[Discussion] We should think about females like sisters or mothers.....

[Hunty]

Interesting topic but this could end up in polemic if not approached properly. I completely understand your viewpoint and I am surprised people have misinterpreted it. Rosh is talking about platonic relationships, not mother and sisters in literal sense of the word. Try to be more comprehensive in your perspectives, people. This definitely has merits. Not only does this mode integrate restraint but creates a different set of social bonds that you seldom found in today's society that is so overtly sexualized to the point that it's quite gross in its overt display of primal urges.

Everything has merits and demerits, people should be aware of this. *** before marriage creates a large room for comparison between future partners, unwanted pregnancies, and foster homes for children born from teenage parents. Most kids are unable to provide for their children at that age and it creates an additional burden for the society and bring socio-economic factors into play here and it's a volatile and potentially disastrous mixture.

So yes, I definitely agree. These sides should also be promoted to create a dichotomy in societal values for appropriate balance. As balance is always created with oppositions.

Cut this bullshit.

He's obviously messed up in the head from substantial events in his life with woman; you know mother, sister, maybe even a girlfriend. He's not telling us the root to the problem.

 

[shelke]

^ Your assumption? Mother, sisters are just figures. many people give these titles to women whom they have no blood relation too. Not a bad suggestion.

 

[Howard]

Interesting topic but this could end up in polemic if not approached properly. I completely understand your viewpoint and I am surprised people have misinterpreted it. Rosh is talking about platonic relationships, not mother and sisters in literal sense of the word. Try to be more comprehensive in your perspectives, people. This definitely has merits. Not only does this mode integrate restraint but creates a different set of social bonds that you seldom found in today's society that is so overtly sexualized to the point that it's quite gross in its overt display of primal urges.

Everything has merits and demerits, people should be aware of this. *** before marriage creates a large room for comparison between future partners, unwanted pregnancies, and foster homes for children born from teenage parents. Most kids are unable to provide for their children at that age and it creates an additional burden for the society and bring socio-economic factors into play here and it's a volatile and potentially disastrous mixture.

So yes, I definitely agree. These sides should also be promoted to create a dichotomy in societal values for appropriate balance. As balance is always created with oppositions.

.-. I'm not sure how many times I have to say this, anyway I'll say it once more. You can respect someone, and be attracted to them. You don't have to make every relationship into a platonic one and doing so devalues the other person to a point. What you and the other dude are saying is simply this "even if you like a girl, don't tell her. Hide all of your feelings, and act as though she is simply your sister. Never tell her "oh hey, I think I like you" just keep that to yourself, because you are nothing more then a pervert for having 'urges'" :| Also a lot of what you said isn't because of ***, it's because of unsafe ***.

Condoms, birth control and emergency contraception are all things put in place so people can have safe sexual relationships and you're saying 'it's a volatile and potentially disastrous mixture', sure for those who don't respect themselves and their partner enough to take precaution but that doesn't mean we should all change our view on the world simply because you two think *** is bad. Telling us that 'we should treat all women like sisters or mothers' instead of potential SOs is basically saying 'go against human nature'.

^ Your assumption? Mother, sisters are just figures. many people give these titles to women whom they have no blood relation too. Not a bad suggestion.

:leaf: this whole thread reminds me of a scene in a movie

You must be registered for see links

 

[ROSH2]

Interesting topic but this could end up in polemic if not approached properly. I completely understand your viewpoint and I am surprised people have misinterpreted it. Rosh is talking about platonic relationships, not mother and sisters in literal sense of the word. Try to be more comprehensive in your perspectives, people. This definitely has merits. Not only does this mode integrate restraint but creates a different set of social bonds that you seldom found in today's society that is so overtly sexualized to the point that it's quite gross in its overt display of primal urges.

Everything has merits and demerits, people should be aware of this. *** before marriage creates a large room for comparison between future partners, unwanted pregnancies, and foster homes for children born from teenage parents. Most kids are unable to provide for their children at that age and it creates an additional burden for the society and bring socio-economic factors into play here and it's a volatile and potentially disastrous mixture.

So yes, I definitely agree. These sides should also be promoted to create a dichotomy in societal values for appropriate balance. As balance is always created with oppositions.

+ rep for you

 

[shelke]

.-. I'm not sure how many times I have to say this, anyway I'll say it once more. You can respect someone, and be attracted to them. You don't have to make every relationship into a platonic one and doing so devalues the other person to a point. What you and the other dude are saying is simply this "even if you like a girl, don't tell her. Hide all of your feelings, and act as though she is simply your sister. Never tell her "oh hey, I think I like you" just keep that to yourself, because you are nothing more then a pervert for having 'urges'" Also a lot of what you said isn't because of ***, it's because of unsafe ***.

Condoms, birth control and emergency contraception are all things put in place so people can have safe sexual relationships and you're saying 'it's a volatile and potentially disastrous mixture', sure for those who don't respect themselves and their partner enough to take precaution but that doesn't mean we should all change our view on the world simply because you two think *** is bad. Telling us that 'we should treat all women like sisters or mothers' instead of potential SOs is basically saying 'go against human nature'.

Not all people are level-headed and teen pregnancies and STDs are still a major risk and a very real factor. You have to look at the majority to form a viable opinion, not a handful of people to develop some sort of hypothesis.

Don't even go there, as I never even once implied *** is bad. I simply talked about precautions and repercussions of sexual overload. Human nature, in fact all nature is about procreation. *** for fun is a human invented logic, it's nothing to do with biology. The sole purpose of creatures is to pass on their genetic traits to their offspring, so putting on a condom is going against nature from the get go.

Sure, there are primates who use *** for socialization, for pleasure through lesbian activities even, but their winnowing is still natural due to the order of survival and natural selection which is largely absent in humans and as a result you have this huge population explosion with no way to curb it. Therefore, the comparison is not even valid. Try to look at all factors before devising an opinion. It reeks of one-sidedness and frankly speaking 'sexual revolution' which is just an ideology.

 

[Joebama]

How about we just think of every person as just a person? It would make everything so much easier.