Do you want to be friends with benefits?

[Budget Player Cadet_]

BPC- In other words you don't have one.

I never took the time to design my own, and I don't see the point on anything more than a theoretical level-pragmatically speaking, it's simply not that useful in day-to-day life, and I'm not willing to spend years studying philosophy to get one if it isn't going to make my life considerably better.

Also, judging by your tone and purported desire to destroy my arguments,you seem to misunderstand the point of the DH. For you, it's about bashing that which you don't like, and trying to prove you're right at any cost. You don't come here to learn, you come here to insult and to preach. So on second thought, I wouldn't give you the time of day for a debate, because the only thing productive that comes from debating people like you is conditioning yourself to handle perceived ignorance. I've already learned that, you clearly haven't since you are aggressive towards everyone you perceive as ignorant.

I'm aggressive because you won't drop this philosophy, despite the fact that it was fairly consistently routed by me, Ballin, and the like. You bring it up whenever sex comes up, and then refuse to clarify it (probably because you don't want to have to admit that you're very, very wrong).

Furthermore, to claim that I am "stuck in my stance" is patently ridiculous and incredibly ironic coming from you. Yes, I am willing and prepared to shred your arguments because we've already been over this one, and unless it's changed considerably since last time we went over it, it's still as faulty as ever. I'm also willing to try to learn something, but not if you're, as I heavily suspect, wrong. But way to shove my thoughts off and refuse to debate with me on the cause of one gigantic ad hominem attack.

 

[Dre89]

I never took the time to design my own, and I don't see the point on anything more than a theoretical level-pragmatically speaking, it's simply not that useful in day-to-day life, and I'm not willing to spend years studying philosophy to get one if it isn't going to make my life considerably better.

You don't need to study philosophy to have a coherent moral philosophy.

I'm aggressive because you won't drop this philosophy, despite the fact that it was fairly consistently routed by me, Ballin, and the like. You bring it up whenever sex comes up, and then refuse to clarify it (probably because you don't want to have to admit that you're very, very wrong).

See this is why I don't want to debate you. Your intention is to convert people to your views, not to debate for the sake of debating. You'll never want to play devil's advocate in a debate because you have difficulty dettaching yourself from your personal convictions.


I've gotten PMs telling me that my God stuff is really good. If I can tell that the person is not particularly educated in the topic, I don't try and shove my person philosophy down their throat, I recommend them both theistic and atheistic sources to read.


Awhile ago I had an atheist tell me that he was on the verge of converting to deism based on my God arguments. I didn't try and push him over the edge, I decided to let him be, because I'd rather promote intellectual stimulation and freedom as opposed to shoving my opinion down everyone's throat.

You on the other hand, are only concerned with making people agree with you. You're exactly like the religious people you criticise. You're a fundamentalist atheist of sorts.

Also, someone not agreeing with you, and you perceiving their stance as ignorant does not give you the right to be aggressive. There are plenty of other debaters here who probably feel my arguments are just as flawed as you do, yet they possess the maturity not to resort to aggression. There's no reason why you shouldn't be the same.


Pretty much everyone in the DH has a mind sophisticated enough to be frustrated by ignorant people in the world. Yet unlike you, most of us in the DH are capable of containing ourselves. We're simply past that level where we resort to aggression when faced with perceived ignorance.

Furthermore, to claim that I am "stuck in my stance" is patently ridiculous and incredibly ironic coming from you. Yes, I am willing and prepared to shred your arguments because we've already been over this one, and unless it's changed considerably since last time we went over it, it's still as faulty as ever. I'm also willing to try to learn something, but not if you're, as I heavily suspect, wrong. But way to shove my thoughts off and refuse to debate with me on the cause of one gigantic ad hominem attack.

You just shot yourself in the foot. If you want to be open to learning something new, you have to be open to considering something which you consider wrong at the time. You just said you're not willing to accept something you initially perceive as wrong, which is pretty much everything new you could learn in a debating context. So you basically just admitted you're narrow-minded.

And it's not an ad hominem. An ad hominem is implying that someone's arguments are poor by attacking their character. That's not what I did- I refuse to debate you because of the criticisms I labelled on your character, arguing that you don't deserve a debate and that there is nothing for either of us to gain from debating. The criticism of your character was to suggest that your character (in the context of debating) is poor, not your arguments.

 

[Lord Chair]

Friendship with benefits is cool.

Now onto discussing the subject... oh wait thread derailed nvm ima be back when it has content.

 

[MG9]

Do you want to be friends with benfits?[/

LMAO!

