Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
The Shame of Adult Male Virginity

By FreeBSD in Culture
Mon Aug 23, 2004 at 03:25:33 AM EST
Tags: Focus On... (all tags)
Focus On...

My feeling is that somewhere between the ages of 18 and 22-25 society starts expecting men to not be virgins. Well, maybe "expecting" is not the right word, but that's the age range where I started feeling shame about being a virgin. There are many advantages to being a virgin: you know you're not diseased, you know you're not a daddy and you don't have a woman who has reached deep into your inner feelings and can manipulate you with that leverage. A quick side note about diseases: besides the scary lifelong and life-threatening sexually transmitted diseases it is estimated that as many as 50% of sexually active singles have Genital Warts, for which there is no cure. They are extremely easy to transfer between partners and can be a precursor to penile, cervical and rectal cancer.


When I was 18 or 19 I felt that being a virgin was still okay; one day I confidently stated this at work--a receiving/shipping air & truck terminal, blue collar work with older union guys who openly talked about sex all the time--and felt extremely shamed at the response I got. In retrospect they weren't judgemental but surprised, and two of them offered to "pay" for me, and I felt insulted and ashamed at that. As I went through my 20's I matured in many ways: I became completely financially responsible for myself, I moved out of Mom's house, I worked my way through college and built a successful career. I was a responsible, productive adult, but I wasn't dating. Although I felt shame from time to time about being a virgin I had an inner confidence that once I started dating things would go well for me; I was overweight but otherwise good looking, and I had the job and finances going my way [insert your own confidences and no-confidences here]; what wasn't to like? At age 27 I finally started dating but constantly got the "let's just be friends" and variants of that. Then I felt something was wrong with me; I was missing something. Here I am, 27, dating, but women aren't going for me. I suddenly felt like I was 14 again: just starting to like girls but clueless about them. It was a very weird feeling to feel so adult and so childish at the same time, and I felt that my lack of experience with women was a large part of why they weren't interested. I was 27 then and they expected me to know how to woo and seduce a woman. I don't know if that's what they all thought, but my 4-year woman date/friend (on and off) definitely has an issue with being my first sexual experience, and I've overheard other conversations of women my age indicating they vastly prefer experienced men. As the years went by into my 30's I became more and more shy and now am deathly afraid of a woman or my peers making me feel ashamed or juvenile if they find out I'm still a virgin. When I was 28 I dated 7 women in that year, but I've dated one in the past two years now.

I don't even talk to anyone about my virginity anymore; at one time I had a female email pen-pal with whom I felt comfortable sharing my feelings and getting her point of view but after a year quit learning from her and felt I was whining all the time, and briefly I shared some inner thoughts with my married sister but felt disrespected in her responses, and I no longer talk about sex or virginity with my 4-year lady friend because I know she would've slept with me by now if she ever wanted to, and conversing with her about sex feels like getting rejected all over again; I feel like she thinks of me as her girlfriend or a neutered guy; if she reinforces her unwillingness to have sex with me it's a direct rejection, but even if she tries to encourage me it's like she's saying "you're not good enough for me, but if you could find someone desperate enough to have sex with you...."

Of course, there are many parts of our society that encourage or even insist that men remain virgins until marriage. This site is not to debate that; if your values or beliefs lead you to stay a virgin I have no problem with that and respect you for it. This site is to help those who are adult frustrated involuntary virgins from feeling so bad.

It's Not As Bad As We Think

I'm about to stop composing for today, but I don't want to end on a whiny, shaming, "I feel bad" mood, because you had that before you read all this. I think a lot of our problem is self-shaming, and I don't think others think our being an older virgin is as bad as we think; I'm beginning to suspect there is a lot of understanding and acceptance available to us if we opened up a bit. Everyone is insecure about something. I am no longer just overweight but obese, yet when I take the time to pull my head out of my ass I realize that people--even women--react very positively to me, and I sense attraction from women. Some of you might think you're ugly or otherwise undesirable, but look around and some of the guys with women and you'll see there is always somebody uglier or less desirable with a woman. Our feelings of insecurity and desperation are self-feeding, and they show through to women; I'm sure of this. When I'm attracted to a woman is when it all falls apart for me. When I'm not feeling that way women are fine and warm with me. I'll bet you're the same way.

I believe that our insecurities sabotage our advances towards women. I think women are very accommodating, but they want us to drive. Some women don't want to deal with an inexperienced lover, but I believe if I approached my 4-year lady friend with straightforward statements of intention and my experience I would've had sex with her, but instead I approached her almost apologetically and almost begging; in retrospect it was like I was asking "please, mommy, can I have some sex?" or "will you teach me to have sex?" I think it would've been much more likely to succeed if I had confidently said something like "I'm a bit nervous about sex, but I want to rub your feet [she likes when I do that], massage your body and see where that leads." Or maybe it would've been better just to do it and not say it.

In short I think if we can accept our virginity and lack of experience yet still proceed with confidence the women will feel relaxed and accommodating and not feel like they have to teach us to be men. Much easier to say than do, of course, but perhaps if we can air out our insecurities here anonymously and get our heads (both of them) on straight we can finally feel confident, loved and accepted.

One of the first things I'm asked whenever I (rarely) tell someone I'm a virgin: "Do you masturbate?" I don't think it's funny when they ask, but it happens every time, and I think that's funny. Maybe that indicates that they aren't judging me but reflect upon their own insecurities and wonder how I can go for long without an orgasm?

I Got Laid!

Well, I got laid. And I'll give you my thoughts before and after, and describe as best I can the experience of losing my virginity to a paid escort in a hotel room in Windsor, Ontario (Canada). This is really long and rambling, and it changes subjects rapidly a few times, but that's what you get. I think I'm more apt to go try to get laid some more rather than refine this. I hope this helps! It's divided into three smaller headlines. If you want the Penthouse Forum fuck'n'suck details right away, jump to paragraphs 5 and 6 after the "Fuck and Tell" headline. I get pretty detailed. But a lot of my thoughts are in here too. In the third headline "Virgin No More" I try to provide encouraging and enlightening thoughts for adult male virgins to consider.

Before: Last Days of Virginity

I've been trying lately to get myself out of the apartment and be more social. I've been getting more and more hermit-like over the past two years, and I'm not getting any younger. Frankly I'm getting fatter, too; it's a cycle that feeds itself: I feel unwanted for being fat, so I stay at home and do less and get fatter. It's a hard battle with myself, and my lack of confidence doesn't help. I put an ad up on Yahoo! Personals and sent a few emails but got no responses!

In the past I never wanted a prostitute. I was mildly curious, but the stigma was too bad, and I didn't think paying a woman to have sex would increase my confidence. In fact I thought paying for sex would decrease it, and I figured I'd then think "gee, I can only get sex if I pay for it." And, of course, in most of the U.S. it's illegal. So the combined stigma, personal feelings, high risk of public embarassment if caught and fear of the scene (disease, drugs, possibly getting robbed) kept me from ever seriously considering it. But recently I started trying to learn more about it. It's really hard to find that sort of info! For a couple of weeks I had no solid info, then I found the World Sex Guide web site. It includes forums where guys post their experiences with prostitutes including prices, tips and such. I read and read and read and got a better idea of what the costs, procedures and risks would be for given areas. Many of these guys are "sex tourists" or "hobbyists" who regularly visit prostitutes. Some are single and some are married or otherwise in a relationship. Even here I found no info about losing your virginity to a prostitute, but you can't have everything, can you? For more general prostitute info and links, go to my American Prostitution freesite linked below.

Reading about the hows, wheres, costs and risks of prostitution took much of the fear of the unknown away. And I found out that outcall prostitution is legal in Canada, and in fact the escorts register with the state! I decided that since I'm not getting any younger, and I'm not making progress towards dating or having sex I would start seriously considering paying a prostitute. For various cost, referral and risk reasons, my three preferred options were to hire a local outcall girl to come to my house ($300/hr), drive to another state that seems to not be cracking down on some strip clubs offering sex in the back rooms ($90/half hour or orgasm, whichever first) and driving to Canada, getting a room and hiring an outcall escort (legal, $150-$300 per hour Canadian = $107-$214 US, plus gas, tolls and hotel, hotel rates vary, 2-3 hour rates available). I decided I wanted a girl who would not make me feel rushed or hurt my ego in any way, so I decided Canada was the way to go because the girls' contact information and reputation are fully public because they are legal and registered. I picked an independent escort (as opposed to an agency) that seemed well-recommended and relatively cheap to boot. I emailed her and told her where I was from, how I heard of her and that I was looking to lose my virginity in hopes of lifting my confidence and increasing my sex drive. I told her I'd like to come up on my day off. She emailed back and was pretty friendly but said she had a cold and was taking the weekend off. She did ask me to let her know if I could come up later.

Fuck and Tell: The Gory Details

By now I had pretty much psyched myself into doing it. I really didn't need to spend the $300 or so on the trip, but like I said I'm not getting any younger. I thought I might change my mind between days off, but I didn't. I made up my mind to do it. I emailed her a day ahead of time and told her I was coming up and asked if she was avaialbe. Unfortunately I didn't get an answer before I left the next morning, but I went anyway. If I were to do it over again, I would plan farther ahead, reserve a room ahead of time and reserve the escort's time ahead of time and make sure I left with several hours to spare. Food for thought if anyone follows in my tracks, but as you'll see it worked out okay for me this time. As I drove I realized it was a Friday and probably one of her busiest days. I had hoped to get there by early afternoon, but I left so late I'd be lucky to get there by 6pm. I called her from what I thought was three hours away and made the appointment. She sounded quiet and shy when answering the phone, and I wasn't quite sure how to handle the situation; I felt very self conscious sitting at a phone booth and making an appointment to pay for sex. Of course I was nervous too, and I got the feeling she was nervous bout meeting someone new. I identified myself and she recognized my name from the emails. Anyway I kept the call very short and we estimated that the appointment would be at 7pm. I decided to get two hours to be sure I wasn't rushed and in hopes of trying everytyhing out and having sex several times.

I was running it much closer on time than I thought and didn't have a cell phone. It takes time to get accross the US/Canada border, but not too much. I had decided on staying overnight, and she suggested the casino (Casino Windosr) hotel saying it was comparably priced to the rest. I found the casino, parked in the garage, walked in and tried to get a room. It was about 6:55pm and they were fully booked! I called the escort again and told her the situation and that I'd call her back in a few minutes when I found a hotel. She gave another suggestion, and I went to the Concierge and got some more suggestions, one of which was a 3-block walk. I walked instead of drove because I figured it would be much faster than getting lost and parking. I booked the room, went to it and called the escort; it was now about 7:15pm and we agreed that she'd come by in about 30 minutes. I told her I was going to shower even though I had already showered just before I left. I wanted to be super-clean. I used the restroom and the toilet clogged. Then I realized I broght shaving cream but no razor, a toothbrush but no toothpaste, no comb or brush and no underwear other than what I was wearing. Basically by this time I felt rushed and stupid, and everything was falling apart. I got a razor and toothpaste from the hotel and showered thoroughly and then called hotel maintenance to unclog the toilet figuring we would need it at some point over the next two hours.

The escort arrived; I'll make up a name for her because it's getting old typing "the escort" and it's very impersonal, and I'm about to describe fucking her. She's legal and registered so I could use her real name (or at least the name she gave me), but I'm not going to mainly to be sure my identity is protected. Her name is now Jane, okay? So, Jane arrives at 8pm, later than she said, but I was late, too, and the damn maintenance guy wasn't there yet. I had seen photos of her on the internet, but for some reason her face was erased in her photos; some of the escorts did that. I wasn't expecting a model face, but she was prettier than I expected. Most of the escorts aren't young and skinny, and the ones that are charged more. Jane wasn't skinny, but I wouldn't call her fat. She was in her mid 30's. Everything but the face I knew about beforehand. She had a yellow sun dress (I think that's what it was) on. I greeted her, asked her in and asked her to have a seat. I had read other reviews that she hugged guys when greeting, but she didn't with me. I told her that I was expecting the maintenance guy because the toilet was clogged; I called the front desk again and they said he'd be right up.

I apologized for being late and apologized because I was afraid I sounded curt on the phone. She started some "getting to know you" small talk, and we talked about my work, her work and some other things I can't recall right away. The maintence guy showed up during the small talk and fixed the toilet and left. I told her--in person this time--about why I hired her and how I felt little confidence with other women. Well, enough of that crap, let's get on with the Penthouse Forum part of the story. Suffice to say it took us a few minutes to get comfortable with each other an she expressed that she gets nervous meeting new clients because she never knows what to expect behaviorally. Okay, one more thing I haven't mentioned yet: She knew I was heavy and had seen pictures of me when I emailed her because I wanted to be sure that wasn't a problem, and it wasn't. One more "one more thing": I counted the money out and put it on the dresser because I read that's what you do. I had it out before she came but put it away until the maintenance guy left, then took it out before we got down to business.

I wasn't sure quite how to get started, but she must've sensed that becase she said "well, I guess we should get started". I stammered a bit and said "I'm all for that" but couldn't quite figure out what to say or do next. I told her "I'll let you start because I don't know how to." She said "lets take our clothes off" and started taking hers off. I took of mine and helped her with her zipper. She told me to lie down on the bed and I did. She was wearing a black lacey bra and panty combination and asked if I wanted them on or off; I was trying to decide and she took them off. She had a shaved pussy and had a pierced belly button. Her tits weren't as shapely or large as most strippers or porn stars, but I wasn't complaining.

I was somewhat nervous, but not so much that it paralized me. I had the knowledge that we were going to fuck and my looks and performance didn't matter and that took a lot of the anxiety away. She laid in bed next to me with her naked body against mine. She said "hi" and I said "it's nice to meet you." She laid on top of me and kissed me quite a bit. She then worked her way down by chest and belly to my balls, rubbing her hands and nails all over me and rubbing her tits on my cock while it got hard--that didn't take long! When I was hard she started licking my balls. Oh my God that felt great! (When masturbating I've never played with my balls much; this was quite a new sensation.) She put as much of her tounge as she could on my balls and licked up and around them. I could feel the texture of her tounge. She licked from the back of my sack near my anus up. Wow. You gotta try that...never felt anything like that when masturbating. She said she could taste the soap and I apologized, but she laughed and said that was fine and it smelled nice, and I figured better soap than shit. Make a note to rinse very thoroughly when bathing before sex. She licked my balls for a while and ran her nails over my lower belly and on my upper inner thighs near my anus. That area is quite sensitive and I've never stimulated it before...I gotta remember to try that on women in the future as it must feel good to them, too.

She got a flavored condom (she brought them) and put it on me. It was cherry flavored and I laughed and said that was appropriate. She laughed too because I don't think she planned it that way. She put the condom on me and went down on me. That felt really good; I felt her lips and tongue and even her teeth! I just barely felt her teeth gently gliding along and they felt very nice...I assume that was intentional, but maybe all blowjobs are like that. I kept finding myself closing my eyes and enjoying the pleasure then reminding myself to open them and look at this woman sucking my dick! It was nice seeing a woman there, ass up in the air so pretty and all real not imagined.

I had previously wondered how long I would last before ejaculating when having sex. I had read that many men only last 1-3 minutes. I could masturbate for 10-30 minutes, sometimes more, but I had read one guy somewhere saying that he could masturbate a long time but comes quickly when fucking. I didn't know what to expect, but she told me before we started that men she's been with before who've either been virgins or married and not fucking thier wives for years can't always come with her, and that they have to masturbate to finish. Sure enough, the blowjob felt great but I never felt close to coming. But it still felt great!

After a few minutes of her sucking my dick she sat up and said "are your ready for some screwing?" Hell yeah. She asked me what position, and I said lets start with her on her back. I'm fat and I knew I couldn't lie on top of her, and this was one of my concerns about sex with women, so I was eager to figure out how I'd manage to fuck. She laid on her back and spread her legs. I resisted the idea to play doctor and get a close look at what a real twat looks like up close, but I did rub my finger around her pussy lips a bit and between them. She liked that. I was slightly concerned about getting my dick in her because my belly was starting to look really big and in the way, but it wasn't a problem and I penetrated with a little hand guidance from her. (I'm fat enough where I can't quite see my dick go in.)

Wow guys, pussy feels great! I mean it really feels good! It's like it's made to please our cocks or something. (Oh yeah.) I've masturbated with various sex toys including a Cyberskin pussy, but there's no substitute for the real thing. It felt hot inside--not just warm--and it felt like there were muscles at the opening of her vagina squeezing my cock gently. I was very slow and gentle at first, trying to figure out how best to put my hips, hands and knees to support myself and get the deepest penetration. I can tell sex would be more fun without my big belly in the way, but it's definitely possible and pleasurable to fuck when you're fat. I'm not sure how to describe the feeling of my cock deep inside her. Squishy, warm and soft don't really seem to get the point across. It feels great, but I'm sure it would've felt better without the condom. (Would NEVER go condomless with a prostitute, though.) She seemed to enjoy the fucking and told me several times that felt good. I tried some shallow thrusts and some deep thrusts, but all fairly slowly. It felt really good but I still wasn't close to coming. Again I kept finding myself closing my eyes and savoring the feelings like I do when I masturbate, except that this time I don't have to pretend that I'm fucking a woman because I know it's real. I kept reminding myself to open my eyes and look at her. Her body below me, her legs out to the side and behind me, her tits bouncing gently as I thrust. A couple of times I pulled a bit far back and came partway out and didn't go back in smoothly. I asked her if that hurt and she said no.

I want to talk a bit about my frame of mind. It wasn't like "Yippee, yeehah I'm fucking, I'm getting laid!" like I thought it would be. It was kind of surreal. I frequently felt like I wasn't excited enough. I was telling myself (in my head) "hey, you're in bed with a naked woman fucking her just like you always wanted, shouldn't you be more excited?" And I'd answer myself "yeah? so? I like it. Big whoop." I mean I was excited, but not in the way you are at a football game when you're screaming for the home team. I don't think I'm getting the point across well. I guess it's more like when you're watching an X-rated film and get horny and masturbate. It's all exciting eye-candy before and during masturbation, but after I come I get bored and turn the movie off. When fucking her I wasn't bored, but I was enjoying the feeling of her pussy around my cock and the feel of her skin on mine and her hands and nails running over my body. So my sexual excitement while fucking was a more mellow thing than the "ride-em cowboy" porn films sometimes portray. But I'm not complaining or saying that's a bad thing. It compares more to enjoying great food. You don't jump up and down and scream "YEAH! Fuckin' great steak!" but you sit there and savor the flavors and the moment. That's what sexual excitement was like for me; it was being mellow enough to feel all the sensations of her pussy and body against me while being energetic enough to thrust in and out.

She told me ahead of time that there's no trick to it, just do what feels good and experiment with each other, and that's what we did as I pumped her and tried a few different adjustments and she moved her hips and legs here or there. After a while I told her I wanted to try doggie style. She got on all fours and put her legs wide. For some reason I had expected my legs to straddle hers, but she told me to put my legs closer together and said if I wasn't tall enough that I might have to stand. I was surprised since I'm a tall guy and she was a short girl. I expected that I'd be too tall, but nope. I put my legs almost together and she had to help me put it in again. We did that for a little bit, but I couldn't penetrate as deeply in that position and I didn't really have a place to lean because I figured I was too heavy to put my hands on her backside and lean.

We didn't doggie for very long, and I said I wanted to try something else but wasn't sure what yet. She told me to lie down on my back, and I said "oh yeah!" realizing that she was going to mount me and ride me. She said her legs were short and she wasn't sure if this was going to work, but it worked pretty well. I don't remember that part much for some reason; I don't think that lasted very long, but I can't recall how good the penetration was. (For me the deeper penetration feels better; I like her pussy grip as close to the base of my cock as possible, but it all feels good, really.)

I think I remember now. I think that's when I asked her about how long most guys last and if I was a tough customer. She didn't really answer directly but we acknowledged that my long-term hand masturbation made it difficult to come with her. I assured her I was enjoying everything very much though. She got off me and started sucking my dick and licking my balls again it felt great and lasted quite a while, and she was frequently bobbing her head up and down quickly. It felt great, but I still wasn't close to coming. Not really a problem for me since I was enjoying everything and getting my ego pumped up at how long I was lasting, but I started wondering if she was getting tired of bobbing up and down on me. I kept thinking about asking her if she needed a break or wanted to fuck some more but it felt good and I felt like I didn't want to interrupt her.

She finally sat up and said "I need a drink of water" and I told her I was wondering if I should give her a break. So we both drank some water. She sat cross-legged on the bed with a pillow in her lap, and I laid beside her and we talked some more. We talked a bit about our fucking and some other things. My cock was staying hard but finally started deflating a bit after a while. I said "uh-oh, I'm going down" and she started sucking it again and perked it right back up. She licked and sucked, but I really wanted to fuck her some more but was a bit shy about asking and couldn't figure out how to ask nicely, so I finally said "I'd like to screw you, but I can't figure out a nice way to ask." She laughed and said there really isn't a nice way and laid down.

I was able to put my dick in her myself this time, and I once again savored her pussy. I fucked slowly for a bit, and then went faster. I went deeper and faster, and she was into it and I was into it. I went what I thought was all-out, but I'm sure I could've pumped harder if I wanted to. She reached up an braced agains the headboard to keep from slipping, and I pumped and pumped away. I started feeling a tingling in my loins as her pussy muscles slid and gripped, and the base of my cock felt more excited and I realized I was probably going to be able to come. I had actually started worrying about not being able to come with her and briefly wondered about whether about my virgin status if I fucked her but didn't come, but that was a brief thought that went away because we were having too much fun. But it was good to know I could last long and still come with a woman. So I continued pumping quickly and firmly as deeply as I could, and her breathing changed and she moaned a bit. (When masturbating a woman moaning always gets me hotter, but it really didn't seem to affect me this time, but maybe that's because my dick was in her already and I was already fully stimulated.) Her moans and breathing got really erradic, and I wondered if she orgasmed, and I wondered if I should ask her and/or slow down and/or stop, but I just kept going because my loins and the base of my cock were tingling more and more and I wanted to fill that condom while pumping her. My breathing had been getting heavier and heavier and I was now grunting and moaning at times but just enjoying the animal pleasure of it. In the past when I've used a fake pussy to masturbate the head of my cock gets really sensitive and I have to stop thrusting as I come, but usally with the toy I'm not using a condom. I really wanted to fuck this girl and come while pumping but was afraid I'd have to stop or even withdraw. But I kept pumping and feeling and hoping as the tension rose and I could feel the orgasm coming. She wasn't as active now so I think she came but wasn't sure. The pressure built up and I pumped and pumped and came inside her (with condom on) and was able to thrust while coming and it felt terrific. I slowed a bit because I didn't want the condom to break or leak, and I sat there a few seconds inside her with the after-jerks of my orgasm slowing down and enjoying the warmth and sudden silence. I wanted to sit like that for a while, but I think you need to grab the condom and pull out in case your dick goes soft inside her and starts leaking jizz. So I grabbed the condom at the base of my cock and pulled out.

Okay, I did feel a bit triumphant at that moment. I was happy that I came, and I was thrilled that I went so long before coming. I think we fucked and sucked for an hour or more before I came, but it wasn't constant stimulation of course. Still, at that moment I felt like I could pleasure any woman. I'm sure we said something to each other but don't remember what. We both got up and got another drink of water, and I laid on the bed feeling very mellow and relaxed and not really wanting to move or do anything; it wasn't being tired from the physical activity or sleepy, but just a very mellow and relaxed feeling where I just wanted to lie there and space out and feel good. I was hoping to fuck her again, but at the time I couldn't imagine being able to get it up again before our time was up. She came out from the restroom and we talked a bit more, and it was now 9:30pm. She started getting dressed, and I thought it was a bit odd since she arrived at 8pm, but I was too happy, mellow, grateful and incapable of fucking to make an issue of it. I got dressed, too and helped her with her zipper. As we talked she got the money and made her way to the door. We hugged two or three times while talking, thanking and saying goodbye and she left.

I thought it a bit odd that she left after 90 minutes when I paid her for two hours, especially since many guys had posted that the Canadian women, and this one in particular, didn't "watch the clock" when servicing and frequently stayed a little longer. But then I realized the original appointment was for 7pm and I was the late one, so another point of view might say that she stayed 30 minutes extra, and it was a Friday night, and she was probably trying to make another appointment. So no hard feelings on my part.

After: Virgin No More

Again, where I had always expected I'd want to throw a parade when I finally got laid, I just kept thinking it was very enjoyable but no big deal. Being a virgin for 33 years I know it's frustrating for people to tell you sex is no big deal, but after having had sex I have to say the same thing. I want to try to translate for you from non-virgin-speak to virgin-speak while I can still remember the frustration of being a virgin. It's like trying a new food that you really like. Let's say you've never had Tiramisu, an Italian dessert made of espresso-soaked lady fingers topped with custard and cocoa, and you finally try it after people telling you how wonderful it is. Perhaps they've built up your expectations so high that you're expecting a wonderful experience, and the first time you go to a restaurant they are out of Tiramisu, so your tension is even higher. But you finally get to a restaurant and they have it and you try it and love it. It's everything you thought it could be, it makes you (well, your taste buds) feel great, and you enjoy the whole thing and plan to eat more later at every opportunity. But even though it was thoroughly enjoyable it's no big deal. You ate it, your friends ate it, it's been around for hundreds or thousands of years, so it's not like you walked on the moon or discovered cold fusion, you know? No reason to throw a party just because you ate a tasty new dessert. So yes, sex is a big deal when you haven't had it because of the anxiety, the unfamiliarity and the feeling you're not in the club. And it feels wonderful and is wonderful and I want to do it more and more, but I don't feel the need to break open a bottle of champagne or set off fireworks or anything, which are some of the things I kind of imagined--when I was a virgin (a whole 26 hours ago)--I'd want to do after finally having sex.

Just to finish the story: I hopped in the shower almost immediately after she left and washed my groin thoroughly several times with antibacterial soap, just to be sure. I then dried my groin area with a hair dryer so it wouldn't be moist and helpful to anything that I hope she didn't have and I didn't get. Then I got dressed and went to the casino and played for a bit, but I didn't play much or stay long. I went back to the hotel, watched some TV and went to sleep. The next morning I checked out and drove home. By the way, getting into the U.S. is harder than getting out. Just be prepared for the third degree from U.S. Customs and don't talk back to them! They are the most athoritarian law enforcement group in the U.S., so don't fuck with them. I didn't fuck with them because I already knew this, but I want you to know in case you go out of the country.

After having the enjoyable experience of thrusting into the pussy of a woman lying under me, my feelings towards women in general--at least in the past 24 hours--has changed. I look at women and where before I wanted to fuck them and didn't quite know what it would be like I can now better imagine them lying under me with my cock in them, and I want them. I'm not sure how to describe how its different except that there's less anxiety and less imagination. I know what pussy feels like and I want more, and I know they have it, and I feel pretty confident I can make them happy in bed.

Somehow when I was younger I got what I call a Disney outlook on romance. I remember when I was younger thinking that a platonic attraction/love was somehow more pure than a carnal attraction, and I think that shaped how I approached (or didn't approach) women. Somehow I got it in my head that it was rude or bad to desire to fuck a woman. To step briefly into psychoanalysis mode I might guess that's because my parents divorced when I was just beginning to like girls and my mom was bitter with dad for years (well, she still is), but I won't continue with they psychoanalysis because in my case I think it's avoiding the problem rather than doing something about it. When I started dating at 27 the disney ideals started crumbling quickly. You might think that's a good thing, but in many ways it wasn't because now I felt lost and clueless about women. The Disney outlook continued crumbling, and I think some of the last of it crumbled when I decided to fuck a whore rather than stay a virgin.

When deciding to pay for sex one of my hopes was that it would whet my carnal desire to fuck women and make me more aggressive with women in addition to being confident. It's only been 24 hours, so it's too early to say for sure, but I definitely hunger for pussy like I hunger for food. It's a different hunger than my virgin horniness, too. When a virgin when I got horny my dick got excited and sensitive, but as soon as I came inside her my horny hunger has involved my loins, or whatever that small part of our upper-inner thighs are. My whole crotch is hungry like my stomach can be hungry, where before it was just a happy dick. (The previous section was striked out 4 days later when I realized what I was feeling was the beginnings of sore muscles; the soreness is almost gone now, and horniness feels about the same as before except I really want pussy instead of masturbation.) And I haven't masturbated yet...I want pussy. I'll probably masturbate tonight, but I want to get out soon and see if this hunger for pussy and my carnal knowledge will help me be more aggressive with women.

Jane said that I would learn to come more easily with women as I had more women. But from all I've heard stamina is a good thing. Then again I can't quite help wonder if there was a nervousness or lack of intimacy that contributed to making hard for me to come. If my loins hunger and I get a woman into bed--a woman who wants to fuck me for pleasure and not for mone--if I will be more excited and come faster. We'll have to see, and I hope to find out soon!

Now, there probably still are some problems. I know what it's like to fuck a woman, and I have confidence that I can fuck and not come in 20 seconds, and I have confidence that I can get a hard-on quickly (Jane commented that I got it up quickly when it was time to get busy.) However, aside from calling an escort and booking an appointment I still haven't seduced a woman, and I haven't "closed the sale" to get her into bed. I'll try not to worry about that, though, and let instinct be my guide. (I'm reareading parts of this the next day; I think "closing the sale" is not a valid concept after all. As I discuss more later on I don't think there are "steps" or "events" to worry about. I think there's no magic moment between not having sex and having sex that is something to make a big deal about, but as virgins it is a big deal to us because it's the perceived barrier between being a virgin and not being a virgin. But it's not a real barrier; it's in your head. As I say later it's like when a movie uses music, sound effects and camera angles to build up tension and then release it, but the only real life build up and release with sex is the orgasm, and that's actually a mellow excitement more than a high-tension movie excitement. So there's no "close the sale" moment but instead it's just a part of getting to know a woman, and sometimes you're compatible enough and things keep building up and you orgasm. Actually you can have lots of fun without orgasming, too.)

