|
|
|
|
|
| Any Virgins or those practicing Celibacy
Posted: 10/22/2009 3:24:11 PM | ^^^
I would rather have great sex once that I will remember for the rest of my life than to have sex all the time that is forgettable.
If you are having "forgettable sex", something is wrong.
If that's the case, then yes, why bother?
And if you wait until marriage, you won't know until it is too late if you are even compatible sexually.
One of you may end up liking it WAAAAAAYYYYYYY more than the other, (or be more kinky, etc!)
Turns out the glue you purchased isn't what you wanted, and the sales receipt says you can't return it!
... then what???
  | |
|
| Any Virgins or those practicing Celibacy
Posted: 10/22/2009 3:28:00 PM | Imulysses,
The desire yes but I am a responsible adult and know that I do not "have" to act on them. I do not know how other people feel if a relationship fizzles out after a few times in bed. Not my call. depending on the man I may feel hurt, disappointed, sad, relieved. What I know for myself is I am not getting naked with someone unless I have an emotional connection. For me that takes time and a lot of talking. There are many different kinds of relationship. I want to be on the same page ( that is have the same relationship goals ) as the person I am seeking. For me that is long term-cohabitation and Yes marriage. Exploring a relationship with those goals in mind does not necessarily mean it will happen it just means we are exploring relationship with that in mind. | |
|
| Any Virgins or those practicing Celibacy
Posted: 10/22/2009 3:32:10 PM | Hi, Arabianangel. Thank you for your comments. I don't necessarily wish to turn this into the kind of debate I wished to avoid (religion/non-religion) but I do have some questions or comments to make.
1) "The only thing that endangers your soul is FEAR. "
This depends on whether you believe you have an immortal soul that will be punished or blessed when you suffer physical death. Christians believe that sin effectively kills the soul, and that Jesus Christ annuls that death, having paid the penalty Himself. If, however, you don't believe in God, or in damnation for earthly sin, there is no fear, I suppose, or consequences for any deeds done against the proscribed teachings of the Lord.
It might seem irrational to some, but fear is normal and healthy part of life. It keeps us from doing dumb things that might be harmful. The only difference is that the divine and eternal consequences of 'sin' are not as readily seen as the consequences of drunk driving, speeding, or eating bad food.
Biblically, a healthy fear of God is often seen as a positive and leads to life (" The fear of the LORD [is] a fountain of life, to depart from the snares of death." ( Proverb 14:27)). Just a thought.
2) "Well if there are no guarantees than your bible isn’t much to go by now is it?"
My comment was about sex before marriage being seen as a way to 'enhance' a relationship or to increase the odds of it lasting indefinitely. It was not about the Biblical guarentees of salvation. I am willing to debate those with you but in another thread or in private emails.
3) "There is never a NEED to go further, nor is there a NEED to NOT go further…but anything that has a touch of fear in it will be unnatural. Some people do get turned on my kissing and cuddling which most often does lead to sex, I mean don’t listen to me, listen to your OWN body."
Good point. But I disagree that fear is unnatural; if you drive in Calgary, fear becomes a very 'natural' part of what you do  . But I think what you mean is that you see an act, sex or otherwise, performed out of fear, is not healthy at all. I agree in that case. As for kissing and cuddling, my original point was about WHY it had to go as far as sex, and why women (in my experience), can't be satisfied with just that for pleasure and physical intimacy, at least until marriage? Wasn't that the case before the so-called 'sexual revolution?' What changed? Peer pressure? Values? Expectations? All the above? Why doesn't it work now, like it did over 100 years ago? Curious.
4) "We’re a product of many things, environment is one of them. The only difference in today and yesterday is that people are now able to think on their own without fear of retribution."
I believe you're saying that we are more permissive now than ever, correct? As for retribution, that's a tricky one. One the one hand, unwed mothers have exploded whereas before they were anthema, along with all kinds of social diseases too. Now we spend billions to care for teen parentsm, and billions more trying to 'educate' people in safe sex.
With all due respect, then, if this is the result of 'thinking on their own without fear of retribution' is probably not a good thing. Sexual liberation, from this side, does not seem to be the panacea that people thought; it's brought with it its own set of baggage with it, and campaigns for more responsible behavour have not done much good. Maybe a bit 'less' thinking, in this case, is required. Thoughts?