"Very large sexual reproduction organ" Ahahaha True dat, I shall testify.

Good point, I agree with you. Liberation of sex is a money maker but that's not all it is. Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand you view the liberation negatively. There are positives to the liberation of sex like catering to variety of desires, reducing the taboo factor and increasing comfort level.



Hmmm...I think you are looking at it too simply, there are far more. On one hand, one is not restricted to sexual relations with only one person and one doesn't have to put up with nagging, obligations, commitment, etc that are associated with relationships. On the other hand one risks getting STIs by being open to their FWB having sexual relations with which ever and however many other partner. Although the popular belief is that one will avoid attachment by placing rules and boundaries, they will be able to achieve that, but in reality, it is highly unlikely. Especially since studies demonstrate that women release a hormone during sex that is called Oxytocin that makes them grow emotionally attached to their partner. And of course, males can also become attached. Although people try to run away from the difficulties of relationships and keep things simple, things tend to end messy and feelings get hurt because one of the two usually wants to be more that FWB. Bottom line is that, FWB are running away from the difficulties of relationships. Yes, compromise, communication, understanding, patience, etc are hard to put to practice for some and no one of us are perfect at all that is needed to make a relationship work, but these are important to develop. After all, FWB most likely not see themselves staying FWB with different people to their old age, and if they don't attempt to practice these important factors in making a relationship work, they will have much harder time in making marriage work.



I wasn't looking for anything specific actually, I kept the questions open so people that post can take the thread multiple direction and view FWB through different lenses.

Here is content I posted way back that didn't get touched. I think this would be a good start to get back on topic.

 

[ballin4life]

damn no one ever PMs me telling me how awesome my posts are

 

[Battlecow]

Happens to me once in a while

 

[ciaza]

I receive an average of 5 a day.

 

[MG9]

Thread derailed once again...let's try to stay on topic.

 

[Le vieux lapin]

It took a rookie to do that, wow.
FWB are perfectly fine, since both partners agree with the parameters of the relationship.
They should make it clear early however, the rules of it's existence and the dangers or
possibility of taking it too far. They should also be aware of the damage such a relationship could cause to a friendship, and the way society views people in such a relationship.

In my opinion, the benefits and downsides of a FWB relationship would strongly differ between individuals, making it a case by case issue.
Personally, I would not.

 

[MG9]

I know Chris, jeez people. lol

Hmm I agree with the points you made. Open communication and recognizing the reality of the situation are crucial.

I recently read a study about FWBs that produced surprising results. It was conducted in Michigan State, where 60% of college students that took part in the study said they have engaged in FWB. Of these participants, 10% of FWBs ended up in real romantic relationships and 26% ended up in ruined friendships. I am so baffled that 74% of FWB didn't destroy their friendship. I always thought majority of FWBs end up destroying their friendship.

What do you guys think about the results of this study?

 

[Lord Chair]

FWB destroying friendships should really only happen often to first-time FWB. Why make the same mistake twice?

Then again, if you are rational enough to have FWB in the first place you might as well be rational enough to put them to an end without much problems.

 

[ballin4life]

I saw the movie, it was cool I guess.

 

[PieSquared]

If both parties agree completely to the parameters of their relationship, then it would be okay within their group. However, society takes a stand on "multiple sexual partners" and "sex before marriage" particularly within many religious circles. If you decide to have this relationship, it would have to take into account many other factors: future of the relationship, rules on dating, and why the fwb idea came into play. If everything can be set on, then the relationship should continue as follows.
Besides, there are no laws to a sexual relationship of this type, so if society has an issue, then they will be destroying the freedom they take for granted daily.

 

[| Big D |]

I have no problems morally with this but if you were to approach something like this, it's best to not have a previous relationship. I have friends who have done this who have tried to keep it relationship free and failed.

 

[Alien Vision]

I'm against it.

I think it's just another excuse for taking things for granted without saying that you take things for granted.

 

[Ocean]

I'm against it.

I think it's just another excuse for taking things for granted without saying that you take things for granted.

how is both parties voluntarily participating in something that they see as beneficial is them taking things for granted?

 

[Alien Vision]

Mhmm.. Let's see.. Maybe because it's not genuine in anyway, thus it's lust?

