Well, whoever such a bitter, malevolent ol' bile-spitter would happen to be, they certainly would have no right to make sexual value judgments regarding the good State of Washington, renowned for its logging... and its loggers... those proud, austere Lumberjacks of the Northwestern US... with their hearty, exuberant, some might say gay lifestyle... those lumberjacks, they're ok, they sleep all night and they work all day... and they keep the great State of Washington's lingerie business booming, but don't ask me how or why, it's really not my place to judge. I won't say a word, not one little word... </font>[/QUOTE]Myself, I wanted to be a sheep farmer, but we've got some ugly sheep around here...
I'll admit that we do, on occasion, wear high heels, suspenders, and a bra. But always with a regulation hard hat (and matching thong). In case you get whacked in the head with a big piece of wood. Or something. And we do get a group discount at Victoria's Secret.

Hey, fair enough, each to their own..... [img]graemlins/1disgust.gif[/img]

;)

Personally, I've always wanted to be a pornstar. I practice every day at the gas station. Once the petrol starts flowing up the pump-hose I pull the nozzle out of the gas tank and spray petrol all over the car... ;)

It's all about the money shot... [img]smile.gif[/img]
Well, I'm off. Just got the latest copy of Shorn Quarterly today and I intend to give it a good, er, reading.

Heh heh. Yeah, get on with ya! Ya dirty ol' velcro-gloved degenerate ;) [img]tongue.gif[/img]

I think this is getting off the 'family channel'. Let's keep it PG13.

How about swingers? The get the best of two worlds. :D

I already mentioned several times that long-term committed relationships and monogamy don't have to have anything to do with each other.

Hiero and Absynthe, I laughed out loud at your comments. Shame one of the few things that amuse me on here are not permitted. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Get into sports Mel, then there's lots more to talk about. :D

Well, I think long term relationships are good, and very spicy (well mine is anyways) however it is still important to be with more than woman in your whole life I think (before you marry, obviously ;) )

You can have good little games that go on for weeks with a lover, like a little joke you hae, it can be fun. :D

In saying that a long-term relationship does not necessarily imply a monogamous one, you necessarily imply that for the majority of cases, it does. Let's face the music, here, people. While the world IS a different place, and things are OK if you are "weird" by yesterday's standards, you still have to face the pure, mathematical facts. Those, by the way, exist. Let's not overcomplicate that statement with interpretation that ultimately doesn't help us with predictive ability.

Long term relationships, while they do not preclude "sex for life," DO imply monogamy. It is beyond a person's faculty to maintain a complete, fully nurturing relationship with another human being if they are preoccupied with other human beings. This statement, you might say, could be contradicted by history, and polygamy. I, of course, would argue that those instances are instances of feminine oppression. In the modern society, where individualism is tantamount, the majority of people cannot FULLY "get to know" another person while doing the same with another.

The thing is, it is not always necessary to get to know another to have sex. Thus it is that when a person says "sex for life" they imply that, with modern conotations, a person does not have the need for a "deep" relationship.

I agree, of course, that sex is part of an intimate, responsible relationship. I also admit that it is just as much a part of what society en masse deems to be an irresponsible relationship. The thing is, sex is not really the valid determining factor here.

Really what the question is asking is whether or not you prefer a relationship of strong ties, mental, emotional, spiritual, and physical, or if your preference is to retain your independence in your more intimate dealings with people.

I would say the former, although the latter certainly has merit. Those who side with the latter sentiment are not "wrong." They are merely adhering to their own social system and living as they see fit.

However, it bothers me when some claim that monogamy is not a natural construct. This assumes that society itself is not a natural construct, which is moderately naive. Society is necessary for the growth of "humanity," and indeed we have grown much, thanks largely to it. Monogamy has been built into the system, and cold hard logic offers simple explanations as to why.

It is a practice that shows restraint on our part, which is the hallmark of societal influence. It also breeds (pardon the pun) a sense of responsibility to another into our mindsets. Teamwork is the way that the most is done, and here it is so. It is also true that monogamy is probably the best way of addressing the individual needs of people, as it allows the most time for one-on-one attention. This reduces pressure, and even can increase the enjoyment of sex as more of a leisure activity than a sport.

There isn't a wrong answer, of course, provided that you don't single handedly overpopulate the world (not even going to point out the inadvertant pun there).

EDIT: As a mildly prudish and conservative fellow regarding such matters, I am also not going to point out that this post is one shy of 70. oops

[ 02-10-2005, 01:44 AM: Message edited by: Ilander ]