what makes a woman?

Bella Dea wrote:

iknow wrote:

Bella Dea wrote:

iknow wrote:

i don't care what i think of you either. that isn't th epoint. the point is it isn't good for you. you're teaching yourself that sleeping around without getting to know someone is ok. that not understanding and having deep interaction iwht the other person is good even. that is bad for yourself. its for your own good, especially your own long term good.

Again, why isn't it good for you? And who decides what's good for everyone else? Why do you insist that sex has to be a deep emotional connection? Sometimes, even with my husband who I love with all my being, I like to just f*ck. Not make love. Not bond. Not become one with. Just f*ck. And I don't see anything wrong with that.

then maybe you married a guy that you have a shallow connection relationship with. not that he or you can't have a deep connection with someone else. just maybe that specific relatinoship is shallow, and you could have chosen a different, less slutty, more honorable one. a more enjoyable one.

Are you kidding? My husband is the one person who knows me best. Who loves me unconditionally. Who I love unconditionally. I am truly offended that you would take liberties with my relationship and how my husband and I relate, and I do not offend easily. But you've made a statement about the man I love and quite frankly, I won't stand for it. If you want to condemn me for my beliefs and my "loose morals" go ahead. But leave those I love out of it.

you're the one who stated much more openly you jsut like "****" him. that leaves plenty of room for commenting. you started the personal discusiono about yourself, i just continued it.

Setanta wrote:

I considered the very idea of this thread to be silly when i first saw it. I restate my case that anything which defines a man as honorable applies equally to a woman. The reverse is also true.

I had little notion, however, that the author intended to trot out prudery and a scurrilous condemnation of any woman whom he cannot put up on a stupid and useless Victorian pedestal.

This thread is really disgusting.

who said victorian pedistils were useless? can you support your hypothesis taht tehy are with some type of evidence? i believe its very usefull to not have lots of sex, that it is good for emotional purity, my idea makes a lot of sense. seek the deeper things in life, and you will enjoy it more. what is your hypothesis again? can you state it in a different way other than victorian pedisitl? wahtever that means...

iknow,

i am interested to know if you think sleeping around is bad for men? i realize you have another thread on this but i haven't had time to read it. here's my 2 cents...

some women can handle sleeping around, some can't. to generalize and say anyone woman who sleeps with more than 1 man is emotionally unstable is ridiculous. there are plenty of confident, intelligent, sexually active women out there. maybe they do it because it feels good and they don't have the time or care to give the time to get to know someone (much like some men who sleep around). And to assume that calling a woman a slut is going to make her "change her ways" is also ridiculous. if you are dealing with a confident intelligent woman, she isn't going to give a rat's booty what you say.

on the other hand, there are women who sleep around because they are emotionally unstable, it goes both ways, but to call this woman a slut is going to send her spiralling further down because she can't handle it to begin with. both women exist and to say one is honorable and the other isn't just isn't fair.

there are plenty of people in this world who we meet everyday and don't have deep interaction with. i meet people all the time and engage in small talk. i don't sleep with them (i am married), but what exactly says that to sleep with someone you have to have a deep involved understanding relationship. if no one gets hurt (either emotionally or physically) and they don't do anything illegal, who cares?

sleeping around is bad for some women and not bad for others. just like men, who i believe also in some cases sleep around because they are emotionally unstable. you cannot generalize any population it just doesn't work. we aren't all built the same.

to answer your question about being honorable...i strive to be honest, loving, compassionate, well educated, strong in my beliefs, law abiding (except for my propensity to speed on the highway), faithful to my husband, supportive of my family and true friends, understanding even when some don't agree with me, and forgiving when i can. does this make me honorable, in my eyes-yes. maybe not in other's eyes, but that is ok. its an opinion, and like i have said on many a thread, opinions are just that, they are not right or wrong, they are just opinions. and we can argue all day long about our opinions but we aren't going to get anywhere...

The very text of your reply condemns you. The spelling is atrocious, and the ending is hilarious. You ask: "who said victorian pedistils [sic] were useless?"--after which, at the end of your stumbling attempt to construct coherent sentences in the English language, you write: "what is your hypothesis again? can you state it in a different way other than victorian pedisitl[sic]? wahtever[sic] that means..." Do you read what you write? Do you believe it makes any sense? I urge you to learn to use the "preview" function before posting more drivel. You might then achieve a more plausible class of drivel, or at least drivel which will not embarrass you so.

iknow wrote:

Setanta wrote:

I considered the very idea of this thread to be silly when i first saw it. I restate my case that anything which defines a man as honorable applies equally to a woman. The reverse is also true.

