100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
|
Topic:
Japan: Sexuality
|
|
:o
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
women....
|
 Yeah, I wonder exactly how grooming, wearing earrings and clothes is lying. Implants and fake tans... meh. Whatever. I guess it's good that threads like this exist to help pick out the folks with misogynistic tendencies. Whatever floats your boat, guys.  Not misogynistic tendencies. Wearing makeup and what not is a lie in the long run. First off, wish to start off by saying women are sooooooo much more beautiful, sexy, and all around attractive with no makeup on fyi. But more to the point and the "customs" of the world, makeup is put on to make them look "more" beautiful. So if one is portraying themselves as "more" beautiful then they truly are, then it would in fact be a lie.... But out of the mouth of babe Whatever floats your boat, women. Is wearing makeup etc a lie? Hmmmmm. I really like makeup, nice hair, colored nails, and all the things that make women look more well, feminine. It can be misleading at times though. Pamela Anderson, even in her younger days, looked horrible without makeup. But with makeup she was incredible. Clothes on both men and women can be misleading too. In my old dirty car mechanic uniform I look like a street beggar. A few women that had only seen me in that and then saw me in my nice office work clothes were shocked. They actually treated me with much more respect when I was all fixed up. I would prefer to think that we all have multiple looks and personalities that usually go along with those looks. If you want a real lie, I'm 6'4" and have a giant ....... crocodile.  It can be misleading at times though Eg., a lie. lol not meaning it in a bad way so to speak.. just mentioned that because of the following comment in the picture. If it's not "real" it would then be a "lie". A woman with makeup on is not "real", they been painted up so to speak. Again not putting it down, not dogging it or anything of such lol. But nevertheless is a lie >.< why men think it's ok to lie In the picture lol.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
NO sex before "I do"
|
|
I think waiting is a very good idea. Sex is part of a marriage not all of it. Forming a strong friendship relationship is what will get you through the tough times. Yes with the ex I waited till after marriage. I will do it it again to honour God. God bless you Annieroorooo :) I will do it it again to honour God. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
women....
Edited by
CowboyGH
on
Wed 09/14/16 09:57 AM
|
|
Yeah, I wonder exactly how grooming, wearing earrings and clothes is lying. Implants and fake tans... meh. Whatever. I guess it's good that threads like this exist to help pick out the folks with misogynistic tendencies. Whatever floats your boat, guys. Not misogynistic tendencies. Wearing makeup and what not is a lie in the long run. First off, wish to start off by saying women are sooooooo much more beautiful, sexy, and all around attractive with no makeup on fyi. But more to the point and the "customs" of the world, makeup is put on to make them look "more" beautiful. So if one is portraying themselves as "more" beautiful then they truly are, then it would in fact be a lie.... But out of the mouth of babe Whatever floats your boat, women.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
CowboyGH
on
Wed 09/14/16 09:45 AM
|
|
Guess I would be in the bracket of giving up sex for $1million since I'm not married and don't have sex anyways lol.... but on another note, wouldn't truly give up anything for a mere million or any amount of money. It's sad to see people would go to such extravagant levels for money.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
CowboyGH
on
Wed 09/14/16 09:32 AM
|
|
What was their intention on displaying that flag? That flag in itself isn't racist. It's a memorabilia of when our country first started. Yes, at that time their were slaves. But the display of the flag here would depend on the context it was being displayed, not just purely because it was there. Would love for them to explain to me specifically what is racist in this context of this incident. What I get out of the picture, this being for a school and all. And not specifically some kind of rights movement ect. That they were insinuating that with Trump, he'll bring back the old ways of how the country was ran. Before it became corrupted. Now not supporting this action, or rejecting it. Just bringing up that I think this is being looked at a little more deeper then it was intended.  Maybe that is, at least part of the intention & Trump & racism is the EXCUSE Reason I don't get the connection is this flag wasn't made to degrade African Americans or to promote dominantly whites. It's not like a white supremacy flag or anything. And besides that, there was just as much racism in the country with the current USA flag until the recent century or so. Even slaves and things of that nature until again the recent century or so. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What was their intention on displaying that flag? That flag in itself isn't racist. It's a memorabilia of when our country first started. Yes, at that time their were slaves. But the display of the flag here would depend on the context it was being displayed, not just purely because it was there. Would love for them to explain to me specifically what is racist in this context of this incident. What I get out of the picture, this being for a school and all. And not specifically some kind of rights movement ect. That they were insinuating that with Trump, he'll bring back the old ways of how the country was ran. Before it became corrupted. Now not supporting this action, or rejecting it. Just bringing up that I think this is being looked at a little more deeper then it was intended. Maybe that is, at least part of the intention & Trump & racism is the EXCUSE Reason I don't get the connection is this flag wasn't made to degrade African Americans or to promote dominantly whites. It's not like a white supremacy flag or anything. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
CowboyGH
on
Wed 09/14/16 09:22 AM
|
|
