gasp) masturbation, toys, etc. Has that led to more disease? More promiscuity? More women being treated and viewed as sex objects?( Courtney Stodden)Yes. Are we a perfect society? No. We're still working out the kinks (Ha!) But here we all sit, on a website, that has taught us all, what pegging is. The fact that that practice is now somewhat in the mainstream and is known about, would have been unheard of if we all still lived in leave it to beavertown. At least we, as women, can now stand up for ourselves, give our opinions freely, (even if we're seen as a bitch), we can bring lawsuits, for sexual harassment and not be laughed out of our jobs, we can CHOOSE whether or not we can have sex on the first date, or third or fourth. And in the past, without the birth control pill, that would have been very irresponsible and dangerous. Women have been empowered in many areas, we're not done yet, but I am happy that as a woman I can ask my man for sex, I can initiate on a date, I can also decline in any instance. And it's ok, I'm still an equal, I'm not an object, I say what goes. And THAT is what's important. As far as when to do "It", it depends on the guy, the chemistry, how well the dates are going, what you both want, if it's a long term relationship potential, or just a hormones/get your groove on hookup. Many variables.
I agree withall of this and that was the only point I was trying to make. I think you and 1 other person understood what I meant. Two is better than none though. Thanks!
@Eros - we were nasty to you because you are saying life would be so much better if we just undid decades of progress in the slow march toward true equality for women. And because once you had been confronted with ACTUAL facts and historical context which challenged your statements (specifically the 'mutual respect' shared by the sexes) you just started calling us morons all the while hoping if you were enough of an ass we would back down. The fact remains though, you are wrong in your assessment of life in historical times and your ideals about sex and relationships are based on outdated, patriarchal standards of what is "proper". Standards that were specifically developed in order to keep women in "their place" lest they dare enjoy the same freedoms as men.
My grandmother was married to an abusive alcoholic and had the courage to leave in the 1930's even though it meant giving up a life of relative comfort in order to be free from being raped by a drunk who beat my father. She worked for many years as a cashier because that is what passed for an "acceptable" job for an unmarried woman at the time and chose to never remarry, having soured on the idea after her first crack at it. Then five decades later my mother made a similar choice, only she worked her way up into management at a Fortune 100 company on a high school diploma while raising three children with very, very little assistance from my father (and also choosing to remain unmarried). And I will be damned if they did all that so you can come along and say life would be so much better if all of the progress made in that time was erased. Because you know what? There are loving, respectful relationships in this day and age. I am in one, albeit one where my SO is my partner and a true equal instead of my own personal housekeeper/chef/prostitute.
Oh and we had AMAZING sex on the second date and NOT ONE PART OF ME DIED!
You never addressed the issue of respect between the sexes in the 1800s, which was my initial comment. And when you did you skipped ahead to the 1940's thinking a little I Love Lucy would bail you out, only to realize too late that you had fucked up, since Desi Arnaz was an abusive husband IRL, and as Zeeky pointed out, treated Lucy as an inferior on the show.
And along the way instead of clarifying your position or trying in any way to provide something other than "because I said so" as justification you started insulting people like an insolent child. Is that how June Cleaver taught you to behave?
Besides Desi Arnaz, you know who else was abusive? Ricky Ricardo!
Lucy had to get permission to buy things like dresses and had to sneak them. When Ricky would find out, he'd spank her like she was five! (And not in the 'oh yes!" way.)
And it wasn't like she was spending the rent money or not paying the electric bill... he was a famous bandleader, hob-nobbing with John Wayne and other A-listers. Their apartment was modest, no servants.
I can't stand that "society is in decline" trope. It's just not true.
"The 50's were better." The Draft, Korea, Communism in Eastern Europe, Greece, Asia. Segregation, Lynch Mobs, Kids smoking tobacco was OK, Putting "imperfect" kids into homes out of embarrassment.
"The 40's were better." WW2, 6 million Jews/gays/etc. murdered, Operation "Put the Black Guys on the Front Line of Battle so they Get Shot First." Polio, Lysol sold as douche, barbaric treatment of mentally ill.
"The 1800's were better." Slavery, no cancer treatment, no penicillin, women couldn't vote and couldn't run for office.
So nowadays, people get divorced, men marry men, women marry women, virginity isn't lost on honeymoons, and people curse. Compared to the past - today is much better!
'So if you think a woman having the power to make her own sexual, emotional, and intimate decisions is the decline of American society, then bring on the fiery pits of hell baby."
Technically, I had sex with my now-hubby before our first date. It's complicated. L
However, if I were to find myself single again I seriously doubt I'd be jumping into bed by the third date just because somebody else decided I should. If you don't want to take the time to get to know each other, see ya.
Has anyone on here had a random one night stand turn into a serious relationship or marriage? Just curious, you don't usually hear stories like that. I mean random as in stranger, never met before. Not someone you have known who you randomly got freaky with one night.
@Eros: Where is a PG discussion? The owner of this site mentions no where that the discussions should be kept PG. And the site owner has demonstrated the ability to delete any post they don't want here. Besides with all the Rape/Molestation/Incest posts and the exploitation of the victims for clicks, why would you think this site is PG?
Much like you over value your snatch (it is only 1 of 150+million in the US and it gets demerits because its life support system is kooked out) you hold the discussion on this site in way too high a regard. It is a better display of your aversion to reality than your Beaver Cleaver comments.
