Bush's speach to the nation

[nampigai]

no one is forcing you to sleep with 20 different people, you could live a life in celebacy, but don't preach about how the rest should live their lifes it's non others problem but their own.

I don't understand how a leader of a country whom obviuosly is no saint can stand and preach on how others shall live. If people wanna have sex then let them, it really is their choice.

[GUNWOUNDS]

no one is forcing you to sleep with 20 different people, you could live a life in celebacy, but don't preach about how the rest should live their lifes it's non others problem but their own.

I don't understand how a leader of a country whom obviuosly is no saint can stand and preach on how others shall live. If people wanna have sex then let them, it really is their choice.

well when you say it like that it makes alot more sense..... than your first post.

i was just poking fun at you in your first post... never thought this thread would turn into the monster it is now .... LOL ;D

but your last statement here

[Wolf]

Look at it from a legal perspective. Marriage is a contract -- one that should be made more binding. In this contract, I suppose, it should state that you shall love (and make love) only to ONE woman or ONE man, i.e., your spouse. Typically, in the business world, when a contract is broken, there are legal ramifications. We cannot function as a society if people are allowed to break any legal agreement that they signed in good faith. Therefore, if marriage is to be made MORE like a contract, people can be legally fined or punished for NOT holding up their end of the bargain, namely, to love only one person.

Right now, the legal status of marriage is in question. Is it a binding contract? For, in signing legal marriage documents, they affirm the legal existence of the marriage itself, but, any promise to remain faithful only to one individual is ONLY in the religious ceremony itself. The ONLY way, then, to legislate marriage, would be to make marriage's legal existence equal to that of a contract's. The next questions is whether or not we SHOULD do this.

Personally, government has no right to legislate morality any further than is needed to protect the life, liberty, and happiness of its people. A spouse cheating on a marriage effects only ONE man (or woman) out of an entire population. I don't really see how a government could justify it. Then again, if it WERE made a contract, it could easily be justified on legal grounds.

I'm not really sure where I stand.

[SurlyPIG]

i remember when i was a little kid i got mad at my dad and said "daddy when i have kids..... i will never spank them like you spanked me"... he said oh really?

[GUNWOUNDS]

You REALLY didn't read a thing Mahdi posted did you?

[SurlyPIG]

saying you will not use physical force hinders your ability to do much of anything.

Who said anything about not using physical force?  If you're dealing with a toddler obviously you'll sometimes have to restrain them or pick them up. 

also saying your parents never physical punished you is a lie.

i am sure you recieved some sort of slap or pop .. however mild it may have been.

HAH!  So now you're the final authority on everything in this world?  You don't know the first thing about me, my life or my parents?

trying to say tht physical punishemnt makes you inferior

[GUNWOUNDS]

ace the examples you gave for alternative punishment are fine and dandy for mild tempered children.

what about hot tempered children who kick and bite and scream in your ear...etc etc??

what if your cousins were NOT so mild mannered?? what if .. when you picked them up .. they slapped you or bite you or kicked you ??....

your trying to say children are all of one temperment.

and that isnt so.

i have cousins too...... one named Adam is very shy and intraverted .... doesnt say much... doesnt do much.

i have another cousin Johnny.... he is an absolute hellion... hits other kids...curses.. .... hits YOU... scratches... kicks... runs around will NOT listen.

absolute terror.

your little "pick them up trick"

[GUNWOUNDS]

and ace the thing about  non-americans not being able to handle violence  i am basing that on how

american censors focus more on sex... while foreign countries  censors's focus more on violence.

for instance.... a popular FPS game in the united states

called soldier of fortune 2 which has a high gore content and dismemberment  has all those features disabled in its german version.

however if it had been breasts or vaginas i am sure that it would not have gotten censored out in the german version while it would have in the US.

and you thought i was just saying that to be a jerk huh?

;)

[nampigai]

had it been in Denmark we would see both pussies, tits and violence.

However the legaslations on arms are far more strict than the USA, and our youngsters know how to protect themselves. While HIV and AIDS are decreasing amongst people from the age 15-30 (I think) it increasing amongst the people from 30+ and exploding amongst 50+.

Horrible enough because their are travelling to third world countries and having sex with young boys and girls on brothels.

Such people should be declared lawless.

Anyhow what I want to say is sexual diseases can be controlled if the children are tought how to protect themselves properly. 

[SurlyPIG]

Whether or not the kid is shy and reserved or Satan incarnate doesn't matter provided you can find something you can do to or take away from them that they won't like, and that you can reasonably relate to their bad behaviour.  One of the tods I was talking about is the most hyper, physical kid I know but babying him still works because it means he's being treated differently than his brothers and sisters and he absolutely hates it.  You're absolutely right that not every technique prescribed works for every kid, that's why you have to FIND what works for the kid and if they're yours you should know them well enough.

