Sexless love or loveless sex?

[Keystone Phil]

I'm surprised that my answer is doing so well. I guess the BRTD's of the forum haven't come out in full force yet.

[Keystone Phil]

loveless sex, obviously.

Ya, senseless love sounds like a living hell to me.

So love without sex is senseless?

Love is something that people say they're in, so they can get laid.

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And people that constantly have sex outside of a loving relationship are obviously immune from being hurt.

[Keystone Phil]

Why even deal with females without the sex? 

This is why you are single.

[Keystone Phil]

Ever notice the women with the much bitchier attitudes towards men get more sex?

Awesome. Then they get married and 50% end in divorce.

Try taking your head out of that gigantic ass.

[Keystone Phil]

I love it when libertarians find total emptiness fulfilling.

[Keystone Phil]

I love it when libertarians find total emptiness fulfilling.

     Sorry for being able to find fulfillment outside of love.

I never said you can't find fulfillment outside of love. It's just so sad how many of you focus on short term, physical satisfaction.

Try living the way you want to live when you get passed the age of 50 or so. Oh, wait. You guys never want to live that long. You die in an ego-gasm in your 30s or 40s.

I love it when libertarians find total emptiness fulfilling.

You're presuming what's empty for you is empty for another person.

Are you silly enough to think that sex without love doesn't lead to emotional issues?

[Keystone Phil]

I love it when libertarians find total emptiness fulfilling.

     Sorry for being able to find fulfillment outside of love.

Any fulfillment you find outside of love will never last.

To be honest I haven't dated anyone in several years and no, it's really not much of a loss so far.

...

Dude, you're what? 19? Get real.

[Keystone Phil]

     Where did you get the notion that I focus on short-term physical satisfaction?

By looking at your answer.  

What kind of guy gets in a relationship or deals with women at all if not to eventually have sex with them? That's the driving force behind all relationships.

Wrong, spoiled brat.

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uh...who said anything about lacking physical attraction? What does that have to do with loveless sex or sexless love?

The point some of us are trying to make is that sex isn't the basis of love. I wouldn't expect you to know about this since Mommy and Daddy probably buy anyone that you ever dated. The girls stick around because they love your Benz, dude. That suddenly makes...er...everything seem bigger. You know what I mean?

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah. Girls are only good enough for you when you get to spike their drinks, right?

[Keystone Phil]

FÜCK YEAH!!!!!!!!!!!! *smashes beer can on forehead*

I think a few people around here need to start realising that this whole 'macho' notion of masculinity is just a societal construct; the values that society associates with being a 'man' are by no means all the product of biology.

LOL

Exactly

[Keystone Phil]

     Where did you get the notion that I focus on short-term physical satisfaction?

By looking at your answer.  

     Oh. It's called not being nihilist towards the physical world.

Yes, I'm totally against physical pleasure.

[Keystone Phil]

     Where did you get the notion that I focus on short-term physical satisfaction?

By looking at your answer.  

     Oh. It's called not being nihilist towards the physical world.

Yes, I'm totally against physical pleasure.

     You see, you would not particularly like sexless love, but consider it superior to loveless sex. I would not particularly like loveless sex, but would consider it superior to sexless love.

     As I explained, I hold that view because sex is a human drive (which I suspect it would be rather nihilistic to deny given the choice) & I believe if need be I could derive my sense of fulfillment from other means, such as teaching physics to people who want to learn it.

And I say that living a life that involves having sex with multiple people without any emotion involved leads to major emotional problems throughout one's life.

With all due respect, learn that the world isn't the way a 17 year old wants it to be for all of time.

[Keystone Phil]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That one is quite a mouthful.  How did one come to this sweeping conclusion I wonder?  I assume it is not based on personal experience.  I wonder if my state governor is an emotional mess. Hmmm.

You don't think what I said is true?

[Keystone Phil]

It depends. Sometimes it is; sometimes it isn't.  Granted you said "without any emotion."  Without emotion, I am not sure the sex act is possible for a man. I assumed you meant   without any particular affection rising to the level of at least fondness or friendship, when you said without emotion.

Ok, I should have specified that I meant a sense of affection/caring/love.

[Keystone Phil]

What kind of guy gets in a relationship or deals with women at all if not to eventually have sex with them? That's the driving force behind all relationships.

Wrong, spoiled brat.

So, the girl you were so enamored with earlier this year had nothing to do with her looks? You were attracted to her personality, which you yourself admitted you didn't know much about.

...

Duke, I never said that looks have nothing to do with attraction or that they shouldn't have anything to do with it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I can't help it if they finally make sense and have something in common with me. 

Unwarranted? Give it a rest, dude. You just called anyone that wants to "pal around" with girls f****ts. Spare me the lecture.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Duke, you're a blatant failure here. I admit in the post that you quote that physical attraction is not something we are supposed to shy away from.

Point out for me where I made the assinine point that attraction shouldn't lead to a physical relationship. Go. Now.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I play class warfare when it is warranted. I have to fight insane arrogance with insane arrogance.

