-
The morally illiterate
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdnmatt
Quote:
Originally Posted by thonglor55
I'm sure that the extermination camps of Nazi Germany were also at the technological forefront of their day; that doesn't make their creators and operators into a moral heroes.
So now people involved in the adult industry in any shape or form are comparable to Nazis? Huh?.
I'd stick to pornography, cdnmatt, as your grasp of logic is tenuous at best. What I am saying is that being at the technological forefront of anything - your argument in favour of sucking up to pornographers - confers no moral advantage whatsoever. You are confusing morality with money or/and technology. People are either moral or they are not. It's like pregnancy - you cannot be, so I'm told, a liitle bit pregnant. While I enjoy some pornography I'm not kidding myself, as you seem to be doing to yourself, that it's an industry mostly run by clean-living folks who love their wife and kiddies and adore their pet dog. Hitler, by the way, was renowned for espousing family values, as well as being an ardent greenie. That's why so many "faggots" and other "degenerates" ended up in the extermination camps, You are breathtakingly ignorant of history and of human nature.
Are stable (ie. usually monogamous) relationships morally superior? It depends on how you define what is "moral". Generally though, buttressed by religion, societies have valued stable relationships over promiscuous behaviour. Recent studies have shown that a stable relationship is better both for any children of the relationship and for the mental health of the participants. If morality is in one sense that which is valued by society then stable relationships are morally superior. Promiscuous behaviour by one or both partners has usually been seen as a threat to the stability of the relationship. The promotion of stable relationships to the benefit of society is the argument that neo-conservatives most often advance for their support of "gay marriage".
Then we have truly ignorant posters like combat who simply don't understand the subtleties of the human condition. Because I point out cdnmatt's hypocrisy I am supposedly someone preaching morality, who has never frequented a gogo bar nor "offed" a boy. What nonsense. Most educated people are familiar with St Augustine's prayer "Grant me chastity and continence - just not yet" which encapsulates many a dilemma. However posters like combat or Beachlover or cdnmatt - the latter two examples of callow youth with absolutely no sense of the lessons of history - excel at jumping to conclusions. The real nasties of this Board are people like the previous three (a self-reinforcing mutual admiration society) whose response to everything they dislike is to make an ad hominem attack on the writer, resorting to the sort of name-calling that is common in the school playground and, unforunately, in the social media generally, of which forums like this are a type. Previously if someone stood on a street corner and screamed "you're all fuckwit, dickshit bogans"(to paraphrase Beachlover) civilsed persons would ignore him as they passed by and assume at the very least the poor chap was mentally unstable. Certainly they are a type of bully. Now they are celebrated on Twitter, Facebook and forums like this, and their rants tolerated if not encouraged because they can find foul-mouthed and intellectually-limited chums online. They are simply (cyber-)bullies and every time they resort to such tactics we should point out that fact.
-
Re: Who here is truly monogamous?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdnmatt
I'm curious, how many here in a relationship are truly monogamous? My apologies if I'm wrong, but it seems many gay individuals can't and/or don't want to keep their dicks to one partner. Many seem to want a partner, but only as long as they can have friends with benefits on the side. I've never quite understood that, as in my mind, it diminishes the entire relationship, and the entire reason of being together.
So anyway, I'm curious, who here is truly monogamous?
I am, in fact I am very no-gamous. :bot:
-
Re: The morally illiterate
Quote:
Originally Posted by thonglor55
They are simply (cyber-)bullies and every time they resort to such tactics we should point out that fact.
I couldn't agree more.
-
Re: Who here is truly monogamous?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdnmatt
I'm curious, how many here in a relationship are truly monogamous? My apologies if I'm wrong, but it seems many gay individuals can't and/or don't want to keep their dicks to one partner. Many seem to want a partner, but only as long as they can have friends with benefits on the side. I've never quite understood that, as in my mind, it diminishes the entire relationship, and the entire reason of being together.
So anyway, I'm curious, who here is truly monogamous?
I had three that were monogamous, one open, and now I am looking, However, at my age why limit myself/
-
Re: Who here is truly monogamous?