 

[Ocean]

Mhmm.. Let's see.. Maybe because it's not genuine in anyway, thus it's lust?

what makes it not genuine?

gen·u·ine   [jen-yoo-in]
adjective
free from pretense, affectation, or hypocrisy; sincere: a genuine person.

it doesn't have pretense; they aren't pretending to have sex.
it doesn't have affectation; it's pretty obvious that people don't say they are in a friends with benefits relationship because they "are in love with each other". the parameters are pretty clear that it's just for sex.
it isn't hypocritical; I feel like this speaks for itself.

what's the issue with lust? lust is an emotion just like any other. if the lust is coming from both sides, and both sides understand that it is lust and not something else, what makes it any less genuine than a relationship where the connecting emotion is love? anyway, neither of these support your original statement that people are taking things for granted.

 

[Alien Vision]

Lust means you have no self-control. No moral respect for yourself, nor the person you are shagging. That is taking things for granted.

Are you actually using a definition to defend how wrong you are to agree with this FwB nonsense?

 

[Ocean]

Lust means you have no self-control. No moral respect for yourself, nor the person you are shagging. That is taking things for granted.

Are you actually using a definition to defend how wrong you are to agree with this FwB nonsense?

no self control? that's a pretty brash statement, considering that lust is a part of love. try loving someone (romantically speaking) without desiring them (which is lust).
no moral respect? how is having sex for enjoyment is having no moral respect? as long as both parties agree, it is not harming anyone, so I'd hardly sex for enjoyment is having no moral respect.

I don't think you're using "taking things for granted" correctly. taking things for granted is appreciating it too lightly, which means that people would be appreciating sex for enjoyment too lightly, which doesn't seem like what you're arguing for.

are you denying that definitions matter?
instead of telling me how wrong I am, how about you actually debate, rather than just appealing to emotion.

 

[Alien Vision]

Are you really arguing with me on how perfectly ''normal'' ****ing somebody is, when it means nothing but mechanical sex? I'm sorry that I can't believe in these grey practices humans do just to erase this world, and pleasure themselves when it's artificial in every way.

Maybe I am using ''taking for granted'' wrong. I apologise, but what I believe in doesn't resort to this petty behavior you call a ''benefit''. I think it's degrading, pointless, and fake.

 

[Ocean]

Are you really arguing with me on how perfectly ''normal'' ****ing somebody is, when it means nothing but mechanical sex?

this is an incredibly immature view. sex is perfectly normal. every single person living right now is a result of two people having sex; I'm willing to bet you that a large portion of this group were born out of people having sex for fun. it's a natural action, and one that is not only necessary for the survival of the human species, but fun.

I'm sorry that I can't believe in these grey practices humans do just to erase this world, and pleasure themselves when it's artificial in every way.

this is gibberish. find a way to reword this, because it doesn't make sense at the moment.

I apologise, but what I believe in doesn't resort to this petty behavior you call a ''benefit''. I think it's degrading, pointless, and fake.

you don't think that sex has any benefits? it's a good thing your parents didn't have sex before you were born then.

 

[_Keno_]

Lust means you have no self-control. No moral respect for yourself, nor the person you are shagging. That is taking things for granted.

Are you actually using a definition to defend how wrong you are to agree with this FwB nonsense?

Lust doesn't mean you have no self-control... Everyone lusts, only those who will do anything to satisfy it have no self-control. Those people are called rapists; everyone else just m-bates or has sex.

FwB is just a way to bypass having a messy (sometimes sexless) relationships without all the bad drama. Not everyone is looking for love, but everyone is looking for sex. It doesn't mean you have no respect for yourself or the person you are doing... Why would it mean that? Too many assertions.

 

[Alien Vision]

We are talking about ''friends'' who have sex. What does this have to do with normal lovers expressing their passion for each other, eh?



I really think that everything you've said after the first response is skewered, since you aren't exactly on the same page right now. I guess I'll reword it:

I am sorry that you believe that ****ing some person--who isn't exactly a person that would be playing a significant role in your life-- is totally cool just because it's a ''friend'' with ''benefits''.

Anyways, I was using ''lust'' wrong aswell. How foolish of me. Atleast I know my mistakes when I see them, instead of ****ing somebody just because it's something to do. I mean, it's not like this person I'll be ****ing really means anything to me in the long run right? Maybe to my ****, but NOT ME. Unless I have no moral respect for myself, and don't care about degrading myself to reach a short, artifical haven. When I could find a real woman, who really means something to me more than just a friend with ''benefits'' and lead a long, vigorous life like I should be, instead of letting my **** do the talking.

For your third response.. You are completely on the wrong page. Get back to me when you realise how different it is when you **** somebody fundamentally, and when you have sex with somebody who is a major part of your life.

