This is topic Ugly people. in forum Karp Park at The Azure Heights Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://www.math.miami.edu/~jam/azure/forum/buzz/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=005453

Posted by ceoalex316 (Member # 338) on 08-02-2002, 10:35 PM:
 
This post is an attempt to justify dating someone based on his or her looks alone.

The purpose of dating is to lead a girl/boy into having sex. Girls might argue this point, but they are wrong. If you want to have fun with someone without any sexual activity, hang out with your friends.

If a girl is completely ugly, then no male should go out with her regardless of how good her personality is. A girl’s appearance is what drives a guy sexually, not her personality. Meaning if a girl has the best personality in the world, but is extremely ugly, be her friend.

Now some moron created this concept of "dating", where you are required to build an emotional relationship with your significant other before having sex. This is why it's important to find a hot girl with a decent personality. Though no one should ever go out with an ugly girl. It's not morally wrong. Ugly people came up with the concept so they can get some ass.

If you can not get a hot girl keep this info secret, otherwise you are doing the right thing by dumping the ugly bitch.
 
Posted by ßacon (Member # 2526) on 08-02-2002, 10:40 PM:
 
Isn't this topic just a spinoff of Kmouf's topic?

Eh, anyway, not everyone will agree to your concept of dating. Thankfully for me, my girlfriend is attractive, but even if she wasn't, I'd still look at her the same way as I do now.

I'm sorry your vanity clouds your judgement.
 
Posted by Bulbasaur3000 (Member # 1801) on 08-02-2002, 10:50 PM:
 
The concept of love, when you get down to it, is the natural instinct to choose a mate with the best genes, so that you can make better babies, or something like that. Any girl with a pussy could do, but if you want hot, sexy kids, then you'll try to get a hot, sexy lady to have them for you.

Hooray for natural selection.
 
Posted by Porygone (Member # 805) on 08-02-2002, 10:51 PM:
 
The purpose of dating is to build up a relationship with another human being in an attempt to find something called "love".

Ugly is like beauty. It's all in the eye of the beholder (My interest in girls is 80% inner beauty, 20% outer, BTW).

By your definition of "dating", there's no point in "dating". You should just go visit prostitutes and sluts for the rest of your life. Personally, I'd prefer trying to find that "special someone".

[ 08-02-2002, 11:10 PM: Message edited by: Porygone ]
 
Posted by ßacon (Member # 2526) on 08-02-2002, 11:00 PM:
 
I wonder if ceoalex has had failures with relationships in the past...
 
Posted by Duolivous (Member # 2030) on 08-02-2002, 11:08 PM:
 
mee lykes to sexxorz gurlz hurhurharhar
 
Posted by jshadias (Member # 2710) on 08-02-2002, 11:16 PM:
 
Bacon wins.
 
Posted by ceoalex316 (Member # 338) on 08-02-2002, 11:17 PM:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Porygone:
The purpose of dating is to build up a relationship with another human being in an attempt to find something called "love".

Ugly is like beauty. It's all in the eye of the beholder (My interest in girls is 75% inner beauty, 25% outer, BTW).

By your definition of "dating", there's no point in "dating". You should just go visit prostitutes and sluts for the rest of your life. Personally, I'd prefer trying to find that "special someone".

I think I mentioned that a personality is somewhat important. Unless you’re looking to get married, your scale should be 75% outer to 25% inner. But I wasn't talking about marriage or building up a meaningful relationship. My whole point is that there is no wrong in a guy dating a girl based only on her appearance

quote:
Originally posted by ßacon:
I wonder if ceoalex has had failures with relationships in the past...

I obviously don't mention my intentions during a relationship.

[ 08-03-2002, 10:33 AM: Message edited by: Mr. K ]
 
Posted by ßacon (Member # 2526) on 08-02-2002, 11:29 PM:
 
quote:
Originally posted by ceoalex316:

quote:
Originally posted by ßacon:
I wonder if ceoalex has had failures with relationships in the past...

I obviously don't mention my intentions during a relationship.

I don't think you can call what you aspire for now a "relationship." I'd consider them one night stands with girls that have very low self esteem.

If sex is all your after, then buy yourself a sex doll, and duct tape it to your cock. Better yet, hook up with one of those mindless whores that would be happy to service you, and put in a request to have her connected to you permanently via dog leash.

In case you can't catch the hidden message, any girl that puts up with being used only for sex, is just another piece of meat to the eyes of the hormone driven males of the world.
 