Ulysses. | |
|
| Any Virgins or those practicing Celibacy
Posted: 10/22/2009 3:35:25 PM | I DO believe in sex before marrige. The majority of normal adults see sex as an ingrated part of relationship. Sure it may happen sooner or later. I would have a zero interest dating a virgin in an adult age (I am not talking about HS). Nor I would have ANY interest in dating this born again Christan type. Who apperently had sex before me but now it is not coming my way.
Reationship without sex will keep me very frustrated. Kissing is not enough because the erection will present on my part and I will want to go further.
The above post ^^^^^^^^^^^^
Men and women need to have a some sort of sexual act to get off. Those hand jobs that we were getting in HS is a low calliber sexual satisfaction. No normal self respectful females will limit themselves to just cuddling (if they are in relationship) or exchange those hand jobs. You will come across as you Can NOT meet their sexual needs and women d not like it. | |
|
| |
| Any Virgins or those practicing Celibacy
Posted: 10/22/2009 3:49:53 PM |
And if you wait until marriage, you won't know until it is too late if you are even compatible sexually
- Yes, but that is very, very rare. I'd like to see statistics on that one. Let's not talk about things that will likely never happen.
One of you may end up liking it WAAAAAAYYYYYYY more than the other, (or be more kinky, etc!)</
- Yes, and most of those partners who are picky about sex are like that because they have had multiple partners, and want a little of the best they had with each... a problem he will be avoiding by waiting for the real deal, the one, and not sampling the buffet. Innocence is bliss! While that statement could sound funny, it is also very true. In fact, one of the core attributes of the nature of romantic love is Innocence.
You are really stretching here, trying to come up with excuses for not waiting for marriage for sex... and these excuses don't fly.
One of the rules of a happy and healthy relationship is to give your partner sex and affection whenever they want it. It's not going to kill you, LOL! | |
|
| Any Virgins or those practicing Celibacy
Posted: 10/22/2009 3:53:30 PM | I'm a 42 y/o virgin. I wish I could practice celebacy...Don't make it more than a week or two at most. I'm thankful that in my late 30's my sex drive started to wind down a bit so it isn't as much of a distraction.
Do I want sex...sure...I want to have sex on the night of my wedding. Before then, I don't intend to have sex with any women I date.....although I pray I'm strong enough...I haven't yet dated any woman that would willingly snuggle with me since I was 15....so I have a long way to go before I can even get meaningfully engaged to get married. | |
|
| Any Virgins or those practicing Celibacy
Posted: 10/22/2009 4:22:28 PM | Maybe Yes...
Believe me, I will test drive a woman before I place a ring on her finger. And hell ya something is wrong if the sex is forgettable. But when you are in a committed relationship with a woman who gets all religious and sexually conservative... what choice do you have?
I ended up leaving her, but not because of the sex. | |
|
| Any Virgins or those practicing Celibacy
Posted: 10/22/2009 4:29:57 PM |
Why can't a kiss be just a kiss and a warm cuddle be a cuddle,without the'need' to further ? Thouhts
Now I know why some gals don't go for a christian Brothers for a date they rather prefer a heathen *bad boy* for a date... | |
|
| Any Virgins or those practicing Celibacy
Posted: 10/22/2009 5:00:39 PM | Virgin....lost virginity....sex addict....celibate.....sex addict....recovering sex addict...born again virgin....waiting for the one who is mature, emotionally stable and practicing safe sex.
Chuckle...good one Vanilli.
I started as the catholic school girl....played the role to a T...LOL...contributed to my distorted view of healthy relationship.
No use crying over it, its in the past.
Happier, healthier, wiser. | |
|
| Any Virgins or those practicing Celibacy
Posted: 10/22/2009 5:40:31 PM | "Now I know why some gals don't go for a christian Brothers for a date they rather prefer a heathen *bad boy* for a date... "
They kiss and cuddle better, Vannili? Actually, that's a whole other kettle of clamchowder there. Still it makes a very interesting point too. I grew up believing only a jerk would force a woman to have sex, that women were more reserved about it. It was a shock, then, for me to find out that they were after ME for sex when I started dating.
I still find it amazing, actually; not that I'm so loaded with pheromones that women want to rip of my jeans on site. That said, a bad boy might 'rock' your world, but they invariably get bored and go 'rocking' somewhere else. It's usually the 'good' boy that has to come in and pick up the pieces and steady it again.
Just a thought.