RichLB wrote:
Quote:
From what I can tell, those who insist on monogamy are placing the price of their relationship on their partner being deprived of the pleasures of sexual adventuring. If you truly loved your partner wouldn't you want them to find as much pleasure in life as possible?
I completely disagree with this. You're building your attempt at logic on a faulty premise.
Why do you feel that "pleasure" is the ultimate measure of quality of life?
If a desire for your partner to have pleasure is the only thing motivating you in a relationship
and the only thing that determines your behavior towards and influence of your partner, then
why not encourage them to use heroin, or sit on the couch and eat KFC all day, or sleep 18
hours a day. I'm not advocating "morality" based on someone else's terms, or claiming that
monogomy is the higher ground because it's "right." But depriving yourself of overindulgence
of any pleasure is most often the more responsible choice.
Quote:
If you truly loved your partner wouldn't you want them to find as much pleasure in life as possible?
That's just ludicrous. Pleasure at the expense of what? Pleasure for its own sake is gluttony.
-
Re: Who here is truly monogamous?
As a long term monogamous-er, I say: cheers to (joyful) us/them, and just as many cheers to the (joyful) and non-apologist butterflies ... where would the delicious Boys of Thailand be without them?
And where would the oh-so-serious farang-on-farang tete-a-tetes ("... what a glorious ass he had! You licked it? He let you?? Smooth balls? Tell me about it/them! He actually kissed me, tonguefully!! ... ") under the umbrellas at Jomtien be? On the Egyptian Revolution?
RichLB's pop psychology take on fucking-around may make him feel all goody and squishy and warm about the 'naturalness' of it ... but I'm not quite sure why he feels the need for such a Freudian Snoopy blanket on the issue in the first place.
-
Re: Who here is truly monogamous?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thor69
Matt's relationship suits him and whether you approve or not isn't any of your business. Those that are saying negative things about his relationship are probably promiscuous queens than can't maintain anything longer that a week or two. They bring their negativity and paranoia into the situation and eventually destroy it. Too bad for them!
Well put, Thor69!... Totally agree.
-
Re: Who here is truly monogamous?
Quote:
Originally Posted by thonglor55
My point is that you are confusing morality with commerce and cannot see how morally confused you are by chasing the pornography dollar while espousing monogamy.
No it's not. This thread didn't start on about morality or his commercial activities at all. It's debating the benefits and downsides of monogamy to a relationship and the individuals involved.
You're a f*ckstick trying to spin it into something about the moralities of the porn business so you can find little anal flaws and attack him as you always do. The moment he mentioned his business services the porn industry you jumped on it and used it to make jabs at him.
Matt sounds like a pretty decent/intelligent, hard working guy who's good company and looks after people around him. You're a f*ckstick just trying to tear him apart. You have no purpose other than to vent your bitterness and push out whatever crap you carry against "callow youth" and people who may be practical and not so strictly academic/intellectual.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdnmatt
why am I even wasting the time to debate this with you [thonglor55/homintern]? Go stick your head in your ass, where it belongs.
Exactly... the guy's a f*ckstick, Matt. Not worth your time.
Remember the last time you came across a sleazy, poorly dressed, unappealing creep of a farang going about Thailand? That's him. He's just not worth bothering with.
-
Re: Who here is truly monogamous?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beachlover
You're a f*ckstick... a sleazy, poorly dressed, unappealing creep of a farang going about Thailand? That's him.
тАЬIf you can't answer a man's arguments, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names.тАЭ
Elbert Hubbard
-
Re: Who here is truly monogamous?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdnmatt
I'm curious, how many here in a relationship are truly monogamous? My apologies if I'm wrong, but it seems many gay individuals can't and/or don't want to keep their dicks to one partner. Many seem to want a partner, but only as long as they can have friends with benefits on the side. I've never quite understood that, as in my mind, it diminishes the entire relationship, and the entire reason of being together.
So anyway, I'm curious, who here is truly monogamous?
