100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Whats everyones take on one night stands? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Personally think one nighters are a waste of time and never allow for the real intimacy that most of us are looking for...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I agree that if you think of a woman that's up for a bit of casual sex as being like a cheeseburger it's a little bit disrespectful. Seems to me that the conservetive types are just as guilty of thinking like that about it though and don't have a lot of respect for people that they think are sluts.
As far as having respect for yourself goes; well, that's another matter. Maybe it's not that easy to get "quality" and someone is having no luck with finding a woman that wants a relationship, so they decide that they're just going to try to get laid while they're waiting for something better to come along. I've had women telling me that they have had one night stands with other men and that it was different with me. The sex being better maybe, or my actually being afectionate with them and wanting to cuddle up to them after we've had sex, instead of just rolling over and going to sleep or calling them a taxi. Or maybe we just have freaky sex and we do the sorts of things that you see in porn movies. Can't go into details about sexual acts because of the site rules but I dare say that some of these religious types would consider them to be dirty or disrespectful. You can get really dirty like that even when it's within a relationship though and as someone here said, it can be about fulfilling fantasies. I'm not having a lot of luck at the moment with getting this so-called "quality". I am not uptight about sex and I don't get on with those moralising types, with their superior atitudes. They are no fun at all and are humourless prudes in my opinion. If, for the sake of argument, I decided to pick an easy woman up and have sex with her, I could still be a gentleman about it and not a creep. I could be totally respectful towards them and say please and thankyou and everything. When I've gone looking for casual sex in the past it didn't always make me feel good about myself but that was because sometimes I didn't feel that they really liked me as a person or respected me. At other times I've met women in situations like that and felt an instant connection with them and did really like and respect them. To be honest, where I've got a problem with it is that I can be a bit jealous and possessive. I'm not too happy about the idea of a woman that I'm seeing also going with other guys. That detracts from that connection that I might feel with her. Also, of course, there's not wanting to catch something. I do tend to get emotionally involved and I have been in situations where I've had sex with strangers that I felt a connection with and wanted to see again. It takes two to tango and I don't disrespect women for doing something that I want to do with them. If I do find myself losing respect for a woman that I'm seeing though, it is very much about my self respect and about how it makes me feel about myself. Everybody has a past and I try not to be judgmental about that. It's how someone makes me feel in the present and about the future that I care about. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It depends on the situation more than anything
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whats everyones take on one night stands? The world's oldest profession is based on this principle. And the more work there is the steadier the cash flow. So for those seeking to thrive in an environment where the turn over is mandatory, one night stands are the preferred MO. As for me personally... I enjoy encores and never mix business with pleasure.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I like how some people seem to think that they can get around an injunction about not casting the first stone by adding an "each to his own" disclaimer. It must be difficult to hold to a religious faith when it's doublethink and about holding contradictory ideas in your head at the same time. Personlly, I prefer logic but nothing wrong with a bit of absurdity from time to time if it's humorous and not really meant to be taken seriously.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ummmm. It's kind of funny, how I quit having one night stands, about the same time I gave up drinking, some 25 years ago. Coincidence?? Totally! Thought so.  lol |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It happens... The memories from my early 20s and closing time.. I'm amazed its still hanging down there to be honest... Remember, if its that easy for you, probably that easy for everyone... I agree that it can happen to anyone once or twice...kinda by accident....so it doesn't necessarily mean that person does that kind of thing all the time....like a "playah" (IMO) But I think that is what the OP is advocating, so no thanks. A slip up once or twice I get....1 niters as an intentional practice, I don;t get. I don;t date men who do that...never have (to my knowledge) not even if they "reform." too much baggage potential  I have never intentionally set out to have a one niter, but have probably been the cause of it being a one niter by not pursuing a second date out of pure disgust in myself for what the hell just happened.. And vise versa, have had it happen to me. Fact is, it happens like life happens.. For anyone to act like they are beyond such behaviors is silly. We never know what solution we will turn to to supress what we are feeling. May be sex and one niters, may be Jesus, may be drugs, may be alcohol, and may be all the above... We are all fallible, thats what makes us human.. Certainly we are all fallible, each in our own way. We love others despite their fallibility. We can also love ourselves Thomas. we all deserve to be loved  I don;t think ,however, that it is wise to presume to speak for, or assume things about others. Or accuse others of being silly because we say we do not participate in 1 nite stands. I know I have always had more control over my choices when it comes to sex, and I still do. Along with the ability to accept responsibility for my actions. sex is not a "solution" (???) to me. It is a way to express love for someone. It is neither right or wrong and folk do get too wrapped up in judgement. it's a choice to share and for me that sharing has to have intimacy that is not possible in a one night arrangement. But to think that means I will act like I am "above" someone who makes a different moral choice is simply your perception, not the reality. There are some things, however, that I find distasteful (and so I tend to be quite cautious) I would not ignore someone after sex, a 1 night stand, or feel "disgust". I don;t think sex and disgust are words that combine in my vocabulary. That reflects a strange morality that has little meaning to me (but I hear such opinions frequently). I see some genuine issues there. But men who ignore women after sleeping with them are cowards or predators. (as are women who do the same) And that is quite distasteful in my way of thinking. namaste Very true, love ourselves and everything else falls in the place ;) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I like how some people seem to think that they can get around an injunction about not casting the first stone by adding an "each to his own" disclaimer. It must be difficult to hold to a religious faith when it's doublethink and about holding contradictory ideas in your head at the same time. Personlly, I prefer logic but nothing wrong with a bit of absurdity from time to time if it's humorous and not really meant to be taken seriously. Who's talking religious? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Okay, look at it this way... There wants was a woman named Mary that was a prostitute spent a lifetime doing one nighters... Then one day she is hanging out with the man himself, Jesus! Now she is considered a saint among some scholars lol Moral of the story is, one nighters good inevitably lead you to sainthood...