Ulysses. | |
|
| Any Virgins or those practicing Celibacy
Posted: 10/22/2009 5:44:54 PM | | ^^^ It is not about a good or bad boy. It is about who she will enjoy, care about, have feelings for and yes he is suppose to know how to give her a good F***. | |
|
| Any Virgins or those practicing Celibacy
Posted: 10/22/2009 6:36:22 PM |
my original point was about WHY it had to go as far as sex, and why women (in my experience), can't be satisfied with just that for pleasure and physical intimacy,
You keep asking that same question over and over again. Why. The reason is it's one of the most powerful biological urges that human beings have. It's that simple.
Wasn't that the case before the so-called 'sexual revolution?' What changed? Peer pressure? Values? Expectations? All the above? Why doesn't it work now, like it did over 100 years ago? Curious.
Why do you assume that to be the case? Are you assuming NO ONE had premarital sex before marriage before the sexual revolution? You'd be wrong on that one. In those days it simply wasn't that well advertised. It doesn't "work" now for the same reasons it didn't work then. Sex is a natural physical urge. Look, if you don't want to have sex before getting married, the DON'T. Who really cares! I hope it works out well for you. I seriously doubt it but I hope it does.
I believe you're saying that we are more permissive now than ever, correct?
No. More realistic.
campaigns for more responsible behavour have not done much good.
Because those campaigns have been based on fear and not on education. Look how long it took to get ANY kind of sex education in classrooms. Because those campaigns have been based on ignorant notions of, for example, abstinance only attempts to stop sex. How utterly stupid that was. We can all see how well that worked can't we. | |
|
| Any Virgins or those practicing Celibacy
Posted: 10/22/2009 7:22:35 PM |
It is not about a good or badboy.It is about who she will enjoy,care about, have feelings for and yes he is suppose to know how to give her a good F***
Well, you are so intelligent than I thought , and the bonus is you are not bad looking at all, but you're so vulgar for any decent woman taste.. | |
|
| Any Virgins or those practicing Celibacy
Posted: 10/22/2009 7:40:03 PM |
Now I know why some gals don't go for a christian Brothers for a date they rather prefer a heathen *bad boy* for a date...
Hahahaha no comment LOL | |
|
| |
| Any Virgins or those practicing Celibacy
Posted: 10/22/2009 7:59:34 PM | | This has probably been said before in this thread a few times, but marriage is an ARBITRARY DATE set on the calendar in comparison to the natural intimacies and bonds, emotional and otherwise, that might be developing between any two people. When you look upon it this way, there's really nothing "inherently sacred" about marriage, other than it representing, in most cases, a "public codification" of two people's "private commitment" to each other, and all that that entails to them. | |
|
| Any Virgins or those practicing Celibacy
Posted: 10/22/2009 10:33:40 PM | Hi Bluesman 2008. Interesting post. Here's my thoughts:
1) "You keep asking that same question over and over again. Why. The reason is it's one of the most powerful biological urges that human beings have. It's that simple. "
That's not an answer, that's an explanation. I know that we have a biological imperative for sex but even married couples don't spend their time in bed all the time. I'm simply wondering why it has to go that way for people before marriage? Maybe that is a foolish comment and I expect the answer to be 'why the heck not?' My own thought is it isn't required but we have been socially conditioned now to believe it is not only acceptable but if it is not happening, one or both partners is not really serious about the relationship. Thoughts?
2) "Why do you assume that to be the case? Are you assuming NO ONE had premarital sex before marriage before the sexual revolution? You'd be wrong on that one. In those days it simply wasn't that well advertised. It doesn't "work" now for the same reasons it didn't work then. Sex is a natural physical urge. Look, if you don't want to have sex before getting married, the DON'T. Who really cares! I hope it works out well for you. I seriously doubt it but I hope it does."
Why do you assume it was? I'm not so naive to think that it wasn't going on but I also know that in an era when the only forms of birth control was 1) abstinence or 2) withdrawl before orgasm, it is interesting to note that there were fewer cases of teen pregnancy and, apparently, fewer incidents of social diseases too. The social pressures, too, were different, and women (especially) were considered slutty if people found out they were cohabitating without marriage or if young girls were 'going all the way' as it was coloquially known. Funny how that turned on it's head; now it's considered 'weird' if you have not had sex in your teens or later. If I'm wrong on this point, and any older men or women can tell me otherwise, I'm willing to accept that. Also, marriages were more stable, too, it seems. Some would say that was a result of tougher divorce laws. That, though, is the simpleton's answer because laws are organic and evolve to suit the times. It was the changing values that ultimately doomed tougher divorce laws, much like the present case where gays can get "married" something that, even 10 years ago, was seen as ridiculous.