Monogamous relationships are somewhat foreign to the thinking of the older set that inhabits this message board. They grew up very closeted and had to seek sexual partners in bathrooms, parks, beaches, etc. If they did go to a gay bar it was to get drunk, find someone to have sex with and forget about the whole thing by morning. Some of the luckier ones established relationships, but they too were flawed with gilt, self loathing and paranoia.
Matt, you are truly one of the lucky ones, growing up in what I would call the best of times for gay relationships.
Young people today can access their smart phone and find a hook up with one of the many apps such as Grindr. They have Adam4Adam, GayRomeo and a host of other websites to find someone in just a few minutes or for later that evening. This saves precious time in a bar, drinking too much and sometimes not getting the nerve to make contact with that hottie across the bar. They younger people of today can get the hooking up out of their system earlier in life and be able to move on to things like dating and eventual relationships. The older generation never had those options. That's why you see them all over places like Pattaya drooling over young boys in skimpy briefs. They are use to that lifestyle and don't know how to cope with a nice young man living with them on a daily basis.
Consider your relationship a gift and when or if it ends you'll be a better person that has learned valuable life lessons. From this you'll be ready to move on to your next boyfriend or partner.
Most of the posters have no idea what you and your boyfriend have as they view their sexual partners as objects and not the human being that are.
What a pity life has dealt them that hand in life.
-
Re: Who here is truly monogamous?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason1988
Most of the posters have no idea what you and your boyfriend have as they view their sexual partners as objects and not the human being that are.
What a pity life has dealt them that hand in life.
Jason1988... I thought your entire post was excellent and agree with everything you say.
Your comments are a good explanation of why there's so much back lash against Matt (and the other young poster/s) here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason1988
younger people of today can get the hooking up out of their system earlier in life and be able to move on to things like dating and eventual relationships...
Absolutely... I agree it wasn't so easy for the previous generation (still no excuse to lash out at younger guys) but having said that, I've met plenty of older gay couples who are happy and doing just fine.
-
Re: Who here is truly monogamous?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beachlover
You're a f*ckstick.
Beachlover = Cyber-bully #1
-
Re: Who here is truly monogamous?
interesting to read about the woman's
point of view...
-
Re: Who here is truly monogamous?
Quote:
Originally Posted by thonglor55
Beachlover = Cyber-bully #1
That's rich coming from you, why don't you just move on?
-
Re: Who here is truly monogamous?
Quote:
Originally Posted by combat
[That's rich coming from you, why don't you just move on?
And there is Cyber-bully #2 right on time.
-
Re: Who here is truly monogamous?
Quote:
Originally Posted by combat
Quote:
Originally Posted by thonglor55
Beachlover = Cyber-bully #1
That's rich coming from you, why don't you just move on?
Dont tell him to move on he will just go to another thread here and attack again,he contained in this thread ,he not winning so he attacks then goes in his nusery and sulks like the 4 year old he acts, A attention seeker
DON'T FEED THE TROLLS
-
Re: Who here is truly monogamous?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Once In Awhile
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beachlover
You're a f*ckstick... a sleazy, poorly dressed, unappealing creep of a farang going about Thailand? That's him.
тАЬIf you can't answer a man's arguments, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names.тАЭ
Elbert Hubbard
I am intrigued by the use of this apparent insult "Fuckstick." It's a new expression to me. Can someone please enlighten me?
On the scale of personal insults how does it rate? Is it more or less severe than calling someone a nitwit; is it worse than the 'C' word (ladies wee-wee hole)?
And what is a 'Fuckstick' anyway? A stick used in the act of coition? Has anyone experience of using a stick during lovemaking?
Is it the same as a dildo but made of wood? Is it part of an apparatus or a prosthetic penis.
The help of the user of this expression is sought ... or indeed anyone who knows. Thank you.
-
Re: Who here is truly monogamous?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger
The help of the user of this expression is sought ... or indeed anyone who knows. Thank you.
Have you tried Google?
-
Re: Who here is truly monogamous?
Quote:
Originally Posted by combat
Quote:
Originally Posted by thonglor55
Beachlover = Cyber-bully #1
That's rich coming from you, why don't you just move on?
