Carmeladea's Forum Posts | Swinging Heaven

Join the most popular community of UK swingers now

Carmeladea

Over 90 days ago

Straight Female, 52

UK

Profile Follows

Groups Meets Parties Stories

Forum

4 Nov 2007

This debate started in chat after seeing a certain chap who shall remain nameless in underpants and socks.
Now... Personally, I find blokes that are nude or semi-nude wearing socks the BIGGEST passion killer out. It's just not right. I would much rather the socks came off before or with the trousers, just NO bare legs and socks. To me it's akin to the socks-and-sandles horror that is foisted upon us every summer by blokes with NO idea how bad it looks.
Someone else (no names, no pack drill, but it was a bloke) said pop-sox on women was just as bad...
So... Views please: Socks- are they sexy or not?

30 Oct 2007

Quote by robhambledon
okay straight to the point...do you gals actually ..now be truthfull, like giving oral sex???

Oooh, definitely. Love it. If I didn't, I wouldn't do it, and frankly, I'll do it as often as I can... redface

redface

:twisted:

17 Oct 2007

I have a Leander Class Frigate model in mine... Gawd knows what that says about me... redface

redface

biggrin

14 Oct 2007

I should charge you royalties for that... Either that or I'll just make you brew the tea...

14 Oct 2007

My husband isn't too good at discussing things that involve feelings. He knows though, that allowing me to be elsewhere getting the part of the relationship that he can't give me means that he gets to keep me as his wife. To be honest, there's lots of things a more "normal" couple have to put up with in a marriage, like annoying habits, foibles and so on. You gloss over it because you love the person and don't want something that could be put up with to wreck what you have.
Whatever happens with my partner's marriage isn't my concern. That sounds callous, but it's their relationship, not mine, and I won't intrude on it. This is something my partner and I discussed at length: neither one of us would ever ask the other to leave their spouse, because the reason we are in the relationship is to keep our marriages. Who is to say what would happen if one or other of us ended up divorced. I do know that I wouldn't leave my husband for my partner if he became single. That's never been an option. If my partner decided that he wanted to go back on what was agreed and ask me to leave my marriage for him, then I would say "no", because at the end of the day, I'm doing what I do to remain married to my husband.
If there is a total understanding of the situation on all parts, there is no pressure, and there shouldn't be any jealousy, since each should understand the way the whole relationship works. I won't spend time with my partner when my husband isn't working, unless it has been arranged and agreed beforehand. My partner understands that and accepts it.
It's a funny old world. Sometimes it throws a curve and you just have to adapt to cope. Sometimes that way of coping is hard to get your head round, but so far, so good... The future is uncertain whatever you are doing, so I'll deal with one day at a time.

14 Oct 2007

Thank you for the comments Bonedigger and winchwench. The hardest part of it was understanding in my own head that it was possible, because the first feelings of guilt that run through your head while every fibre of your body is screaming at you that you love someone that's not your husband are very intense. It's confusing untill you realise that the love you have for your spouse hasn't lessened one little bit when you love another.
It's different and it's lovely. Having the unconditional love of two men who equally are loved back in the very different ways that my partner and husband are is a rare thing. I could exist as an exclusive couple with neither of them, because it is them as a pair that make the relationship complete.
I will say though that it's not a case of a threesome relationship. It's only ever myself and my husband or partner as a couple. That's the way it works best for all of us.

14 Oct 2007

Silly thing posted it twice after an error... Deleted it out...

14 Oct 2007

Quote by Cherrytree
Have you ever been more than sexually attracted to a person you have had a meet with, and had deeper feelings or fallen in love with/for for them, even though you are with someone
yes.

