Living Arrangements - Page 55

Pressing-On · #**541** 02-16-2009, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emma Bontrager

My virgin eyes haven't seen it.

Me either! Someone told me about it!!!

Emma Bontrager · #**542** 02-16-2009, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

No, I want to hound you, Emma!

Your wish is my command. What may I do for you.

Emma Bontrager · #**543** 02-16-2009, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Careful what you ask for, Amish Woman. I might give it, and then you'll be

and asking God to forgive you for your thoughts.

No, I think you'd best keep your little hat on and lower your eyelids demurely. Go on now, with your unbad self.

Miss B thinks pre-marital hanky-panky is okay as long as it doesn't involve spanky-spanky!!

Emma Bontrager · #**544** 02-16-2009, 04:34 PM

Oh, oh, oh, MIss B. you walked right into that one.

ILG · #**545** 02-16-2009, 04:35 PM

Rhoni,

What are you doing? Some sort of psychological test on us poor unknowing subjects??

tbpew · #**546** 02-16-2009, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILG

I think perhaps the man in a given relationship needs to draw the lines at what he is comfortable with and the woman should not cross these boundaries. This may be a different line in different relationships. I think it is too narrow a statement to say that any woman in any pre-marriage relationship should never allow a man to put his arm around her on a couch watching a movie because he is too sexual and can't take it.

They are pretty rudimentary with the exception of the fact that I find too much blame placed on women for being a "tease" and not enough responsibility on men to control themselves and draw boundary lines. If women know men are sexual and shouldn't be a "tease", men also know women can be affectionate without meaning to be sexual and don't always intend to "tease". This is also rudimentary knowledge. Perhaps I am looking for a better balanced approach for both men and women. If Rhoni finds herself a guy who wants to sit with his arm around her on a couch before marriage and he thinks he can handle that, that's his business and Rhoni's. I'm not going to over-sexualize that. On the flip-side, for young people and teens, warnings need to be sounded. Don't do what you can't handle.

ILG,
Is touching an intimate act? Of course it is.

My guess is if it was not, the cuddle would NOT BE of ANY interest to ANY one, on ANY couch.

To me, the funny thing in this thread is our awareness of the power of human touch and how we participate in this before and after marriage, yet to some it is being presented as little different than a passing glance or a courteous salutation.

During times of marital conflict there is often an immediate loss of TOUCH, EVEN IF the persons involved were on a couch --watching a movie.

Maybe what some want is to have the pleasurable things about being married but don't want the hassels that accompany a lose of individual liberty that BOTH parties experience by the vow that forms of the new marriage entity.

MissBrattified · #**547** 02-16-2009, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emma Bontrager

Miss B thinks pre-marital hanky-panky is okay as long as it doesn't involve spanky-spanky!!

Did I say that? *goes back to check*

You may have caught me.

Of course, this all hinges on the definition of hanky-panky!!!!!

Here's an interesting definition of hanky-panky (which I think is quite possibly pertinent to this thread):

hanky panky

noun
verbal misrepresentation intended to take advantage of you in some way [syn: trickery]

Emma Bontrager · #**548** 02-16-2009, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tbpew

ILG,
Is touching an intimate act? Of course it is.

My guess is if it was not, the cuddle would NOT BE of ANY interest to ANY one, on ANY couch.

To me, the funny thing in this thread is our awareness of the power of human touch and how we participate in this before and after marriage, yet to some it is being presented as little different than a passing glance or a courteous salutation.

During times of marital conflict there is often an immediate loss of TOUCH, EVEN IF the persons involved were on a couch --watching a movie.

Maybe what some want is to have the pleasurable things about being married but don't want the hassels that accompany a lose of individual liberty that BOTH parties experience in the formation of the new marriage entity.

My dear sir, if a man cannot handle his arm around a woman before they are married he should not do it and CERTAINLY not in front of a movie.

MissBrattified · #**549** 02-16-2009, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emma Bontrager

Oh, oh, oh, MIss B. you walked right into that one.

I did, LOL!!! You led me by my freckled nose.

Pressing-On · #**550** 02-16-2009, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tbpew

ILG,
Is touching an intimate act? Of course it is.

My guess is if it was not, the cuddle would NOT BE of ANY interest to ANY one, on ANY couch.

To me, the funny thing in this thread is our awareness of the power of human touch and how we participate in this before and after marriage, yet to some it is being presented as little different than a passing glance or a courteous salutation.

During times of marital conflict there is often an immediate loss of TOUCH, EVEN IF the persons involved were on a couch --watching a movie.

Maybe what some want is to have the pleasurable things about being married but don't want the hassels that accompany a lose of individual liberty that BOTH parties experience by the vow that forms of the new marriage entity.

Good post!!!!