We know you dont have one. You said youre a chick with a cock which would make you a hermaphrodite. So my previous assumption was right. You and deputy dimwit are male homosexual lovers
And you're a stupid cuntrag whose comments are devoid of any intellectual content. See how that works now, you dumb bitch. You insult me and I come back atcha.
Thats all the world needs a hysterical hermaprodite. LMAO...
okay well while this has been fun trading insults with you and the vapid cuntrag, I actually have a life. Go figure. So I won't be responding to anymore bullshit ad hom attacks but if I see a well thought out insightful comment from someone else, I will then reply. Toodles!! :-)
JSierra: one of my good friends did that. Picked up a random dude, he moved her in and they've been married ever since. Romance! Someone else I know (thatistotallynotme) may have married a booty call.
Holy crap. That s ganging up against somebody who s not part of the club. I agree with Eros opinion, but not with the historical analogy, which she recognized quickly was not the best choice. But some kept harping on this until it went down to insults and flaming. Downright nasty.
Im glad you understood what I meant. You know I could haveadded some long disclaimer about women suffering many Iinjustices during this period but I thought it was needless because the reference was so implicit. I didnt realize I was dealing with a majority of people who wouldn't get it.
Babo: You actually agree with this: "Heres the truth casual sex is never casual and a little piece of the part that makes you 'human' dies every time you spread your legs to every Rick, Joe and Sally. Just my 2 cents " ?
Count, get real you dont think a a prostitute who has sex with hundreds of men doesn't lose a part of themself after being with scores of people. I feel sorry for you. It doesnt sound like you place any value on humanity. Very very sad.
@Eros, I liked your analagy. I don't feel that I can get to know a person until I see and talk to them over a period of several dates. Too many crazies and diseases out there! If they like and respect me, then we go forward; if not, goodbye and I find someone else.
I know right.;) You would think that the diseases alone are enough to scare most into abstinence or at least make them think twice about treating their private parts like an in n out restaurant. No pun intende of course.
Eros: We aren't talking prostitutes and sex with 100's of people. We are talking dating and casual sex. According to your statement, you are of the opinion that a piece of a woman's humanity dies everytime they have casual sex and that makes you a lunatic.
P.S. Whores, like gingers, have no souls, so they don't enter into the conversation anyway.
The analogy is applicable to everyday people. If you can't comprehend that, then there really isnt much reason to discuss this further, is there? We wil have to agree to disagree.
Since I am still getting emails SEVERAL days after this thread, I will throw my two cents in. At Eros, right?
You don't know that a prostitute "dies a little each time" or that promiscuous people are all disease-ridden. Some people do not think of sex as the coming together of two spiritual beings but rather an enjoyable athletic exercise shared with someone/someones they like bouncing around on. Some people enjoy being paid / paying for sex. For some it's an economic decision. How do you get to call someone's choices invalid because they don't mirror yours?
I missed the part where I called someones choice invalid because it doesn't mirror mines. I just vocalized my opinion regarding the matter. It honestly doesn't matter one way or another if a person disagrees with me. Thats the perk of living in a non-totalitarian state. All of us can having differing opinions and express them as voraciously as we like.
How are you NOT judging other people's choices?? By assuming that part of a prostitute dies while having sex for money? How is that NOT placing a value judgement? And disease and humiliation should be enough of a deterrent? This is why so many people got so angry during this thread; your condescension. You didn't vocalise an opinion about YOUR body, you vocalised an opinion about what everyone else should be doing with THEIR bodies. You do you. Everyone else will do their own.
And I agree, a refreshing non totalitarian state wherein we can call each other vapid cuntrags, awesome.
Lmao... im sorry this was hilarious to read. Not one word you stated was accurate and thats why im putting an end to this conversation. Calling that vitriolic nonsensical tirade you just spewed a rant would be me being kind. I never once stated nor insinuated anything you wrote in that last comment so you literally pulled that tripe out your ass. So far as why everyone got offended. ... you're wrong on that as well. People who respond that volatilely to my opinion are usually stuck in that lifestyle. I hit a nerve in other words or so is my presumption based on the reactions. Anywho, its been real. Lol...You can carry onand talk to yourself. I feel no reason to subject myself to brain numbing garble.peace :)
@TTM: Ya know, in the 4-5 times I've dropped that whores have no soul on this site, you are the only one to say anything about it, everyone else just accepted it.
Oh wait, you were probably complaining about the gingers part. See, still no one cares about whores.
Will no one speak for the poor ginger whores?? Seriously, though, that is messed up. Whatever you think of non-civilians, everyone's got a soul. Even you, sweet cheeks.
when ever you want to. as long as you're protected, safe and consenting.
ReplyDelete@Hollywood - you win.
DeleteDepends on who you're with.
ReplyDeleteThis
ReplyDelete@VIP - ha!
Deleteonly if he buys me a steak dinner and lots of vodka.
ReplyDeleteIt happens. Don't judge.
ReplyDeletePreferably a BJ on the first date, but no sex on the third and chick gonna have to describe the acts that will happen on a 4th to get me out of the house. Granted, this is as a 38 year old adult.
ReplyDeleteThe worst is when a 30something chick dates like she's 15. HUGE red flag.
Hey Count, what exactly is dating like she's 15? Is this no sex? Is this fingerbanging? Is this getting pregnant on the first try?
DeleteSecond date, and we've been married for 13 years.
ReplyDeleteDepends on the dude and the chemistry and the amount of drank.
ReplyDeleteThanks Enty, but you're not really my type.
ReplyDeleteHahahaha
Delete@Hollywood +1
ReplyDeleteHmmmm....steak. I do miss vodka, though.
