Anytime? Any boundary? I didn't read anywhere here how she said no, no, no and he continued begging and pleading till she was wore down and gave in. What I did read is that it wasn't a "planned" event, the situation just got the better of them, both of them. You can't knowingly claim this guy is a predator anymore than you can tell me the number of tea leaves in China.


Never said it wasn't selfish, never said it was right, you can't expect a person, that doesn't have the same boundaries as LL, to enforce HER boundaries. Like I said, a simple "Gotta go" or "No thanks" would have ended it. That does not make him a predator, it does make him foolish, and selfish and inconsiderate for not using some sort of protection. Predator? No, and until coitus interuptus, he had a WILLING partner, and when she said no more he stopped.



No, just different from you K, and yours are different from others too so I don't know why you would toss that in as if "others" is supposed to mean something.


I put a 'veil" on nothing K, never said promiscuity is OK and certainly didn't advocate dishonesty. What exactly are you trying to say? Promiscuous: Having casual sexual relations frequently with different partners...Dishonest: Disposed to lie, cheat, defraud, or deceive....maybe you ought to think before you start throwing around accusations K. Words mean things, I don't defend nor practice either one of those and I am sure LL doesn't either so who exactly was that in reference too?



K, you don't get under my skin. Heck you can crawl under a rock never to be seen again and it wouldn't matter to me....real life vs. internet? You matter not in my real life so why would you matter on the internet? The thing is somebody is in distress and the first thing you can think of is too point out how weak, immoral, and promiscuous they are? They didn't live up to your standards? Yeah, that seems helpful<insert sarcasm here>




I know you will pick smarmy everytime, unfortunately you also pick morally superior, self-righteous, and holier than thou as well.

If living "healthy" means looking down on the masses and reveling in your superiority and righteousness then thanks but no thanks.

I also see once again you completely avoided telling your story K, or revealing a prior handle here. Something to hide K? Personally, I think you changed handles. I think you are SNL with a new game, but if you aren't you are certainly brothers in spirit.

I am not really interested in responding to ad hominen comments, serves no useful purpose. I am aware of your life philosphy (at least as you have represented it), and you are aware of mine... I don't think yours leads to good relationship outcomes, and so I advocate differently. I have no reason to beleive you are not a reasonably decent human being, and some of your "advice" I agree with. But we seriously disagree on the nature of character, and how people of healthy character behave...as evinced by your (apparent) belief this man had no obligation toward LL.

Further I do not believe that simply because people "differ" on how they live their life that all "ways" are equal, they are not. So in discussions that involve promoting solutions/behaviors there is going to be conflict...I believe people should argue civilily, not ad hominen, but at the same time I do not think it serves discussion well to pretent everyones ideas are of equal value, they are not, and it is ok to say so...one would hope though, in the spirit of intellectual honesty, some effort made to actually demonstrate why a given viewpoint is the better choice...not doing so , in favor of belittleing the person you disagree with says more about the perpetrator than it does their target...IMO.

for example...If living "healthy" means looking down on the masses and reveling in your superiority and righteousness then thanks but no thanks.

This is an ignorant statement, says nothing, explains nothing, gives no rationale whatsoever to actually made a concrete decision on. I said I get under your skin, because you consistently respond to my postitions this way...is fine if I don't get under your skin, but not sure why then you wrote this thread, that says very little..

you have said (my apologies if mistaken) sex outside of a permanent committed relationship is ok...that is promiscuity the number and frequency of partners is irrelevant...is akin to being just a little bit pregnant...there are only two kinds of sexual strategy...committed and uncommitted...the first is fidelity, the second is promiscuity. You are on the record as participateing in, and thinking, buddy sex is ok, if that is not promiscuous what the heck is it?

you said LL did not have to reveal this matter...that is dishonest, lie of ommision, lieing is a broad and not always clear circumstance, but it was very clear here. You always tell a prospective partner everything there is to know about you, the principle is radical honesty...how and when to reveal stuff is another matter...the problem for LL is the transgress was right now, at the same time she is representing herself differently to someone...she had no choice but to withdraw, or reveal...if she is a woman of character...actions have consequences, and this was one of hers...not to tell, and still meet would have been a huge manipulation of this man, for her own self-interest..not a good way to behave.

and you tried to marginalize others advice by using words like smary... if you are gonna play that game rb, expect to have your lunch handed to you.....

and as you so eloquently put it...nuff said.


but should you actually want a discussion of human behavior what works what doesn't and why, feel free...but offer rationales please.