Posted by Porygone (Member # 805) on 08-02-2002, 11:31 PM:
 
I think I mentioned that a personality is somewhat important.

"If a girl is completely ugly, then no male should go out with her regardless of how good her personality is."

Unless you’re looking to get married, your scale should be 75% outer to 25% inner.

If your marriage is based mainly on looks, you'll gonna be needing a lawyer when you and your husband/wife both get to be sixty.

But I wasn't talking about marriage or building up a meaningful relationship.

No, you weren't. You were talking about how unattractive people should never date and how dating is purely for sex.

My whole point is that there is no wrong in a guy dating a girl based only on her appearance

No, you're saying that if a girl is unattractive, then you should only be friends with her, and that girls who are unatractive shouldn't be dated.
 
Posted by Elian (Member # 486) on 08-02-2002, 11:53 PM:
 
looks like ceoalex wont ever be getting any
 
Posted by MK (Member # 1445) on 08-03-2002, 01:15 AM:
 
...you shouldn't base a relationship on just looks alone. It's got to have some "substance." I mean, looks aren't everything, but, they factor in there somewhere...

I mean, the most beautiful girl in the world could be the rudest snob, and, the ugliest the kindest, there's a happy medium somewhere...

How much do you guys think looks matter (percentage wise)

I'd say it probably should lie 20 to 40 percent.
 
Posted by ThomasTR (Member # 580) on 08-03-2002, 02:20 AM:
 
Largely true, but when a girl says I'm cute and that she likes my voice/eyes/scent etc. I'm driven wild by that and will date her, even if she isn't really hot. But I won't date a girl that's ugly in my opinion, no.
 
Posted by PikaCharma (Member # 2026) on 08-03-2002, 02:30 AM:
 
quote:
ceoalex316 stripped naked, danced a jig, and shouted from the mountain tops:
This post is an attempt to justify dating someone based on his or her looks alone.
*snip*
If a girl is completely ugly, then no male should go out with her regardless of how good her personality is.
*snip*
If you can not get a hot girl keep this info secret, otherwise you are doing the right thing by dumping the ugly bitch.

Ladies, if you ever needed an excuse to become an angry lesbian, this is it. [Mad]

I swear, the more I read this thread...specifically, your posts...the more tempting it becomes to just buy a Porygone, grab Pikablade, and head off to a deserted island with the both of them...far, far away.

You originally claimed that your post was about justifying dating someone based on looks alone, but in reality, it was about attempting to 'prove' that physically unattractive women are worthless, and insisting that all males should be as superficial as you are. I'm not denying that initial attraction to a person is sometimes based on physical appearance, but there's a huge difference between hitting on a cute chick at the mall and saying that girls who have a physically unattractive outward appearance are unworthy of sex and dating. If you never want anything more than a one-night stand, then fine, go ahead and base your standards on physical appearance alone, but if you ever intend on looking for anything resembling a meaningful relationship, try looking a bit deeper. If you can find someone who's beautiful inside and out, then more power to ya, but you'd be well advised to realize that physical beauty fades with time. And what are you going to do when you can't find some hot 20-year-old Dallas Cowboys Cheerleader ready to jump your bones? There's a lot more to a relationship than sex. Sex might be part of a relationship, or in some people's minds, the ultimate goal of a relationship, but it's certainly not all there is to a relationship, and I can pretty well guarantee that unless you plan on paying $2.99 per minute, you won't find a whole lot of women who enjoy being used as sex objects.

Second of all...define beauty and define ugliness. Each culture, time period, and individual person has their own concept of beauty, so there really is no absolute or universal standard. And furthermore, a lot of times, the better you get to know a person and the more you get to like them, the more attractive they appear. Sometimes a person who seemed to be just average-looking at first will become much more attractive in your eyes once you've bonded on an emotional and intellectual level. So a girl who seems "completely ugly" to you might seem quite attractive to someone else who's actually taken the time to get to know her. And while we're at it, let's define "relationship" as well. Casual dating? Exclusive dating? Life-time commitment? Friendship? Friends with benefits? Old-fashioned courtship is hardly the only thing around anymore. What type of relationship, exactly, are you saying guys shouldn't get into with ugly girls?

And what concept are you saying that ugly people came up with so they could get some ass? The conecept of dating\relationships or the concept of inner-beauty? The concepts of marriage and exclusive relationships have been around for a very long time. Before we had antibiotics and the concept of "safe sex", exclusive relationships were actually quite practical, as they helped put a damper on unplanned pregnancy and prevent the spread of disease. For health reasons, especially with the AIDS epidemic, it's still not a brilliant idea to bang everyone you come into contact with, but contraception and modern medicine has made pregancy preventable and many STD's treatable if not curable. It really had\has nothing to do with ugly people trying to get ass. If you're speaking about the concept of inner beauty being the invention of ugly people trying to get tail, I'm not even gonna dignify that with a response, because if you don't get it by now, you probably never will.