Nope, not first date. But if sparks are there, I'll make out like it's prom night.
ReplyDeletePeople can do whatever they want - I can't help but believe most women would rather get to know someone first. 3 dates seems way fast to me.
ReplyDelete@V: 3rd date hickeys and handjob. Out of a 30 something, I find it quite odd.
ReplyDeleteAhh, thanks Count! That is all kinds of wrong.
DeleteV, I think he might mean head over heels in love after one date, and wanting to take it slow because of how special she imagines the relationship is. I imagine Taylor Swift acting this way.
ReplyDeletehickeys are a def no-no.
ReplyDeletei like to try out the goods b4 i decide to see him again.
Nope. Thats the problem with society now. People treat sex like its a handshake. Its not. Think about it, there was a lot of mutual respect between the sexes in the 1800s but people werent fucking anything with a pulse. Heres the truth casual sex is never casual and a little piece of the part that makes you 'human' dies every time you spread your legs to every Rick, Joe and Sally. Just my 2 cents .. I know most wont agree but thats ok.
ReplyDeleteTake a month and try to get to know the person before putting your bits in their bits. You'll thank yourself later.
DeleteUh, no...there was not a lot of mutual respect between the sexes. LOL
ReplyDeleteHey, if you don't care to fool around with someone, that's on you and I certainly think there is nothing wrong with that. Nor is there anything wrong with going fast...
Different strokes for different folks. :)
I agree with Eros.. I can't O unless we're in love anyway so it's a total waste of time
ReplyDeleteSame here, Aemish. :)
DeleteWomens bodies are complicated, arent they.
After a yearlong experience with a psycho stalker I swore off sex on the first date. It gave me a whole new insight into dating. Two years of dating like that I went on a date with one lovely girl. Next day i told my best friend I had met the woman I was going to marry. Best decision I ever made. We are coming up on twenty years of marriage!
ReplyDeleteThat's sweet.
DeleteI've gone both routes: wait, not waited. Whatever feels right for ME! :)
ReplyDeleteI haven't had a first date in over 25 years. Wouldn't need to go all tantric, I'd settle for a hand-job. Better check with my wife first, though.
ReplyDeleteBahahahaha One-eyed!! Yeah, wifey may have a problem with it. ;)
ReplyDeletehi*5, Eros
ReplyDeletewhen in the fuck has there EVER been mutual respect between sexes in society?!
ReplyDeleteEver watched leave it to beaver? I love lucy? All those shows were loosely based on archetypal life in the 40s. The father took care of the family. The mother cared for the children. Their was g, in general terms, mutual love and respect between those people. Very low divorce rates, 2parent families. A huge difference from todays society. Maybe you were raised in a jungle and have never opened a history book. Its not rocket science.
DeleteFYI - you might want to re-assess your timeline. Many women spent the majority of the 40's as defacto single mothers because of WWII. The mothers were the ones taking care of the family, while a lot of men were off fighting.
DeleteLeave it to Beaver and I Love Lucy, portrayed idealized families of the 50's. Which wasn't necessarily as happy as you want to think (Korean war, communism, nuclear threat, beginnings of civil rights movement, feminist movement, etc).
Again you're taking the comment out of context. My analogy stands. A contextual dissenting comment would be nice from one of you challenging my statement but I guess thats too much to ask for.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteEros, not taking your comment our of context. Just noting the timeline in your opinion is off, and because it is, throwing off the context of your own comment.
DeleteYes, you are taking it out of context. Im not going to re-explain what ive stated in comments to Lucas and others. Its like beating a dead horse. If you missed those comments, they are there for review.
Deletelol @charlie...
ReplyDelete@Eros - mutual respect in the 1800's like women couldn't own property? Or mutual respect like women couldn't vote? Or maybe you meant mutual respect like women weren't allowed to work outside the home and were often forced into staying in abusive relationships because they couldn't afford to leave and would be ostracized even if they could? Or mutual respect like "it isn't rape if you're married"?
ReplyDeletePlease see my examples up above. I think its self explanatory.
DeleteYour examples are two TV shows.
DeleteEros - I Love Lucy and Leave it To Beaver were television shows. Not documentaries.
DeleteThe only thing self explanatory is that you are a misogynistic ass hat and completely oblivious to ACTUAL history. Women are still paid less than men for the same work. We still blame rape victims. And this is after nearly 50 years of the women's rights and feminist movements.
DeleteWow, no offense to any of you commenters but are you able to comprehend what you read? I said that the shows were loosely based on american society during that time period. I used the analogy of a tv show because I wasnt sure if warecat even read history books. Before you try debating someone, read and comprehend what is written first.
Delete@Eros your example is not the issue, your premise is.
DeleteLucas, youre taking my statement out of context and turning it into a womens lib debate. The previous comment above was for the other posters not you. I was focusing on the familial relationships between women and women from that time not all of the social evils. Also I think you and others miss my point. Im not saying put women in buggies, barefoot and pregnant. Im saying that those women and men were obviously doing something right because they arent suffering from the same social ills that american society faces. Thats all im saying.
DeleteYou were focusing on your perception of the time and citing it as if it were the gospel. The reality of that era differs greatly from television.
