A neo-feminist's view of abstinence

[Mrs. Tuberski]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
similarly couldn't she poke and redicule others?

it should go both ways.. or neither way

JM

Why yes she can and that would be my guess was her purpose of the speech.

[boann]

was a somewhat interesting troll
nothing to violent

[Alexander's Horse]

the ice queen returns...

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
Neo-feminists? When people start attaching "neo-" to anything, it's usually a bad sign.

Neoreactionaries

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
Indeed there is nothing oppressive about sharing your morals with others in an environment of free choice.

It depends on how you share your morals. People like Slow want to legislate them on those of us who don't share them. Insulting people is a way of trying to force people to act who you want them too, not persuade them that your morals are better. I don't insult people who are religious, at least not directly, unless they are the type of people who want to shove their morals down my throat.

[Alexander's Horse]

a lot of feminists are no different from the gormless spinsters who used to infest churches and make everybody miserable

[chequita guevara]

What does gormless mean, aside from without gorm.

[Lancer]

I used to enjoy a good gorm-job now and again.

[Ben Kenobi]

gormless spinsters

I thought you'd like the exciting and bold spinsters

[Alexander's Horse]

gormless means foolish, lacking common sense

[Ben Kenobi]

I get lacking vitality and dull...

[Mrs. Tuberski]

Ok i will say this i dont know nor do i care what a feminist is, but i sure would like to know which one of u gentlemen have been so silent as to not voice your opinion on these loud mouth women when they have spoken out. Dont get me wrong you all are entitled to the opinions you have but i am sure that the most of yall have not remained silent

[Alexander's Horse]

I'm far too much of a gentleman to ever voice such sentiments in the presence of ladies.

[Tuberski]

Since when??????

ACK!

[Mr. Harley]

Weighing in from personal experience, I transitioned from Boann's attitude to more like Imran's as I've gotten older. I wanted to become a Jesuit when I was much younger, and because of that stayed a virgin until I was 22. I lost my virginity to a woman I wanted to marry, and it was very special, and the break-up about tore my heart out. So Boann's caution is laudable.

I also got into a relationship afterwards where the woman used the bedroom for power games. Thankfully I did not become embittered, and learned a very valuable lesson. After that I vowed that I would want to have sexual intimacy - a subset of sex - once the relationship went beyond the "like" to the "serious" stage. I can honestly say that 15 years later, I actually get more sex in more marraige than I did when we first started being intimate, mainly because we now live together. And I DEFINITELY get more, umm, how to phrase it, special treatment. That last statement was sort of tongue in cheek.

However, while discussing this with a friend of mine who is into alternative sexual arrangements - he was the husband of the lady of the house, who also had a wife - he agrees that making love is best, but if you can't have it - sex is good to. He has a point, but for me, I am more like John Miller. I am happy I waited, I can still count my total sexual contacts on two hands - not opportunities, I have turned various woman down for various reasons. That worked for me, and as long as you practice safe sex, if you want to have dozens of encounter, go for it.