Spare me the sob story about you getting a Benz because it was "safe." I'm sure that's the tag you give everyone when you post pictures of it on the Internet. When people flaunt what they have, be ready to be called out for it. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I our divorce rate. How about you? Oh, and don't play the divorce card either. My parents are divorced as well.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...

Again, Duke, I never once said that physical attraction is a bad thing. You're twisting the argument around entirely.

I said that your attitude in your initial post, with no respect for true feelings towards people aside from a physical lust, is absolutely disgusting. You twisted that into me saying that physical attraction is bad and disgusting. I come to expect this sort of behavior from people that don't know how to debate points though.

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And yet your comment about guys having feels for girls means that they're gay isn't an unwarranted attack?

[Keystone Phil]

Yet you decided to call me a spoiled brat and told me I was wrong when I said sex was the driving force behind most relationships. Am I right, then? My point was, all relationships begin with a physical attraction. Learning to love that person outside of the physical attraction is another component, but certainly isn't always the first.

Duke, in all honesty, I think you have a minor issue with logic. What I said didn't contradict anything. I don't believe that sex is the driving force behind most relationships and, if it is, I don't think that that's right. That does not mean, however, that physical attraction is bad.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So...you are allowed to make the "silly statement" but when I do it to you, you want to whine? Uh...right. Got it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...

Duke, what was sarcastic about your assumption that I think physical attraction is bad? I really think you need to brush up on your definitions. Maybe you can get a dictionary made of pure gold for Christmas this year!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I bring it up just as often as your flaunt it. You're right when you note that it wasn't brought up here before I made a comment just as the idea of someone being a f****t shouldn't be brought up because they actually have an emotional attachment to a female.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...

You are that dense? Really?

You cast aside the emotional problems with your answer here and then go on about how divorce is caused by one side nothing making the "other feel good or whatever." And then you say that this debate isn't about the divorce rate. Honestly, Duke? Do you not see the line some of us are trying to draw, trying to point how why loveless sex might have something to do with the damn divorce rate?

By the way, I loved the "make the other feel good or whatever" line. Classic.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Classive defensive argument. You claim that you weren't serious after you realize how silly you sounded and then revert to this idea that you don't need to explain yourself. Then why are you posting here, Duke? If you don't want to back up your assinine remarks, don't make them.

Don't blast me by saying that I'm swinging a "sword of moral authority." I know this idea may be foreign to you, Duke, but some of us with a spine stand up for what we believe. It doesn't necessarily make us holier than thou. I notice that your types don't like being challenged but that's your problem, not mine.

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"Offensive statements are made all the time towards groups of people" means it's ok. Uh, ok, great. So why did you throw a hissy fit when I made some about you?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't care if you didn't specifically target me. You made a stupid comment and you were called out.

Duke, I don't understand how I'm a "middle class trash heap" when I, without a shadown of a doubt, possess more class than you'll ever have. Need I remind you of your drunken outbursts on our fine forum after your basketball team lost? What did you call those fine young black men again? I can't seem to remember the word...

Also, a classy individual like myself doesn't justify rape. But since I apparently don't talk to anything with a vagina, I guess I wouldn't know if they enjoy that type of stuff. I bet they do, right, Duke? As long as they get a ride in the Benz, that is...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I only wish that someone can warn your friends...

[Keystone Phil]

Totally unrelated. If you made a general silly statement, then fine. Since you made it personal, I'll get involved. Nothing I said was personally directed at you.

You made an attack. Just because it wasn't in direct response to one of my posts doesn't mean that it wasn't an attack on someone like myself.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

1) You didn't say that.

2) If that's the case, you live in a very sad world.

3) Just because that's how you've seen it doesn't mean that they're gay. You did say that they're gay and just like to shop with girls. Go ahead and deny that now.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is one of the underlying problems in divorce, Duke. You don't want to admit it so you say that it's not related to the topic.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I have responded to his ridiculous posts both here and in the past especially on this topic.

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Also known as trolling.


 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Duke, you're playing the victim. You made a stupid remark, I responded and you went nuts about personal attacks.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Same to you.

[Keystone Phil]

I'm sorry but is that a woman?

[Keystone Phil]

I'm sorry but is that a woman?

I'm sorry, were you perhaps hoping to see a little lump where the vagina should have been?

A tumor?

[Keystone Phil]

I'm sorry but is that a woman?

I'm sorry, were you perhaps hoping to see a little lump where the vagina should have been?

A tumor?

A penis.

LOL @ the fact that you actually answered that.

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm sure, troll. Don't get your hopes up though.

But please tell my how I'm a homophobe. This will be enjoyable considering I'm a strong supporter of civil unions.

[Keystone Phil]

Separate-but-equal.

So I hate gays even when I want to give them the same rights that straight couples have without calling it marriage?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't have one currently, therefore, I'm a loser, correct?

Also, I'm not as pathetic as you are to flaunt my "partner" on the Internet. I have a little more class than that. Too bad I can't say the same for you.

[Keystone Phil]

Separate-but-equal.

