Will single eligible women be bothered by men?

by **Ranu** » Mon May 03, 2004 3:24 am

Mayavi Morpheus wrote:[ Love naturally leads to sex, thats human nature.
Anyway, to each his/her own.

hatred naturally leads to anger and maybe killing, that's human nature too. atleast with some of us . So?

by **Mayavi Morpheus** » Mon May 03, 2004 5:57 am

Hate takes life, sex results in life. Apples and oranges. Sex doesnt kill anyone, does it?

You are yet to explain how sex before marraige is different from sex after marriage.

by **Ranu** » Mon May 03, 2004 7:37 am

Mayavi Morpheus wrote:Hate takes life, sex results in life. Apples and oranges. Sex doesnt kill anyone, does it?
You are yet to explain how sex before marraige is different from sex after marriage.

Sex with the wrong persons at the wrong times seems to be killing little helpless babies, MM.

Sex with whom ? Your to-be-spouse? Or with anyone ? Later dude, I have to go out for the evening now.

by **CtrlAltDel** » Mon May 03, 2004 10:27 am

Mayavi Morpheus wrote:See ctrl bhai immediately and take a crash course

hey, is my name Dr.Rai or Dr.Oberoi or something like that? :lol:

Mayavi Morpheus wrote:Right, stay away from it if you dont like but dont impose your opinions on others. If people are doing it with consent, let them do it. Then there will be no 'social stigma' attached to it.

quite right. as long as pre-marital sex is not forced, and neither of them are minors, nothing wrong in it. but most important: take precautions.

US Experience wrote:Because of dating and pre-marital sex, the entire US and Europe is full of divorces and father-less babies

thats called a generalization.

Ranu wrote:Sex with the wrong persons at the wrong times seems to be killing little helpless babies;

haven't heard of birth control have u?

Ranu wrote:Sex with whom ? Your to-be-spouse? Or with anyone ?

it cud be anybody...whats the problem? why be so high n mighty moralistic about fulfiling a natural god given impulse?

sex is as natural as breathing, eating n crapping. some humans in ancient times decided to label it immoral since it interfered in their spiritual quest.

by **azazel** » Mon May 03, 2004 10:45 pm

Mayavi Morpheus wrote:Virginity is not a virtue nor is a liability. You dont have to lose it just for the sake of losing it or just for experience. But you dont have to 'ctrl' just to be a virgin. Love naturally leads to sex, thats human nature.
Anyway, to each his/her own.

arey yaar, im a religious guy, so ill b naturally biased in this regard.. to each his own, like u said.. i just said that those who cant handle the situation should stay away from creating one!

See ctrl bhai immediately and take a crash course

in what?? but whtever it may be, it'll definitely b a crash-course all right!

Right, stay away from it if you dont like but dont impose your opinions on others. If people are doing it with consent, let them do it. Then there will be no 'social stigma' attached to it.

did I tell anyone to stop??

by **Mayavi Morpheus** » Mon May 03, 2004 11:00 pm

hey, is my name Dr.Rai or Dr.Oberoi or something like that?

Arey ctrl bhai, aap to azazel ke guruji hai na. Ab jawaan sishya aise batein kar raha hai to guruji ko kuch karna padega.

i just said that those who cant handle the situation should stay away from creating one!

Right, those who cant handle it should stay away from it. We are discussing whether 'it' is right or wrong, assuming those involved can handle it.

did I tell anyone to stop??

You got me wrong azazel, 'You' is not you in particular. Anyone who doesnt like it should stay away from it and not criticize others i.e., the 'society' shld mind its own business and not interfere in others personal lives.

by **azazel** » Tue May 04, 2004 12:10 am

Mayavi Morpheus wrote:Right, those who cant handle it should stay away from it. We are discussing whether 'it' is right or wrong, assuming those involved can handle it.

so, experienced junta.. have yer say..

You got me wrong azazel, 'You' is not you in particular. Anyone who doesnt like it should stay away from it and not criticize others i.e., the 'society' shld mind its own business and not interfere in others personal lives.

hey, the society can go suck on donkey's balls.. I just laid down my peronal feelings on this.. im entitled to 'em :twisted:

what everyone does, is their own business.. :roll:

by **mysterious babe** » Sat May 08, 2004 2:21 pm

Ranu wrote:
Sex with the wrong persons at the wrong times seems to be killing little helpless babies, MM.

