Guesswho, I think those kinds of things can be messy and icky and spoil the romantic moment.
A bit like when you've done the act and only afterwards realise that the guy (or girl) you're with has the AIDS virus? I'd sooner be protected, no matter how small the protection.
Alison
I'm having a hard time finding the thought of sex with someone I don't trust to be romantic, although I must admit I haven't tried it. For the past 35 weeks I've been using the perfect means of birth control... being pregnant guarantees you can't get pregnant. 
And obviously my husband could cheat on me and give me AIDS, but I think we'd have more than a spoiled romantic moment in that case.
I'm 25 and have never had sex, never touched a girl in any meaningful way.
I bet you're not the only one on this forum that hadn't by that age, but I can't be sure. I obviously had sex before that age (considering I'm 22 and pregnant), but they say it's easier for girls to get laid than for guys. Also... in case you hadn't noticed, a lot of guys on this forum just don't notice it when a girl is interested in them, and hence miss a lot of opportunities. So you might in reality be super attractive but just never have noticed it.
Yet another reason to hate myself and cite my inferiority.
My list of failures has no end.
You could take the positive approach and just say that you're saving yourself for the right person, instead of being a *** (m/f) like so many other people. And in case you hadn't noticed yet, tons of people haven't found the right person yet by age 25, so you're not behind on that one yet.
If you were willing to sleep with just anyone, I can assure you that it shouldn't be that hard to find some girl that's desperate. I recommend against it though.
I hate when people talk about having sex; if I can't have it, why should they?
It's a part of life... and vastly overrated in western society. I'll admit it feels good, but imo it's definitely not worth the effort and risk to just go have sex with someone you don't know all that well. Talking to girls and reading stuff I've found that most had a rather lousy first time and plenty of lousy other times too...
But along the same lines, one could argue that people should keep their mouths shut about just about any topic... I don't have money so don't mention money... I don't have a college degree so don't mention college... on and on. There aren't many people on this planet that have everything... pretty much everybody is lacking something in their lives, and often more than one thing. You happen to be lacking a gf and a sex life. Accept it... it's not likely to be a permanent lack anyway.
BTW very strict Roman Catholics decry masturbation, as it is ' killing unborn potential babies '.
Does this mean women can masturbate in Cathlocism?
If you avoid Masturbation and sex, it will come out of it's own accord in your sleep (if you're a man), maybe the stricter Cathlics will ban periods next 
I think maybe it is better it comes out whilst the man is awake, cus at least that way he can enjoy it! What do you reckon?
BTW very strict Roman Catholics decry masturbation, as it is ' killing unborn potential babies '.
Does this mean women can masturbate in Cathlocism?
If you avoid Masturbation and sex, it will come out of it's own accord in your sleep (if you're a man), maybe the stricter Cathlics will ban periods next
I think maybe it is better it comes out whilst the man is awake, cus at least that way he can enjoy it! What do you reckon?
#1 I know very little about Roman Catholics,only what I have been told by some.
#2 I am a mother of two boys, so yes I know all about that ( & they talk dirty like boys do).
#3 I would think it would be better to be wake & aware & enjoy it.
#4 Since many AS boys / men cannot get a girlfriend what are they supposed to do?
#4 my younger son, from as long as I can remember ( over his trousers ) held his penis. Anyone would have thought that some one was going to steal it.
It took a lot of hard work to persuade him that this was OK, but in the bedroom or toilet only, I sort of won the battle, but my older son cured it, by accusing him of 'wanking'.
I really wonder what the real reason is behind the christian chastizing of masturbation. Is it just pure superstition?
I really don't know, but it would be quite interesting to know.
I was told this by a boy from Gibralta, VERY strict Catholic ' masturbation is killing potential babies'.
Not just men experience *that* little phenomenon. Just it's less obvious in a woman afterwards ...
Alison
I know, but my main question was, given that it does not kill potential babies when a woman does it, does that mean that women are not breaking the Catholic rules when they do it?
I really wonder what the real reason is behind the christian chastizing of masturbation. Is it just pure superstition?
I think you could be on to something Ziyaret!
Not just men experience *that* little phenomenon. Just it's less obvious in a woman afterwards ...
Alison
I know, but my main question was, given that it does not kill potential babies when a woman does it, does that mean that women are not breaking the Catholic rules when they do it?
I really wonder what the real reason is behind the christian chastizing of masturbation. Is it just pure superstition?
I think you could be on to something Ziyaret!
I imagine that they would find some reason to justify banning it, we need a priest to answer these questions, because if I write what I really think, I will upset a lot of Roman Catholics.
GuessWho, more propaganda from hysterical greenies. There would be plenty to feed all the world's people if only it were more fairly distributed.
Is this your way of saying CJ that you WANT the world to be overpopulated?? You realize most of those people will not be Aspies like us-just a lot of greedy,selfish NTs. Food and resources will NEVER be evenly distributed.Thats just not how people work. The world of humans is hierarchical and some peoples/nations will always have more than others. Its just a question of who will have the most and the least. Since resources on this planet are finite-even renewable ones-there has GOT to be a limit to how many people can live on planet earth at a time. Overpopulation will surely lead to even More war and violence, and certainly genocide.
tenaciouscj, what is your point?
tenaciouscj, what is your point?