I will second the above comment. I was looking for, oh, I don't know what, after a long conversation with my hubby. The upshot of the conversation was that while I am utterly head-over-heels in love with him, and he with me, there isn't a demonstrative love there. He and I are polar opposites when it comes to being tactile or sexual, and I was generally left wanting in that department. It was getting to the point where it would have broken us as a couple because of the frustrations of not being held as much as I feel I need, or the little touches, hand holding and so on that I see as necessary that were missing, the frustrations bred resentment and arguments, rows and threats of divorce, separation and all that nasty side of things.
I would have had to give up on a relationship with a man that I do feel I can't live without because the circumstances were making it impossible for us to stay together. I was told several times that my marriage was "unhealthy", and the people saying it were probably right, but I was determined not to give up on it despite all the bad times.
We talked. It was hard, as he does find it hard to express his feelings in words. But we talked. He realised that to keep me, he would have to let me find the missing part of our relationship somewhere else. He said as much. I was a bit stunned to be honest. I hadn't thought of that option, as I didn't see it as a good one.
I thought about it. A lot. I wondered if I could do it. I decided to dip my toe into swinging and see if I could do it, see if I could get past the feelings that what I was doing was somehow "wrong".
I have never condemned anyone for lifestyle choices by the way. Feeling that it was "wrong" was purely my own feelings about me doing it... Just thought I best clarify...
I looked around once I got over the thought of it being wrong and after another argument borne from frustrations. I realised I could get what I needed when I needed it. Let's face it, there's no shortage of people who would be happy to meet up, but was that what I wanted?
It's funny how things work out... I got talking to a friend of a friend and found they were on SH. We talked more. A few months down the line and we talked about why we were on SH. We were looking for the same thing. We talked about it more. I asked my husband if it would be acceptable to him if I had what could be classed as a relationship with the friend. He said it was fine. It would mean that he would know who I was with, know I was safe, know I was being looked after.
I can still honestly say I love my husband as much as I ever did, if not more because of his understanding. I can also say that I love my new partner, who means the world to me because he fills the part of my marriage that is missing. I do the same for my partner, filling the side of his marriage that is lacking.
We both want to stay married to our current spouses because of our love for them, and we are now very happily in a loving partnership that has made such a difference to both our lives. If you'd have told me a year ago that I would be doing this, I would have laughed at the absurdity. Now, I'm glad it is possible to love more than one person, and I am a more happy, contented person because of it.

6 Oct 2007

Hmmm... A few thoughts on the subject. Bear with me. I am liable to ramble or rant at various points, but as was pointed out, it's an emotive subject. I will also apologise for not quoting properly or acknowleging author names, as I have read the bulk of this thread this evening and can't remember who said what and don't know how to multi-quote.
First off, the correct terminology is termination. It's not an abortion. Abortions are what are commonly referred to as miscarriages. Abortions are where the body rejects the foetus for whatever reason. A termination is where the pregnancy is brought to a halt by external means.
Right, now I have that off my chest, I can continue...
An interesting point was raised earlier where someone mentioned in passing the issue of a man denying his ex-partner the right to use the fertilised eggs stored by them as a couple. This was upheld in the European Court of Human Rights I believe. They had been together and because she was due to have chemo which would have destroyed her ability to produce eggs, they had IVF and stored some of the resulting embryos for future use. They then split, but she still wanted a baby. The only way to have her own biological child was to use the eggs fertilised by him. He had the right to prevent her from doing so.
So there we have one in favour of the man having the right to determine whether a baby can be born. Slightly off subject given that the embryo was frozen in a tube somewhere, but it's still a potential life and he was given the right to decide whether that life should be allowed to defrost and become a human being.
On the other hand, should a man be allowed the right to dictate to a woman that a part of her that is healthy and viable be removed, just because he doesn't want parental responsibility (or just plain doesn't want kids)? If that is the case, would men be allowed the right to dictate that a wife or long-term partner has a hysterectomy to fully preclude the ability to have children at any point?
The choice here is the same at that point in time, because a foetus is attached to the mother by the umbilical cord and the two are technically one person up to the point where the baby is born, the cord is cut and the placenta is expelled. A viable foetus being terminated by the will, or rights, of the father, would be technically the same as enforced sterilisation by the same person.
Another thought for you: if the father wants the child but the mother doesn't, does he have the right to demand that she play "host" to a benign "parasite" in her body until such times as she can stop being a mobile breeding unit for his offspring? The woman has to go through a complete change in her body chemistry with hormones as well as sharing her food intake, blood and oxygen with something she does not want while the father can be as concerned as he likes, but generally be as useful as a chocolate fireguard when it comes to the gestation of the foetus.
Murder was also mentioned along the way, and the legal definition of such. I personally don't believe that termination within the first 23 weeks is murder. The reason being that the foetus up to that point in time is fully dependant on the mother for all functions, and therefore could possibly be likened to an organ such as the liver or kidneys. That's looking at it from a completely emotionless aspect, without cooing over a bump with a heartbeat. After the 23 weeks, if the mother's mental health was such that continuing the pregnancy was not going to be possible, the baby could be induced, and there is a good chance it would survive outside the womb with specialist care from that point on.
I won't comment on blame or whose fault it was that the pregnancy happened, as these things happen from time to time, either planned by one side or the other, or purely accidental where birth control failed in whichever way.