Ever seen the movie Shallow Hal? You should rent it sometime.
 
Posted by Uiru (Member # 437) on 08-03-2002, 02:48 AM:
 
quote:
if you ever needed an excuse to become an angry lesbian
You need an excuse?

*ba-boom ding*

Anyway. Someone should print this topic out and staple it to this guy's forehead so that every girl he meets can read it first. I wonder what they'd think?

I mean, I find nerdy girls quite attractive. (I *love* girls with glasses!) What do I do? Must I reclassify them as ugly because nerds aren't part of general society's definition of beauty?
~Uiru
 
Posted by MK (Member # 1445) on 08-03-2002, 03:57 AM:
 
Girls with glasses have "specs appeal" =)
 
Posted by Uiru (Member # 437) on 08-03-2002, 04:00 AM:
 
Right next door to the 'closest' Pizza Hut is a pr0n rental store. They advertised a movie called 'Specs Appeal' on their billboard one time. I wanted it so bad. [Embarrassed] [Embarrassed] [Embarrassed]
~Uiru- now if only I was into pr0n. ...well, maybe it was lesbian nerd girls. [Eek!] [Embarrassed] [Eek!] [Embarrassed]
 
Posted by MK (Member # 1445) on 08-03-2002, 06:18 AM:
 
Pornography and pizza, it's a winning combination... just like alcohol and nightswimming

(Seriously though, what kind of neighborhood is your pizza hut at? I mean, a porn rental place nextdoor to a family resturant, it's silly, funny, and sad at the same time)
 
Posted by Porygone (Member # 805) on 08-03-2002, 07:28 AM:
 
I swear, the more I read this thread...specifically, your posts...the more tempting it becomes to just buy a Porygone, grab Pikablade, and head off to a deserted island with the both of them...far, far away.

That's a good idea. Go with it. I'm free (literally).

It looks like nearly all posters agree that ceoalex316 is wrong. Allie should just delete this topic before angrier people come in and flame his ass.

No offense, ceoalex316, everyone is entitled to their opinions. But yours make you sound like a jackass.

Have fun being a seventy year-old dude who sits at home, surrounded by a sea of kittens that he tries to kill, but only injures since he's out of viagra!
 
Posted by Zerot (Member # 1295) on 08-03-2002, 08:59 AM:
 
If I can look at a girl without throwing up or feeling sick, she is datable in the looks catagory, at least.

Personality is what kills most girls my age [Frown]
 
Posted by ßacon (Member # 2526) on 08-03-2002, 09:16 AM:
 
Teenage girls are usually shallow, at least from where I'm from. Maybe Ceoalex is stating this opinion based on his visits to the malls of america.
 
Posted by ceoalex316 (Member # 338) on 08-03-2002, 10:40 AM:
 
ME:I think I mentioned that a personality is somewhat important.

PORYGONE: "If a girl is completely ugly, then no male should go out with her regardless of how good her personality is."

ME: "Now some moron created this concept of "dating", where you are required to build an emotional relationship with your significant other before having sex. This is why it's important to find a hot girl with a decent personality."

ME: Unless you’re looking to get married, your scale should be 75% outer to 25% inner.

PORYGONE: If your marriage is based mainly on looks, you'll gonna be needing a lawyer when you and your husband/wife both get to be sixty.

I said unless you are looking to get married.

ME: But I wasn't talking about marriage or building up a meaningful relationship.

PORYGONE: No, you weren't. You were talking about how unattractive people should never date and how dating is purely for sex.

NO, I was talking about how poeple shouldn't go out with unattractive people if they don't want to.

ME: My whole point is that there is no wrong in a guy dating a girl based only on her appearance

PORYGONE: No, you're saying that if a girl is unattractive, then you should only be friends with her, and that girls who are unatractive shouldn't be dated.

My point is what I say it is, if it wasn't then why would I say it is?

PikaCharma: And what concept are you saying that ugly people came up with so they could get some ass? The conecept of dating\relationships or the concept of inner-beauty?

Inner- beauty

Bacon: In case you can't catch the hidden message, any girl that puts up with being used only for sex, is just another piece of meat to the eyes of the hormone driven males of the world.

