she had a 3-sum, then wanted a relationship

[KarmaSutra]

Sex is natural amongst adults not children, children naturally do not sexually develop sexually until they are 15-16. These days because of all the hormones pumped into our food kids are starting puberty as young as 7 years old.

Historically speaking 15-16 would be the age that sex would start to become incorporated into a persons life.

Oh and here is a news flash child molesters are predominantly found in countries that have a repressed views towards sex. Your fear of sex feeds itself, you create your own monsters.

Nicely said my friend. :yes:

 

[NickBe]

As for your comments about casual Gay encounters, there is nothing wrong with that if it is something that you find appealing.

Last year I attended a swingers party, I went mainly to see what it was like. It wasn't your normal run of the mill swingers part with fat married couples it was an exclusive party with good looking, young people. I ended up having sex with this 30 something, stunningly gorgeous 10/10 model and to be honest is was the best sex of my life. Half way through this skinny brunette joined in and it was great. When arriving you had to have a recent STD test in hand and the rules were simple, you had to wear a condom and you had to ask first.

I did it because surfing the net I came by some porn of a swingers/orgy party in Europe. It looked interesting and I felt like I would enjoy something like that. I did not repress the feeling and pretend it wasn't there then go shoot somebody because of how confused and angry I am.

P.S. Thanks KarmaSutra

 

[Create Reality]

NickBe what is your issue to bring this drama into my thread?

 

[KarmaSutra]

NickBe what is your issue to bring this drama into my thread?

Jesus-thefvckbastard-Christ! He's not bringing drama to this thread. He's bringing a level headed and objective point of view. Don't fall into limited thinking brother.

 

[NickBe]

NickBe what is your issue to bring this drama into my thread?

Not at all this just got a little off track when wjh brought up child molestation although i was making a point when you called her a *****.

You are right though, a girl that confused should be forgotten about. If she says she want a relationship then talks about a 3sum she is obviously not interested in staying committed to a monogamous relationship. If you want a monogamous relationship then she is not your girl.

 

[socalrunner]

wow. this thread totally turned in the wrong direction. wjh has some good points he is bringing in this thread so don't flame him so easily.

 

[Master Bates]

Immaturity?

You were the one espousing violence against me after claiming that the reason American's are so violent is because of their puritanical sexual beliefs.

All I'm saying is for you to follow your own advice. I think some casual gay encounters, incestuous orgies, and bestiality will cure your level of aggression right away!

You're the one comparing sex between consenting adults to having sex with a 7 year old. You're beyond immature. You're f*cked up.

 

[wjh]

You're the one comparing sex between consenting adults to having sex with a 7 year old. You're beyond immature. You're f*cked up.

You guys are so dense.

I'm making an obvious point.

I'm not COMPARING sex between consenting adults to having sex with a seven year old.

I'm highlighting the ludicrous assumption that sex is open, natural, not a big deal, like watching grass grow FOR EVERYONE. It's a no boundaries, no consequences, no problem approach that I find falsely misleading and terribly untrue in many cases.

 

[DJVladdy]

Disclaimer: I'm a Russian, and this might not be for u

I would call her a skanky hoe for sleeping behind my back. A fvckin threesome??? So the b!tch is a slut, a perv, and a dyke 3 in 1. I would say "dont even let me see u again"

 

[NickBe]

Nobody suggested sex did not have consequences that is just an assumption construed by your 'dense' mind. What I did say is that sex is natural and people who have it should not be condemned for it.

I also said that the obvious sexual repression that America suffers from is part of the reason America has more serial rapist/killers and child molesters than most other civilized countries.

The way you went about making your point which was based on let's be honest words that you put in my mouth was immature. That is why people are annoyed with you.

I do not suggest that sex has no consequences or is not important. All I am saying is just because your repressed sexuality only allows you to examine sex within the boundaries of what is commonly socially acceptable it does not mean others should be limited in the same way. I am saying that a persons urge to have sex is perfectly natural and if he/she decided to act on these urges prudish people such as yourself should not apply titles such as wh*re or slut to said person.

It displays an extreme degree of ignorance on your part acting as if just because you are repressed it means other should be also. We do not all choose to lead the same closed off, boundary full lifestyle you do.

I also pointed out the difference between America and Europe when it comes to sex and how surprisingly less serial killers/rapist and child molesters seem to pop up in countries in which sex is a more open book subject.

 

[Scorched]

Good thing you nexted her!