Tenacious, where is your science, or are you in denial?
It sure seems cruel though for people to reproduce just because of opportunity of food around, and then if the bottom drops out, death like we've never seen in the 30,000 years since modern humans replaced Neanderthal.
I don't think that people reproduce ' because of opportunity of food around ', as tenaciouscj quite rightly says, birth rates in the Western world have declined over recent years.
UK Organisations have already recognised this as causing problems for the future in various aspects.
I don't believe that 'science' is required to understand that the information which we receive from all of our governments is flawed & is often based upon unreliable 'science'. We are told what they want us to know, either directly or via the other means such as the media.
Europe has butter, grain, beef & goodness knows what else mountains.
Millions upon millions of tons of food are thrown away everyday due to current legislation.
All of this food could be distributed to the needy, but with very few exceptions it doesn't happen.
Food shortages have in the past been artificially induced to protect the wealthy, In my opinion the 'mountains' of European food are in the same class.
Fossil fuels are finite, but the cost of these, oil in particular are kept artificially high, not to protect the resources, but to keep a few rich people even richer.
There are alternatives, for instance:-
Americium, in amounts of less than 60 Kg will generate over 10kW of HEAT due to radioactive decay. It has a half life if 432 years, which means that after 432 years, the americium mass would still be generating ~5kW
Americium is one of the major constituents of spent nuclear fuel vis a vis waste.
Quote Wiki
that americium and the other transplutonium elements are responsible for the majority of the long lived radiotoxicity of spent nuclear fuel.
The use of the above to produce heat & electricity, would save trillions of tons of oil which could be more economically used for other purposes.
I've been on the pill a long time so I have no problems with it. As far as abortion, I myself don't believe I'd ever do it, but I do think everyone should be allowed their own opinion on it.
You know, we have nearly 7 billion people living here on planet earth today, but pakrat and cj: do you guys REALLY think that there would be enough food if there were 60 billion? Or what about 100 billion?? Even If there's enough food being produced to feed everyone sufficiently-No matter How much is produced it will NEVER be fairly or evenly distributed. You see pakrat, out "Greed" is something that will NEVER GO AWAY. The more people you have-ESPECIALLY within the confines of a given country the more economic stratification you have. Dont believe me?Look at India or the US(3rd largest population). People who oppose birth control almost always do so for selfish reasons: either to maximize/increase the population of their own 'group' or because they want more cheap labor and more consumers to sell too. Overpopulation-in one country or the world, is ultimately to the detriment of poor people. In western countries where population growth is low but sustainable, the people enjoy a much better quality of life than nations with burgeoning human growth.
1. We have exploited a concentrated source of energy (petroleum) to create greater crop yields than is humanly possible (with human labor)
Petrochemicals are primarily used for pesticides. The Fertilizers are nitrogen and ammonia (NH3) based compounds and thus have little to do with hydrocarbon chains. Transport, pesticide, and tractors can be all be handled using alternatives that are under development. Unlike military and aerospace power to weight is not a major consideration in the ground transport or agriculture industry.
Besides which, an adult human's basal metabolic rate is around all of 84 watts, able to sustain a few hundred watts in high activity modes, and topping out for max burst at around 1.4 kilowatts. You could rather easily carry the photovoltaic cell and battery pack to power you indefinitely (baring maintenance of course) if humans ran on electric.
Fresh water has always simply been a problem of transport and processing. The planet's 70% water and a closed system to boot. If you're willing to pay for the processing and transport facilities infinite pure fresh water can be supplied wherever you want, whenever you want.
The Engineers are working on these matters. The presently most promising biofuel approach is this one, which when fed directly off a natural gas turbine or cold fired power plant results in unprecedented growth rates thanks to the concentrated CO2. Tests have just finished up recently with both so it should begin showing up at a powerplant near you in the near future.
Just so you know Nuclear Winter is for all intents and purposes bunk. There would naturally be a significant death toll from a full scale nuclear exchange, but it wouldn't exactly be the end of the human race or anything.
Petrochemicals are primarily used for pesticides. The Fertilizers are nitrogen and ammonia (NH3) based compounds and thus have little to do with hydrocarbon chains. Transport, pesticide, and tractors can be all be handled using alternatives that are under development. Unlike military and aerospace power to weight is not a major consideration in the ground transport or agriculture industry.
Besides which, an adult human's basal metabolic rate is around all of 84 watts, able to sustain a few hundred watts in high activity modes, and topping out for max burst at around 1.4 kilowatts. You could rather easily carry the photovoltaic cell and battery pack to power you indefinitely (baring maintenance of course) if humans ran on electric.
Fresh water has always simply been a problem of transport and processing. The planet's 70% water and a closed system to boot. If you're willing to pay for the processing and transport facilities infinite pure fresh water can be supplied wherever you want, whenever you want.
