冻龄夫妻

2021-05-08 13:46:28

Love is selfless devotion and unwavering commitment. My friend, are you sure your longtime lovers aren't just indulging in a "live for today" kind of passionate infatuation? Or do you believe your casual sex partners are more about "love" than the "drinking" itself?

盘古来了

2021-05-08 21:05:51

@Ageless Couple. I wouldn't say there weren't any casual sex partners, but seeing how inseparable they were, no one would believe there wasn't love. In temperatures of 27 or 28 degrees Celsius (this is about 70% of the time in Xiamen), if a woman doesn't wash, the odor from her genitals is quite strong. Once, during a wild party, they clipped many copper bells to my wife's body and made her dance the "Women's Army" naked. The sex partners were completely intoxicated, dancing wildly to the music. It's hard to imagine they didn't love my wife.

冻龄夫妻

2021-05-08 21:43:22

@PanguIsHere! This is amazing! It's hard for ordinary people to imagine that Cupid's arrows, fired all at once, all hit the bullseye of "love." It's like Cupid himself came to your place for a big market day...

盘古来了

2021-05-13 11:25:26

@Liu Dahai, this is the difference between the general and the specific, and also the difference between humans and animals. Women are our mothers, sisters, wives, and daughters. They are not prostitutes; they don't exchange their bodies for money. They have sex, experience pleasure, and develop love naturally.

冻龄夫妻

2021-05-13 13:17:39

@PanguIsHere Your wife is definitely not a prostitute; she's a happy woman who enjoys the selfless service of male prostitutes for free.

盘古来了

2021-05-13 23:36:41

@Ageless Couple, Duck Fee

冻龄夫妻

2021-05-14 07:18:01

@PanguIsHere, you're absolutely right! That's why the amusement park is thriving, just like Taobao. Also, I'd like to ask you a question: do you charge for the "dogs, deer, etc." you mentioned in your posts?

盘古来了

2021-05-17 12:54:46

@Ageless Couple, the wife once had an idea, but it was so difficult to put into practice.

南昌优秀夫妻

2021-05-17 19:46:11

Some people advocate separating sex from love. I think that's impossible! Especially after a period of physical contact, the emotional box opens, and it's almost impossible not to fall in love.

盘古来了

2021-05-18 15:39:38

@强齐霸秦, I rent a detached house in an urban village. With the stereo on, it's very safe. Almost everyone there is a familiar face.

奇卡0756

2021-05-19 06:46:38

Hello, what you said is very good.

盘古来了

2021-05-19 22:48:05

@cloudf, during sex, one desires emotional investment from their partner, not indifference or hostility. During sex, one expresses liking, not perfunctoriness or hatred. The body needs emotional nourishment, and the spirit is expressed through the body.

冻龄夫妻

2021-05-21 10:55:32

@PanguIsHere As we all know, the famous American Triangular Theory of Love states that love consists of three elements: intimacy (liking), infatuation (sexual passion), and commitment (responsibility). Since you've fulfilled the first two, I'd like to know what commitments you've made to your wives? And in the event of unforeseen circumstances requiring help, what acts of responsibility and unwavering devotion do you think they would demonstrate out of love and commitment?

老顽童69

2021-05-24 18:04:24

It's still not good not to wash it.

盘古来了

2021-05-24 19:36:29

@Ageless Couple, as I've said before, if people equate sex with playing chess, ball games, and dancing, then promiscuity can explain the wife's actions. A promise is just a personal matter; I've never heard of needing promises for playing chess, ball games, or dancing. It's best if lovers have no ulterior motives when they're together.

冻龄夫妻

2021-05-24 21:31:09

@Pangu is here, liking someone because they can bring you immediate pleasure (whether it's physical or psychological satisfaction) seems very utilitarian, like fair-weather friends, just for a quick thrill! Love, on the other hand, is a long-term, selfless investment and dedication, with painful sunk costs, and is less utilitarian. So this proves that this kind of sexual philanthropy is just simple liking and sex, and has nothing to do with professional love as it is often understood.

盘古来了

2021-05-25 09:51:23

@老顽童69 is right, the taste is strong.

