Romy

Don't forget the most common phrase- Sal's realm.

Awey :).

I decided I want something fresh out the oven, and replace my signature with something more appealing. I'd love it if you guys could give me a hand there ;). Basically, I'd like something that comes as gentle/tender, possibly in a cartoon form, but real pictures could work just as well (or, really, anything else that looks nice). My name in it (Romy) would make a nice addition there :P. And a nice design will be absolutly blessed. It could really be anything that fits that description. Go crazy :). [hide]It obviously has to abide by the Tip.It forum signature rules too. :razz:[/hide] Any help will be much appriciated, thanks guys <3: . EDIT: Hmph... I just read the guidelines for posting in this sub-forum and found out creating request topics isn't much appriciated.... I guess it's too late for that though :S . So I'll run the topic anyway for now ^^.

I don't think it's that simple. The whole idea of cutting it off at once, is for people who have the will power to just ignore their desires until those decay. These are the people that usually could not have stopped gradually, because fulfilling their desires would draw them back to wanting more and more. The other type of people, are those that need to quit gradually. They can't ignore their desires, so they try to fulfill them less and less, until the need "wears off". These are the ones that usually could not have just quit, because they'd only think of that, and not let themselves enjoy other things. Whatever works.

I'd love it if you could talk about it a little. Every time I hear stuff about these things, it's always from people who just researched and whatnot, never from a first hand source. Could be interesting :).

Your friend is kinda hot. Me thinks they look prettier irl. esp. leah, leah you look silly in this one. Oh I look terrible in this, it just makes me laugh though. Yes, Jess is extremely pretty. You do have that charming teen-ish charm in your smile :). Can't quite explain it, but you just look innocent, untouched by the world to date, as if that moment in time is what you care about and the rest could disappear as much as you care.

I'm better than you because our lines don't rhyme anymore...