(This paragraph was written the day after most of this and is a continuation of the parenthetical comments in the last paragraph.) Even with the prostitute there was no magic distinction between having sex and not having sex. If you had to draw a line between sex and not sex you might think to draw it when we got undressed together or when she started pleasuring me. But when was that? When I saw her in person? When we hugged in bed? When she kissed my lips? When she rubbed her tits on me? When she put the condom on? When I put the money on the table? I know as a virgin you might put the "sex/not sex" line around the time between when we took our clothes off and the time she started sucking my dick; at least that's where I would've put the line when I was a virgin. But it was a long process in reality. There was no actual point in time dividing the time when I wasn't expecting sex to when I knew sex was iminent. From the reading about prostitution, to selecting this escort in Canada, to emailing her, to calling her, to packing for the trip and getting the necessary border-crossing documents, the drive, calling her, crossing the border, getting a room, calling her again, meeting, talking, paying, undressing, cuddling, sucking, fucking, resting, sucking and fucking some more and then orgasming, there was no point I can pin down where it went from "not going to have sex" to "gonna have sex", and no point really between "not having sex" and "having sex", either. It's a process, not a series of events that you can check off on a piece of paper to see how close you are to having sex. At any point I could've backed out. Even after we undressed and she kissed me and rubbed her tits on me: if I stopped then, then did we have sex? I don't think so. What if I had stopped after the blow job? What if I stopped after X seconds or minutes of fucking? As a virgin it looks like there's a Grand Canyon of difference between not having sex and having sex, and you can't figure out how to get across. But once you've had sex and look back you see it was just a continuous walking trail with no milestones to speak of. Hahaha, I just remembered the scene from "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" where Indiana is supposed to take a Leap of Faith over a wide (and very deep) chasm that he has to cross to save his father's life. His eyes and head tell him it's impossible, but his father lies dying and the Holy Grail across the chasm is the only thing that can save him. So he closes his eyes, puts his foot out in front and falls forward. What was a tense moment ends when his foot immediately hits a hard surface: a bridge that wasn't visible becuse of an optical illusion. He then simply walks across and then throws sand back across the bridge to kill the optical illusion so others may cross. This "I Got Laid" section is my attempt to throw sand back across the chasm for my fellow adult virgins to see that the path is a series of unremarkable steps and no great leap.

I haven't had second thoughts about paying for sex yet. Again, it's only been a day, but I always thought I might feel shame. Now I don't want to go announcing to my friends and family that I paid for sex, but I don't really feel bad, shamed or guilty about it so far. I don't currently plan to go back again because it's expensive and I expect I should be able to find my own pussy, but if money and fear of disease weren't a factor I'd probably go back periodically. (But if money weren't a factor then I'm sure I'd have my selection of free pussy...you know women throw it at the rich men.)

I still talk to that lady friend that I mentioned that I've known for years but doesn't want to be my first. When driving back home I was wondering if I wanted to tell her about this. I actually debated it a bit, but I've firmly decided I'll tell her about it and tell her any details she wants. And I'll fuck her if she wants it, but we live several hundred miles apart now so I'm not waiting. And even if we do fuck I'm not going to be committed to her in any way. I'm not saying I'm trying to become a man-slut, but I'm not going to play Disney romances anymore, and I'm not ready for any commitments right now. I'd love a "fuck buddy" to hang around with and have sex. I hope to find one locally soon. Update the next day: I called her and chatted a while and then told her I did it. She asked some questions and we talked about it a long time. She didn't really give any indication if she wants sex, but she's several hundred miles away anyway, so I'll see what happens the next time we're in the same city or the next time she calls me up depressed and half drunk on wine.

Some more thoughts about what it feels like to have sex: I wish I could better describe what it's like for the adult virgins whose ranks I've just left. There really wasn't anything "special" or "neato" or "super" about it. No corny porn music needed to be played to set a mood. No out-of-body experiences. Just two people together pleasuring each other. And it's not like a backrub where you think real hard to make it just right. It's primal, instinctive even. I was thinking about her pleasure, too, and I carressed her here and there while fucking her. I mean yes, it's this really wonderful thing, but at the same time it's no big thing. We've all seen pussy in photos and on TV, and it's both the same and different in person. It looks the same, but it's hard to explain why it's different to actually be there sliding your dick in than imagining it. I think when we're a virgin it's a magical, mystical thing because we haven't done it, and our imaginations fills that unknown moment with that element that makes good dreams so undefinably mysteriously good, but when you're there and the woman is naked and you're about to fuck her it's all real. It's great, but it's not magic, it's not undefinable. She's there, you're there, you want to fuck each other and you're about to. No magic, just good feelings like eating good food or feeling the wind in your hair or other earthly pleasures that are good to feel and spiritually fulfilling but still just no big deal. No scary moment, no rush of angels singing for your pleasure, but your dick feeling the hot welcoming tunnel of pussy as piece of cake sliding onto your toungue (but not like that jaw-lock feeling when you put something sweet in your mouth and your glands contract, just the pleasure of sweet cake in your mouth). That's the pleasure side, but the procedural side is more like getting into a sports car you want to drive. You know you're going to enjoy driving it, but there's no special moment as you open the door, sit in the seat and start the engine. I mean the vroom of the engine as you turn the key is nice, but there's no magic moment between not driving the car and driving the car to make a big deal about. Same with sex for me; when masturbating and imagining sex I imagine penetration as some magic moment, but it wasn't when I really did it. It was an intermediate step in a procedure of fucking pleasure. Update the next day: I'm rereading this and seem to contradict myself about the moment of penetration. But it's still no big thing; yes it felt good, but my dick and loins felt good before that because we were in the mood and having fun, and it felt good during and after penetration. So again, penetration is no milestone but just a step in the dance, and it's all good. The movies (non-X-rated) make penetration seem like a big deal, but it ain't. I mean I think a small part of my brain was thinking "I'm finally actually fucking", but that went away really quickly because I was just enjoying the experience, not the moment or any definable event.

I think the movies are what made me imagine and expect some magic moment, come to think of it. Because they always build up the tension, cue the tense music and arrange releases of emotion. But real life isn't like that. We enjoy pleasures, but there's not really a climactic build-up and realease except for the actual orgasmic climax, and the meeting, getting undressed, sucking, penetrating, thrusting and petting are all build-ups to the literal and literary climax; they aren't releases of tension within themselves.

So what I want to tell you and tell myself is this: Don't worry! My lack of confidence and fear I think were always centered around perceived build-ups and releases: asking a girl out, making the first kiss or caress, progressing contact, proposing sex and so forth. Those steps aren't climaxes (literary sense), but those are the moments all my anxiety was built around. There's nothing at stake when we're turned down for a date or for sex. Those things aren't mini-climaxes, they're all part of the buildup. Think of them as plot twists instead of climaxes. That's what I'm going to try to do.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
When did you lose your virginity?
o <15 10%
o 16 9%
o 17 12%
o 18 16%
o 19 11%
o 20 7%
o 21 7%
o 22 5%
o 23 4%
o 24 3%
o 25 0%
o 26 1%
o 27 1%
o 28 1%
o >29 4%

Votes: 327
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o Yahoo
o Also by FreeBSD


Display: Sort:
The Shame of Adult Male Virginity | 302 comments (272 topical, 30 editorial, 3 hidden)
Fuck the trolls +1 FP (2.30 / 23) (#3)
by Herding Cats on Sat Aug 21, 2004 at 05:50:16 PM EST

If this thing gets voted down because it bruises the egos of insecure male trolls that haven't gotten laid because they still live in their parent's basement, put it up as a diary. If it wasn't against my ethics, I'd make a few blogs and googlebomb this thing to death just to forcefeed it into their troll heads.

See? This is what we need. Not more trollish my-dick-is-bigger-than-yours bullshit. Honesty about culture. Because face it, that's what all this is and you're too scared to admit it. That's why you will vote it down.

I hate facts. I always say the chief end of man is to form general propositions -- adding that no general proposition is worth a damn.

---Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

we don't all live in mom's basement (2.33 / 3) (#65)
by j1mmy on Sun Aug 22, 2004 at 09:53:02 AM EST

nt

[ Parent ]
oh wow (1.40 / 20) (#8)
by collideiscope on Sat Aug 21, 2004 at 06:28:41 PM EST

chock full of misconceptions.

>here's nothing at stake when we're turned down >for a date or for sex.

No, nothing at stake. Except your whole reproductive future.

Look at it this way. Your DNA wants to live. When you approach a woman hoping to fuck her, your immortality hangs in the balance. That is why you are scared. That is why rejection hurts. Rejection of any type is a woman saying, "No, your DNA is NOT valuable to me. I do NOT want to help it survive."

>> mean yes, it's this really wonderful thing, >> but at the same time it's no big thing.

You had bad sex.

>> She didn't really give any indication if she ?>> wants sex

She doesn't want sex. From you.

>> Even with the prostitute there was no magic >> distinction between having sex and not having >> sex.

Sex is defined as genital penetration. You lost your virginity when she went down on you.

>> I have confidence that I can fuck and not
>> come in 20 seconds

If I had just spent 300 dollars to have sex I wouldn't be able to come for 20 days. I probably wouldn't even be able to get it up. I'd be too filled with self-loathing.

Here's your mistake:

>> When deciding to pay for sex
>> one of my hopes was that it would...make me >> more...confident

Does that make logical sense to you? Come on, you're a man (or at least so you assert), use that rational mind biological destiny gifted you with.

If I really want to believe I am capable of clearing 10-foot-tall blackberry bushes out of my back yard, and I decide that I want to clear them out of my backyard and I'm going to get them cleared, and I pay someone to chop them all down for me, should I then conclude:

A) I may or may not be able to chop down 10-foot-tall blackberry bushes, but I really have no clue because I just paid some schmoe to do my dirty work for me?

B) I should be more confident because I now know that I AM CAPABLE of chopping down 10-foot-tall blackberry bushes?

Let me give you a hint: the answer is not B.

The schmoe (or in your case the whore) I paid has no qualms about chopping down blackberry bushes of having sex. They KNOW, they are CERTAIN, that they are capable.

You, however, are not.

>> This "I Got Laid" section is my attempt to >>throw sand back across the chasm for my fellow >>adult virgins to see that the path is a series >>of unremarkable steps and no great leap.

Yeah, I drop $300 on women every other day. That sure is unremarkable. In fact, most guys I know would find that unremarkable.

I'm sure reading about how "the real thing" feels different from a plastic masturbatory toy will help a lot of guys get laid.

I would recommend you take this article out of the queue and delete it. It contains no useful or redeeming information; any guy who wants to waste money on a woman for sex can figure out how to do so all by himsefl, provided he's horny enough; and nobody is interested in reading about how you have trouble seeing your dick slide into some whore because you can't see over your enormous belly.

All this article serves to do, in fact, is prove how pathetic you are.

So, in your own best interest.

-------------------------------
Hope is a disease. Get infected.

Scientific? (2.85 / 7) (#12)
by levesque on Sat Aug 21, 2004 at 07:01:09 PM EST

Your DNA wants to live ... That is why you are scared. That is why rejection hurts.

No, some allegory followed by a bit of teleology. The hypothesis is not verifiable.



[ Parent ]

Re: oh wow (3.00 / 3) (#80)
by wejn on Sun Aug 22, 2004 at 08:23:24 PM EST

"Your DNA wants to live. When you approach a woman hoping to fuck her, your immortality hangs in the balance. That is why you are scared. That is why rejection hurts."

Reminds me of Richard Dawkins' "Selfish gene" a bit. :-) Anyway, I think that there's more than DNA survival when it comes to the fear of rejection. If it would be just DNA survival, it would actually encourage us to ignore the fear and approach as many women as possible, don't you think?

Hell, neither of the behaviours makes sense as ESS (ev. stable strategy) to me, anyway.

[ Parent ]

OMG I'M BLIND!!!! (2.14 / 28) (#9)
by Psycho Dave on Sat Aug 21, 2004 at 06:35:03 PM EST

Guess what? The hooker doesn't love you. Seeing as she left before the time was up, she probably didn't even like you. You're a paycheck, tubby. The fact that this is the most significant sexual experience you've ever had is sad.

PS. Fuck you very much for describing an obese 33 year-old getting it on in a cheap motel with a thirty something, drunk Canadian hooker. Just mental image I need this afternoon. Thanks...

logically... (3.00 / 8) (#45)
by Mystess on Sun Aug 22, 2004 at 04:19:15 AM EST

if you didn't want the mental picture, don't read the fucking article. Especially when there is a sub heading and a warning.

"Don't worry, You're better than somaudlin." - stuuart
[ Parent ]
You poor bastard (2.22 / 18) (#10)
by I Hate Yanks on Sat Aug 21, 2004 at 06:43:26 PM EST

Maybe now you can stop being so obsessed about sex. You're no longer a virgin - well whoop=de-doo!

IMNSHO sex is only worthwhile in a relationship where you share more than just the sex. The sex is just another way to enjoy spending time together.. but it's not worth paying for.

The best part about sex is that it's free, and given for free because of love. If you have to pay for it then it's not worth it.

I pity you.

(+1 Front Page)


Reasons to hate Americans (No. 812): Circletimessquare lives there.

Ever hear this quote?: (2.38 / 13) (#13)
by Peahippo on Sat Aug 21, 2004 at 07:27:19 PM EST

"No one is useless; they can always serve as a bad example."

Every time I think my sexual being is in a pathetic state, I come (ha haa) across a story like yours, so I feel better.

I wish you luck in all your future endeavors sexual, but both of us know (myself: explicitly; yourself: implicitly) that you've started out in life very sexually dysfunctional, and that impairment is not only likely to continue but will form the bedrock of your life. By the time you reach 40, it's likely that having a sexual encounter will do much more harm than good.

Some fraction of the population cannot relate to others sexually. It's a fact of life. It may strike people as sad and pathetic, but it does free up time for the "victim" to pursue many other interests that would otherwise be consumed by all the overhead costs of sexual relationships.

Get a good hobby or career.

P.S. Don't discount the possibility that you are merely having a sane interaction with that largely insane population known as American Females -- vain, materialistic, and utterly illogical. Save your money, and you can always pursue a little Russian or Chinese honey that follows the rule that: If it's going to be illogical, at least it won't talk about it much.


Yeah, I heard it. (3.00 / 3) (#20)
by Herding Cats on Sat Aug 21, 2004 at 08:48:49 PM EST

"No one is useless; they can always serve as a bad example."

Had that bumper sticker on my first car. Only instead of that exact wording, it was a lot more specific.

"I'm not completely useless. I can always serve as a bad example."

My family glared at me for months after I slapped that one on there.

I hate facts. I always say the chief end of man is to form general propositions -- adding that no general proposition is worth a damn.

---Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
[ Parent ]

As a student... (2.50 / 2) (#26)
by ensignyu on Sat Aug 21, 2004 at 09:32:39 PM EST

I think, well, I may have failed the class, but I lowered the curve and helped my classmates get a better grade.

[ Parent ]
Or a realdoll (none / 1) (#150)
by trane on Mon Aug 23, 2004 at 04:00:49 PM EST

Get a good hobby or career.

Wait until they get ai and mobility. Imagine the benefits of the sexually frustrated geek no longer sexually frustrated.

[ Parent ]

Heh (2.50 / 2) (#191)
by Peahippo on Tue Aug 24, 2004 at 10:53:21 PM EST

Lovedolls are a frequent anime theme when extremely mature robotics and cybernetics are involved. I guess it's something to look forward to. Pathetic, isn't it?


[ Parent ]
Not as pathetic as (none / 1) (#229)
by trane on Thu Aug 26, 2004 at 02:06:27 PM EST

the current system of competition for females which just encourages female power trips

[ Parent ]
Well ... (3.00 / 2) (#240)
by Peahippo on Thu Aug 26, 2004 at 09:56:55 PM EST

... the power trips on both sides due to all this faux competition just reminds me of the saying: "For all the war between the sexes, there sure is a lot of fraternizing with the enemy."


[ Parent ]
+1 FP (2.42 / 19) (#14)
by trezor on Sat Aug 21, 2004 at 07:31:57 PM EST

Ok. So my last 8 months have been truly shitty months by all means and definitions. (No story, no gory details going out here, but it was never in any way my fault, ok? :)

But at least I didn't stoop to this kind of low. Thanks, I feel better allready.


--
Richard Dean Anderson porn? - Now spread the news

Step 1 to getting laid for real: (2.31 / 19) (#15)
by bugmenot on Sat Aug 21, 2004 at 07:42:02 PM EST

Get a name other than FreeBSD.

Dork.

---

I am living on borrowed time.

+1 FP, accurate depiction of BSD users (2.41 / 36) (#16)
by phred on Sat Aug 21, 2004 at 07:49:49 PM EST



Awesome comment (none / 0) (#296)
by lithos on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 08:39:47 PM EST

Made me laugh. Quick and precise, like a kick in the nuts.
"Live forever, or die in the attempt." -Joseph Heller, Catch-22
[ Parent ]
Dear God you just made my day. (2.43 / 16) (#21)
by Danzig on Sat Aug 21, 2004 at 09:01:32 PM EST

Seriously, I just realized that life could be so much worse than it is.

You are not a fucking Fight Club quotation.
rmg for editor!
If you disagree, moderate, don't post.
Kill whitey.
Get Help (2.86 / 23) (#23)
by edg176 on Sat Aug 21, 2004 at 09:21:43 PM EST

Read your article.  Really touched a nerve with me, and I thought I'd give you some advice, as someone who's also struggled with relationships.   First of all, big ups to you for taking your destiny in your hands.   Seriously though, you might want to consider seeing a therapist/psychologist that specializes in sexuality issues.  I'm not kidding.  Navigating the world of adult relationships is hard at any age.  In my case I really struggled because women expect (as you rightly point out) that men in their late teens and early twenties have the procedural, physical stuff figured out to some degree.  So I know I really struggled with that a lot, because I didn't have it. That really sucked and was humiliating sometimes.  

But when you're just getting into it in your early thirties, there are a lot more things to learn. Women expect more. Therapy can steepen that learning curve.  You could try what some guys do and date women who are just turning 18, but I don't recommend that for a variety of reasons.  One of which is that it's just asking for serious, Lifetime-movie-of-the-week kind of drama.  If you're not sure what I'm talking about, just ask.  

I'm not saying this out of spite.  I too was on the late side of losing my virginity as well...early to mid twenties.  And I found that some therapy was really helpful to me in sorting out some of the things that were going on in my head, vis a vis relationships and sexuality.  It's not at all a trivial thing...I used to think that it was, but now I see that in many ways it really is one of the major things in life.  Freud thought a lot of stupid things, but I think one of his salient insights was the importance of sexuality to human relationships.  I'd skip over his stuff about schizophrenia though.

A little more advice.  You noted that you are seriously obese.  You might want to think about a regular exercise program.  Not just because of losing weight, but because of something else almost more important.  You mentioned how surprised you were that sex was such a primal thing, vs a magical thing that you pictured it as.  
Being with a woman really is an instinctual thing, and it requires you to trust your underlying feelings, as distinct from the words of thought.  That's something you already know.  Physical activity, any physical activity that will get you more in touch with your body is what you want.  Yoga is good, and so is Pilates if that's around where you live.  In my case, I was a clumsy oaf in high school but a couple years of intensive martial arts training, yoga/pilates and some other esoterica have allowed me a modicum of grace and trust in my body.  I'm not saying that's what you should do, because for all I know you'd rather jump in a pool and go swimming.  But do something, and really look into yoga and/or pilates.  

You seem like a smart guy, and you're taking the first steps toward dealing with your life.  Good luck, and be safe.

i'm sorry you had such a boring experience ... (2.53 / 13) (#24)
by pyramid termite on Sat Aug 21, 2004 at 09:23:40 PM EST

... and i'm even sorrier you felt the need to share it with us


On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.

Holy crap (2.73 / 26) (#25)
by kosuri on Sat Aug 21, 2004 at 09:25:31 PM EST

I can't decide what is worse
  1. The fact that a 33-year-old man just wrote a 15 page treatise on losing his virginity to a Canadian prostitute, or
  2. The fact that I actually read most of this crappy treatise on a 33-year-old man losing his virginity to a Canadian prostitude.
Hint: the reason that women don't want to fuck you isn't that you are/were a virgin, and it's not that you are fat. Plenty of virgins and fat people have sex. Your issue with women is that you are a fucking head-case.

I thought I was pathetic when I wrote like a one-pager when I lost my virginity, but I was an angsty, hormonal teenager. You, BSD man, should know better. Get a grip on yourself.
--
I'm glad that when this story goes down this stupid comment will go with it. -- thankyougustad, 11/23/2005

very insightful comment. (1.71 / 7) (#28)
by lukme on Sat Aug 21, 2004 at 09:47:03 PM EST




-----------------------------------
It's awfully hard to fly with eagles when you're a turkey.
[ Parent ]
Err... (2.33 / 6) (#51)
by Rot 26 on Sun Aug 22, 2004 at 05:21:49 AM EST

Plenty of virgins [...] have sex.
Err... no. Virgins don't have sex, that's why they're virgins.
1: OPERATION: HAMMERTIME!
2: A website affiliate program that doesn't suck!
[ Parent ]
I think... (2.71 / 7) (#53)
by trezor on Sun Aug 22, 2004 at 05:29:36 AM EST

..that he ment it more in the lines of "virgins do get laid as well", or else we'd all be virgins.

Just a thought.


--
Richard Dean Anderson porn? - Now spread the news

[ Parent ]
Definitely the latter. (none / 1) (#182)
by Qwaniton on Tue Aug 24, 2004 at 12:27:41 PM EST

I skimmed the first few paragraphs, then jumped to the bottom of the page to enjoy the comments.

Okay, okay, okay. Last winter, I was 270 lbs, 5'10", autistic, drugged  on Paxil(R), recovering from being stuffed with Risperdal(R), socially awkward, and damn near unattractive in almost every way. (Eh, so now I'm 215, 6', non-drugged, much more sociable, and yeah, you get my point.)

I still got laid ALL WINTER LONG. And the sex was based on LOVE, unlike this morbidly-obese failure at life's experience with a prostitute who couldn't even stand him.

I'd recommend rope. Or pills. Try either.
I don't think, therefore I
[ Parent ]

Oh yeah (none / 1) (#221)
by Aphexian on Wed Aug 25, 2004 at 10:29:34 PM EST

But be sure to judge that length of rope carefully... You never know when your height will shoot up two inches in one winter...

At least this "morbidly obese failure" managed not to attempt to pass off bald-faced lies to stroke his ego.

[I]f there were NO religions, there would be actual, true peace... Bunny Vomit
[ Parent ]

Great pick-me-up. (2.75 / 20) (#27)
by eeg3 on Sat Aug 21, 2004 at 09:37:47 PM EST

This story is likely to make the front page, at the time of posting it's +9 with 39 front page votes. Why? Because it makes other people feel a lot better about themselves. I mean, it's an okay read, and all... but it's not that amazing, in my opinion. Browsing through the posts already, most of them are "Wow, I feel bad for you, but damn I feel good about myself." I wonder how many suicical k5'ers this post has managed to cheer up.


-- eeg3(.com)
Wow, I feel bad for you,... (3.00 / 9) (#32)
by Scott Robinson on Sat Aug 21, 2004 at 11:51:36 PM EST

But damn I feel good about myself.

I feel sad about humanity.

[ Parent ]

Already been done. (2.75 / 12) (#29)
by Empedocles on Sat Aug 21, 2004 at 09:52:35 PM EST

See here for the previous rendition.

What is it about K5 that attracts the sexually dysfunctional and inspires them to write articles regarding their sordid sex lives (or lack thereof)?

---
And I think it's gonna be a long long time
'Till touch down brings me 'round again to find
I'm not the man they think I am at home

I don't know. (3.00 / 4) (#74)
by mikael_j on Sun Aug 22, 2004 at 03:49:13 PM EST

Maybe it's that those of us that have slightly more normal sex lives enjoy reading about the less fortunate (as people often do)?

/Mikael
We give a bad name to the internet in general. - Rusty
[ Parent ]

If it is one thing that defines humanity... (2.75 / 4) (#114)
by Empedocles on Mon Aug 23, 2004 at 06:31:51 AM EST

It is the univeral love for a feeling of superiority over another.

---
And I think it's gonna be a long long time
'Till touch down brings me 'round again to find
I'm not the man they think I am at home

[ Parent ]
Different (3.00 / 4) (#83)
by localroger on Sun Aug 22, 2004 at 08:30:59 PM EST

While the previous account you link is merely a whiny meditation, the current author actually got off his ass and did something about the situation. Maybe not something normal but in a bad situation any movement is good. Maybe now that he knows what he's missing out on (and not so intimidated by the mystery) FreeBSD will get his act together instead of telling himself he's not really missing much.

What will people of the future think of us? Will they say, as Roger Williams said of some of the Massachusetts Indians, that we were wolves with the min
[ Parent ]
There is a woman for you somewhere (2.64 / 17) (#30)
by lukme on Sat Aug 21, 2004 at 09:59:09 PM EST

Quite frankly one of the ugliest, fatest and inarticulate men I know of found a wife who is ugly, fat and inarticulate.

If these 2 can meet, there must be someone for you.

Your story, unfortunately, is pathetic. Get off the internet and find her.


-----------------------------------
It's awfully hard to fly with eagles when you're a turkey.
haar (2.00 / 6) (#31)
by Alert Motorist on Sat Aug 21, 2004 at 10:45:38 PM EST

I've slept with desperate fat girls before and it's fucking horrible. I feel sorry for 'Jane'. Loose one of the following if you want to pick up the ladies, fat, perveted or American
-- List your horse on FrozenHorseSemen.Com
I've slept with fat girls (3.00 / 3) (#142)
by epepke on Mon Aug 23, 2004 at 01:43:40 PM EST

Physically, it's pretty good. They don't go "Ow! Ow!" so much, and there's plenty of stuff that pushes up against the stuff that you want pushed up against.

At first, they're OK. However, after a couple of weeks, the psychological stuff always comes out. Like you are a handy male who gets to be a toilet for the backlash about their resentment toward the Captain of the Football Team that they really wanted. Or that they can't think of themselves as attractive, so if you find them attractive, the problem must be with you. Or if you are actually within a kilometer of a woman who weight two ounces less than they, they're perfectly entitled to lambaste you as much as they can possibly imagine doing.


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


[ Parent ]
Meals are a little awkward too (2.00 / 3) (#193)
by Joe9999 on Wed Aug 25, 2004 at 12:34:00 AM EST

I've resorted to it myself occasionally as well, but I don't think I'd do it again unless she had something really amazing to offer mentally. I agree that the actual sexual aspects aren't that bad, as long as we're talking overweight and not 'fat fat'. It's a bit of a compramise - the extra fat can help the breasts, but there's not much of a real feminine shape to anything else on her body anymore. The really difficult part I've found is the meals. It's hard to hold your tongue when you've got a healthy well balenced meal on your plate, and they have little but sugar and empty calories on theirs.

[ Parent ]
interesting (2.77 / 9) (#35)
by WorkingEmail on Sun Aug 22, 2004 at 12:18:09 AM EST

I thought one of the parts about growing up was learning how to ignore shame, not assent to it.


Interesting theory (3.00 / 6) (#37)
by thepictsie on Sun Aug 22, 2004 at 12:52:34 AM EST

The problem with it is that shame is one of the ways society enforces conformation, and part of the socialization/maturation process is learning when to conform.

Look, a distraction!
[ Parent ]

Yes Yes Yes! (nt) (none / 0) (#259)
by Kuranes on Sat Aug 28, 2004 at 06:03:29 AM EST




Gentlemen, Chicolini here may talk like an idiot, and look like an idiot, but don't let that fool you: he really is an idiot.
[ Parent ]
+1FP (1.80 / 5) (#38)
by cuz on Sun Aug 22, 2004 at 01:01:48 AM EST

i haven't even read the story yet, but i know it's good because so many people are posting angry comments (you must have really struck a nerve).

write-in (3.00 / 2) (#39)
by cuz on Sun Aug 22, 2004 at 01:02:43 AM EST

13

[ Parent ]
I hate to tell you, but... (2.71 / 14) (#40)
by BJH on Sun Aug 22, 2004 at 01:05:57 AM EST

...in Japanese there's a distinction made between people who have had sex with a regular person, and people who have only had sex with a professional.

The term for the second group translates roughly as "virgin with amateurs".

Hope that didn't cause you to get too depressed.
--
Roses are red, violets are blue.
I'm schizophrenic, and so am I.
-- Oscar Levant

Well then (2.20 / 5) (#50)
by Rot 26 on Sun Aug 22, 2004 at 05:16:38 AM EST

Good thing he doesn't live in Japan.
1: OPERATION: HAMMERTIME!
2: A website affiliate program that doesn't suck!
[ Parent ]
Well, yeah... (2.71 / 7) (#70)
by BJH on Sun Aug 22, 2004 at 02:54:50 PM EST

...but not exactly the point I was trying to make.

To be honest, having sex with a prostitute has very little to do with your virginity or lack thereof (other than the purely physical variety).
Virginity is a state of mind - sex for money doesn't do a lot to change that state.
--
Roses are red, violets are blue.
I'm schizophrenic, and so am I.
-- Oscar Levant

[ Parent ]

I disagree (2.20 / 5) (#82)
by Teuthida on Sun Aug 22, 2004 at 08:30:01 PM EST

Virginity is the state of being a virgin.

A virgin is one who has not experienced sexual intercourse.

Now, there's probably some leeway pertaining to how you define sexual intercourse (does oral count?), but I don't see where the state of mind comes in.

[ Parent ]

OK. (2.00 / 3) (#121)
by BJH on Mon Aug 23, 2004 at 07:23:13 AM EST

I think you do have a valid point - the state of virginity could be defined purely on whether you have experienced genital-to-genital contact with a partner (no, oral sex does not count).

However, I do think there is a definite mental/emotional component to it. After all, sex for money is basically just paying for someone else to do your masturbation, right?
Whereas your first time with someone who is willing to try having sex with you is, generally, a pretty significant life event (even if only at the time).
--
Roses are red, violets are blue.
I'm schizophrenic, and so am I.
-- Oscar Levant

[ Parent ]

The thing I liked most... (none / 0) (#258)
by Kuranes on Sat Aug 28, 2004 at 06:01:52 AM EST

...in the essay was the part about "when did it start to be sex"?

If you don't remember it, read it again.

According to your "technical" description, I'd be a virgin, but my last girlfriend (not wanting to accuse her of being a head case, I'd just say that she was a difficult and slightly frightened character, as are many people) and me lay in bed two times with only taking the upper half of our clothes off, then rubbing our bodies against each other (I made a start twice to fully undress her, but she whispered a slight "no"). So, it was intense and felt good (did that for two hours the first time).

Only lacks your stamp of "officially confirmed as being real sex"?

That's stupid.




Gentlemen, Chicolini here may talk like an idiot, and look like an idiot, but don't let that fool you: he really is an idiot.
[ Parent ]
this absolutely CANNOT make it to the front page (2.75 / 8) (#42)
by Paul Harvey on Sun Aug 22, 2004 at 01:49:09 AM EST

it has sexual intercourse in it, with an adult woman!

i mean, around here, we only celebrate localroger's explicit description of incestual pedophile intercourse, right?

(and the reaction localroger's story got ... well, it CAN only be described as celebration, right?)

And now you know ... the rest of the story.