Just a thought |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Okay, look at it this way... There wants was a woman named Mary that was a prostitute spent a lifetime doing one nighters... Then one day she is hanging out with the man himself, Jesus! Now she is considered a saint among some scholars lol Moral of the story is, one nighters good inevitably lead you to sainthood... Just a thought ??? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I like how some people seem to think that they can get around an injunction about not casting the first stone by adding an "each to his own" disclaimer. It must be difficult to hold to a religious faith when it's doublethink and about holding contradictory ideas in your head at the same time. Personlly, I prefer logic but nothing wrong with a bit of absurdity from time to time if it's humorous and not really meant to be taken seriously. Who's talking religious? Some people confuse having a "moral code of ethics" as "religion or being religious" instead of realizing it's about the character of the person being spoken of, not necessarily about their religious or lack of religious beliefs. There do happen to be people who are not of any religious faith who choose to live their lives by their own very moral code dictated by their own conscience, so it is sad that he thinks it's all "religion-based". Nevertheless, he seems to think that this so-called "religious faith" is too difficult for anyone to keep and that we are bound to have contradictory ideas somehow, which could not be further from the truth. It's easy to follow a path if it's the one you've chosen...it speaks of who you are within yourself...who you've chosen to be for yourself, not for others. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Okay, look at it this way... There wants was a woman named Mary that was a prostitute spent a lifetime doing one nighters... Then one day she is hanging out with the man himself, Jesus! Now she is considered a saint among some scholars lol Moral of the story is, one nighters good inevitably lead you to sainthood... Just a thought ??? Common misconception that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute. The prostitute you were referring to was not a prostitute but was the Samaritan woman at the well (another Mary) who had been married 4 times and at the moment of her encounter with Jesus, was actually living with a man, not doing one-night stands. Mary Magdalene was the woman out of whom Jesus cast out seven demons. Either way, neither of these woman kept living the lifestyle they had previously lived. That was the "Moral of the Story"! Just the truth. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
dcastelmissy
on
Mon 06/09/14 07:28 AM
|
|
Im a big fan of history. here is an article from the smithsonian re: mary magdalene http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/who-was-mary-magdalene-119565482/?no-ist=&page=1 heres a quote: " Beginning with the threads of these few statements in the earliest Christian records, dating to the first through third centuries, an elaborate tapestry was woven, leading to a portrait of St. Mary Magdalene in which the most consequential note '��that she was a repentant prostitute' ��is almost certainly untrue. On that false note hangs the dual use to which her legend has been put ever since: discrediting sexuality in general and disempowering women in particular. " Yes, I too had that misconception that she was a prostitute until I started reading all the ancient texts several years ago(I'm a big fan of history also). There are great historical records online now and they reveal things most people had a preconceived idea about in regard to many topics.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not my thing
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ha ha ha ha cracking me up!!