Combat... you're right. He can say that because he's not a genuine person with any accountability to his character (since he has over a dozen handles on this forum).
Thonglor55 and OIAW have teamed up to attack someone again. You can't reason with them and they have no integrity or real purpose to make this forum better... They're very bitter people just here to vent something. Best to just ignore them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger
It's a new expression to me. Can someone please enlighten me?
This is Cedric or some other troll returning... best to just ignore him.
Personally, I would just delete his posts each time so his efforts are wasted, but our mod is a busy man. :happy7: (Thank you, BTW).
-
Re: Who here is truly monogamous?
-
Re: Who here is truly monogamous?
I've received some correspondence I believe I should share with Forum members:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beachlover's mum
I'm afraid my son is a disappointment to his mother. Respect for older people is such a core Asian value but as you can see from his postings he thinks that everyone's against him because they are old and must therefore be envious that he is young. So he bullies them for being wrinklies. It was the same at school. He always thought the other kids disliked him because he was clever, not because he's a pain in the arse. The only things he was ever any good at were individual activities, he was never a team player - can't get on with other people because he thinks no-one is his equal. It's always been mundum contra Beachlover, as we say in our quaint Asian way. And of course the closet thing. I really want to be a member of PFLAG (Parents and Friends of Lesbians And Gays) and march in Sydney's Mardi Gras Parade but oh no, he's so selfish, staying in the wardrobe. Good luck with your scribbles. Ma
-
Re: Who here is truly monogamous?
That's funny because my Mum doesn't actually write in English (or at least in anything close to fluent).
-
Re: Who here is truly monogamous?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beachlover
That's funny because my Mum doesn't actually write in English (or at least in anything like a native English speaker would).
At least you know who your Mum is Beach, unlike the hilarious troll 'thonglor55' who posted that rubbish.
-
Re: Who here is truly monogamous?
thonglor55 doesn't even know what thonglor55 is talking about. Just look at his post on page 3 of this thread. Rants on incoherently about the porn industry, then skips into morality, health studies into family life, over to St. Augustine's prayer, then over to online bullying via social media. Then finally concludes by implying that he's a mighty intellect, and many of us simply don't reach his level.
Things that make you go, hmmm...
-
Re: Who here is truly monogamous?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdnmatt
thonglor55 doesn't even know what thonglor55 is talking about. Just look at his post on page 3 of this thread. Rants on incoherently about the porn industry, then skips into morality, health studies into family life, over to St. Augustine's prayer, then over to online bullying via social media. Then finally concludes by implying that he's a mighty intellect, and many of us simply don't reach his level.
Things that make you go, hmmm...
He just doesn't like the idea that someone might be happy and enjoying their life Matt. Best ignore him, trolls are happiest talking to themselves.
-
Re: Who here is truly monogamous?
Quote:
Originally Posted by combat
trolls are happiest talking to themselves.
As the preceding 4 posts so fawningly demonstrate
-
Re: Who here is truly monogamous?
Monogomy is good for preventing the spread of colds and STDs. Beyond that I think the preference depends on your emotional make up. I preferred monogomy for most of my life because I had a habit of becoming infatuated too quickly and couldn't handle casual relationships. I eventually got over it.
-
Re: Who here is truly monogamous?
Quote:
Originally Posted by combat
He just doesn't like the idea that someone might be happy and enjoying their life Matt.
How's that research into Victorian spinsters in the novels of Dickens going, combat old boy? After all you've got plenty of time on your hands.
-
Re: Who here is truly monogamous?
Quote:
Originally Posted by thonglor55
How's that research into Victorian spinsters in the novels of Dickens going, combat old boy? After all you've got plenty of time on your hands.
Seems like you aren't quite as knowledgable as you like to make out!
"The "Lilliputian College" in "Tom Tiddler's Ground" run by Miss Pupford, who gives a lecture on the mythology of the heathens, "always carefully excluding Cupid from recognition". The perspective adopted in these portraits is that of a casual adult observer, who visits an establishment generally kept by a mature, narrow-minded spinster. The humourous character of these vignettes is evidence of a typically patriarchal perspective: Dickens shared with most men of his time an ideal of femininity which emphasised the teaching of domestic crafts and responsibilities, rather than imaginative or intellectual pursuits".