DeleteAgain youre making a non contextual reference based on my statement. I think at this point you refuse to acknowledge my analogous remarks were valid out of pure obstinance.And I disagree wholeheartedly with your last statement . Art dictates life and vice versa. Is it 100 percent a reflection of those times? Absolutely not. That is why I used the descriptor loosely based in my comment but the analogy is still applicable. I think , Lucas, we will have to agree to disagree. I meant no offense to you or anyone in my comments. Its just my opinion not biblical doctrine. :)
DeleteWomen were to be seen and not heard. Filing for divorce would mean the woman would have to either become a waitress or secretary, barely making ends meet. Not to mention the stigma attached to it. The divorce rate had nothing to do with love.
ReplyDeleteIm sure situations like that occurred but it wasnt the general norm . I think you and others are digging too deeply and missing the overall intent of my statement which is the overall decline of american society and the family in general. You and others can focus on the negatives but anyhuman condition or circumstance, positive or otherwise, will have a negative. Thats just life. When I talk to women from the 40s, they were happy. They loved their husbands and vice versa. There was no dissension regarding abuse, mistreatment. Perhaps that has been Iin your family's experience but not mine.
DeleteThe last couple of years I was back in the dating pool after 12+ years of marriage. I had some dates that didn't even end in a handshake and some that ended up in bed. It depended on the chemistry that I felt. It has also depended on how horny I was that night. I'll be honest that there were a couple times that I had no intention of ever seeing the person again because we weren't interested in the same type of a relationship but I was horny and they weren't bad looking. Don't judge!
ReplyDeleteFunny thing was that the first date with my now fiance ended with a handshake and a "give me a call sometime, it would be nice to know someone in the area" - and this was from him. The entire date was great and then that was how it ended. I kept wondering what I did to blow it. I sent him a quick text a couple days later to see how his training was going (he had mentioned he was going to be out of town training for a new position). He immediately responded and we called back and forth for a couple days and then went out again that next weekend when he was back in town. He asked for permission about an hour into our date to give me a kiss. We've been together ever since. Apparently he was so nervous on our first date and he thought I was way out of his league so he didn't know what to do. I tease him all the time and will give him a handshake every so often and tell him it's nice to know him. :)
Wait, Leave it To Beaver and I Love Lucy were in the 1800s? Alrighty then.
ReplyDeleteEros, how about you read your history books and learn about the real life marriage between Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz.
ReplyDeleteYoure rather dense arent you? Its called an analogy. I chose a different period to make my analogy but Iits no less true. It appears you need to read more and comment less because its showing your apparent lack of common sense
DeleteThe problem is you were talking out of your ass and got called out on it. Desi Arnaz was abusive, something you should have considered before using his show as an example. In a way it IS a perfect analogy - on screen they were a darling couple but when you take away the lights and cameras and he was an abusive bastard. Which illustrates the disconnect between television and reality in that era.
DeleteYou sure get yourself rile up over the opinions of stranger s on the internet. Maybe its time for you to take keyboard break. Lol.. Btw, Im still waiting for one contextual based comment which disproves my initial assertion. When you have history and the current social situations proving your statements, you dont need to talk out your ass. Facts, in other words.
DeleteUm, Eros, I posted two actual quotes, one by a doctor and one by a writer of a handbook for women, from your beloved 1800s period of mutual respect between the sexes. Lucas posted a link to an actual 1940s manual on how to treat female employees (hint: like they don't know any better). Those are factual things.
DeleteYou're beating the dead horse of how very right you are because your opinion (which, BTW, isn't a fact) is so precious to you that you can't listen to anything else. Have fun with that but remember the old chestnut that those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. See "The Handmaid's Tale."
Soe, you will really need to work on those reading comprehension skills. Its exhausting but I will try again. Perhaps english is your second language? Yours and lucas' assertions arent valide because you are replying to statements you have taken out of context. Ergo that makes your replies devoid of any valid intellectual merit.
DeleteYou know, and another fucking thing while I am at it. Ask Sally goddamn Hemmings about people not fucking around in the 1800s. Oh, wait. I am sure you think she was just a slut and not someone put in the position of being propositioned by someone who OWNED in the same way I own my sofa. Should we trot out the Scarlett letter again too? Jesus.
ReplyDeleteI don't know what rock you crawled from under @Eros but please go back.
Eros, plz just stop b4 u embarrASS urself even more.
ReplyDeleteNot. Going.to.happen. And my statem we nt and analogies stand on their own . No one yet has been able to disprove what I stated.
Deletei dn't need history books when i can watch I Love Lucy.
ReplyDeleteLol, I seriously doubt youve rver read a book which is ehy I made the pop culture analogy. Youre a lost cause, though because you still dont get it.
DeleteWare, I'll watch with you! :)
ReplyDeleteOh, the heady days of mutual sexual respect in the 1800s!
ReplyDeleteDr. William Acton, 1833: "The majority of women (happily for society) are not very much troubled with sexual feelings of any kind. Love of home, of children, and of domestic duties are the only passions they feel."
Eliza Duffy, 1873: "The passions of men are much stronger and more easily inflamed... the purity of women is the everlasting barrier against which the tides of man's sensual nature surge... Even as woman is supremely virtuous," she became "when once fallen, the vilest of her sex."
i wanna know where Eros buys her rose colored glasses, so i can personally break every single one of them.
ReplyDeleteEros- you leave Warecat alone! Thats my boo
ReplyDeleteHe started it but yes I willleave him alone only cause you asked nicely and you have a dapper hat on.
DeleteNo, I'm pretty sure you started it. WareCat was simply pointing out for you what a incorrect statement you made. Or analogy. Whatever it was, it made me laugh in the "holy shit I cannot believe how deluded people on the internet are" way.