 

[wjh]

Nobody suggested sex did not have consequences that is just an assumption construed by your 'dense' mind. What I did say is that sex is natural and people who have it should not be condemned for it.

I also said that the obvious sexual repression that America suffers from is part of the reason America has more serial rapist/killers and child molesters than most other civilized countries.

The way you went about making your point which was based on let's be honest words that you put in my mouth was immature. That is why people are annoyed with you.

I do not suggest that sex has no consequences or is not important. All I am saying is just because your repressed sexuality only allows you to examine sex within the boundaries of what is commonly socially acceptable it does not mean others should be limited in the same way. I am saying that a persons urge to have sex is perfectly natural and if he/she decided to act on these urges prudish people such as yourself should not apply titles such as wh*re or slut to said person.

It displays an extreme degree of ignorance on your part acting as if just because you are repressed it means other should be also. We do not all choose to lead the same closed off, boundary full lifestyle you do.

I also pointed out the difference between America and Europe when it comes to sex and how surprisingly less serial killers/rapist and child molesters seem to pop up in countries in which sex is a more open book subject.

OK, one more time for you.

All I'm pointing out is that boundaries exist, many times for good reasons, for many people. WHY those boundaries exist, for whatever reason, is NONE of your business and your opinion is as enlightening as watching dust settle. People are lot more complex than you're giving them credit for. If YOU don't wish to live by that, then YOU don't have to. Imposing your ideas of sexuality on others, by rudely rejecting that other people have differing ideas about sex, is foolish and indicative of elitist ideals.

If YOU wish to have sex with monkeys, or commit whatever unbounded sexual act YOU wish, that's fine. Go for it! I don't really give a damn about what YOU do. But correlating rape/murder/serial killers in America to sexual "repression" that, for some reason or another, you can't seem to quantify is incredibly misleading and OFF mark.

As I pointed out, with my comments about the 7 year old girl, OBVIOUSLY a boundary should exist there. JUST AS other boundaries should exist for many people in many scenarios.

You want to do what you want to do? Go for it. More power to you.

CONSEQUENCES DO EXIST. And that's the problem with your assertion that people should/can have sex, without limitations, in any fashion their hearts desire. OF COURSE they shouldn't ALWAYS do that because there are OBVIOUS consequences and OBVIOUS emotional, physical, and social problems that coincide with a "freedom" of imposed sexual exploits.

I'm not a PRUDE anymore than you are someone who is trying to impose his beliefs on others. All I've been trying to say is that YOU cannot tell ME that your opinions on sexuality and their consequences are SUPERIOR to mine because it's a very personal thing.

THAT'S my point and you don't seem to get it.

 

[NickBe]

Are you an idiot? did I not spend my last post saying that sex has consequences? Stop puttign words in my mouth!

My point is that a person should not have a title such as slut or ***** applied to them just because they are promiscuous. I am not imposing my beliefs on anybody.

The reasons why serial rapist/killers so what they do is well documented. Many profilers, psychologist attribute the actions of these people in part to the effects of sexual repression.

You are putting words in my mouth, I said sex is a perfectly natural desire and people should not be condemned for acting on said desire. You somehow twist that into me saying sex should have no boundaries, no limits and has no consequences. Stop putting words in my mouth to defend your childish, immature comment.

Sex is natural and people should not be given demeaning titles for doing what it is in their nature to do. That is the only ****ing point I am making and it is the last I will say on this subject.

 

[Holland]

No the problem is not her wanting to experiment, that's completely cool. The problem is she said she wanted a "relationship" and then she tells me she had a 3-sum. Make up your mind ho!

HAHAHAHA, Poor Create Reality.
You're just pissed that you forgot the fact that women and attraction are not logical. She was just using you for attention and validation.
You we're not having a relationship or going to have one.
You didn't even fuuck her.
The only one responsible for all this rant is you.

Agreed with Nickbe. wjh, you make aboslutely no sense.

 

[wjh]

Are you an idiot? did I not spend my last post saying that sex has consequences?

No, you gave your elistist shpeil on your views of sex. Consequences had nothing to do with it.

My point is that a person should not have a title such as slut or ***** applied to them just because they are promiscuous. I am not imposing my beliefs on anybody and the reasons why serial rapist/killers so what they do is well documented. Many profilers, psychologist attribute the actions of these people in part to sexual repression.

