Out of curiosity and you don't have to answer if you didn't want too... But do you visit the same partner or partners each time or a new partner each time , I'm mainly just curious that if it's the same partner or partners how you maintain/mange/limit the emotional element of it
Really, that's what you tell yourself for justification?
Porn logic, dont fight it!
LOL, Oh Duke... Never fail to bring a smile to my face.
All true. But from my perspective on the thread a the moment it's not so much about individuals and their experiences (which tend to be respected always and by all sides, and rightly so), but if these immediately get embedded in readymade, partly age-old sociio-political narratives, mostly liberal and also more conservative ones. This happens more clearly by the day. But maybe we should all agree, that we should not get into these territories regarding the context (and harmony!) of this forum, and this demands restraint, and here I'm including myself of course. I've already supressed temptations to engage which were almost as strong as the ones we all are here for.
No evidence for that whattsoever in the game. That's what I mean with evoking ready-made narratives which have no basis.
Honest question: do you really want a debate about this or do you just want to state you opinion? Because sometimes (and with good reasons) you admonish us to stay close to the game.
No woman will go to another man's arms if she is not satisfied by her husband. Yes, maybe this is cheating or worse, and I am definitely not advocating it. It is not very ethical, but you cannot change the habitat of a woman and a man. This is my opinian, there is 8 billion people on earth and we see one of them in this fictional noval.
Not to get technical here, but the Puritans were not indicative of Anglo-Saxon culture. They were an evangelical Protestant movement that briefly held positions of power for about about twelve years until the Restoration in 1660. After which they became increasingly marginalized because they were annoying as fuck (ok, that is a distillation of popular thought at the time.) After 1660, morals reverted back to Anglo-Saxon norms (infidelity, just don’t get caught.)
it wasn't a comment for you(yours comment)
of course, you are right - but this is an example
drink alcohol but under a tree (Islam)
They're short animated clips
Right, always good to be reminded of the historical facts. But by means of the Pilgrim Fathers (same period) that had enormous influence on America which is included in "Anglo" here. And there is also this non-technical very wide meaning of the term, mostly derogative referring to strict, narrow-minded, sectarian and fanatic moral attitudes. And historically this term has been mainly used by continental european, culturally and historically catholic countries to distance themselves from that (Anglos but also Protestants at large). It's an interesting divide in moral attitudes. And I think it's still usable for moral crusaders of a certain sort.
True, I get your point. Puritans, and their moral compass, did play an outsized roll in early America…at least until the mid 18th century. Ben Franklin, for example, reportedly banged anything that moved in Paris…I believe he was the template for old fart lecher that nails all the LIs in these games. I could be wrong.