The Engineers are working on these matters. The presently most promising biofuel approach is this one, which when fed directly off a natural gas turbine or cold fired power plant results in unprecedented growth rates thanks to the concentrated CO2. Tests have just finished up recently with both so it should begin showing up at a powerplant near you in the near future.
Just so you know Nuclear Winter is for all intents and purposes bunk. There would naturally be a significant death toll from a full scale nuclear exchange, but it wouldn't exactly be the end of the human race or anything.
I'm VERY skeptical about "biofuels". The best way to get fresh water in places where the supply of it is scare is nuclear desalination of seawater using a small reactor.If we revamp the nuclear industry here in the US than we can start producing hydrogen fuel via electrolysis using power from reactors. As far as Nuclear War is concerned Batou, WHERE did you get your information to justify this claim???Its Nonsense! A massive nuclear war would produce enough fallout to inundate the food chain. Children born and growing up after a nuclear holocaust would be suffer from infertility, fatal cancer, and birth defects in epidemic proportions. It is children and infants who are the MOST vulnerable to radiation poisoning-after all, they are the future.
Now pakrat, the infant mortality rates in southern asia have rapidly declined starting in the 80s. THAT is the reason for the "population bomb": high birthrate coupled with lower infant mortality.
Africa's birthrate is extremely high but so is their infant mortality which has prevented the kind of population boom experienced by asia.
I'm VERY skeptical about "biofuels".
And with the previous ones you had every reason to be. This approach has been found to be commercially viable unlike previous efforts.
The best way to get fresh water in places where the supply of it is scare is nuclear desalination of seawater using a small reactor.If we revamp the nuclear industry here in the US than we can start producing hydrogen fuel via electrolysis using power from reactors.
The thorough studies that give you the right to say any particular desalination power approach is best, please? That just comes across as "give us access to enriched nuclear material without us having to actually make the development effort." You'd still need to enrich it further to get weapon grade levels, but still. Given where water is scarce is usually not right next to a sea, why you focus only on the desalination portion of getting fresh water to your tap is lost on me.
As far as Nuclear War is concerned Batou, WHERE did you get your information to justify this claim???Its Nonsense! A massive nuclear war would produce enough fallout to inundate the food chain. Children born and growing up after a nuclear holocaust would be suffer from infertility, fatal cancer, and birth defects in epidemic proportions. It is children and infants who are the MOST vulnerable to radiation poisoning-after all, they are the future.
Actual Climatologists results of a thorough study accounting for all the actual results. They knew Sagan had utterly stacked the deck to absurdity, so decided to do an actual review of what would happen. I could ask for your evidence, but I'm familiar enough with such things to know you don't actually have anything solid behind you. Nevemind the simpler issues of actually getting meaningful fallout amounts to a significant portion of the planets surface area. Just like anything else you spread it out more and you spread it thinner. Full scale nuclear conflict would be done with modern high efficient Fission-Fusion-Fission airburst nukes, not primitive ground burst ones among other thing. You can justify end of the world as you know it, just from the infrastructure collapse of the US going down but not end of the human race, or "inundating the food chain with fallout."
Are you aware we're running, indirectly, off of a large scale fusion reactor, and otherwise exposed to background radiation as a matter of course? Just like anything else there's the dangerous levels, and the not enough to matter levels. Hiroshima is down to background levels of radiation by now and the nuke used on it was about as dirty and nasty as it gets.
Are you aware we're running, indirectly, off of a large scale fusion reactor, and otherwise exposed to background radiation as a matter of course? Just like anything else there's the dangerous levels, and the not enough to matter levels. Hiroshima is down to background levels of radiation by now and the nuke used on it was about as dirty and nasty as it gets.
YES Batou, Im aware that the sun, like all stars is a large scale fusion reactor. But did it occur to you that we earthlings are SHIELDED from harmful radiation:X-rays, Gamma rays,and charged particles by a layer of plasma ~400-500 miles above us.
Actual Climatologists results of a thorough study accounting for all the actual results. They knew Sagan had utterly stacked the deck to absurdity, so decided to do an actual review of what would happen. Nevemind the simpler issues of actually getting meaningful fallout amounts to a significant portion of the planets surface area. Just like anything else you spread it out more and you spread it thinner.
If you say so......WHAT climatologists in particular?
Just exactly how can you "study" the effects of thousands of nuclear explosions occuring in a short period of time throughout the nothern hemisphere? Fallout enters the food chain when its precipitated down to earth and then absorbed by plants which are eaten by livestock.
I could ask for your evidence, but I'm familiar enough with such things to know you don't actually have anything solid behind you
O RLY? WTF makes you so "familiar" with such things Punk? Lets see YOUR EVIDENCE!! You got any links to back up your claims??[/b]
Full scale nuclear conflict would be done with modern high efficient Fission-Fusion-Fission airburst nukes, not primitive ground burst ones among other thing
The Russian nuclear arsenal contains several types of land based ICBMS which use GROUNDBURST warheads in the megaton range-specifically for attacking "hardened" targets like the underground missile silo's in the central US. The soviets DELIBERATELY designed their warheads to create maximum fallout. Hiroshima was an 18KT
airburst. How can you even compare that to a 25MT groundburst from an SS-18 ICBM??