At least you got laid (2.87 / 16) (#48)
by epepke on Sun Aug 22, 2004 at 05:01:22 AM EST

The big problem with this is when someone develops a Nietzschean ressentiment morality as a self-defense measure to make virginity somehow virtuous.


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


Wow. Nine "encourages" (3.00 / 2) (#144)
by epepke on Mon Aug 23, 2004 at 02:11:17 PM EST

Does this mean that there are people on Kuro5hin who have read Nietzsche or who have figured it out for themselves? Either way, it's a good sign.


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


[ Parent ]
yes, both [n/t] (none / 1) (#148)
by Stereo on Mon Aug 23, 2004 at 03:19:45 PM EST


kuro5hin - Artes technicae et humaniores, a fossis


[ Parent ]
BREAKING NEWS (2.67 / 28) (#49)
by kitten on Sun Aug 22, 2004 at 05:08:48 AM EST

Wow guys, pussy feels great! I mean it really feels good!

That's quite the revelation. Authorities couldn't be reached for comment.
mirrorshades radio - darkwave, synthpop, industrial, futurepop.
Penthouse? Hardly. (2.50 / 10) (#52)
by Rot 26 on Sun Aug 22, 2004 at 05:27:17 AM EST

What a disgrace to Penthouse forum! When was the last time Penthouse ran a letter about an overweight 30-something virgin having sex with a plump Canadian prostitute he met on the internet, including a the oh-so-important details like the fact that the toilet clogged.
1: OPERATION: HAMMERTIME!
2: A website affiliate program that doesn't suck!
It's the clogged toilet that makes the story. (nt) (3.00 / 11) (#54)
by Danzig on Sun Aug 22, 2004 at 05:43:25 AM EST



You are not a fucking Fight Club quotation.
rmg for editor!
If you disagree, moderate, don't post.
Kill whitey.
[ Parent ]
Toilet is Freudian Metaphor (3.00 / 4) (#222)
by anaesthetica on Wed Aug 25, 2004 at 10:34:56 PM EST

It's a freudian metaphor for his being stuck in the anal stage of development, most likely due to the parental divorce during his anal stage of development. He obviously has an anal retentive personality, which explains how uptight he is, engaging in compulsive activities (computer crap), gaining weight, and being a virgin forever.

—I'm the little engine that didn't.
k5: our trolls go to eleven
[A]S FAR AS A PERSON'S ACTIONS ARE CONCERNED, IT IS NOT TRUE THAT NOTHING BUT GOOD COMES FROM GOOD AND NOTHING BUT EVIL COMES FROM EVIL, BUT RATHER QUITE FREQUENTLY THE OPPOSITE IS THE CASE. ANYONE WHO DOES NOT REALIZE THIS IS IN FACT A MERE CHILD IN POLITICAL MATTERS. max weber, politics as a vocation


[ Parent ]
Wonderful story. (2.37 / 8) (#55)
by emwi on Sun Aug 22, 2004 at 06:50:19 AM EST

I don't care if it's fiction. It's interesting and different. I really hope it goes fp.

heh (2.70 / 10) (#57)
by reklaw on Sun Aug 22, 2004 at 07:29:49 AM EST

"...I started trying to learn more about it. It's really hard to find that sort of info! For a couple of weeks I had no solid info, then I found the World Sex Guide web site. It includes forums where guys post their experiences with prostitutes including prices, tips and such. I read and read and read and got a better idea of what the costs, procedures and risks would be for given areas."

This section, ladies and gentlemen, brilliantly illustrates the raw power of the interweb. Just think: without the web, what would this poor sod have done?
-

Resorted to little boys, probably [nt] (1.42 / 7) (#58)
by smileyy on Sun Aug 22, 2004 at 08:05:22 AM EST


--
...alone in suicide, which is deeper than death...
[ Parent ]
By the way (2.64 / 14) (#59)
by smileyy on Sun Aug 22, 2004 at 08:11:06 AM EST

She faked, hoping it would make you cum.  When it didn't, she got bored and hoped you would cum.

Thankfully, for her sake, you did.
--
...alone in suicide, which is deeper than death...

Trying hard here (2.54 / 22) (#60)
by SanSeveroPrince on Sun Aug 22, 2004 at 08:26:17 AM EST

For some months now, I have been on a quest to better myself. Most people I meet who don't know me very well define me as sometimes too strong willed and opinionated. The ones who know me well aren't usually that polite.

So, reading your comment, I automatically suppressed any instinctive, playground insult that came to mind, you know, 'fatso', 'virgin loser', 'pathetic wretch who had to resort to the internet EVEN TO FIND A PROSTITUTE'.. the kind of things I am sure you spill when you're deep in conversation with a female of the species, thinking you're baring your soul, just before they tell you about being friends and leave you wondering what you did wrong THIS TIME.

Instead, I tried focusing on the positives, trying some new-age liberal wimp concept like 'you know, sex IS all about emotion and bonding', 'you have to find the one person that will share a life with you, and let it put it up her arse while wearing that giant beaver outfit', 'you ARE special, show them that, give it time'.

I lost. I am sorry, I could not suppress enough of the evil thoughts. They come to me, you see, and they speak in tongues of honeyed steel. I try, but they are always stronger, the evil thoughts. They always win in the end.

The problem is not that you're fat or ugly or rich or poor. It's that you are socially misalligned.

Sex is a perfectly commonplace occurrence amongst 2 to 12 consenting adults. It's the common outcome of several social interaction avenues. You simply did not get to experience these avenues when you were younger, not because you were fat or ugly or whatever, but simply because you were not aligned. You're not fucked in the body (though by now, technically, you are), YOU'RE FUCKED IN THE HEAD.

Being fat is not a cause, it's a symptom. Being a virgin at 33 is not a problem, it's a tragedy.

The cure? You want sex? Get some slutty, dumb friends. Wait for them to break up with their black, rich boyfriend-du-jour. Pounce. Get them drunk and tell them they have nice hair. Pounce. Say 'hello'. Pounce.

Want love? That's something entirely different, it's all about connection and feeling. If you think that pussy feels nice, wait until you get to be within THE pussy, the one attached to a body you adore because it's run by a mind that blows you away with her eyes alone, not mouth. That you will only ever get to experience with one person at a time, a special person, who WILL, in time, let you put it up her butt in that giant beaver outfit.

----

Life is a tragedy to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think


IAWTP (2.25 / 4) (#61)
by I Hate Yanks on Sun Aug 22, 2004 at 08:41:17 AM EST


Reasons to hate Americans (No. 812): Circletimessquare lives there.
[ Parent ]
THX (n/t) (1.50 / 2) (#63)
by SanSeveroPrince on Sun Aug 22, 2004 at 08:53:40 AM EST



----

Life is a tragedy to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think


[ Parent ]
right... (2.87 / 8) (#81)
by Teuthida on Sun Aug 22, 2004 at 08:25:47 PM EST

Taking advantage of a dumb, vulnerable friend is so much less pathetic than procuring the services of a woman who does it for a living.

What's sad is that you're right. Someone who prefers the consensual exchange of sex for money to date rape probably is more socially aligned. Some fucking society.

[ Parent ]

It's not date rape... (2.00 / 8) (#84)
by SanSeveroPrince on Sun Aug 22, 2004 at 08:40:53 PM EST

if she's blonde and dumb. It's more like getting a newspaper from a machine.

----

Life is a tragedy to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think


[ Parent ]
Sorry, I misunderstood (3.00 / 2) (#89)
by Teuthida on Sun Aug 22, 2004 at 08:55:00 PM EST

The parent post didn't mention that she was blonde.

Carry on.

[ Parent ]

You misunderstood indeed. (1.00 / 3) (#94)
by SanSeveroPrince on Sun Aug 22, 2004 at 09:06:55 PM EST

Did I not say 'slutty, dumb'? Aren't they synonyms?

----

Life is a tragedy to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think


[ Parent ]
I love it. (3.00 / 4) (#147)
by CodeWright on Mon Aug 23, 2004 at 03:13:07 PM EST

That you will only ever get to experience with one person at a time, a special person, who WILL, in time, let you put it up her butt in that giant beaver outfit.
So horribly wrong, so terribly funny.

--
A: Because it destroys the flow of conversation.
Q: Why is top posting dumb? --clover_kicker

[ Parent ]
I try {n/t} (2.50 / 2) (#177)
by SanSeveroPrince on Tue Aug 24, 2004 at 07:01:26 AM EST



----

Life is a tragedy to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think


[ Parent ]
How would you find a prostitute? (2.33 / 3) (#188)
by MorePower on Tue Aug 24, 2004 at 08:57:07 PM EST

who had to resort to the internet EVEN TO FIND A PROSTITUTE'..

Ok genius, how do you recomend finding prostitutes? Back when I was desparately trying to rid myself of my virginity, I ruled out prostitutes in part because I didn't have the "street smarts" to know how to find them. And I was very afraid of going into bad neighborhoods to find out.

Apparently, he not only found out how to find prostitutes, he discovered that you don't need to go into bad neighborhoods to do it (which is news to me)! Sounds like a fantastic use of the internet to me.



[ Parent ]
Prostitutes (2.00 / 2) (#195)
by SanSeveroPrince on Wed Aug 25, 2004 at 05:09:45 AM EST

1) I would not, EVER, resort to a prostitute, nor did I need to, to lose my virginity.

2) Prostitutes tend to have fixed gathering places in most cities. Sometimes it's a special square, sometimes the highway. I know all these places for the next five towns or so because I have a magic device called a 'car', and a curse called a 'life', which has prompted me to 'drive' (it's technical, I hope you're following) all over the place for various errands.

3) At first I took offense at your tone. Then I realized that if what you express really is the limit of your worldly knowledge, then you're even more socially misalligned than the original poster. Everything I say MUST seem like works of genius to you. You have my permission to peruse my writings until you stop being such a whiny loser. Or until you lose your virginity, whichever.

----

Life is a tragedy to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think


[ Parent ]
Red Light Districts (none / 1) (#202)
by MorePower on Wed Aug 25, 2004 at 02:31:53 PM EST

To respond to your points:

1)Good for you. Fortunately I didn't have to resort to prostitutes to lose my virginity either.

2)At the time that I was still a virgin, I was living in a smallish college town which did not (to my knowledge) have any "red light districts". Finding one would have involved driving to unfamiliar cities (probably LA) and driving around randomly to find one. Also note that these places are usually in "bad nieghborhoods" where white suburbanites dare not go unless they know what they are doing.

3)Sorry I got so harsh but I was angered by the tone you took with the original author, with whom I sympathize strongly.

[ Parent ]
Cultural realities (2.00 / 2) (#208)
by SanSeveroPrince on Wed Aug 25, 2004 at 05:08:10 PM EST

1) I am glad we both established out relative manhood and superiority from all the virgin losers.

2) Cultural realities must be much different. I assume you're from the USA (unless you meant another LA). I assure you, here in Europe, prostitutes do not necessarily operate exclusively out of crack neighbourhoods. Apart from the glaring example of Amsterdam, which while not unique still is more of an exception than the norm, prostitutes tend to gather near fairly recognizable areas, which are not necessarily related to prostitution. Bologna in Italy is famous because this used to happen near one of its central squares, and I have seen interesting rows of ebony prostitutes near many highway exits in Germany. In France, of course, you can just knock at any door and ask what the going rate is.

(yes, my last heartbreak was half French, OK?)

3) I am glad someone sympathizes with the original author of the story. However, please consider that the author himself enjoyed my posts, or he would not have graded them as he did. Perhaps he knows my method of expression better than you do, and was less quick to righteous anger?

----

Life is a tragedy to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think


[ Parent ]
Ah Europe (2.50 / 2) (#214)
by MorePower on Wed Aug 25, 2004 at 07:04:28 PM EST

You are in Europe then. That explains the difference. From the two years I spent in Germany, I can tell you that it is radically different in the USA.

It was my understanding that prostitution was legal there (I'm no german lawer). If there were any laws against prostitution they were not enforced as postitutes pretty openly operated in places like "the Wall" in Nurenburg.

Germany aslo didn't appear to have any "bad neighborhoods" (per the US definition of bad, IE criminal gangs have more effective control of the street than the police) but I didn't survey the entire country.

"White" suburban neighborhoods never tolerate prostitution. Maybe an adult bookstore or a strip club on the fringes of town, but even those are always opposed (being legal, though, they can't be shut down) as everything is required to be kid-safe. Therefore you only find prostitutes in gang-territory, where the police are ineffective.



[ Parent ]
web savvy workers (none / 1) (#205)
by Norkakn on Wed Aug 25, 2004 at 03:52:51 PM EST

eh, any prostitute that can afford a computer uses the web

that clientel is _much_ cleaner

[ Parent ]

Stalking maniacs? (none / 1) (#207)
by SanSeveroPrince on Wed Aug 25, 2004 at 05:01:39 PM EST

I am not in on the world of prostitution, but having known many fellow university students who got pocket money from the red light district in Amsterdam, I had received the impression that the web does attract easy to pluck nerdish clientele, but also the kind of customer that prostitutes dread above all: the stalking, maniac obsessive kind.

----

Life is a tragedy to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think


[ Parent ]
the price of losing repeats (none / 1) (#228)
by Norkakn on Thu Aug 26, 2004 at 11:45:43 AM EST

If one's client does not know where to find you, you can just change your SN and lose all of your repeats clients. The clientele that I know is sought ater is the traveling businessmen. they are in town for a short while and have the money and are generally decent. one of the rules that everyone _should_ abide by is not to let the client get any info that identfoes you or could be used to find you. not address, not neighborhood, no phone number, no name. there are also chat rooms set up for the traveling businessmen types to find local women, so it is a pretty modest outlay of work to all involved. meet at some public place with easy exits, go to a hotel room for an hour and then leave with 100-250 cash.

[ Parent ]
Damn. (2.50 / 2) (#230)
by SanSeveroPrince on Thu Aug 26, 2004 at 03:03:22 PM EST

I was born with the wrong equipment.

----

Life is a tragedy to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think


[ Parent ]
nah (none / 1) (#232)
by Norkakn on Thu Aug 26, 2004 at 04:42:53 PM EST

eh, if you are willing to service men you can still get by quite well.

The real wonderful profession is pro-domme though.  I mean, 100 minimum (well, I know one girl who does it for 60, but that would be rare) but quite often multiple hundreds of dollars per hour to tie up and and whip someone.

[ Parent ]

+1 FP, epic (2.16 / 6) (#62)
by fenix down on Sun Aug 22, 2004 at 08:41:51 AM EST

I intend to be linking to this in sigs for years.  Absolute literary genius.  The Indiana Jones bit brings it all together.  Somebody just has to fix the <s> tag to strike.

Straightforwardness is good (2.88 / 17) (#67)
by ChaosEmer on Sun Aug 22, 2004 at 11:41:02 AM EST

What's so great about this article is how its so forthright and doesn't attempt to dance around any isuses.  If more people actually talked to their children about sex and didn't exect that information to be magicly deduced from nothingness, I think the   world would be a lot less fucked up then it is now.

Good stuff- Honest and intereting (2.83 / 6) (#68)
by siberian on Sun Aug 22, 2004 at 12:40:40 PM EST

Once again, this is the type of article I come to kuro5hin for. Off the beaten path, interesting and relevant. Thanks for sharing.

Therapy (2.55 / 9) (#69)
by ljj on Sun Aug 22, 2004 at 12:59:03 PM EST

I think you'd benefit from therapy.

Your very long article, where you are actually describing how are you writing it at different times, indicate an amazing need to express your feelings.

Like Fat Bastard said, "I eat because I'm unhappy, and I'm unhappy because I eat", so I think there is probably only one little thing amiss in your perception of the world.

Unfortunately that one little thing has caused you to be obese and also to have completely dysfunctional relationships. Seek therapy and when you find your vibe and make peace with everybody around you - and most importantly yourself, you'll see everything else in your life fall into place.

You'll lose some weight, and you'll meet a lovely girl who you can have a normal sexual relationship with. The thing with sex is not orgasm - that's the animal part of it - it's the intimacy you have with another human being during and afterwards. Something you can't have with a prossie.

--
ljj

Oh, and just one more thing (3.00 / 5) (#75)
by ljj on Sun Aug 22, 2004 at 04:38:45 PM EST

Don't you think comments like this are a bit rich?

--
ljj
[ Parent ]

therapy (2.20 / 5) (#107)
by krkrbt on Mon Aug 23, 2004 at 04:16:38 AM EST

I think you'd benefit from therapy.

The only person who benefit from therapy is the therapist - because they're making $100/session off you, once a week, for 5 years.  insert a space between the 'e' and the 'r' of "therapist", and look what you get.  :)  

(maybe i'm a little harsh here, but the fact is that there are any number of effective techniques to use, and most modern "therapists" are stuck in the dark ages of "talk-therapy".  Modern energy-psycology methods (including EFT, Emotrance, etc) are able to clear phobias/traumas/etc almost instantly.  I've personally used hypnosis, EFT, and Emotrance to clear bee phobias, flying phobias, insomnia, raging anger, etc, and I'd rate myself at less than 10% as effective as I'll be when I have more experience.)

The thing with sex is not orgasm - that's the animal part of it - it's the intimacy you have with another human being during and afterwards. Something you can't have with a prossie.

check.

[ Parent ]

This may be true (2.50 / 2) (#112)
by ljj on Mon Aug 23, 2004 at 05:09:26 AM EST

But I think the point is that freeBSD can benefit from professional help.

--
ljj
[ Parent ]

I hope you have fun (2.75 / 4) (#155)
by Empedocles on Mon Aug 23, 2004 at 05:18:51 PM EST

treating your "energy system" while "empowering your body" and "cultivating your spirit" with the New Age bullshit you linked to.

---
And I think it's gonna be a long long time
'Till touch down brings me 'round again to find
I'm not the man they think I am at home

[ Parent ]
story time (1.33 / 3) (#156)
by krkrbt on Mon Aug 23, 2004 at 06:14:07 PM EST

I suppose you belong to the flat earth society too.  You are free to call the site I linked to "New Age", but is it bullshit if the techniques works?

subject:  bee phobic, 10 years duration.  Met at an outdoor event w/ soda and lots of bees.

treatment modality:  Emotrance

notes:  got all giggly as she moved a blockage from her heart down her left arm and out of her body.

outcome:  went back outside, and went our separate ways.  She seeks me out after a while, and says "look, I got stung!" - and she was happy that her phobic response was gone.

[ Parent ]

As we all know (2.66 / 3) (#165)
by Empedocles on Mon Aug 23, 2004 at 08:50:31 PM EST

anecdotal evidence is highly reliable.

This website (and you) are making some pretty off-the-wall claims. Kindly provide evidence to support these cliams and I will consider taking you seriously.

---
And I think it's gonna be a long long time
'Till touch down brings me 'round again to find
I'm not the man they think I am at home

[ Parent ]

i wouldn't waste my time (2.00 / 2) (#167)
by krkrbt on Mon Aug 23, 2004 at 09:13:10 PM EST

This website (and you) are making some pretty off-the-wall claims. Kindly provide evidence to support these cliams and I will consider taking you seriously.

I know the stuff works, having used it successfully.  I share my experience so that others might wonder, "is there something valid here?"  You've got a "reality box" that says that these technologies are bogus, and no matter how much quality evidence I present, you're still going to believe what you do.  I admire your faith.  You'll figure it out eventually, might take you a couple more lifetimes though...  :)

[ Parent ]

See: self-fulfilling prophecy. (3.00 / 2) (#171)
by Empedocles on Mon Aug 23, 2004 at 09:36:11 PM EST

One of the reasons that evidence is demanded for claims such as this can be seen here. You decided something might work, you try it, and behold: It works! Even the most objective of people can - and will - fall prey to such deceptions. Hence the reason that little credence is attached to anecdotal evidence.

As for my "faith," as you call it: It is not I, but you, who is displaying the "faith" here. You seem to have attached a blind belief to something for which little to no evidence exists. Perhaps there might be something there that warrants further study; if there is, by all means lobby to have a study conducted or even attempt to put one together yourself.

By advocating methods that are not proven to work while ignoring or brushing off methods that are proven, you could potentially be leading someone into greater harm.

---
And I think it's gonna be a long long time
'Till touch down brings me 'round again to find
I'm not the man they think I am at home

[ Parent ]

for everyone else (none / 1) (#183)
by krkrbt on Tue Aug 24, 2004 at 02:47:21 PM EST

incidently, my response is not for you, but for everyone else who happens to read our little exchange.  I know that what I've written here will get tangled up in your filters (aka "reality tunnel"), and will not change your mind in the slightest degree.  You can have the last word, because I have more important things to do than to respond to someone who's holding on to an outdated model of reality.

As for my "faith," as you call it: It is not I, but you, who is displaying the "faith" here. You seem to have attached a blind belief to something for which little to no evidence exists. Perhaps there might be something there that warrants further study; if there is, by all means lobby to have a study conducted or even attempt to put one together yourself.

I need to look up my biodata personality profiles:  you seem to be the time that looks for others for confirmation.  I look to my own experience:  "what's happened here?  is this useful?".  So if it is faith that I have, it is a faith that my experiences are worth examining.  

As for "blind belief" - suppose I were to tell you that you're just hallucinating the computer monitor in front of you.  Do you believe me, or do you trust your own sensory experience?  I've developed my perceptions of subtle energies to the point where I can feel chakras, feel the aura, and at times I see auras too.  So do I trust my own experience, or belive a narrowminded twit who says I'm hallucinating?

If you want to examine the evidence, search out Dr. Elmer Green's work at the Menninger Foundation.  Or look into the U.S. government's 20 year remote viewing program.  As soon as the soviet union dissolved the program was canned - but not before.  Why?  Because they got results, right from the start.  See ingo's site - http://www.biomindsuperpowers.com - for a wealth of reports from "in the trenches" of the remote viewing program.

But more important than looking to others for validation, is learning to trust your own experience.  You have the ability to develop yourself so that YOU can experience energies, and USE energies to your advantage.

"Much of Dr. Green's work was never adopted by the mainstream of clinical professionals," Dr. Walt said,  "nonetheless, he has had a significant role in the study of subtle energies. In that particular niche, he is one of the preeminent figures."  (source)

By advocating methods that are not proven to work while ignoring or brushing off methods that are proven, you could potentially be leading someone into greater harm.

"proven" methods?  how amusing.  the original topic was therapy.  Do you know anyone who's been cured (of a phobia, anxiety, anger, fear, etc) by a therapist?  Sometimes therapists help a little bit, but most of their methods Don't work especially well.  Marriage "therapists" destroy more marriages than they save (hah - my parents went to a therapist.  what a waste of money).  

An even funnier question:  do you know anyone who's been cured by a psychiatrist?  Sure. Dr. Milton Erickson was a psychiatrist, but he doesn't count - because he was a hypnotist first, and only went to medical school so that he'd have legitimacy.  (incidently, my grandfather says the only thing he remembers about Dr. Erickson was that he was always bitching - about having to learn anatomy, go to med school, do his internship - just to do hypnosis.  I know he wasn't bitching, but hypnotizing his audience - that was just milton's style.  :).  The only "tool" that most psychiatrists have are drugs, and those never "cure" - only "manage" (and cause kids to become suicidal).  

[ Parent ]

-1. pressumptive acommplishment (2.33 / 9) (#76)
by kamera on Sun Aug 22, 2004 at 05:16:33 PM EST

From now on when you tell people you are a not a virgin, you will have to remember that it cost you money. Which will probably be more embarrassing than being a virgin (as you mention). If you get married, I hope you have a very understanding or indifferent wife. Or, of course, one you are willing to lie to.

Personnally, I have no problem with you finding a prostitute. That's between you and the prostitute,and I couldn't care less. So the reason I'm voting this story down is because it's suppose to be about the shame of virginity, yet you dealt with it a way that most people would consider more shameful. Which in the long run will probably would create shame for most individuals. On the other hand, your hooker afterglow seems to have you some good - even if it is brief.

"Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live." -- Oscar Wilde

hrmmmm (none / 1) (#174)
by tarpy on Tue Aug 24, 2004 at 01:16:14 AM EST

From now on when you tell people you are a not a virgin, you will have to remember that it cost you money. Which will probably be more embarrassing than being a virgin (as you mention).

Why? He obviously doesn't have a moral issue with paying for sex, so why would he be embarrased by the memory. From his tone, I take it he's rather chuffed with himself.

If you get married, I hope you have a very understanding or indifferent wife. Or, of course, one you are willing to lie to.

Or just not tell. Why lie? Be honest about the number of partners, and the use (or lack thereof) of protection, but does he honestly need to say that he paid for it? To quote the great Lenny Briscoe, when he was asked if he ever "paid for it", he replied, "hey, I was married, wasn't I?"




Sir, this is old skool. Old skool. I salute you! - Knot In The Face
[ Parent ]

Two iessential books you NEED, and one more (1.35 / 20) (#77)
by Jonathan Walther on Sun Aug 22, 2004 at 05:31:47 PM EST

You are posting here; you seem intelligent and able to read stuff.  So I recommend the following two books.  They are THE user manuals for this kind of stuff.  If there were official handbooks, these would be the O'Reilly "the REAL manual" editions.

ESSENTIAL

How To Succeed With Women, by Ron Luis and David Copeland.  This book is really important.  It shows you how to identify and categorize the different kinds of women, which to avoid, why to avoid them, how to flirt, how to date, and how to ask her into bed.  This book is extremely effective.  You can follow it like an automotive manual; it doesn't recommend cheesy pickup lines, it talks of general principles and shows you how to apply them to different scenarios, and warns of various pitfalls and gotchas.

Martine's Handbook of Etiquette, by Arthur Martine.  This little volume written in 1866 is to the point and doesn't bullshit around.  It gives the generally theory of etiquette and manners, then shows how to apply the principles to eating, dancing, conversing, walking in the street, and other areas of life.  It doesn't waste time with what it calls "silver fork nonsense", but gets down to brass tacks; the real stuff that you can apply anytime, anywhere.  Follow this book, and you will attract a high quality of women.

USEFUL

The Rules, by Ellen Fein, and Sherrie Schneider.  This short book explains the (very simple) rules that women generally follow to get a man, and also illuminates their motives and what they are looking for.  Sun Tzu said, "know your enemy".

Don't let people (or women) see this books on your shelf; they will laugh at you.

YOUR WIEGHT PROBLEM

I lost 30 pounds in two months by semi-fasting; I ate whatever I wanted on Sundays, and had one small meal a day the rest of the week.  Fasting gets rid of beer bellies.  Doing it that way, when I slowly increased my diet again, I didn't regain the weight.  Start off by trying a one day fast; increase to two and three day fasts.  Drink lots of water, of course.

Most diets (including the Atkins) are deceptive; they don't teach you to regulate your food intake which is the key and only important factor.  It is easy once you know how.

This book by bodybuilder Michael H. Brown explains the proper diet and how to fast and eat to lose fat and gain muscle very simply.  I started fasting immediately after reading his book, it was so inspirational.  It has been eight months since that initial fast; I should probably fast for a couple days again to flush out the system.

The Strength of Sampson - How to Attain It, by Michael H. Brown.

Good luck with getting in shape and getting yourself some fantastic women.  I am available for consultation via email and telephone.

(Luke '22:36 '19:13) => ("Sell your coat and buy a gun." . "Occupy until I come.")


you know what? (2.88 / 17) (#78)
by circletimessquare on Sun Aug 22, 2004 at 06:48:32 PM EST

this is exactly the best of what kuro5hin is all about

totally wacked out shit like this

reading this story i felt like i was rubbernecking on the freeway: the reason why traffic ALWAYS slows down in the opposite, unaffected lane to a highway accident is morbid curiosity, there is just something essentially human about wanting to watch a train wreck and its gory aftermath

+1 fp


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

yes/no (3.00 / 12) (#85)
by SocratesGhost on Sun Aug 22, 2004 at 08:43:54 PM EST

On one hand, it's a poor to mediocre story that sets this poor guy up for some serious ridicule. On the other hand, it appeals to the opportunistic personalities of K5'ers who each will find joy by telling this guy how much of a loser he is. In that regard, it's the feel good article of the year.

This guy's biggest problem is that sex became such a challenge for him, that I don't think he fully has come to terms with it after this single time. Remember Cameron from Ferris Bueller's Day Off? Ferris described him perfectly: he's going to marry the first woman who gives him any attention, and she won't respect him. I wish this guy the best of luck but I think he needs to take it a bit less seriously.

-Soc
I drank what?


[ Parent ]
shit, great reference (2.75 / 4) (#101)
by circletimessquare on Sun Aug 22, 2004 at 11:09:18 PM EST

considering the subject matter, i was actually thinking a sixteen candles reference was more apropos, but hey ;-P


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Thank God for the 80s, eh? [n/t] (none / 1) (#223)
by skim123 on Thu Aug 26, 2004 at 12:01:36 AM EST


Money is in some respects like fire; it is a very excellent servant but a terrible master.
PT Barnum


[ Parent ]
Oh yeah, (2.42 / 7) (#86)
by SanSeveroPrince on Sun Aug 22, 2004 at 08:49:05 PM EST

I forgot. You will burn in hell for associating Indiana Jones with this personal odissey of yours.

Seriously, I'll never be able to watch Indy again without thinking of a Canadian prostitute expressing her doubts as to whether her legs are long enough to fit around you.

Congratulations, one small part of you will live forever in my mind.

That, and the part of you that's going to be burning in hell.

----

Life is a tragedy to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think


Interesting (2.81 / 16) (#87)
by Teuthida on Sun Aug 22, 2004 at 08:51:40 PM EST

I found the general attitude of this story's comments to be quite surprising. It seems that the K5 membership is generally against prostitution.

Why?

Apart from the few who are against casual sex in general, the arguments are mostly along the lines of "it's pathetic". Why is prostitution so much worse than free sex outside of a committed relationship?

I've never hired a prostitute myself - in fact, I've never had sex outside of a long term relationship (*cough* square *cough*) - but if I were single for an extended period of time, I would probably give it a try. For the experience, if nothing else. It seems much more palatable than trying to pick up easy/drunk women at bars, no matter how much more socially acceptable this may be.

So what's wrong with prostitution? Are there lurkers who like whores and just aren't talking? Why shouldn't a man pay for sex?

I commented to my girlfriend a few weeks ago (2.80 / 5) (#90)
by debacle on Sun Aug 22, 2004 at 08:57:19 PM EST

That I'd like to pay a woman for sex sometime, just for the experience. Perhaps the old cliche "You get what you pay for." would apply, and it might even be enjoyable.

Even so, I feel that since it's illegal, there's a lot of danger in diseases still. If there were a regulatory system I think that it would be pretty commonplace.

It tastes sweet.
[ Parent ]

Ick, disease. (2.80 / 5) (#92)
by Teuthida on Sun Aug 22, 2004 at 09:00:30 PM EST

Good reason, but doesn't explain why it's so much worse than random women in bars - in fact, I would bet most of the classier prostitutes (no streetwalkers) are more careful than the average loose bar babe.