@ C.Peach

It's funny how you talk about my assertions, when you've just said ''Everybody looks for sex''. I don't look for sex. I don't even want a family, or a girlfriend. I have my own dreams. Sex is entirely a choice to make. So maybe you haven't met crazy people like me who actually doesn't see sex as something we can just do when we have the chance. If I did want to have sex with some girl, I would want it to be special, just as much as she is.

 

[_Keno_]

It's funny how you talk about my assertions, when you've just said ''Everybody looks for sex''. I don't look for sex. I don't even want a family, or a girlfriend. I have my own dreams. Sex is entirely a choice to make. So maybe you haven't met crazy people like me who actually doesn't see sex as something we can just do when we have the chance. If I did want to have sex with some girl, I would want it to be special, just as much as she is.

oh ho, you know I wasn't saying that as fact.

And while people may want to have a "special" relationship, that doesn't mean they cant have FwB while they wait. Sex doesn't have to have any meaning, despite what you think.

 

[Alien Vision]

I'm sorry. How I see more than just bodies in a human being is what makes me despise this very concept.

I see a world in everyone. A colourful place full of expertise, and life. Some have been hollowed out by hatred, and confusion. Some have been destroyed by mental disabilities. But, those who remain are still a treasure in everyway in my eyes.

Having sex just ''because'', is just as pointless as the ''popular'' girls who are nice to the ''unpopular'' because they ''feel bad''.

There is no real meaning to it, which shows how superfluous this really is.

 

[Theftz22]

Does one require a deep emotional connection with your masseuse? How about your doctor, or your massage chair?

Taken as a purely physical act for the enjoyment of the participants, there's no reason to attach any necessary deep meaning behind these purely physical acts.

Don't be such a stiff AV, I can almost taste jealousy and denial wafting up from your posts.

 

[Alien Vision]

The FwB acts are artificial, and serve no genuine meaning.

Get @ me.

 

[Theftz22]

Who cares? They're not meant to serve some great metaphysical meaning, they are purely acts for physical enjoyment. Is one degraded by the fact that one might work out and exercise not for any deep meaning but only for physical purposes?

 

[Alien Vision]

These are human beings, Underdog.

To participate in these mechanical bonds is simply pathetic. We are better than this, then to use other people for personal pleasure just to make up weak excuses afterwards on why we do it.

Tell me something.

How do they enjoy it when it's nothing genuine?

Oh, doesn't that remind you of people who smoke? Who drink? Who do alot of things that aren't beneficial in anyway. They just say it is.

That ''say'' is just as empty as ANY of this.

 

[Theftz22]

And as human beings, we participate in acts for purely physical reasons and enjoyment. Should I be made to infuse every washing of my hands, every bite of food eaten, and every sport played with reasons for why the act has deep overlying meaning? What more is needed than for something to simply to be enjoyable and increase happiness in life (hence why it is beneficial)? There is no deeper justification that need be provided for these purely physical acts.

What exactly do you mean by genuine? So long as you aren't covering up the fact that the sex is for pure physical enjoyment, there is nothing that isn't genuine about the situation.

 

[Alien Vision]

It's not like I am crazy to where I only believe in sex after marriage bull****.

I do have a line to be drawn, and if these two ''partners'' are only doing it for selfish pleasure and they really aren't any more than that, it's degrading, and shows a lack of moral respect for themselves. Rather you like it or not. There is no real value to it. They are better than that, and don't have to hide under these petty ideas just because they want an excuse to have pointless sex.

It's just excuses. You can look at this figuratively all you want. These are human beings who have much better things to do than just **** each other's brains out with no real reason but selfish leisure that is advocated by dead passion.

That's not passion, Underdog. That's using people as objects.

 

[Theftz22]

It could be considered selfish, in that it is the best interest of the self, but considering that in a consensual relationship, there is no harm but only happiness produced, then why should that matter? The value is quite simple, and quite real, it makes you happier and its enjoyable, that is the value for the participants. I'm not sure what you are trying to articulate in saying it indicates lack of "moral respect" for themselves. On my view, moral rationalism, this is an act which is not only not something that you ought not do, but if you enjoy it, then in fact you ought to do it. This act is also perfectly moral on egoism, utilitarianism, and I would even imagine deontological ethical systems. The only view that I can think of on which this is not a moral act is theistic ethics.

If you draw the line at this act, you will also have to do so for any act which is done purely for enjoyment. Is that the type of world which you would find most ideal?

 

[Alien Vision]

No. Their ''joy'' comes from all of the wrong advocates.