"and ace the thing about  non-americans not being able to handle violence  i am basing that on how american censors focus more on sex... while foreign countries  censors's focus more on violence."

What a load of horseshit.  That's not what you said at all.

"foreigners seem not to be able to stomach physical punishment."

Ridiculous.  Ridiculous that you equate what censors do with a person's ability to 'stomach physical punishment,' ridiculous that you equate what one censor did in one instance with what is the norm, ridiculous that you equate what german censors do with what all 'foreigners' do, and ridiculous that you equate viewing violence in media with tolerance for pain.

[HasimirFenring]

"and ace the thing about  non-americans not being able to handle violence  i am basing that on how american censors focus more on sex... while foreign countries  censors's focus more on violence."

What a load of horseshit.  That's not what you said at all.

"foreigners seem not to be able to stomach physical punishment."

Ridiculous.  Ridiculous that you equate what censors do with a person's ability to 'stomach physical punishment,' ridiculous that you equate what one censor did in one instance with what is the norm, ridiculous that you equate what german censors do with what all 'foreigners' do, and ridiculous that you equate viewing violence in media with tolerance for pain.

Agreed, ACE.  Saying that foreigners can't stomach the same physical punishment was like Charlton Heston saying to Michael Moore that Americans want to have guns because we've had a more violent history (Moore cleverly pointed out what utter crap that is by playing clips of Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Mussolini, Mao, etc).

What kind of material is censored is not an indicator of a people's "stomach physical punishment"  ::) but rather an indicator of its moral values.

[GUNWOUNDS]

ridiculous that you equate viewing violence in media with tolerance for pain.

perhaps i worded myself wrong... i was referring to stomaching the "thought" of violence... not the person's physical pain threshold.

and censors are representatives of their people.. as they control what you get to see and dont see... obviously if  german censors cant stand the thought of violence .. many german citizens must feel the same way.  Else they would be removed.

[SurlyPIG]

I don't know of any country in which the people elect their censors.  It's an appointed position.  They don't have to follow the wishes of the people at all if they don't think what the people want is good for them.  And if they don't, people aren't going to flock en masse to protest the censorship of things like sex, gore and violence.

[Phage]

ya bush must be a sicko.... i mean who would want a virgin for a wife right???.... i know people want their future wife to be the biggest whore before they get to meet her and marry her...... ???

i mean what is bush thinking??

Abstaining from premaritial sex imo, is like taking home the first cow you see, or the first car you test drive. It's reckless, and a fools errand imo, committed by people with more eagerness then brains. Even people in the army see the whole notion as silly, I know cause my bro's in the army, and my bro's not exactly prude (nor are his "battle buddies" aka fellow troops).

I may not want a whore for a wife, but I don't want a virgin either. And I CERTAINLY wouldn't want to be a virgin until 30, or marry the first girl I lay. That's just going to lead to a lot more divorces and broken families. I'd like a woman with *fair* experience. Otherwise I'd feel like a one man show.

IMO, the solution isn't abstinence, but safe sex. Safe, responsible sex. This means not doing ecstacy and getting drunk at a party and sleeping with a new person each week. But it doesn't mean you wait until your 25-30 either. It means you A) Know the person and B) Use a condom.

Of course, there are situations where you are drunk and want a real hot chick, etc, in which case just apply risk-benefit analyses (ask if its worth the risk). And use a condom.

You can also get others blood tested.

If Bush really wanted to promote abstinence, he'd advocate sex toys. Many of which I imagine, can be better then the real thing in certain ways. Of course Bush and other conservatives/fundies will never do that, because they are not concerned with STD's at all. That's a farce, (like WMD's), what really concerns them is the SIN of LUST, and the collapse of their puritanical values. That's why he is also against gay marriages.

Which is interesting, seeing as he doesn't wish to advocate sex before marriage....but he doesn't want gays to get married. So what does Bush expect them to do exactly?

Anyways, people now at days like a little variety. We like to shop around before we settle on a decision, to keep our options open and make good, informed decisions. Marrying a woman before you sleep with her and get to know her closely is sort of hit or miss, going around and seeing what others are like for a couple years before hand allows one to become more experienced and understand more what you want exactly; it's self-correcting. Seeing what a woman is like in bed is important before you marry her, because you are going to be sleeping with that same woman for a LOOOONG time. It allows you to get closer, and serves to better show how you will get along in the future.

In any event, not having sex to avoid STD's, is kinda like avoiding car accidents by by staying indoors. Sure your safe, but at what cost?