I had little notion, however, that the author intended to trot out prudery and a scurrilous condemnation of any woman whom he cannot put up on a stupid and useless Victorian pedestal.

This thread is really disgusting.

who said victorian pedistils were useless? can you support your hypothesis taht tehy are with some type of evidence? i believe its very usefull to not have lots of sex, that it is good for emotional purity, my idea makes a lot of sense. seek the deeper things in life, and you will enjoy it more. what is your hypothesis again? can you state it in a different way other than victorian pedisitl? wahtever that means...

can you support your hypothesis that sex without a deep understanding makes a woman less honorable? and what about the man making said woman less honorable? is he less honorable for making a woman less honorable?

who said victorian pedistils were useless? can you support your hypothesis taht tehy are with some type of evidence? i believe its very usefull to not have lots of sex, that it is good for emotional purity, my idea makes a lot of sense. seek the deeper things in life, and you will enjoy it more. what is your hypothesis again? can you state it in a different way other than victorian pedisitl? wahtever that means...

what all girls really want is to have a stable, long term relatinoship, a man they can rely on. thus they are honoring themselves by honoring that ideal/goal.

You're a glutton for punishment. Here's the support for my statement that you write drivel:

iknow wrote:

who said victorian pedistils were useless? can you support your hypothesis taht tehy are with some type of evidence? i believe its very usefull to not have lots of sex, that it is good for emotional purity, my idea makes a lot of sense. seek the deeper things in life, and you will enjoy it more. what is your hypothesis again? can you state it in a different way other than victorian pedisitl? wahtever that means...

You couldn't be bothered to copy the correct spelling of pedestal from my previous post. You demand support for my "hypothesis" that a Victorian pedestal is "some type of evidence." It is not a type of evidence, it is a characterization of your prudery. You end this particular passage of drivel by acknowledging that you don't even know what the reference to a Victorian pedestal means. The entire passage is badly written, the spelling is appallingly bad, and in the midst of demanding support for what i've written, you make a series of statements for which you have provided no support.

This crap: "Support?"--is that something someone pulled on you once, and which you now think makes you look clever? You write drivel. The evidence is to be found by simply reading what you write.

i think that saying the word crap is worse than inproper spelling and typos.

iknow wrote:

what all girls really want is to have a stable, long term relatinoship, a man they can rely on. thus they are honoring themselves by honoring that ideal/goal.

And you know this because....

What all WOMEN want is to be treated like human beings. To not be called a slut when her sexuality is open. To not have imbilcles try and tell her what is best for her, what she likes and what she needs.

You are obviously not married and if you are, I pity the woman who is stuck with you.

iknow wrote:

i think that saying the word crap is worse than inproper spelling and typos.

Bella Dea wrote:

iknow wrote:

what all girls really want is to have a stable, long term relatinoship, a man they can rely on. thus they are honoring themselves by honoring that ideal/goal.

And you know this because....

What all WOMEN want is to be treated like human beings. To not be called a slut when her sexuality is open. To not have imbilcles try and tell her what is best for her, what she likes and what she needs.

You are obviously not married and if you are, I pity the woman who is stuck with you.

you're right. girls want to be treated like human beings. do you think they are more likely to be treated that way in a stable long term relatinoship or in a 5 minute wooing period lay? which do you think she is better treated in?

Bella Dea wrote:

iknow wrote:

i think that saying the word crap is worse than inproper spelling and typos.

you know what i meant. calling someone else crap is worse than someone doing inproper grammar. there is some honor for you.

iknow wrote:

Bella Dea wrote:

iknow wrote:

i think that saying the word crap is worse than inproper spelling and typos.

you know what i meant. calling someone else crap is worse than someone doing inproper grammar. there is some honor for you.

No I didn't know what you meant. If you wanted to say "calling someone crap" then you should have said calling people names. You said it like the word itself was dirty or something. ANd are you implying that I am less than honorable because I called you out on something?

have sex but feel like a whore because of what other people say, -me

iknow wrote:

Bella Dea wrote:

iknow wrote:

what all girls really want is to have a stable, long term relatinoship, a man they can rely on. thus they are honoring themselves by honoring that ideal/goal.

And you know this because....

What all WOMEN want is to be treated like human beings. To not be called a slut when her sexuality is open. To not have imbilcles try and tell her what is best for her, what she likes and what she needs.

You are obviously not married and if you are, I pity the woman who is stuck with you.

you're right. girls want to be treated like human beings. do you think they are more likely to be treated that way in a stable long term relatinoship or in a 5 minute wooing period lay? which do you think she is better treated in?

If people like you didn't condemn them for enjoying sex, they could be treated the same whether or not they had sex.