|
|
Post by noni dalton on May 17, 2011 13:31:00 GMT -5
am i the only one thoroughly amused by the use of the term love-child to describes ones illegitimate children. it seems so silly.
OPEN
|
|
|
|
Post by minnie roxburgh on May 20, 2011 12:17:09 GMT -5
it is a love-child, though. i mean, depending on the situation anyway!
[/sup][/blockquote][/blockquote] |
|
|
|
Post by noni dalton on May 20, 2011 13:40:48 GMT -5
most people love their children though, rigt? so wouldn't every child be a love-child?
|
|
|
|
Post by minnie roxburgh on May 20, 2011 14:44:18 GMT -5
yeah, but thats got nothing to do with why it's called a love-child. it's generally implied that a love child is a kid born out of wed-lock or due to an affair. that the two people having the affair were in love. it's a child born of pure, rugged love outside the ideal situation. nothing to do with their love for the child!
[/sup][/blockquote][/blockquote] |
|
|
|
Post by noni dalton on May 20, 2011 16:28:11 GMT -5
a child within a marriage doesn't come from "pure, rugged love"? some people don't have to cheat to find that kind of love. i undersand the concept, it just seems silly to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by minnie roxburgh on May 20, 2011 16:33:52 GMT -5
it might, but it's more of a ... forbidden love concept. it's so romantic, though!
[/sup][/blockquote][/blockquote] |
|
|
|
Post by noni dalton on May 21, 2011 10:22:19 GMT -5
cheating is romantic? or having a child coming from that cheating is romantic?
|
|
|
|
Post by minnie roxburgh on May 21, 2011 10:57:05 GMT -5
sometimes, yeah, actually.
[/sup][/blockquote][/blockquote] |
|
|
|
Post by noni dalton on May 21, 2011 11:54:03 GMT -5
you've never been cheated on. or your seriously a little crazy.
|
|
|
|
Post by minnie roxburgh on May 21, 2011 11:55:43 GMT -5
well it's not romantic for the one getting cheated on, obviously, but think about all the great romance stories. someone was always cheating on someone else.
[/sup][/blockquote][/blockquote] |
|
|
|
Post by noni dalton on May 21, 2011 17:32:35 GMT -5
yeah, most of the time. which makes people think it's alright.
|
|
|
|
Post by minnie roxburgh on May 21, 2011 17:36:25 GMT -5
humans are naturally polygamists, besides, fidelity does not mean monogamy.
[/sup][/blockquote][/blockquote] |
|
|
|
Post by noni dalton on May 21, 2011 17:39:10 GMT -5
so, as long as your significant other knows, it's alright?
|
|
|
|
Post by minnie roxburgh on May 21, 2011 17:44:26 GMT -5
knd of, kind of not. if you're in a relationship, it doesn't automatically mean you're monogamous because you decide to be exclusive. exclusive may mean you'll only be with each other, but that doesn't mean you're only allowed to fuck each other. physical is just that, physical. if your boyfriend goes out of the state on business and hooks up with someone else, then good for him, he's not being a cheater nor is he breaking his fidelity to you. fidelity can imply so many different things. as long as there's not an emotional connection and it's just sex, it's not cheating.
[/sup][/blockquote][/blockquote] |
|
|
|
Post by noni dalton on May 21, 2011 17:51:55 GMT -5
physically cheating is just as bad as emotionally cheating.
|
|