Ya, how about some evidence for your claims? Hmm... Let's not blame plain ole' psychosis? Nahhh, if only Charles Manson wasn't so sexually repressed... THAT would have stopped the slaughter of Sharon Tate :yes:

And when did I ever call a girl a slut or a wh0re? I never did. In fact, nothing I'm replying to has anything to do with that.

Why are you even replying to me in the same manner as the OP when you're all hurt over something I never even said or encouraged?

You are putting words in my mouth, I said sex is a perfectly natural desire and people should not be condemned for acting up said desire. You somehow twist that into me say sex should have no boundaries, no limits and has no consequences. Stop putting words in my mouth to defend your childish, immature comment.

When did I say people should be condemned for having normal sex? Should people be condemned for the more obscene acts of sexual "expression"? I believe so. I believe boundaries do need to exist for the sake of not ending up a modern Babylon. Sex with animals, indecent exploitation of sexuality, or whatever - has obvious social and moral implications.

Sex is natural and people should not be given demeaning titles for doing what it is in their nature to do. That is the only ****ing point I am making and it is the last I will say on this subject.

MY last point, since you can't seem to figure out what I'm saying and you want to give up anyway, is that just because something is "natural" to you does not make it right.

It's natural for the pedophile to prey on little boys and girls.
It's natural for the serial killer to slaughter.
It's natural for the schizophrenic to create vast delusions of grandeur.
It's natural X
It's natural Y
It's natural Z

And who's to be the "it's natural so therefor its OK" authority? You?

Where does the line get crossed? If it's so natural... Should there be a line?

It's too personal of an act for you to judge people who are "sexually repressed".

I never once condoned the use of words like slut or wh0re. So get that out of your head and start paying attention.

 

[NickBe]

You did not use the words but you started an argument with me when all I was doing was saying that somebody should not be called a slut or *****. Nobody agrees with you man, give up your argument is idiotic and all you are doing is puttign words in my mouth.

By the way I know my serial killers, it is a subject that interests me. Charles Manson's mother was a prostitute who was rebelling against her mothers strict views on sex. She was in and out of jail too because she was raised in a household which forced sexual repression upon her. Charles Manson was predominantly raised by his Aunt and Uncle who were deeply religious and very strict when it came to sex like all strict Christians are.

So yes I believe if he was raised in a house in which sex was more of an open subject he might not have become who he became. If you look into the lives of most serial killers you will find the same story. It is a undeniable trend, even the female ones.

 

[NickBe]

double post...

 

[wjh]

You did not use the words but you started an argument with me when all I was doing was saying that somebody should not be called a slut or *****. Nobody agrees with you man, give up your argument is idiotic and all you are doing is puttign words in my mouth.

OK. Wanna have sex?

 

[I.A.F.Y.B.]

This girl I met a few weeks back tells me the other day she had a 3-sum with her best friend and this guy. We already had a sort of relationship going but when she told me this, it kind of made me see how our relationship was going.

So while you and this girl have a "relationship" going.. she goes and have a 3 way? I think thats called; CHEATING. Unless I'm misunderstanding you.

Total friend zone BS I'm pretty sure. I told her there are some things we shouldn't tell each other, and she says she only told me because "I listened" to her.

Your gonna be her next emotional tampon.

Today I told her I didn't see her as relationship material (because my gut feeling tells me she's a dirty wh0re) but she could still see me as a fvck buddy. Then she gets angry and says, "I'm not a sex toy, screw you!" blah blah blah.

I hadn't even boinked her yet, the sad part. But she lured me in with the promise sexual gratification in exchange for attention.

So, you havnt sexed her yet. But, she will go have a 3-way without you.
I think calling her out was the right thing to do. Now, I would next this hor unless you just want to be f$ck buddys.

 

[Snow Plowman]

Skimmed through and I agree with Nickbe (As far as I read)

You guys must have never read the famous "Secret Society" post. Basically it talks about the double standards, there are guys who get special treatment from girls. (Gifts, 3somes, sex quickly, etc) Meanwhile there is the regular guys who have to wait a long time to get sex.

You my friend weren't in the secret society. (The post goes pretty out of character to prove the point but its a great post)

So what if she had a 3some while she said she wanted to have a relationship. You don't have a relationship with her yet. If I was in your case I'd be happy because now I have a girl who can help me start 3somes.

You broke one of the biggest rules of "Secret Society" and that is you were judgmental about what she did sexually. You are never to do that, this is why many people don't get much crazy sex, because they jugde women.

Lesson learned don't do that again. That was real stupid.