If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
It is. What's your point, caller?
So if someone doesn't subscribe to your personal morality they're a "fool" are they?
How nice.
If someone doesn't want to have sex, it's a choice for them, and them alone. Just as it is if someone does want to have sex.
Personally I'm glad I didn't wait, but that was my choice. It doesn't make the man who chose the opposite "backward".
Sex doesn't have to be about love, but that doesn't denigrate the opinion of those who do think that.
Given the glamourisation of sex in this culture, I'd actually suggest that those who don't have sex are probably less suseptible to outside pressures than those who hop into bed with the first bloke who says they've got a nice bum. But hey ho.
What reasons would you give to fight that instinct? Where do those reasons come from? What are they based on?
Simply if you feel urge why not?
I can have great sex with somebody I don't trust, even somebody I don't like?
Spliffie and Turlough did- and not for the first time, either- which I suspect is the confusion.
Part of being human is having the mental capacity to resist animalistic urges if they are not beneficial. And some people don't think lots of sexual partners is beneficial.
I couldn't care less what people do so long as they're safe and happy. I don't see what gives you, Spliffie and Turlough the right to condemn that decision, any more than moralistic people have the right to condemn the promiscuous.
No you can't. When you have sex with someone, you are by the very act entrusting that person with your body.
Why yes, I can do this too. Woohoo for hate fucks.
I know it's a shit excuse but I do tend to have a bit of difficulty reading. I am sincerely sorry. I'm gonna go back and delete all my previous posts 'k?
So? Sartre was a respected philosopher but still wrote bollocks. Status and "respect" mean fuck all. Johann Hari's intellect is hardly towering, that's for sure.
No, they just have morals which are different from yours.
What about worried about what they think for themselves?
Even though you don't trust them not to run off with your wallet?
Strange logic.
There's a difference between philosophers and journalists.
I get included because...
Nobody mentioned 'lots of sexual partners'????
I havn't condemned anybody???
My opinion is that you shouldn't hold back on simple human urges simply because your worried what others/god may think.
understandable. I don't have any known probs with reading (just speling and pronouncing stoopid words), and I had to double check a few times which views were from the skive/spliffie/turlough camp because they seemed to be coming from similar angles...
I understantd mate. Soundo.
I just want you to know that for me this is a discussion rather than personal argument. :thumb:
My part in it is gone.
No idea. I wouldn't recommend anyone I can think of who is primarily a journalist.
It's exactly the same principle though. Even more so with journalists whose work usually receives little if any critical analysis.
That Hari article lacks even an attempt at providing co-ordinated evidence to back up his view. He even hints at its lack of validity at the bottom.
Depends what he means by over-intellectualising.
Regarding the greeks, didn't they have two separate notions of love, eros (lust) & egape (spiritual/romantic)?
And did the ideas of chivalry etc not develop in the medieval world? Was man's "honour" not based on the notion of "spiritual union" with woman? What about Shakespeare? Was Romeo & Juliet not written considerably earlier than the explosion of Victorian romantic literature? And did people really suddenly start devoting their lives to 'love' (men included) because a load of soppy novels were being churned out by middle class women?
It's also important to keep in mind that throughout much of history marriage often wasn't of someone's independent choice. It was forced. This can account for any historically-documented lack of romance as a founding part of marriage.
Love sonnets etc have been around for millenia. The greeks were famous for them. Homosapiens have always mated for life. It is the best way for the offspring to survive. However like swans, squirrels etc. it was common for a mating pair to 'split'. This ususally meant the death of any small children, as one lone parent rarely took care of the child. In fact, correct me if im wrong, but I think that the children were often killed by further potential mates - someone elses offspring - survival of the fittest and all that.
Erm I only said it once and it was clear I was joking when I said people who didn't were "freakish"
Can you please point out something what I said that's wrong. Just wondering.
Ya know Kermit, you can be a know-it-all prick sometimes. :thumb:
See you're talking sense now.
How can that be true?
It's quite clear that some people do fall in love and stay together till they die and have no urges to cheat. Just because you haven't experienced it yourself doesn't mean it can't happen.