DeleteNo actually my statements were correct assertions. He proved nothing and unfortunately neither are you. When a commenter's winning reply is youre wrong because I said so, you know you're dealing with a rocket science. Come back when you have something relevant and accurate to say. And he did start it. Try perusing the comments before attacking the innocent next time.
DeleteRocket scientist
DeleteSo now that you've had time to peruse a dictionary, you are no longer making an analogy, but rather an assertion? Either way, you're still wrong.
DeleteWareCat is a woman, by the way. Get it together, grouch.
Not very bright are you? A 2 year would be able to glean that I know my way around a dictionary. Why would I care what warecat is? Lol.. I thought you two were boyfriends. Thanks for clarifying though even though I dont give a rats ass.
Delete;)
ReplyDeleteNot until I was married. Yes, there still are people like me out there.
ReplyDeleteholy shit Eros! u mean i've had a penis for 30yrs & never knew it? u in fact do know everything! i take all my comments back. so y dn't u be a champ & suck my cock.
ReplyDeleteIm sure thats what your daddy says every night. Dont bring your bedroom habits into pg rated discussions. It shows your lack of class.
Delete@Eros, an opinion can't be disproven. And your opinion wasn't an analogy.
ReplyDeleteYou obviously havent havent read the comments or you would be making a stupid statement like that. I will spell it out for you my mentally challenged friend. There was an analogy made to historical social situations and current social situations. The opinion part came in when I stated my assertions about the topic of discussion. Everyone commenting takes issue with the comment about social situation reference which has not been disproved. Have you kept up with me? Hopefully you understand now because im done repeating.
DeleteYou're just so precious.
DeleteLet me spell it out for you: you voiced an opinion that there was mutual respect amongst the sexes in the 1800s. When challenged, you attempted to make an analogy supporting your opinion using 1950s television shows. When challenged on that, you then said you were stating facts and no one was able to disprove your facts. Then it became an assertion, then a social situation reference. Now you're resorting to calling people mentally challenged because you can't keep up with your own logic.
But thank you for being done repeating yourself. I mean, you weren't, but it was amusing. Peace!
Meritless, taken out of context, devoid of intellectual validity and of course incorrect @soe. Thats the only reply deserved for that comment. Carry on, you're quite entertaining. Lol
Delete@Eros - read this and be enlightened about how women were viewed at the time
ReplyDeleteIll pass. :) Ive read my share of history books already.
DeleteAnyone remember a little movie called Fried Green Tomatoes? Just saying
ReplyDeleteNo offense Eros but I think you should do some more research on family ecology and development. You may feel like promiscuity is the decline of american society but that is simply your opinion, not a fact. In my opinion, the decline of american society is submissiveness in both sexes and the lack of desire for any independence or sense of self worth. Male dominance in relationships is still hugely present all over the country, I can't speak for anywhere else but an unsettling number of the married or committed couples I know (via work, school, socially, etc) still follow the relationship model of yesteryear where the woman's only value is her vagina and how well she can work an oven. The husband makes any and all decisions and the wife's duty is to support and encourage him in whatever he does while also procreating and maintaining the home. This is a hugely evolved viewpoint from past decades where women weren't even allowed to have their own opinion, their husband's opinion was their opinion. So if you think a woman having the power to make her own sexual, emotional, and intimate decisions is the decline of American society, then bring on the fiery pits of hell baby.
ReplyDeleteI think sexuality is unique to each individual and subject to the environment. You may meet some fellow in the line at Target and want to go bone him in the dressing room. Or you may develop a friendship which leads to a relationship and you want to wait a few weeks to copulate, you never know and IMHO never limit yourself to rules (within reason) or standards that you think intimacy should meet. Sometimes sex isn't about intimacy, but rather that primal, uncontrollable urge to have an all day fuck fest. If someone wants to do that, if someone is comfortable with doing that, and if someone is consenting to do that, you go and you go hard.
Holy bananas sorry for the length! Not all of that is directed at you Eros, you just got me thinking and the fingers started typing away.
DeleteI read the first line and stopped. Please read and really comprehend what I wrote. Contextual reference is the key word.
DeleteOk, I came back and read the whole thing. Sorry for my flippant reply Jsierra. I was a little annoyed with the last comment I read and then I got to yours. I understand what youre saying and I really respect your opinion, I just dont agree. See how that works!! Too bad the other commenters have never heard or been taught how to disagree with someone without being disagreeable.
DeleteEros I used to get really worked up about comments for some reason, then I sat back and realized "why the fuck am I getting this worked up?". Like someone said above, opinions are like assholes. Grody, but necessary and we all have one.
Delete@ Jsierra your last sentence made me lmao!!! You are completely correct btw. You know, I wasn't annoyed that peoples opinions differed from mines. I expected it even. I was annoyed by the incorrect assumptions made based on my comment, the twisting of my words, and the complete dismissal of the context of what I was saying. Oh and being lied on when the words are there plain as day. I never stay annoyed long though:) I shrug it off, smile it off and keep it moving. Its only the internet and if I cant find the humor in these exchanges I need to discontinue using the internet.
DeleteUsing Leave it to Beaver as an example of how a 50's house was is like saying the Cosby show is how black people in the 80's lived. Sure some did, but it wasn't the norm.
ReplyDelete1800's, I bet the hookers were REALLY stinky back then.
Reread the reply. I guess you all missed the descriptors. I said it was loosely based on the show.