盘古来了

2021-06-03 08:36:59

@Ageless Couple, you must have read "The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State." Humanity has reached 3.5 million years old, while private property has only existed for 3,500 years—one-thousandth of that. 3.5 million years is but a fraction of the Earth's lifespan. Private property is merely a cross-section in the long river of human history. The family is simply a product of private property. All so-called promises and responsibilities between men and women are inseparable from the family; otherwise, they are hypocritical. Don't you see, 70% of men and women have extramarital affairs without restraint, some even falling madly in love and getting their partners pregnant, yet when asked to divorce, they evade the question. This is human nature. As Engels aptly said, equality, fraternity, and freedom are also on our banner.

冻龄夫妻

2021-06-03 13:23:42

@PanguIsHere Love is the prerequisite for marriage and family. Therefore, love without commitment and responsibility is an extramarital affair (sex), and he will naturally "change the subject." Otherwise, it's just hypocritical self-delusion. Since you say that lovers are for playing around and wives are for loving, then don't mistake playing around for loving, and vice versa. You've been linking casual sex with love, like playing chess, playing ball, or dancing, which is why I talked to you about the commitment of love. Otherwise, I could assume you fully understand the essence of the separation of sex and love. In that case, your wife's strong sex drive is the same as a strong appetite or a high alcohol tolerance. Is there any need to explain further? Universal love is a special kind of love because the object of love is all of humanity. Therefore, its degree is definitely not the same as "romantic love." Because of its wide scope, this kind of love can only be a "general love." But it's important to note that universal love is not indiscriminate affection, nor does it mean being unfaithful. Universal love is the selfless love of a benevolent person! Current science has already proven that compared to the entire universe, Earth is merely a speck of dust. If Earth is so insignificant, then humanity is certainly extinct. So how can we be here talking about private ownership? Compared to yours, wouldn't you say my ideal is the ultimate ideal?

盘古来了

2021-06-11 11:51:14

@AgelessCouple. You men rarely understand the depths of our women's hearts. Lin Yutang's diary entry in his novel *Red Peony* says: Which woman doesn't wish for her beloved to mess with her, ravage her, and penetrate her...? It seems you are the Hanlin he was talking about.

冻龄夫妻

2021-06-11 15:00:41

@PanguIsHere, haha, it seems you can't continue with reasoning and logic, but you're still unwilling to give up, so you can only use your sentimental wife's words to fill the gap. But can your wife represent "us women"? Does "sweetheart" refer to a casual sex partner or to you personally? Whether I'm a "Hanlin" or not is unimportant; what matters is that your wife "deep down" wants to keep "enjoying" herself! Doctors are people of universal love, and I jokingly call you "double doctors." Similarly, my casual sex partners are naturally happy to call you people of universal love as well, otherwise it would be a disservice to the delicious pork head meat, the fine XO, and the wonderful bodies we enjoy. However, whether those who eat, drink, and play for free count as people of universal love is something I don't know. Of course, as long as you yourselves think they are very philanthropic, then that's the "kingly way." To be honest, if you hadn't come here that day to misinterpret and comment on an article about the separation of sex and love that even a junior high school student could understand, I wouldn't have commented on any of your articles at all, even though I had seen them long ago and had quite a few thoughts on them. But by nature, I tolerate and respect everything that has nothing to do with me.

盘古来了

2021-06-13 14:26:31

@Ageless Couples, to each their own! Marx could be happy that the sexy Jenny became the queen of the ball, while Engels believed that monogamy was merely the last system of private property, preceded by pair-bonding marriage, the Punalu'ya family, and so on. Private property is just a cross-section in the long river of human history. Chairman Mao said that the family would eventually disappear! You may not believe it, but I do. In that passionate era, these people were undeniably radical in their thinking and undeniably conservative in their behavior. However, in the same era, Qu Qiubai, Li Lisan, Xiang Zhongfa, Cai Hesen, Xiang Jingyu, Zhang Tailei, Chen Qiaonian… were unwilling to be conservative. In short, human understanding of sex varies greatly; you have to give others space. As for my opposition to your views on the separation of sex and love, commitment, and responsibility, it's not malicious; it's just my personal opinion. I just feel that discussing these things in the context of 1969 feels a bit awkward.

生活因你而火热

2021-06-21 11:30:53

How can I contact you, brother?

