To all those women who like to swallow...

[Duke]

[ QUOTE ]
are you saying you've just now thought of things that the scientists who did the study did not think of themselves?

[/ QUOTE ]

The poster may be smarter than every scientist who ran or analyzed the results to that study. I'm being serious, not facetious.

~D

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Being able to do a very moderate amount of thinking, or thinking ahead, doesn't make you any less passionate and warm. Being confident and smoothly in control can soothe your partner and make her feel good, and be a turn-on of its own. Jumping around like a jackrabbit or simply ignoring precautions doesn't make you "hot" or spontaneous or anything; it coul mean you're passionate, but it also can just means you're dumb or desperate or inexperienced.


[/ QUOTE ]

I mentioned nothing about being passionate, warm, "smoothly in control", hot, or spontanious, nor did I say that my points could not be contradicted on a case by case basis. I simply stated that ON AVERAGE, careful and cautious people are less LIKELY than laidback freespirited people to live in the present moment and enjoy life to the fullest (hense there overall sense of wellbeing). And that these "laidback freespirited" people, ON AVERAGE, would be less LIKELY to take precautions (such as having protected sex) each and every time, if at all, than the more cautious people.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's it. You posed a dichotomy between caution and being laidback and free-spirited. This dichotomy does not exist. It's a childish thought.

The opposite of being free-spirited is not being cautious. Caution has nothing to do with it. You're getting concepts totally mixed up. The opposite of being free-spirited might be being repressed, withdrawn, emotionally unavailable, or extremely controlling, perhaps. All those would work.

But the opposite of being free-spirited is definitely not being responsible or taking elementary precautions. The opposite of being cautious would be something like being careless or irresponsible, not being free-spirited.

If you are positing caution and free-spiritedness as opposites, then aren't you positing carelessness or irresponsibility as things that come with free-spiritedness?

I have to say again that equating free-spiritedness with being irresponsible is a very childish, impulsive idea of sex. Not that sex and desire don't have a big childish element to them, and that feeling that way isn't natural. But people grow up, too, and it doesn't affect their having fun.

Actually, equating taking elementary precautions with a lack of free-spiritedness is making too much of too little. It's also the mistake made by someone likely to put themselves in great danger of having kids before he or she wants them, or catching a few too many diseases, though. If all it takes is putting on a rubber to squash your free-spiritedness, it was definitely hanging on by an incredibly flimsy thread in the first place. If it ever really existed at all.

[Jazza]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
are you saying you've just now thought of things that the scientists who did the study did not think of themselves?

[/ QUOTE ]

The poster may be smarter than every scientist who ran or analyzed the results to that study. I'm being serious, not facetious.

~D

[/ QUOTE ]

this is something that annoys me

i'm sure there are people smart enough to be better than the scientists at their own jobs even though the scientsists have put much more effort and thinking into it

but these same people will then turn around and use some other scientific study to support a claim of their own without giving the study the critical thought these people are capable of

put another way:

they'll take a scientists' word for it if the scientists' conclusion is something they want to believe

but when they are impartial or agaisnt to the scientists' conclusions they'll go ahead and show how there study is flawed (which it may well be)

maybe i'm just a nit

[SpearsBritney]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Being able to do a very moderate amount of thinking, or thinking ahead, doesn't make you any less passionate and warm. Being confident and smoothly in control can soothe your partner and make her feel good, and be a turn-on of its own. Jumping around like a jackrabbit or simply ignoring precautions doesn't make you "hot" or spontaneous or anything; it coul mean you're passionate, but it also can just means you're dumb or desperate or inexperienced.


[/ QUOTE ]

I mentioned nothing about being passionate, warm, "smoothly in control", hot, or spontanious, nor did I say that my points could not be contradicted on a case by case basis. I simply stated that ON AVERAGE, careful and cautious people are less LIKELY than laidback freespirited people to live in the present moment and enjoy life to the fullest (hense there overall sense of wellbeing). And that these "laidback freespirited" people, ON AVERAGE, would be less LIKELY to take precautions (such as having protected sex) each and every time, if at all, than the more cautious people.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's it. You posed a dichotomy between caution and being laidback and free-spirited. This dichotomy does not exist. It's a childish thought.

The opposite of being free-spirited is not being cautious. Caution has nothing to do with it. You're getting concepts totally mixed up. The opposite of being free-spirited might be being repressed, withdrawn, emotionally unavailable, or extremely controlling, perhaps. All those would work.

But the opposite of being free-spirited is definitely not being responsible or taking elementary precautions. The opposite of being cautious would be something like being careless or irresponsible, not being free-spirited.

If you are positing caution and free-spiritedness as opposites, then aren't you positing carelessness or irresponsibility as things that come with free-spiritedness?

I have to say again that equating free-spiritedness with being irresponsible is a very childish, impulsive idea of sex. Not that sex and desire don't have a big childish element to them, and that feeling that way isn't natural. But people grow up, too, and it doesn't affect their having fun.

