Stripping Is Lucrative (Public school alert)

Mustard Seed

New member
Originally posted by Shimei

She is a former sex industry worker (prostitute) who is shaking up with her boyfriend.

So? The harlot who saved the spies was the only one who's houshold was suffered to survive in Jericho. You know about .ooooo1% of her life. Yes those things are not correct and are sinful but you do not know her upbringing etc.. You are in no position to act the judge. You may not be commiting the exact sins she is but we all need redemption as much as anyone. Whether 15 or 5000000000000000000 is your number of sins you need redeemed you still need redemption.
 

Servo

Formerly Shimei!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Originally posted by Mustard Seed

So? The harlot who saved the spies was the only one who's houshold was suffered to survive in Jericho. You know about .ooooo1% of her life. Yes those things are not correct and are sinful but you do not know her upbringing etc.. You are in no position to act the judge. You may not be commiting the exact sins she is but we all need redemption as much as anyone. Whether 15 or 5000000000000000000 is your number of sins you need redeemed you still need redemption.

Is firechyld repentant? No.

Is firechyld forgiven? No.

Are you suggesting that if someone has a certain past, then their current sinful ways are void from being judged with righteous judgment?

Where do you get off judging me for judging an unrepentant sinner?
 

Mustard Seed

New member
Originally posted by Shimei

Is firechyld repentant? No.

Is firechyld forgiven? No.

Are you suggesting that if someone has a certain past, then their current sinful ways are void from being judged with righteous judgment?

Where do you get off judging me for judging an unrepentant sinner?

I'm saying people are judged on the light they've received. God will be the final judge. If you feel I am judging you that's your own perception. I've simply pointed to the scriptures you claimed to give heedence to. Just acting on my observation.
 

firechyld

New member
I got part way through replying to this this morning, but I had to go help my partner's father with something. Funny story: He introduced me to his friend as "my son's partner".

lighthouse:

I don't believe you.

That's pretty funny, considering you know nothing about the man or our relationship outside of what I've told you.

He's nothing more than a security blanket for you. You use him to make yourself feel like you're worth something, because he makes you feel good.

And lighthouse is playing the mind reader again. Here I thought we'd actually convinced you to give that a rest. :rolleyes:

Of course he makes me feel good. He loves me, and he gives me the opportunity to spend my life with someone that I love. Our relationship enhances my life. Taking another individual into consideration in every aspect of your life sounds like a burden, but when you care about that individual it's quite rewarding.

If you want me to get scientific about it, any relationship can be reduced to three simple factors: oestragen/testosterone, monoamine, and oxytocin. Based on elevated levels of these hormones associated with our partners, we make conscious decisions to spend time/our lives with them.

He's a lot more than a security blanket, doll. I'm not in any great need for one of them. I'm quite secure in and of myself... I don't need a man to make me feel good about myself.

You've already said that you don't want to marry him.

No, not now. We don't want to get married at this point. Perhaps we will later. We're in no rush... we know we've got plenty of time. :)

He's not a "life" partner, until you've committed to spend the rest of your life with him. And you haven't.

How do you know that? Just because we aren't married? Don't be an idiot.

You've already said that you don't want to marry him.

No, not now.

You've already said that you don't want to marry him. And the statement stands, if all you mean is "sex partner," then that reduces him to nothing morethan a sex toy. I never said that "sex partner" is all you mean.

Good. :)

You're kidding, right? I'd prefer not to "date" someone that I don't want to actually be with. That's all.

I certainly want to be with my partner. Otherwise I wouldn't be. A yes/no tickbox to the question "Are you married?" is not a fair assessment of whether or not someone wants to be with someone else.

And I never said anythign about a destination. I do not need a girlfriend to feel better about myself, or to elevate myself to some societal status.

Of course not. You have self-righteousness and arrogance for that, mixed in with a dose of religion.

When I'm ready to get married, it will be after I've found someone I want to sepnd the rest of my life with, and I will pursue a relationship, with the intetntion of marriage.

And if that wedding doesn't take place within a month, are you really serious about them? Two months? What's the appropriate length of time, in your expert opinion, that people can be together-but-not-married and still be assured that they are doing things in a lighthouse-approved manner?