Are you saying that it's wrong to use a girl for sex? Even if she's ok with it?
 
Posted by Porygone (Member # 805) on 08-03-2002, 11:14 AM:
 
"If a girl is completely ugly, then no male should go out with her regardless of how good her personality is."

"It's important to find a hot girl with a decent personality."

You're just saying tha personality only matters if a girl's attractive. Even hen, you said the personality only has to be DECENT. So, a hot girl with a decent personalty is "better" than an "unattractive" girl with a GREAT personality? Again, this goes to the issue of "What makes a gir attractive?", and the whole "Beauty's in the eye of the beholder". Most guys find Britney Spears attractive, whereas I don't. Your idea of attractive can be totally diferent from mine. So, the bottom line is that personality only matters with a girl who you find attractive?


I said unless you are looking to get married.

Not EVERYONE who's into a long lasting relationship wants to be offically married. They might just be happy living together and loving each other.

NO, I was talking about how poeple shouldn't go out with unattractive people if they don't want to.

Ahem....
"If a girl is completely ugly, then no male should go out with her regardless of how good her personality is."
No, you're saying that if a girl is "ugly" no guy should date her, no matter what her personality is like. Or are you? Stop posting hypocritical things, please.
Now, you say that you were telling us guys shouldn't have to date unattractive girls. Again, if a guy wants to date a girl who's "unattractive", that's his choice. Sometimes inner beauty outshines outer beauty.

And while we're on the subject, what if a girl wants to date an "ugly" girl?

You said the idea of "inner beauty" is something created purely by "ugly" people. If that's true, then why do so many "attractive" people believe in it?

Are you saying that it's wrong to use a girl for sex? Even if she's ok with it?

That would depend. If she's willing because she's emotionally hurt, wants to be accepted, etc., then it's wrong. If she's a slut or a whore, then it's a different story. It's all based on the conditions of why she's willing.
 
Posted by MK (Member # 1445) on 08-03-2002, 06:01 PM:
 
...but "She's got a nice ass" it isn't a very solid foundation to build a relationship on. -PikaCharma
 
Posted by Kid Vid2 (Member # 2514) on 08-03-2002, 06:53 PM:
 
Ugly people?
 
Posted by ReturnofNumeroUno (Member # 476) on 08-03-2002, 07:14 PM:
 
If dating only leads to sex, then what leads to marriage?
 
Posted by Mr. K (Member # 2) on 08-03-2002, 07:30 PM:
 
Broken condoms.
 
Posted by MK (Member # 1445) on 08-03-2002, 07:49 PM:
 
If dating only leads to sex, then what leads to marriage?

Flaw in your logic. Dating is supposed to lead to marriage which then leads to sex...

Dating does not only lead to sex.

- - - - -
You can tell that a Disney sequel will suck based on the commercial alone. The key phrase is "with the help of some old friends!" -SDShamshel
 
Posted by Zerot (Member # 1295) on 08-03-2002, 08:10 PM:
 
quote:
Originally posted by MK:
If dating only leads to sex, then what leads to marriage?

Flaw in your logic. Dating is supposed to lead to marriage which then leads to sex...

Ugh.

Dating is OBVIOUSLY geared toward getting into the girls pants. Or at least sex above the neck.
 
Posted by PikaCharma (Member # 2026) on 08-03-2002, 08:43 PM:
 
The concept of "using someone for sex" is really open to interpretation, since "using" tends to imply some sort of emotional abuse or manipulation. Teh Pory is right. If you're exploiting an emotional vulnerability by abusing\manipulating\pressuring someone into having sex, then you suck. But if both people are only in it for the tail, and they both let the other person know that they're only in it for the tail...then I really don't think there's a problem. I mean, where's the "victim"? The relationship may be non-traditional, but if both people go into it with the same goal and the same expectation, they both accomplish it, and they both walk away happy, more power to 'em.

And as for the "marriage is supposed to lead to sex" argument, I have one question. Are those of us who don't plan to get married supposed to be virgins for the rest of our lives?
 
Posted by PikaCharma (Member # 2026) on 08-03-2002, 08:45 PM:
 
PS.
Mr.K wins.
 
Posted by Mentar the Malady Monkey (Member # 1182) on 08-03-2002, 08:49 PM:
 
Just imagine if everyone obeyed the fallacy of dating based on looks alone... I imagine half the people here would never get dates, or would get far fewer than they actually have.

There's a reason looks aren't the sole facet of dating. So ugly people, possibly including you, the reader, get a chance.
 
