Exactly he's so stupid yet I could give him a little slack. I asked him if he would kiss her he said "Eww girls are sick!" so obvious.

i didn't say relationships are based around sex, but sex is necessary as upkeep.



think of it as changing the oil in your car, only not as caustic.



i'm also a big fan of the intimacy, but it's a worthy cause.

Sex all the time is boring it gives no meaning to a relationship.

i'm not talking about going at it every twenty seconds.






but i can see you're a veritable talking head with four published works on the subject, so i'll stand aside.



because i know when i was 14 years old, i was having so much sex i was downright bored. i tried so many thiiings, but sex just got old.


god damn, get out of my house.

Noone has sex all the time. Though not being pedantic, and changing 'all the time' to 'often', I can safely say: Bollocks.
It is proven that its both not boring, i.e. fun (the opposite to what you exclamed) and that it has given lots of meaning to thousands, no, milliions, of relationships in the world.

well, i will say it can get old.


but that doesn't change the fact that i'm all about it at least a couple times a day with the ladyfriend.



i'm just saying that people don't constantly do it, unless they're sex addicts.

I mean if every date you have is one where you have sex theres no relationship. Well yeah a relationship but no bonding

sex is meant to be bonding.



it's an emotional-- as well as physical-- experience.

How old are you blue?. not going off topic I'm just curious.

twenty.




aged a bit more by los angeles, i'd say.

Ah, I was wondering cause you said that WHEN you were 14 etc.

So anyway... would anybody consider here, having sex every date they have?

i was kidding.



i was refering to the fact that YOU are 14 and you talk about sex being boring.



it's hilarious.


on another note, that's not how a relationship works.


you meet someone and possibly date them. you don't have sex right away, you might not even have sex until you've stopped going on 'dates' and are just a couple.


sex is more about trust than motion of the ocean.

Yeah you have to trust each other not take pics.

i'm don't think you'll have to worry about that, Alpha. as long as they don't spot you in their trees.



and technically, voyeurism isn't exactly a wining and dining three-course date, slick.

I remember my first girl dropped my phone down her bra

i bet she wasn't so much your 'girl' as 'that girl who lives next door that i sometimes dangle from rappelling cord precariously over and ogle'




ala




http://www.commeaucinema.com/sites/m...s/indextom.jpg

Alright... Alpha and bluebastard, you should probably wait for more folks to post. I mean, its been like 14 posts straight (besides one interuption by Esus) of you guys talking about sex. And Alpha, you are 14. I rest my case.

of relevant matters, my good chum.




and that was my point the entire time.

Okay, for the sake of trying to save this topic, I'll state the conclusions I've come to for myself. When a preteen is starting to notice the opposite sex, there's nothing wrong at the time for them to think "Hey! I'm so cool with my boyfriend/girlfriend! Woo!" because frankly, it doesn't cause any harm (other than making them look pretty sad to older kids). Besides, it's usually just a verbal agreement, and at the most usually something as innocent as a few little kisses.

However, if the kid is being pressured somehow to seem older and whatnot by going too far sexually, then yeah, the whole preteens "dating" thing is bad, especially since most kids are just starting to figure out how to make tab A er.. work, for a lack of a better word. (See thatbluebastard's image on page two if you don't know what I'm referring to.)

And as far calling it "dating" issue goes, by the time most people are old enough to realize that they were not technically dating, it simply doesn't matter any more.

As previously stated by members other than me, Alpha, you are 14 (Or 13, meh). How can you possibley comment on sexual relationships, seeing as I doubt you have actually had sex before? If you have- I call for peadophilia or, uh, something else I can't remember. Eew.

Moving on entirely... Is not the point of life to have sex (although everyone thinks otherwise... See "Meaning of Life Debate")? Think of it- Why do we live? To make a difference? Pah! Bulla sh*tta. Why do bunnies live? "Bunny= sex". "Humans= sort of like bunnies" which logically equals "Human= sex". End of mah rant, rite thur, mon.

Still, I think humans only live to reproduce, as do every animal in existence (except lemmings).

but that's simply from a biological standpoint.



that's assuming a stance that behavior is influenced by genes, biological determinism.



it also brings up a point. it doesn't really answer the issue 'what is the point of life'.


it brings up a precursor, which is 'why are we here in the first place?'


you could take a nihilist approach and say, 'there is no point to us being here. all life is trite and meaningless.'


there are a million other approaches you could take.


while sex prodominantly plays a procreation role, there are so many other facets to it added by society and personal beliefs.


christian values have placed it as a gift, only to be experienced after marriage.

but, sex in humans, and even mammalia in general, is more than just procreation, maybe even it was intended to be.

sex is not the only factor in a rabbit's survival.


while continuing its genetic code is of great concern, in a Darwinistic sense, self-preservation is a greater motivating factor that encompasses the need to reproduce.

it does not apply to humans.


there are some who choose never to have kids and so do not.


and yet they do not find their existence meaningless.


there is no way to prove the 'point of life'[as of yet], as it will result in a circular argument.

saying that reproduction is the point of life is a truism.

yes, it represents a great motivating factor, but for the most part, and especially in human civilization, it does not hold true.