Just answer the very simple question- If sex's only purpose is reproduction, why do we enjoy it? Because of the consensus there. That's irrelevant to our discussion though. What I'm trying to get across with the polygamy point, is that if it exists/existed, that means that atleast SOME of us want more than one partner. Why should we, if, as you claim, we're naturally supposed to be with 1 spouse? Why was there consensus there? Because the minority - aka the unnatural, were the only ones who wanted it. If society really really wanted more than one spouse, it would be far more legal and accepted than it is today. You can't take Canada and the USA as examples for the rest of the world, and for all times. First, there are places in which polygamy is a majority. Second, at certain times polygamy was the most popular form of family unit. You ignored the most important part of this quote though- "If it [polygamy] exists/existed, that means that atleast SOME of us want more than one partner. Why should we, if, as you claim, we're naturally supposed to be with 1 spouse?" I have a serious problem with a practice that turns women into objects for sexual satisfaction (and sometimes abuse) of a single man. I don't think that's bigotted at all. It's not only for sexual satisfaction, it's a cultural behavior, that is more than acceptable in many cultures It's bigotry in my book, because the West knows mostly only one form of family unit, and thinks that's the way the whole world should be like. That's a consensus based on what the West is used to, and not necessarily how things "should be like".. There are two reasons for polygamous marriages. 1. To have an obscene number of children. 2. Sexual satisfaction. Any man is witness to this, and I have in fact heard several interviews with polygamous husbands using the allure of lots of sex to try to persuade people to their point of view. 3. That's what your culture expects you to go with. 4. That's the reality you've forever known. 5. Disbelief in monogamy. etc, etc. Your experiences don't shine the same each time. You can't use it as an example that occurs every time. Marriage is so much more than just a "girlfriend/boyfreind" relationship, and as such should be taken more seriously. That's what I'm saying. When you are simply dating, you haven't made a lifelong commitment to someone, since you aren't yet sure if you are ready to. No matter how you put it, marriage is a step forward in relationships (albeit a big one). It's also a step artificially created by humans. The point of all this, is that if you claim multiple relations are okay, so should be multiple marriages. Marriage is just a contract invented by humans that is based on feelings, and feelings can and do change over time. And this contract is meant to be lifelong and binding. I've already stated my opinions on this matter. That 'meant' part is where I think the root of our discussion stands. Things more than usually don't go the way they're meant to. If we were naturally only after 1 partner through our lifetime, the institude of marriage would work like magic, divorces would have never been brought up. It's not that simple, monogamy isn't in our nature, it's grown into us, much like morals and the like. I'm male, and I don't have the desire to mate with as many females as possible. I have sexual urges, yes, but those are natural, for reproductive purposes. You have to agree others do though. If, like penguins for example, our species was supposed to only ever be with one partner, we'd find that one partner and be with them for the rest of our lives. The mere fact that the desire to be with more than one partner exists (even if only to some of us) automatically serves as evidence to show we're not "supposed" to ever be with only one spouse. As a matter of fact, several different animal species mate for life. That's exactly my point. Humans are not that type of species. The Bible itself shows clear signs of polygamy, cheating, et cetera. Your statement is simply not true. First you say that if we weren't after monogamy, divorce would have been brought up much earlier, and then you say humans are followers that do what they're told... Let's say they are. The idea itself had to sprout somewhere- why would it, if we're naturally monogamous? Let me explain it this way. Looking at the animal kingdom, some species mate for life, and others don't. This is usually based on what makes sense for that particular animal. I will use humans as an example. Our extended lifespan is 80 years. We'll use that as an average. Let's assume one has children at 20. Yes, we are physcially fertile earlier but this is the age at which full maturity is basically guaranteed for both members (male and female). We mate, have children, etc. We stay together, as do other animals, to help raise them. Assuming we have children at 20 this makes us 40 at miniumum by the time they are adults and no longer require caring. At this point, old age begins to kick in. While technically still capable of reproduction, women's egg cells become more and more dangerous to use and closer to menopause (hence the higher ratio of genetic disorders in children from older mothers). At this point, we can consider practical reproduction to be over. Since we are no longer reproducing at this age, there is no natural need to have another partner, therefore we might as well stay with the same partner, grow old, etc. It's a nice theory you made there. It could easily be that since males don't need 9 months until they can start producing another fetus, that made us that way. You say it makes sense for our species, I think it makes sense for our species to be based on 2 behaviours- males would want to mate with as many females as possible, and females would be the ones protecting and taking care of the babies. Your theory makes sense, and same goes for mine. However, I have evidence to support the human desire.

I am missing your point. Enjoyment is a side effect of sex, not its natural purpose. I still don't see where you're going here. Why do we have that side effect? Then how did polygamy come to be illegal today, in both Canada and the US? Because of the consensus there. That's irrelevant to our discussion though. What I'm trying to get across with the polygamy point, is that if it exists/existed, that means that atleast SOME of us want more than one partner. Why should we, if, as you claim, we're naturally supposed to be with 1 spouse? I have a serious problem with a practice that turns women into objects for sexual satisfaction (and sometimes abuse) of a single man. I don't think that's bigotted at all. It's not only for sexual satisfaction, it's a cultural behavior, that is more than acceptable in many cultures. It's bigotry in my book, because the West knows mostly only one form of family unit, and thinks that's the way the whole world should be like. That's a consensus based on what the West is used to, and not necessarily how things "should be like". Marriage is so much more than just a "girlfriend/boyfreind" relationship, and as such should be taken more seriously. That's what I'm saying. When you are simply dating, you haven't made a lifelong commitment to someone, since you aren't yet sure if you are ready to. No matter how you put it, marriage is a step forward in relationships (albeit a big one). It's also a step artificially created by humans. The point of all this, is that if you claim multiple relations are okay, so should be multiple marriages. Marriage is just a contract invented by humans that is based on feelings, and feelings can and do change over time. I'm male, and I don't have the desire to mate with as many females as possible. I have sexual urges, yes, but those are natural, for reproductive purposes. You have to agree others do though. If, like penguins for example, our species was supposed to only ever be with one partner, we'd find that one partner and be with them for the rest of our lives. The mere fact that the desire to be with more than one partner exists (even if only to some of us) automatically serves as evidence to show we're not "supposed" to ever be with only one spouse. So in your ideal, natural world, we wouldn't have relationships at all then? That's what it sounds like you're condoning. Not at all. I believe I'd want to marry at some point, and I sure as hell hope all of my future & past relations will be/were mutually monogamic. However, I'm well aware that's because what society made of me, and not necessarily what I'd be if I was raised somewhere else and with a different approach.