It's selfish, and not for ''best of interests''. It's pointless. It's using each other for a meaningless shag.

It's fake, and artificial. I am not going to change my mind. It has nothing to do with other things that give us pleasure, and actually mean something along with it.

You are are using a circular argument to back this up. Nobody has said anything that shows any solid reason to why this should be an acceptable act.

So far, my view for this act stands, and will forever stand for how pathetic it is. It's not real, so why do it in the ****ing first place?

Ignorance is for cowards who can't face the real face of reality.

 

[Theftz22]

Would you mind actually responding rather than restating your position over and over again with no support?

What is this accusation of circularity all about? Where have I reasoned in a circle? If I were to formally encapsulate my argument here it would be something like:

1. Having friends with benefits is done for pure physical enjoyment.
2. Doing something for pure physical enjoyment is permissible.
3. Therefore having friends with benefits is permissible.

Obviously there's nothing circular here. What about your burden of proof in claiming that these acts are not permissible. You keep asserting various adjectives to degrade these purely physical acts, most of which are not even true, or at best, irrelevant.

I'm going to spell it out very simply for you. It's not "pointless", the point is for physical enjoyment. Scratch that adjective off the list. It's not "fake", it's clearly an act that really takes place, scratch that too. I'm not sure how you mean the "artificial here" you'll need to clarify that. It is selfish in that it is done in the participants interest, that simply does not count against it.

If you could stop babbling and actually make a coherent statement, then address what I say that would be nice. I don't have much hope for that happening. But it's a rare occurrence that someone actually combines so much ignorance with so much arrogance that it gets me angry enough to resort to personal attacks, I guess that is some what of an accomplishment.

 

[Alien Vision]

Your circulatory argument spawns from all of your formless reasons to oppose my view regarding these acts. You haven't said one thing that shows any possible light to why this act should be acceptable.

That being said.

Just like God, and everything else people put the ''Burden of Proof'' BS on, it DOESN'T work. You can't prove anything even if you had evidence, just because we always think what we know is right. You will think that this act is perfectly natural, while I will think this act is mindless, pointless, pathetic, degrading, disgusting, fake, artificial, mechanical, and SELFISH.

You can't say, nor can I say a damn thing about what you, or I say.

We will have our opinions about things, and that is that.

You will continue thinking I am arrogant, and ignorant because what I see in this isn't what you see, so your judgment clashes with this opposition.

I am entitled to my opinion. You are entitled to your opinion.

I just really wished you could give atleast one good reason why this should be accepted. We aren't getting anywhere if we are always clashing. You know?

 

[Theftz22]

Are you ****ing kidding me?

Your circulatory argument spawns from all of your formless reasons to oppose my view regarding these acts. You haven't said one thing that shows any possible light to why this act should be acceptable.

You clearly have no idea what circularity means, it has nothing to do with not adequately supporting a premise, at least understand what you are accusing your opponent of. Anyway what I said was that on almost all moral systems I know of this is a permissible action. Further, why even deny actions that are done for pure physical enjoyment? They are conducive to happiness, and that is the only justification needed, on most ethical systems. You don't do the same with other such actions, like getting a massage, exercising, or eating food.

Just like God, and everything else people put the ''Burden of Proof'' BS on, it DOESN'T work. You can't prove anything even if you had evidence, just because we always think what we know is right. You will think that this act is perfectly natural, while I will think this act is mindless, pointless, pathetic, degrading, disgusting, face, artificial, mechanical, and SELFISH.

What is this incoherent nonsense trying to say? You came in here claiming to be against friends with benefits and arguing that it is wrong. Now, you see, in arguments the way things work is that you have to support your claims you see? In debates, we don't just keep repeating ourselves ad nauseam and making grand claims with no backing, do you understand?

You can't say, nor can I say a damn thing about what you, or I say.

We will have our opinions about things, and that is that.

You will continue thinking I am arrogant, and ignorant because what I see in this isn't what you see, so your judgment clashes with this opposition.

I am entitled to my opinion. You are entitled to your opinion.

I just really wished you could give atleast one good reason why this should be accepted. We aren't getting anywhere if we are always clashing. You know?

I'm glad to hear that you aren't going to support your side, probably because you aren't competent enough to.

 

[Alien Vision]

............................ Another term wrongfully used? You are not an opponent to me, I just thought a circulatory argument was when somebody floats around a reason that isn't really a true answer to something. ****.

