Sex

Sex only after marriage

Brazilians are sexually charged

I practice it everyday

brazillians make good sex

degen

But... I can't get married yet ._.

agreed, almost 9 years and counting without sex, lads

Sad :(
when will you be able to get married?

20 here.

Is this from a no-intimacy before marriage standpoint

Or from a no-penetration before marriage religious-style standpoint?

>If A:
While it can be fun for a while and get your imagination going, courtships and dating last FAR longer these days and it's easy to have it be detrimental to the relationship. Fooling around can just be an appreciation for your partner and physical contact is important in a lasting romance if it's going to move on to further things.

>If B:
Who cares. We have hands, mouthes and anal to use instead. You can get plenty of pleasure and intimacy from sex without vaginal penetration.

Pornography is immoral.
Masturbation is immoral.
You should only have one sexual partner your whole life.
And I agree.

I got laid once in 2005

I know the feel

Time to wake up, Ping Chong, it's 2016 now.

how have you managed to not have sex since 2005?

never have sex. i'm warning you.

I dunno man, I'm pretty awkward

I got head once in 2010 tho, I guess that counts for something

Why ?

Because it is immoral.

My thought is, if you really want to get laid, you could. There are many awkward people like yourself out there whom you would be a perfect match.

>Brazil
>Tries to explain the first world what immoral is
>Brazil

I doubt that, but what I doubt even more is that you live a "moral" life, even according to your definitions as to what is moral.

The bible has been translated to portuguese.

that's because the first world has become even more immoral than Brazil and other 3rd world countries

All my friends always have been sporty alphas which has made me only hang around the most beautiful girls so I'm not the first one they go for.

I'm okay with it though, it's not like sex is that much better than smoking weed and playing video games

I hope that the friend-turned-partner you might find is sexually compatible, because there's a lot of people who share your mindset and regret it later.

Good luck, brave jap.

>the bible
>2016
>Ordem e Progresso

Morality is timeless.

Read the bible.

3rd world countries: starvation, government corruption at no limits, human trafficking, nonexistent GDP, high rate of crime.

1st world countries: we watch porn and marry the person we love. :DDD We are so immoral :D:DDDD

And relative.

That's fine. Whatever floats your boat. I'm just saying that if were a problem for you, you could still have options.

What about americans who follow the bible?

...

Morality is objective.
What makes you think it's relative?

For those who don't know, sex before marriage is a major sin called fornication. God will punish sinners.

>we watch porn and marry the person we love.
fucking kek, people is more promiscuous in usa than here by far

>Read the bible

No I won't. I don't believe in that, because as a rational human being equipped with a brain, I can't accept what's written in it.
That doesn't mean I push my views onto others. You should do the same. Have some respect for others.
There are Americans who follow the bible. They are allowed to if they want to, and that is none of my business. You can believe in whatever you want, but don't push your dogma onto others.

If you actually read the bible, you would see how immoral the bible texts are (murder, prostitution, rape babies etc.). Keep reading the parts you like and ignore the rest.

The simple fact that it has changes a lot through ages and that cultures at different times have had multiple and various understanding of what morality is.

If morality was objective, its standards would have always been the same everywere.

>Muh bible is outdated, because i dont like everything that is there.
Pls Current year men kys.

Interestingly enough, God only punishes 3rd world people.

You're going to hell for all eternity.

That's why you're 3rd world and i'm not.

how scary

oh no. :3

>You're going to hell for all eternity.

I doubt I'm ever going to Brazil.

DEGENERATE WHORES PEGGING DRUG-ADDICTED TRANSVESTITES GETTING MUGGED ON THE FREEWAY BY MX BANDITS WHO GET SHOT IN THE FACE BY COPS HIRED BY A CORRUPTED WARLORD TO DEAL HEROIN TO SPECIAL FORCES KILLING CHILDREN ON THE STREET TO BUILD A SHITTY STADIUM SO THAT AIDS-INFUSED WHORES CAN'T FUCK A COLA BOTTLE IN THE MIDDLE OF AN ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION ZONE WHERE WARLORDS ARE DRUGLORDS ORDER TRANNIES TO GUN DOWN DRUG STORE EMPLOYEES ONLY TO GET KILLED BY MILITARIZED POLICE FORCES SO THAT THE POPE CAN COME VISIT THE SHITTY FAVELA. FOREVER.