The natural purpose of sexual intercourse is reproduction. Homosexual intercourse cannot result in reproduction, therefore it does not fulfil its natural pupose. Really? Then why only humans and dolphins enjoy it? And in general, if sex's only purpose is reproduction, why do we enjoy it? If food's only natural purpose is nourishment, why do we enjoy it? It's a side effect, it is irrelevant to the natural function of it. You're missing my point. Why should sex be fun? Dogs don't do it for fun, why should we? I've already gone over my problem with multiple marriages, I don't see what you're trying to prove. I completely misunderstood your quoting. You just pulled in three issues or something. The first being polygamy, for which I think you answered with "Please, point out to me a western society at any point in history where polygamy was legal." That answer is fairly simple. It's been legal forever, and it's legal today. Not all can engage in polygamy today, but most democratic (and some others too) countries respect the lifestyles of other cultures, and allow men that belong to such cultures, to have more than one wife. The second is yet referring to polygamy. You said it's still frowned upon, for which I answered- "It's not "still", that's rather new. Polygamy was not out of the ordinary at past times. Today it's a bit less popular. Also, I don't think it's "frowned upon". Would you say you frown upon it? Some cultures accept and embrace that lifestyle, and those who belong to said cultures just live that way. I don't think anyone has a serious problem with that, and if they do, that borders on bigotry." The third being marriage as a contract. You said it's natural for us to have one spouse. For which I answered- "You call this and that natural, yet you forget marriage isn't natural. It's a contract invented by humans to take relationships a step forward. If you see no problem with multiple relations based on naturality, you definitely shouldn't see a problem with multiple marriages/divorce." In other words, I see no reason for non-marriage relations with more than one partner to be okay, while marrying should only be a one time experience. If we were meant to only be with one partner, we'd find them at some point and be with them for the rest of our lives. This is a primal instinct, one that as humans, and not merely animals, we can and have forgone throughout history. Not at all, today more than ever males are out seeking to mate with as many females as possible. It exists today on a very large scale. Because society today tells us its ok to [bleep] whoever we want with no thought for the consequences. It doesn't matter, if people didn't want to, they wouldn't have. Sure, there's less respect to sex today, but that doesn't change the fact that many males still would like to mate with as many females as possible. That blank off means we're not "supposed" to only be with one partner. What? Cheating is nothing new. The Bible itself poses rules against affairs, etc ("You shall not commit adultery" / "You shall not covet"). But these have become morewidespread as people lose respect for marriage. Again, it doesn't change the fact that people cheat on their partners for a reason. That reason logically being humans as a multi-partners species.

I disagree, most commercials posted here are pretty awesome. I suppose that brevity has an eloquence all it's own, but still, I rarely watch T.V, and can't remember a time when a commercial actually made me laugh. But I suppose that's just me. Naw, that's actually true. Most commercials are nothing special. The ones posted here are though :).

I disagree, most commercials posted here are pretty awesome.

I dunno, it seems like more than that. For instance, a mature person is more likely to have strict morals, perhaps understand how to manipulate things to their gain, etc.