''They are conducive to happiness'' You sir, are a fool. People smoke, cheat, and do stupid **** all of the time because it makes them ''happy.''. I just got into an argument with my mother a few days ago because of her meeting a friend she hasn't seen for over 13 years, and talks to him for ONE single night, and goes to spend the night for 3 days? Yes, I was royally angry. I'm glad she didn't get hurt. But, she told me it made her ''happy'' and she could've gotten into some deep **** if her friend changed over those 13 years. Especially when she described him as ''very lonely''. I'm guessing you fail to realise that humans are confused on what is right and wrong, and your lack of conclusive reason as to why it should be acceptable only encourages them to do something that is POINTLESS.

Eating food, exercising, and massages have nothing to do with sex. Stop trying to deter away from the MAIN POINT. They are all for perfectly logical reason. Eating is a neccessity to live. Exercising it to encourage a better lifestyle. Massaging is to ease our muscles, because it's ****ing therapy. What these kids do is nothing. You make it seem like it something, but it's NOTHING. You still can't make a conclusive reason why! You are just nitpicking things out of what I said, detering from the main impugn, and spouting nothing but mindless drivel.

Let me rephrase what I've said. You may think it's perfectly normal even though you can't give a reasonable explanation as to WHY, while I am telling you all of my reasons completely directed at it, and staying on the same page as before. I still haven't attacked you, while you attacked me. Why is this?

I'm still talking, therefore I am still supporting every sense of my ''claim''.

 

[Theftz22]

''They are conducive to happiness'' You sir, are a fool. People smoke, cheat, and do stupid **** all of the time because it makes them ''happy.''. I just got into an argument with my mother a few days ago because of her meeting a friend she hasn't seen for over 13 years, and talks to him for ONE single night, and goes to spend the night for 3 days? Yes, I was royally angry. I'm glad she didn't get hurt. But, she told me it made her ''happy'' and she could've gotten into some deep **** if her friend changed over those 13 years. Especially when she described him as ''very lonely''. I'm guessing you fail to realise that humans are confused on what is right and wrong, and your lack of conclusive reason as to why it should be acceptable only encourages them to do something that is POINTLESS.

Obviously the point of contention is when sex is done for purely physical reasons and nothing goes wrong or something like that. If your willing to concede that purely physical sex when it makes people happy is fine then I'll just consider my point made.

Eating food, exercising, and massages have nothing to do with sex. Stop trying to deter away from the MAIN POINT. They are all for perfectly logical reason. Eating is a neccessity to live. Exercising it to encourage a better lifestyle. Massaging is to ease our muscles, because it's ****ing therapy. What these kids do is nothing. You make it seem like it something, but it's NOTHING. You still can't make a conclusive reason why! You are just nitpicking things out of what I said, detering from the main impugn, and spouting nothing but mindless drivel.

These are all actions done for the sake of physical happiness, that is the whole point. When someone "eases their muscles" I don't hear you all up in arms about how they're being fake, pointless, mindless, artificial, and other such nonsense. Happiness is one of the primary goals of human existences, we act to fulfill our desires. Why you want to make such a mess over this one cherry-picked instance is an interesting topic, I'll leave such speculations to psychologists.

Let me rephrase what I've said. You may think it's perfectly normal even though you can't give a reasonable explanation as to WHY, while I am telling you all of my reasons completely directed at it, and staying on the same page as before. I still haven't attacked you, while you attacked me. Why is this?

You've ignored everything I've said over and over and keep repeating refuted claims, I've explained countless times that the reason that this is done is because it is an enjoyable physical act to most regular people, simple as that. You continue to degrade it with adjectives most of which are simply false and don't at all prove that it shouldn't be permissible. DO YOU ****ING READ WHAT I ****ING WRITE?? This has gotten me more angry than any other exchange that I ever recall having.

I'm still talking, therefore I am still supporting every sense of my ''claim''.

Did you actually just say that? The fact that you can put lots of words down doesn't mean that you're actually making your case. I guess I'll take your advice here in future debates and just drone on and on irrelevantly. So long as I keep writing words I must be making my case!

 

[Alien Vision]

Of course you do not see my ''claim''. I do, because I am the advocate. Just as much as you are to your ''claim'' you've made to oppose my ''claim''.

Nothing is getting through. I'm just going to say one last thing, because you obviously don't understand a damn thing about how lifeless it is.

There is a difference between artificial happiness that comes from unlawful ways, and happiness that comes from pure passion.

I'm done now, though. This isn't going anywhere. It's nothing but clashing. This is just as pointless as FwB.