Philosophy

[Shadow Wolf]

i'm sorry, i don't get ya.

Im saying that if there was forced castration, it would be a sollution for cheap dental for government agents, because some people like me would fight, very hard, and probably end up knocking a few teeth out.

And i'm sure you'd agree, that lusting after one's parter should be forgivable, no?

They call that being in lust, not love. Relationships that are built on sex never last long.

 

[mr.guy]

Im saying that if there was forced castration, it would be a sollution for cheap dental for government agents, because some people like me would fight, very hard, and probably end up knocking a few teeth out.

What an odd expression...doesn't seem you're all that "filled with love" for these goverment agents, does it?

They call that being in lust, not love. Relationships that are built on sex never last long.

Baby, you haven't lived!! I wonder if you could enlighten on why the two couldn't couldn't co-exist in a relationship?

And who are They anyway?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What an odd expression...doesn't seem you're all that "filled with love" for these goverment agents, does it?

I never claimed I was filled with love.

I wonder if you could enlighten on why the two couldn't couldn't co-exist in a relationship?

Because there is nothing more than a physical attraction holding the two together. Two people who are bonded by only lust can co-exist, but not like the actual person, but hey, the sex is good so why leave? That is why lust relationships don't last.
Definition of lust (dictionary.com)
lust [font=verdana,sans-serif][/font]n.

1. Intense or unrestrained sexual craving.
2. 1. An overwhelming desire or craving: a lust for power.
   2. Intense eagerness or enthusiasm: a lust for life.

A relationship needs to go much further than sex to last. Eventually the same sex partner will get old, the newness will fade, and one of the two people will venture out.

 

[mr.guy]

If everyone was filled with love for one another, there would be no need for our survival instincts

I never claimed I was filled with love.

My mistake. Technically, you suggest everyone (else?) should be filled with love.

Because there is nothing more than a physical attraction holding the two together. Two people who are bonded by only lust can co-exist, but not like the actual person, but hey, the sex is good so why leave? That is why lust relationships don't last.

Perhaps you didn't understand what i meant by "co-exist" (feel free to post the dictionary definition if you like). I was refering to love+lust.

A relationship needs to go much further than sex to last. Eventually the same sex partner will get old, the newness will fade, and one of the two people will venture out.

Everyone gets old. So do relationships. Sometimes the person (and not the sex) is what kills a relationship. And to suggest lust (one of your posted definitions included "intense desire") is only directed from "the new" is erroneous. You imply that sex is simply a beginning to a "true" relationship and an end in a "lust" relationship. I also can't help but notice on some of your other posts a strong advacacy for sexual self-repression. No problem with that; as a matter of fact, conscienscious abstinence of sexual gratification holds its own intensities and shouldn't be entirely dismissed as a viable sex life. But so does active sex, and it isn't a binary question of how you engage it. You shouldn't stunt your views on sex so much, regardless of how you excersise and participate sexually (with others or yourself); cause now one's really forcing you to do anything, right? But to simply suggest that sex can simply be done and enjoyed by one means (yours) is pretty short-sighted.

 

[Linus]

We are supposed to live life to prove to God that We are worthy to enter the gates of heaven.

Sorry, but none is worthy of heaven. There is not one thing that you or I or anyone can do to prove that we are worthy of heaven. We do not deserve the gift of eternal life. We are sinners, and God gives it to us despite that. Heaven is not an award that we deserve, it's a gift that we are given despite our unworthiness.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

My mistake. Technically, you suggest everyone (else?) should be filled with love.

I said, that for the survival instinct to be obsolete, everyone would have to be filled with love. That way, you wont have to worry about getting killed, raped, or robbed. If you don't have the money to afford things like food or medicine, someone that is filled with love would help you out with necessities.

Everyone gets old. So do relationships. Sometimes the person (and not the sex) is what kills a relationship.

Relationships that are built on more than sex can pull through and last when one person angers the other.

You imply that sex is simply a beginning to a "true" relationship and an end in a "lust" relationship.

No. What I've been saying is if sex is the beggining of a "true" relationship, it has a very small chance of lasting. A relationship where the two people actually get to know the other well-enough to know if they can actually get along have a better chance of lasting.

You shouldn't stunt your views on sex so much,

I never said sex was wrong either, just that relationships built on lust aren't always good.

But to simply suggest that sex can simply be done and enjoyed by one means (yours) is pretty short-sighted.

I'll define what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about a relationship where some guy picks up a girl at a bar for a one night stand. I'm talking about people who think sex is the only thing to a "true" relationship. While one couple is enjoying going to amusement park, movies, and other activities together, the lust couple only enjoys sex together. I'm not saying the couple that do things together can't enjoy sex. I'm saying that since they enjoy the other person being with them, there relationship is more likly to last.

 

[mr.guy]

I'll define what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about a relationship where some guy picks up a girl at a bar for a one night stand. I'm talking about people who think sex is the only thing to a "true" relationship. While one couple is enjoying going to amusement park, movies, and other activities together, the lust couple only enjoys sex together. I'm not saying the couple that do things together can't enjoy sex. I'm saying that since they enjoy the other person being with them, there relationship is more likly to last.

I can in no way disagree. But you've made out a relationship to be a binary equation. The amount of detail and variance that can draw and maintain personal relationships (sexual or no) is far more intricate than what i beleive you are suggesting. I'm not saying that you necessarily suggest that taking a girl to a movie is a cure-all for ailling relationships, (doesn't always hurt, though) but you still underestimate the level of intimacy and intensity that is possible in a relationship that has some focus (not just center) on sex.

Just so you don't misunderstand me, i've little taste for the one-night stand. My experience with it has been consistently disappointing, and i don't understand why someone would make a habit of it. But that's just it: *I* don't understand, but then again I don't have to. Sex is bigger than me, and alot of "exciting" things just won't turn my crank. To say that it's difinatively wrong to have alternatives to the "standard" (read:hollywood) relationship is pretty lame. But the different strengths in relationships HAVE been interesting, be it a relationship that has strong emphasis on sex, intelluctualism, aesthicism, cultural participation, or a myriad of other things that can help begin and maintain personal relationships. The more things any two people can do together, the better, i say. I do think it would be difficult to maintain a relationship based solely on sex, but what do i know. But to say that newness is the only exciting part of sex is "newness" tells me you don't find much exciting about sex.