5 Oct 2007

That's entirely possible Beannie, however given the strictness of the site about banned members and Munches or socials, it suggests to me that they do keep an eye on who signs up.
Even if you change your e-mail address, a simple IP logger will find out if you're a banned member or not fairly easily. Even if you sign up from another location, chances are that at some point you will use the same location/IP as the banned account.
Fortunately for those of us that have to check on these things on whichever site we play with, people are generally either stupid, forgetful or just downright arrogant and think they won't get caught.

3 Oct 2007

It says where you are. Says where you are if you change where you are too. It even knows if you change who you get your net from.
Better?
If in doubt... RTFM. Oh sorry... You're a man. You don't do that. :twisted:

3 Oct 2007

I put the easy explanation on the bottom for those that aren't quite so sad as I now appear to be...
I shall go and sit in the geek corner for the remainder of the night... :shock: lol

lol

3 Oct 2007

I want to complain... I am a cusp-type... Neither one thing or the other. I put Gemini, because I'm in two minds about whether I'm Gemini or Cancer but it wouldn't let me put more than one...
Your poll is now statistically incorrect anais. So there. Nyah. Take it out on Lostie. I'll bring the pins. :twisted:

3 Oct 2007

Oh, and before I forget, some actually contain a location code in them too, so you can basically see if someone signs up from Glasgow but says they're in Liverpool for instance...
I can't believe I used to track these things as part of a hobby.

3 Oct 2007

The IP is basically the computer "address" of your net connection.
There's a set number of IP addresses that can be used by any company. They buy blocks of addresses and use them for their users. So, your ISP (Internet Service Providor) assigns you an address, or gives you access to a dynamic IP (I remembered... Finally) which rotates around, but will remain linked to any other IP you have used if you use the right programme to log access to sites like this.
It doesn't matter if you change computers or have multiple computers through a router. If you're using the same ISP and the same modem, your address will remain the same. There will be a unique set of IP addresses that have only come from your location in the case of the dynamic IP. If you change your ISP or your modem, it will remain linked to your account and sit alongside all the other IPs you have used.
Basically, it's like caller ID for computers...Except systems are smart enough to know that it's you, even if you change your number.

3 Oct 2007

It would be nice if anyone was making an effort to ask them nicely to stop doing to the atmosphere what the first world did during the industrial revolution, and perhaps not be so damn selfish about first world technology to help out with that.
I blame the government entirely. "Go green so you can feel good and we can salve our consciences that we have to increase tax to pay for the "greener" way of doing things... Oh and make ourselves a shitload of money in the process"
Yeah... I really think that they're passing the message on about going green to those other than the ones that pay their fat-cat salaries.