I will wait until I find someone who feels the same way, and we will move forward with it. And the marriage will not be some imaginary destination, it will be the continuation of the journey.

Exactly. It's a continuation of a journey... a journey that begins with a relationship. That relationship is not stagnant just because it's not immediately rushing towards a wedding date.

You're not moving forward. you're staying in the same place. Neither of you seems to have decided that you want to move forward.

Yes, we have. We're moving comfortably towards tomorrow. And the next day. Etcetera and so on.

And the most likely scenario is that instead of moving forward, you'll move apart.

I don't think so. We, like most, build on our relationship every day. We may move apart one day. But, if that's going to happen, a marriage certificate won't stop it. Only we can.

You sound like Bill Clinton. Sexual act does not = sexual intercourse.

Actually, the distinction between various sex acts is something we tend to leave to you nitpicky heterosexuals. You'd be hard pressed to find a queer who'd agree with Bill Clinton, but heterosexual men everywhere seem to hold that view.

I digress. Sexual intercourse, or variations on the theme, do not form part of my job description.

Your definition of date is flawed, dumbass. I can go to a movies with someone I'm interested in without it being a date. Even if it is just the two of us, and we are both interested in each other.

Sounds like a date to me.

I'm not bragging. You're just an idiot. I'm not. Pointing it out to you isn't bragging. You don't see me trying to tell someone else that I'm smarter than you, do you?

It's a message board. You're telling everyone who reads it, and you know it. And most of us are either chuckling, or marvelling at your arrogance and ignorance.

Love has to be a factor. Are you incapable of paying attention? Lust is the antithesis of love, and should not be a factor in marriage.

Lust is a vital part of any marriage, and of romantic love. Even romantic love that doesn't have sex in it... lust tempered by self control. I already pity the poor girl you end up marrying, but I'll pity her even more if you don't realise that simple fact. A marriage without lust is likely to be an unsatisfying and frustrating one.

It's not a date if neither of us sees it as a date. If just one of us sees it that way, it isn't one. We have to agree that it's a date. And it has to involve more than just hanging out.

Some of the best dates I've ever been on have involved just hanging out. That's usually one of the best indications that you're onto something... when just hanging out with that person becomes a romantic and fascinating way to spend your time.


Mustard Seed:

I mean no disrespect. I respect your intellectual prowis and you may well believe that you are/have enjoyed your experiences in related fields. But I could likely find a well articulated intellegent, surviving, and in some ways thriving, bolemic and or anorexic celebrity or model who, if such a stance had no chance of destroying their current livelyhood and lifestyle, would anc could very easily advocate the bolemic/anorexic 'life style' using the very same logic you've displayed. The same stance could be taken by a great many others in society on topics I think you would not openly embrace.

I can see where you're coming from, but bulimia and anorexia are only diagnosed when the symptoms begin to pose serious physical or mental health risks. Same with alcoholism. Without the health risk, you're just dealing with a person who doesn't eat much, or likes to have a drink.

I'm talking about a mentally and physically healthy sex worker. If their occupation began to post significant physical or mental health risks, then my response would be the same as that I'd give to a person who was suffering because of their diet or drinking: Get help, and get out. But those who have no problems? Why shouldn't they continue with their non-destructive action?


Shimei:

Like what?

A hell of a lot of personal reasons? :)

A few significant ones that I feel comfortable discussing: I've only been divorced since November. I see no need to rush into another marriage.

Actually, that's all you're getting. Everything else is between he and I. Suffice to say that we're happy with our relationship as it is, and see no need to change it at this point in time. That should be as good a reason as any.

When it comes to relationships I believe what the Bible says. So if you think my perception is messed up, take it up with God.

God says that you should flatly refused to get involved with a girl who was once a sex worker, regardless of her current occupation or opinion of her previous life? I must have missed that chapter.

If you are so committed to this guy you live with, why not make it a real commitment? It is not about a piece of paper. It IS about a commitment, one you and your boyfriend do not have.

We have commitments other than that single piece of paper. :)

I thought you worked in the sex industry. Did you do it for free?
If you mean that you would perform sexual acts but did not perform intercourse, why not? Is their something wrong with that?

No, nothing wrong with it in my eyes. But it's not for me.