Posted by ceoalex316 (Member # 338) on 08-03-2002, 09:43 PM:
 
ME: NO, I was talking about how people shouldn't go out with unattractive people if they don't want to.

PORY: Ahem....
"If a girl is completely ugly, then no male should go out with her regardless of how good her personality is."
No, you're saying that if a girl is "ugly" no guy should date her, no matter what her personality is like. Or are you? Stop posting hypocritical things, please.

I said completely ugly, meaning they look like a horse's ass. If a girl is mild ugly and has a killer personality, then a guy as the rightful choice to be either her friend or to date her.

Now, you say that you were telling us guys shouldn't have to date unattractive girls. Again, if a guy wants to date a girl who's "unattractive", that's his choice. Sometimes inner beauty outshines outer beauty.

I said they shouldn't have to date ugly girls. If they want to they could.

You're missing my point. Please go reread the first line of this topic.

 
Posted by PikaCharma (Member # 2026) on 08-03-2002, 11:20 PM:
 
The first line of this topic is misleading and really has nothing to do with what the topic is about.

This isn't about "It's ok to date someone based on looks." This is about "Nobody should ever take anything but looks into consideration when deciding whom to date." Huge difference.
 
Posted by ceoalex316 (Member # 338) on 08-03-2002, 11:54 PM:
 
quote:
Originally posted by PikaCharma:
This is about "Nobody should ever take anything but looks into consideration when deciding whom to date." Huge difference.

When did I say that? Or did someone else turn this topic to "Nobody should ever take anything but looks into consideration when deciding whom to date."
 
Posted by Mick_Hale (Member # 419) on 08-03-2002, 11:54 PM:
 
Oh, I'm gonna have fun with this one. Lots and lots of fun.

The purpose of dating is to lead a girl/boy into having sex.
No. That is, for the most part, untrue. Your logic is already flawed, and that blatant generalization screws it up even more. If you consider it, not everybody dates simply for sex. If I were to date, it would be in an attempt to find someone I could love, someone I could trust, and someone that I may even eventually marry. Of course, I'm 19 and I'm also adamantly against premarital sex, but that is simply my humble opinion.

Girls might argue this point, but they are wrong.
Now a guy is arguing the point, and I'm gonna claim that you're wrong.

If you want to have fun with someone without any sexual activity, hang out with your friends.
Eh, I think I can have fun with my girlfriend that doesn't involve any sexual activity whatsoever. I can do the same things with my girlfriend that I would do with my friends. If I wanted to go to an amusement park or a restaurant, I can do that with my girlfriend and it wouldn't necessarily imply anything sexual and I'd have lots of fun.

If a girl is completely ugly, then no male should go out with her regardless of how good her personality is.
A reincarnation of Freudian sexual theoretics. You forget to take into account that one's junk is another's treasure. One of my biggest crushes was all about a girl who everyone else thought was butt fugly. I thought she was absolutely beautiful. Where they saw someone fat with a distorted face, I saw someone with an inability to be boring and beautiful straight brown hair to top it off. I didn't see what everyone else saw.

Beauty is truly in the eye of the beholder. I don't discriminate based on body size, the aforementioned girl was slightly overweight and I've dated a recovering anorexic. I see no purpose in discriminating between looks because it's considerably more important to me who the person is, not what the person looks like.

A girl’s appearance is what drives a guy sexually, not her personality.
I will argue this point, simply because I can.

A certain fetish group enjoyes the silent type. I can agree with that, I enjoy being around someone who's shy, because it compliments my incredibly loud personality. So if I have a choice between a girl that's 200 pounds and quiet as a mouse and a girl that's 120 pounds 36DD and as loud as I am, I'm going to choose the quiet one. That's all about personality. If I could go out with a humanitarian who's face has been badly burnt or a stoner hottie, I'll take the humanitarian. Personality plays a big role in who I chose, and evidently in many of other people's choices.

Now some moron created this concept of "dating", where you are required to build an emotional relationship with your significant other before having sex.
So dating is a deterrant to sex? I kind of see what you're saying, though at this point it seems to me that you're ranting because you just got dumped. Well, here's a retort. Part of my reason for not liking the concept of premarital sex is that I feel sex is largely an emotional act as well. Yeah, it's pleasurable and all, but I'm old-fasioned enough to believe that it's almost something "sacred" (and I use that term loosely), something that brings two people closer together, something that creates a sort of bond between two partners. To me, this means that having sex consummates a marriage and a life-long commitment (barring divorce, but that's a whole other can of worms that I don't wanna get into).

