As an atheist..should i enjoy life and have relationships with girls and taste alot in life and had many expereinces but also bad memories..or should i search one love and marry but dont taste alot in life

Views: 519

Replies to This Discussion

Well ghetto and hard is unappealing. Im in no rush, if I were Id be getting laid. I prefer taking time.

And yes, I have a gutter side. I can handle that, but don't expect that because I have a few southern/gutter tendencies that I will respond positively to a loose women. I prefer to first be friends and get to know a woman.

I frequent poetry readings, rock climbing, and book and record stores. I do what I enjoy when I can.
It can't really be that absurd that absurd Im in the same boat as you. I meet just as many women players as men. I find the difference is in the person, not the gender.
RE: I prefer to first be friends and get to know a woman.

I've heard that before. And then been expected to put out on the first date. Chivalry is dead
You've heard that from a liar not a man who is actually a single parent and hasn't had sex in nearly two years. Im not picking. Im being honest. Yes sex is important to me, but not without "intimacy". There are good men, just as you assure there are good women. I don't get why women think a good man is harder to find than a good woman. By personal experience I can attest that that is a very missconstrued stereotype. I left my wife because she repeatedly cheated on me, which some women find hard to believe. If I found a faithful woman I connected with I would do everything I could to take care of her and give her space where she needed it. Again, until then I am faithful to myself and not manhoeing. A man can go without sex believe it or not.

I hope you do not missread any of this with any negative undertones. Just describing the parameters of my current position.
Yah well I've come to believe that my relationship with some of the atheist men on this forum is a way to compensate. I feel more connection, friendship, trust, and real caring than I have ever felt in "real life."

I've never met a "good" man in real life that treated me well. People tell me I might find someone, but I don't need to. You can't be good at everything.

Chivalry is dead

And yet, you so clearly believe in it.

I know, RIGHT? Lol

What is the definition of insanity again? Lol

What you call "empty sex" is really natural sex. The sex virtually every other mammal does.

The kind of sex you're talking about is un-natural sex. It's a human invention.

In the West, romance arose in the Middle Ages where it seems to have begun with the chivalry depicted in the Arthurian legend. It's absent before then and in most other cultures with the exceptions of Japan and India. 

I do think the many single well-preened women I see on Friday and Saturday night walking around in the nearby nightclub district, wearing very short dresses and platform shoes in groups of two, three, or four, may be hoping to meet Mr. Right, but many of them would be happy for a good one-nighter if that's what it comes down to. 

Are you unaware of the "hooking up" phenomenon? (Used to be called doing a "one night stand.") Nowadays, as they say, "there's an app for that."

Of course Unseen. I wasn't born yesterday. I think a lot of women just settle for one night stands because ironically, men aren't too interested in much else. Once you're dealing with divorced men it seems like they are all about NSA relationships, finding a sugar baby, or hiring a professional. Suffice it to say I too have resolved to stay single. I'm happy by myself for my son. One night stands are way too risky.

Men do their share of "settling," too. Settling for sex with a price tag of coddling a need for intimacy in the usually vain hope of having regular sex. A hope that often lasts about as long as the appearance of the first baby. Face it: many women view a "relationship" as a way to get a baby and have it supported.

Yes I am speaking of natural sex. Just because monogamy is not the norm in most of biology does not mean it is unnatural. Evolution impacts even courtship. Monogamy has the evolutionary advantage of limiting sexually transmitted diseases and creating the family unit which can help to nurture and protect a human child which has a much longer developmental period than most organisms. I also understand that sex with multiple partners has the advantage of genetic variation. It is not absurd that some may inatley be monogamous while others are not. I hold nothing against those who are inclined to open relationships, just don't call my preference unnatural; as it has been my inclination since I was a child. Please don't attribute that to cultural norms as just as many openly don't conform to them.
Unseen, Im sure that we can agree"love" or what we may call it is most likely just a biochemical reaction. Can't evolution edit the manner in which this impacts individuals? Some may be more bio-chemicaly inclined towards monogamy. I know I am as I am unable to participate in open sex without negative effects, which are also probably bio-chemicaly influenced.

RSS

Discussion Forum

enjoy lots of girls or love one girl?

Started by Hassan Ghanem. Last reply by Unseen Sep 22, 2015. 51 Replies

Dating Christians and Other Religious People

Started by Ashley Johnson. Last reply by James Johnson Nov 11, 2013. 33 Replies

I don't understand

Started by Philip Jackson Armstrong. Last reply by Jack Matthews Feb 2, 2012. 6 Replies

How to Meet, Date, and Woo Atheist Women

Started by Sydni Moser. Last reply by Lydia Hickman Mar 24, 2013. 11 Replies

© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service