See how I can do that? Regard something as not right for me, but possibly right for another? You should try it some time.

*shrug* My job description is quite specific. It's something I enjoy making a living of. I see no need to branch out into other areas I'd be less comfortable with. Besides, I get paid better than a prostitute. :)

Good. I am glad that my views perturb a tramp.

*shrug* Tramp or not, I can still spot bitterness and a skewed perspective when I'm being poked with it.

As for this little exchange...

Mustard Seed:

Amen. Do you know all the details of firechyld's life? I don't.

Shimei:

She is a former sex industry worker (prostitute) who is shaking up with her boyfriend.

Mustard Seed:

You know about .ooooo1% of her life.

Mustard Seed is onto something, Shimei. Are you defined completely by your job? I'd put money on the fact that most people here don't even know what your last position was, much less care about it. Do you meet people, check the "occupation" and "marital status" boxes, and promptly decide that you don't need to know anything more about them? That would be silly, wouldn't it?

Anyway, off again. Going to watch a movie with my partner's parents.
 

Mustard Seed

New member
I can see where you're coming from, but bulimia and anorexia are only diagnosed when the symptoms begin to pose serious physical or mental health risks. Same with alcoholism. Without the health risk, you're just dealing with a person who doesn't eat much, or likes to have a drink.

The atribution of something to the health of a person is quite a subjective matter. I've seen deathly ill people convince themselves they were just having a bad bout of the flu when it was realy the fact that they were quite close to leaving the mortal realm.

You are impllying that there is no real health risk in 'moderation' in those areas, or if there is you esteem it as trivial. I mean not to be one that says it's okay to sacrifice your life to TV or internet addiction as long as you shun a tobaco habit but it should be acknowledged that such choices being seen as a negligable risk situation or as one that is JUST in the realm of a 'lifestyle choice' is quite the oversimplification.

Like entering a gang, sure a few get out and survive and thrive to a good old age but the majority, even if they eventually largely get away from it, suffer horrible side affects throughout life, assuming of course that they make it out with their lives. Sure there are those who are quite good at keeping up appearances while being social drinkers. There's likely a good percentage of people that can do it for a good part of their lives. Then you hear about career profesionals, judges and lawyers, who get caught with a DUI or actually end up taking a life and then their career is down the tube. Were they ever necesarily drunkards? No, not necesarily. Items like 'social drinking' are quite dishonest in how they are portrayed by society at large.

The same is true with the sex industry. I've run into a great many people that have had their lives wasted, some who've lost loved ones in some of the most cruel and pathetic ways, to the various sex industries. I've heard people, not often, who like yourself, portray themselves as being pleased with what they've gotten out of it thus far out of such lifestyles. Numericaly they have no comparison. I've never met a woman of any substantial age whose participated in that industry who would be a good case, by any stretch of the imagination, for advocating participation in it. Granted it is not a subject I imagine many would parade around among general aquaintances if they had dabbled in it to any degree early on. In general I've not found any one who's moved on from the industry that can make the recomendations you seem to imply by the relation of your current status with regard to whatever exactly your occupation may be.

So the contrast seems pretty major.

I have quite a few female relatives and am keen that, just as every boy, at some time or another, imagines himself an admirable hero or superman of some kind, that it's likely every girl has done something similar with regard to whatever they envision the prime archtype to be for themselves. I've heard them talk about considering various diets and measures to help them obtain this. I recognize that such adaptation of behaviour is natural for all humans in some form or another for the various stimuli they may receive from their enviroment(s), but one must recognize that certain paths are of such a nature that once started on they are nigh imposible to backtrack, with any degree of ease, on ones own. They become easily hardcore obsessions at best 'just' obsessions that, regardless of exactly what chemical releases in the brain or whatever chain of events, be they physiological, psychological or both, that, with regards to numbers of probability when compared to the cumulative human experience as we presently can see it, gives one a very low chance of ever escaping the mindset/habits.

