[lumberjim]

i'm learning more from the reactions to his post than his post. I've heard the multiply by 3, divide by 3 saw in regards to female/male stated sexual history. nothing new there. the only thing really new in his initial post was the bank analogy.....which i found amusing. 9th, you're missing clodfobble's point. she's calling him a troll because his very first post is a resentful poke at womankind. seems like he may have been having some hard luck with the ladies, if you ask me. perhaps you percieved that already and identify with him? Brianna's posts are the ones that lift MY eyebrows.

Bri, the part that bothered you the most was plainly the bit about a supposed inverse relationship between the number of sexual partners and the ability to feel true love? It's horseshit, I agree, but why does it bother you so? You're an introspective person. Is this familiar ground to you? have you pondered the sometimes empty feelings that you've shared here, and wondered if your past is inhibiting your ability to feel? If anything the opposite would be true, i think. recognition of the difference(between a sexual and a spiritual relationship) should be easier for the contrast. the naive are the ones that mistake sex for love. romance for love. excitement and discovery for love.

new guy seems smart and thoughtful.....if grammatically challenged.....but, i agree with cloddy....i hear the simplicity and certainty of idealistic youth. i guess that's the result of book larnin about people instead of applied learning.

at any rate....i just wanted to say that my sex credit score is over 700. gimme some sugar, baby.