DeleteOk then. I'll take this route:
ReplyDelete"Heres the truth casual sex is never casual and a little piece of the part that makes you 'human' dies every time you spread your legs to every Rick, Joe and Sally. Just my 2 cents "
Pure lunacy.
Move along, my lovelies...eros is trolling. And, badly, I might add.
ReplyDeleteYou know, @Meanie, you're right. Sound and fury, indeed!!
ReplyDelete@eros: You need to direct your comments toward someone in particular, or they become even more worthless. Just because you are on a phone, many are not.
ReplyDeleteAlso, since you talk about humanity dying from spreading your legs, does that mean you would be cool with sucking a guy off on the first date? You hold a couple dates on the swallowing?
Not at all. Its called standing up for yourself girls and more importantly standing up for your convictions. Everyone replied to me and was nasty to me because I made a statement they disagree with. It reflects badly on your characters that you dont know how to have a healthy disagreement with a stranger on the internet. So, no trolling needed.
ReplyDeleteEros, not everyone was nasty to you. Also, you are the one who has inferred people are illiterate, stupid, dense, mentally challenged when questioning your assumptions; and dismissed other's opinions because their experiences were different to yours.
DeleteAll in the name of "healthy disagreement"
After they attacked me. Interesting how you forgot that important fact. Thats ok. Its expected. Sad reflection upon you but expected.
DeleteEros,
DeleteYou weren't attacked. People disagreed with your opinion and you went after them. Beginning with Warecat.
Lol, now you just told a lie. I feel no need to carry on the discussion so this conversation is ended. I dont make it a habit of conversing with someone who just lied on me. Feel free to keep carrying on the conversation with yourself though. Lol
DeleteNo Eros. You replied to WareCat's comment about the sexes said at 1103 by offering up your I Love Lucy et al "analogy" and an inferrence about WareCat being raised in a jungle. Timestamp is 1113.
DeleteKeep in mind WareCat never attacked you. She just questioned a portion of your comment.
But hey, you keep on talking out of your ass, I'll keep on lying - it does a body good.
@Eros
Delete"It reflects badly on your characters that you don't know how to have a healthy disagreement"
You called someone mentally challenged. How is that having a healthy disagreement?
Its funny how you people pick the comments I made after being verbally accosted and try to make me the villain. Nice try but no dice. Also when someone attacksme, the gloves come off. One ad hominem attack deserves one in kind. Jsierra and I didnt agree but he spoke to me civilly too.
DeleteHey now, I'm a lady! But I do have a talent for burping like a man. In case anyone was wondering...
DeleteIm sorry!!! My faux pas. This is going to sound a little sexist but im a girl so I can get away with this but your response was so logically structured, rational explanations without any cattiness or verbal attacks that I immediately thought you were a guy. I know for a fact that all women dont respond to conflict that way because I dont but im a guys girl. And I know other women who function the same way. Anywho, sorry about that.
DeleteI like this thread, so much juice and heated opinion. Is there a change jar? Cuz I'm throwin in my two cents!
ReplyDeleteahem: I see valid points in both sides of the Lukas/Eros argument. The old fashioned dating/love/marriage/babies/being married for life etc thing is a nice archetype and idea, a great fantasy and something that a lot of people, including myself like and want to mold my own life after. But, we've come a loooong way. The sexual revolution, although flawed in many many ways, did have one very important and valuable redeeming quality. It allowed and encouraged women to be in touch, so to speak, with their own sexuality. Women were encouraged to embrace and explore their own libidos, their likes and dislikes, even (gasp) masturbation, toys, etc. Has that led to more disease? More promiscuity? More women being treated and viewed as sex objects?( Courtney Stodden)Yes. Are we a perfect society? No. We're still working out the kinks (Ha!) But here we all sit, on a website, that has taught us all, what pegging is. The fact that that practice is now somewhat in the mainstream and is known about, would have been unheard of if we all still lived in leave it to beavertown. At least we, as women, can now stand up for ourselves, give our opinions freely, (even if we're seen as a bitch), we can bring lawsuits, for sexual harassment and not be laughed out of our jobs, we can CHOOSE whether or not we can have sex on the first date, or third or fourth. And in the past, without the birth control pill, that would have been very irresponsible and dangerous. Women have been empowered in many areas, we're not done yet, but I am happy that as a woman I can ask my man for sex, I can initiate on a date, I can also decline in any instance. And it's ok, I'm still an equal, I'm not an object, I say what goes. And THAT is what's important. As far as when to do "It", it depends on the guy, the chemistry, how well the dates are going, what you both want, if it's a long term relationship potential, or just a hormones/get your groove on hookup. Many variables.
I agree withall of this and that was the only point I was trying to make. I think you and 1 other person understood what I meant. Two is better than none though. Thanks!
Deleteme & Johnny are lesbians, not boyfriends Eros. we fucked on the first date. & third.
ReplyDeleteYou know it boo. I'd fuck you even if we weren't dating
Delete@Eros - we were nasty to you because you are saying life would be so much better if we just undid decades of progress in the slow march toward true equality for women. And because once you had been confronted with ACTUAL facts and historical context which challenged your statements (specifically the 'mutual respect' shared by the sexes) you just started calling us morons all the while hoping if you were enough of an ass we would back down. The fact remains though, you are wrong in your assessment of life in historical times and your ideals about sex and relationships are based on outdated, patriarchal standards of what is "proper". Standards that were specifically developed in order to keep women in "their place" lest they dare enjoy the same freedoms as men.