As I've mentioned if you find yourself in one of these groves and you are not necesarily thinking your anywhere near to hitting any kind of a 'rock bottom' and you have any sizable intellect it becomes an easy thing to formulate your own set of apologetics for continuing in the state your in. The fact that you've fallen out of what is healthy can be cloaked to ones own mind like the social drinking problems are cloaked by many who suffer at the hands of that evil. (I realise the terminology like 'evil' gives away my bias against these various things, please don't dismiss the argument on the grounds that I have strong motives against these items)



I'm talking about a mentally and physically healthy sex worker.


This is a great part of my disputation that there is such a thing as a mentally and physically healthy sex worker. I have a hard time seeing that as being possible. Perhapse it's the high number of destroyed lives I've heard come out of it that's skewing my view but I see it like gambling. (Entering this not knowing what your view is of gambling, if you'll humor me) Many people I've talked to have said essentialy 'What's the problem with gambling? 'Why is it wrong for me, if I find it entertaining, to go and put down x amount of dollars twice a week at the casino?' They'll give the line that 'I only do it occasionaly and I limit what I spend'.

I may just be dense but to see someone that sees the best way of releaving stress is to go sit at a table or a machine each week untill they've sacrificed a certain, usualy relatively significant segment of money with respect to their incomes, they worked for, makes me think that this person has some serious underlying issues. Likewise with the sex industries. I think the very fact that those who you may consider 'consumers' in the industry are in it to receive something they otherwise would need to put forth a healthy effort to acheive lends an atomsphere of people trying to skirt the system. Trying to get satisfaction without the work that is generaly naturaly accompanying it. I believe this being the driving force of the industry makes it inherently unhealthy to all involved.

Take profesional sports for example. The whole point, originally, was to see what one could accomplish with their own prowis and determination. With the introduction of biological enhancing drugs and proceedures it's mutated into, rather than a show of raw determination on the part of the player, to something little different from a massive science contest to see who can engineer the human to fit the sport the best. It becomes a contest not of merit or anything earned but one to see who can cut the most corners. Or who can purchase the best combination. At times it's merely an extension of fiscal competitions.

It also has the sad side affect of turning people more and more into merchandise or simple consumers than actually giving them humanity and an enhanced richness of life they as humans need. Psychology class taught me that to fight the very nature of physical intercourse that prostitutes will often avoid interpersonal contact to avoid the bonding that the prossess is designed to produce. In otherwords, they are trying to fight their bodies much the way a modern day farmer tries to fight/manipulate biology and milk the most production out of his livestock, change the lighting in the warehouse to affect the production of eggs etc.. I believe these inherently dehumanizing necesities of the industry are what render it inherently 'unhealthy' on all levels to one degree or another.


If their occupation began to post significant physical or mental health risks, then my response would be the same as that I'd give to a person who was suffering because of their diet or drinking: Get help, and get out. But those who have no problems? Why shouldn't they continue with their non-destructive action?

Reminds me of the Don't Drink and Drive campaign. The 'little' miscalculation that once you leave 'healthy' and in the case of alcohol 'sober' that you will act as logicaly as you seemingly did before hand is a great grave mistake. You seem aware of the powerful nature of the various chemicals our bodies produce to make bonding on many levels possible. Certainly you must have some degree of respect for the power of these chemicals in affecting our thoughts and even our very capacity to know when to get help.

Reminds me of a quote on habits I came accross today. I don't remember exactly what it is and I a may give it incorectly but I don't have time at present to hunt it down. It says that an addiction is a link that is initialy too light to be recognized and that when it is finaly recognized it is to strong to be easily broken, something along those lines.

I hope you get the general direction of my thoughts. We can all become quite good at deceiving ourselves. I've done it in various things at various times in my life. I think it's important to always remember that we can't always discern when or if we've lost the capacity to discern something. I see this making 'eternal vigilance' of great importance in keeping our wits and as much sanity as we can bare to have about us.

Hope you are doing well and continue to do well and do not take my view as bigoted or just rhetorical mumbo jumbo.
 

julie21

New member
quote:
Originally posted by firechyld

I'd put money on the fact that most people here don't even know what your last position was, much less care about it.



BillyBob:
Missionary. :angel:
:darwinsm:
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by Shimei

Why are you so obsessed with people who know the difference between right and wrong?