The thing is K they aren't ad hominem attacks. I say what I say because it is what you display here. An example is the assumptions you make without proof or evidence whatsoever. I never once said he had no obligation towards LL, not once. I said he was selfish, he was inconsiderate but a predator he was not, at least not in the way it was presented in this context.


Here let me stear you back to the point. I asked you about the boundaries and why he should be held liable for hers when LL so willingly crossed them? You were willing to label him something unpleasant and I'd love to hear why. It was a known quantity by her that he did not share in her beliefs or lifestyle. This isn't a case of some guy laying out one version of himself and becoming the opposite in private. Whether I like it or not, I can respect it because at least he is honest and I'll take honesty all day long. You know where you stand with an honest man. Once again, I did not say all ways were equal


K it says plenty, just nothing you care to hear. This statement was made to show how you come off here. Are you like that in real life? I've no idea but I do know that what I wrote is exactly how your postings come off %90 of the time. Ever heard of the message getting lost in the presentation?


Yes I have said sex outside of marriage is OK under certain circumstances, but I have never, nor will I ever say the number and frequency of partners is irrelevent. An example is the fact that you wrote promiscuous in context with LL, LL has no history of this. She was married forever and a day, I believe her husband was her first if I'm not mistaken and this screw up is #2. I would hardly call that behavior promiscuous. I would certainly not put my behavior in there either K, 5 partners in 22 years? 4 LTR's and my friend...not buddy. I've been in 4 committed relationships, 3 long term and one marriage. I've had many opportunities to be a manwhore K but that's not my style. If I approved of that type of lifestyle the count would be in the hundreds, not 5. I gave you the definition of promiscuous in my post so no need to repeat it here. How many partners have you had K? How many LTR's? Sexually active during them at all?


Never said such a thing, never even hinted at such a thing, never even mentioned a word about how she should deal with this involving this other man. I'll assume you have me mixed up with someone else


[b]You may not like it but smarmy is a very good description...unpleasantly and excessively suave or ingratiating in manner...not trying to marginalize in the least K. On numerous occasions you have been asked about your history, where you got your point of view from, were you a poster here before. Heck I just asked you again in the previous post and you ignore it everytime. Your unwillingness to share that has my radar up and has me wondering what you could possibly have to hide?

I wouldn't go to a janitor to get advice on heart surgery, know what I mean? You pass it out but is it valid? Is it from experience? If so how would we know, you haven't shared anything here.

Are you SNL in a new guise K?

Are you a former poster here and if so what was your handle?

Are or were you married?

If you were married, Why are you divorced?

Cheating? By you? By her? By both of you? Or something else?

How long ago if you are divorced?

Any Kids?

How Old are you?

See this is the kind of stuff most of us know about most of us here, the regulars anyway and you have become one.

When you discuss dishonesty, I see dishonesty by ommission is just as damaging as telling bold faced lies.

You want to talk about what works and what doesn't? I'll have that conversation K but how bout humoring us with your tale and answer the questions. It shouldn't be a big deal and it is good to know the history of those we are chatting with. I'm not asking so I have something to pounce on, I'm asking because your advice really means nothing without some meat behind it.

I missed the argument ad hominem, but I found this a particularly enjoyable specimen of a straw man argument:

I may have mixed you up with advice re not telling (if she continued with the date plan), if you take the same view as I (In that regard), I am ok with withdrawing that observsation...as for all the rest RB, not really interested in a semantic debate over various nuances and meanings of words...my position is clear, yours is clear. As for my life, it is my business (not yours, despite your efforts to imply you have such status you can require that posters satisy your curiosity about their person), I share it often, when it suits me, and as much as it suits me....and never when demanded. I won't be sharing it with you.

You misunderstood my comment about irrelevant number of times or partners...I was not saying you said it, I was saying promiscuity is not a function of numbers.

In fact (to elaborate) is a function of personal belief, you can be celibate and still a promiscuous individual, just between partners. I am not even saying promiscuous people are "bad" or abstinent people are "good", there are plenty of good and bad people of both stripes...I am saying promiscuous attitudes/behavior do not lead to better outcomes than abstinent behavior, that is what I advocate when such discussions come up.. So when I use that word, it is because the context requires it, requires a distinction between committed behavior (sexual fidelity) and uncommitted behavior (promiscuity).