3 Oct 2007

Changing your IP addy is fine the first time, however even with a... ummm... can't remember what they're called but it basically rotates your IP around...
Anyway, even if you have one of them, you can be traced. I know this beacuse I used to monitor new applications for a game, and even if someone moved locations to have a completely different IP, the chances are there's a dupe tracer which will show up if you have been on the same IP as someone else, and there's probably something that flags anyone on the same IP as a banned member.
No, it's not possible to get around it, as you only have to be careless once. I used to track and ban one particular site member on a regular basis on the game I played. He kept coming back, I kept banning him. Never took me more than a couple of days to track him down.
This question was one that would come up from time to time from new and old site members of the game, and the answer was always the same: They get checked.
Anyway... Hi to Sylvainfemale. Welcome to the forums.

3 Oct 2007

Also factor into the equasion that the government is putting pressure on us, a tiny nation, to do our bit for the state of the planet.
Someone look up the stats on China and Russia. I was watching a doccumentary recently that basically made any effort whatsoever to save the planet by turning Britain into a "green" nation is a complete waste of time because of those two countries in particular.
Carbon offsetting and greener lifestyles in Britain: It's like peeing into the ocean when swimming. Gives you a good feeling, but does sod all in the long run.

1 Oct 2007

I'm a womble... Or someone from a very, very bad kids programme. :shock: redface

redface

The lighthouse keeper up till 1975 was my dad, and they filmed "When Eight Bells Toll" and "Local Hero" there. Dad was in the first one as "the man on the fishing boat looking through the binoculars"... Oscar material... Honest guv... :twisted: lol

lol

1 Oct 2007

Really sorry, but I'm going to have to gracefully bow out of this one... I really should have put money on me not getting to it. I could have been a millionaire! rolleyes

rolleyes

I promise to put my name down for the next one though... I might make it... Maybe...

27 Sep 2007

A lot of dreams are to do with your brain going over certain things while it doesn't have to concentrate on other things, like processing visual images or conscious thought.
Falling dreams are mostly linked to muscle movement, so falling out of bed produces falling dreams as your brain catches on to what's happening and produces a scenario to fit given the lack of other information that it would normally get if you were awake. Muscles relaxing can produce the same falling sensation for the same reason. Your brain "sees" the relaxing as a weightless sensation of falling.
I suffered from bad nightmares for a while when I had bad vertigo. It got to the point where I could only sleep for a couple of hours before the nightmares woke me up. The lack of balance ability confused my brain, particularly when there were no visual references for it to base anything on, so the dizziness was still there with nothing to focus on. It threw up lots of different solutions and scenarios, none of them pleasant, because my brain was confused, and confusion in the mind picks up the negative, simply because the subconscious doesn't like being confused.
I'm not sure what to suggest in this particular instance, although I found writing down the nightmare and picking it over to get the meaning helpful. Just the mere act of dispassionately analysing the nightmare meant that I didn't have it again. OK, so I had others, but each time was different and each nightmare had an underlying reason, which was something bothering me, something worrying me or just something I couldn't figure out.
I tried sleeping pills after going to the doc, but unfortunately in my case, I just got two hours sleep instead of just the one before the nightmares woke me up again.
The nightmares finally subsided after I started talking to someone about all the stuff that was bothering me, even things I thought were trivial, but were obviously not that trivial to a brain with a balance disorder to cope with as well as all the normal problems and thoughts about life in general that I was having. It didn't help that my thyroid levels were low, which can trigger mild depression, which in turn can produce nightmares as well. Talking things over before I had a chance to sleep on them and getting some sort of resolution or understanding helped a lot.
I'm now fine (so far!) with the nightmares not returning. If it's a recurring nightmare, then it's probably something that's on your mind, even if you aren't aware of what it is. Dream analysis can help there, and while I'm no expert, I know a bit and I'd be happy to offer help if you want it.
I hope things improve for you soon. I know how bad it is when you don't get the sleep you need because of nightmares, so :therethere: without sympathy, just understanding, and the knowledge that sometimes we all just need a hug.

26 Sep 2007

Try this site for a giggle... See who it thinks you look like.