I do wish to present a question, as I don't see the connection. What does this have to do with racism? Yes at the time of this flags life, white was supreme, so to speak. But that doesn't mean that's what the flag stands for or means.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What was their intention on displaying that flag? That flag in itself isn't racist. It's a memorabilia of when our country first started. Yes, at that time their were slaves. But the display of the flag here would depend on the context it was being displayed, not just purely because it was there. Would love for them to explain to me specifically what is racist in this context of this incident. What I get out of the picture, this being for a school and all. And not specifically some kind of rights movement ect. That they were insinuating that with Trump, he'll bring back the old ways of how the country was ran. Before it became corrupted. Now not supporting this action, or rejecting it. Just bringing up that I think this is being looked at a little more deeper then it was intended. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What was their intention on displaying that flag? That flag in itself isn't racist. It's a memorabilia of when our country first started. Yes, at that time their were slaves. But the display of the flag here would depend on the context it was being displayed, not just purely because it was there.
Would love for them to explain to me specifically what is racist in this context of this incident. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
'In Love' With A Robot?
Edited by
CowboyGH
on
Tue 09/13/16 11:23 AM
|
|
Are we talking a C3P0 type robot or a fembot from Austin Powers type robot? Because I ain't fricking C3P0....  Seriously though, wouldn't a "sex robot" just be another sex toy? Seriously though, wouldn't a "sex robot" just be another sex toy? Think that's essentially what Sassy was aiming towards. I'm guessing not so much "robots" exactly, but things such as vibraters, sybians, and so forth. A "creation" that can bring physical pleasure without the need/hassle of emotional interaction or other kind of "obligation". Can just get the pleasure and be on with their day. Thus psychologically instilling into the woman or man not to specifically look for a "mate" because they are already pleased in that area. And hate to say it, but I understand that concept with my experience in trying to find a spouse and or relationships in general. It revolves around sex, not just the companionship in itself. People these days especially in the "younger" generation, my age group area, don't look for the "companionship", the "love making"... they search for more "exciting" instances that have more immediate gratification. And thus why I'm single lol, I choose not to play that game. And that alone is a turn off in women's eyes these days again specifically in my age area. Has been my experience anyways. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
about loyalty ..
|
|
If they can not be loyal...then it is time to show them the door... and say  My thoughts exactly. You obviously wouldn't be what the other was seeking, so only good thing to do there is let them go find that which they seek and stop wasting time with you :) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why do you keep refusing to take me early? What time would be "early"? No matter what time/age we may pass away from this Earth, is never "early". It's right on time as he judges. For he is the judge of our lives. We'll always pass away at the very exact moment we were suppose to, suppose to as in, when he chooses to end our trial on Earth. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Jesus our father?
|
|
I know what you mean. I was taught under similar doctrine until I started studying for myself. I Corinthians 15:24 brought me out of that doctrine. Impossible to hand something over to yourself. I think the scripture would have said that He would keep or maintain it if it was just Jesus. Instead, I have come to learn that Jesus, whether in Heaven or on earth, acts out the Father's thoughts/wishes. The Father wanted it to be and Jesus made it be, and without Him [Jesus] there was nothing made that was made. Then you can read down to 27 where it talks about the Father placing all things under Jesus except for Himself [God, the Father]. Verse 28 can be included because it talks about both of them. If you have read further in the New Testament, these passages give light to Colossians 1:19-20. 1 Corinthians 15:24-27 24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. 25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. 27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. Very good mention. My intention of this post/direction wasn't meaning that each time it says like "God the Father" or any numerous alterations that it was referring to Jesus. Yes the are two separate beings, or else it would be a lie when Jesus says "I return too my father, I share the love of my father, or even down to when he was on the cross yelling out "my father, my father, why hast that forsaken me" and so forth. But I was trying to bring to light, Jesus' father is NEVER referenced as our father or our God. And with my knowledge/belief of that, thought it interesting to share and possibly learn differently if it is actually said and I missed. Reason I thought this to be important is because the "Christian" faith in general as a whole teaches Jesus as just being the "son of God". But is not recognized very well as our God in general. So presented this too display it was Jesus Christ, our God whom created us, judges us, is the one that answers our prayers, ect. And thought it was to bring this up, as again the credit has always gone to "the Father". Which whom is his will, but nevertheless Jesus our God carries those actions out. It is Jesus himself that answers our prayers, blesses us, and so forth. Which is not "generally" thought of, taught, or maybe even seen through the different Christian beliefs as a whole. For again we are not brothers and sisters with Jesus. And once more he never references his father or his God as ours. And was hoping for some possible enlightenment to maybe something I might have missed or misunderstand scripturally shown. And please keep verses in context as a whole. Jesus came in the "form" of a servant. So that would infer that next time we see Jesus, he won't be as "subtle" I think is the word I'm looking for lol. Won't be so passive so to speak, as he is, was, and will be "God of gods". And speaks many times of him "reining" Heaven and Earth, which would then in fact place him at the "top". Philippians 2:7 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: So next time Jesus is seen or physically experienced in person, he won't be "in the likeness of man" or "the form of a servant". We will see him in all his power, authority over all on Earth, above Earth, and below Earth. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Jesus our father?