I have seen pre-marital abstinent behavior lead to good relationship outcomes (for reasons too numerous to enumerate here) far more often than promiscuous behavior (and that includes the "test drive" flavor of promiscuity). It is my position your pre-marital physical behavior will have a direct impact on your success in permanent committment (aka marriage or something equivalent)...obviously this does not apply to those who seek sex without committment, as some sort of a recreational activity, or "natural" part of "friendship".....ya know RB, sex either matters or it don't, if it don't matter, has no impact on human relationships, just something to do or not to do...then I am all wrong...but if it does matter, then there are principles to be discerned and applied. I have considered in depth both points of view, and the facts seem (to me) that sex matters, I have never heard a convincing argument (or statistics) that said otherwise. So I can either go with a rational determination of these matters, or I can just do what "feels" good. In this case, I have decided reason should dictate actions, and that is what I promote.

There is absolutely nothing of value you can determine about an individual by way of pre-marital sex....everything you need to know you can find out in other ways...but pre-marital sex has so many downsides it baffles me why any intelligent person (assuming they have done their homework) doesn't realize any possible benefit is far far outweighed by the risk and multitude of negative consequences.

I also stand by my definition of predatory behavior...Human beings are absolutely to be judged by how well they take care of each other...and one of the fundamental character qualities of a man, is to protect a womans virtue. You do not agree with that rb? That is why I label him a predator. There are reasons for this philosophic stance, and they are rooted in the primal behavior of both genders, as well as the immutable requirements of healthy relationships. In my world RB, one does not take advantage of another, just cause they let you, you are obligated (within reason) to assist another in protecting themself if they are weak. Clearly LL did not want this, and only a predator would overlook this in purusit of their catch.

I would never encourage somebody to be dishonest in their dealings with another. It serves no constructive purpose and causes untold hardships. So with that in mind I would not have encouraged LL to hide the truth.

I didn't imply I was entitled, nor did I demand you reveal anything. I simply asked, and in asking I got the exact answer I knew I would K.

I think the idea of pre-marital sex needs a little fine tuning, at least in how I see it in context here and your definition of celibacy and promiscuity.

If somebody is having true "pre-marital" sex ie..there is a ring, there is a promise, I do not see that as being promiscuous in nature.

I do not see LTR's with sex involved as promiscuous in nature. I'm not talking a couple months of dating either.

Of course sex matters, it is an extension of our affection and love for another.

My evidence is all anecdotal on which one may be better or worse, and frankly I'm not sure I personally subscribe to either as the best way to go.

Logically you can't follow one or the other, but if you play the odds I suppose you could.

You could follow your religious code, find guidance in that if you choose.

But Logically? Logic will not dictate a better outcome in this, too many variables K.

I mean if there were logical outcomes my parents would still be married, My brother would still be married, my sister would still be married, my neighbors would still be married, none of them had sex before marriage. I know it is anecdotal, and I know you can come up with the opposite results if you choose.

I had sex with my wife before marriage and we are divorced. BTW, in all these there was a cheating spouse except in my parents case.

My point is humans are very complex and I do not see how having sex with her caused her to cheat on me 13 years later. Nor do I see how NOT having sex caused my SIL to cheat on my brother 11 years later. And on and on. I don't think intelligence matters in this, I don't think any amount of reading or learning is going to matter.

I think whether or not you remain celibate, if you don't follow the principles laid out here on this site, the outcome will be the same. That I will put my money on, but I wouldn't lay my money down on whether or not I have sex beforehand.

Explain exactly what you mean by a "better outcome"

One more thing. The "test-drive" stuff you keep bringing up?

If we have agreed that sex is an important and vital part of a marriage, and depending on how you rate it as a need, personally #2, what happens when wedding night comes?

What happens when/if you find you are sexually incompatible?
I don't care how much "talking" you have done, I don't care how many discussions have been had.

What do you do?

I'm confused, Knight, about your definition of promsicuity. You said someone can be celibate and promiscuous, that it was a function of personal belief. How so?

One reason I'm asking is because earlier in my life I was promiscuous. I didn't realize it at the time, but I do now.

RM, your wedding night scenario is one reason why I would not wait until the wedding night. Sexual incompatibility can be very difficult to deal with. Of course, SF is high on my list. Steve Harley says it's because during sex I get other needs met as well. Openness and Honesty and Admiration come to mind. I do think you can have a good idea of sexual compatibility without intercourse.