3) "No. More realistic."
Maybe. Again, laws reflect the times. But then that also proves my earlier point if you follow that logic.
4) "Because those campaigns have been based on fear and not on education. Look how long it took to get ANY kind of sex education in classrooms. Because those campaigns have been based on ignorant notions of, for example, abstinance only attempts to stop sex. How utterly stupid that was. We can all see how well that worked can't we."
Ok, can I be blunt here? THAT IS A LOAD OF CRAP! With all due respect, I think fear is a great motivator to changing or altering behaviour. Knowledge tends to be neutral and people can use it for positive good or negativity; it doesn't have values but can be used to create them. Nuclear energy is a classic example of it; we can use the knowledge of fission to create incredible energies OR we can use it to wipe out continents. It is FEAR of the latter that has kept that from happening, not knowledge of it. Fear, then, is part of the value-judgement mechanism and it can be very healthy when applied to the positive good. But we have taken that away, it seems, or tried too, from our relationships. We have tried to reduce the fear of consequences (ie. pregnancy and social diseases) by the use of devices, such as the Pill or condoms, so that we can better enjoy the pleasures of sexuality. That, in turn, seems to have caused a shift in our values and made us, arguably, more permissive. But it has NOT WORKED well, even with all this 'Knowledge' you speak of, nor has it prevented or lessened incidents of teenage births, marital breakdowns, or social diseases. Look up the statistics and see if I'm wrong.
Any more thoughts, from anyone?
Ulysses. | |
|
| Any Virgins or those practicing Celibacy
Posted: 10/22/2009 10:51:18 PM | Hi Heartune,
thank you for your comment. I have heard the idea that 'marriage is an arbitrary date set on the calendar' and I think you have a sincere point. My boss is 'married' to his 'wife' but it's a paper-marriage; they are common law. In my religous view, a marriage is something that is santificed before God in the presence of a minster or a legally-empowered government official. In both cases it means that the couple have made a public declaration that they are a legally exclusive couple. When I asked my very liberal friends why THEY decided to get married, his wife said 'I wanted to make sure he was always in my bed.' I smiled and said 'I'm sure you can find ways of taking care of that.' She told me, in rather mischievous way, that 'yeah, but this way, he is LEGALLY obligated to be there, too.'
I tend to believe that when two people are truly serious, are truly in love and committed to each other through thick an thin, happy or sad, rich or poor, marriage is a natural and desirable expression of that. It's too easy, even now, for my boss and his wife to break up as it seems they have one foot in the single arena. But once you make it nice and legal, that's it, you are there and you have to make it work .
Unfortunately, looser divorce laws have diluted the seriousness of even this. Maybe that's why people can say that there is 'really nothing inherently sacred about marriage.' But I think that that, too, is an outcropping of our value/moral shift.
Just a thought.
Ulysses. | |
|
| Any Virgins or those practicing Celibacy
Posted: 10/22/2009 11:19:58 PM |
Hi Hearttune,
thank you for your comment. I have heard the idea that 'marriage is an arbitrary date set on the calendar' and I think you have a sincere point. My boss is 'married' to his 'wife' but it's a paper-marriage; they are common law. In my religious view, a marriage is something that is sanctificed before God in the presence of a minster or a legally-empowered government official. In both cases it means that the couple have made a public declaration that they are a legally exclusive couple. When I asked my very liberal friends why THEY decided to get married, his wife said 'I wanted to make sure he was always in my bed.' I smiled and said 'I'm sure you can find ways of taking care of that.' She told me, in rather mischievous way, that 'yeah, but this way, he is LEGALLY obligated to be there, too.'
I tend to believe that when two people are truly serious, are truly in love and committed to each other through thick an thin, happy or sad, rich or poor, marriage is a natural and desirable expression of that. It's too easy, even now, for my boss and his wife to break up as it seems they have one foot in the single arena. But once you make it nice and legal, that's it, you are there and you have to make it work .
Unfortunately, looser divorce laws have diluted the seriousness of even this. Maybe that's why people can say that there is 'really nothing inherently sacred about marriage.' But I think that that, too, is an outcropping of our value/moral shift.
Just a thought.
Ulysses.