Shimei, I'm not the one frothing at the mouth at the thought of people dating and sleeping together. You and Brandon are. Me, firechyld, and others here don't care one way or another what you do or how you do it. But you people, on the other hand, gnash your teeth at the thought of two adults sleeping together, which has been part of the pleasure and joy of the human condition ever since Cave Man was introduced to Cave Woman at a prehistoric cocktail party.

People will, and will want to, with or without your ideas about what is "right" or "wrong," and the idea of unmarried people having sex MADDENS you. INFURIATES you, in fact.

Now if this isn't fruit for some basic psychology lessons I don't know what is...
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
By the way, has anyone noticed that the most reasonable person here, other than firechyld, is a MORMON? I mean, will wonders never cease?

Mustard Seed, all sarcastic pot shots I've taken on you in the past are hereby withdrawn. (Till I decide to go after you again.) Keep up the good work.:thumb:
 

BillyBob

BANNED
Banned
Originally posted by granite1010

By the way, has anyone noticed that the most reasonable person here, other than firechyld, is a MORMON? I mean, will wonders never cease?

I'm not a Mormon. :noid:
 

Mustard Seed

New member
Originally posted by granite1010

By the way, has anyone noticed that the most reasonable person here, other than firechyld, is a MORMON? I mean, will wonders never cease?

Mustard Seed, all sarcastic pot shots I've taken on you in the past are hereby withdrawn. (Till I decide to go after you again.) Keep up the good work.:thumb:

Thanks, I guess. Well how ever long such lasts I'm not sure. Guess we'll see.

*quietly sets timer and places it on the desk*
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by firechyld

lighthouse:



That's pretty funny, considering you know nothing about the man or our relationship outside of what I've told you.
I'm going on what you've said.


And lighthouse is playing the mind reader again. Here I thought we'd actually convinced you to give that a rest. :rolleyes:

Of course he makes me feel good. He loves me, and he gives me the opportunity to spend my life with someone that I love. Our relationship enhances my life. Taking another individual into consideration in every aspect of your life sounds like a burden, but when you care about that individual it's quite rewarding.
He loves you? Is that why he won't marry you?

If you want me to get scientific about it, any relationship can be reduced to three simple factors: oestragen/testosterone, monoamine, and oxytocin. Based on elevated levels of these hormones associated with our partners, we make conscious decisions to spend time/our lives with them.
Riiight. Reducing relationships to nothing more than chemicals is exactly what we should do.:rolleyes:

He's a lot more than a security blanket, doll. I'm not in any great need for one of them. I'm quite secure in and of myself... I don't need a man to make me feel good about myself.
Uh huh.


No, not now. We don't want to get married at this point. Perhaps we will later. We're in no rush... we know we've got plenty of time. :)
No you don't. Didn't you say your condition greatly shortens your life expectancy? YOu're oth afraid of committment.


How do you know that? Just because we aren't married? Don't be an idiot.
What you have is not a commitment. If you ever decide to break it off, all you have to do is break it off. There's no gaurantee that you'll be together for the rest of your lives. You haven't done anything to make it solid.


No, not now.
Most likely never.


I certainly want to be with my partner. Otherwise I wouldn't be. A yes/no tickbox to the question "Are you married?" is not a fair assessment of whether or not someone wants to be with someone else.
It isn't the fact that you aren't yet married. It's that you don't want to get married.


Of course not. You have self-righteousness and arrogance for that, mixed in with a dose of religion.
What do I have to be arrogant about? And what righteousness do I have? Certainly none of my own. And what's religion? I deny religion. Too much doctrine and not enough relationship. I like the relationship, and I prefer it over religion.


And if that wedding doesn't take place within a month, are you really serious about them? Two months? What's the appropriate length of time, in your expert opinion, that people can be together-but-not-married and still be assured that they are doing things in a lighthouse-approved manner?
Nobody needs my approval.

I prefer to wait until I want to get married. I'm not sitting here trying to figure out how soon someone should get married. That doesn't matter. I just want to wait to have a relationship until I want to get married.