春风又绿

2021-07-02 10:48:50

The couple who came from Pangu were a pioneer in sexual happiness, possessing both practical experience and profound understanding; they were truly superior to most couples.

来日不方长

2021-07-02 11:58:50

Everything that exists has its reason; one's stance determines their viewpoint. As long as everyone is happy and sexually healthy, that's all that matters.

盘古来了

2021-07-09 13:09:42

@Spring Breeze Green Again, our views are often questioned these days. We study natural sciences and know little about the humanities. We often feel it's pathetic that people bind themselves with unfounded preconceived notions. Just a hundred years ago, people still advocated arranged marriages, creating countless human tragedies. Love is a great emotion, and sex is simply an essential human behavior. Yet, some people still see sex as shameful. If so, why do almost all adults do such shameful things? Others consider sex very important. Is it really as important as eating, drinking, or breathing? Aren't monks and nuns perfectly comfortable without sex? Can they survive without food, water, and breath? It's like people considering the government very important, unaware that Comrade Lenin hoped the government should be like a post office, not essential. I always believe that one day, people will view sex the same as dancing, playing ball, or playing chess. On that day, a wife's behavior will be commonplace.

春风又绿

2021-07-09 15:44:59

To date, threesomes and polyandry remain niche sexual practices among couples. However, this doesn't prevent those who enjoy threesomes from continuing in this way. Sexual fidelity can be a source of happiness, as can having many partners; each person finding what they need is the most suitable approach.

大有不同

2021-09-25 15:11:46

The reasoning is correct.

LLSH

2021-10-12 22:39:12

未来可妻

2021-11-06 21:09:37

The article is short, but the comments are extremely long; it's rare to see a debate between the two of you.

盘古来了

2021-11-09 09:20:20

@FutureWife, the couple who seem to defy aging are older than us. We both believe sex should be based on love, but the difference is that he believes the theme of love is commitment and trust, while I believe the theme of love is attraction and desire, unrelated to commitment and trust. Because commitment and trust only exist in institutional marriage, which is currently monogamy. Monogamy is a product of private ownership, which is only a relatively short segment in the long river of human history. Attraction and desire, that is, the need to manipulate and be manipulated, are eternal human desires.

jiong

2021-12-17 16:31:17

"Women are our mothers, sisters, wives, and daughters. They are not prostitutes; they don't exchange their bodies for money. They have sex, experience pleasure, and develop love naturally." Can the sexual needs of relatives, whether blood-related or not, be satisfied like those of a wife?

盘古来了

2021-12-30 12:05:06

@jiong, of course it's possible, as long as it doesn't produce offspring and is harmless to society or others. It's just that people don't allow it, and the reason is simply their mindset. Mindsets can be changed. Don't you see, 100 years ago, people still adhered to the concept of "arranged marriages," and figures like Sun Yat-sen, Li Dazhao, Chen Duxiu, Mao Zedong, Lin Biao, Chiang Kai-shek, Lu Xun, and Hu Shi all had marriages arranged by their parents that they later overturned and started over? The purpose of this blog post is to suggest that sex should be based on love.

松梅竹

2022-01-04 16:23:44

Sex is the physical act of fighting, and people will do anything for pleasure.

盘古来了

2022-01-30 13:37:23

@Spring Breeze is Green Again, I firmly believe that commitment and responsibility are merely necessities of marriage and family, and that family is simply a product of private ownership, which is only a small segment of human history. In other words, commitment, responsibility, and sex are not necessarily related. On the contrary, human sexuality has always been about pursuing one thing: pleasure! As a philosopher once said, humanity has been evolving from the realm of necessity to the realm of freedom. Our constant talk of commitment and responsibility only shows that we are still living in the realm of necessity.

liuhuifei

2022-03-06 23:49:06

@Ageless Couple'

流星流星

2022-04-27 19:24:43

Reading the comments is more enjoyable than reading the main text; I learned something new today!!!

盘古来了

2022-10-16 13:59:07

@FutureWife, it wasn't really a debate, just expressing our opinions. If we were to debate, he'd accuse me of attacking him, so why bother? Can we reconcile viewing issues from the perspective of human society with viewing them from the perspective of a private society? It's like Marx saying, "The worker has no country," can we echo that? If we "have no country," how can we even begin to talk about the "great cause of national reunification"?