The natural purpose of sexual intercourse is reproduction. Homosexual intercourse cannot result in reproduction, therefore it does not fulfil its natural pupose. Really? Then why only humans and dolphins enjoy it? And in general, if sex's only purpose is reproduction, why do we enjoy it? Which is still frowned upon in todays society. It's not "still", that's rather new. Polygamy was not out of the ordinary at past times. Today it's a bit less popular. Also, I don't think it's "frowned upon". Would you say you frown upon it? Some cultures accept and embrace that lifestyle, and those who belong to said cultures just live that way. I don't think anyone has a serious problem with that, and if they do, that borders on bigotry. Relationships and marriage are different things. A relationship should be a test to see if a marriage is possible. Of course different relationships will happen,but only one marriage should. You call this and that natural, yet you forget marriage isn't natural. It's a contract invented by humans to take relationships a step forward. If you see no problem with multiple relations based on naturality, you definitely shouldn't see a problem with multiple marriages/divorce. This is a primal instinct, one that as humans, and not merely animals, we can and have forgone throughout history. Not at all, today more than ever males are out seeking to mate with as many females as possible. It exists today on a very large scale. Something that has really only become as widespread as it has throughout the past half century due to the decay of morals and values in society. What? Cheating is nothing new. The Bible itself poses rules against affairs, etc ("You shall not commit adultery" / "You shall not covet").

Your specific examples are really bad ones. 8%~ of the world's population is gay/lesbian. Heterosexuality isn't necessarily "natural". Murder is not viewed as a bad thing naturally, murders have occured largely throughout history countless times. Human beings are naturally violent, it's morals that have grown into us that make murder seem bad from our perspective. Seeing murder as a bad thing is not natural. And lastly, the most important one, not all of us (or even many of us) stick to one spouse, that's not natural. You have countless evidence for that, both in society's form today, and throughout history. Polygamy. Multiple boy/girlfriends (I'd assume you've had/are willing to have more than one?) are largely accepted and legitimate today. The need of many (especially males) to mate with as many humans as possible. Divorce. Cheating, affairs, and lovers. Etc, etc. Your examples definitely don't show what you wanted to show, and support my point a lot more than yours.

Well, there were two girls, actually. No, how should I go about tell them to effectively "shut the [bleep] up" without using those words explicitly. How about "Could you keep it down please?". I tried that, really, it didn't work. Sometimes being polite just doesn't cut off. If you wanna be polite, you're going to have to keep trying nicely. If not, just forget about politeness, some people just can't understand when you ask them politely.

Well, there were two girls, actually. No, how should I go about tell them to effectively "shut the [bleep] up" without using those words explicitly. How about "Could you keep it down please?".

A girl? It's impolite to tell anyone that.... What makes you think anyone would take that as polite?

and stop [bleep]ing her for starters. She's a tool meant to be used at this point. A broken down, cheap 5-pence tool. Yeah but how are women going to see that? seeing him (not physically mind you) screwing his abusive messed up cheating ex just for guilty pleasure. They'll think that they'll be used the same way. I don't think he's guilty for anything but being a bit masochistic. If anything, she abused him, and quite badly at that. The only thing I could think of that would possibly repel women, is his "wish of death", as in, keep going there despite the scars and bruises.

I see where you're coming from, but I think that bugs in particular are an issue of interest to many playing Tip.It'ers. Back when I still played regularly, I know I would have loved to just have a list of the latest bugs, etc, etc. I understand why most people don't discuss/read things on stickies, but I think bugs would make an exception there. Sure, the debates won't be as throughout as if each bug had it's own thread, but I think it'll be more organized in a sticky. Then again, giving it a shot can't be too bad.

After what DVD said, I think it's better to have a bugs sticky in GD. 'Course that's just what I think.

That was hilariously genius!

the bottom one was pretty dam funny .."with a stick " "but" "STICK". and the top 1 was like..1000123942814x as funny :D boxers real boxers dont hit like this.. "uhuhuhuhh" lols who wants to pretend their hand is a gun..what is this, 3rd grade? "pew pew pew pew" lmao. Lol, reading it was funnier than watching it....

Today I had an amazing English test. I think I aced it so hard I should get bonus points on future tests.

I feel the same way. Not sure I hate it because of their lying or their gloating... Today was pretty good. I literally felt awesome after I picked up my cap and gown for the graduation coming up. Then went to a Piano recital composed of some piano class students and more and it was pretty nice. Good day overall. Wrong thread mate, lol.