.

y would anyone have sex willingly with the wrong person..............at times i feel abortion is probably a better option rather than giving birth to the child if we r not in a position to take its responsibility...........and there is nothing wrong in pre marital sex..............

by **CtrlAltDel** » Sat May 08, 2004 4:17 pm

mysterious babe wrote:y would anyone have sex willingly with the wrong person..............at times i feel abortion is probably a better option rather than giving birth to the child if we r not in a position to take its responsibility...........and there is nothing wrong in pre marital sex..............

well said Mystie...hope Ranu takes a flexible stand, seeing another lady make the same point i made!

by **JustaLittleUnwell** » Sat May 08, 2004 9:23 pm

The question of premarital sex again? I thought we had beaten to death, this issue :) I'm against premarital sex - which is not news to many here :)

Condoms and other birth control measures are 97% safe (source - 'Friends' sitcom :) ) and if you look at any travel guides on India or any other Asian country, the western traveller is warned that local-made condoms have a failure rate of 15%. Could be a supremacist statement or could be true - I have no clue. If true, we need to be all the more concerned, before we feel all safe and cozy in our shining armors :) So what i'm driving at is: even after all precautions, a small percentage of pre-marital adventures may result in (1) pregnancy or (2) sexual transmission of diseases.

Notwithstanding these scientific details, my objection is not centered around the innocent fetuses (correct plural form?) and their silent screams. It's about values. It's about a sense of order. If after reading all the arguments here for premarital sex (some from the ladies' compartment as well), if a couple of co-workers / classmates of opposite sex were to decide that they had a tough day at work / school / college, and need to refresh - and on 'mutual consent basis' take to the bed - that would be a sad thing for the society. Who would not consent to have sex? Men? Women? I think both would, since it is pleasureable experience. So I could be having sex with colleague A, ex-classmate B, ex-colleague C, fellow-fullhyderbadi D - provided all these folks are single, give their consent, and are adequately 'protected'. Sounds 'yucky', or no?

I think sex is a right that comes with a responsibility - responsibility towards the person you are having sex with, and concern for his/her wellbeing and future. Marriage (despite its limitations) comes closest to epitomising this responsibility. Love is too fickle - you may love someone a given moment, and not love him the next moment, when you see him chew with his mouth open ;) I think being in love is not a sufficient excuse for pre-marital sex, as you could be changing your lovers, as your mood changes.

by **asli_badmash** » Sat May 08, 2004 9:50 pm

Sex means different things to different people.

1. If you treat sex as a sacred bonding between two people, then pre-marital sex is wrong.

2. If you treat sex as a bodily fuction and have no emotions attached with it. Then sex with anyone anywhere is OK.

Sleeping around with everybody is wrong. Sleeping around with nobody is also wrong.

Dont deny what you were born to do, but doing it has its consequences. If you understand the consequences and accept the price that comes with it, then by all means "DO IT".

~badmash~

by BM » Sat May 08, 2004 9:56 pm

Johnny wrote::lol:
I forgot i am a special user too..

Me to

by **mysterious babe** » Mon May 10, 2004 5:49 pm

asli_badmash wrote:then by all means "DO IT".

~badmash~

thats what NIKE says"just do it" and later"just did it" :wink:

Oh god when will i stop cracking my stupid PJs but just couldnt control

by **azazel** » Mon May 10, 2004 7:05 pm

ek aur mahaan hasti ne kaha tha:

Children in backseats cause accidents;

Accidents in backseats cause children !

:twisted:

by **adarshguddi** » Sat May 15, 2004 8:23 pm

Shruti wrote:I was wondering what hydbadies think about this!
Single women-unmarried,divorced,seperated,widowed.....are they going to be targets to men-on-the-prowl?Will they be able to have friendships with guys without having to fend off every attempt to get her in the .....?
yes,i know it depends on the woman and how she carries herself.....but come on..guys are a little blind (when need be)even when flashed with neon lights.......So what do u guys and sirls out there think?I am really curious.

well while the question is quite interesting it is very simple to answer and accept the answer if u r practical and realistic.

First of all it all depends purely on the woman in question.Secondly, most men take advantage of a single woman irrespective of her social or marrietal status.

However, i dont blame men alone in this, if woman does not want to be "exploited" by men , it is impossible for a man to do otherwise.

Will single eligible women be bothered by men?

...

Re: ...

Re: Will single eligible women be bothered by men?

Who is online