RM,

I find your attempt to confront Knight50 commendable but futile. This is a virtual pulpit for him, one that grants him much power and to expect him to reveal the person behind the thinking would be like pulling the curtain away on the wizard of oz. Unfortunately, LL knows what was wrong with what she did and doesn't need the excessive guilt he bestows on her, but probably is hurt enough to let his message increase her shame.

I do believe K mentioned a divorce a long time ago, but nothing more. I also believe one's experiences shape one's views, making these black/white judgments all the more irksome.

I've lurked for a while here but don't remember SNL - what was he/she like?

allright, the issue of promiscuity is worthy of comment, and this thread seems to have taken a turn to substantive discourse, I will respond, but will be later..., I do not, am not, will not judge anyone, it is simply my opinion none of this stuff comes naturally to any of us, and is worth figuring out....it is inevitable I suppose some will take personal affront if they are challenged, is of no matter, their problem...but it is easier to discuss when people stay on topic.

For the record (and the holier than thou comments).. I am not a saint, have tried promiscuity (to my regret), not practiced (as successfully) as I should appropriate pre-marital sex boundaries, and learned all the lessons I speak to here the hard way, so I know whereof I speak...been there, done that.

weisguy if you actually have something useful to contribute, feel free...stating the obvious is of little value, of course we all have experience and bias...but unlike what you imply, that does not impair our ability to think, or percieve the underlying principles of human behaviour.

So, Knight, are you saying you'll give your definition of promiscuity some time in the future?

You kind of lost me when you said that some will take it as a personal affront. Were you talking about your definition of promiscuity?

I'm probably just having a dolt day here.... Forgive me if I'm slow.

Greengables,

From the thread on pre-marital physical boundaries in early June, Knight50 said

"Since sex is a powerful and and consequence laden activity we recognize celibacy (or abstinence) and it's opposite..promiscuity."

He also stated that any sex outside of marriage is promiscuous. Several pointed out that the dictionary states it as casual sex which multiple partners.

A problem many have with Knight is that he throws out personal judgements and then turns around and complains that others pursue ad hominem attacks and don't stick to the subject. A good debating technique for the uninitiated, perhaps, but tiresome after a while.

He keeps pointing out that sex in a relationship outside of marriage leads to bad consequences but doesn't elaborate nor state his proof (other than his own experience?). Given the force of his declarations, he needs to back it up better...

Interesting. If you are quoting exactly what Knight said, it would appear he doesn't recognize any middle ground. Weisguy, thanks for clarifying. In general, I find Knight's posts confusing.

BTW, do you work for Weis supermarkets? Don't answer if you don't want to.

Greengables,

No, I do not work for Weis markets. Sylvius Leopold Weiss is a favorite Baroque era composer of mine and its a word play on wiseguy, which I am not...

I don't mean to sound mean towards Knight50, but his message and patronizing tone bothers me and is probably not helpful to Lordslady at this time, something Reborn Man points out much more eloquently. I guess I've been around long enough to know that, while moral clarity is a wonderful ideal, it usually requires oversimplification of this complex world we live in.

I am reminded of my brother, who with his strong religious beliefs, often espoused the ideals of a God filled marriage and mystical love it gave a person. Yet my siblings and I all knew (and he once in a while admitted) how horrible his wife treated him. He could have easily been on this site, preaching his ideals and no one would know if he lived it or not.

The quote needs the rest of the context to make sense GG. By later I meant today, or tomorrow. There are many things in life with no middle ground, this is one of them. You either think pre-marital sex is a healthy behavior, or you don't....maybe is a silly and meaningless postion espoused by those who have no principles and lead a life of situational ethics...basically reactionary people driven by feelings. Feelings are insticntual, and by-pass our greatest asset, cognition, the ability to act in opposition to feelings. We all recognize being a little bit pregnant is dumb, you either are or are not (and that will become apparent in due time...or you get an abortion thereby solving your problem expediently, or situationally, and revealing a serious character flaw...or at least a very ill-advised mistake made under duress, and one usually regretted even by so-called pro-choice advocates..if done solely to rid themself of the baby). You also have people who wear seatbelts "most" of the time, and think that is ok, when of course it is ignorant...but sometimes they just don't feel like wearing it...for whatever reason. Why people think behavior is not black and white escapes me, when it is so clear many behavioral choices are decidely not ok, that implies there are principles....true? We can argue over what those principles are, but we cannot argue there are no principles, and people should do whatever feels ok, it is just different.