|
|
I know what you mean. I was taught under similar doctrine until I started studying for myself. I Corinthians 15:24 brought me out of that doctrine. Impossible to hand something over to yourself. I think the scripture would have said that He would keep or maintain it if it was just Jesus. Instead, I have come to learn that Jesus, whether in Heaven or on earth, acts out the Father's thoughts/wishes. The Father wanted it to be and Jesus made it be, and without Him [Jesus] there was nothing made that was made. Then you can read down to 27 where it talks about the Father placing all things under Jesus except for Himself [God, the Father]. Verse 28 can be included because it talks about both of them. If you have read further in the New Testament, these passages give light to Colossians 1:19-20. 1 Corinthians 15:24-27 24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. 25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. 27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. Very good mention. My intention of this post/direction wasn't meaning that each time it says like "God the Father" or any numerous alterations that it was referring to Jesus. Yes the are two separate beings, or else it would be a lie when Jesus says "I return too my father, I share the love of my father, or even down to when he was on the cross yelling out "my father, my father, why hast that forsaken me" and so forth. But I was trying to bring to light, Jesus' father is NEVER referenced as our father or our God. And with my knowledge/belief of that, thought it interesting to share and possibly learn differently if it is actually said and I missed. Reason I thought this to be important is because the "Christian" faith in general as a whole teaches Jesus as just being the "son of God". But is not recognized very well as our God in general. So presented this too display it was Jesus Christ, our God whom created us, judges us, is the one that answers our prayers, ect. And thought it was to bring this up, as again the credit has always gone to "the Father". Which whom is his will, but nevertheless Jesus our God carries those actions out. It is Jesus himself that answers our prayers, blesses us, and so forth. Which is not "generally" thought of, taught, or maybe even seen through the different Christian beliefs as a whole. For again we are not brothers and sisters with Jesus. And once more he never references his father or his God as ours. And was hoping for some possible enlightenment to maybe something I might have missed or misunderstand scripturally shown. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
too revealing of cloths or provocative cloths that says come get it, I'm ready.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
I'm having problems
|
|
go to account settings and half way down the list of different options you have, it say "limit those..." Then in those settings you can change the age and even distance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Say.. "Thank You"
|
|
I am exceedingly grateful today. To my Lord & Savior. To family. To a few, true friends To a few, good neighbors. I had an injury in October, 2015. And there were many things, I just couldn't do. Including, walk. But today.. I walked by myself to a local store, brought a few things & walked back.. by myself. As you can imagine.... ONLY, the truly SPIRITUAL, stepped up to help me; all those (12) months. All, these people, that were there for me, are Protestant Christians or Hindu  All these people, have been through a lot. And have known great, hardship, pain or suffering or poverty or persecution... or a combination. Thank you, for being there, in ALL the ways, that you have. And for all, you have taught me. LOVE YOU  Who would you like to thank today? Beautiful Sassy :) and only hope and pray for further recovery.. as knowing first hand having to relearn too walk myself. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son so that whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. John 3:16 Amen, but there's a catch so to speak.. James2 14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead If we truly believe out works/actions will show as much <3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
seriously? No one in TorC, Albuquerque, or even more specifically Elephant Butte? O.O
|
|
|
|
|
Previous