ReplyDeleteMy grandmother was married to an abusive alcoholic and had the courage to leave in the 1930's even though it meant giving up a life of relative comfort in order to be free from being raped by a drunk who beat my father. She worked for many years as a cashier because that is what passed for an "acceptable" job for an unmarried woman at the time and chose to never remarry, having soured on the idea after her first crack at it. Then five decades later my mother made a similar choice, only she worked her way up into management at a Fortune 100 company on a high school diploma while raising three children with very, very little assistance from my father (and also choosing to remain unmarried). And I will be damned if they did all that so you can come along and say life would be so much better if all of the progress made in that time was erased. Because you know what? There are loving, respectful relationships in this day and age. I am in one, albeit one where my SO is my partner and a true equal instead of my own personal housekeeper/chef/prostitute.
Oh and we had AMAZING sex on the second date and NOT ONE PART OF ME DIED!
Tl; dr our conversation ended 3 conversations ago, boo.lol..Keep it moving. Nothing to see here but sour grapes. :D
DeleteYou never addressed the issue of respect between the sexes in the 1800s, which was my initial comment. And when you did you skipped ahead to the 1940's thinking a little I Love Lucy would bail you out, only to realize too late that you had fucked up, since Desi Arnaz was an abusive husband IRL, and as Zeeky pointed out, treated Lucy as an inferior on the show.
DeleteAnd along the way instead of clarifying your position or trying in any way to provide something other than "because I said so" as justification you started insulting people like an insolent child. Is that how June Cleaver taught you to behave?
Lucas I explained the intent of my sentence. You didnt agree. Theres really nothing left to discuss is there
DeleteNot the second date? Bummer.
ReplyDeleteBesides Desi Arnaz, you know who else was abusive? Ricky Ricardo!
ReplyDeleteLucy had to get permission to buy things like dresses and had to sneak them. When Ricky would find out, he'd spank her like she was five! (And not in the 'oh yes!" way.)
And it wasn't like she was spending the rent money or not paying the electric bill... he was a famous bandleader, hob-nobbing with John Wayne and other A-listers. Their apartment was modest, no servants.
Right on, Lucas, right fucking on!!!
ReplyDeleteDamn, Lucas is taken.
ReplyDeleteSad face.
Sad face indeed! I need a Lucas in my life.
Delete@Warecat & Johnny: Is it true lesbians don't have sex or home cooked meals on the first date? They just eat out.
ReplyDeleteI thought you were done...20 comments ago?
ReplyDeleteLucas in 2016
ReplyDeletethnx for breaking it down V!
ReplyDeleteya pretty little liar.
Jerk, we like the buffets. keeps our mouths & hands busy for a while.
I can't stand that "society is in decline" trope. It's just not true.
ReplyDelete"The 50's were better."
The Draft, Korea, Communism in Eastern Europe, Greece, Asia. Segregation, Lynch Mobs, Kids smoking tobacco was OK, Putting "imperfect" kids into homes out of embarrassment.
"The 40's were better."
WW2, 6 million Jews/gays/etc. murdered, Operation "Put the Black Guys on the Front Line of Battle so they Get Shot First." Polio, Lysol sold as douche, barbaric treatment of mentally ill.
"The 1800's were better."
Slavery, no cancer treatment, no penicillin, women couldn't vote and couldn't run for office.
So nowadays, people get divorced, men marry men, women marry women, virginity isn't lost on honeymoons, and people curse. Compared to the past - today is much better!
And as JSierra so eloquently stated:
ReplyDelete'So if you think a woman having the power to make her own sexual, emotional, and intimate decisions is the decline of American society, then bring on the fiery pits of hell baby."
Damn right!
If chemistry is high 1st date is a-ok
ReplyDeleteTechnically, I had sex with my now-hubby before our first date. It's complicated. L
ReplyDeleteHowever, if I were to find myself single again I seriously doubt I'd be jumping into bed by the third date just because somebody else decided I should. If you don't want to take the time to get to know each other, see ya.
@Eros "every time you spread your legs to every Rick, Joe and Sally"
ReplyDeleteIt's ok. If you get on your hands and knees the right way you don't need to spread your legs!
Humanity-saved
Has anyone on here had a random one night stand turn into a serious relationship or marriage? Just curious, you don't usually hear stories like that. I mean random as in stranger, never met before. Not someone you have known who you randomly got freaky with one night.
ReplyDelete@Eros: Where is a PG discussion? The owner of this site mentions no where that the discussions should be kept PG. And the site owner has demonstrated the ability to delete any post they don't want here. Besides with all the Rape/Molestation/Incest posts and the exploitation of the victims for clicks, why would you think this site is PG?
ReplyDeleteMuch like you over value your snatch (it is only 1 of 150+million in the US and it gets demerits because its life support system is kooked out) you hold the discussion on this site in way too high a regard. It is a better display of your aversion to reality than your Beaver Cleaver comments.
It was a glib joke Count at her expebse but still a joke.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMelly Bell wins.
ReplyDeletei dn't believe for one second that Eros has a vagina.
ReplyDeleteWe know you dont have one. You said youre a chick with a cock which would make you a hermaphrodite. So my previous assumption was right. You and deputy dimwit are male homosexual lovers
DeleteNot that theres anytging wrong with that.
...but Eros is definitely a twat. :)
ReplyDeleteAnd you're a stupid cuntrag whose comments are devoid of any intellectual content. See how that works now, you dumb bitch. You insult me and I come back atcha.
DeleteMeanieRhysie - ZING! Good one.