Sex should be banned!

Stop having sex.

>The simple fact that it has changes a lot through ages and that cultures at different times have had multiple and various understanding of what morality is.
That doesn't mean it's relative, much less that other perspectives are just as valid. It just means that people are being degenerate and claiming that their life style of hedonism is as honorful than a life of dignity. In short, they are not following the true path.

>If morality was objective, its standards would have always been the same everywere.
In no culture, murder or theft are seen as good.
Therefore, there are standards seen as the same for all cultures.
Therefore, according to your own logic, morality is objective.

Not having sex before marriage has sure fixed your country's economy.
>Ordem e Progresso

m8 just accept that you like the dick.

That's because my countrymen are having sex outside of wedlock. I'm not.
This isn't about USA vs. Brazil. It's about the truth that is written on the Bible.

>My life sucks because other citizens of my homeland are having sex.

And I thought american educations is the lowest.

No, this isn't USA vs. Brazil. This is 1st world vs. 3rd world.
Many 1st world countries are not christian, nor religious in any way, and behold, they live a much higher quality life than you do. But just keep telling yourself that your life sucks because people are having sex. Makes perfect sense.

>That doesn't mean it's relative, much less that other perspectives are just as valid.
In other words, it makes it relative, especially because what is honourful and what is dignity changes, just as "the true path" is never the same.

The rest of your post is fallacies. Murder and theft have been seen as good is some cultures, especially nomadic cultures and cultures who resorted to piracy. Killing and stealing from your own is never seen as good, but it is different when it concerns other.

>In no culture, murder or theft are seen as good.
True jews
True muslims

I'm praying for you.

Oh, God punish 1st world by
>insecurities
>materialism
>jealousy
>mass migration from 3rd world

To return the favor, When I'll fap next time, I'll be thinking of you.

>told him im not religious
>will pray for me nonetheless

kill yourself.

Your first paragraph is extremely invalid, from a logical perspective.
You mentioned how I said "doesn't mean it's relative" as a way to conclude that "it makes it relative". Huge logical leap there. Or illogical, if so may I say.

>"the true path" is never the same.
Contradiction. If the true path exists, it's always the same. That's the meaning of objectivity. What's so wrong to understand about it?
>Killing and stealing from your own is never seen as good
Thank you. You just proved my own point. Morality is objective, after all.
I could mention a number of other ways that show how morality is objective. For example, can you name a single culture that encourages throwing feces on the face of your leader? This would be seen as wrong by all existing cultures, no matter how fucked up they are. There are endless other possibilities.

don't forget natural disasters and mass shootings

>Insecurities
What.jpg

>Materialism
1st would people are more materialistic. Do you know why, because we can afford shit and you can't.

>Only 1st world people can be jealous.

>God punish 1st world by
>mass migration from 3rd world

So you are stating that you 3rd world people are the cancer, the cockroaches of this planet god has created to punish us advanced civilizations?

At least we live in houses and don't starve.

So you need to divorce first, then sex?

>mass shootings
God kills innocent woman, man and children. Noice.

fuck off you virgin otaku

I can say the same

true, nothing of value is lost since they're americans

>FOLLOW THE BIBLE. THE ONE TRUE BOOK OF GOD. LOVE. PEACE. ACCEPTANCE. HEAVEN.

>KILL AMERICANS


You have shown the real face of your religion. Good job.

What part of the bible are you picking and choosing from to make that judgement?


Acts of Paul and Thecla?

>You mentioned how I said "doesn't mean it's relative" as a way to conclude that "it makes it relative".
Sure, if you conviniently forget half of my sentence, it can be seen that way. What makes it relative is the fact that other pespectives are just as valid. That is what relative means.

>Thank you. You just proved my own point.
I did not, at all. You mentioned how killing and stealing has never been seen as good in any culture, and I provided you with counter exemples, but you have chosen to ignore them and just to focus on the last part of my post. If morality was indeed objective, killing and stealing would have never been seen as good. Ever, regarding who is the victim of the killing and stealing.