Back to sex, since it is a powerful bonding agent, it makes sense how one chooses sex has a profound impact on their relationshiop success... and since we define two conditons of social existence, married (permanent committment), or single (with or without friends with benefits), it makes sense to look at sexual bonding as pre-marital or post marital, there are no other choices GG...right?

weisguy, noted you find my tone patronizing, your choice...but appointing yourself another adults gaurdian without their permission is far more patronizing than anything I ever do. Why do you think another adult (LL) in this case is not capable of telling me to buzz off if she feels like it, why do you assume she needs you as her protector? And how do you know she does not find value in all points of views, and what, you would deprive her of that? I find my contribution in these kinds of matters (according to the feedback I get) is well-received and appreciated...so I must be doing something right, fancy that. I have found though that "groups" kind of split down party lines...those who seek, enjoy, and value in depth (and vigorous) airing of issues, especially hearing and discussing all views...and those who are threatened if their views are challenged, or cannot hold up to logical scrutiny (in other words are feeling based), they then whine and moan and complain and carry on something awful, I often wonder why they read or participate in such discussions if it distresses them so much....seems a bit irrational to me.

After reading this thread I've developed a serious inadequacy issue. Has the IQ in this forum gone through the roof in the past year, or is everyone suddenly posting with a dictionary and thesaurus at hand?


It just seems the 'uptight' needle is redlined.

This is an absurd false dichotomy.

"Situational ethics" is a term which has come to be unfairly treated in some circles as signifying a lack of meaningful or coherent ethics. In fact, "situational ethics" merely denotes the significance of context in ethical decision-making. This is a more complex concept than black-and-white morality, but it is by no means suggestive of a lack of principles. Accusing people of having "no principles" just because you disagree with theirs qualifies as an ad hominem, in my opinion. And simply dismissing a thesis as "silly" is not a fallacy as such, but it is an avoidance of logic.

While I am a big fan of applying reason in decision-making, calling cognition our greatest asset is a bit over-the-top, in my opinion. Especially since it's been shown that, whether or not it's true that feelings bypass cognition, cognition does not bypass feelings! The concept of "emotional intelligence" was derived from the observation that certain types of brain damage which impaired the ability to experience or process emotions, while not impairing performance on tests of reasoning, led to self-destructive and socially destructive behavior. This is surprising, because even in the absence of experiencing emotion, it should be possible to model the effects of anti-social behavior and choose to behave otherwise. In theory, this sort of impairment should even be an asset in social situations, in the manner of a "con man". But apparently it doesn't work that way. Feelings, instincts, and intuition are integral to our reasoning ability.

It does not follow. It isn't even true. Knight50, you get a lot of negative feedback, but somehow it seems that you don't consider it valid - Maybe because you don't consider it meaningful? By dismissing the arguments in the negative feedback, do you effectively remove it from your mind as if you've decided it doesn't really exist?

There are people who will put up with your arrogance and insensitivity without saying anything about it, because often enough you have helpful things to say, and because it has become clear that saying anything does no good whatsoever. There are other people who might be grossly hurt or offended but who will say nothing because, again, it does no good, and for them "flight" takes precedence over "fight."

I'm sure lordslady is capable of telling you to buzz off, but she knows as well as the rest of us that you won't do it. So why bother? In case you haven't noticed, she hasn't responded to you (directly anyhow) in her thread for quite some time, so you have no reason to believe that she finds value in your contributions. Personally, I do not have sufficient imagination to encompass the idea that she could have found value in your "sounds like a PMS post" comment, which was not only astonishingly boorish, but which didn't even make any logical sense if you were following the calendar calculations right there in her thread!

Knight50, it's up to you how you choose to behave, but if you think that the evidence indicates that you must be "doing something right," I'd encourage you to take a closer look.

Gdp, interesting post, was good for a chuckle at a couple of points, especially the analysis of LL (why is are you and weis so concerned about her opinion of me, that seems odd), or the assumption I post (specifically) because I expect or seek an affirmative response, if I did I would post differently...people will either understand me, or not (and ask questions, or comment), I simply cast my bread on the waters of discourse.

I suspect you weren't trying to be humorous, maybe you are just having a bad day, but your analysis of various matters was not up to your usual standards. Situational ethics is just a common um...label to apply to arguments that claim everything is relative, that there are no behavioral principles to discern and apply...do you believe that (it was unclear if you do or not), I happen to believe that, so naturally I will argue accordingly...right? And those who don't will keep conjuring up reasons a principle won't apply, or there is no principle at all, just a situation....It does not mean life has all sorts of situations in which principles have to be applied with different actions, I would have thought you realized that is obvious, and no need to state it...sigh... Marriage is an obvious example, you apply all the relevant principles and you still may or may not marry someone due to intuition, or feeling, or even irreconcileable goals, a situational outcome.