Unless you're part of some random "free love" culture, society dictates that dating is a necessary part of sex, even if it's a one night thing. I urge anyone to correct me, for I'm not entirely sure about this. However, I feel, and I'm sure there are others that feel that there should be some kind of emotional bond, whatever it may be.

This is why it's important to find a hot girl with a decent personality.
Once again, one's junk is another's treasure. I already said something about this.

Though no one should ever go out with an ugly girl.
Same as above, only slightly more angrily.

It's not morally wrong.
Who are you to dictate morals? Hell, who am I to dictate morals? I don't force my morals on to others, don't force your morals onto me. In fact, what the hell does this have to do with morals at all?

Ugly people came up with the concept so they can get some ass.
Now you have disgusted me to no end. Yet again, one's junk is another's treasure. I would love to get some ass right about now, even if it was "ugly". Of course, I'm also willing to go through the process of dating so that I can know who I'm getting ass from. That's kind of important to me.

If you can not get a hot girl keep this info secret, otherwise you are doing the right thing by dumping the ugly bitch.
In conclusion, fuck you.

[edit]
PikaCharma: This isn't about "It's ok to date someone based on looks." This is about "Nobody should ever take anything but looks into consideration when deciding whom to date." Huge difference.
ceoalex316: When did I say that? Or did someone else turn this topic to "Nobody should ever take anything but looks into consideration when deciding whom to date."
I'll take the liberty of showing you exactly where you said that.
Though no one should ever go out with an ugly girl.

[ 08-03-2002, 11:57 PM: Message edited by: Mick_Hale ]
 
Posted by PikaCharma (Member # 2026) on 08-04-2002, 03:42 AM:
 
quote:
Originally posted by ceoalex316:
quote:
Originally posted by PikaCharma:
This is about "Nobody should ever take anything but looks into consideration when deciding whom to date." Huge difference.

When did I say that? Or did someone else turn this topic to "Nobody should ever take anything but looks into consideration when deciding whom to date."
"If a girl is completely ugly, then no male should go out with her regardless of how good her personality is. A girl's appearance is what drives a guy sexually, not her personality. Meaning if a girl has the best personality in the world, but is extremely ugly, be her friend."

I think that's when you said it.

[Edit] Ok, Mick beat me to it. He answered your question, and did so by quoting a different part of your post than I did. So not only did you say it, you said it twice. Nice job.

[ 08-04-2002, 03:52 AM: Message edited by: PikaCharma ]
 
Posted by Jolteon X (Member # 284) on 08-04-2002, 03:44 AM:
 
Owned.

Edit: Hey look, page 2!

[ 08-04-2002, 03:45 AM: Message edited by: Jolteon X ]
 
Posted by ceoalex316 (Member # 338) on 08-04-2002, 10:10 AM:
 
Yay Mick!!!

BTW I was just fucking with you all.
 
Posted by Mick_Hale (Member # 419) on 08-04-2002, 01:58 PM:
 
You took all the fun out of my post.
 
Posted by MK (Member # 1445) on 08-05-2002, 03:05 AM:
 
And as for the "marriage is supposed to lead to sex" argument, I have one question. Are those of us who don't plan to get married supposed to be virgins for the rest of our lives?

I guess so. Why not get married though? Anyway, as sad as it is, my own mind has gone through a semi-metamorphasis, I still say you should get married then have sex, but, I could "almost" understand a couple going ahead and doing the deed early if they were planning on eventually getting married and have been seriously commited to each other for a while, etc...

Ugh, I can't believe I've let my mind fall into that gear, I still know it's stupid and wrong, but, ugh, why am I letting myself feel this way? I guess that's the human side of me trying to kick in.

*must supress thoughts*

Dating is OBVIOUSLY geared toward getting into the girls pants. Or at least sex above the neck.

Yes, when you date someone the ultimate goal is sex, but, there's more too it than that. Sex isn't everything, albeit, it is a giant part of a relationship, just not everything... Problem is you all have different definitions and methods of dating. Some go traditionally and wait till marriage while others want to start the banging right away. I'm not going to go into a big what is right speech because I know that it won't get me anywhere...
 
Posted by DragoniteJ (Member # 815) on 08-05-2002, 03:07 AM:
 
You suck, plain and simple. I feel sorry for any girl that has to put up with you. And right now I have feelings for a girl who most people wouldn't consider to be "attractive" but I think she's beautiful and I even got my friend to admit that she's pretty in her own way, so please admit you were wrong and save the worthless shred of dignity you have left.
 
