How many people die as virgins?

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by Enoc, Oct 10, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    Err no, because norman bates was overly atached to his mummy. It wouldnt make any sense to say it if it was dad
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Orleander OH JOY!!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    25,817
    ok, so what smart ass remake could be said if his dad took him?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    none come to mind, but it would be creepy.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Orleander OH JOY!!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    25,817
    like a dad taking a daughter. I don't know the 'cutting apron strings' comparison to that.
     
  8. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    "daddy's little girl" in a REALLY creepy way
     
  9. Orleander OH JOY!!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    25,817
    I got banned from an atheist forum because I expressed my outrage over the owner talking about how he was gonna teach his daughter (then 3) how to use a shower head to masturbate. I was being too judgmental and moralistic.

    There is a difference between explaining and teaching
     
  10. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    yea, that being said i was thinking, what if the "child" (in there late 20s early 30s) was disabled and they faciliated them seeing a sex worker who specilised in dealing with the disabled:shrug:
     
  11. Anti-Flag Pun intended Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,714
    Wow, you must live in some backward hick town.
    Women have needs and desires too, and there's no shortage of ones that'll put out. If a woman lacks social skills just how is she going to get laid?
     
  12. Orleander OH JOY!!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    25,817
    only if the child was only physically disabled (not mentally) and they asked for help and the help was given by a third party, not a relative
     
  13. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    Depends what there mental disability was, what about aquired brain injury? Not all mental disabilty makes people child like.

    and im confused what you mean by "help" i was refering to taking them to a sex worker who specilised in working with the disabled. If there parent was there carer then that might well be one of the things they NEEDED to do (take them, not do it themselves oviously)
     
  14. Orleander OH JOY!!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    25,817
    You're assuming the disabled person needs sex to be happy. why?
     
  15. chimpkin C'mon, get happy! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,416
    No.
    IMO the forum owner was being sexually abusive to their child and too clueless to get it.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    The kid gets to explore the art of wank on thier own, parental help would be really just UGH!!!!

    Proper parental involvement is limited to snickering at the sudden Shutting Of The Door around puberty, which indicates the probable onset of wank.

    Good for you Orly, I'm glad you let that twatleberry have it.

    (Twatleberry: a wound-up snarl of cheap-ass toilet paper shreds and pubes, liberally marinated in dried urine and hanging in a quasi-dreadlock fashion on the outside of a skanky, unwashed vulva.
    If you see twatleberries, pull the panties back up and back away slowly.)
     
  16. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    because im not Signal?

    Ok serious answer why do YOU need to have sex? why SHOULDNT someone who is disabled have an active sex life if thats what THEY want. A careers role is to faciliate the persons life as the person desires as much as they can possible. In fact when the career imposes there OWN goals, beliefs, biases and desires over those of the person they are carring for that is actually a form of abuse.
     
  17. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,806
    Yes. Or to put it another way, the benefits apply to people who are not afraid of sex. (Same thing, opposite spin.)

    ?? They are objective and natural. Not everyone can experience them, just as not everyone can exercise, eat well, get a fulfilling job, raise a family etc.

    A man with spina bifida may not be able to safely run. But it would surely be foolish to say "therefore exercise is not objectively beneficial and natural." However, someone who does not like exercise might be tempted to claim just that to justify their own personal decisions.
     
  18. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,806
    Hmm. I can think of a few times where I eventually just said "OK already."
     
  19. KilljoyKlown Whatever Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,493
    I had a woman tell me, she was with a guy that she knew wasn't going to take 'no' for an answer. So she had sex with him rather than risk getting hurt by saying no. That's not exactly rape, but it wasn't anything that would have happened without the attitude of the guy being what it was.

    Anyway it would be a hard sell in a court of law, if she wanted to pursue it as a crime.
     
  20. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    You mean: the "benefits" apply to people who are not afraid of the side-effects of hormonal contraceptives, abortions and bearing unwanted children.

    Having sex while not desiring to have children has the potential for experiencing the damages of the side-effects of hormonal contraceptives (if those are used), abortions and bearing unwanted children (since no contraceptive is 100% failsafe).



    If they are objective and natural, everyone should be able to experience them.


    If non-procreative sex would indeed have the benfits mentioned earlier, then everyone who has non-procreative sex should experience them.

    If non-procreative sex would indeed have the benfits mentioned earlier, then it should, for example, be possible to take a group of Catholic monks and nuns, at gunpoint force them to have sex, and they would later on report to experience "greater wellbeing", "improved mental health" etc.
    The same experiment should be repeated on the elderly, children, whites, blacks, Aboriginals, rich poor, etc. etc. and bear the same positive results.
     
  21. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,806
    Basically yes.

    Yes. And exercising carries the risk of breathing pollutants, being hit by a car, having a heart attack, falling and breaking your arm, drowning in a pool etc. Everything carries risk. However, it would be foolish to argue that since there is some risk, it is better overall to avoid exercise. Indeed, medical science has proven that there are significant benefits to exercise.

    No. Running is natural. People without legs, or with bad knees, or with spina bifida, can't run. Doesn't mean it's not natural.

    I don't think Catholic monks are a great example; they seem to have sex with quite some frequency, and seem to enjoy it. Indeed, the only downside for them seems to be getting caught doing it.

    If you were forced to run 3 miles a day I bet you'd find all sorts of reasons why it was a horrible thing to force you to do. (Which makes sense; no one should be "forced" to exercise.) Nevertheless, it's a proven medical fact that exercise in general improves your health.
     
  22. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,806
    Yeah, that's a tough call. But both sides bear responsibility for consent for sex. Guys absolutely have to take "no" for an answer - but women have a responsibility to actually say no when they don't want to have it. Our society here in the US is, for better or worse, based primarily on a system of male initiative and female acceptance or rejection of that initiative. Both sides have responsibilities there.
     
  23. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    There is a difference between the risks we take in the pursuit of work or self-defense, and the risks we take in the pursuit of pleasure.

    Risks in the pursuit of work or self-defense seem justifiable, at least to some extent.
    It would be rational to minimize the risks we take in the pursuit of pleasure.


    So, basically, you're saying that people who refuse to have non-procreative sex are acting against what is objective and natural?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page