It reckons I look like Reese Witherspoon... Hmmm I'm not blonde... It also came up with Nicole Kidman... Not that skinny, but there's a passing resemblance there

16 Sep 2007

Quote by blonde
I had to bite my lip at the post about people who "believe in family".
single parents aren't single out of choice.
single parents work extremely hard.
Sam xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I get the feeling that was kinda aimed in my direction, so I'll clarify what I meant when I said about a belief in family.
Families come in all shapes and sizes, some with two parents and children, some with just one, be it mother or father. The parents that believe in family are the ones that actually care about their children, do their best for them in whatever way they can, be it two parents who work really hard, two parents with one working and one not, both parents out of work for whatever reason, and the single-parent families that work hard or are unable to work for whatever reason. A belief in family is about values and how the children are treated within that family unit.
I have absolutely no problem with mothers (or fathers, but in this instance it was a comment about grants for the expectant mums) who are doing their best to bring up their children properly being given all the help and assistance they need. I do have a problem with those who have kids for want of anything better to do and then spending their lives as if they don't have children being given money hand over fist. Those children do not have a family. They have a couple of people, or one person, who cooks and washes for them, but takes no other part in their daily lives, allowing them to run around as they please with no discipline of any sort.
Instead of giving the money to the expectant mother in the 7th month, it would make a lot more sense to put it into education for the resulting children (including healthy school meals) and healthcare (and education on how to best eat and how best to look after baby before and after it's born, particularly for first babies) for the pregnant mums and their husband/partner if there is one.
Put the money where it will do most good for those who actually care and might help the others mentioned to value their children as part of a family rather than just expensive accessories that curtail the social life of the parent.
I'll mention that there are two families near me that illustrate my points. One of the families has two out-of-work parents. They scrimp and save to make sure bills are paid and the children are fed and clothed. Luxuries are bought if there is enough money left over at the end. I'll happily babysit their kids if they want to go out at any time (which they don't very often as a couple), because they have a family that they care for. I help the kids with their homework, help with mending clothes for the children or parents, and generally enjoy spending time with them and playing with them because their children are polite and have been brought up to be a part of a family unit.
The other "family" I speak to and get on with, however their children run around, shouting and swearing in the streets, getting dragged back home screaming by the police and generally being unruly, misbehaved and undisciplined, ignoring anything said by the parents. The father moved out because he "couldn't cope" with the kids, although he and the mother go out regularly of a weekend, out to the pub, coming home drunk at whatever time, leaving six kids ranging from 12 down to one and a half in the care of a teenage niece of the mother. They have debts up to the eyeballs, but still find the cash to go out, or buy bottles of alcohol, eat takeaway most nights and go out buying expensive luxuries all the time.
I know which family I would rather have my tax going towards supporting...
As for posts going missing and people being banned... I never saw the post mentioned, but everyone else has been allowed a view on the subject. Even if it was vitriolic and tongue in cheek, it seems to have summed up what others were thinking, and you can't have a true debate when some views are not allowed to be expressed. I enjoy good debate, as freely exchanged views on a subject can make others sit back and think twice about how they have viewed a subject prior to them reading another's opinions.
These are my opinions on the subject, and with the examples I see every day of how some families spend the money the government already hands out for the welfare of the children, I'm afraid my opinion on how the money should be better spent remains the same. Give it to the state to use on health and education before there is no free healthcare and education from lack of government funding. You just have to look at the state of the pensions to see why I champion that view.