-
Re: Who here is truly monogamous?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdnmatt
thonglor55 doesn't even know what thonglor55 is talking about... concludes by implying that he's a mighty intellect, and many of us simply don't reach his level.
He's probably some fart who thinks he has a mighty intellect but has never done anything commercially useful with it. Loser.
-
Re: Who here is truly monogamous?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beachlover
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdnmatt
thonglor55 doesn't even know what thonglor55 is talking about... concludes by implying that he's a mighty intellect, and many of us simply don't reach his level.
He's probably some fart who thinks he has a mighty intellect but has never done anything commercially useful with it. Loser.
Beachlover, I hate to be the one to break this news to you, but most of the greatest intellects in human history did absolutely nothing that could even be remotely considered "commercially useful".
-
Re: Who here is truly monogamous?
Why, Beryl, you've risen from the cesspit! How miraculous, darling. So tell me, what was life like down there with all the other turds?
And as for 'young' Beachlover and Matt. As a man in my 40s, both of them bore the fucken tits right off me. I can only hope that they are not representative of most young gay men of today.
Cedric, I love you! Don't mind Beachy, he's Chinese with a wee pee pee. You know how queer they go when they see the size of gorgeous Westerner's dong.
-
Re: Who here is truly monogamous?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aunty
" ... Why, Beryl, you've risen from the cesspit! How miraculous, darling. So tell me, what was life like down there with all the other turds? ... "
Why Aunty, ditto for your dearest self.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
-
Re: The morally illiterate
Quote:
Originally Posted by thonglor55
Now they are celebrated on Twitter, Facebook and forums like this, and their rants tolerated if not encouraged because they can find foul-mouthed and intellectually-limited chums online.
This attack is unacceptable. I work in social media and I can tell you it is the way of the future.
-
Re: The morally illiterate
Quote:
Originally Posted by meeja
I work in social media and I can tell you it is the way of the future.
Ever thought of getting a real job?
:dontknow: :dontknow:
-
Re: Who here is truly monogamous?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aunty
... Don't mind Beachy, he's Chinese with a wee pee pee. You know how queer they go when they see the size of gorgeous Westerner's dong.
Is that comment below the belt? :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: Poor old Beachrubber :thebirdman:
-
Re: Who here is truly monogamous?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thai Dyed
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beachlover
He's probably some fart who thinks he has a mighty intellect but has never done anything commercially useful with it. Loser.
Beachlover, I hate to be the one to break this news to you, but most of the greatest intellects in human history did absolutely nothing that could even be remotely considered "commercially useful".
You're probably right, Thai Dyed... But there are plenty of intellects who did! The point is, being an intellect means f*ck all unless you put it to use, whether commercially or in other ways, which add value.
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottish-guy
Quote:
Originally Posted by meeja
I work in social media and I can tell you it is the way of the future.
Ever thought of getting a
real job?
You're probably just joking, Scottish... but social media is one of the fastest growing promotional mediums now and delivers an extraordinarily high ROI when done effectively. The problem is, a lot of business owners don't understand it well enough to make use of it or trust someone else to implement and run it for them so they lose out.
-
Re: Who here is truly monogamous?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beachlover
being an intellect means f*ck all unless you put it to use, whether commercially or in other ways, which add value.
wow you really have that rope learning down.
go girl, despite your limited capacity
-
Re: Who here is truly monogamous?
Who here is truly monogamous?
Certainly not me. Who has time for that?
-
Re: The morally illiterate
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottish-guy
Ever thought of getting a real job?
Had several of those back when I was 14 / 15, then again at 17 - 19. They're horrible. Wouldn't recommend them to anyone. :)
Some boss telling me when to be where, how long to work, what to do, then after a year I'm supposed to kiss his ass because of a 3% raise, and the fact he took me out for dinner a couple times. Not for me, thanks! Besides, these days the conventional job market isn't exactly stable either.