Life has no purpose other than to exist, nor does it need any. It just so happens that life must reproduce to continue to exist. But that doesn't mean that reproduction is the purpose of life. I refuse to believe that the meaning of life is something so base as plain sex. And humans aren't anything like rabbits, except that we're both mammals and therefore share some physiological similarities.

Of course... I really do need to experience it before I comment on it. I'm gonna go get on that.

EDIT: TBB beat me to the punch and definitely said something intelligent and probably something I sort of agree with. But I can't really be bothered to read all of that. Especially with like, three lines between every sentence.

existing for the sake of existing hardly proves that we have a purpose.


a circular arrangement that perpetuates itself.




it's not logical.

We have no purpose that I can discern. Does matter need a purpose for existence? Does something need to be to be? I wouldn't think so.

but that is what you're saying.



that we just are.




there may not be any purpose. there may be.

i'm arguing the point of life, not the fact that it might not have one.[which i still covered with my nihilism comment.]

I have no idea what nihilism is. But I think I should shut up now because I've helped to contribute to the hijacking of this thread.

Good god, I still can't believe a thread that I have created has gotten past one page. Hoo-wee.

Sir, you have made my day by saying this. I cannot stop grinning now.

Yes, this is a true statement. Yet also slightly false. Yes, they do not feel meaningless. But say they do not breed, and die. Since they have not continued their respective family tree, they have not started a new generation of their familys' offspring, therefore, making their famliy tree slightly pointless.

Now, if we all stopped breeding, would sex not seem like the meaning of life? So, in a sense, reproduction is the meaning of life. But why we are here is a different story. "Why are monkeys here?", you might ask. "Why are single celled amoeba here?" . No particular reason in general. I guess it is because a planet evolved to have some sort of watery surface, and it wasn't cleaned for a while, moss following. Bacteria grows off the moss, and eventually evolves into some sort of being.

Remember peepz, I try to be as non-offensive in my posts as possible. If it seems like I am argueing with you, in a non-happy way, kick me in the balls. Like, real hard. And thatbluebastard, you are really adding to this conversation, and for that I thank you :)

nihilism is skepticism to the extreme.


it is the belief that all values are without base and that nothing can ever truly be known.


in it's earliest use, nihilists were revolutionaries in 19th-century Russia that believed by destroying existing social and political anchors and institutions, change could be initiated and that that was, in fact, the ONLY way to instigate change.


in its modern day interpretation, nihilism is the belief[much like i described above] that traditional values and morals are pointless.


and to a further extreme, that nothing has value.


if nothing has value and you put value on nothing, then everything and anything is pointless.


i would go on some more about it, but it's an interesting subject that has many facets to it.



supermunch, you cannot define someone's life with your own views on purpose.


you say that that person's life is pointless because they did not propagate.


why? in what sense?



and the spontaneous generation theory is so ridiculous, it's amazing.


by simply forgoing reproduction[a theme explored in many books and movies, one being Y: The Last Man], this does not invoke purpose.

it may make the human species extinct, but it does not mean that procreation was the point to life.


this is akin to saying that if a burrito's purpose is unknown and is to be eaten, but does not get eaten, that being eaten was its purpose.

How quickly the conversation turns.

The question of purpose is a question no human can answer, or ever will. It amazes me when some people speak as if they can even comprehend life. I mean, what is anything? All the knowledge we have came from others just like us, independent beings who had to be taught how things are by way of example. Nobody actually understands what is actually going on. What we do is follow the herd, but who is leading? Nobody. Everyone acts as if they know what they're doing, they don't. We've developed culture to put this stuff into some kind of logical sense. We are now processed to beleive that there are certain ways of doing things and this is this, is that. The truth is we're all confused and alone, but because we have a false sense of togetherness and knowledge, we just go with it. I have nothing against this way of life and I enjoy living it this way. My point is nobody has the answers, and if they say they do, they have a false sense of reality. I keep an open mind, and beleive anything is possible, thinking anything less is just egotistical.

I'm not defining life by my opinion, but simply stating my opinion. You can agree or disagree.

Yes, it was rather stupid, yes. But then again, we do not know how we got here for sure...

But isn't the point of a burritos existence to be eaten? I mean, what other choice does it have except 'not be eaten'? Then again, burritos are more sentient than some forum users... :p

I'm not saying it is completely pointless, as I said that your view previously stated on life was true. I'm just saying, it is pretty much 50-50. The person life may not be pointless, but their sex life/ non-sex life was... Not to mention their previous kin's persistence to breed.

Wow, we have sort of trod off the topic of "Children dating"... Who thinks it's moral, or immoral? Myself, I think it is immoral, for previously stated reaons, many of which were not stated my moi. Anyway, I think it is just stupid and obviously peer-pressure induced.