So you have your bias. I'm fine with that. You're biased towards "outside" authorities "sanctifying" and "preserving" love and marriage:
--"In my religious view, a marriage is something that is sanctified before God in the presence of a minster or a legally-empowered government official."
--"But once you make it nice and legal, that's it, you are there and you have to make it work ."
--"Unfortunately, looser divorce laws have diluted the seriousness of even this."
This much is pretty clear from what you wrote.
I, on the other hand, have my own bias. I have no inherent interest or need of outside authorities to sanctify or preserve my love for another. I rely upon my own authority, in conjunction with whomever I'm involved with.
Sure, I've been married before, and there are certain legal/financial advantages for me and my partner to have done so. I also did enjoy the "arbitrary date" (1 year after we had bought a home and property together) when we chose to write our own ceremony, celebrate our love for each other, and publicly codify the legal/financial advantages that were available to us.
We're just not birds-of-a-feather when it comes to our biases, perspectives of such things. That's all. To each their own. I'm down with that.  | |
|
| Any Virgins or those practicing Celibacy
Posted: 10/22/2009 11:47:49 PM |
That's not an answer, that's an explanation.
Look for crissakes. If you don't want to have sex don't have sex. Who cares. You want to justify your beliefs, you're wasting our time. Don't have sex. By all means. | |
|
| Any Virgins or those practicing Celibacy
Posted: 10/23/2009 12:07:09 AM |
This makes me wonder about the role of sex in a relationship. One poster, and I believe rightly, said that sex was the glue that holds a relationship together; something I would take as an axiom, especially in terms of married people as I tend to believe that those are the most stable of relationships. By the same token, however, it does not fully answer my original question and that is "Why can't romance be disassociated from sex these days? Why can't a kiss be just a kiss and a warm cuddle be a cuddle, without the 'need' to go further?"
Well, a kiss CAN just be a kiss and a warm cuddle just a cuddle....but you are talking about potentially infinite months/years of just kisses and just cuddles, which for most people isn't just undesirable, but unnecessary.
The answer to your question is that most people, certainly in your (our) age group, aren't virgins and don't want to be celibates. In other words, SEX IS FUN, in fact it's the MOST fun that many people can think of having. And so while there are MANY different issues/questions going on here in this thread, the question leading into this....about WHY won't women stay with you in a sexless relationship...is pretty easy to answer: it's because they want to have sex, and they don't want to have to get married to do it.
Maybe I have been half asleep here but what I am reading is a lot of "justification" FOR SEX before marriage, but not a lot of answers to the WHY of it. WHY can't people just BE satisfied with kissing or cuddling? WHY do we "NEED" to go further in THIS day and age?
Because most of us, in this day of age, have de-mystified sex and de-sacralized virginity? But you know, it's NOT just this day and age....what's CHANGED in recent decades is the stigma attached to "fornication" (as you called it). Putting aside the "fornication"-heavy modern age, even "The Church", when it was still young, found ways around the problem of "waiting"--so for most of Christian history, non-formalized promises to wed at some point in the future were considered a legitimate basis for a sexual relationship (recognized in canon law). St Paul might not have approved, and yet "the Church" as it grew had to be more realistic than he was if it wanted its teachings and strictures even just to SEEM to be taken seriously by a massively growing membership. In other words, CONTEXT is often more compelling than literal TEXT. YOU might not think that sex is an imperative, but MOST people, historically and now, HAVE and DO. You might be comfortable bucking that, but it's a unrealistic to think that you are going to meet many women who will want to conform to this self-denying ideal of yours.
A lot of time has been spent telling us that the 'church' or 'cults' have PREVENTED us from enjoying sex, but I'm puzzled why no one has flipped the paradigm on its head and wondered if we have not now be CONDITIONED to accept that a relationship these days MUST have sex? Isn't that just as twisted as the reverse?
Can anyone offer me a reason, aside from the 'feel good' part, or the 'healthy person' part, to state a real need? My own thought is that it may not be necessary but since 'everyone's doing it, it must be ok.' That's the herd mentality and I don't follow the herd. We all have wills and I'm sure that most clothes are not designed to instantly dissolve in the presence of phermones when you're with the opposite sex.