As to legality, it's good to be a Canadian. As soon as they get around to decriminalizing pot, it'll be a veritable paradise up here.

[ Parent ]

Well (none / 1) (#99)
by debacle on Sun Aug 22, 2004 at 10:06:13 PM EST

I don't plan on having sex with any other women in my lifetime, so I'd have to live it vicariously.

It tastes sweet.
[ Parent ]
Re: Interesting (2.16 / 6) (#95)
by wejn on Sun Aug 22, 2004 at 09:09:43 PM EST

I think the question should be something like "why should someone EVER pay for sex" ?

Jesus ... you don't pay for the air you breathe ... so why would you (want to) pay for sex?

Anyway, my own reason "why" is simply because it's too easy - no effort on my side, predictable outcome, boring.

I think that there are people who see it as the only option available ... but it's still just their own excuse, their own made-up limitation (which is just in their head), their own fear, their own laziness.

--
fear = "false evidence appearing real"

[ Parent ]

That argument could be extended to other things. (2.66 / 3) (#123)
by Teuthida on Mon Aug 23, 2004 at 08:06:24 AM EST

Me, I would feel a proper jackass paying someone to change the oil in my car. It's easy to do, saves you money, and feels better than taking the easy way out and paying a mechanic. Why should someone EVER pay to have their oil changed?

Why would I pay for a fancy dinner at a restaurant when I could have spent the afternoon making a gourmet meal and have dinner by candlelight chez moi?

Maybe these analogies aren't perfect... but I think they're better than comparing sex to "the air you breathe".

And I think the "to easy, predictable outcome" would actually favour the prostitute approach to some.

[ Parent ]

Re: That argument could be extended to other thing (3.00 / 2) (#125)
by wejn on Mon Aug 23, 2004 at 08:17:57 AM EST

Uh-oh ... basically you're right here :-)

The only problem is that "it just doesn't feel RIGHT" when it comes to paying for sex. I would feel "a proper jackass", maybe even "jack-wuss" (esp. knowing that I'm unable to get laid other way) ... while paying someone to change the oil is simply about "messy work for money" exchange.

Hmm, in any case I better learn to express my thoughts a little bit better. :-)

[ Parent ]

Re: That argument could be extended to other thing (none / 1) (#170)
by egeland on Mon Aug 23, 2004 at 09:35:06 PM EST

One might argue that prostitutes' work is also "messy work for money".. ;-)

Still, while I personally agree that it wouldn't feel right for me, I have no "moral" argument against it. It's a service for a fee, which, as long as it's between consenting adults, harms no-one.

--
Some interesting quotes
[ Parent ]

Free as air? (3.00 / 4) (#187)
by MorePower on Tue Aug 24, 2004 at 08:40:45 PM EST

Jesus ... you don't pay for the air you breathe ... so why would you (want to) pay for sex?

Um, maybe because air is freely available and sex isn't?

Granted, I didn't resort to prostitutes either, but for your typical, nerdy, un-self-confident, non-alpha male; sex is pretty damn hard to obtain.

And the whole "picking up sluts in a bar" thing is just a hollywood TV/movie myth. My own experience trying to pick up girls in bars shows that it doesn't work like that. You end up sitting in the corner alone nursing your glass of water while the more confident alpha-male types swarm around the 2-3 females that are actually in the bar.



[ Parent ]
because it's fucking pathetic. NT. (2.00 / 4) (#97)
by collideiscope on Sun Aug 22, 2004 at 09:48:07 PM EST



-------------------------------
Hope is a disease. Get infected.
[ Parent ]
Prostitution is related to class struggle. (2.42 / 7) (#98)
by Psycho Dave on Sun Aug 22, 2004 at 09:51:08 PM EST

In other words, I'd have to be fucking rich to afford to drop three bills every time I want to get laid. And fuck anyone who can afford it.

I do this shit the American way. Give me free middle class pussy anytime.

[ Parent ]

good point (2.63 / 11) (#102)
by circletimessquare on Sun Aug 22, 2004 at 11:40:15 PM EST

theoretically, i am not against prostitution

but personally, i would never go to a prostitute

simply because, as i get older, i actually find getting to know a woman before i fuck her more interesting than the actual fucking

seriously

ask the 15 year old me the same question, and of course, the opposite would be true

but as i get older, the mindfuck has come to be more important to me than warm wet monkey tubes ;-P

sex is easy, i've fucked all sorts of pussy under all sorts of conditions and it's all good, but it's getting to know someone that's hard and the challenging part, and the more rewarding part

this may sound sappy to you, but i'm being 100% honest


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Because a prostitute (2.33 / 3) (#127)
by it certainly is on Mon Aug 23, 2004 at 08:44:52 AM EST

is simply a more expensive version of the old hole in the mattress. There is no social barrier.

The virginity shame is a social chastisement. You cannot overcome it by wanking in a special way, watching porn, or paying a prostitute. You are still a despicable, unwanted human being after doing any of these things. You have to convince a decent human being to have sex with you, before the virginity albatross is taken from your shoulders.

You might have a hard time convincing Elle McPherson to have sex with you. On the other hand, that fat, ugly biffer who hides in the corner might gladly allow you to take her, but your confidence will take a nose-dive if you do.

You need to meet a very special woman, of reasonable social status, and one who is willing to help you overcome your affliction. From thereafter, it's sex city -- women's top aim is for other women's boyfriends, especially if said other women are having sex with him. Women lie even more about sex than men, what other women hear from your girlfriend as truth could only happen in your wildest dreams.

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
[ Parent ]

How much do you charge, bitch? (2.33 / 3) (#138)
by bob6 on Mon Aug 23, 2004 at 12:29:49 PM EST

Mainly because sex and money are taboo; you can't deny the history of your culture in your opinions...

Btw, in most civilized countries, prostitution is legal but proxenetism isn't.

Cheers.
[ Parent ]
Sorry, didn't get a chance to comment (2.00 / 3) (#140)
by Wah on Mon Aug 23, 2004 at 12:36:36 PM EST

But my first thought when I started reading this story was, "You know, there's an entire profession that caters to men like you."

Then I realized he had already done the obvious and got a taste of the real reason for our existence (survival through procreation).

Personally I'm for legalizing the shit, just to test the girls and get some level of confidence that they are being fairly compensated.

But yes, there is a pretty solid contingent of 'icky girls' kurons.  Most of them are gay.  No really, that's not an insult, it's a simple statement of fact.
--
umm, holding, holding...
[ Parent ]

Male fear of the opposite sex ... (2.66 / 3) (#159)
by cdguru on Mon Aug 23, 2004 at 07:16:32 PM EST

is common enough and strong enough that it will often push awkward males into thinking (and even acting out) "gay". "Gay" means not having to deal with the opposite sex on those terms and only having to deal with sex on far more "familiar" territory. Also, look at the type of relationships that are often involved - just right for someone unsure of themselves and willing to be instructed - dominated? - without any baggage.

I'm as supportive as the next guy of the "gay" movement, but there are a lot of different reasons for getting into it, and some of them are not pretty. You can argue "it's biology" all you want, but there are in fact people out there that decide "gay" is a lot less stressful and less frightening than "straight". Certainly a side effect of this is things like "bug chasing" - look it up if you don't know what it is and prepared to be a little freaked out.

Congratulations to the author for overcoming this hurdle and not deciding to hide in the corner (or behind the keyboard).

[ Parent ]

Personally... (1.66 / 3) (#146)
by CodeWright on Mon Aug 23, 2004 at 02:52:36 PM EST

...I think the guys who scoff at hiring hookers are just plain gay.

Honestly, when you've got the money to blow, you go to a nice upscale club, you're single and don't have any entangling responsibilities... well, a hooker is fast cheap sex without strings.

When you think about it, what is a few hundred or a grand?

It's a hell of a lot cheaper than a relationship is what it is!

If you want sex with a hot woman and don't want the drag of a relationship, what's wrong with a hooker?

The only conclusion I can draw from this is that the scoffers are either (A) poor, or (B) gay.

--
A: Because it destroys the flow of conversation.
Q: Why is top posting dumb? --clover_kicker

[ Parent ]
One possibility (2.50 / 4) (#192)
by Joe9999 on Wed Aug 25, 2004 at 12:14:07 AM EST

Is that a lot of it is coming from guys who married primarily for a steady stream of sex. Who only later realised that the payment would be a lifetime where the average conversation could never rise above the intellectual level of American Idol.

[ Parent ]
what if... (none / 1) (#201)
by crayz on Wed Aug 25, 2004 at 12:29:27 PM EST

...he paid for friends, instead of sex? I think people would feel about the same combination of pity and disgust

[ Parent ]
Nah... (3.00 / 3) (#225)
by Shajenko on Thu Aug 26, 2004 at 01:34:05 AM EST

People generally don't have problems with fraternities.

[ Parent ]
Prostitution can be bad for women (none / 1) (#204)
by ILikeCheese on Wed Aug 25, 2004 at 02:47:13 PM EST

I think before we adopt such a cavelier attitude towards prostitution we should remember that a lot of prostitutes are in a very bad situation. Especially in places where prostitution is illegal, prostitutes are often at the mercy of their pimps and are therefore stuck in situations of abuse and poverty (as their only source of income come directly from the pimps). Also, because of the social stigma attached to prostitution, women involved in the business often have a very hard time escaping it to do something else. I mean, taking 5 years off from school to be whore doesn't exactly look good on a resume.

The poster talked about using a legal and regulated prostitution service, so the girl he was with was probably in better shape than a lot. However, I think we need to remember that, in a lot of cases, using a prostitute isn't as simple as an agreement between two consenting adults. I think in some cases the use of prostitution can be tantamount to abuse.

[ Parent ]

A little help here? (2.25 / 4) (#88)
by wejn on Sun Aug 22, 2004 at 08:54:04 PM EST

Hmm, +1FP.

I think that you might find following urls
interesting:

http://doubleyourdating.info/

and probably even:

http://doubleyourdating.info/advancedseries/

What's in there?
For the same money you've spent on the canadian girl you'll get the best "education" on the whole dating/mating subject.

It's not some quick-fix solution, it takes some time to get through the material (unless you're fast-learner, in which case I envy you :-) ) but on the end you'll probably see most of your relations with women in "new light".

Btw, you will find there (besides thousand other good advices/thoughts) the reason why the 4-year lady won't sleep with you, ever. (and better deal with it, it's a fact).

Respect the cock.... (1.50 / 4) (#96)
by Psycho Dave on Sun Aug 22, 2004 at 09:38:38 PM EST

...and TAME THE CUNT!


[ Parent ]
Re: Respect the cock.... (2.50 / 2) (#124)
by wejn on Mon Aug 23, 2004 at 08:09:39 AM EST

ROFL :-) Magnolia rules.

[ Parent ]
I'm just glad... (none / 1) (#180)
by tarpy on Tue Aug 24, 2004 at 09:37:47 AM EST

that i'm not the only one that was thinking this when I read this.


Sir, this is old skool. Old skool. I salute you! - Knot In The Face
[ Parent ]
Hoo boy... (none / 1) (#224)
by Shajenko on Thu Aug 26, 2004 at 01:32:21 AM EST

Another David Deangelo follower. I've got three words that'll save everybody out there a lot of money: "Cocky and Funny." That's basically the gist of his advice.

Oh, and here's a better link: www.fastseduction.com

[ Parent ]
Long Ad (2.75 / 12) (#100)
by SEWilco on Sun Aug 22, 2004 at 11:05:52 PM EST

"For more general prostitute info and links, go to my American Prostitution freesite linked below."

That was a long advertisement.

If you've just had sex for the first time... (2.75 / 8) (#104)
by taste on Mon Aug 23, 2004 at 12:57:01 AM EST

and proceed to write an article about it on Kuro5hin, you might be a junkie.

On being a "nice guy" (1.75 / 4) (#105)
by Pseudonym on Mon Aug 23, 2004 at 03:03:15 AM EST

+1 from me, by the way.

One thing that you've no doubt noticed is that men and women have different attitudes to sex. When you've had more than a few women (and so have I, incidentally) who tell you that they just want to be friends, or that you're a "nice guy", it doesn't mean that you're physically unappealing. Fact is, if you were that physically unappealing, they probably wouldn't want to hang out with you at all.

What this actually means is that you have some quality or qualities which they find inappropriate in a partner.

Think about it biologically for a moment. If you are male, your optimal strategy is to impregnate as many women as possible. So for men, sex is important.

If you are female, your optimal strategy is to politically tie yourself to an appropriate male; one who can provide and protect. (Your subsequent optimal behaviour is to have affairs with younger males, but that's another topic.)

If you're the "girlfrield", or the "nice guy", it almost always means that women don't see you as a good long-term prospect. It's got nothing to do with your looks or your sexual technique.

FreeBSD: In your specific case, I hardly know you, so I'm not in a position to judge. Even if I were, I'm a terrible judge of these things. Your confidence (or lack thereof), or issues related to your parents' divorce may have something to do with it, or it may be something else completely. The advice of getting some therapy, perhaps with a psychologist or perhaps with a sex counsellor, is good.


sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
You'll always find qualities inappropriate (3.00 / 5) (#117)
by Empedocles on Mon Aug 23, 2004 at 06:48:09 AM EST

in a partner given enough time and exposure to that person. The trick is to "make the kill," so to speak, before they have time to discover those qualities.

---
And I think it's gonna be a long long time
'Till touch down brings me 'round again to find
I'm not the man they think I am at home

[ Parent ]
Biological Determinism is Crap (3.00 / 2) (#203)
by ILikeCheese on Wed Aug 25, 2004 at 02:35:33 PM EST

It's lazy thinking to look at cultural trends and then attribute them to some kind of biologically programmed destiny. You may see women around you behaving in a certain way and then assign that behavior to women everwhere, but that hardly means that all women are that way, regardless of whatever pseudo-intellectual logic you use to explain your beliefs. Remember, women from different cultures will behave differently from what you're expecting, and there are many women in this culture who deviate from your definition of female behavior.

I just want to say to the poster that there are going to be lots of folks commenting and saying that "women are like such and such" and "if you want to get laid, you have to do a, b, and c." When you're reading these, try to keep in mind that women are people, not some kind of game you need to figure out how to play in order to get laid. They're all individuals and act differently. Your friend may or may not want to have sex with you for a variety of different reasons. You should be open with her, treat her like a human being (not someone you could bang when she's "drunk and depressed"), and find out what she wants. Then, you should find someone you want to have sex with who also wants to have sex with you. There are lots of women out there, all different. I promise you'll be able to find one without resorting to tricks or games.

[ Parent ]

Agreed, but... (2.50 / 2) (#217)
by Pseudonym on Wed Aug 25, 2004 at 08:44:12 PM EST

I just want to say to the poster that there are going to be lots of folks commenting and saying that "women are like such and such" and "if you want to get laid, you have to do a, b, and c."

In my case, I got this piece of advice from my new wife some years ago. So yes, I know that women are people. :-)

I agree that there are no tricks or games here. However, it is generally true that when you get a lot of women who want to be friends with you but don't see you as a partner, while there are some women out there who would see you as a partner, it's likely that there's something that they're all picking up on that you're not aware of. You don't have to appeal to biological determinism to work that out.


sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
[ Parent ]
an unconventional response (2.20 / 10) (#106)
by krkrbt on Mon Aug 23, 2004 at 03:53:02 AM EST

the guy who had a lot to do with the US government's remote viewing program did some meditating in front of a copper wall, and soon found that he could see all sorts of energetic phenomena that are beyond the ability of the majority of humans to perceive (conciously, that is).  Auras, meridians, accupuncture points, chakras, etc, etc - Ingo Swann could see them all, and in explicit detail.

One thing that's largely missing from occult literature is any discription of the energetics of  sex.  One of the things Ingo did with his new skill (perception of subtle energies) was observe sexual encounters between people.  

Most books describe 7 primary "chakras", when there are actually 10.  The other three just weren't talked about in polite society.

She licked from the back of my sack near my anus up. Wow. You gotta try that...never felt anything like that when masturbating.

One or two of these chakras are in this area.  Breast nipples also have ("secondary") chakras, and they commonly get licked too.  Licking stimulates chakras, which is why it feels good.

We've all seen pussy in photos and on TV, and it's both the same and different in person. It looks the same, but it's hard to explain why it's different to actually be there sliding your dick in than imagining it.

At an other-than-concious level, you experience the energy of another human.  Which is absent from a picture.

I picked up a book in a used bookstore once that claimed that, in all speicies, females actually do all the choosing when it came to mating.  This is essentially what Ingo observed.  Males & Female (humans) each have their own set of observable energetic state changes that they go through whenever they get "horny".  The primary difference between the two, is that if "mr. right now" is around when a woman gets horny, things start happening regardless of whether the male unit really wants to or not.  When a male gets horny (and just about any woman would do) ... well, the lady's don't come a flockin', and either someone who's willing is around (wife/gf), he relieves himself manually, or he forces the encounter.  (see Psychic Sexuality for Mr. Swann's observations)

read somewhere once that in aboriginal societies, an older woman will "initiate" younger males.  Don't remember the source.  This initiation changes the male energy so that a female energy probe goes from from a universal "definitely wouldn't fuck him" to a "possibly fuckable" (depending on the female doing the probing).  

Having had your dick energies "initiated", I think you'll have an easier time getting laid now, though you could probably use some help, as you say you're overweight...  The LayGuide is good enough to get you started.  There is a lot of crappy information (i.e., not very good/effective/useful) for sale in the "seduction" field, so feel free to email me and i can suggest some more advanced material, if you're interested.

Something to consider:  even "speed-seducer" (trademarked term, used without permission) #1, "Ross Jefferies", got pitty-fucked in college...  And if you're out of college, or no-one who's willing to pitty-fuck you is around, even the best linguistic "pattern" isn't going to work if your dick energies are in the "definitely wouldn't fuck him" category.

Except that (2.33 / 3) (#108)
by thepictsie on Mon Aug 23, 2004 at 04:36:52 AM EST

There IS literature on sex magic and sexual energies in both Eastern and Western traditions. You just have to know where to find it.

Also, one of the standardly listed seven chakras is the "root" chakra, which is located at the genitals.

Look, a distraction!
[ Parent ]

To all the "TANTRA" men on here (2.50 / 2) (#113)
by Harold F Cummingsworth on Mon Aug 23, 2004 at 05:16:38 AM EST

All of you men on here offering tantric and/or goddess worship massage, etc: Do you know what you're doing? Not in the techniques, but in the general sense of it? Do you understand what it means to stir up a woman's Kundalini energy, really? I sure hope so, for your sake as well as your "clients" -- whether you charge $ or not. I am not talking about emotions and tears and things that get stirred up emotionally or physically through orgasm. I am talking about energy. Do you really understand it? Have you studied and educated yourself? Have you talked to women who are Kundalini powerful or awake? Have you looked inside yourself and asked why you are "offering" this to women -- is it really an offering or does it feed you, your ego, your energy in some way that could be destructive to you or her? Do you know there is "black" kundalini that could be used destructively, even unintentionally? Anyway, just some thoughts here. You cannot go around recklessly unleashing kundalini -- it is irresponsible and possibly dangerous. Please make sure you only awaken what you can and intend to handle and that your motivations are pure. Thank you.

[ Parent ]
Ok, now I'm curious (2.75 / 4) (#130)
by emwi on Mon Aug 23, 2004 at 09:46:38 AM EST

How about writing an article about black kundalini? :)

[ Parent ]
*blinkblink* (2.00 / 3) (#176)
by thepictsie on Tue Aug 24, 2004 at 04:30:58 AM EST

I am completely baffled as to why you posted this in response to my comment. I'm not male, and I don't do Tantric massage. WTF?

Look, a distraction!
[ Parent ]

Whoa, dude. (2.50 / 2) (#116)
by Empedocles on Mon Aug 23, 2004 at 06:44:19 AM EST

Anything that feels good is, by your definition, the location of a chakra? I won't even try to touch on the rest of the New Age content of your missive.

As for females doing the mate selection, you need look no further than your local watering hole for evidence of this. I forget the exact number and I'm too lazy too look it up right now, but the vast majority of pickups are initiated by the woman making eye contact or some other signal of interest.

---
And I think it's gonna be a long long time
'Till touch down brings me 'round again to find
I'm not the man they think I am at home

[ Parent ]

chakras, etc. (1.33 / 3) (#157)
by krkrbt on Mon Aug 23, 2004 at 06:25:41 PM EST

Anything that feels good is, by your definition, the location of a chakra?

I said no such thing - try reading what I wrote again.  There are lots of chakras in the body - every joint has one, the palms of the hands, etc.  All I said was that those two locations happened to have chakras.

I won't even try to touch on the rest of the New Age content of your missive.

What do you mean when you say "New Age"?  It seems like an attack to me.  Depending on the period, plenty of ideas could be classified as "new age" - round earth, flying machines, radiation, atomic theory, etc.  Given time, new concepts that are valid become integrated into mainstream society.  Nothing in my post would be considered "New Age" by someone from an oriental society, or russian, or elsewhere - mostly just by the modern american brainwashed fundamentalist.

[ Parent ]

New Age: (2.66 / 3) (#162)
by Jazu on Mon Aug 23, 2004 at 08:05:28 PM EST

New Age = People who think Eastern superstitions are better than Western ones.

[ Parent ]
western superstitions (2.50 / 2) (#168)
by krkrbt on Mon Aug 23, 2004 at 09:16:25 PM EST

New Age = People who think Eastern superstitions are better than Western ones.

I like this, "Western superstitions" seems like they'd be today's "sciences".  Thank you.  :)

[ Parent ]

RE: western superstitions (3.00 / 2) (#181)
by Qwaniton on Tue Aug 24, 2004 at 12:15:32 PM EST

Absolutely incorrect. I'll never understand why some people are so quick to reject Western tradition, but this is more like rejecting Western religion than Cold, Hard Science(TM), which is very much alive in "the East".
I don't think, therefore I
[ Parent ]
How nice. (2.33 / 3) (#166)
by Empedocles on Mon Aug 23, 2004 at 09:04:16 PM EST

You have attempted to compare something for which a large body of incontrovertible evidence exists (atomic theory, etc.) to something for which little to no evidence exists.

Hear me now: The body of evidence for chakras does not even come close to approaching the body of evidence for atomic theory or any of the other examples you cited.

Attempting to change the definition of "New Age" does not lend anymore credence to the concept itself.

You have made a rather extraordinary claim. Kindly provide evidence to support this claim.

---
And I think it's gonna be a long long time
'Till touch down brings me 'round again to find
I'm not the man they think I am at home

[ Parent ]

how enjoyable... (3.00 / 2) (#169)
by krkrbt on Mon Aug 23, 2004 at 09:32:36 PM EST

... it's always fun to do a little mental jousting with people who have their head stuck in the sand.  :)

You have attempted to compare something for which a large body of incontrovertible evidence exists (atomic theory, etc.) to something for which little to no evidence exists.

The large body of "incontrovertible evidence" you speak of took some time to accumulate.  Just because you have not examined the evidence for the energetic nature of reality (presumably because it was not in your brainwashing, er, schooling), does not mean that the evidence does not exist.  And even if the evidence that does exist is only "solid" and not yet "incontrovertible", given sufficient time we will find that, as shakespear said, 'there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt in your western scientific philosophy'.

You still haven't said what you mean by "New Age".

You have made a rather extraordinary claim. Kindly provide evidence to support this claim.

how do you convince a man who's been blind since birth, that he's missing a whole realm of experience?  see my other reply to you, titled "I wouldn't waste my time".  :)

[ Parent ]

An open mind is more often than not (2.25 / 4) (#172)
by Empedocles on Mon Aug 23, 2004 at 09:53:25 PM EST

filled with trash.

For what I mean when I say "New Age," see here , minus the "conservative" part at the end.

Tell me, what evidence is there for the "energetic nature of reality?" Can I perform [an] experiment(s) to demonstrate this? Is there an underlying theory? Can you point out any sort of inconsistency in previous experminent(s) to lend some credence to the claim? Does the theory predict anything the has not been noted thus far but could be if we looked in the right place? Etc, etc, etc.

As for the evidence: I have examined it, and I (and just about everyone else who looked at it) found it rather lacking. If there is some new evidence (or some missed previously), by all means bring it forward. Telepathic communication would sure save me money on my cell phone bill.

Just because you have not examined the evidence for the Invisible Pink Unicorn does not mean that the IPU does not exist.

---
And I think it's gonna be a long long time
'Till touch down brings me 'round again to find
I'm not the man they think I am at home

[ Parent ]

energies (2.50 / 2) (#184)
by krkrbt on Tue Aug 24, 2004 at 03:32:28 PM EST

Tell me, what evidence is there for the "energetic nature of reality?"

E=MC^2.  Even the atoms you're made of are, at their most fundamental level, just frozen energy.

Can I perform [an] experiment(s) to demonstrate this?

YOU cannot.  Someone else who is open minded could.

Is there an underlying theory?

See What The Bleep Do We Know for one take on the convergence of quantum theory and spirituality.


[ Parent ]

Great then! (2.50 / 2) (#196)
by Empedocles on Wed Aug 25, 2004 at 05:14:24 AM EST

Have someone who you consider to be "open-minded" conduct an impartial experiment and relay the results to me.

Or would I not be "open-minded" enough to understand the results?

I find your link to the one-thousandth take on quantum mechanics and spirituality to be particularly amusing. No movie could even come close to doing justice to the subject; but then again, every book on the subject has been nothing more than a vapid philosophical take-off of quantum mechanical interpretations. But then again, what more would I expect from someone who doesn't seem to have much of an understand of anything -- just a "spiritual understanding."

As for you attempting to equate relativity (either GR or SR) with the "energetic nature of reality" -- relativity has nothing to do with the metaphysical mumbo-jumbo that you spout. To do so does a great disservice to the theory.

In any case, I'm done with you. I hope you die old, happy, and still blinding yourself to the world around you by naively believing anything that seems contrary to the world as we know it.

---
And I think it's gonna be a long long time
'Till touch down brings me 'round again to find
I'm not the man they think I am at home

[ Parent ]

choice (none / 0) (#238)
by krkrbt on Thu Aug 26, 2004 at 08:20:40 PM EST

Have someone who you consider to be "open-minded" conduct an impartial experiment and relay the results to me.

Heard a great quote today:  "It's not my job to convince you of your reality".  

Or would I not be "open-minded" enough to understand the results?

The studies have been done, again and again and again.  The results always come out in favor of "something which doesn't fit the standard physical model is happening here".  But other scientists don't accept the work because they have a mindset like yours:  blinders which prevent them from accepting the possibility of something greater than cold hard matter.  And so the studies have to be done again and again.

In any case, it was my mistake to leave so many targets for you to latch onto with the grandparent post.  Should've just left it at my last post in the other thread (Empedocles responded to two of my posts in this story - the end of the other thread is here.)  I do take solace in the fact that you chose the weeker of the two to respond to - I would've found any attempt to respond to the other post most amusing.

Like I said before, you'll figure it out eventually, look back, and laugh:  "oh, what funny things I used to believe."

[ Parent ]

Sheer laziness. (none / 0) (#256)
by Empedocles on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 11:33:21 PM EST

Like I said, I'm done here.


---
And I think it's gonna be a long long time
'Till touch down brings me 'round again to find
I'm not the man they think I am at home

[ Parent ]
Or, just maybe, an explanation grounded in anatomy (3.00 / 2) (#220)
by spiffariffic on Wed Aug 25, 2004 at 09:52:01 PM EST

Chakras, huh? Guess it couldn't possibly be the high concentration of nerves in those areas? Not to mention (to some extent) the "taboo" of whatever is occuring, seeing as the mind is the biggest erogenous zone anywhere.

[ Parent ]
Y'know, I got NFI why this guy isn't married: (2.57 / 7) (#109)
by Russell Dovey on Mon Aug 23, 2004 at 05:05:19 AM EST

"She didn't really give any indication if she wants sex, but she's several hundred miles away anyway, so I'll see what happens the next time we're in the same city or the next time she calls me up depressed and half drunk on wine."

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan

I call BS? (2.22 / 9) (#110)
by Alannon on Mon Aug 23, 2004 at 05:08:49 AM EST

I live in Canada.
Prostitution is not legal here.  While going out to a hotel and having sex with a client is technically not NECESSARILY illegal, it generally is.  Prostitution is not a legitimate activity in Canada.
Basically, it's illegal if:
  1. She solicited you. (Sounds like she didn't)
  2. She supports or helps support anyone other than herself off the proceeds of prostitution. (Does she have a child?)
  3. If she or anyone else had ever had sex for money in the hotel that you were at.  Doing it once makes it legally defined as a 'bawdy house', which makes it illegal the 2nd time.
And most importantly, there is no 'registration' of prostitutes in Canada.  This is not Nevada.  There are no state-mandated health checks or anything like that.  It's not legal, so it's not regulated.

are you a lawyer? (3.00 / 5) (#132)
by mikpos on Mon Aug 23, 2004 at 10:10:13 AM EST

No offence, but your legal advice sounds like it's in the same realm of credibility as Slashdot legal advice. Your definition of a common bawdy house in particular sounds exaggerated compared to how I've heard it defined by lawyers in the media.

Prostitution is "regulated" in that most cities will require business licences and following of bylaws (in Calgary it's the Dating and Escort Services Bylaw), but you're right in that there are no health checks or anything like that. Here in Calgary at least, the attitude of the police department has been that two people having sex in a hotel room and exchanging money is not illegal. Some escort agencies have been shut down because the agency itself has been caught negotiating prices (the agency is only allowed to set two people up), but that's all I've heard them busted for.

How much of this has to do with the law and how much has to do with the priorities of the police department, I'm not sure. I'm not a lawyer either.

[ Parent ]

No, not a lawyer, but... (3.00 / 2) (#151)
by Alannon on Mon Aug 23, 2004 at 04:10:37 PM EST

A friend of mine is studying Sex & Law as her major in college here and she had given me a quick run-down of the legalities of prostitution in Canada, since it's her main focus. I think the author of this article let someone blow smoke up his ass to let himself be convinced that prostitution was legal here, in order to feel better about it. At the very least, if I were him, I'd check into the legal aspects from somewhere OTHER than a web site dedicated to advertising prostitutes.

[ Parent ]
And also... (2.50 / 2) (#153)
by Alannon on Mon Aug 23, 2004 at 04:38:16 PM EST

You can check the definition here:
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/c-46/42271.html

"common bawdy-house" means a place that is
(a) kept or occupied, or
(b) resorted to by one or more persons
for the purpose of prostitution or the practice of acts of indecency

Basically, the definition can be used to help prosecute the owners or the occupants (including any prostitutes or johns).

