|
|
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Tony Montana
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 51
11
« on: July 09, 2007, 06:53:04 PM »
FOR THE RECORD...
I'm secure enough in myself to not let how many guys a woman has slept with be the ultimate deciding factor. You know why I say this, because for one SOME women are promiscuous because they were looking for love and attention from all the wrong places. That doesn't make them a whore, scumbag, slut. Also SOME women may have just enjoyed sex, still doesn't necessarily make them a whore, scumbag, slut.
What matters more to me is whether I feel that they can be in a committed relationship and my feelings for them. Heck I've been with a few women in my life, and I would hate to be judged solely on that factor, so I cannot judge a woman the same way.
if I love you I love you, whether you've been with 3 men or 30 men. As long as you have moved on from your past your alright with me.
Now this I can agree with... For the record, my point wasn’t about how many people a person had monogamous relationship with, whether 3 or 100. My point was the type of woman that continues to believe that casual sex for the point of getting your rocks off is cool and passing that view down to her daughters. ...And/or the woman that lacks the moral authority to instill values of monogamous relationship. And even then, I am not saying that all women that have those values are not marriage material or are not good mothers. I am saying that some men should have the right to require a woman with monogamous values for more than safe sex reasons.
I think some people are reading entirely to much into my statement.
Of course men have that right to choose a woman with whatever values they want- whether that be monogamous or "getting their rocks off" as u put it. Whatever floats their boat.  So do women for that matter. I guess I just dont understand what u meant.
The following point was an extension/reiteration of my original post:
Present partners and safe sex should be the only concerns.
I disagree. Some people are concerned about what values the potential future mother of their children has... What type of values will a promiscuous woman teach to their daughter(s)? It's ok to have "fu*kbuddies?"
My point is that some people look for different values in women and have a right to have other concerns beside safe sex.
ETA: Btw, you've pretty much got the gist of what I meant in your response.
12
« on: July 07, 2007, 10:36:25 PM »
Enjoying casual sex periodically != the inability to be monogamous. [buzzer] Try again.
Lol, wtf? Where did I say otherwise?
13
« on: July 07, 2007, 10:21:57 PM »
FOR THE RECORD...
I'm secure enough in myself to not let how many guys a woman has slept with be the ultimate deciding factor. You know why I say this, because for one SOME women are promiscuous because they were looking for love and attention from all the wrong places. That doesn't make them a whore, scumbag, slut. Also SOME women may have just enjoyed sex, still doesn't necessarily make them a whore, scumbag, slut.
What matters more to me is whether I feel that they can be in a committed relationship and my feelings for them. Heck I've been with a few women in my life, and I would hate to be judged solely on that factor, so I cannot judge a woman the same way.
if I love you I love you, whether you've been with 3 men or 30 men. As long as you have moved on from your past your alright with me.
Now this I can agree with... For the record, my point wasn’t about how many people a person had monogamous relationship with, whether 3 or 100. My point was the type of woman that continues to believe that casual sex for the point of getting your rocks off is cool and passing that view down to her daughters. ...And/or the woman that lacks the moral authority to instill values of monogamous relationship. And even then, I am not saying that all women that have those values are not marriage material or are not good mothers. I am saying that some men should have the right to require a woman with monogamous values for more than safe sex reasons. I think some people are reading entirely to much into my statement.
14
« on: July 07, 2007, 09:15:57 PM »
My original point came from this comment: Present partners and safe sex should be the only concerns.
This was coming from a female's perspective, and, I answered it accordingly. Quite frankly, the high number of females on BLSD usually mean that posts end up coming from a female’s perspective. With that said, there are many posts on BLSD that addresses deadbeat males/deficiency of responsible black males. Does that mean that black women can’t be held to task for their behavior? Or, does the "but black men are worse argument" absolve women of their influence in their child’s life? Really, the nitpicking and/or deflection has done nothing to change that. Blk response: But your metaphor was poor, and your interpretation of my sarcasm was wrong and men are worse and blah, blah, blah 
15
« on: July 07, 2007, 07:47:08 PM »
Blk., what is it about you that he'll respond to all of your posts but not mine? Does your virtuousness make you more "audible" too? 
My reply to Blk relates to you. Especially since you both are in agreement with many of the same side issues. Your "virtuousness" is a non-issue. I really don't think you need to personalize this to imply that I am showing you a lack of respect because of it. I just don't feel the need for redundancy; or to beat a dead horse. Take care.
16
« on: July 07, 2007, 07:32:18 PM »
17
« on: July 07, 2007, 07:17:03 PM »
it seems to me that men are very quick to tell women how they should be..yet a man's reputation amongst his very own peers is often based on his experiences with women..or should i say conquests? You have a point and are entitled to your opinion. And, unlike some of your cohorts, I am not going to hold you to task; or, ask you to back up such generalizations with facts. .but i also believe that a requirement that one has for their SO/spouse should be something that they bring to the table as well... a man who wants a virgin or a woman with 1-3 sex partners shouldn't have to use both hands and feet and whatever other body parts they in order to count the # of women he slept with.. I don't disagree with this. As a matter of fact, I address that very point in my last response to you.
your earlier posts esp to gem came off as judgmental in a way.. hence the "harshness" of Nem's post..
to compare someone that has no strings attached sex to a reformed drug addict is fallacious...
Lol. Now you are just going back to my other post, taking points out of context to make erroneous assertions. Have fun with that. people people have a right to choose whoever they desire..and have whatever standards they desire..i agree with that.. Really this was my ORIGINAL point. All of these other assumption, inferences and side issues just serve to distract from that point. Anyway, based on your response to my MAIN point, I think you've got it. Later.
18
« on: July 07, 2007, 06:54:54 PM »
Also, it's interesting to see someone preach about setting examples whose moniker is Tony Montana.
:::raises eyebrows:::
Well in the movie the only woman TM had sex with was his wife. And while he was a drug dealer, he refused to kill women and children (even as collateral damage) at the expense of his own life. Those were his values.
19
« on: July 07, 2007, 06:50:15 PM »
We can parse the point by saying the person will change values later, but do peoples' values change often? Enough to make the current choice in a partner that will more than likely affect your offspring's life?
Funia's anecdote shows the consequences of a parent value.
No, it actually doesn't. Funia didn't say homegirl had 12 men coming through when she first had sex (sorta like her momma), she said homegirl lost her virginity at the age of 18 and, in that instance, had unprotected sex. Losin' it at 18 (not exactly an unreasonable age) is not causally the side effect of a parent get freaky with everyone who shows up at the door.
I didn't say it fits the point you mentioned. Really, never said anything in any post about 12 men, etc. I am saying the daughter's first sexual experience can at least be patially attributed to the mother's value system/practicing behavior. People values change all the dang time, hell, look at Funia's story. Woman's values sure changed when it was her kid. I just don't see what's necessarily wrong with my values, and you have yet to show me different. Did her value system really change? Or, was she just applying a set of values to her daughter that she is unwilling to live by herself.
20
« on: July 07, 2007, 06:40:35 PM »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 51
|
Discussion
Resources
.. of course i am saying this because not one time did he say anything regarding a father's role.. nor did he seem up in arms about Lacoste's post (not singling Lacoste out- i just remember his post about enjoying sex whenever u can etc etc lol).. but hey he's a male so it's aight 
he'll still be a good daddy.. but u gengis?? for shame call DCFS NOW!!!