Ban-Dodger
Veteran
Joined: 2 Jun 2011
Age: 1028
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,820
Location: Возможно в будущее к Россию идти... можеть быть...
27 Jul 2015, 1:41 pm
See, I actually have admitted that I am a pervert, and I do not deny it at all, and hinting that I may be perverted when I interact with the ladies can sometimes end up with good results, like « 
good things » happening... 
sly279 wrote:
rdos wrote:
Spiderpig wrote:
I certainly wouldn't want a relationship with someone who tried to make me feel guilty for having a sex drive. And there's nothing shallow about valuing sex; if anything, what is shallow is to dismiss it as part of life not worth exploring or understanding, exactly as much as it is to dismiss any other.
I don't think dismissing sex could ever be shallow in our sexualized culture. People that come to the conclusion that sex is not something they want are much deeper and self-aware than sexual people that just floats around. I even think a fair amount of sexual people are only into sex because everybody else is, and thus haven't gained self-awareness at all. It's simply something you are expected to do and like.
what o.O no we just like sex. people can be different we don't all have to be asexuals like you. please stop calling us perverts because we are different from you.
The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,664
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.
27 Jul 2015, 4:45 pm
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
nurseangela wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
nurseangela wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
rdos wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
she never even had any horny moments or sexual thoughts while being with me all during this time, so I would assume she doesn't even find me attractive enough to turn her on.
What's the problem? Back in the good old days, people got children even if they got matched by relatives and didn't even fancy each others. Human reproduction is not that fragile you know.
Back in the 'good' old days, marital rape wasn't even considered a crime. Just saying.
What???! ! ! I don't even know what to say to that.
You clearly have interpretation problems; I was stating a fact and criticizing what he is calling old good days.
An enforced marriage on a woman, which was common in the old days; means that she will have sex with someone she doesn't even fancy - that's enforced sex, aka rape.
And the laws back then didn't even consider these situations; as long the woman is formally married to the man, he could do anything (enforced) sexual to her without being punished for.
I don't have interpretation problems, Boo. The "just saying" part says it all. And the "good" in front of "old days" also says all I need to know what you meant.
I am still not sure if you understood; are you accusing me of promoting rape?
The "good" before the old days is a sarcastic good because rdos is the one who called them good old days. I WAS MOCKING THE USE Of the WORD GOOD by rdos.
I was saying that arranged and enforced marriages back in the old days were BAD because they did certainly lead to enforced and non-consent sex in many instanced back then; and it was often the woman who was on the enforced side.
And the married woman was not protected by the law at all, it was against her.
You did not reply to my question, angela.
You just don't want to admit that you were the only person here who misunderstood my post and turned its true meaning upside down.
27 Jul 2015, 4:52 pm
There are too many nested text blocks for me to keep reading. 
There's actually less to read when I'm programming for fun...
_________________
"Standing on a well-chilled cinder, we see the fading of the suns, and try to recall the vanished brilliance of the origin of the worlds."
-Georges Lemaitre
"I fly through hyperspace, in my green computer interface"
-Gem Tos
27 Jul 2015, 6:02 pm
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
nurseangela wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
nurseangela wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
rdos wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
she never even had any horny moments or sexual thoughts while being with me all during this time, so I would assume she doesn't even find me attractive enough to turn her on.
What's the problem? Back in the good old days, people got children even if they got matched by relatives and didn't even fancy each others. Human reproduction is not that fragile you know.
Back in the 'good' old days, marital rape wasn't even considered a crime. Just saying.
What???! ! ! I don't even know what to say to that.
You clearly have interpretation problems; I was stating a fact and criticizing what he is calling old good days.
An enforced marriage on a woman, which was common in the old days; means that she will have sex with someone she doesn't even fancy - that's enforced sex, aka rape.
And the laws back then didn't even consider these situations; as long the woman is formally married to the man, he could do anything (enforced) sexual to her without being punished for.
I don't have interpretation problems, Boo. The "just saying" part says it all. And the "good" in front of "old days" also says all I need to know what you meant.
I am still not sure if you understood; are you accusing me of promoting rape?
The "good" before the old days is a sarcastic good because rdos is the one who called them good old days. I WAS MOCKING THE USE Of the WORD GOOD by rdos.
I was saying that arranged and enforced marriages back in the old days were BAD because they did certainly lead to enforced and non-consent sex in many instanced back then; and it was often the woman who was on the enforced side.
And the married woman was not protected by the law at all, it was against her.
You did not reply to my question, angela.
You just don't want to admit that you were the only person here who misunderstood my post and turned its true meaning upside down.
(I haven't responded because I'm not used to this sites way of working. I can't tell when someone has responded to me and when I need to respond. It's very confusing. I just happened to come back to this thread and wasn't even aware that you had addressed me again with a question, Boo.)
Boo, I understand what you are saying now. I apologize because I wasn't understanding what you were saying before and it sounded to me like you would prefer things to be how they used to be.
For anyone reading this who is Aspie, this is a primo example of NT/Aspie miscommunication. I don't do any sarcasm on the Aspie websites because some Aspies don't understand sarcasm, so when an Aspie is being sarcastic I think they are saying exactly what they are thinking. I think all sarcasm should be banished on Aspie sites. I'm so glad that I was misunderstanding you, Boo, because it really bothered me that you might have been thinking the way that I thought you were thinking.
27 Jul 2015, 6:13 pm
27 Jul 2015, 6:13 pm
27 Jul 2015, 6:17 pm
27 Jul 2015, 6:20 pm
27 Jul 2015, 6:31 pm
27 Jul 2015, 6:43 pm
Don't mess with that cat! 
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
27 Jul 2015, 7:48 pm
rdos wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Yes but consent has to happen every time even if the marriage contract includes sex...that does not mean the husband can demand sex whenever he wants and the wife has to give it to him. Both parties still have to agree to have sex on all occasions sex is had or yes it would be rape on the part of whoever forces the sex.
Yes, but I don't find the Western "consent-model" very useful. Why should we specifically need to consent to sex? Why not for flirting with each others too? Or even looking at somebody might require consent? Or merely breathing?
But I have a nice little alternative proposition that likely would wipe out NTs: Sexual intercourse without wanting to bread should become illegal with death penalty as the punishment.
Because sex involves two people and is a very personal thing....you think people in relationships should just be able to grab and start f***ing their SO whenever they want regardless of of said SO wants to have sex in that moment or not? It would not make sent to need consent to flirt....since how that works is you try flirting, if the person is not receptive then it is probably an indication they don't care to endure anymore or a different approach is needed. But flirting is not something as close and personal as sex where it certainly makes sense for both parties to agree to have sex before having it every time. And how is looking at someone or breathing anything like sex....in the way of needing consent?
Also what makes you think its only neurotypicals who desire sex whilst lacking any desire to breed? It may wipe out some NTs(though not sure wiping out a certain group of people simply based on their neurotype is a very good goal seems a little nazish)...but it would wipe out plenty of others to. Based on such a law I'd be deserving of 'the death penalty' all because I've had sex with no intention to create any spawn.
27 Jul 2015, 7:58 pm
27 Jul 2015, 8:11 pm
Ban-Dodger
Veteran
Joined: 2 Jun 2011
Age: 1028
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,820
Location: Возможно в будущее к Россию идти... можеть быть...
27 Jul 2015, 10:52 pm
The solution here is actually VERY SIMPLE...!
Let's just all starting having GROUP-SMEX Right Now ! 
27 Jul 2015, 11:41 pm
28 Jul 2015, 12:05 am