Well I find it amusing that you are borrowing the "herd" device here, since the "herd" really still does adopt a pretty judgmental attitude towards sex "just for fun." I would say that I don't follow the herd because I don't think there's anything "wrong" or "sinful" about sex PERIOD.....(meaning, fully CONSENSUAL sex between adults). I make some exceptions to that on ethical/professional grounds when it comes to power relationships (like teachers/students, for example, as a teacher of young adults myself)....but for the most part, my attitude is very laissez-faire.
I'm afraid I'm one of those who feels that religious teachings do twist people up and try to prevent enjoyment when it comes to sex, and this is because (I think obviously) that for most of Christian history, the principal purpose for trying to control things like contraception has been exactly because it allows for sex "just for fun," whereas traditional teachings about sex construct it as for no purpose but procreation. Protestants tend to be more happy about "fun sex" WITHIN marriage than Roman Catholics have been (historically, at least--although Catholics are now relaxing on this while some Protestant fundamentalist groups are moving in the opposite direction).
OP, how about YOU tell US why it makes sense to teach ideas that would lead a man in his 40s to deny himself the kind of pleasure and long-term relationship that could come from following his very natural sexual urges (assuming that you do have those urges)? Can you think of any rational reason for this, beyond scriptural imperative? And if you can't, don't you think that making such a significant life choice based ONLY on a few words in a book, is a bit.....self-abusive?
Can anyone offer me a reason, aside from the 'feel good' part, or the 'healthy person' part, to state a real need?
I'm sorry to pick up on the test-drive language, but for many of us it's real. Why wouldn't I marry (or even date for very long) a man I hadn't had sex with? The answer is, first and foremost, because I wouldn't want to SERIOUSLY invest emotionally in a man (much less marry one) who I didn't know I would have a GREAT sexual relationship with. While PREFERRING lifelong celibacy, St Paul said "It's better to marry than to burn," but he also condemned the idea of divorce. Would YOU, once married, if you found that you either couldn't or weren't inclined to engage in a fulfilling sexual relationship with your wife, nevertheless expect her to stay married to you? Sex CAN BE a very real and very profound glue, holding two people together in a form of intimacy that is just very difficult (and some would say impossible) to match otherwise. It's WISE to establish some sort of understanding of the potential in that regard before making a promise binding oneself for life to another person, not least because there are few things that can be more destructive to a marriage than sexual disengagement/disappointment.
I personally believe that the reason sex has been given as much attention as it has by various religious traditions (and non-religious ones for that matter) is because of the problem of pregnancy and the historic male fear of not knowing who their children are....and it's worth noting that the Hebrews, when they wrote down their religion, provided for polygamy (for men), while setting up a model by which women (and their reproductive systems) were very heavily controlled. Early Christian thinkers (post-Jesus of course), building on this, carried on with a tradition that saw women's bodies as essentially polluting, and women themselves as Eve-like temptresses whose sexuality had to be controlled. If we've moved into a "post-virginal" age, that's largely because we've also learned how effectively to control reproduction (albeit some don't care to do that) and ALSO because women have obtained much more control over their own bodies and decisions about their lives than they ever had before. A woman doesn't HAVE to marry to get by in our modern age...and so she is MUCH more likely than ever before to remain UNmarried well past her adolescence. And post-adolescent women (like men) tend to want and like sex. WHY would and why SHOULD they pretend otherwise? | |
|
| Any Virgins or those practicing Celibacy
Posted: 10/23/2009 1:24:03 AM | | I think that virginity and celibacy is fine as long as it does not cause strain in the relationship and make things more difficult because then the relationship is not likely to last. If your just forcing yourself to stay away from sex with who you are dating even though there is strong feelings there, that has to be painful and the relationship may feel stuck even. The other thing is that if you are very religious and it sounds like you are, then you need to date people like yourself because if you date someone that isn't, your going to seem inflexible and uncompromising and wanting things your way in terms of relationships and your going to feel misunderstood which can't help the situation. | |
|
| Any Virgins or those practicing Celibacy
Posted: 10/23/2009 1:50:00 AM |
I tend to believe that when two people are truly serious, are truly in love and committed to each other through thick an thin, happy or sad, rich or poor, marriage is a natural and desirable expression of that.
You're talking fantasy land. There is no santa clause either. You have a lot to learn about life and you're not accepting any of it here so. good luck. I'm not going to respond to you any more because it's gotten simply too damned foolish. | |
|
| |
|
|
Home
login 
Ah whatever, there went 5 mins of my f'ing life I'll never get back. 
No santa and now wasted time on top of it ??? This day sucks so far.