[qutoe]Exactly. It's a continuation of a journey... a journey that begins with a relationship. That relationship is not stagnant just because it's not immediately rushing towards a wedding date.[/quote]
I didn't say it was stagnant. But if the two people don't want to get married, then their relationship is goiong to stay where it is. It's going to continue but it isn't going to move along. It'll most likely end at some point, and neither person will care, because they weren't planning on getting marired anyway. But they'll miss the sex.:rolleyes:


Yes, we have. We're moving comfortably towards tomorrow. And the next day. Etcetera and so on.
Where you'll be nothing more than "partners." Either that or it'll end.


I don't think so. We, like most, build on our relationship every day. We may move apart one day. But, if that's going to happen, a marriage certificate won't stop it. Only we can.
The marriage certificate shows that you don't want it to end. Right now one can only assume you won't ccare if it does.


Actually, the distinction between various sex acts is something we tend to leave to you nitpicky heterosexuals. You'd be hard pressed to find a queer who'd agree with Bill Clinton, but heterosexual men everywhere seem to hold that view.
Well I'm a heterosexual male and sex does not equal intercourse.

I digress. Sexual intercourse, or variations on the theme, do not form part of my job description.
Does that mean there was no nudity? Or are you saying that nobody got off on it? If you say the second one, you're a liar.


Sounds like a date to me.
I went to the movies with my best friend a couple of times. He's a guy. Does that sound like a date too?:rolleyes:

Just because we both might be interested in each other that does not make it a date. If we go out as friends, it isn't a date.


It's a message board. You're telling everyone who reads it, and you know it. And most of us are either chuckling, or marvelling at your arrogance and ignorance.
Most of the people that read this don't need to be told that I'm smarter than granite.


Lust is a vital part of any marriage, and of romantic love. Even romantic love that doesn't have sex in it... lust tempered by self control. I already pity the poor girl you end up marrying, but I'll pity her even more if you don't realise that simple fact. A marriage without lust is likely to be an unsatisfying and frustrating one.
As I said eralier, I don't define lust the way you do. I've grown up knowing lust to be the misuse of sexual desire, not sexual desire itself.:doh: And if you really think I meant that sexual desire, interest...and all that shouldn't be part of a marriage you need to take a logic class, and use it.


Some of the best dates I've ever been on have involved just hanging out. That's usually one of the best indications that you're onto something... when just hanging out with that person becomes a romantic and fascinating way to spend your time.
See. You mention romance. If it doesn't contain romance, it isn't a date. Apparently you feel that way. So put two and two together, if you can do that, and use your brain.
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by granite1010

Shimei, I'm not the one frothing at the mouth at the thought of people dating and sleeping together. You and Brandon are.
You can't talk without trying to drag my name through the mud, can you?:rolleyes:

I do not agree with Shimei. I know people can date withour having sex. I've said that already in this theread. So learn to read and put a sock in it, dogboy. Shut your mouth and eat your vomit.
 

Delmar

Patron Saint of SMACK
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Delmar's definition
Date:spending time togther with romantic intentions.
 

BillyBob

BANNED
Banned
BillyBob's definition
Date: Lying to a woman, spending lotsa money, hoping to hit pay dirt at the end of the date
 

Servo

Formerly Shimei!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Originally posted by lighthouse


I do not agree with Shimei. I know people can date withour having sex.

I believe people can date and not have sex also.

My point is that most couples do end up having sex BEFORE marriage. They have sex while they are dating. That hurts the relationship.
 

Servo

Formerly Shimei!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Originally posted by granite1010

Shimei, I'm not the one frothing at the mouth at the thought of people dating and sleeping together. You and Brandon are. Me, firechyld, and others here don't care one way or another what you do or how you do it. But you people, on the other hand, gnash your teeth at the thought of two adults sleeping together, which has been part of the pleasure and joy of the human condition ever since Cave Man was introduced to Cave Woman at a prehistoric cocktail party.

People will, and will want to, with or without your ideas about what is "right" or "wrong," and the idea of unmarried people having sex MADDENS you. INFURIATES you, in fact.

Now if this isn't fruit for some basic psychology lessons I don't know what is...

Wow, you couldn't be more wrong. I am just debating a topic. I have not been mad once. I think you are talking about yourself when you say "MADDENS you", and "INFURIATES". Frothing at the mouth? Dude, get a grip.

Actually, it has been fun slapping you upside the head while we debate. If YOU are angry, maybe take a break from it.

:granite:
 
Top