Posted by PikaCharma (Member # 2026) on 08-05-2002, 04:11 AM:
 
quote:
Originally posted by MK:

I guess so. Why not get married though? Anyway, as sad as it is, my own mind has gone through a semi-metamorphasis, I still say you should get married then have sex, but, I could "almost" understand a couple going ahead and doing the deed early if they were planning on eventually getting married and have been seriously commited to each other for a while, etc...

Ugh, I can't believe I've let my mind fall into that gear, I still know it's stupid and wrong, but, ugh, why am I letting myself feel this way? I guess that's the human side of me trying to kick in.

Marriage isn't for me. I'm too much of a free agent and lone wolf to ever want to spend my life tied down to one person. It might be the romantic ideal for many people, but for me, it's the stuff nightmares are made of. While I am definitely an advocate of personal responsibility ((ie, don't have unprotected sex with anything that'll hold still long enough and then expect to never have to deal with the issues of STD's or unwanted pregnancy)), I just don't see what's wrong with casual or "friendly" sex. Sex means different things to different people. To some people, it might be the ultimate form of true-love, to be saved only for the one with whom you plan to share the rest of your life. And to those people, the 'no sex until marriage' policy might be all well and good, as accurately reflects their personal values and beliefs. But not everyone wants that out of life, and I just don't see why those of us who dislike committed relationships should be denied the chance to explore the sexual sides of ourselves with like-minded people. Losing your virginity on your wedding night might be some people's personal ideal, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, but the idea of the marriage bed being the only appropriate place for anyone to ever have sex is naught but an obsolete social construct. What is morally wrong about two consenting adults practicing safe sex outside of marriage? And please, no Bible references. Biblical-based reasoning is all fine and dandy for making personal decisions, but we're talking about condemning something as being morally wrong for all people in all circumstances. Not all people are Christians, myself included. So give me a secular reason why I'm supposed to die a virgin if I never plan to marry, and why it'd be morally wrong if I grabbed a condom, got on the Pill, and had hot monkey sex with my best guy friend.
 
Posted by ceoalex316 (Member # 338) on 08-05-2002, 07:17 AM:
 
Condoms aren't 100% effective. So if you were to have sex before marriage and got pregnant, what then?
 
Posted by Zerot (Member # 1295) on 08-05-2002, 07:47 AM:
 
You'd either abort or have the baby.
 
Posted by PikaCharma (Member # 2026) on 08-05-2002, 07:52 AM:
 
quote:
Originally posted by ceoalex316:
Condoms aren't 100% effective. So if you were to have sex before marriage and got pregnant, what then?

The Pill, or at least certain types of it, are over 99% effective when used correctly.

But anyways...unwanted pregnancies happen to married couples as well, so it's certainly not an issue that applies only to premarital sex. If I got pregnant and didn't want a kid or was unable to take care of one, I'd have the same options as a married woman who got pregnant and didn't want a kid or was unable to take care of one: have an abortion or put it up for adoption. ((The discussion of the former has already been beaten to death in another thread, so if you wanna debate the morality of that specifically, take it over there.)) But since failed contraception is a result of sex in general, and not at all limited to pre-marital sex, I don't see it as being a reason for arguing against sex before marriage but not after. And before anyone jumps on it...no, I don't think married couples are necessarily better "equipped" to handle an unwanted child than two unmarried people. Newly weds are still adjusting to married life, and the introduction of an unwanted child could mess up the marriage, thus driving the couple apart and causing them to both resent the child; people who have been married a bit longer can have marital difficulties that would only be enhanced by the introduction of a child who would just be caught in the middle of fights all the time...and so forth. Unwanted pregnancies can cause serious problems whether they happen out of wedlock or not, and I don't see how it's any less moral to have a kid out of wedlock than to have a kid while you're married and make him\her grow up in an unstable and possibly hostile household. Both circumstances carry their own sets of complications.

[ 08-05-2002, 08:06 AM: Message edited by: PikaCharma ]
 
Posted by ceoalex316 (Member # 338) on 08-05-2002, 01:56 PM:
 
If your married your kids will have... ah fuck it. You win.
 
Posted by Mick_Hale (Member # 419) on 08-06-2002, 12:48 PM:
 
PikaCharma: the idea of the marriage bed being the only appropriate place for anyone to ever have sex is naught but an obsolete social construct.
I'll argue that, seeing as to how social constructs differ between societies.

But aside from that, it's all left open to opinion. I do blame my upbringing for my views on sex. Chances are that I would have done it by now otherwise. But in the meantime, I'm fairly happy with my decision.