By definition, when Mr. BSD used the hotel to have relations with a prostitute, it became a common bawdy-house.
I'm not arguing that such rules and definitions can commonly build an effective case against someone, but they have in the past and they are still used by the courts on occasion in order to make the point that prostitution isn't legal in Canada.

[ Parent ]

You're very wrong (3.00 / 4) (#178)
by substrate on Tue Aug 24, 2004 at 07:43:06 AM EST

This guy went to Windsor, prostitution is legal in Windsor as long as the prostitute is licensed. At around the same time they brought the Casino to Windsor they legalized prostitution. Windsor is where I grew up. There are some things which are illegal still, such as being a madam or pimp. Street walking is illegal, but being an escort is legal as long as you're licensed.

[ Parent ]
Huh... Rusty? (2.60 / 5) (#111)
by bob6 on Mon Aug 23, 2004 at 05:08:51 AM EST

You don't keep a track of who voted on which poll option, do you?

Cheers.
Don't care if anyone keeps track (3.00 / 3) (#115)
by da fiend on Mon Aug 23, 2004 at 06:42:01 AM EST

To care would only perpetuate the shame of adult virginity.

[ Parent ]
That was precisely the joke \nt (3.00 / 3) (#126)
by bob6 on Mon Aug 23, 2004 at 08:32:11 AM EST



Cheers.
[ Parent ]
sick (2.37 / 8) (#118)
by the77x42 on Mon Aug 23, 2004 at 07:02:00 AM EST

the insipid mental image i have of some fat nerd having inexperienced sex with an ontarioian hooker goes without saying.

what i do want to say is that getting laid is not that difficult. put on a nice shirt, wear a shiny watch (sorry k5'ers, your digital casio calculator indiglo won't do), get some contacts or some thin frames (cause i know you all have glasses), dry clean the semen off your kakhis, shave your shoulder hair, make sure you have no chest hair encroaching on your neck, and stuff your wallet full of crisp $1 bills ($5 if you live in Canada).

You'll have the ladies for sure. Oh, don't forget to smile at her instead of planting your face back into the Similarion.


"We're not here to educate. We're here to point and laugh." - creature
"You have some pretty stupid ideas." - indubitable ‮

Sounds like a lot of effort (2.66 / 3) (#119)
by faecal on Mon Aug 23, 2004 at 07:02:39 AM EST

Couldn't you have just taken our word for it that sex isn't the be/end all?

think of it from his perspective... (3.00 / 3) (#143)
by coderlemming on Mon Aug 23, 2004 at 02:10:52 PM EST

Doesn't that just make it sound even more mystical and magical?  Like you're hiding something?  Come on, don't you remember being a virgin?  Everyone made it out to be something amazing, like some huge amazing deal... and when they said it wasn't the be all/end all of life, that sounded like bullshit.


--
Go be impersonally used as an organic semen collector!  (porkchop_d_clown)
[ Parent ]
A fat ass 33 year old BSD virgin? (2.89 / 28) (#120)
by Knot In The Face on Mon Aug 23, 2004 at 07:15:17 AM EST

Who liked having his ass tickled and thinks he made a hooker orgasm?

Sir, this is old skool.  Old skool.  I salute you!

Why does rusty vote for Kerry yet act like Bush? - exotron

Prostitutes in the US (2.40 / 5) (#122)
by actmodern on Mon Aug 23, 2004 at 08:00:26 AM EST

I recommend googling for information on the cat houses in Nevada. Particularly the ones outside Carson city. It's much safer for some reason I describe below:
  • The women get tested once every two weeks to renew their license.
  • The brothels are protected by security, although you never see them when you go in.
  • The prostitutes will check you for any visible signs of warts of herpes before having sex with you.
When you use an escort in Canada you don't get this type of protection. Food for thought.

Also I'm all for paying for sex if you want to do it that way. It's a lot better than wasting hours chasing women just to get lucky and catch something nasty.

--
LilDebbie challenge: produce the water sports scene from bable or stfu. It does not exist.

Just so people know (1.53 / 15) (#128)
by CaptainSuperBoy on Mon Aug 23, 2004 at 09:29:55 AM EST

This is a copy and paste job. The reason you can't google for it is because it's copied from a site on Freenet.

--
jimmysquid.com - I take pictures.
Check trolltalk. (1.12 / 8) (#189)
by Empedocles on Tue Aug 24, 2004 at 09:11:49 PM EST

RonaldReagan3 (or whatever he wants to call himself) is claiming responsibility, but the mod script the author is running leads me to believe that other parties may be involved.

---
And I think it's gonna be a long long time
'Till touch down brings me 'round again to find
I'm not the man they think I am at home

[ Parent ]
Interesting, (2.00 / 7) (#129)
by Koutetsu on Mon Aug 23, 2004 at 09:44:08 AM EST

if a bit heterocentrist.

. . .
"the same thing will happen with every other effort. it will somehow be undermined because the trolls are more clever and more motivated than you
Virgin; I had the oppesite effect (2.91 / 12) (#131)
by the dehorned unicorn on Mon Aug 23, 2004 at 09:55:49 AM EST

I got laid the first time because I was a virgin. I don't mean that like you I went out intending to get laid, I mean that once she found out that I was a virgin at age 22, she wasn't taking no. And wow am I lucky for that. I prematurely ejaculated two times that night from her lightly touching me not intending to set me off. After the 2nd time, and wanting to take my virginity when I got hard again she stopped touching me and laid back with her legs spread saying I should get in before I came again.

The whole "just quick, get in" so we can say we've fucked thing is rather embarassing in retrospect, but at the time it apparently wasn't too embarassing as I came right away. But hey, after three nearly instantaneous orgasms, I had a bit more "hang time" for the next two that night.

My current girlfriend is also one of those girls who would be thrilled to get a male virgin. She says it's good because you can do any weird shit you want and you can tell them "this is normal" and they'll have to believe you. "Warp them to my liking."

I think the taste for virgins is quite dependant upon both one's confidance in their sexual ability as well as their being comfortable in the sexuality. Most girls lack both. People who aren't comfortable in their sexuality will need the other person to be in the driver's seat. I realize I lack a bit in both; I'd prefer to not fuck a virgin, tho if my GF brought one home I probably wouldn't complain too much.



Me too (none / 0) (#301)
by Smiley K on Sun May 08, 2005 at 05:14:46 PM EST

Heh. I had just turned 18 and started community college. She was a 25 yr old divorcee attending CC on a government rehabilitation grant (foot injury - couldn't be a waitress/bartender anymore). Once she found out it was like I was wearing a sign around my neck that said "fresh meat" and had a big red bullseye painted right on my ass. Hindsight being 20/20, I really should have hung onto that one. Younger days...
-- Someone set up us the bomb.
[ Parent ]
Self-acceptance (2.33 / 6) (#134)
by mike3k on Mon Aug 23, 2004 at 10:30:17 AM EST

I was never the slightest bit attracted to women, yet I also couldn't accept myself as gay, so I didn't date anyone until recently. Rather than pretend to be straight and go out with a woman, I preferred to avoid sex altogether. Now that I'm finally comfortable with being gay, most of the cute guys aren't interested in someone over 40. Finally, one of my gay neighbors invited me to his home, and the next thing I knew he was all over me and we were in his bed with him giving me a blowjob.

So you're attracted to men? (1.33 / 6) (#154)
by Sacrifice on Mon Aug 23, 2004 at 05:12:38 PM EST

Really strange. I guess it's natural in some minority of most mammal populations, though - or maybe triggered randomly (in the womb or in childhood) by some environmental factors.

[ Parent ]
Yeah (3.00 / 3) (#179)
by bob6 on Tue Aug 24, 2004 at 07:43:08 AM EST

It's either day or night.

Cheers.
[ Parent ]
This article is so k5! (2.25 / 8) (#137)
by freddie on Mon Aug 23, 2004 at 11:51:19 AM EST




Imagination is more important than knowledge. -- Albert Einstein
no, (1.00 / 5) (#152)
by redrum on Mon Aug 23, 2004 at 04:38:00 PM EST

this article is so BULLSHIT. how the hell did this tripe get to the front page?! chrissakes...

[ Parent ]
Disappointing (2.00 / 5) (#141)
by loqi on Mon Aug 23, 2004 at 01:02:47 PM EST

I was pretty disappointed to find out that you'd had sex and then decided to write this, and even more disappointed that you wrote ten novels about your experience and then posted that.

Insight would have been realizing how stupid all the bullshit surrounding sex is before you had sex. What you did is hindsight, and not that impressive.

Interesting read. (2.66 / 9) (#158)
by Vesperto on Mon Aug 23, 2004 at 06:48:10 PM EST

Needless to say, i just clicked "add comment" after the first 5 or 6 comments, i'm tired of filtering garbage. What i liked about your story was not the description per se of the fact it was about sex but your points of view. I think it's kinda silly to congratulate you but it's nice to see someone's a bit more happy in this world. I won't be arrogant to the point of giving you "sex advice": it's stupid and pointless, build your own path. I would, however, seek help on losing weight if i were you. Seriously, not because fat is considered "not in fashion" currently, but because it's just not healthy.

Thanks for sharing, i admire your courge (and it's nice to see K5 stil has some quality articles).

Be well, misbehave.
_____________________________
If you disagree post, don't moderate.
Not a Premium User.

Lovely life story (2.80 / 10) (#160)
by rjnagle on Mon Aug 23, 2004 at 07:32:12 PM EST

Geez, K5 guys, give this guy a break! This was an interesting analysis about experience, longing and geek sexuality. Much as people would hate to admit it, many probably identify with portions of the sentiment expressed here and have similiar coming-of-age experiences that they are not-so-proud of. Oh, wait, I forgot, everybody is normal around here.

Of course, many probably don't approve of what he did or how he did it, but I doubt that he's the only one who's gone out on a limb for the sake of an experience.

I only hope he learned something and didn't get terribly hurt by It. I actually learned something about sex from this description and the prosaic attitude that people have towards it.

My only lament is that this probably wasn't the right forum for this article. To share private experiences in so public a forum is almost to cheapen the experience for itself and to beg for humiliation. K5 people may be your peers, but most are disinclined to read this piece fairly or to give a meaningful response. Perhaps it is right to give this experience a public airing, but on the other hand, there are others better suited for this kind of thing. Ultimately, who the hell cares about what K5 readers think of your experience? Instead, you might want to look at forums (admittedly sexual) such as thefirsttime.com . If you read other people's first time anecdotes, you'd find that some people enjoy telling about these experiences even if the memories themselves are ambivalent.

I think the writing was a kind of catharsis, and hopefully a sign that the writer has overcome the hangups he has had. No, of course, the writer doesn't believe that visiting a prostitute in Canada counts as the ideal sexual encounter, but what does one do with this energy and physical curiosity outside of a loving relationship? Should we just continue feeling inadequate? Stick to the pornos? Or make life-altering moves in a bid to meet more members of the opposite sex?

Let me recommend a book Living Alone and Loving It by Barbara Feldon Great thoughtpiece about the single life, companionship, sexuality.

Parts of this essay are really great:
Perhaps they've built up your expectations so high that you're expecting a wonderful experience, and the first time you go to a restaurant they are out of Tiramisu, so your tension is even higher. But you finally get to a restaurant and they have it and you try it and love it. It's everything you thought it could be, it makes you (well, your taste buds) feel great, and you enjoy the whole thing and plan to eat more later at every opportunity. But even though it was thoroughly enjoyable it's no big deal. You ate it, your friends ate it, it's been around for hundreds or thousands of years, so it's not like you walked on the moon or discovered cold fusion, you know? No reason to throw a party just because you ate a tasty new dessert. So yes, sex is a big deal when you haven't had it because of the anxiety, the unfamiliarity and the feeling you're not in the club. And it feels wonderful and is wonderful and I want to do it more and more, but I don't feel the need to break open a bottle of champagne or set off fireworks or anything, which are some of the things I kind of imagined--when I was a virgin (a whole 26 hours ago)--I'd want to do after finally having sex.


Poll write-in: n/a (2.75 / 4) (#161)
by damiam on Mon Aug 23, 2004 at 07:56:42 PM EST



Best K5ARP bait ever [nt] (2.71 / 7) (#173)
by Guybrush Threepwood on Mon Aug 23, 2004 at 10:03:55 PM EST


-- Dont eat me. I'm a mighty pirate!
Torvalds says (2.50 / 4) (#175)
by jbridge21 on Tue Aug 24, 2004 at 01:56:19 AM EST

"Software is like sex; it's better when it's free."

Another one to keep in mind (3.00 / 4) (#206)
by ClassicG on Wed Aug 25, 2004 at 04:04:33 PM EST

"Programming is like sex. One mistake and you have to support it for the rest of your life."

[ Parent ]
Good, courageous scientific description :-) (1.75 / 4) (#185)
by chro57 on Tue Aug 24, 2004 at 05:42:25 PM EST

Good, courageous scientific description of your personnal experience with sex services :-)

Pffff... I did use paid sex services, for my late first time, at a time I was very, very depressed and mentally sick and deseperate. And you are true : something change : you are much less stressed about it, then. "Not such big deal."
In fact I wasn't even able to have a climax, as I was really, really ashamed, and full of fears :-)

Then I tried gay sex. Much more easy, cheap, emotionaly, socially and politically interesting. But it take some training and education to do it safely and confortably ;-) So many horny guys to help :-) Even some proud heterosexuals ;-) Many friends to make ;-)

But choose them responsabily :-) Don't encourage bad behaviours, and darkness. Work on building global responsible understanding and caring :-)

An interesting side note : just many, many, old men, will consciously or inconsciously react positively to light seductions movements : looking them in the eye, with a big smile and blinking eyes ;-)... listening to, caring for them :-) (use it reasonably in your career ;-)

You are overweight ? My current diet advice : lots of cake and yogurts :-) Are you sure of being really overweight, or are you just well built ? (look at these handsome 120kg wrestlers ;-) If you are exceptionnally "healthy", you will also have difficulties to find a women partner because many womens will want to reserve you for a real mariage for super childrens, rather than spoiling you in a short lived relationship :-) (By the way, mature, intelligent sensible womens, just love gay men, as much as I am an admirer of sensible, responsible lesbian women ;-)

And don't forget : we are 6 billions on this planet, with many starving, or dying in pollution or even ethnicals wars... And no, getting children won't give you "immortality" as one poster stated. "they have a mind of their own." Childrens are offrands to God and the human society...when they are not insanly overnumbered and hopefully not educated only to war and brainless competition :-)

Thank for your attention :-)

:( THIS :( IS :( THE :( SUBJECT :( BITCH (1.80 / 5) (#186)
by JesusFuckedADog on Tue Aug 24, 2004 at 08:23:37 PM EST

JESUS :-( CHRIST :-( FUCK :-( !

Do :-( you :-( think :-( you :-( could :-( have :-( used :-( a :-( few :-( dozen :-( more :-( smilies :-(


I don't hate Christianity, I just hate Christians and everything they stand for.
[ Parent ]
You have harmed yourself. (1.82 / 17) (#190)
by Verax on Tue Aug 24, 2004 at 10:48:29 PM EST

I didn't have to read your whole story to get a sense of what happened. I voted against your story and I'll explain why a bit later.

Most people wind up getting married at some point in their life; it is the most common state of life for people to choose. Marriage is difficult, but can also be deeply rewarding, some times even in spite of the detrimental things we do earlier in life. I think many people don't give much consideration to their future marriage.

Suppose there really is the woman for you (in every respect: she's attractive to you, attracted to you, she's smart and warm and funny and truly fun to be with). You'll truly love her, be willing to suffer life's hardships for her, and find true happiness in building your life togethr. (I know there's plenty of jaded people out there, but sometimes these things come totally out of the blue.)

How does doing what you just did help your future relationship with her? Some would lead you to believe that gaining some "experience" will make you "perform" better once you're together with your wife. But what works for one couple doesn't necessarily work for another, and if you truly love one another, you can have plenty of enjoyment from figuring out what works for you both.

Now, how does doing what you just did hurt your future marriage?

There's the issue of security: she will be wondering how she compares to your previous experiences. And if the woman you marry isn't a virgin, you'll be wondering the same thing. Also, even short of prostitution or even sleeping around, there's masturbation. Men or women, ask yourselves: who would you trust more to not run around on you: someone who wasn't spanking off whenever the opportunity arose, or someone who stayed chaste, or at least struggled to? Who would you trust more to stay sexually connected within a marriage: someone who has a lifelong history of gratifying themselves, or someone who stayed continent?

There's the issues of love and respect. Associated with masturbation is pornography. Who would you trust more to see you as a human being, to consider your feelings, to treat you kindly: someone who has had a steady diet of pornography, or someone who has stayed away from it? If one considers pornography to mean removing sex from marriage for the purpose of putting it on display, then even R rated movies and your own K5 story are pornography. Is someone who accepts pornography as normal more or less likely to consider members of the opposite sex as people to be respected and loved, or as objects to be humped? Pornography has no redeeming value, and yet leads many people to profound unhappiness. Your story contains pornography, which is why I voted against it.

There's disease. People would have you believe that wearing a condom makes sex "safe". A condom will not protect you against every kind of disease that's out there, and isn't a guarantee against the others. Men in particular can carry some diseases without even knowing it (no symptoms, and some don't even have laboratory tests). So how will you feel with the uncertainty that you may now be carrying a disease which will affect her, but you can't be certain whether you have it or not. Suppose that she is a virgin and you really do have something. You'll both know that her suffering is due to your past lack of esteem for your future spouse. Having kids is a natural thing for a married couple to want to do. Some diseases, left undetected can cause infertility, and possible permanent sterility. Even if that doesn't happen, the uncertainty about it will take an emotional toll.

In effect, extramarital sex is "cheating in advance". I'm not spouting all of this to put anyone down, or make myself feel all wonderful. I am, in fact, speaking from experience. I had only a half dozen experiences when I was 18, and didn't get married until 16 years later, which was a couple of years ago. I truly love my wife, and never want to be without her. All of these considerations and tensions came up because of a few experiences a decade and a half ago. And those experiences added nothing positive to my life. If I had it to do over, I would have skipped them. They served to hurt the women I was with at the time, they hurt me, and they tried to hurt my marriage. I would greatly prefer to have been able to give a clean gift of myself to my wife on our wedding day. To use an analogy, a rewrapped gift is better than an unwrapped gift, but it would be better if it was still new in the original box. My wife was a virgin when I married her (and a really good looking and charming one at that; when we were friends in college, there seemed to be an unending stream of guys pursuing her.) On our wedding day, when we gave our selves to one another, her gift was more perfect and more meaningful than mine.

I haven't brought up religion so far, but a Saint (I think it was St. John Vianney, but I can't find an online version of the quote) said something to the effect that anyone who ever went into a whorehouse was looking for God. I'm sure many will scoff at that, but if you are able to see the truth in it, it is deeply sad. The thing that our society seems unable to do is make a distinction between happiness and pleasure. There are people who engage regularly in many pleasurable activities, but who are also extremely unhappy. There may be certain kinds of pleasure in hell, but there will be no happiness whatsoever. On the other hand, the happiest person I've ever heard of people meeting was Mother Teresa. Food for thought.



----------------------------------------------
"It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish." -- Mother Teresa of Calcutta
You're a fucking nutjob. (2.80 / 10) (#199)
by flaw on Wed Aug 25, 2004 at 08:39:48 AM EST

who would you trust more to not run around on you: someone who was spanking off whenever the opportunity arose, or someone who stayed chaste, or at least struggled to?

I would be wary of someone who spent their entire life struggling to repress perfectly normal and healthy sexual feelings because there's a good chance that would lead to some sort of psychosis.

Who would you trust more to see you as a human being, to consider your feelings, to treat you kindly: someone who has had a steady diet of pornography, or someone who has stayed away from it?

It depends on the person, not the pornography.  You have failed to make a point with this.

--
ピニス, ピニス, everyone loves ピニス!
[ Parent ]

Psychosis and pornography (2.40 / 5) (#213)
by Verax on Wed Aug 25, 2004 at 06:44:14 PM EST

I would be wary of someone who spent their entire life struggling to repress perfectly normal and healthy sexual feelings because there's a good chance that would lead to some sort of psychosis.
What do you mean by repress? Consider another human appetite: hunger for food. To use this appetite appropriately, we eat good food, ideally in good company. This is normal and healthy, and not repression. On the other hand, if someone were to isolate himself from others and stuff his face with copious amounts of junk food, you have a morbidly obese and very unhappy individual. Not that a bag of snickers doesn't taste good. But this is no longer healthy or normal. Mastering out appetites is healthy. Being mastered by our appetites is not. Being mastered by our appetites is what leads to loss of contact with reality, which is the definition of psychosis. I am suggesting that you have it backwards; what you are calling repression is in fact self mastery, and it is a lack of self mastery that leads to psychosis.
It depends on the person, not the pornography. You have failed to make a point with this.
What makes you so sure of this? Self gratification is at odds with love of others which requires self denial. For example, a mother who gets up after only 2 hours of sleep so that she can feed and change her baby is demonstrating love by putting her child's needs and comfort above her own.

----------------------------------------------
"It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish." -- Mother Teresa of Calcutta
[ Parent ]
That argument is ridiculous (2.80 / 5) (#226)
by ILikeCheese on Thu Aug 26, 2004 at 01:37:19 AM EST

Sure it's unhealthy to lock yourself in a room all day and eat snickers, but is it unhealthy to eat one snickers every once in a while? Is it unhealthy for someone who has never eaten a snickers before to try a snickers? I would say no, and I'm sure you would too. Think up a metaphor that actually backs up your point and try again.

[ Parent ]
Analogy vs. metaphor (3.00 / 2) (#235)
by Verax on Thu Aug 26, 2004 at 06:22:21 PM EST

Sure it's unhealthy to lock yourself in a room all day and eat snickers, but is it unhealthy to eat one snickers every once in a while? Is it unhealthy for someone who has never eaten a snickers before to try a snickers? I would say no, and I'm sure you would too.

You're right; I would say no as well. But that's my point exactly: mastering out appetite is good (not harming ourselves by pigging out on something that tastes good), and it is not good to be mastered by our appetites (being overweight and unable to stop eating snickers, to the further detriment of our health).

Think up a metaphor that actually backs up your point and try again.

Just to be clear, I wasn't using figurative language (a metaphor). I was using an analogy, which is where some similarities between things (which are otherwise not alike) are used to illusrate a common idea. In this case, the idea was the distinction between mastering our appetites and being mastered by them.

It would be abusing the analogy to assume that extramarital orgasms and snickers are similar. Specifically, snickers, in moderation are in fact food (although not very nutritious), and we do have a legitimate need for food. For example, everyone who stops eating dies unless they resume. On the other hand, many people throughout human history have survived whithout seeking orgasm outside of marriage.



----------------------------------------------
"It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish." -- Mother Teresa of Calcutta
[ Parent ]
Try a better analogy (none / 1) (#239)
by Shajenko on Thu Aug 26, 2004 at 09:55:14 PM EST

<<Specifically, snickers, in moderation are in fact food (although not very nutritious), and we do have a legitimate need for food. For example, everyone who stops eating dies unless they resume.>>

But plenty of people have never eaten a snickers bar in their lives and been fine. Is it therefore a sin to ever eat a snickers bar?

[ Parent ]
Sin and snickers (none / 1) (#244)
by Verax on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 04:44:14 PM EST

But plenty of people have never eaten a snickers bar in their lives and been fine.

So we can conclude that abstaining from snickers is not a sin.

Is it therefore a sin to ever eat a snickers bar?

Again, we do have a legitimate need for food; without it we die. Because snickers are still food (even though not the best of food), we are not abusing our bodies by having one from time to time. Because we are not abusing our bodies by eating a snickers we can say, in geneneral, that eating a snickers is not a sin.

However, for some people suffering from disorders (severe loss of control when eating sweets, or severe diabetes) eating a single snickers would be seriously harmful to their bodies, and so would be a sin. The point is that God gave us our bodies and our free will and our appetites. We are given our appetites for good reasons. However, it is up to us to use our free will to master our appetites and protect our bodies; that is, to use them appropriately, and not allow them to master us.



----------------------------------------------
"It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish." -- Mother Teresa of Calcutta
[ Parent ]
Nah... (1.50 / 2) (#255)
by Shajenko on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 08:44:30 PM EST

Sugar and chocolate weren't originally on the same continent, and mixing them is a sin. Why do you blaspheme so?

[ Parent ]
Sugar certainly existed.... (none / 0) (#299)
by unhygeinix on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 03:38:13 AM EST

...in the Americas. You're referring to refined sugar which is a pretty recent invention anyway.

[ Parent ]
Religion (2.80 / 5) (#209)
by SanSeveroPrince on Wed Aug 25, 2004 at 05:11:25 PM EST

You are a living, breathing, typing example of why I resent my Catholic upbringing, and the harm those nutjobs have caused to many children less fortunate in getting free than I was.

What you say is so wrong, twisting everything beautiful about human nature, tham I'm not sure whether I should offer you a gun and a bullet, or propose you for a long, fruitful carreer in the clergy.

----

Life is a tragedy to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think


[ Parent ]
How's that? (none / 1) (#210)
by Verax on Wed Aug 25, 2004 at 06:25:39 PM EST

You are a living, breathing, typing example of why I resent my Catholic upbringing, and the harm those nutjobs have caused to many children less fortunate in getting free than I was.
You say this is so, but you don't say why. Why do you represent your Catholic upbringing? What harm has been caused to children by those who practice chastity or chastity within marriage?
What you say is so wrong, twisting everything beautiful about human nature, [...]
Ok, so set me straight. What have I twisted, and in what way have I twisted it? Please enlighten me.

----------------------------------------------
"It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish." -- Mother Teresa of Calcutta
[ Parent ]
What? (2.50 / 2) (#227)
by SanSeveroPrince on Thu Aug 26, 2004 at 03:55:48 AM EST

I should get into a morality argument with a religious nut? Are you out of your goddamn mind?

----

Life is a tragedy to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think


[ Parent ]
Smear and run? (3.00 / 2) (#233)
by Verax on Thu Aug 26, 2004 at 04:58:44 PM EST

I should get into a morality argument with a religious nut? Are you out of your [...] mind?

No. You suggest that those who are Catholic are nutjobs, and you claim that Catholicism harms children who can't "get free" of it. You also say that what I say is wrong and that I have twisted the truth. So what I am asking is for you to back up your allegations.

If you won't or can't, then you appear to be using a "smear and run" tactic. Calling me a name and running away looks cowardly. I'm just giving you an opportunity to provide substance to your allegations.



----------------------------------------------
"It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish." -- Mother Teresa of Calcutta
[ Parent ]
Not quite (2.50 / 2) (#236)
by SanSeveroPrince on Thu Aug 26, 2004 at 06:45:53 PM EST

You're just trying to get me to say enough about myself so you can guess my address, and send me religious pamphlets.

----

Life is a tragedy to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think


[ Parent ]
Really? (none / 1) (#237)
by Verax on Thu Aug 26, 2004 at 08:04:11 PM EST

You're just trying to get me to say enough about myself so you can guess my address, and send me religious pamphlets.

defending your allegations won't reveal your address. And I'm not one to send out pamphlets, religious or otherwise.

So it boils down to this: you smear with wild allegations, and when asked to back them up, you say the above. Are you really not smart enough to support your claims without revealing your identity?



----------------------------------------------
"It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish." -- Mother Teresa of Calcutta
[ Parent ]
Allegations? (none / 1) (#241)
by SanSeveroPrince on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 06:43:58 AM EST

I said your post sucked, along with the Catholic church. It's not smear and run, it's not an allegation, it's just my opinion.

Oh, and the fact that most religions twist perfectly natural human urges (like the sexual drive we're all born with), promising impossible rewards for a behaviour that goes against our nature is NOT a wild allegation, it's a statement of fact.


----

Life is a tragedy to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think


[ Parent ]
What an allegation is and what yours have been (none / 1) (#243)
by Verax on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 04:28:21 PM EST

I said your post sucked, along with the Catholic church. It's not smear and run, it's not an allegation, it's just my opinion.

Well, let's see about that. Originally you said:

You are a living, breathing, typing example of why I resent my Catholic upbringing, and the harm those nutjobs have caused to many children less fortunate in getting free than I was.

What you say is so wrong, twisting everything beautiful about human nature[...]

where you allege that

  • Someone who practices catholicism is a nutjob.
  • Catholicism has caused harm to many children who "can't get free of it".
  • I have strayed from the truth.
  • I have twisted everything beautiful about human nature
Things that have been alleged are, in fact, allegations. Therefore, yes, you have made allegations. Your opinion is your own business, however your allegations are serious. Yet, you still have not defended any of them. If you run away without doing so, then yes, you are engaging in "smear and run". In fairness, you haven't run yet. But you also haven't provided a shred of evidence to support your allegations.



----------------------------------------------
"It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish." -- Mother Teresa of Calcutta
[ Parent ]
Allege: (none / 1) (#245)
by SanSeveroPrince on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 04:54:46 PM EST

Allege: 'to adduce or bring forward as a source or authority'

----

Life is a tragedy to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think


[ Parent ]
What allege means. (3.00 / 2) (#249)
by Verax on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 06:07:26 PM EST

Allege: 'to adduce or bring forward as a source or authority'

Apparently you looked here for the meaning of allege. but here's the whole entry:

Main Entry: al·lege
Pronunciation: &-'lej
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): al·leged; al·leg·ing
Etymology: Middle English alleggen, from Middle French alleguer, from Latin allegare to dispatch, cite, from ad- + legare to depute -- more at LEGATE
1 archaic : to adduce or bring forward as a source or authority
2 : to assert without proof or before proving <the newspaper alleges the mayor's guilt>
3 : to bring forward as a reason or excuse

You'll notice that what you quoted is an archaic definition. However, what you have done fits definition 2 with respect to your allegations which I pointed out in the previous post. You still have not defended them. Further, your initial post seems to fit definition 3 as well, as your reason or excuse for hating the Catholic Church and the people who practice Catholicism.

So, the assertions in your allegations remain unproved:

  • Someone who practices catholicism is a nutjob.
  • Catholicism has caused harm to many children who "can't get free of it".
  • I have strayed from the truth.
  • I have twisted everything beautiful about human nature

Why don't you back those up? It is starting to look like you are without facts, or without intelligence, without courage, or some combination thereof.



----------------------------------------------
"It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish." -- Mother Teresa of Calcutta
[ Parent ]
Nope (none / 1) (#254)
by SanSeveroPrince on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 07:39:38 PM EST

Oxford press English dictionary.

----

Life is a tragedy to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think


[ Parent ]
Oxford press English dictionary (none / 0) (#297)
by pieroxy on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 07:27:07 AM EST

Edition 1875?