So I hate gays even when I want to give them the same rights that straight couples have without calling it marriage?

I'm afraid that's the whole point of his criticism. Besides even if it is the same as marriage, what's the point of not calling it that? Obviously because it makes you uncomfortable.

I've been through this argument before. I don't believe it to be marriage based on the tradition that defines marriage.

By the way, I hope you'll call my lesbian friend, who is perhaps the most vocal gay rights advocate at Temple University, a homophobe as well. She does not support gay marriage for the same reasons I don't.

Yeah, pretty much.

Is the lesbian I mentioned above also a homophobe?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Have I had a girlfriend? Yes. A real relationship that last a year and a half. She was a sel described socialist, for the record. So much for moral puritanism, eh?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You are just too polite! It might explain a few things...

[Keystone Phil]

But please tell my how I'm a homophobe. This will be enjoyable considering I'm a strong supporter of civil unions.

I know this has already been pointed out, but jeeeeez...

...

What exactly are you pointing out/"jeezing" about?

[Keystone Phil]

Just that it's pretty funny - though like I said, already been commented on.

What is funny about it? Stop being vague with what you're saying. It's probably an attack because the only comments on my stance is that my support for civil unions but objection to calling it marriage basically equals another "seperate but equal" position and that's totally wrong/offensive.

Again, I'd like those that have a problem with this to also comment on my lesbian friend who happens to be one of the strongest leaders of the gay rights movement on my campus. Is she a homophobe as well for opposing calling it marriage (in the eyes of the law)?

[Keystone Phil]

I found it funny that you were pointing to something that's generally seen as a compromise/halfway measure/patronising and a confirmation of homosexuals' second-class status (however you want to phrase it) as evidence you don't have a problem with gays.

Giving the same rights under the law to gays that are awarded to straight couples is patronizing simply because I refuse to call it something that has been established as a union between a man and a woman? That makes them second class? That means I'm supporting "seperate but equal?" even though "seperate but equal" was totally unequal in terms of the quality of services/rights, not just a name difference.

I'm sorry if that is only "halfway" for some of you but maybe this will help you realize why this debate goes no where. You laugh off the idea that I'm accepting of homosexuals because I don't support calling it marriage. Will you listen to yourself? Seriously.

Do I hate homosexuals/am I a homophobe because I don't support calling it marriage? Simple yes or no.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

With all due respect, I wouldn't wager at all. You don't know the girl. I laid out why she doesn't support the government calling it marriage - she doesn't believe that the government should be in the business of defining what marriage has been defined as.

But I'm not interested in continuing this debate because it gets me no where. Certain people here are going to be convinced that I'm something that I'm not and it's not right. You don't like my position? Fine. Please don't call me a homophobe, though, because we don't agree on the definition of marriage. Laughing off my support of full civil unions for gays is what's patronizing here so don't lecture me about patronizing gays. Your laughing also basically says that I haven't truly proven that I'm not homophobic which is even more asinine than your other points.

[Keystone Phil]

I am a little unclear why folks get upset calling gay legal relationships marriage rather than civil unions, even though the exact same legal rights and duties apply. Why is giving gays a second class moniker so important?  Why is it important that the nomenclature be kept the same?  Why does it's tradition!, it's tradition!, constitute the highest trump card here?  Some traditions suck that hung around for a very long time.

Come on folks. For most opposing gay marriage, the nomenclature thing is just the stalking horse. In fact, for those folks, they don't want gays to have the same legal rights and duties in their legal relationships, that hetero couples who get hitched have. Just how naive do these people think we are?

I'm not doing another damn gay marriage debate. I've been over this before.

You've gotten your ridiculous jabs in. Enough already. Torie, I have a lot of respect for you but I've lost a great deal when you decide to respond to this debate with this nonsense:

In fact, for those folks, they don't want gays to have the same legal rights and duties in their legal relationships, that hetero couples who get hitched have. Just how naive do these people think we are?

So I'm just lying when I say that I support civil unions that bestow the same rights on gays that straight couples already have? That's what you must be saying if you believe that we're saying that to trick you (think you are naive). Don't tell me that I'm lying about my position, Torie. At least give me that courtesy.

We have a disagreement on what constitutes marriage. Get over it. No one is second class, no one is in a "seperate but equal" system under the civil unions proposal that I support. Stop launching into this nonsense that if you don't support calling it marriage, you hate gays. You have a problem with gays. It's insulting and flat out wrong.

I never called you a homophobe - let's review. I commented on something I found amusing, and in doing so I made an inference that I think was quite easy to pick up on (that what you'd said featured, in my view, an amusing contradiction). You asked me to clarify. I attempted to do this. You decided that it was "probably an attack". I tried to clarify exactly what my view is on the matter, and your response was that I am calling you a homophobe and also that I'm patronising.

I simply don't understand why someone would laugh off my position. Yes, supporting full civil unions for gays is not something a homophobe would do. If I "had a problem" with gays, I wouldn't support it. You laughed, saying that that doesn't mean I don't have a problem.