> > <snip> > Are you tyring to make an oblique advertisement about your own sexuality > while talking about mine?
Wow :-) And I thought subliminal advertising was dead and gone among us advertising folks :-) > > > I put it to you that you know less about free sex, sex outside of marriage > or > frequent changes of sexual partners than you claim to know. Perhaps, I do, Sire, perhaps I don't :-) But it's largely irrelevant either way. We discussed issues where you had an opportunity to counter fact with fact, which you somehow sidestepped at almost every instance. Nevertheless, the opportunity still exists, please do display said knowledge/expertise. But do keep it in the realm of issues and away from personal comment, if you can. If I recall, you prefaced much of your hypothesis that started it all with words to the effect of "I don't necessarily believe what I am saying here, but let's have a discussion about it anyway". And now you're getting all antsy about what you said as though you actually deeply believe it all and it's some sort of affront to find disagreement with your once-hypothetical point of view. It doesn't compute. Am happy to get back on track if you are :-) Perhaps that is > why you take so much trouble to second guess my own sexual history <snip> I am curious about many things. But this is just not one of those things. :-) > <snip> since the topic stays off what seems to be > your obvious sexual inexperience. The topic was never on my sexual inexperience. Admittedly, little can be said about this :-) > > > But I can say this much for myself - I practise what I talk about. It is > clear > that your abiilty to talk about changes in sexual partners exceeds any > practical experience. Gosh! Now how on earth could this be apparent ?;-) > > > Now go ahead and have fun at those of us who remain faithful to one partner > while we wring our hands in distress. Dude, it was a discussion :-) Fidelity, like one's choice of religion / favourite ice cream flavour / sci-fi author / shoelace-tying style / etcetera is a personal choice. I think a fundamental basic here is that we respect personal choice. Things start getting hairy when you impute said personal choice to all of humanity / life on earth / members of this forum, and then impute mockery to those who don't agree with your personal choice. That seems like someone's playing the victim, and, juvenile virgin though I may seem to be, I'm too old for fall for that one :-) Please do expect such generalisations / imputation to not be taken without comment or debate. Disagreement with your personal choice as it applies to those other than you (like me, for instance) is not mockery. It's debate. > > If you want to be seen as a sexually liberated man - what is needed is less > mocking of perceived sexual conservatives and a lot more crumpet. I can see > you are very "keen". The words "enthu cultlet" come to mind :). I have no particular need to be seen as anything. I had a particular need though to take issue with your enthusiastic, eager (and supposedly hypothetical) generalisations about Indian womanhood, marriage, global family values and fidelity. :-) > Chillax boss. Conservative ol' me getting irritated by your views on > sexuality > does not count as sexual experience on your CV unless you are really kinky. Shiv, you're cute. But not THAT way :-) My $0.02, Mahesh > >