[ Parent ]
And yet... too late! (none / 0) (#270)
by Ta bu shi da yu on Tue Aug 31, 2004 at 10:09:32 AM EST

I do beleive you started the debate when you replied to a comment on a discussion forum. HTH.

---
AdTIה"the think tank that didn't".
ה
[ Parent ]
BACK UP YOUR ASSERTIONS (none / 0) (#293)
by BuddasEvilTwin on Thu Sep 02, 2004 at 02:47:47 PM EST

>I should get into a morality argument with a
>religious nut? Are you out of your goddamn mind?

  As an agnostic who happens to agree with you, and having finished reading your conversation with this guy, I'd say you're pretty obligated to back up your assertions.

  ...BECAUSE I'M SICK OF DEFENDING YOUR BELIEFS FOR YOU.

  You want freedom from draconian governments and draconian religions, but you're not willing to fight for it?

  You made an assertion, now it's your job to back up your assertion.  You need to learn how to defend in what you believe in.

[ Parent ]

Hey loser (2.50 / 2) (#211)
by I Hate Yanks on Wed Aug 25, 2004 at 06:36:14 PM EST

There's a big difference between masturbating lots and paying money to fuck a cheap whore who fakes an orgasm to get you off.

Masturbation every time. Everyone's satisfied.

Don't knock it until you've tried it.


Reasons to hate Americans (No. 812): Circletimessquare lives there.
[ Parent ]

You Could.... (1.33 / 6) (#212)
by JesusFuckedADog on Wed Aug 25, 2004 at 06:39:14 PM EST

There's always a Jesus jackhammer. Seems like it might be a hot seller around these parts these days and among the catholic diocese.


I don't hate Christianity, I just hate Christians and everything they stand for.
[ Parent ]
Offensive. (none / 0) (#269)
by Ta bu shi da yu on Tue Aug 31, 2004 at 10:08:22 AM EST

I suppose that shows how tolerant atheists are. Good luck with your further vilifaction, I hope it goes well with you.

---
AdTIה"the think tank that didn't".
ה
[ Parent ]
Perfectly justifiable (none / 0) (#285)
by NDPTAL85 on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 04:20:35 PM EST

You have to understand how much misery and suffering religious people have caused throughout history to understand why people who are not religious have no problem insulting those who are. To me its more than fair.

[ Parent ]
Wow. Great logic! (nt) (none / 0) (#290)
by Ta bu shi da yu on Thu Sep 02, 2004 at 09:11:57 AM EST



---
AdTIה"the think tank that didn't".
ה
[ Parent ]
You're making an assumption (2.25 / 4) (#219)
by Verax on Wed Aug 25, 2004 at 09:20:04 PM EST

Masturbation every time. Everyone's satisfied.
Don't knock it until you've tried it.

You're eating the menu and calling it the meal. And I am not knocking it without having tried it. That was my old life, so I can tell you from personal experience that it is entirely hollow and empty. Yeah it feels good, but it's not satisfying; there's no joy in it, no happiness results. It was a very difficult habit to break, but I was much happier without it. And since getting married to the woman I love about two years ago, life has been, on the whole, truly wonderful.

If you think the pleasure from masturbation is satisfying and fulfilling, you should try smoking crack; I've talked to a few people who actually have, and they tell me that it feels way better than sex. I feel safe knocking crack use without having tried it because I see the emptiness that results in the lives of those who use it.



----------------------------------------------
"It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish." -- Mother Teresa of Calcutta
[ Parent ]
Choice quote. (none / 1) (#215)
by coljac on Wed Aug 25, 2004 at 07:19:03 PM EST

...Anyone who ever went into a whorehouse was looking for God.

Tee hee. I don't think so.

Strange that the impulse for religiosity and a hatred of sex and other forms of pleasure go hand in hand. Often, they just sneer at these things as sinful, but this curious notion of "purity" is also popular. What on earth does that mean?

"Thank you, God, for the healing gift of religion."



---
Whether or not life is discovered there I think Jupiter should be declared an enemy planet. - Jack Handey
[ Parent ]

What on earth that means... (2.00 / 3) (#218)
by Verax on Wed Aug 25, 2004 at 09:05:19 PM EST

Strange that the impulse for religiosity and a hatred of sex and other forms of pleasure go hand in hand. Often, they just sneer at these things as sinful, but this curious notion of "purity" is also popular. What on earth does that mean?

Who says I (or Catholicism, which is my religion) hate sex, or eating good food, or drinking good wine, or the pleasures that go with them? These, as designed, are very good and enjoyable things. Happiness has associated pleasures, but pleasures for their own sake are a path away from happiness.

One shouldn't confuse enjoying a glass of wine with getting drunk off one's ass and being hung over. One shouldn't confuse enjoying a good meal in good company with binging and purging. And one shouldn't confuse a husband and wife lovingly renewing their gift of themselves to one another with empty stuff like: spankin' it to porn, or gettin' "lucky" with some drunk barfly, or sexually exploiting someone who is mentally ill, or paying a hooker, etc.. It's not that sex is bad, it's that bad things shouldn't be done with sex.

For what it's worth, those doing the sneering aren't behaving in a Christian manner. Dismissing Christianity because of these people is like like dismissing science because of "cold fusion". If you want to see Christianity in action, look at the lives of the Saints. St. John Vianney was not the sneering type.



----------------------------------------------
"It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish." -- Mother Teresa of Calcutta
[ Parent ]

No Sir, See You Are Wrong (1.33 / 12) (#216)
by JesusFuckedADog on Wed Aug 25, 2004 at 08:37:46 PM EST

Pornography has no redeeming value, and yet leads many people to profound unhappiness. Your story contains pornography, which is why I voted against it.

No sir, see, you are wrong. As a homosexual member of the church who was sexually abused by my elderly schoolmasters, I found this story of tender love and sweet passion quite arousing. So much so, in fact, that I was forced to jism on my secretary and then I had to bury her in the woods under a tarpaulin.

Please sir, if you go into the woods to pray with Jesus, mind where you walk or you may trip.


I don't hate Christianity, I just hate Christians and everything they stand for.
[ Parent ]
Sir, yo uowe me a new monitor. (none / 0) (#234)
by Langley on Thu Aug 26, 2004 at 05:49:07 PM EST

Oh my. I just did not see that coming. Talk about plot twists!


A Prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded. -Abraham Lincoln (Sixteenth President of the United States of America)
[ Parent ]
You sir, are a total mentalist. (3.00 / 5) (#242)
by Nursie on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 09:42:49 AM EST

What's so special about marriage anyway? It's just a contract. (Without bringing your personal big beard in the sky into this).

And why repress the urges when you don't have to?

FYI I voted this story down too, but that's because I think it's a story I've seen somewhere else, or possibly just a fictional troll. Either way it shouldn't be here and certainly should never have been more

Now the guy clearly has some issues if he hasn't had the affections (and by that I don't just mean sex) of a woman by the time he's hitting thirty. Issues like totally wasting his life IMHO. All the talk at the beginning of constantly working and not getting out and meeting people/socialising/enjoying himself is just wrong. You only get one life and, whilst you do need to work for money (and more money is always better), excluding everything else is bad. He wasted his 20s, some of the most vital years of his life, doing work. I would hope we can agree onthat point.

But Everything else about your post is like reading victorian era propaganda.
Lets address the points:
  • Security: Get over yourself. Someone who's had one or two previous relationships is going to be better at it anyway. By the time you're married you should be comfortable that you are sexually compatible. Otherwise the marriage will suck. And like marriages that deteriorate for so many other reasons, it will become a living hell that you are trapped in by the contract you signed. Unless you both have very low libido's of course. As For trust, well that should come from love! Not history.
  • Love and Respect. I would trust someone to respect me more that didn't have a weird self denial ethic. When you say "If one considers pornography to mean removing sex from marriage for the purpose of putting it on display" you neglect to think about what you are saying. It is the constraint of sex to marriage, and even marriage itself that are artificial. Perhaps we could define it as taking sex out of the confines of interpersonal relations and instead putting on a display for titillation. That seems more reasonable.
    As for whether the opposite sex then become simply sex-objects, well that may happen in a few cases. To people with no ability to distinguish reality from fantasy. Most of us can. I have a very loving relationship at the moment, but no qualms about using porn when I've been single.
    And pornography has many redeeeming values I think you'll find, certainly a lot of people enjoy it, and that's what life is about, enjoyment. It is also a help to those who for some reason cannot get a relationship. Possibly the severely disabled or those confined to a place such as an oil rig where it's simply not possible. You are right that this story does contain pornography, and I do find it distasteful, but that's because the image of an overweight 30-something virgin fumbling with a whore's bra strap doesn't quite do it for me.
  • Disease. Nice christian scare-mongering there. lets address one or two of the things you say shall we?
    • Assertion: Condoms don't protect against all disease.
      So then, care to point one out they don't protect against? The consensus of the scientific community is that they're pretty effective.
    • Assertion: Men can carry some diseases without even knowing it
      True. If you're referring to chlamydia, and I don't think there are any others in the general population, then a condom will protect you just fine.
    • Assertion: You can't be certain you have a disease.
      Dude, you get tests. If there's something badly wrong you will know it. The invisible diseases you talk about are caught by a condom. You can be damned certain.
    Basically, if you're careful, stick to having sex with people you care for, don't fuck the whole town, and use protection, you're going to be fine. If you're worried, get a test!
Then we get to the meat of the post: you had bad, destructive sex when you weren't ready for it. Nos shame in that, but believe it or not, some of us are capable of having sex in relationships and enjoying it, and don't need a papal seal to make it 'ok'. Yet again, what's up with your awe for the institution of marriage?
Marriages break down all the time. Is sex within marriage "cheating in advance" on your next wife when this one kicks you out? Or is that just so unthinkable it explodes your little christian mind? And don't tell me that only people who have had extra marital sex get divorced, because I'm sure I can find you examples to the contrary.

And your saint can go stick his holier than thou attitude up his arse. Not everyone that goes to a whorehouse is a lonely unfulfilled wretch that goes there to pay for affection. Watch Louis Theroux's documentary on one of these places sometime. Now it sure as hell showed you that some of the girls weren't happy, but the men sure as hell weren't looking for god, a shoulder to cry on or anything else. They were looking for a good time with a hot chick.

Basically - get over yourself. People have sex. Sure your wife said she was a virgin, but how about that weird american fashion going around the no-hope fundie bible-belt towns for 'reclaiming' virignity? And by the sounds ofg it you'd have freaked if she'd said anything else, so i'd have a serious think about it. And then I'd have a serious think about how predjudiced you are that it would offend you if she had had sex before. The woman you love and trust, is it all because she never had anyone else?

Meta Sigs suck.

[ Parent ]
Marriage just a contract / why suppress urges (1.50 / 4) (#246)
by Verax on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 05:15:51 PM EST

What's so special about marriage anyway? It's just a contract. (Without bringing your personal big beard in the sky into this).

If you're talking about civil marriage and leaving God out of it, then yes, you're right "marriage", it is just a contract. Nothing more. In this context, marriage vows, wedding rings, unity candles, etc. are just meaningless fluff. Might as well get those prenups signed, because there's no reason to think they won't be needed. Divorce is always an option for escape. It really means nothing at all. Sign here, here, and here.

And why repress the urges when you don't have to?

Well, that requires looking at marriage. After all, if "marriage" is only a contract, and contracts get renegotiated all the time, what's the big deal? The big deal is that often, within marriage, there are children. And when a "marriage" fails (the contract is renegotiated), the children suffer as a result. These children then grow up to be the adults of the world, and, without good examples of a properly functioning marriage (one with a father and a mother who truly love and honor one another and their children, where the parents behave like adults to respectfully resolve the problems which inevitably come up, where father and mother provide good male and female role models (respectively), they start with a disfunctional view of male-female relationships and marriage and family. Certainly being in a poor family without a father doesn't guarantee that a kid will resort to crime and/or drugs and/or membership in a gang. However, most guys breaking the law and/or doing/selling drugs and/or participating in gangs were at least biased in that direction as a result of being in a disfunctional family.

So you're right; to paraphrase: there is no reason to suppress an urge when there is no reason to suppress an urge. So what? The question is whether there is a reason to suppress an urge. Sex outside of marriage has, at the scale of society as a whole, caused tremendous human misery. It may be less obvious at the level of an individual family, or an indivdual person, or an individual act. But even there, during the late 70's and early 80's, I saw how badly my friends were hurt by the divorces of their parents. I've seen how badly the people in a family are hurt when one of the parents is unfaithful to the other.

The bottom line is that the family (a male father and a female mother and their children, since, apparently, that has to be spelled out these days) is the fundamental building block of society. If you allow things to harm the families, you get a harmed society as well.



----------------------------------------------
"It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish." -- Mother Teresa of Calcutta
[ Parent ]
I come from a broken family (none / 0) (#261)
by Nursie on Tue Aug 31, 2004 at 06:48:04 AM EST

And I'd like to take you up on some of these assertions

when a "marriage" fails ... , the children suffer as a result.

This is not a causal effect, and is in no way dependant upon having a god in your life. What it is dependant upon is whether the parents entered into the arrangement knowingly and enthusiastically. If the marriage was a so-called "shotgun-wedding" because the woman got pregnant when they didn't want it then both partners will feel rushed, trapped and uncomfortable, and a breakdown is almost inevitable and likely to be nasty and full of recrimination. This will most likely hurt the children.
However if the marriage started with both partners wanting to get married, and wanting children, and for some reason it just doesn't work (as was the case with my parents, who tried to make it work for a long time) then the children will most likely understand this and see the breakup of the marriage as beneficial to all parties. I don't believe I've been damaged, my atheism developed quite independantly of all this, and my drug use is reasoned and out of sincere belief that the law is an ass, rather than addictive. I have a good job and relations with both of my parents. And I've never been in trouble with the law.
Besides that point, I have had many friends brought up without a father present who have turned out fine, or in fact better than me. My current partner was brought up without a father, and with a step father that made her life a misery. She never resorted to drugs or crime and is doing very well as a senior editor. So single parent children do not always do badly or harm society.

What seems to be at issue here is that children should not be brought into the world unplanned and unwanted. The parental resentment of the change in life brought on by unwanted commitment seems to me to be the driving force behind neglected children who may as a result turn to crime. The solution you propose (absolute abstention from sex) is IMHO unworkable (people will always have sex), and also not inherently 'better' for any reason than the one I propose (education on contraception and other forms of so-called "family planning") unless you take into account some sort of god, which I do not.

Sex outside of marriage has, at the scale of society as a whole, caused tremendous human misery.

I'd like to know what statistics you're using here. Especially as sex outside of marriage has also been a cause tremendous human happiness. I wonder how much more tension and violence there might be if people were restricted to sex within marriage?


Meta Sigs suck.

[ Parent ]
Broken Family experience (none / 0) (#278)
by Verax on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 05:34:02 AM EST

when a "marriage" fails ... , the children suffer as a result.
This is not a causal effect, and is in no way dependant upon having a god in your life. What it is dependant upon is whether the parents entered into the arrangement knowingly and enthusiastically. If the marriage was a so-called "shotgun-wedding" because the woman got pregnant when they didn't want it then both partners will feel rushed, trapped and uncomfortable, and a breakdown is almost inevitable and likely to be nasty and full of recrimination. This will most likely hurt the children.

Who ever said having God in one's life suddenly brings about immunity to suffering? It's not true, and anyone who thinks it is, is in for bitter disappointment.

There is no such thing as a Catholic "shotgun wedding". The man and woman have to freely give themselves to one another, or the marriage is not valid.

The business of an unplanned pregnancy, and feeling rushed, and trapped and uncomfortable is only one reason for not having sex outside of marriage.

However if the marriage started with both partners wanting to get married, and wanting children, and for some reason it just doesn't work (as was the case with my parents, who tried to make it work for a long time) then the children will most likely understand this and see the breakup of the marriage as beneficial to all parties. I don't believe I've been damaged, my atheism developed quite independantly of all this, and my drug use is reasoned and out of sincere belief that the law is an ass, rather than addictive. I have a good job and relations with both of my parents. And I've never been in trouble with the law.

In some cases, I must agree with you about the law.

I'm glad to hear that you've managed through unscathed. Your experience does not match what I've observed with my friends as far as "will most likely understand this", with results varying from person to person, but including drug problems, criminal activity, anorexia, a failed marriage, and depression (in one instance bordering on suicidal).

Besides that point, I have had many friends brought up without a father present who have turned out fine, or in fact better than me. My current partner was brought up without a father, and with a step father that made her life a misery. She never resorted to drugs or crime and is doing very well as a senior editor. So single parent children do not always do badly or harm society.

I'm definietly not saying that anyone from a broken home is automatically doomed to a life of failure and misery and hate and being a burden on society. I am saying that in most cases there is strong pressure in those directions. But not everyone bends to pressure, and in not doing so, heroes are made. This is true in general, especially in the specific cases of children from broken homes, or of single parents raising children.

What seems to be at issue here is that children should not be brought into the world unplanned and unwanted.

Here, I think you, I, the "pro choice" crowd, and the "pro life" crowd are all in agreement. The disagreement is over what to do after conception.

The parental resentment of the change in life brought on by unwanted commitment seems to me to be the driving force behind neglected children who may as a result turn to crime.

I agree. This is why the Catholic Church wants maturity in those who are getting married (so resentment either doesn't come up, or doesn't come up to the degree where it's a problem). This is another reason why sex outside of a true commitment (marriage) is wrong. And finally, this is why marriage needs to be open to life; when it isn't and there's a "surprise", then there's a problem.

The solution you propose (absolute abstention from sex) is IMHO unworkable (people will always have sex), and also not inherently 'better' for any reason than the one I propose (education on contraception and other forms of so-called "family planning") unless you take into account some sort of god, which I do not.

Yes, people (more than one person) will always have sex outside of marriage. But that's people in the same sense as: people will always commit murder. However, this doesn't mean that all people will do those things . Throughout history, the majority of people have not (Although I suspect there has been more sex outside of marriage than there has been murder).

Contraception is not a guarantee. An when it fails, someone gets hurt. When the bonding aspect of sex is separated from the procreative aspect, many problems result.

I'd like to know what statistics you're using here.

Well, the Catholic Church has been hearing confession for about 2000 years, so that provides a pretty good window into human nature and the effects of disordered behavior

Especially as sex outside of marriage has also been a cause tremendous human happiness.

Pleasure, yes. Tons of it. Happiness, not really. At least not in any deep or lasting sense.

I wonder how much more tension and violence there might be if people were restricted to sex within marriage?

Me too. Wouldn't there be some data on that somewhere?



----------------------------------------------
"It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish." -- Mother Teresa of Calcutta
[ Parent ]
I think you live in a fantasy world (none / 0) (#281)
by Nursie on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 07:07:07 AM EST

"There is no such thing as a Catholic "shotgun wedding". "
Do you live in the same world as I do? shotgun weddings happen a lot, and were even more prevalent in the past when the woman would have to either marry the young man involved and pretend nothing ever happened or be sent away to a convent. This is/was the proper catholic thing to do.
The man and woman have to freely give themselves to one another, or the marriage is not valid.
Fair enough, but that isn't what has actually happened throughout history now is it?
"The business of an unplanned pregnancy, and feeling rushed, and trapped and uncomfortable is only one reason for not having sex outside of marriage."
Again, this is rather idealist. And I think unreasonable, perhaps one should say "a reason for not having children when one is not ready". Pregnancy is preventable, even where sex is involved. Yes, 100% of the time.

It seems to me that this prediliction for marriage is basically because it makes things so much more simple if everybody would just follow these rules: If we outlaw sex outside marriage we won't have any unwanted children, if we ban contraception then people will be less keen to break rule one etc.....

The problem is that you then end up with such a restrictive society (see irish catholicism) with so many taboos that anyone breaking one of them is cats out and disowned. Anyway, rambling now, lets move on....
"results varying from person to person, but including drug problems, criminal activity, anorexia, a failed marriage, and depression (in one instance bordering on suicidal)."
I've noticed some of these in my friends too. What I haven't noticed is that they are any more prevalent amongst those from 'broken' homes. I have perhaps noticed it more amongst those without religion, perhaps because of existential angst, but I would argue that it is better to work through the problems of living in a cold and unforgiving universe than to labour under the delusion that some sort of all-powerful being is looking after you.
"This is why the Catholic Church wants maturity in those who are getting married (so resentment either doesn't come up, or doesn't come up to the degree where it's a problem). This is another reason why sex outside of a true commitment (marriage) is wrong."
Again, I would argue that sex is not at issue here, and that sex-ed and contraception are the way to help this situation. Pregnancy is totally preventable.
Yes, people (more than one person) will always have sex outside of marriage. But that's people in the same sense as: people will always commit murder. However, this doesn't mean that all people will do those things."
No, it doesn't, but I think you'll find that the number of murderers pales into insignificance alongside the number of fornicators, because in the most cases extra-marital sex is not harmful in any way (except the illusory/spiritual) and so does not attract much attention. Additionally it is not infringing on the rights of another to live, being a consensual act.
"Throughout history, the majority of people have not (Although I suspect there has been more sex outside of marriage than there has been murder)."
I beg to differ. how are we referring to history here? Are we talking about the narrow spectrum of western history in the last thousand or so years after christianity gained hold? There is little evidence of this in the wider view of history. Or do you believe in the creation? Because in the pre-historical times through the development of the homo sapiens species from other species and in the developmenty of society by homo-sapiens, it is much more likely that we behaved more like chimpanzees, with dominant males of a group having sexual control of the females. Even your own old testament refers to situations in which holy kings had many wives, which is not marriage as we understand it today. What do you mean by marriage? I think you have a false view of purer times past. It's a common affliction and not unique to the religious. But when one delves beneath the surface of even the most prudish societies (Victorian England for example) one finds all sorts of iniquities. i think you are misinformed on this point.
"Contraception is not a guarantee. An when it fails, someone gets hurt."
When done properly it is as good as a guarantee. Yes when it fails it people get hurt. But they should have done it better. Seriously here, there is no reason for sex to make someone pregnant if they take enough precautions.
"When the bonding aspect of sex is separated from the procreative aspect, many problems result."
Not necessarily. I haven't had any problems. The procreation side is quite seperate for me thanks, but the bonding and physical pleasure sides are still there. If you were meaning that seperating the bonding and procreational sides (and the third side, pleasure, that you neatly snipped out) brings harm to society, then again I have yet to see evidence of that. It's only when people don't do things properly that problems arise. Now if yu seperate the bonding and pleasure sides then you're in trouble and I have seen direct emotional damage to people who either use sex simply for bonding or use it simply for pleasure.
"Pleasure, yes. Tons of it. Happiness, not really. At least not in any deep or lasting sense."
Seems to have worked for our article writer, misguided as he is, he's a lot happier about himself now. I'm certainly a happier and more confident person to have had intimate relationships with women. But then I don't believe in the need to swear before an imaginary man that I'll give myself to someone forever even if they turn into a total loon before I can indulge myself.

Meta Sigs suck.

[ Parent ]
Tying up loose ends. (none / 0) (#286)
by Verax on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 10:55:12 PM EST

"There is no such thing as a Catholic "shotgun wedding". "
Do you live in the same world as I do? shotgun weddings happen a lot, and were even more prevalent in the past when the woman would have to either marry the young man involved and pretend nothing ever happened or be sent away to a convent. This is/was the proper catholic thing to do.

I didn't say that shotgun weddings never happened. I said that such weddings are not Catholic weddings. This was never the proper Catholic thing to do. Where did you get the idea that it was? Just look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church which says (my emphasis added):

1625 The parties to a marriage covenant are a baptized man and woman, free to contract marriage, who freely express their consent; "to be free" means: - not being under constraint; - not impeded by any natural or ecclesiastical law.

1626 The Church holds the exchange of consent between the spouses to be the indispensable element that "makes the marriage."[125] If consent is lacking there is no marriage.

1627 The consent consists in a "human act by which the partners mutually give themselves to each other": "I take you to be my wife" - "I take you to be my husband."[126] This consent that binds the spouses to each other finds its fulfillment in the two "becoming one flesh."[127]
1628 The consent must be an act of the will of each of the contracting parties, free of coercion or grave external fear.[128] No human power can substitute for this consent.[129] If this freedom is lacking the marriage is invalid.

1629 For this reason (or for other reasons that render the marriage null and void) the Church, after an examination of the situation by the competent ecclesiastical tribunal, can declare the nullity of a marriage, i.e., that the marriage never existed.[130] In this case the contracting parties are free to marry, provided the natural obligations of a previous union are discharged.[131]

Here, refenerce [125] is to the code of cannon law 1057, section 1.

The man and woman have to freely give themselves to one another, or the marriage is not valid.
Fair enough, but that isn't what has actually happened throughout history now is it?

Since the time of Christ, some wedding ceremonies in Catholic churches have been invalid (so there was a ceremony, but no wedding proper). But that does not change the fact that most Catholic weddings have been valid.

Perhaps an analogy would help. In effect I'm saying that, in the United States, it's not legal and it's not right to just shoot someone. And in effect you are responding that people just shoot people all the time, so therefore it's right to shoot people, and it's wrong to have a law against shooting people.

"The business of an unplanned pregnancy, and feeling rushed, and trapped and uncomfortable is only one reason for not having sex outside of marriage."
Again, this is rather idealist. And I think unreasonable, perhaps one should say "a reason for not having children when one is not ready". Pregnancy is preventable, even where sex is involved. Yes, 100% of the time.

How is it unreasonable to suggest that, to the extent that there is no sex outside of marriage, there is pressure or discomfort or sense of being trapped in rushing to marriage?

Short of sterilization, how is pregnancy 100% preventable when sex is involved? No contraception has a 100% effectiveness. And even in the case of some sterilization attempts, there can be failure. I know of someone in Oregon (not religious, in case you're wondering) who beat the crap out of his wife when he found out that she was pregnant after his vasectomy. Later they found out that the vasectomy had reversed itself on one side. Maybe a full hysterectomy would be a guarantee, but isn't that pretty drastic just for sex?

It seems to me that this prediliction for marriage is basically because it makes things so much more simple if everybody would just follow these rules: If we outlaw sex outside marriage we won't have any unwanted children, if we ban contraception then people will be less keen to break rule one etc.....

I think you still don't understand. Yes, if everyone were to just follow the Catholic rules things would be so much simpler. But it's silly to think that everyone will obey any given rule. There will always be a few who break any given rule. Drug laws haven't stopped drug use. Gun laws haven't stopped shootings. Murder laws haven't stopped murder. Rape laws haven't stopped rape. What makes you think any of this is news to me? The point is that, to the extent that people cooperate with good laws, you get good results.

The problem is that you then end up with such a restrictive society (see irish catholicism) with so many taboos that anyone breaking one of them is cats out and disowned.

That's not being Catholic. Love the sinner, hate the sin. Some who call themsolves Catholic don't do this, but to the extent that they don't, they aren't being Catholic. You wouldn't look at a busted watch and assume that all watches are useless for telling time, would you?

At the same time, however, loving the sinner does not mean accepting the sin as somehow good or a valid alternative.

[...]I would argue that it is better to work through the problems of living in a cold and unforgiving universe than to labour under the delusion that some sort of all-powerful being is looking after you.

I would say that delusion depends on what you mean by "looking after". God doesn't suddenly turn your life into this cushy way of being. There are still struggles; possibly even more. The reason I'm Catholic is because I believe that Catholicism is the truth, and pursuit of the truth is one of my main priorities in life. If my main priority were cushiness, I wouldn't bother. So yes, I believe God is looking after me, but that doesn't mean I won't get hurt. It can (and does) happen that I do get hurt, and sometimes don't see an obvious reason why. But I trust that He knows what is best for me in the big picture (eternity), analogous to the way that a parent knows that a newborn baby needs a bath, even though the newborn acts an if a bath were the greatest injustice in the universe.

Again, I would argue that sex is not at issue here, and that sex-ed and contraception are the way to help this situation. Pregnancy is totally preventable.

Children, at an appropriate age, should be educated by their parents about sex. Contraception is not 100% effective (the most effective one that I know of is an IUD, but even that is still not 100%). I agree that pregnancy is totally preventable: no sex, no pregnancy.

Yes, people (more than one person) will always have sex outside of marriage. But that's people in the same sense as: people will always commit murder. However, this doesn't mean that all people will do those things." No, it doesn't, but I think you'll find that the number of murderers pales into insignificance alongside the number of fornicators, because
[...]in the most cases extra-marital sex is not harmful in any way (except the illusory/spiritual) and so does not attract much attention. Additionally it is not infringing on the rights of another to live, being a consensual act.

There are over 1 million abortions in the United States alone. That's a million Homo Sapiens who are denied their right to live. Roughly every 4th baby dies from "choice". Most people outside of marriage are not interested in sex for procreation, and feel that when contraception fails, they are unfairly made parents. Abortion is obviously a very common way out.

I beg to differ. how are we referring to history here? Are we talking about the narrow spectrum of western history in the last thousand or so years after christianity gained hold?

I am talking about Catholic Christian marriage. Why it is not the bad thing that many are making it out to be.

Or do you believe in the creation? Because in the pre-historical times through the development of the homo sapiens species from other species and in the developmenty of society by homo-sapiens, it is much more likely that we behaved more like chimpanzees, with dominant males of a group having sexual control of the females.

I believe in evolution in general; it is readily observable, and the effectiveness of genetic algorithms is clearly demonstrable. I also believe (as Catholicism teaches) that there was an Adam and an Eve. Whether God created them outright or whether God used evolution to bring them about isn't important or relevant. The fact is that Homo Sapiens is a different species than Pan troglodytes. Our DNA is similar enough that chimps can be useful in drug testing. But chimps don't have civilization. Some humans don't behaved in a civilized manner, but homanity as a whole does have civilization. That we're both in the primate family suggest the possibility of a common ancestor, but not necessarily that we cam from a specific primate. If you know what species is the missing link, based on DNA studies, I would appreciate having it passed my way.

Even your own old testament refers to situations in which holy kings had many wives, which is not marriage as we understand it today. What do you mean by marriage?

By marriage (unless I qualify it as secular), I mean marriage as instituted by Jesus Christ.

I think you have a false view of purer times past. It's a common affliction and not unique to the religious. But when one delves beneath the surface of even the most prudish societies (Victorian England for example) one finds all sorts of iniquities. i think you are misinformed on this point.

I think you have a false view of me as innocent and naive. I know fully well what sorts of bad things have happened, and just how viscious some human beings can be. I think you have a cynical view wherein the bad behaviour of the minority somehow projects onto everyone throughout all history. Again, those who do not practice Catholicism are not behaving according to Catholic teaching.