Actually, equating taking elementary precautions with a lack of free-spiritedness is making too much of too little. It's also the mistake made by someone likely to put themselves in great danger of having kids before he or she wants them, or catching a few too many diseases, though. If all it takes is putting on a rubber to squash your free-spiritedness, it was definitely hanging on by an incredibly flimsy thread in the first place. If it ever really existed at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, you may be free-spirited, and at the same time may very well take what you deem "elementry" precautions. I am not infering that a "free-spirited" person is not able to take "elementry" precautions. I appoligize for using big words like AVERAGE and LIKELY .

[gorie]

ok, lets think this out logically.

heres the facts we already know:
90% of fat girls are ugly.
60% of ugly girls are fat.
22% of pretty girls are prudes.
99% of pretty girls have sex more frequently than ugly girls.
46% of girls want a baby.
60% of girls are spontantous.
98% of girls have self esteem issues.
20% of happiness is based on spontaneity.
90% of spontaneous people have unprotected sex frequently.
76% of girls have sex without a condom to avoid listening to guys whine.
84% of pretty girls are happy.
8% of depressed girls are suicidal.
90% of people in relationships have sex without a condom.
30% of people in relationships are happy.
50% of people in relationships are average looking.
88% of single people wish they were in a relationship.
77% of happiness is based on the amount of sex you have.
98% of guys try to have sex without a condom.
10% of guys will only have unprotected sex with a smokin' hot chick.
5% of guys will only have unprotected sex with a slightly above average girl.
85% of guys will have unprotected sex with any girl that will let them.
5% of sex is passionate and warm
90% of people who just had sex are happy.

hmm, i think that's everything. certainly we can come up with a definite conclusion if we think this out logically. anyone have a pencil ?

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Being able to do a very moderate amount of thinking, or thinking ahead, doesn't make you any less passionate and warm. Being confident and smoothly in control can soothe your partner and make her feel good, and be a turn-on of its own. Jumping around like a jackrabbit or simply ignoring precautions doesn't make you "hot" or spontaneous or anything; it coul mean you're passionate, but it also can just means you're dumb or desperate or inexperienced.


[/ QUOTE ]

I mentioned nothing about being passionate, warm, "smoothly in control", hot, or spontanious, nor did I say that my points could not be contradicted on a case by case basis. I simply stated that ON AVERAGE, careful and cautious people are less LIKELY than laidback freespirited people to live in the present moment and enjoy life to the fullest (hense there overall sense of wellbeing). And that these "laidback freespirited" people, ON AVERAGE, would be less LIKELY to take precautions (such as having protected sex) each and every time, if at all, than the more cautious people.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's it. You posed a dichotomy between caution and being laidback and free-spirited. This dichotomy does not exist. It's a childish thought.

The opposite of being free-spirited is not being cautious. Caution has nothing to do with it. You're getting concepts totally mixed up. The opposite of being free-spirited might be being repressed, withdrawn, emotionally unavailable, or extremely controlling, perhaps. All those would work.

But the opposite of being free-spirited is definitely not being responsible or taking elementary precautions. The opposite of being cautious would be something like being careless or irresponsible, not being free-spirited.

If you are positing caution and free-spiritedness as opposites, then aren't you positing carelessness or irresponsibility as things that come with free-spiritedness?

I have to say again that equating free-spiritedness with being irresponsible is a very childish, impulsive idea of sex. Not that sex and desire don't have a big childish element to them, and that feeling that way isn't natural. But people grow up, too, and it doesn't affect their having fun.

Actually, equating taking elementary precautions with a lack of free-spiritedness is making too much of too little. It's also the mistake made by someone likely to put themselves in great danger of having kids before he or she wants them, or catching a few too many diseases, though. If all it takes is putting on a rubber to squash your free-spiritedness, it was definitely hanging on by an incredibly flimsy thread in the first place. If it ever really existed at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, you may be free-spirited, and at the same time may very well take what you deem "elementry" precautions. I am not infering that a "free-spirited" person is not able to take "elementry" precautions. I appoligize for using big words like AVERAGE and LIKELY .

[/ QUOTE ]

If you get the basic concepts wrong, the numbers don't matter.

[Benholio]

[ QUOTE ]
99% of pretty girls have sex more frequently than ugly girls.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yah right...

[Mr. Zero]

[ QUOTE ]
98% of girls have self esteem issues.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sadly, I think you nailed this one.

[Duke]

[ QUOTE ]
84% of pretty girls are happy.

[/ QUOTE ]

100% of pretty girls believe in their hearts that they are ugly.

~D

[gorie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
99% of pretty girls have sex more frequently than ugly girls.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yah right...

[/ QUOTE ]
no its true. cuz 96% of pretty girls go clubbing.
while believe it or not 96% of ugly girls stay home and cry.
these are proven facts. i know cuz this guy who was a scientist told me as he was trying to convince me to let him stick it in without a condom.
actually you can figure out whether or not i let him once you take into consideration i drive a red car.