Lonely in the sense that they don't have sex? Ah, what a grief!
First of all, I don't think that marriage is an outcome of love. Why is marriage necessary? What is marriage at all? I really don't understand what connexion it has with the pure love I am speaking about.
Lonely in the sense that they don't have CHILDRENS.
I asked a very simple question, if you are unable to answer it as all other questions I asked you it is because you are glaringly ignorent, and only have a very limited knowledge and understanding of the subject.
You have excelent rethorics, but that doesn't fool me, as it already have fooled another.
Hex, I see there is misunderstanding of me on thy behalf. I am not going to exercise in rhetorics and don't have time for that. What I am saying is an attempt to convey what I ACTUALLY feel, so be quiet on this account.
I think I gave thee clear answer on thy "simple question". I really think that the reason people enter in conflict (divorcement in particular) with each other is that they don't have true love to one another. If thou art unsatisfied with that, please ask what directly is unclear in my respond.
So, whom they need women or children? I mean that children may be adopted, therefore where is here loneliness?
Besides that children are not the thing that makes life happy and one can pretty happily live without them.
There are nothing unclear in your respond, as you seemingly don't understand the concept of ignorence. I begin to think you just have a very distorted view on the whole matter.
Yes, perhaps I do not understand the concept of ignorance. Try to explain what thou meanst thereby.
Let's just say you imo know only 1/4 of all there is to know about love, then you go off assuming you know EVERYTHING about love, by that it would only be a matter of time before you would get sufficient knowledge about love to actually make some good result in providing advice ..etc.
..unfortunaly there's this thing as misconception, distorted thinking ..etc, which will prevent one from ever understanding more of given subject, that's why only so few becomes geniouses, because the majority are too stupid ..riddled with fauly thinking.
Midlife crisis it is revaluation of vital values. If in 45 years you won't have your children you will compare itself to happy friends and outer peoples. And you will understand that remained the loser.
Well, if that's all what thou hast to say... I do not know what it means to know 1/4 or 1/17 of feeling, because feeling is not a phenomenon we can gain knowledge of. It's not like we sit around it and start anatomising that and one can say he knows what this organ is for. In our situation we can't even agree what we are talking about. I know what I'm speaking of and I describe that. If that's not what thou callst "love", then?.. Excuse my faulty thinking, o sage.
Actually, he asked what might be the arguments for porn, not prostitution.
And in answer to that, I'm not sure a strong case could be made for it. Pornography takes visual and audio stimuli, which our species has a drive for, and seeks to capitalize on it monetarily. It taps into something very personal - right at the biological level - to snag some cash.
We've discussed the ethics of it, it's effects and the implications for both those 'performing' and those consuming, but I'm not sure I've ever seen this question asked like this. I'm curious to see any arguments for, as was asked.
It's amazing actually, how such a simple activity can make a culture obsessive over it. I mean literally, a women can just touch herself and there is the whole video , yet we find it so arousing for her to do so and ignoring that she's being used, even we are being used, degraded, etc. Throughout the post I haven't seen any one speak of the morals of this activity. pornography, but we are focused on freedom and rights. And it seems this is what society cares more about than what is moral. How can a society even progress, even more exist without some restrictions. But no we speak of what barriers can we break in order to defy what others believed and did in the past. What I mean is that there has to be some ground, some foundation for society to move forward or, because of rights, we will fall. You see our focus us more on what limits can the individual break but what about the whole population though. The decision of king is not based on the individual but on the whole country, well ay least a good king.
Uhmmm, I'm sure you know of the concept of nudism, is that a selfdegrading lifestyle? Should that be outlawed?
Some find porn a degrading buisness, but least in Denmark there's fortunaly more porn actresses that are pro porn, than anti porn speakers.
Why are we not allowed to exibit our body in excatly the way we want?
I mean what in the truth, does it matter that we limit anything, right? But you think of is what if everyone agreed not to have that limit, or to throw out those rules. What if the whole world agreed to do away with certain limits, then what will the world be. You see I'm not thinking of only my own likes but of the worse case scenario, the world.
I am against porn. I know the argument against it. But i do not really understand the argument for it. Could anybody help me?:poke-eye:
4 the record i mean i think it is illogical to veiw porn. like red tube and playboy. that kind of ting
When we look at the history of pornography, we see clearly that it's getting heavier, more and more unacceptable, more disgusting and immoral. Since pornography sells what goes beyond mainstream morals and practices, the more society is permissive and morally liberated, the more porno must come up with more "singularities" to sell, since the consumer becomes more demanding. Has anyone seen any pictures from the earliest era of pornography?