I am not saying that everyone who calls themselves Catholic lives up to the ideals of Catholicism (because I know full well that they don't). I am saying that what Catholicism teaches is the truth, and is good, and is worth following. People are presenting a warped view of what Catholic teaching is, and I am saying that if you really want to know what Catholicism is, look at those who actually practice it: the Saints. If you want to say bad things about the bad behaviour of some who call themselves Catholic, I will agree with you. But if you instead attack a false version of Catholicism, then I will try to show what true Catholic teaching is.

"When the bonding aspect of sex is separated from the procreative aspect, many problems result."
Not necessarily. I haven't had any problems. The procreation side is quite seperate for me thanks, but the bonding and physical pleasure sides are still there. If you were meaning that seperating the bonding and procreational sides (and the third side, pleasure, that you neatly snipped out) brings harm to society, then again I have yet to see evidence of that.

I never said the bonding and physical pleasure would disappear if there were separated from procreation. The bonding is closely involved with the pleasure. I haven't suggested otherwise. As for seeing evidence, it's a subtle, but therefore more powerful effect. Kind of like not seeing the forest for the trees. Looking at the current portion of your own life, it may not be obvious. But look at society as a whole. In the United States, what happened in the 60's along with the sexual revolution? What can we learn from the national suicide rate up until then vs. ever since then? How many members of our species have been killed since then? What has the divorce rate been since then? What is the suicide rate of mothers who have an abortion vs. those who carry their babies to term? If you're honestly looking for the truth, it's there to be found.

It's only when people don't do things properly that problems arise.

I agree. But I think we disagree on what doing things properly means. For me, it is obeying God's commandments and growing in faith. For someone without faith, this will seem silly, unless they take a close and honest look at what those commandments are, and what Saints really do.

Now if yu seperate the bonding and pleasure sides then you're in trouble and I have seen direct emotional damage to people who either use sex simply for bonding or use it simply for pleasure.
I'm certainly a happier and more confident person to have had intimate relationships with women.

I can see how it would seem that way. You've had a taste of an aspect of married life. But suppose you were to get married (in the Catholic sense) and live it for real? Then, you would be happy and confident as well, because you have a truly intimate relationship with the woman you love and respect enough to truly give your self to permanently, exclusively, and with an openness to life. I'm not saying that you'll do this, because you don't have the gift of faith, and you don't see the value and beauty in it.

But then I don't believe in the need to swear before an imaginary man that I'll give myself to someone forever even if they turn into a total loon before I can indulge myself.

Why would anyone believe in the need to swear before an imaginary man? That's just nuts. If you don't have the gift of faith, what would be the point? If, on the other hand, one does have faith, then it makes total sense, and it works. You can't argue with success; look at the Saints.

I think you've provided some insight into why secular marriage according to the model proposed by the secular media has problems. If you're in it more to "indulge myself" than to place yourself permanently at the service of the woman you love and the children you may have, then of course the secular contract is headed for breach or renegotiation. And how much respect do you have for someone who you have pre-judged to become a total loon. Sounds like your relationships or the relatioships around you have poisoned your outlook.



----------------------------------------------
"It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish." -- Mother Teresa of Calcutta
[ Parent ]
As I said, fantasy land. (none / 1) (#288)
by Nursie on Thu Sep 02, 2004 at 05:34:46 AM EST

I didn't say that shotgun weddings never happened. I said that such weddings are not Catholic weddings. This was never the proper Catholic thing to do. Where did you get the idea that it was? Just look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church which says (my emphasis added):....
Ok, so that's the rules and regs. I challenge you to find any example of a catholic society that has followed those and not sent girls off to convents to be forgotten about or forced marriage on people because someone got pregnant. Catholic groups today and going back in history are seperatist and extremely moralist (vis Northern Ireland and Scotland) and go way beyond what you say there.
Since the time of Christ, some wedding ceremonies in Catholic churches have been invalid (so there was a ceremony, but no wedding proper). But that does not change the fact that most Catholic weddings have been valid.
Yes, but a very sizeable minority have been railroaded into it to "save the honour" of the young lady involved. All that actually happened is that she got to trade off one irrational social taboo (OMG! She's pregnant and hasn't even signed the contract!) with another lesser taboo (OMG! She conceived before she signed the contract!).
Perhaps an analogy would help. In effect I'm saying that, in the United States, it's not legal and it's not right to just shoot someone. And in effect you are responding that people just shoot people all the time, so therefore it's right to shoot people, and it's wrong to have a law against shooting people.
No, what I'm saying is nothing of the sort. I'm saying that in any religious system that has had prevalence in society at any time in the last thousand or so years there are two sets of rules. One is the honest, decent, loving, forgiving set that are on the statutes. The other is what people actually do. Catholicism has been an extreme example of this in times past, to the extent that rather than trying to convert or forgive protestants, they burned them alive. If you're going to defend a system then defend a real one, not a written down one.
How is it unreasonable to suggest that, to the extent that there is no sex outside of marriage, there is pressure or discomfort or sense of being trapped in rushing to marriage?
Hmmm, lkets see, maybe because onbe of the most primal urges of the human species is suddenly tied up in contract? Because people will rush into said contract simply because they want to have sex? Because they will be frowned at and cast out of 'good, catholic' society if they break the rules. That would be one way.
Short of sterilization, how is pregnancy 100% preventable when sex is involved?
Condoms have a 98% success rate. The female contraceptive pill has a 100% success rate. Combine the two and you have almost guaranteed contraception. If necessary it can be backed up with the morning after pill. If, despite these measures, someone gets pregnant then they either deal with it and have the kid or they abort in the early term if they can't handle it.
The point is that, to the extent that people cooperate with good laws, you get good results.
Well who could argue with that?
Me.
Who decides these good laws? Who is it? Oh it's your god again isn't it. I don't get a say in these laws do I? No......
That's not being Catholic. Love the sinner, hate the sin. Some who call themsolves Catholic don't do this, but to the extent that they don't, they aren't being Catholic.
Again, you're living in a fantasy world. Regardless of what you would like - this is what happens!
You wouldn't look at a busted watch and assume that all watches are useless for telling time, would you?
What does the watch represent here? Catholicism? Or a particular catholic society? Or one Catholic individual?
This is such a weak argument. What I would do is see that a particular watch factory turns out nothing but broken watches and decide it needs a lot of fixing or shutting down completely. Catholicism is that watch factory.
I would say that delusion depends on what you mean by "looking after". God doesn't suddenly turn your life into this cushy way of being.
You'd be suprised how many people turn to religion precisely because they can't face reality and it offers them some sort of illusory 'god is looking after me' safety net.
There are still struggles; possibly even more.
Like defending your delusions to people who don't suffer from them?
Contraception is not 100% effective (the most effective one that I know of is an IUD, but even that is still not 100%).
Covered above, contraception can easily be 100% effective.
I agree that pregnancy is totally preventable: no sex, no pregnancy.
Simplistic restrictive life view again.
There are over 1 million abortions in the United States alone. That's a million Homo Sapiens who are denied their right to live. Roughly every 4th baby dies from "choice".
A baby is something with legs and arms and a brain and a nervous system. A cluster of cells with no apparatus to see, hear, smell, taste, touch or think, with no nervous system to feel pain, that relies on the nutrition provided by another, does not in my view have an inherent right to live. People have been aborting unwanted pregnancies for centuries (look up pennyroyal tea sometime), and I don't see a thing wrong with early term abortions. You will not convince me otherwise either, as this is a position I have thought through. I don't believe it has some sort of divine right to live. I don't think abortion is murder. I think catholicism has been in the past. Lots of bloody torture and murder there.
I beg to differ. how are we referring to history here? Are we talking about the narrow spectrum of western history in the last thousand or so years after christianity gained hold?

I am talking about Catholic Christian marriage. Why it is not the bad thing that many are making it out to be.
No, you were saying that the majority of people in 'history' had got married, and I was asking you to clarify what you meant by 'history'. Now that you've said in this post that marriage like this has only existed since christ, it looks like I'm right and you were disregarding most of history, and certainly nearly all of non-european history. The majority of humans that have ever existed did not have a christian marriage. The majority of humans that have existed since christ did not have a christian marriage. The majority of humans in the world today do not have christian marriages.
Catholic christian marriage is not always a bad thing, and at no point do I say it is. What I am trying to say is that it is not automatically a good thing, and that your original post claiming that any sex outside the catholic christian union was harmful and evil was offensive and stupid.
If you know what species is the missing link, based on DNA studies, I would appreciate having it passed my way.
Never claimed to, I'm just saying that at various stages along our evolutionary path we may have behaved differently to the 'one-man. one woman, for life' situation that you are preaching and that you claimed is somehow a sort of natural situation by saying the majority of humans do it. They don't.
I think you have a cynical view wherein the bad behaviour of the minority somehow projects onto everyone throughout all history.
I don't believe it is a minority that indulges in extra-marital sex. With pre-marital sex between couples who are going to get married, extra-marital affairs, frivolous sex between strangers and todays fashion for serial monogamy I think that it's the majority.
Again, those who do not practice Catholicism are not behaving according to Catholic teaching.
And by the sounds of your earlier rambling, many of those who do practice it shouldn't be considered either because they're not true catholics.
But look at society as a whole. In the United States, what happened in the 60's along with the sexual revolution?
Society in general started to take the stick out from its backside, stop dictating so much how people should live and began to accept differences in people. One of the best things ever. It's a shame that the current administration are trying to undo as much of that as possible. Why? What were you thinking of?
What can we learn from the national suicide rate up until then vs. ever since then?
Probably very little. Looking at the suicide rates since 1900 which I found here We can see that there was a dip at the beginning of the century, followed by a massive rise in rate for males which is now on the decline again, and a minor rise for females, but nowhere near the peak around 1910 and not even as high as the rate in 1930. It would seem to me that as time goes on the general trend is for women to be more well balanced and kill themselves less, and that men have been having a crisis (most likely related to economic stimuli coupled with a various factors relating to the equality of women. It looks like we're getting over it too.). What was your point?
And as for suicides higher amongst women who have abortions, well the only stats I could find come from pro-life sites, who are notorious for using unscientific studies, exaggerating and outright lying. These sites claimed that women who abort have 154% greater chance of suicide. They also said that women who have abortions are 82% more likely to have a fatal accident. Bullshit basically. Like the bullshit being peddled a few years ago about women who had abortions getting a higher rate of cancer. It's just not true. That one at least has been fully scientifically disproven.
For someone without faith, this will seem silly,
Yup, spot on there, unless I choose to take on beliefs for which I have no evidence then the acts of those who do believe such groundless things seem dumb. Can't argue there.
unless they take a close and honest look at what those commandments are, and what Saints really do.
I have, I have read the bible all the way through, I was brought up in a christian school. You may jump to the conclusion that that experience turned me against it and that "someday you'll come back". What happened was that I went along with it until I was about 14, at which point I realised I didn't know why people did this. So I read the bible, all of it, and came out without having had any epiphany. All I could see was some proscriptions on behaviour and tales of an old tribe wandering the desert, then a man came along preaching peace and forgiveness and ever since then people have killed in his name. I have yet to see that saints, god, or the leprechauns have any effect on my life or anything to say to me.
Now the human wisdom in the bible, some of that's pretty good. Not murdering is good, Jesus obviously subscribes to the Wiccan Reid too ("Do unto others......"), but none of this is original to christianity (or wicca for that matter), they are all variations on common sense rules that have been passed down since before recorded time. IIRC the "golden rule", wiccan reid, whatever you want to call it is in The Book Of Hammaburi, a pre-christian and possibly pre-biblical text.
But suppose you were to get married (in the Catholic sense) and live it for real?
I would be trapped in a relationship with a woman who didn't want me and who I didn't want. As it is we (me and this hypothetical woman, any one of my ex's will do) had some good times, supported each other through bad times, had some great sex and are now friends and free to pursue other avenues in life. You are wrong thinking that I don't see the beauty in giving yourself to someone permananetly, but what I truly don't see is that everyone should have to conform to that way of living, as it really doesn't work for everyone. Your original comment announced to the world that this was the only way and that everything else was immoral and harmful, and that is what I have issue with.
you don't have the gift of faith
Quite right too, faith has been extremely destructive in the path, faith enough to follow religious leaders has resulted in mass slaughter, witch hunts, inquisitions and all sorts of other tradgedies. If people took less on faith and questioned things more we'd live in a better world.
You can't argue with success; look at the Saints.
The ones that were murdered for their faith or the ones that died in poverty?
And how much respect do you have for someone who you have pre-judged to become a total loon?
You missed the point. My total loon comment was all about the fact that someone might turn into a total loon, because people CAN CHANGE!!! And they do, even within a close marriage!!!!
Sounds like your relationships or the relationships around you have poisoned your outlook.
That would be seeing the huge number of marriages that fail because someone changed or because people rushed into things, or the unhappy lives lived by those who were pushed into an arranged marriage? Or perhaps the misery of people forced to live together by social convention because they're married and divorce is just not the done thing? Even though they hate each other? (mostly previous generations that last one I'm sure).

Once again let me restate: I do not think marriage is always a bad thing, I do not think people should not get married if they want to. I do think that it doesn't work for everyone, and that expecting it to do so by holy dictat (as you clearly do in your top post) is both unreasonable and idiotic.

Meta Sigs suck.

[ Parent ]
Agreed. (1.00 / 2) (#247)
by Verax on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 05:18:49 PM EST

FYI I voted this story down too, but that's because I think it's a story I've seen somewhere else, or possibly just a fictional troll. Either way it shouldn't be here and certainly should never have been more

Now the guy clearly has some issues if he hasn't had the affections (and by that I don't just mean sex) of a woman by the time he's hitting thirty. Issues like totally wasting his life IMHO. All the talk at the beginning of constantly working and not getting out and meeting people/socialising/enjoying himself is just wrong. You only get one life and, whilst you do need to work for money (and more money is always better), excluding everything else is bad. He wasted his 20s, some of the most vital years of his life, doing work. I would hope we can agree onthat point.

I, the total mentalist, agree whole heartedly. :)



----------------------------------------------
"It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish." -- Mother Teresa of Calcutta
[ Parent ]
Excellent :) /nt (none / 0) (#262)
by Nursie on Tue Aug 31, 2004 at 06:49:19 AM EST



Meta Sigs suck.

[ Parent ]
compatibility / trust / self mastery (1.00 / 2) (#248)
by Verax on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 05:42:45 PM EST

Security: Get over yourself. Someone who's had one or two previous relationships is going to be better at it anyway. By the time you're married you should be comfortable that you are sexually compatible.

Sex has a way of reaching down into our wiring and cause bonding. From the Catholic perspective, that is one of it's two purposes (the other is to beget children). Now if one brings about that bond prematurely (i.e. outside of marriage and without having first found out whether you and the special someone are truly compatible), then there is a tendency to get married based on the good feeling sex, and later finding out that one's spouse is actually a very poor partner in non sexual things (like running a family and raising children). This happens a lot, and I have seen it in action.

If a man and a woman who are attracted to one another find out first that they are compatible, and loving and respectful toward one another, and are willing to commit the rest of their lives to one another and any possible children, then the sexual compatibily will either be present or attainable.

Otherwise the marriage will suck. And like marriages that deteriorate for so many other reasons, it will become a living hell that you are trapped in by the contract you signed.

contracts are breached, terminated, or renegotiated all the time. Especially marriage contracts. If one were truly trapped, divorce lawyers wouldn't be making money.

As For trust, well that should come from love! Not history.

I agree that trust can come from love. However, trust also has to do with history. For example, how many people are willing to overlook the history of a sexual predator released from prison and now residing in their neighborhood?

Love and Respect. I would trust someone to respect me more that didn't have a weird self denial ethic.

Why do you consider a self denial ethic to be weird? Why would you trust someone who does not have self mastery to be more respectful of you than someone who does have self mastery?



----------------------------------------------
"It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish." -- Mother Teresa of Calcutta
[ Parent ]
self mastery blows (none / 0) (#264)
by Nursie on Tue Aug 31, 2004 at 07:35:09 AM EST

"Sex has a way of reaching down into our wiring and cause bonding."

Agreed.

From the Catholic perspective, that is one of it's two purposes (the other is to beget children).

That is the same from an evolutionary viewpoint. Though we don't use the word 'beget' so much outside of catholicism :)

"Now if one brings about that bond prematurely (i.e. outside of marriage and without having first found out whether you and the special someone are truly compatible), then there is a tendency to get married based on the good feeling sex"

That is definately an error! And one I would place at the door of misguided religious morality. I personally have never felt the desire to get married, even from within a loving sexual relationship.

"and later finding out that one's spouse is actually a very poor partner in non sexual things (like running a family and raising children)"

How in the hell does one find that out about a partner without actually going through it? (i.e. how does 'proper' abstention until marriage show you that someone who's never had kids is going to be greatat raising them?). Non Sequitur.

"If a man and a woman who are attracted to one another find out first that they are compatible, and loving and respectful toward one another, and are willing to commit the rest of their lives to one another and any possible children, then the sexual compatibily will either be present or attainable."

How do you know? There's a small amount of 'magic' involved in sex somewhere, a combination of confidence and relaxation in the company of the other person with an on-edge excitedness that makes the whole thing work. If this 'magic' is missing then the best you're going to get is a pedestrian and uninteresting sex life that fades away very shortly after it begins, if it begins at all.

"contracts are breached, terminated, or renegotiated all the time. Especially marriage contracts. If one were truly trapped, divorce lawyers wouldn't be making money."

This goes against your other post saying that marriage before god is a wholly holy institution and entirely meaningless (other than contractually) outside of religion, and that within religion it is unbreakable. Remember we are considering here a marriage within catholicism in which both partners 'waited' and then find out there is total sexual incompatibility.

basically you seem to be saying that sexual incompatibilty is not a real phenomenom, and that if it were then people get divorced all the time so what does it matter. Which goes so totally against your rhetoric about catholic marriages in other posts.....
Though I suppose if both partners wait until marriage then no-one will ever know what sexual compatibility is and won't be so fussed about it!

I agree that trust can come from love. However, trust also has to do with history. For example, how many people are willing to overlook the history of a sexual predator released from prison and now residing in their neighborhood?

Not many. Unfortunately. People are not very good at forgiveness. It seems especially apparent in populations that preach it a lot. The idea behind someone going to prison and then coming out is that by the time they come out they should somehow be "cured" and also have paid their debt. I know it's a tricky situation, and I don't know how well I would fare in it, but I'd like to think I would give them a chance to sho themselves reformed. Rather than getting hysterical and attacking the local peaditrician (this really happened in the UK thanks to media shit-stirring)

Why do you consider a self denial ethic to be weird? Why would you trust someone who does not have self mastery to be more respectful of you than someone who does have self mastery?

I don't consider self-denial to be a very good indicator of self mastery. I consider it a very easy way out TBH.
Besides, I trust someone far far more that enjoys themselves and lets themselves do/have things that they want than someone wealding iron control over their own desires. Especially as I consider the self denial and control ethic to be one of fear of what might happer if you let yourself do what you want and enjoy things.
In my mind it covers similar intellectual ground as "Why don't atheists murder people that are in their way when they have no rules?" which then has me worried that the only thing keeping christians in check is their fear of damnation.

Meta Sigs suck.

[ Parent ]
Where "protection" really isn't. (1.00 / 2) (#250)
by Verax on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 06:34:14 PM EST

Disease. Nice christian scare-mongering there. lets address one or two of the things you say shall we?

o Assertion: Condoms don't protect against all disease.

So then, care to point one out they don't protect against? The consensus of the scientific community is that they're pretty effective.

Well, the main one that comes to mind is HPV. There are over 100 different varieties of this virus. Not all of them are contageous, and some are more dangerous than others. But of the ones that are contageous, some cause warts but not cancer, some can cause cancer, but not warts, and some can cause warts and cancer together (Although most that can cause cancer do not cause warts). There are ways to test women for this, but not men. The risk of cancer is not extreme, but it does still happen.

You can read more at the National Institute of Health, or the American Cancer Society (both of which, to the best of my knowlege, aren't Christian organizations, and aren't in the business of "scare-mongering"). See here and here for details.

Basically, if you're careful, stick to having sex with people you care for, don't fuck the whole town, and use protection, you're going to be fine. If you're worried, get a test!

Not really. People you care for can still have disease. It's possible to get a disease from sex with even a single individual. So called "protection" is not a 100% guarantee in general, and is no protection at all against HPV. There is no test for this disease for men (there is for women). Further, there is no cure for HPV, so getting tested and finding out that you have it is not going to change the fact that you've gotten it.



----------------------------------------------
"It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish." -- Mother Teresa of Calcutta
[ Parent ]
OK (none / 0) (#263)
by Nursie on Tue Aug 31, 2004 at 07:09:22 AM EST

This one is an STI transmitted by and skin contact with an affected area and condoms don't protect because you'd have to wear a whole rubber suit to stop any skin contact. By the sounds ofg it, whilst unlikely, it's possible to get this by shaking hands with someone that's just scratched their crotch. Yay.

Maybe I should have rephrased, stick to having sex with people you love and trust. I'm not trying to say that everbody should be free to be the local bar slut and sleep around all the time. I think that that is a view of sex that hopefully went out in the sixties. And that sort of behaviour IMHO is resposible for the spread if these conditions. The only person I've ever met that had HPV, though she didn't know what it was called, was a slightly troubled girl who I wouldn't describe as a slut so much as confused between sex and affection.

I still contend that if one has sex within the context of a loving relationship, then one is not taking much risk. I don't see that a person must only have one loving relationship in their lifetime, nor do I see marriage as important to that. If most people had between five and twenty sexual partners in their lifetime, with people with a history similar to their own then the vast majority would still be fine.



Meta Sigs suck.

[ Parent ]
The meat of my post (1.00 / 2) (#251)
by Verax on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 07:02:44 PM EST

Then we get to the meat of the post: you had bad, destructive sex when you weren't ready for it. Nos shame in that, but believe it or not, some of us are capable of having sex in relationships and enjoying it, and don't need a papal seal to make it 'ok'. Yet again, what's up with your awe for the institution of marriage?

Well, one should be clear about "bad, destructive". At the time, I was an athiest and saw no problems with it at all. It felt great and was very enjoyable. So, in the secular view, it wasn't bad or destructive. But I didn't see the whole picture then, and wasn't thinking about my future marriage. With hindsight, I can see now that it was just as bad and destructive as anyone else's extramarital sex.

As for a papal seal, the Pope could not make extramarital sex "ok" even if he wanted to. The Catholic belief is that the succesion of Popes going back to Peter are safeguarded from error (only with respect to teachings on faith and morals). So the previous popes have taught the truth, and current and future popes are not free to contradict the truth. Extramarital sex is a grave sin; always has been, always will be. The truth never changes. Now I'm not saying you have to believe that (unless you're earnestly trying to be Catholic). I'm just saying that's what the Catholic belief is.

As for the institution of marriage, my awe comes from seeing it done according to God's design and seeing how well that works, as well as seeing how badly it works when it's done contraty to God's design. Now human beings are not perfect, so a true marriage in the Catholic sense won't be perfect, but it is beautiful to see in spite of minor flaws. And nobody is pure evil either, so there can be some aspects of marriage (in the Catholic sense) that are also visible in secular civil marriages, as well as in relationships separate from marriage. But those few aspects, although good in and of themselves, do not justify the deep corruption that comes from seeking them outside of marriage. This, is clear to me, but only in hindsight.

Marriages break down all the time. Is sex within marriage "cheating in advance" on your next wife when this one kicks you out? Or is that just so unthinkable it explodes your little christian mind? And don't tell me that only people who have had extra marital sex get divorced, because I'm sure I can find you examples to the contrary.

Well, this depends or your notion of marriage. In a good marriage, in the Catholic sense, there will be no kicking out, and no remarriage (unless husband or wife has died). To the extent that a marriage lives up to the Catholic ideal, it succeeds. To the extent that it fails to, it fails. So yes, there are plenty of people calling themselves "Catholic", whose marriages are a trainwreck. But this is precisely because they did not follow Catholic teaching on marriage. The Catholic teachings on right conduct within marriage cover more than just extramarital sex. How can a husband and wife who have truly given themselves to one another exclusively, permanently, and with openness to children, who then treat one another with love and respect even in the bad times fall apart? It can't; You can't break your commitment if you keep it.



----------------------------------------------
"It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish." -- Mother Teresa of Calcutta
[ Parent ]
harm? (none / 0) (#265)
by Nursie on Tue Aug 31, 2004 at 08:28:18 AM EST

Well, one should be clear about "bad, destructive". At the time, I was an athiest and saw no problems with it at all. It felt great and was very enjoyable. So, in the secular view, it wasn't bad or destructive.
But in your original post you said it harmed the girl you were with and it harmed you? Come on now, either it did or it didn't. If it didn't harm you then you disprove your original point, you lose. If it did harm you then it most certainly did harm you more than other extra-marital sex, so you disprove this point, you lose, unless you rely on your unproven premise that all extra-marital sex is harmful, which you can't substantiate.
As for a papal seal, the Pope could not make extramarital sex "ok" even if he wanted to.
This was a sarcastic comment, what I meant by it is that marriage itself is a papal seal on sex. I did not mean to imply that the pope could or would make extra-marital sex ok. Not the current cantankerous old bugger anyhow.
Interesting the protection from errors that the pope has there, I understand about no contradiction of previous popes, but IIRC there were some fairly corrupt/evil popes somewhere around the 13th century, that were very much in bed with (if you'll pardon the pun) the monarchy of the time. How does that all work? Are the edict of some of the worse popes cut out of official vatican history?
But those few aspects, although good in and of themselves, do not justify the deep corruption that comes from seeking them outside of marriage.
Care to enlighten the rest of us? How am I corrupted? I have a strong set of morals that, whilst not entirely coinciding with those of christianity are...... Oh hold on, this is on of those situations where anyone not close to "god and his many teachings" is inherently corrupt, isn't it. Next question........
In a good marriage, in the Catholic sense, there will be no kicking out, and no remarriage (unless husband or wife has died).
So is sex with your first wife "cheating in advance" on your second wife? Regardless of what circumstances allow for a second wife?
And something I always wanted to know is, if your first wife dies and you remarry, who are you reunited with in heaven? Or is the allowing of remarriage to those whose partners have died actually a concession in catholicism to the secular reality of life?
How can a husband and wife who have truly given themselves to one another exclusively, permanently, and with openness to children, who then treat one another with love and respect even in the bad times fall apart?
I was talking about real marriage here, not the ideal (read non-existant) marriage. But anyway, to answer your question: Easily my friend. How's about when one partner realises that over the course of fifteen years marriage they have changed as a person and no longer wish to live that life? No amount of argued reasoning and love can sort it out. How about when one partner takes objection to the way the other develops? No matter how long you are engaged or how long you spend gettin to know each other there will always be facets to someone's personality you don't get to see. Especially if you've both got completely unawakened and unrealised sexual personalities. What about when the two realise that they have slightly different goals in life, and sooner or later it comes to the crunch where one must give up their aspirations forever?
And that's only the perfect marriages that were knowingly and preparedly entered into, god help anyone that rushes into it at a young age (anytime before 30 in my view) and then spots their mistake.......
It can't; You can't break your commitment if you keep it.
Best. Nonsense. Evar.
Seriously.
However you can honour the spirit of a commitment and still come to the conclusion that it must be broken, as above when people grow and change over time.

Meta Sigs suck.

[ Parent ]
Commitment and Marriage (none / 0) (#276)
by Verax on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 04:43:26 AM EST

Well, one should be clear about "bad, destructive". At the time, I was an athiest and saw no problems with it at all. It felt great and was very enjoyable. So, in the secular view, it wasn't bad or destructive.
But in your original post you said it harmed the girl you were with and it harmed you? Come on now, either it did or it didn't. If it didn't harm you then you disprove your original point, you lose. If it did harm you then it most certainly did harm you more than other extra-marital sex, so you disprove this point, you lose, unless you rely on your unproven premise that all extra-marital sex is harmful, which you can't substantiate.

In the Catholic view, harm was done. In the secular view, it wasn't. I now belive that the Catholic view is the correct one.

As for a papal seal, the Pope could not make extramarital sex "ok" even if he wanted to.
Interesting the protection from errors that the pope has there, I understand about no contradiction of previous popes, but IIRC there were some fairly corrupt/evil popes somewhere around the 13th century, that were very much in bed with (if you'll pardon the pun) the monarchy of the time. How does that all work? Are the edict of some of the worse popes cut out of official vatican history?

Yes, there have been a few Popes who have scandalized many people by by immoral behavior. Popes are only protected from error when teaching matters of faith and morality. Nobody is protected from sin (except, by a very special grace, the Virgin Mary). The Catholic Church has always admitted to being a church of sinners. The Catholic teachings and faith are spotless. But the members of the Church (the Popes included) are human beings injured by original sin. It is interesting to see that the Popes engaged in bad behavior did not teach anything on faith or morality. If you don't teach anything, you don't teach anything wrong.

Care to enlighten the rest of us? How am I corrupted? I have a strong set of morals that, whilst not entirely coinciding with those of christianity are......

Are... ?

Oh hold on, this is on of those situations where anyone not close to "god and his many teachings" is inherently corrupt, isn't it. Next question........

Wow. Where do you get this from? No, it isn't one of those situations. So back to the previous question....

So is sex with your first wife "cheating in advance" on your second wife? Regardless of what circumstances allow for a second wife?

No, being married to your first wife (which implies sex) is not "cheating in advance" on a second wife. This is because one can't reasonably forsee that there will be a second wife. One could forsee a second wife if one were to murder the first wife, but in this case one is not free to remarry (hence the whole bag o' shenanigans regarding King Henry VIII, and the start of the Anglican Church).

And something I always wanted to know is, if your first wife dies and you remarry, who are you reunited with in heaven? Or is the allowing of remarriage to those whose partners have died actually a concession in catholicism to the secular reality of life?

Actually, this was answered by Jesus Himself. (See the Gospel of Matthew 22:24). This sets up an example where a woman remarries 7 times, and Jesus is asked who she is married to after she dies. His reply concludes with "For in the resurrection they shall neither marry nor be married; but shall be as the angels of God in heaven".

How can a husband and wife who have truly given themselves to one another exclusively, permanently, and with openness to children, who then treat one another with love and respect even in the bad times fall apart?
I was talking about real marriage here, not the ideal (read non-existant) marriage.

Granted, love and respect are unlikely to be perfect in bad times. However, you are showing your jadedness or cynicism if you really think such marriages are non-existant. I know of several, and have been blessed to be in one myself.

But anyway, to answer your question: Easily my friend. How's about when one partner realises that over the course of fifteen years marriage they have changed as a person and no longer wish to live that life?

No. This is a case where someone does not truly give themselves to their spouse. It amounts to "my wishes are different now, so I'm taking my gift back". In effect, it's no gift at all.