Lest there be any confusion, let me state this as plainly as I can.

I believe there exists a behavioral principle (well actually 3 principles, but this is one) that directly impact the success of developing a deep intimate relationship we typically label "marriage". That being pre-marital intercourse will diminish the likelihood of success in that pursuit... in all cases, with all people, with no (situational) exceptions. That clear enough? There is no dichotomy, there is a clear state of intercourse or not intercourse with every human being we have contact with, in regard to our relationship status (permanent life time committment), it is from that "truism" I argue from...you suggest there is some sort of other "condition" ...confused look on Knight50's face.....

I am puzzled by your pooh poohing of cognition as our greatest assest, if that isn't it (as a species) then what in the heck do you suggest instead?.....puzzled look on Knight50's face....

btw gdp, I consider all feedback of value, and I look at it, and take away from it what I will.... I also get far far more positive feedback than negative, and most of the negative is nyah nyah nyah, I don't like how you sound... You'd be surprised (or maybe not..shrug...) how often I hear from people telling me they really appreciate taking on tough stuff, and refuteing the verbal bullies out there....I think I am a verbal bully magnet or something...there is just something about someone taking strong positions on anything "smells" like morality that drives situational people crazy. I can't help it that strong positions, as well as arguing that all positions are not equal, and there is no need to respect them if so, results in ad hominen comments about arogance or condescension. Those are silly and irrelevant (as well as eye of beholder feelings) digressions away from the argument. One is either right or wrong, and that can be argued from a logical standpoint, it makes no difference how the person makes you feel....and if you are truly a "smart" (as in street smart) individual, you won't let your feelings get in the way of information exchange...true?

Now if I was in social circumstance requiring more "lubrication" getting along for the common good, of course I would have to consider the sensibilities (even if I disagee, dislike, or think the person ignorant) of various group members, and adjust my demeanor accordingly....that isn't the case here....is it? I simply have my say as unimbellished by emotion as possible (and therefore as clear as can be), it is completely irrelevant what anyone thinks of me in an annonymous enviroment. I have zero impact on their lives, and they on mine..I simply need to follow basic rules of civility, and intellectual honesty. By all means, call me on any lapses in my logic, or simply offer a competeing position, and the way it works is those who are interested will read and apply the discussion as they see fit.... true? Why all the personal (which eventually approaches ad hominen levels) comments, sure we all lapse a bit in our actual choice of words, there is a little leeway...but it is a slippery slope, and we should try real hard to stick only to the facts and not how they are presented (demeanor and style), and react in a peeing match. When I mention ad hominen, I am not complaining, or even annoyed, I am just pointing out that is not discussion and is a waste of time. Personally I happen to enjoy a wide diversity of presentations. You have your hotheads, your contemplative types, your nice types, your arrogant types, your whiny types, all kinds of types...so what?

Ok gg, I am going to finish this post, and I am leaveing MB, it consumes to much of my time and I have come to realize it is more of a habit in a soap opera kind of way than anything else (not that there isn't tremendous value in what is essentially a group therapy enviroment...it is simply that I have benefited as much as one can, and did my part in paying my dues back, staying any longer is interfereing with real life). I do find value in promting healthy behavioral principles, but if I want to continue to do so, would be better served in a blog, or website enviroment, or even writing about these matters. I debated whether should even mention leaveing, why do so, no obligation really. But I decided it is a courtesy, is mildly disconcerting when people just vanish, when so easy to make mention of the fact, I am basically a polite person, so there it is.

I do think promiscuity is an immensely important behavior to fully understand and discern, ones feelings about sexual conduct dictate behavioral choices that have a profound affect on our lives, and in some cases even kills us (not just std's, stress/depression reducing our health, also involvement with sociopaths, it is appalling how many women are killed or seriously injured each year by their "Lovers", many of these victims established to quickly sexual relationships and became embroiled with, married too individuals they may otherwise have "left" while they still could. In most cases people have not really thought all this stuff out, they mostly act out of feelings with a little rational oversite...this is a matter that should be entirely decided by reason. May not finish tonight, but by tomorrow.