ReplyDeletei find it funny too Eros, actually hysterical, that i asked one question & i'm an illiterate feral human. u came at me bro.
ReplyDeletelol! @glib.
stop trying to play the damsel in distress Tommy girl.
Thats all the world needs a hysterical hermaprodite. LMAO...
ReplyDeleteokay well while this has been fun trading insults with you and the vapid cuntrag, I actually have a life. Go figure. So I won't be responding to anymore bullshit ad hom attacks but if I see a well thought out insightful comment from someone else, I will then reply. Toodles!! :-)
@eros: Who the hell is us people?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GP9zSNVYWeA
@Eros: Oh, I thought it was directed at me. You gotta use the @ and people's names or these mistakes will keep happening.
ReplyDeleteYou know the sort of person who says "you people"? Assholes.
ReplyDeletedamn Eros! those insults were WEAK!
ReplyDeleteLOLOL!!!
ReplyDeleteSecond date. Five years later we are madly still in love
ReplyDeleteJSierra: one of my good friends did that. Picked up a random dude, he moved her in and they've been married ever since. Romance! Someone else I know (thatistotallynotme) may have married a booty call.
ReplyDeleteWord of the day: 'contextual.'
ReplyDeleteApparent definition: 'using (rather basic) words like 'contextual' means I'm smarter than you. Because I know my way around a dictionary!'
Ahh internet. How do I love thee? Let me count the ways.
:D
Holy crap. That s ganging up against somebody who s not part of the club.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Eros opinion, but not with the historical analogy, which she recognized quickly was not the best choice.
But some kept harping on this until it went down to insults and flaming. Downright nasty.
Im glad you understood what I meant. You know I could haveadded some long disclaimer about women suffering many Iinjustices during this period but I thought it was needless because the reference was so implicit. I didnt realize I was dealing with a majority of people who wouldn't get it.
DeleteBabo: You actually agree with this: "Heres the truth casual sex is never casual and a little piece of the part that makes you 'human' dies every time you spread your legs to every Rick, Joe and Sally. Just my 2 cents " ?
ReplyDeleteSad.
Count, get real you dont think a a prostitute who has sex with hundreds of men doesn't lose a part of themself after being with scores of people. I feel sorry for you. It doesnt sound like you place any value on humanity. Very very sad.
Delete@Eros, I liked your analagy. I don't feel that I can get to know a person until I see and talk to them over a period of several dates. Too many crazies and diseases out there! If they like and respect me, then we go forward; if not, goodbye and I find someone else.
ReplyDeleteI know right.;) You would think that the diseases alone are enough to scare most into abstinence or at least make them think twice about treating their private parts like an in n out restaurant. No pun intende of course.
ReplyDeleteEros: We aren't talking prostitutes and sex with 100's of people. We are talking dating and casual sex. According to your statement, you are of the opinion that a piece of a woman's humanity dies everytime they have casual sex and that makes you a lunatic.
ReplyDeleteP.S. Whores, like gingers, have no souls, so they don't enter into the conversation anyway.
The analogy is applicable to everyday people. If you can't comprehend that, then there really isnt much reason to discuss this further, is there? We wil have to agree to disagree.
DeleteSince I am still getting emails SEVERAL days after this thread, I will throw my two cents in. At Eros, right?
ReplyDeleteYou don't know that a prostitute "dies a little each time" or that promiscuous people are all disease-ridden. Some people do not think of sex as the coming together of two spiritual beings but rather an enjoyable athletic exercise shared with someone/someones they like bouncing around on. Some people enjoy being paid / paying for sex. For some it's an economic decision. How do you get to call someone's choices invalid because they don't mirror yours?
Count: what the actual FUCK?
I missed the part where I called someones choice invalid because it doesn't mirror mines. I just vocalized my opinion regarding the matter. It honestly doesn't matter one way or another if a person disagrees with me. Thats the perk of living in a non-totalitarian state. All of us can having differing opinions and express them as voraciously as we like.
DeleteHow are you NOT judging other people's choices?? By assuming that part of a prostitute dies while having sex for money? How is that NOT placing a value judgement? And disease and humiliation should be enough of a deterrent? This is why so many people got so angry during this thread; your condescension. You didn't vocalise an opinion about YOUR body, you vocalised an opinion about what everyone else should be doing with THEIR bodies. You do you. Everyone else will do their own.
DeleteAnd I agree, a refreshing non totalitarian state wherein we can call each other vapid cuntrags, awesome.
Lmao... im sorry this was hilarious to read. Not one word you stated was accurate and thats why im putting an end to this conversation. Calling that vitriolic nonsensical tirade you just spewed a rant would be me being kind. I never once stated nor insinuated anything you wrote in that last comment so you literally pulled that tripe out your ass. So far as why everyone got offended. ... you're wrong on that as well. People who respond that volatilely to my opinion are usually stuck in that lifestyle. I hit a nerve in other words or so is my presumption based on the reactions. Anywho, its been real. Lol...You can carry onand talk to yourself. I feel no reason to subject myself to brain numbing garble.peace :)
Delete@TTM: Ya know, in the 4-5 times I've dropped that whores have no soul on this site, you are the only one to say anything about it, everyone else just accepted it.
ReplyDeleteOh wait, you were probably complaining about the gingers part. See, still no one cares about whores.
;)
Will no one speak for the poor ginger whores?? Seriously, though, that is messed up. Whatever you think of non-civilians, everyone's got a soul. Even you, sweet cheeks.
ReplyDelete