Though, I will display this quote in bold and italics because I can't display it in larger letters because it's one of the most important things said thus far:

Sex means different things to different people.

MK, please note as well.
 
Posted by cmsnrub25 (Member # 1551) on 08-06-2002, 01:11 PM:
 
quote:
Originally posted by PikaCharma:
quote:
Originally posted by ceoalex316:
Condoms aren't 100% effective. So if you were to have sex before marriage and got pregnant, what then?

The Pill, or at least certain types of it, are over 99% effective when used correctly.
Swift misses, and it's supposed to be 99% accurate. Then what?
 
Posted by PikaCharma (Member # 2026) on 08-06-2002, 07:41 PM:
 
quote:
Originally posted by cmsnrub25:
quote:
Originally posted by PikaCharma:
quote:
Originally posted by ceoalex316:
Condoms aren't 100% effective. So if you were to have sex before marriage and got pregnant, what then?

The Pill, or at least certain types of it, are over 99% effective when used correctly.
Swift misses, and it's supposed to be 99% accurate. Then what?
See the rest of my post.
 
Posted by pkthunder (Member # 67) on 06-24-2003, 09:52 AM:
 
The last time someone posted in this thread it was my birthday.
 
Posted by cfalcon (Member # 19) on 06-24-2003, 10:06 PM:
 
I'll have to post here in August.

I think MK left us some quotable quotes here, too.
 
Posted by Psybro (Member # 290) on 06-25-2003, 11:33 AM:
 
this thread seems pretty fucking stupid

not that I did more than skim the first post
 
Posted by ceoalex316 (Member # 338) on 06-25-2003, 11:48 AM:
 
I wasn't being serious here. And when people actually got mad at me for the topic, I thought it would be fun to defend myself.
 
Posted by Living on air bubbles (Member # 2089) on 06-26-2003, 12:47 AM:
 
Anyone who says personality is more important than looks is full of shit.
 
Posted by Gary Oak (Member # 1028) on 06-26-2003, 10:25 AM:
 

 
Posted by Psybro (Member # 290) on 06-26-2003, 11:53 AM:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Living on air bubbles:
Anyone who says personality is more important than looks is full of shit.

aren't you the one that got caught masturbating in class
 
Posted by Living on air bubbles (Member # 2089) on 06-27-2003, 01:14 AM:
 
I swear to God and Jesus and Buddha and Allah and Zeus and Yoda, I can't have a decent conversation with you people.

Ah, fuck it. Mock away.
 
Posted by Ikuse (Member # 3037) on 06-27-2003, 02:52 PM:
 
so did you really b8 in class? what were you thinking?
 
Posted by Cesar (Member # 529) on 06-28-2003, 03:29 AM:
 
Hey Bubbles speaks the truth. I cannot name a single person I know who doesn't enjoy pron. And except those with some really sick old-people fetish, sites usually stick to the 18-early 20 year old individuals.

Not because they last longer, but because they look better. Fuck personality in this case. You want something you can enjoy and toss away when you had your fun.

If personality was all that important to everyone, then we wouldn't have prostitutes.

Course, I'm talking about short term relationships. Long term relationships definately need personality over everything else.
 
Posted by Fenix (Member # 2371) on 06-28-2003, 02:46 PM:
 
My best friend claims he doesn't look at porn or masturbate.
 
Posted by Thomas (Member # 3371) on 06-28-2003, 06:13 PM:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenix:
My best friend claims he doesn't look at porn or masturbate.

I highly doubt it.

I mean, think about it for a second... you, having a friend?
 
Posted by MK (Member # 1445) on 06-28-2003, 06:34 PM:
 
Too many potential loopholes...

He doesn't look at porn or masterbate, that means he can legally do BOTH at the same time.

Also, does he have a girlfriend? If he bangs here, that could make up for the lack of porn.

Maybe he's a religious freak and thinks porn is wrong and stuff, if that's the case I could believe that, also perhaps if he is like under the age of 10.

But, if he's 13 and up, and isn't castrated, and doesn't have a girlfriend, he's a liar... spit in his face for me. I don't like liars...
 
Posted by crowN (Member # 3415) on 06-28-2003, 07:29 PM:
 
Your thoughts [Embarrassed]
 
Posted by Fenix (Member # 2371) on 06-28-2003, 09:49 PM:
 
I'll clarify - he's 16, no girlfriend, athiest. I'm thinking 20% chance closet gay, 80% chance lying.
 


Karpe Diem