No amount of argued reasoning and love can sort it out. How about when one partner takes objection to the way the other develops? No matter how long you are engaged or how long you spend gettin to know each other there will always be facets to someone's personality you don't get to see. Especially if you've both got completely unawakened and unrealised sexual personalities. What about when the two realise that they have slightly different goals in life, and sooner or later it comes to the crunch where one must give up their aspirations forever?

Argued reasoning? Objections to development? Unknown facets? Look. Either you truly give yourself, or you don't. Either you love and respect, or you don't. By love, I'm talking about real love, not gooey feelings. Real love is willing to make sacrifices (You don't think a mother is thrilled to get up after only 2 hours of sleep to feed and change her baby, do you? Yet that's proof of real love). I never said it wasn't hard work. But it boils down to this: either you're keeping your word or you're not.

As for "completely unawakened and unrealised sexual personalities"... I'm not buying it. In marriage there are many new adventures to go through. Sex is just one of them. Adjusting to a new baby is another. Child rearing and education is another. But to be ready to run away whenever a challenge presents itself is hardly truly giving one's self to one's spouse, and hardly loving and respecting them.

However you can honour the spirit of a commitment and still come to the conclusion that it must be broken, as above when people grow and change over time.

It's pretty much given that everyone will grow and change over time. How is this unanticipated? And I'm not talking about the "honoring the spirit" of a commitment; I'm talking about making a real commitment. To break a real commitment is to not keep that commitment.

How is "honey, I'm honoring the spirit of our marriage until you change or I change or something happens that I don't like, at which point I'm outta here for greener pastures" honoring the spirit of marriage? I think it was Pope John Paul II who said "Those who decide not to love forever will find it difficult to truly love even for one day."



----------------------------------------------
"It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish." -- Mother Teresa of Calcutta
[ Parent ]
Circular arguments etc (none / 0) (#282)
by Nursie on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 08:04:24 AM EST

"In the Catholic view, harm was done. In the secular view, it wasn't. I now belive that the Catholic view is the correct one."
So you believe that harm was done because you are catholic and don't have anything more concrete other than perhaps your new wife would have preferred it if you'd been a virgin too, or maybe you would have preferred it.....
Not really harm then. Not really inconvenience or even pause for thought. Yes I know, re-wrapped gifts etc.
[Morals] Are... ?
Basically it comes down to the Wiccan Reid. At this point I would like to point out that I am not Wiccan and that I find them even crazier than christians most of the time (disregarding fundamentalists). However the Wiccan Reid sums things up quite nicely. It is "So long as it harms no-one, do what thou wilt". If you can tell me how that is corrupt without resorting to god or religion in any way then you get 10 points.
"No, being married to your first wife (which implies sex) is not "cheating in advance" on a second wife. This is because one can't reasonably forsee that there will be a second wife."
Ok, so does this absolve those that enter into extra-marital sex because they think that the relationship they are in is the one that will last the rest of time? If they don't believe in marriage as a concept? Or are we straying too far from a rigid morality?
How's about when one partner realises that over the course of fifteen years marriage they have changed as a person and no longer wish to live that life?

No. This is a case where someone does not truly give themselves to their spouse. It amounts to "my wishes are different now, so I'm taking my gift back". In effect, it's no gift at all.
No, most certainly not. This is probably the root of many of the problems that kids have when a family breaks down. When breakdown is inevitable (and believe me, it is in some cases) the social and religious pressure for a couple to stay together long past the point at which they can even tolerate each other's presence causes strife and suffering and hatefulness in the household, and that is one thing that is bound to rub off on children.
Either you truly give yourself, or you don't. Either you love and respect, or you don't. By love, I'm talking about real love, not gooey feelings. Real love is willing to make sacrifices (You don't think a mother is thrilled to get up after only 2 hours of sleep to feed and change her baby, do you? Yet that's proof of real love). I never said it wasn't hard work. But it boils down to this: either you're keeping your word or you're not.
More proof that you're not living in the real world. No I don't think a mother is thrilled to get up and feed at 2am, and neither am I thrilled to get up and get my partner a drink of water at 3am, but I do it too. The world is not anywhere near as black and white as you make out.
What about a situation where a couple get married and have a baby, the wife agrees to stay home and bring up the kid and look after the house. The husband agrees because he thinks this is the way things should be. In five years, she is going mad. She didn't know how much she'd hate being at home all the time, she didn't know how much she'd miss her job, or just having the company of other adults. Or the variety of experience that she's missing out on by being stuck at home with Junior. She speaks to her husband about this, and about how she's like to go back to work. Maybe he could take her role, or maybe they could sort out childcare of some form. the husband is a traditionalist and refuses to even consider this as he always thought a womans place was in the home, and she knew it when she married him. He's keeping his end of the bargain by supporting them all and she must keep hers too.
what would you advise? (and I'm adding to the this the assumption that they have tried as much discussion as they can, and mediation/councilling etc).
have they already gone wrong somewhere along the way? What could they possibly have done? Should the wife just put up and shut up because she's 'honouring her comittment'? Should the husband change his ways to honour his? It's a genuine case of an unforseen problem leading to an untenable situation.
I think it was Pope John Paul II who said "Those who decide not to love forever will find it difficult to truly love even for one day."
And he would know, having such a fantastic marriage himself then?

Face it, whilst the pope may be well educated in the ways of theological edicts, experienced in real life he is not.

Meta Sigs suck.

[ Parent ]
Looking for God (1.00 / 2) (#252)
by Verax on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 07:15:10 PM EST

Not everyone that goes to a whorehouse is a lonely unfulfilled wretch that goes there to pay for affection. Watch Louis Theroux's documentary on one of these places sometime. Now it sure as hell showed you that some of the girls weren't happy, but the men sure as hell weren't looking for god, a shoulder to cry on or anything else. They were looking for a good time with a hot chick.

I think what you're missing here is that those who were looking for God didn't know that's what they were doing. Kind of like eating a menu and thinking it's the meal. All the things that appear to be desirable with respect to prostitution are things which truly are good, but have been twisted. The Catholic belief is that the untwisted version of all these things is God Himself. That God reveals Himself to us through one another, and that we see him when we see something good. It is natural for us to be attracted to Him; that is how we are made. Whatever would attract us away from Him is analogous to poisoned bait: it looks like a good thing, and we are attracted to it without knowing about the twisting (the poisenous contents). If we knew the difference between the truly good thing and the poisonous thing made to look like the good thing, we would stay away from the poison. So, again, that's the Catholic belief (although I may not have expressed it very well).



----------------------------------------------
"It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish." -- Mother Teresa of Calcutta
[ Parent ]
Your expression is a bit twisted. (none / 0) (#266)
by Nursie on Tue Aug 31, 2004 at 08:37:41 AM EST

But what it seems to come down to here is that attraction to women is actually attraction to god, but that must only be expressed within the bounds of proscribed catholic morality. Such that anyone that doesn't believe in catholicism is considered lost. For no provable verifiable reason.

I love the christian reasoning, the exclusive morality that most (if not all) monotheistic religions claim to own.

I know the point of the original quote is that these people don't know they are looking for god but really they are, and that we good god-fearing Xtians ought to go make sure they find him because otherwise they'll be all empty and lonely inside. What I was trying to say was that it doesn't look that way to me. Sure there may be some (like the author of the story) who are there for reasons like "because I can't get anyone else", "I have nbo confidence" etc etc, but the vast majority I have seen are not in that boat at all, and do not look like they're mssing anything in the way of a deity.

To come back saying that attraction IS the deity they're looking for is silly.

Meta Sigs suck.

[ Parent ]
Clarifications and questions. (none / 0) (#275)
by Verax on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 03:32:27 AM EST

But what it seems to come down to here is that attraction to women is actually attraction to god, but that must only be expressed within the bounds of proscribed catholic morality.

That's still not it. Saint Augustine said something like "our souls are restles until the rest in Thee." The point is that we are designed for God, and when we don't have Him, we try to fill the void with what appears to us to be good. So attraction to women is not attraction to God, but rather recourse to prostitution is an attempt to satisfy an emptiness. But pleasure does not bring happiness, and although that kind of sex feels good, it is not fulfilling. However, sex within a Catholic marriage is way more than just orgasms. There is the gift of one's self and the reception of the same gift from the spouse. This giving is total, permanent, exclusive, and open to life; it is a renewal of the marriage vows. Within this context, sex is meaningful and fulfilling. It seems to me that you are suggesting that this is somehow restricted and therefore unsatisfactory. I'm not saying that you have to agree with me. I am saying that this is the authentic Catholic view of marriage, and that for those with Catholic understanding, this really is the best, most fulfilling, way to go.

Such that anyone that doesn't believe in catholicism is considered lost. For no provable verifiable reason.

Where do you get this stuff? Catholicism does not teach that non Catholics are lost. It does recognise secular marriages as marriages because marriage is a fundamental human right. (Again, because it seems to need stating these days, marriage is between a man and a woman, so secular "gay marriage" is not marriage). Because Catholicism is the truth, and Catholicism does not consider that "anyone that doesn't believe in catholicism is considered lost", then it stands to reason that there will be no provable verifyable reason. How can one prove or verify something that's not true?

I love the christian reasoning, the exclusive morality that most (if not all) monotheistic religions claim to own.
I am Catholic, and I can't speak for non-Catholic beliefs. What do you mean by "exclusive morality"?
I know the point of the original quote is that these people don't know they are looking for god but really they are,

So far so good.

and that we good god-fearing Xtians ought to go make sure they find him because otherwise they'll be all empty and lonely inside.

Not exactly. According to Catholicism, faith is a gift from God. That gift is not given to everyone at the same point in their lives, and may not be given to some people at all (and even these are not necessarily lost). So if someone hasn't been given the gift of faith, then it would be pointless to "make sure they find him". We should provide opportunity for people to find Him, but should not force, lie to, or otherwise manipulate anyone.

The job of a Catholic is to practice the Faith. Some, on seeing this, may be drawn to God, but it is because God is doing the drawing, not because a person behaves well. If a Christian does not imitate Christ, then he (or she) essentially mis-represents God to those who don't have faith. I wonder if you have been on the receiving end of this, because some of your statements about Catholics or other Christians seem to suggest that bad behavior on their part has left you bitter and scornful.

For what it's worth, I grew up athiest, and had a similar view of religion in general, and it wasn't until meeting someone who was Catholic, but wasn't a jerk, that I took an honest look at what Catholicism really is. To my surprise, it was very logical and consistent, and didn't require that I give up science (which had been almost a religion to me up until that point in college).

What I was trying to say was that it doesn't look that way to me.

I'm not saying that it has to look that way to you. I am just hoping to clear up some misunderstandings about Catholicism.

Sure there may be some (like the author of the story) who are there for reasons like "because I can't get anyone else", "I have nbo confidence" etc etc, but the vast majority I have seen are not in that boat at all, and do not look like they're mssing anything in the way of a deity.

Of course they are not messing with anything in the way of a deity. The point is that they are looking for God without realizing it, and are looking in a completely wrong place. They are not messing with God. They are messing with prostitution.

To come back saying that attraction IS the deity they're looking for is silly.

I agree. But that's not what I'm saying. God, if you see an untwisted glimpse of Him is attractive. But attraction is not, in and of itself, God (although some who are misguided try to make it God and worship it anyway). The attraction in a whorehouse is to a twisted version of a tiny facet of what God intends for those in Christian marriage. They're eating a menu and fooling themselves into thinking that it's really a meal.



----------------------------------------------
"It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish." -- Mother Teresa of Calcutta
[ Parent ]
I am coming to the conclusion (none / 0) (#280)
by Nursie on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 05:53:54 AM EST

That we are never going to come to much consensus on these issues, because you and I have fundamentally different takes on the nature of reality, to such extremes that arguing about minutae just isn't helpful.

However, I still don't believe that everyone using a prostitute is doing so out of emptiness or despair, or need for god in their lives.
I half agree with you when you say that they are eating the menu, but only half - They certainly aren't getting the love, support or trust that would come with even a short fling, let alone a long term comittment, but neither are they looking for it. I think a more accurate metaphor would be that they sit down to dinner as if they are a child who only likes peas and proceeds to eat the peas and leave the pork-chop and mashed potato. If that makes sense......
(I chose peas because I didn't want an argument over what the 'meat' of a marriage might be and am willing to concede that it is not sex, as sex is not the meat of my relationship. Perhaps it's a good squirt of relish on the side).
Basically, yes it's obvious they aren't getting the full relationship, but neither do they want it in many cases. I sometimes see the attraction of that myself. Not that I would ever use a prostitute as I don't want or like sex without affection, but from time to time I can see the appeal of physical love without being tied to a particular partner.

Meta Sigs suck.

[ Parent ]
Prejudice? (1.33 / 3) (#253)
by Verax on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 07:33:50 PM EST

Basically - get over yourself. People have sex.

Of course they do. I never said or thought otherwise. What makes you think this is news to me?

Sure your wife said she was a virgin, but how about that weird american fashion going around the no-hope fundie bible-belt towns for 'reclaiming' virignity?

Wow. You seem mighty cynical. In case you didn't know, there's a little piece of tissue that, when present, is an accurate indicator of virginity in women. It's absence doesn't tell you anything conclusive, but its presence is an accurate indicator of virginity. It was very much intact.

As for "reclaiming virginity", you can look at it this way. If you give someone a gift, the ideal is new in an unopened box. However, failing that, rewrapping the gift before giving it is better than not wrapping it at all.

And by the sounds ofg it you'd have freaked if she'd said anything else, so i'd have a serious think about it. And then I'd have a serious think about how predjudiced you are that it would offend you if she had had sex before.

I think you're projecting on to me a false sense of who I am. I would not have been freaked out. If she had picked up any disease I would still have married her because I truly love her. Dealing with this hypothetical disease would be an added hardship, but would not change my love for her. Also, I would not have been offended had she had sex before. If you really believe that I would be offended or freaked out, then perhaps you have pre-judged me.

The woman you love and trust, is it all because she never had anyone else?

Of course not. Where did you get that idea?

Think about trust for a second, though. Would it make more sense to trust a woman to not "run around" if she has maintained virginity until marriage, or if she has been the local bar slut for the last few years? Same for a guy. Would one who has preserved himself for marriage (or at least has not been "playing te field" for the last few years) be more or less likely to run around than an active "player"? Same for commitment. Who, when giving themselves fully, exclusively, and permanently, would be more likely to try taking that gift back? Those who have remained continent, or those who see no value in continence?



----------------------------------------------
"It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish." -- Mother Teresa of Calcutta
[ Parent ]
You're still wrong (none / 0) (#267)
by Nursie on Tue Aug 31, 2004 at 08:44:25 AM EST

Maybe I did pre-judge your opinions on your own wife and how important her being virginal was to you, but your original post sure made it sound like it was a big deal.
Who, when giving themselves fully, exclusively, and permanently, would be more likely to try taking that gift back? Those who have remained continent, or those who see no value in continence?
I don't see any relevance between the two. I have not been unfaithful in my relationships. I have not waited until marriage, or necessarily at all. The fact is that I see sex as something special between two people that helps the feeling of closeness and allows you to bond more thoroughly. This means that when I have a partner, I have sex with them and not with other people.

TBH I'd be more worried about someone that never had sex before becoming suddenly overwhelmed with how good it is and having sex with more people.

There's a huge gulf of difference between someone that's had a few partners within relationships and some "bar slut" as you put it that's just out for sex.

Meta Sigs suck.

[ Parent ]
Wow (none / 0) (#284)
by NDPTAL85 on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 03:56:15 PM EST

You sound very much like a child who hasn't experienced much in the world. First of all there are very many degrees between virgin and bar slut. It appears that you equate anyone who has had sex before marriage as an out of control sexual addict. Secondly are you even aware of all the different lifestyles people are involved in? There's cuckolding, swinging, wife sharing.....etc. Both husband and wife go into these activities willingly. Thirdly has it ever occured to you that after reaching a point in their life of being the "pure and chaste" type that a good number of such folks may get sick of it and want to go wild for the rest of their lives? As for masturbation, this is the part of your clearly whacked out radical christian diabtribe that makes me think you're a Catholic. There's nothing wrong with masturbation. There's a very small percentage of people who if they're not having sex don't masturbate. And again there's a wide gulf between those who stay chaste and those who masturbate constantly. Instead of assuming that you're simply following and adhereing to the spiritual principles of your religion, have you ever considered you may need counseling in the matter of sexuality? A lot of folks don't seem to understand that living a life of chastity is remarkably similar to the BDSM Fetish practice of denial. The only difference is the BDSM folks are at least being honest with themselves.

[ Parent ]
You think so? (none / 0) (#287)
by Verax on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 11:21:26 PM EST

You sound very much like a child who hasn't experienced much in the world.

You'd be surprised. By God's grace, my act has been cleaned up considerably.

First of all there are very many degrees between virgin and bar slut. It appears that you equate anyone who has had sex before marriage as an out of control sexual addict.

I know that there are many degrees in between. But sometimes a principle is most clearly seen when examined at the extremes. Someone between those two would rightly deserve more trust than the bar slut and less trust than the virgin.

I don't equate sex outside of marriage with being totally out of control. I'm sorry if I've given that impression; it wasn't intended.

Secondly are you even aware of all the different lifestyles people are involved in? There's cuckolding, swinging, wife sharing.....etc. Both husband and wife go into these activities willingly.

You forgot the NAMBLA crowd, those involved with consentual homosexual statuatory rape, those involved with consentual incest, and the zoophiles. And, heck, while we're at it, the necrophiles (a corpse can't object, now, can it?)

Are you aware that these are all not normal in any sense of the word. This is not what most people do (not that the majority is always right), and this is not sexuality functioning according to it's design. These are disfunctional. Just because they happen does not mean that they should be accepted as valid alternatives.

Thirdly has it ever occured to you that after reaching a point in their life of being the "pure and chaste" type that a good number of such folks may get sick of it and want to go wild for the rest of their lives?

Some people buy into that, and do pursue that route. Just as some people decide that a life of being clean isn't where it's at, and start smokin' the crack. Doesn't mean it's good for them.

As for masturbation, this is the part of your clearly whacked out radical christian diabtribe that makes me think you're a Catholic.

I am Catholic, to the best of my ability (which isn't perfect). But I believe, with God's grace, I will advance in the faith.

There's nothing wrong with masturbation.

Glorifying self gratification over self sacrifice leads to selfishness that harms relationships. Often pornography goes with masturbation. Pornography dehumanizes the participants, and reduces human dignity to the point where people are mere objects to be humped for your gratification. There are of course degrees, and most people who see degrading images don't become rapists. But disordered tendencies are encouraged none the less. Sex then becomes a for pleasure only thing, so any unintended procreation will be viewed as an injustice. This leads to harsh feelings toward the resulting children, or to their growing up without loving parents, or to the 1,000,000+ abortions that take place every year in the United States alone.

Sure, the vast majority of those who masturbate aren't getting abortions, but if you look at the big picture, this subtle distinction has a huge ripple effect. If you are in a relationship with someone who has been abused (sexually or otherwise), it will affect the relationship.

There's a very small percentage of people who if they're not having sex don't masturbate.

For a while, where were a very small percentage of people who thought the world was round instead of flat. Did their minority make them wrong?

Instead of assuming that you're simply following and adhereing to the spiritual principles of your religion, have you ever considered you may need counseling in the matter of sexuality?

What do you think I would obtain from councelling?



----------------------------------------------
"It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish." -- Mother Teresa of Calcutta
[ Parent ]
Sure I replied to this yesterday....... (none / 0) (#289)
by Nursie on Thu Sep 02, 2004 at 07:05:55 AM EST

To answer your basic question:
Same for commitment. Who, when giving themselves fully, exclusively, and permanently, would be more likely to try taking that gift back? Those who have remained continent, or those who see no value in continence?
I'd trust the person who was comfortable with their sexuality, not the person that had never had sex before, might not handle it well, or might suddenly want to be the so-called "bar-slut" because she likes it so much now she's tried it.

Also, basically, where do you get off calling me unfaithful by implication? I have been faithful to my partners and I will continue to be faithful, simply because I don't run around on someone who trusts me, and I don't hurt someone who loves me. Screw you and your high moral ground, you do not have the right to look down on the rest of us because you follow the rules of your catholic delusion.

Meta Sigs suck.

[ Parent ]
Oh please. (none / 0) (#268)
by Ta bu shi da yu on Tue Aug 31, 2004 at 10:02:42 AM EST

"By the time you're married you should be comfortable that you are sexually compatible. Otherwise the marriage will suck. And like marriages that deteriorate for so many other reasons, it will become a living hell that you are trapped in by the contract you signed. Unless you both have very low libido's of course."

What a load of bunk. Good sex often takes trust, and not necessarily experience. In marriage sex is great, and you can learn and experience many things from your partner - and get better at sex! The marriage will not "suck" (poor turn of phrase by the way). I find your comment as offensive as you found Verax's.

That's all.

---
AdTIה"the think tank that didn't".
ה
[ Parent ]

Sorry to offend, but - (none / 0) (#271)
by Nursie on Tue Aug 31, 2004 at 10:42:35 AM EST

"In marriage sex is great, and you can learn and experience many things from your partner - and get better at sex!"
And I can't do this without a marriage?
The whole point of my reply is that by saving sex until marriage he is not somehow 'better' than other people, as he seems to think he is. And that IMHO marriage has its downsides as well, one of which is that people quite often get hitched without knowing that they're fully compatible, and that sex is something that probably ought to be considered. When I consider that I have had sexual encounters with people (one friend in particular, who is still a friend) we didn't hit it off and the whole thing didn't work. Even though we had great affection for each other and were very compatible in a lot of other ways.

Apologies if I offended, but I do believe that some people will just have a problem with it.

Just OOI, why does everyone make the leap from me saying "I don't think people should wait for marriage" to "I sleep around all the time and have no concept of faithfulness or a loving relationship"?

Meta Sigs suck.

[ Parent ]
I didn't say you can't. (none / 0) (#272)
by Ta bu shi da yu on Tue Aug 31, 2004 at 11:08:03 AM EST

Though I don't beleive it myself, nowhere in my comment did I say that. I merely responded to your statement that a virgin can't have a great marriage. I didn't pass judgement (publicly) on any other part of your comment.

---
AdTIה"the think tank that didn't".
ה
[ Parent ]
It was implied (none / 0) (#273)
by Nursie on Tue Aug 31, 2004 at 11:20:54 AM EST

regardless of explicit statements, otherwise you wouldn't have started with "In marriage.....", and could perhaps have said "when two people develop a relationship......".

Interesting that you don't think great sex happens outside of marriage either, may I ask why?

Meta Sigs suck.

[ Parent ]
I see that there is lack of committment (none / 0) (#277)
by Ta bu shi da yu on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 05:00:33 AM EST

I suspect you'll disagree, but for me I want to know that the person I have sex with will be committed to me (and I to her). I can't see any other way of affirming and living that commitment, but then I'm a Christian.

---
AdTIה"the think tank that didn't".
ה
[ Parent ]
I think maybe it's a matter of confidence (none / 0) (#279)
by Nursie on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 05:40:18 AM EST

I've had a couple of bad times when I felt self conscious and lacking in confidence.
Love and respect in the situation obviously help that enormously. I do know I'm quite extroverted and relaxed anyway, so maybe I find it easier than you and just don't require that.

As for affirming and living the comittment, I can't really comment, having not been married (and I consider it quite unlikely that I ever will be).

Meta Sigs suck.

[ Parent ]
How can you be sure in any case? (none / 0) (#283)
by NDPTAL85 on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 03:40:42 PM EST

No matter what someone claims to be, we're all legally entitled to divorces in this country and every human is capable of committing adultery. So how do you truly know she's committed to you?

[ Parent ]
Because as a Christian I don't believe in divorce. (none / 0) (#291)
by Ta bu shi da yu on Thu Sep 02, 2004 at 09:14:25 AM EST

Even though divorce is legal, I don't think anyone truly marries someone planning to have a divorce. Anyway, when I marry someone I'll be doing it to show how much I care about them and how I'm prepared to commit.

---
AdTIה"the think tank that didn't".
ה
[ Parent ]
Do you think anyone does? (none / 0) (#292)
by Nursie on Thu Sep 02, 2004 at 01:14:50 PM EST

I don't think anyone gets married with their eye to divorce, except for in hollywood that is where I'm sure getting married is little more than a publicity stunt sometimes.


Meta Sigs suck.

[ Parent ]
What's the big fucking deal about this comment? (3.00 / 3) (#294)
by BuddasEvilTwin on Thu Sep 02, 2004 at 03:38:02 PM EST

PREFACE:  I do NOT subscribe to Christian morality.

His point was:  

If you want to get into a monogamous relationship later in life, prior sexual experiences can have a negative impact on that relationship.

It doesn't mean it WILL have a negative impact.  There are obviously a number of factors involved, such as whether your potential spouse is a jealous person or not, her/your attitudes about sex, etc.    

BUT the scenarios he brought up are real scenarios and apply to a lot of people.

SECURITY:
------------------
My past experiences have bothered certain ex-girlfriends.  In the end, I married a woman who doesn't care about them.  We've related and enjoyed sharing our past experiences in the past.

LOVE AND RESPECT (PORNOGRAPHY)
------------------
Again, I've dated girls who were very threatened with pornography.  Again, I'm lucky I married a woman who enjoys watching sexually explicit movies with me or independant movies with great character development, plot lines, and killer sexual tension.

DISEASES
------------------
It's a valid problem that needs to be considered.  There is no pancea against STDs.

IN EFFECT, EXTRAMARITAL SEX IS "CHEATING IN ADVANCE"
------------------
I don't agree with this assertion, and I don't thing the poster's anecdotes and personal experiences isn't enough to back up his assertion.

While I agree that extramarital sex can have a negative impact on the wrong girl, that doesn't equate it to cheating, especially when cheating requires that you break a commitment.

PLEASURE AND HAPPINESS
---------------------
The thing that our society seems unable to do is make a distinction between happiness and pleasure. There are people who engage regularly in many pleasurable activities, but who are also extremely unhappy.

  He's right about this.  Many people do have a hard time distinguishing between the two, and for many people they have a difficult time being happy despite the pleasure they enjoy.

  Than again, there are also many people who are happy and who engage in pleasureable activities that contribute to thier happiness.  I'm one of these people as are many of my friends.

On the other hand, the happiest person I've ever heard of people meeting was Mother Teresa.

I believe it.  A feeling of purpose and resolve does that to people.

[ Parent ]

hahaha, fuckin' (2.25 / 4) (#197)
by IlIlIIllIIlllIII on Wed Aug 25, 2004 at 05:37:26 AM EST

best bait EVER. I appreciate it.

Jesus, it's graphic shit.

Congrats! If you want to find out more ... (2.50 / 2) (#200)
by kuroXhin on Wed Aug 25, 2004 at 12:04:23 PM EST

Try some of these cities at the top. Worked for me.

Congratulations for having the guts to do something. From personal experience, however, I would not suggest to look further in Canada.

I'd also suggest the books by this guy. They were enormously helpful.

The Economist - The Playboy of the new world order!

I think it's sweet that you waited so long to lose (none / 0) (#260)
by sweeties68 on Mon Aug 30, 2004 at 07:41:18 PM EST

your virginity.


If you have to hide it and password protect it then your doin something wrong.
Ugh (none / 0) (#274)
by daedion on Tue Aug 31, 2004 at 07:34:11 PM EST

So have I, and apparently I wasnt too drunk at the time. Still, serious emotional backlash was involved, which has basically taught me NEVER, EVER sleep with a friend. Oh, and make sure she actually understands, "Its OVER!"

Hmmmm.... (none / 0) (#295)
by lithos on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 12:53:34 PM EST

While I desperately, desperately, wanna abuse the hell outta you, (OMG! You sold some of your mint Star War collector dolls on Ebay and bought a whore! The Magic the Gathering Tournament was cancelled so you went and hired sex! "Jeez, I wonder if Jane'll do tentacles, like that chick in Anime Rape-fest 54?") I won't.

Since when the hell did this become k5.blog.org? This reads like a blog entry, sorry. It also does give me a nasty impression in my mind, something that'll only come out with surgery. I'm half expecting to see a follow up bitching about that guy at work...

The sad thing is that I've seen worthier articles that take up less space.

Also, I cannot believe you associated this with a freaking Indiana Jones movie. Only could you get more nerdier by saying "You know in Star Trek..." You could've at least used a reference from, say, the Bible. I don't care if you wreck the Bible.

I can just see FreeBSD now, sitting around the table, painting Warhammer 40k figures and paying out all the other geeks..."Well, I don't care if my knight has less hit points than yours, at least I'VE gotten laid..."

This was like chewing on an old vacuum cleaner bag. Ugh.
"Live forever, or die in the attempt." -Joseph Heller, Catch-22

Some Thoughts... (none / 1) (#298)
by Kiskaana on Thu Sep 16, 2004 at 01:31:17 AM EST

I generally liked your story. It was graphic and unpleasant at times, but very honest. I have to admit, you must have some guts not only to bring up the topic of male virginity, but also to discuss all pros and cons of being a virgin. I just have a couple of things I have to mention: 1. You should probably rethink referring to women as pussies.Now that you joined the legion of non-virgins it does not mean that somehow you "earned" the right to degrade women. I understand that losing virginity a.k.a. sex is the main point of this story, but when you are referring to your future women as "pussies" or that women throw it at reach men, you don't come off as a desirable partner. As a woman, I prefer confident but gentle men. Disrespect is not perceived as confidence. 2. If or when you date other women (non-prostitutes), you should update your dictionary. Generally average women don't appreciate penthouse lexicon (at least not in the beginning). Overall, congrats on your article, I thought it was very raw but honest.
"Bad people are punished by society law, and good people are punished by Murphy's law"--George from "Dead like me"
Grow up (none / 0) (#300)
by sweety on Tue Dec 28, 2004 at 01:34:12 PM EST

Oh come on. I suppose you are constantly offered sex. Everyone needs to get off of their high horse and realize that, hey, some people want sex, even before they get married. If he wants to pay someone to give it to him, good for him. I'm sure that this will not only make him more confident when it comes to having sex again, but also with whomever he has sex with. I'm not being mean, but I might have a problem with being a man's first as well (and yes I am a woman.) All I have to say is good for you, and go get your fuck on!!

Quote: (none / 0) (#302)
by Smiley K on Mon May 09, 2005 at 09:04:01 PM EST

"I got a razor and toothpaste from the hotel and showered thoroughly and then called hotel maintenance to unclog the toilet figuring we would need it at some point over the next two hours."

And people say I am kinky...

-- Someone set up us the bomb.

The Shame of Adult Male Virginity | 302 comments (272 topical, 30 editorial, 3 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!