A good relationship can bring out the best in a person sexually/sensually but that is a far cry from saying that all people are going to be equally good under the right conditions. The fact of the matter is, some people will try harder, some people will be more accommodating, some people will understand the language of sexuality/sensuality better, and some people simply have a better sense of eroticism, etc. No relationship, or kind and gentle and loving actions, or showing them many times what you want, is going to change the underlying fact that some people are simply more sexual/sensual/erotic than others. Some in fact are lot better than others good relationship or not.
Yeah, but noone's saying they have to be "equally good", are they? Sure one person may always end up still being a little better than the other, but its about getting someone to be good enough. And the things brooke describes should be able to help with that, if the guy does love her and there are indeed no major blockades between the two that originate outside the bed.
<sighs>
I hope someone out there gets what it is that I am trying to say. Cause Chumly sure doesn't. I guess I'm just no good at words.
Chumly wrote:A good relationship can bring out the best in a person sexually/sensually but that is a far cry from saying that all people are going to be equally good under the right conditions. The fact of the matter is, some people will try harder, some people will be more accommodating, some people will understand the language of sexuality/sensuality better, and some people simply have a better sense of eroticism, etc. No relationship, or kind and gentle and loving actions, or showing them many times what you want, is going to change the underlying fact that some people are simply more sexual/sensual/erotic than others. Some in fact are lot better than others good relationship or not.
I'm starting to think you just like stirring up the pot.
justa_babbling_brooke wrote:<sighs>
I hope someone out there gets what it is that I am trying to say. Cause Chumly sure doesn't. I guess I'm just no good at words.
I think most of us get what you said, and agree. Chumly has a talent for missing the point.
<sighs>
I hope someone out there gets what it is that I am trying to say. Cause Chumly sure doesn't. I guess I'm just no good at words.
snood wrote:Do you intend on backing up your claim and substantiated your disingenuous and specious sweeping generalization that "Chumly has a talent for missing the point"?justa_babbling_brooke wrote:<sighs>
I hope someone out there gets what it is that I am trying to say. Cause Chumly sure doesn't. I guess I'm just no good at words.
I think most of us get what you said, and agree. Chumly has a talent for missing the point.
It would be considered an ad Hominem or personal attack: An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally "argument against the person") or attacking the messenger, involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself. It is usually, though not always, a logical fallacy.