BTW, I am not simply advocating "free love", or casual sex. Because though guys have the stomach for it, girls will almost always get really hurt/angry (they will, even if they say they won't, it's in their darwinian structured biology). And if your a man of conscience, you'll feel guilty for it. I'm simply advocating responsible premarital sex, usually (save for the best opportunities) in some sort of relationship. That's all.

[Phage]

any man confident in his ability to obtain a pretty virtuous woman would not settle for anything less.  that may sound egotistical.... but any man who denies this is lying to himself to appear politically correct.. in order not to offend others.

Dood, trust me, if she hasn't been laid by the time she's of age, it won't exactly take a confident man. First come, first serve is probably what's happening there.

That due to some kind of neuroses (discomfort with sex/people) or a bad case of oogly.

I suppose she could be some extremely conservative religious woman, but who wants to marry someone like that? A girl like that sounds simple-minded and prude, hence not someone I'd like to spend years living with, seeing and talking to everyday.

if a woman slept with 6 men to me she would be invalidated for marriage .  I do not need or want that kind of baggage in my relationship.  It may seem unfair to you TMA... but everyone has a right to lay down guidelines for choosing their lifemates.

So you would ignore their minds, and beliefs, and values and personality just because in the past they had slept with six men? Even if she was really cute? Sounds rather shallow and silly to me.

[Phage]

i have a female friend who went to a university in india and the men were very reserved... even the ones she became very good friends with  were reserved.... when she tried to hug them at teh airport... they would only shake her hand.  many marriages in india are arranged marriages.... as well as many middle east countries....  did any of your surveyers  collect surveys form these people?? 

i brought this up to suggest location of the university  and culture  definately plays a big role.

That's a very good point, people under arranged marriages are fairly monogamous (at least in public, - according to your friend- who hung out with people from India).

Anyways I had heard anectdotes to the contrary from Christian missionaries, namely that Indians were very touchy, and had no taboos about raping women, or grabbing other men. I suppose it may depend on the exact type of Indian your associating with.

In any event, the above is irrelevant. The study doesn't have to control for world cultures basically because it is not meant to describe all people, in all cultures. Only people in our own culture.

[GUNWOUNDS]

So you would ignore their minds, and beliefs, and values and personality just because in the past they had slept with six men? Even if she was really cute? Sounds rather shallow and silly to me.

So your saying you would?

Your pretty naive to think that a woman who has been with 6 men wont have some kind of baggage

[Acriku]

How can you know how to teach your wife if you've never had sex either?

[GUNWOUNDS]

How can you know how to teach your wife if you've never had sex either?

Acriku .. sex is not that complicated... it only takes a few times of messing around to see what goes where... and what the diff positions do ...where to touch someone...... and how they create a different feeling.

And if your more of a visual learner... watch a porn flick... or go to your book store and buy a kamasutra book.

The notion that it is IMPOSSIBLE for two virgins to experiment with each other is absurd.... you do NOT need another person to train your spouse... that is idiocy.

heres an example acriku:

if a girl is giving you oral and you notice it feels better when she sucks really hard and goes down all the way... then you say to her... "hey i like that.. keep doing it like that"... and thus she is being trained as to how you like it...

....if she was with another man she would know how HE liked it.. which is irrelevant to how YOU like it.

its as simple as that.... there are so many books on this stuff.. that detail men's and women's

[Acriku]

Without the details this time :P

What I meant was, if you're a virgin, and hopefully a virgin to porn otherwise there'd be no point in being a virgin, then you have nothing to provide a point of reference of what is a good way to do it, and what is a bad way to do it. It may not be complicated, but it isn't pre-existing knowledge.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Without the details this time :P

What I meant was, if you're a virgin, and hopefully a virgin to porn otherwise there'd be no point in being a virgin, then you have nothing to provide a point of reference of what is a good way to do it, and what is a bad way to do it. It may not be complicated, but it isn't pre-existing knowledge.

your right if your a virgin then you have no point of reference... but there doesnt need to be a reference... because  "what is a good way"  is basically anything that feels good for both of you... and "what is a bad way" is gonna be something that is uncomfortable or painful.  So basically its pretty straight forward. 

And if you feel like you need to know more...(like special areas)like i said.. there is plenty of source material to check out.

[Wolf]

This is almost bizarre. I click on a link that says "Bush's speech[sp] to the nation", and here I am watching Acrkiu and Gunwounds debate whether or not sexual proficiency can be taught.

Jeez, didn't know that Bush was a sex icon.

[Acriku]

;) If you're into the whole monkey thing (thinking back to that parody picture of Bush as a monkey).

[GUNWOUNDS]

;) If you're into the whole monkey thing (thinking back to that parody picture of Bush as a monkey).

    :D

[nemafakei]

This is a thoroughly depressing view of humanity. You are quite seriously putting me off 6 billion individuals. It's... the notion that people think in these terms... social reclusion is the way to go. Evening.