Good thing it was "just a thought" and not factual evidence |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ha ha ha ha cracking me up!! Good thing it was "just a thought" and not factual evidence Yep, good thing Thomas!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Granted that one night stands are not ideal, but I don't see anything wrong with them. Just use some precaution, geez.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I like how some people seem to think that they can get around an injunction about not casting the first stone by adding an "each to his own" disclaimer. It must be difficult to hold to a religious faith when it's doublethink and about holding contradictory ideas in your head at the same time. Personlly, I prefer logic but nothing wrong with a bit of absurdity from time to time if it's humorous and not really meant to be taken seriously. Who's talking religious? Some people confuse having a "moral code of ethics" as "religion or being religious" instead of realizing it's about the character of the person being spoken of, not necessarily about their religious or lack of religious beliefs. There do happen to be people who are not of any religious faith who choose to live their lives by their own very moral code dictated by their own conscience, so it is sad that he thinks it's all "religion-based". Nevertheless, he seems to think that this so-called "religious faith" is too difficult for anyone to keep and that we are bound to have contradictory ideas somehow, which could not be further from the truth. It's easy to follow a path if it's the one you've chosen...it speaks of who you are within yourself...who you've chosen to be for yourself, not for others. It's just something that I'm interested in from a philisophical point of view. I see faith as something that a person has to struggle with and not be complacent about, like logic or matter of fact. Faith is about personal conviction and you are indeed correct about that. I require no faith to believe in mathematical propositions or common sense beliefs but as the philosopher Kierkegaard says, if God's existence could be proven there would be no need for faith. Anyway, do I think that you are a hypocrite for judging others when you follow a religion that says not to do that? Perhaps and it matters not if you didn't bring religion into it because you do claim to be a Christian and I can therefore call you out for casting stones and also preaching about sin. If it's about just believing in things that you merely happen to believe in as a person and they also fit in with religious dogmas, that's just a matter of convenience. That requires no faith either and then I suppose that you may as well just do away with the religion because it's superfluous. You were moralising and going further than just talking about your own personal moral code. You even got somebody to apologise for saying something that went against your morality. Whether or not I agree with you about the topic under discussion here or feel the same way about sex is by the by. I can still put it to you that your beliefs are inconsistent if you claim to be a Christian, just as people like Dodo like to do when they look at profiles and say that people are not really Christians when they say things that seem to go against that religion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I like how some people seem to think that they can get around an injunction about not casting the first stone by adding an "each to his own" disclaimer. It must be difficult to hold to a religious faith when it's doublethink and about holding contradictory ideas in your head at the same time. Personlly, I prefer logic but nothing wrong with a bit of absurdity from time to time if it's humorous and not really meant to be taken seriously. Who's talking religious? Some people confuse having a "moral code of ethics" as "religion or being religious" instead of realizing it's about the character of the person being spoken of, not necessarily about their religious or lack of religious beliefs. There do happen to be people who are not of any religious faith who choose to live their lives by their own very moral code dictated by their own conscience, so it is sad that he thinks it's all "religion-based". Nevertheless, he seems to think that this so-called "religious faith" is too difficult for anyone to keep and that we are bound to have contradictory ideas somehow, which could not be further from the truth. It's easy to follow a path if it's the one you've chosen...it speaks of who you are within yourself...who you've chosen to be for yourself, not for others. It's just something that I'm interested in from a philisophical point of view. I see faith as something that a person has to struggle with and not be complacent about, like logic or matter of fact. Faith is about personal conviction and you are indeed correct about that. I require no faith to believe in mathematical propositions or common sense beliefs but as the philosopher Kierkegaard says, if God's existence could be proven there would be no need for faith. Anyway, do I think that you are a hypocrite for judging others when you follow a religion that says not to do that? Perhaps and it matters not if you didn't bring religion into it because you do claim to be a Christian and I can therefore call you out for casting stones and also preaching about sin. If it's about just believing in things that you merely happen to believe in as a person and they also fit in with religious dogmas, that's just a matter of convenience. That requires no faith either and then I suppose that you may as well just do away with the religion because it's superfluous. You were moralising and going further than just talking about your own personal moral code. You even got somebody to apologise for saying something that went against your morality. Whether or not I agree with you about the topic under discussion here or feel the same way about sex is by the by. I can still put it to you that your beliefs are inconsistent if you claim to be a Christian, just as people like Dodo like to do when they look at profiles and say that people are not really Christians when they say things that seem to go against that religion. It's just something that I'm interested in from a philisophical point of view. I see faith as something that a person has to struggle with and not be complacent about, like logic or matter of fact. Faith is about personal conviction and you are indeed correct about that. I require no faith to believe in mathematical propositions or common sense beliefs but as the philosopher Kierkegaard says, if God's existence could be proven there would be no need for faith. Not arguing, just shedding some light on the situation. You said "I see faith as something that a person has to struggle with and not be complacent about, like logic or matter of fact." Hate to be the barer of bad news, but most to all "science" is taken on faith. Unless of course the person in question has personally done the experiments themselves to find the results first hand. If that is not done, it is taken on faith that it's true. And common sense isn't a fact, that is ever changing between the person(s). One person's common sense may not be the same as the other , ect. So it's not really "common" at all, unless speaking of the very bare essentials associated with "common sense". Most people don't pay attention that or pay attention to just how much their knowledge is actually placed on faith. Faith isn't just in God, or anything specifically associated to "religion". Faith is something taken on first hand knowledge when the process of receiving that knowledge isn't first hand, but yet again taken on faith to be true. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I get all of my religious understandings from Family Guy.
|
|
|
|
|