10 Sep 2007

I'm sorry... I'll get the apology over and done with now, because I'll probably ramble and forget to add it later. Anyway, I have my tuppence-worth to add, and it's only my opinion based on experience of my childhood and where I live now. I'll apologise if my views or opinions offend anyone, or make anyone mad, but... anyway... rambling already and it's only the disclaimer...
200 quid for pregnant mums in the 7th month? What?!? Who thinks up this stuff? Seriously? Someone in the governemt is doing a very nice job of getting the baby-farm, unemployed, unemployable, idle, sponging feckers on their side. "Oh look. These people are going to give us MORE money to stay at home and have three football teams-worth of kids, on top of the rest of the cash they throw at us. Vote them out? I think not..."
Some Government ideas were aimed at the "Grey-Vote" ie the elderly. This is clearly aimed at the above mentioned. What I want to know is where the money is coming from? The NHS is a failing insitution, with so many wards closing, nurses who work damn hard to earn three peanuts a month laid off and beurocrats earning shedloads for paper-pushing. Why are they not throwing this extra 200 quid into that? The NHS could provide better pre- and post-natal care, educating the mums to be on better eating habits as soon as they're at their first clinic appointment, not waiting till the baby is a done deal before thinking "Oh, these people should be eating better, so let's throw more cash at them". Like they don't get enough already.
Yep, I'm aiming this at the ones who have kids because there's sod all on the telly, then leave the little bugg... erm... darlings roaming the streets, spitting, swearing, yelling at eleven at night... and that's their FIVE year old. You guessed it. There's a family like that near me. They earn the same between them and their SIX kids (and he's hinting about more... I mean they can't control the ones they have, so WTF?!?!) as himself does, and he works just about all the hours god sends. What do they do? Nothing. Not pay rent. Not pay council tax. Get uniform grants for school uniforms. Get milk tokens (or whatever they are now) for the youngest. Get free school meals. Get everything and then some thrown at them... Then complain they're skint. What the hell are they spending the money on?
Fine... give them more money. Let them breed like rabbits then foist their kids onto other people, because they can't cope with the number of obnoxious brats they drag up with the manners of a pig and no discipline, and then bitch about the youth of today being unruly yobs who can't read, can't write and can't string a sentence together without the use of expletives.
OR...
Get back to the way it should be. Put the money where it's most needed: Sex education and Healthcare. Stop giving it to spongers, whiners and ingrates. Start standing up for families that care about their kids. Start standing up for the moral people who actually care about the wellfare and education of their children, and not the ones that don't care about where their kids are, whether they spit or swear at people in the streets, drop litter, vandalise other people's property.
Start making it a BAD THING again to be one of "those girls". I'm not that old, but even I remember when it was scandalous for a teen to be pregnant, single and have no means of support. Some flourished and have been great parents to their children. Some didn't. Those that care should be the ones getting the help and assistance, not those just out to screw the system, or screw the nearest local lad after a bottle of whatever alcohol they can pour into themselves, without thought or care for the possibility of pregnancy, and even keep doing the same thing while pregnant. Gone are the days of the institution for the ones like that, where people thought it must be a mental condition to have sex outside of the sanctity of marriage, and I don't advocate a return to days like that (all here be in a mental ward if that was the case!) but I do advocate a return to the days where kids were kids, not pseudo-adults with no thought of consequence, or self-discipline.
Yeah, so class divide, blah blah... I'm no snob, but seriously, do you have to be middle class, upper class, nouveau riche, or royalty to have moral standards these days?
Save the Liberal rantings about how we should support those less fortunate. Some of them have made themselves that way through choice. Why should the taxpayer have no choice but to foot the bill for yet another stupid idea thought up by idiot politicians who really have no clue about reality? If they had the slightest grasp of sanity, they'd be getting rid of the beurocrats in the fat-cat wage bands running the public-sector services into a black hole and be supporting those that actually value family, children and the welfare of them.
As I said... Sorry, I ranted, I know, but when you struggle to live, and are faced with the baby-farm families every day, it just makes my blood boil when sex education, less beaurocrats in the health service and better moral education would all cost a damn sight less than shoving more money in the pockets of those who don't deserve it.
... Rant over...

1 Sep 2007

Anais and Losty have strongarmed me into requesting a provisional invite. Could I also please have a hotel list and can you let me know the latest date to confirm as well?
Cheers muchly smile

smile

1 Sep 2007

I know the ad... I'm so glad they changed it just to be the toddler and not that grotesque CGI they had pasted on his face. That was just so creepy I couldn't watch it, never mind bring myself to buy the loo roll.