>For example, can you name a single culture that encourages throwing feces on the face of your leader?
Totally unrelated, this does not concern morality but socio-anthropology and it wouldn't be seen as wrong on a moral standpoint but rather on a social one. It's the same way every cultures, even the most promiscuituous ones, encourage every individual to cover his genitalias. This is a simple private/public distinction that exist throughout every cultures and it has nothing to do with morality.

...

>atheshits

I'm not a christian, jokes on you

2 can play that game

ITT: A bunch of hateful 3rd world people who know they will never make it to a 1st world country in hope of living a decent life. Thus they have to convince themselves they are the gifted ones.

I might not have the zika virus, nor a daughter I can prostitute in all of brazil, but at least I have a job and not have to worry about starving myself to death.

>japanese catholic

kek
cucked even with relligion
you puppeted little shit

Majority of americans are uneducated, ignorant, stupid humans. We all know this.
Problem is, even our ghetto community colleges are better and more affordable than your so called "education". Nothing else proves that than the educated engineers and doctors fleeing your country.
tl;dr even dumb lazy americans live a higher quality life than you do.

>Not a christian
youre still going to hell though m8

>japanese catholic

my_sides.avi

>What makes it relative is the fact that other pespectives are just as valid
I call for burden of proof.
Please, tell me why other perspectives other than objective morality should be valid?
I also call for a counter argument.
Let's think about the culture of the mongols. The ones led by Genghis Khan.
They raped, murdered, set fire, pillaged, looted, any villages they would conquer. They were barbarians.
Let's think about modern Islamic societies.
Modern Islamic societies support the beheading of people who leave their religion. Modern Islamic societies support stoning of women.
Clearly, these perspectives should not be valid.
Clearly, saying they are relative, implies you should tolerate their existence.
Finally, I would like to ask you: if in human society, a society spawned, which's morality advocates for the destruction of all other forms of morality, in such a way it would be the only one to exist, and therefore, objective, would morality still be relative?

>second paragraph of your post
However, it is still implied that some morality is objective. As you said in (Killing and stealing from your own is never seen as good). If some objective morality exists, they must derivate from an original principle. There must be a moral code, that in its objectiveness, is comprehended by all societies. Therefore, a source must indeed exist. It is our task as humans to find it - to unreveal fully the true path - and to enforce its code. I personally am confident that it's Christian Buddhism.

>third paragraph
>implying morality is not the "correct form" of socio-anthropology
Morality's sole purpose is to lead a healthy society. In the Bible it is said that anal sex is wrong, period. In social studies, it's said anal sex is wrong because it leads to AIDS, period.
In essence, why don't you think these two different things that you mention are not in fact the same?

>even dumb lazy americans live a higher quality life than you do.
and? having money doesn't make you better than any other person in the world

>youre still going to hell though
I don't believe in hell nor heaven, reincarnation master race

>highest inter racial marriage rate in the world
>receives some 20 million immigrants every year
>birthplace of cuckold porn
>90% of cukcoldry website
>calls others cucked

>be nationally cucked by the united states after WWII

lmao
xhamster com/movies/3427481/japanese_girl_is_bred_successfully_by_big_black_cock.html

>Clearly, saying they are relative, implies you should tolerate their existence.
Absolutely not, you just keep building bridges where there is nothing to be connected. I say morality is relative, which means that for those mongols, and for those islamist you are talking about, what they did was moral. And that was relative means, that different perspectives lead to different interpretations.

> if in human society, a society spawned, which's morality advocates for the destruction of all other forms of morality, in such a way it would be the only one to exist, and therefore, objective, would morality still be relative?
This is just stupid. It's like saying "if God is good, where is there cancer ?" Of course morality would still be relative, because to their eyes, what they would be doing would still be moral. And those differences of perspectives are why it is moral.

>However, it is still implied that some morality is objective.
No, it doesn't. Killing your own kind is counter productive and endanger your kind. Once again, it's simply an anthropologic trait and has nothing to do with morality.

Sociology and anthropology both focus on something to study, they do not judge anything and are thus exempt from being "moral" or for being realted to morality in any way.
> In social studies, it's said anal sex is wrong because it leads to AIDS
This is simply wrong. AIDS goes through sex, regardless what kind of sex.

I don't even know who's baiting whom anymore

Too bad America doesn't know how to finish the job. You guys let Japan and Germany go right back to being global powers.

FUck off with this tradition that come from savage sand people. Stop with this 'i wanna be jew'