Re: Virgins need not apply
btw Eye4Eye.....when you refer to a woman's previous encounter why use such derogatory and blue-collar language?
could you not have used different terminology? (e.g. slept with another man, was intimate with another man, had sexual relations with another man)
does the "shock factor" of your language deliver your message more effectively or does it create the online personna you wish to portray?
Jimmy, I understand your concern when it comes to someone having a predilection for something due to previous experiences. Perhaps this will be a big issue for you to clarify before you settle down.
And Eye4Eye makes a good point in the medical history side.
honey I was engaged to a girl who was brutally molested as a kid, for a long period of time.
She told me long after we were engaged. It did not matter to me.
Thing is I believed every singe word she said. She was the kind you could trust you life with.
Then there are the ones who bring in little bike in the picture. you know what I mean??
If there are lies there is no relation. Its like one party manipulating other. Noiw go back to life one and see how many time girls SHAMELESSLY ask for support for lying. And even better how many time sister-hood come up with lame stories to sell used stuff.
Re: Virgins need not apply
let me ask you this Jimmy......is it really fair to paint all the women with the same brush?
just as you would be right to be offended by someone that decides all men are jerkwads, wouldn't you be concerned about calling all women liars when there may be 1% or 5% that are being completely truthful?
Re: Virgins need not apply
This is a non issue.
Any self respecting girl and her family will not agree to a virginity test.
A girl who has lost her virginity and knows about it would not agree to it either.
If you are going for an arranged marriage then family of the girl will get very mad at you if you bring out virginity test as a condition for marriage.
So you have to accept the girl with her bad and good.
As for the philosophy of once a thief always a thief , history tells us about many many people who were criminal and once they got reformed they became best of the best. In recent history you would find many successful people with criminal background.
Losing virginity for whatever reason is a big issue but life is way bigger than lost virginity . If someone does not get hung around virginity ( pun intended) married life has much more to offer.
If you are in a romantic relationship and you really love her you will not care what she did in the past, that is real and unconditional love. Love is never conditional.
Re: Virgins need not apply
^ i agree with Mirch
and that was a six on the very first ball :k:
calling all women liars when there may be 1% or 5% that are being completely truthful?
We have a complete agreement!
Re: Virgins need not apply
so you agree that it is not fair to call all women liars.
I agree that all men are not jerks.
honey I was engaged to a girl who was brutally molested as a kid, for a long period of time. She told me long after we were engaged. It did not matter to me.
Thing is I believed every singe word she said. She was the kind you could trust you life with.
Then there are the ones who bring in little bike in the picture. you know what I mean??
If there are lies there is no relation. Its like one party manipulating other. Noiw go back to life one and see how many time girls SHAMELESSLY ask for support for lying. And even better how many time sister-hood come up with lame stories to sell used stuff.
I may be jumping to conclusions but here's a compliment: you're like a lollypop... one layer at a time.
some women are truthful no question. I told you about my ex-fiancée, I believed every word she said 
hmmm 
is that a gud compliment? if so thanks.
Re: Virgins need not apply
yeah i think this thread is goin a lil too graphic
btw Eye4Eye.....when you refer to a woman's previous encounter why use such derogatory and blue-collar language?
could you not have used different terminology? (e.g. slept with another man, was intimate with another man, had sexual relations with another man)
does the "shock factor" of your language deliver your message more effectively or does it create the online personna you wish to portray?
The only way I portray my point more effectively is by applying common sense and some intelligence for people like you to comprehend.
Spreading her legs, getting drilled, sleeping with a man, getting laid is no different than water and H2O. The shock factor kicks in when my viewers such as yourself are overwhelmed by the immense knowledge I present to you in a mere 2-3 sentences.
As far as the online personna is concerned, I am who I am, you can pass your judgments about me.
The only way I portray my point more effectively is by applying common sense and some intelligence for people like you to comprehend.
Spreading her legs, getting drilled, sleeping with a man, getting laid is no different than water and H2O. The shock factor kicks in when my viewers such as yourself are overwhelmed by the immense knowledge I present to you in a mere 2-3 sentences.
As far as the online personna is concerned, I am who I am, you can pass your judgments about me.
So what part of "spreading her legs" is common sense or intelligence?
If we were having a scientific discussion about the act of mating then yeah, "spread her legs" would be quite appropriate. But we are not.
As far as being overwhelmed with the immense knowledge that you present to me.....sorry to burst your bubble but I am not. I am, however, saddened that someone exhibiting a glimmer of hope when it comes to knowledge lacks so much in the area of communication and diplomacy. Anyways......
I have a friend who recently lost her husband to a tragic car accident. She is no longer a virgin at a very young age. I would hate to think that someone out there would refer to her as having "spread her legs" for her beloved husband.
I have another friend who is more liberal than most and had an 8 year dedicated relationship with a guy. They got engaged finally last year and bought a house together. They should have been married this year but the pressure of families and issues leading up to the actual marriage tore them apart. She is no longer a virgin. I would hate for someone to refer to her as having been "drilled".
I am not passing any judgements; in fact I am trying to gain some insight on what makes people behave a certain way. In your case: what drives you to use language that may incite or provoke. Perhaps its a rush you feel.....whatever rocks your boat man.
Jimmy…kuch batein samjhatay huay bhi sharm aati hay…
At the risk of sounding really naive, can I ask why? Why are men like this?
Well, it has to do with them being territorial since the beginning.
Well, it has to do with them being territorial since the beginning.
Hmm....okay....I'll take that on board.
So what of territory that has been snatched away from someone? It's not worth having?
Hmm....okay....I'll take that on board. So what of territory that has been snatched away from someone? It's not worth having?
See it boils down to being territorial in the sense that he was the first to conquer otherwise considered as "no other man's land".
Women have this kind of sense too but not so strong I must say. I mean territorial to 'no other woman's area".
Re: Virgins need not apply
[mod]This thread has been cleaned up. If you all cannot respond in this thread without personal attacks or using expletives, or getting graphic, warnings will be issued. [/mod]