1 Sep 2007

I hate the one where they're talking about germs and "you wouldn't let your child eat off a street"... Yeah, I equally wouldn't let the little so... erm... darling eat with his mouth open, elbows on table and not using a knife and fork, or at the very least just a fork for chips. What happened to table manners?
Picture loans ad with the stereotype skinny bird in nice clothes, good make up and hair all done doing the filming while the unshaven, beer-gut-starting, footy-loving hubby phones the loan co. If that's not an indicator that women are supposed to make an effort with their appearance and men don't, I don't know what is.
And yes... I'm with you on the annoying dwarf in the green robe that yells that "you buy one, you get one free. I said You buy one, you get one free". I heard you the first time, and your accent is taking the enamel off my teeth at that volume...
On the other hand I love the Citroen ads with the car skating and dancing. The latest one is still good, but not as brilliant.

1 Sep 2007

There's lots of medical arguments for and against circumcision, but the decision rests solely with the parents. If it's what they choose, then that's what happens.
It comes down mostly to a right to choose what people feel is best for their offspring. Any grown man would be made of stone if he didn't wince at the thought of having a sharp object anywhere near his foreskin, but so far there doesn't appear to be anyone who had it done in infancy has said "Oh I wish it hadn't been done". (Might have missed that somewhere... correct me if I did)
When done as a baby, do men grow up missing that part of them that they never knew was there? Their parents obviously had some reason for doing it, be it for medical reasons, religious grounds, because it was the "norm" or whatever made them do it in the first place. Do we have the right to make that decision for them though?
They're not our children, and these days, in the developed world, it's a fairly safe procedure. I say fairly safe, because I've seen the result of it going wrong. It's not pretty, but it works and what penis is really considered a work of art? So if parents make that choice for their child, why should anyone stand in their way?
It still does what nature intended in the way of urination and reproduction, either cut or uncut. Some ladies like cut, some prefer uncut. Some men get it done later in life for medical reasons or out of hygiene or preference reasons. Whatever the reasons though, either the parents or the man makes that decision, and last I checked we still live in a society where there is that freedom of choice.
You can raid your textbooks for arguments for or against, but to be honest, there's about the same pros and cons either way if you do your research well enough.
My view? Personally I like cut, but I'm not too worried to be honest. I wouldn't dismiss someone on the grounds of having a foreskin. That would just be silly.

25 Aug 2007

I might have missed it somewhere in a disjointed reading of this thread over a few days, however one thing has struck me about the replies...
Call me odd if you like, but there seems to be an overwhelming majority that say it's about protecting the self, ie whomever it is that's saying "I use condoms because it makes me safe from *insert whichever here*". I'm more of the view that it's "consideration for others" thing. The comment was made earlier about contracting HIV/AIDS from a transfusion patient who is unaware of their condition. If you take consideration for others into account, and knowing about blood transfusion risks with such things, would it not be prudent, as the patient, to have taken some measures to prevent any possibility of transmission?
Using condoms is just sensible as far as I can see, because out of consideration for the other person, I'm sure they don't want to catch anything that I may have lurking undetected, and the other person should feel the same, surely?
Chlamydia, ghonnorea, even herpes can lie undetected and undiagnosed for years while people are merrily passing it around without being aware. A Typhoid Mary moment if you will. A condom may not totally eradicate the risks, but it surely cuts them down dramatically?
Out of consideration for others, a condom is the only way to go.
My view and I'm sticking to it. I won't try and foist it on others that don't share it, but neither would I consider changing it to suit a situation where another person didn't want to take my health and wellbeing into consideration.

22 Aug 2007

I make christening gowns and baby bits as well as currently making a dress for someone... Not really that unusual...
I do however own a money-pit... erm... Ex-military vehicle that's about 57 years old and needs a lot of TLC. She's a Commer Q4 for those that know about such things, and I've been getting my hands nice and oily poking about in the engine bay. Not good for the sewing, but a good scrub works wonders. I also own a Sankey Workshop Comms trailer and take them both to vehicle shows, well one show anyway.
Funnily enough I met a couple of people from this site at the last one I was at...
If anyone's good with old vehicle engines, PLEASE help me!! I'd beg, but I'd just get comments of "While you're down there.." and that will get nothing fixed! lol

lol