waltbrad wrote:
> Lefty wrote:
> You'd still be able to orgasm with him. The only
> > > difference would be that he would no longer have that one organ.
> > >
> > > So, do you love the man or do you love the dick?
> > >
> > > If you love the dick that's cool for you, no judgement here. Like I
> > > said, superficial isn't always bad...it's your life, you live it how
> > > you want it.
> >
> >
> > She could still love the man, but reject the vagina because the .
> > would never be right for her again. Please try to understand this.
>
> This conversation has gotten to be moronic. The guy walks out one day
> has his peter hacked off and comes home to his wife like everything is
> supposed to be understood.
>
> And she should just understand that from here on she just doesn't get
> dick in bed anymore but he will fist . her. But the other answer,
> "Please try to understand the . wouldn't be the same" crap is just as
> moronic.
Why?
> The man she loved was a hetero.ual. What about her identity? She is
> supposed to just shrug her shoulders and say "Oh, well"? What about
> her part in his life? She's not supposed to be consulted about such a
> change BEFORE it happens?
I agree.
> Now if you're going to further qualify this conversation by saying this
> context wasn't intended, then you must understand that this entire
> conversation has become meaningless. It NEEDS context.
Again, I agree.
> Why don't you all just have . with dogs and cats? What the hell, you
> love your pet don't you?
A poor analogy, since animals cannot even legally consent.
|