lisah25

Sex, for me, wasn't always emotional. Making love is. For me, there is a difference.

I agree, to me "cheating" is doing it behind your spouses back. We've talked about infidelity a fair amount, because my dad cheated on my mom. My "rule" is that if DH wouldn't do it in front of me, or tell me about it, then I consider it cheating on our relationship.

Those stats make me sad. One thing I learned from my sordid past is the there isn't sex good enough to risk hurting DH, and ruining what we have together. There just isn't.

That's a good point. I do know couples where one person cheated because they wanted to know what sex with someone other then their spouse would be like. I think it really comes down to knowing yourself, and being true to that, cliche though it is.

I agree, it is awesome. Neither DH or I were virgins when we met, so of course we weren't on our wedding night. I'm not at all scared to open up to my DH, I know he's committed to me. I know this in part because I was with men who were only in it for sex. I knew he was different from pretty much the first date. I realize he may be thinking about other women, but I'm the one he chose, and who chose him. Once in a while, he say something like "So-and-so was always willing to have sex" when I've said "no". I know he's joking, my response is "hum, and you broke up with her why exactly?". For me, it isn't about who had the best techinque, I'll be very honest and say some of my past lovers were more skilled in that area, but being with DH, who I love, and who I wanted to make a shared life with more then makes up for that. And life-long learning is a good thing... :heh: I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong, BTW. Just sharing my experience.

Thanks! I agree, it would be great to have her go.

I'm not sure I understand your question, where would your wife be going with you? In general, the more involved the spouse can be, the better. At least in my experience.

I hung out on lapband and bypass forums, reading what kinds of problems and victories people were having. And I choose the band. There were too many serious stories of bypass problems, including deaths. Too many things I just didn't want to risk living with. And too many bypass patients re-gaining their weight and not knowing what to do. Yes, there can be complications with the band. And for many, the weightloss is slower at first, but studies are showing that 5 years out, it's about equal. And I think the banders are much healthier.

OK, maybe I should have asked before I went and bought one, but here goes. I have gone from a few hairs on my chin that I could keep up with by plucking to having enough that I've started shaving. And getting a 5 o'clock shadow. I even had a co-worker ask how I bruised my chin. Professional treatments are pretty pricy, esp. since we are paying off our surgeries. I was in Sharper Image yesterday, and saw this E-pen. It's an at-home Electrolysis system. It was about $70, and so I got it. Used it yesterday and it didn't hurt at all and was easy to use. They say to do 3 treatments a week for something like 90 days, since it only can destroy the follical at certain points in the growth cycle. So, I'm just wondering if anyone has tried one of these and how well it works.

I'll be very interested to see what some of those "the president deserves respect because they are the pres" people will be saying when there is a Dem in office, esp. Hillary...

Clinton got a lot of flack while he was in office. He wanted to increase powers to fight terrorism, like getting more wiretapping power, and the Reps drug their feet, and accused him of simply wanting to divert attention from Lewinsky. All that "wag the dog" stuff, remember that? Yeah, they respected the president so much that they fought to be able to try him for sexual harrasment while he was a sitting president.

Very interesting observation TOM.

:clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2:

I understand, I think, what you are saying, but other religions have MANY followers, and you don't believe them. So simply having a lot of people who have believed in someone for a long time doesn't really prove anything.

Just a comment, only one person, as far as I know, has left the thread. As with other things, I personally don't have a good answer, I'm reading what other people say and thinking about it.

Prove it!

I'm not sure what you are asking? Is there something in the Constitution that contradicts it?

I actually like Yahoo better(Oh great, is that going to start another fight?!)

Very interesting. I had this to post: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

So why don't our laws in fact do so?

I've seen that link, and really like it. From it: " . . . the federal budget on anti-terror activities tripled during Clinton's watch, to about $6.7 billion. After the effort to kill bin Laden with missiles in August 1998 failed — he had apparently left a training camp in Afghanistan a few hours earlier — recent news reports have detailed numerous other instances, as late as December 2000, when Clinton was on the verge of unleashing the military again. In each case, the White House chose not to act because of uncertainty that intelligence was good enough to find bin Laden, and concern that a failed attack would only enhance his stature in the Arab world." And Clinton got a BUNCH of static from the Reps when he wanted to do things like increase wiretapping powers...

Yep. Just claiming things like "it's common knowedge" aren't really good debate tactics.

Got any details? I know there was one time it was discussed. And the conclusion was that at that time, there wasn't enough evidence to legally do anything. Why thank Bush? From what I know, we have never seen those things, so why does Bush get credit for it? If Clinton was as bad on terrorism as you claim, wouldn't those things have happened under his watch?

You never proved that. I've pointed out many things that are important in the Bible that are no where in our laws. To me, the point of reference for what we make our laws about is protecting society and it's members.

:clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: