... :evil:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gigabitch [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
Printable View
... :evil:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gigabitch [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
Whatever, Junior.
Wrong. Someone who dances well shows a certain level of self-confidence in himself and this will translate into the bedroom.Quote:
Originally Posted by Glith [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
Likewise, guys who are shy on the dance floor will likely be just as shy in bed.
Also, to say that having good rhythm has no effect on sexual ability is a poor assumption to make considering that the very act of sex is rhythmic movement.
Wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanctuary [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
Dancing well does not demand self confidence. That's a rather lazy assumption to make. If anything, dancing badly all night entails a higher degree of self confidence. Did you know that Stephen Fry can't and won't dance? He hates it. Yet...he has performed in front of tens of thousands of people on stage over the years, in movie studios, given press interviews on countless occassions ....the guy isn't a shrinking violet. His distaste for dancing has nothing whatsoever to do with a lack of confidence.
Guys being shy on the dancefloor in no way reflects their in-bed confidence. I'm sure there are plenty of porn stars who don't dance.
As for good rhythm, again, this means nothing for sexual ability.
I'm sure there are plenty of people who have no sense of rhythm, yet know how to please a partner. At the same time, I bet there are some 30-second-wonder drummers out there.
Sorry, but linking the 'ability' to dance to sexual prowess is rather naive.
Yes it does, I challenge you to prove me wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Glith [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
^That has nothing to do with dancing requiring self confidence. Merely you have shown that you can be confident without knowing how to dance.Quote:
That's a rather lazy assumption to make. If anything, dancing badly all night entails a higher degree of self confidence. Did you know that Stephen Fry can't and won't dance? He hates it. Yet...he has performed in front of tens of thousands of people on stage over the years, in movie studios, given press interviews on countless occassions ....the guy isn't a shrinking violet. His distaste for dancing has nothing whatsoever to do with a lack of confidence.
Generally, guys that are shy on the dance floor are shy in situations where they fear they may be judged, i.e. the bedroom.Quote:
Guys being shy on the dancefloor in no way reflects their in-bed confidence. I'm sure there are plenty of porn stars who don't dance.
My argument is that having a good sense of rhythm is a likely indicator of good 'sexual ability.' I did not say having no sense of rhythm makes you incapable of being good in bed. You're debating against claims I never made.Quote:
As for good rhythm, again, this means nothing for sexual ability.
I'm sure there are plenty of people who have no sense of rhythm, yet know how to please a partner. At the same time, I bet there are some 30-second-wonder drummers out there.
There are certain elements of dance that can be related to sex. Not only that, but a good dancer exhibits a certain amount of creativity, and that creativity would probably translate into the bedroom too. It's not a stretch of logic to make the assumption that a good dancer is probably good in bed.Quote:
Sorry, but linking the 'ability' to dance to sexual prowess is rather naive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanctuary [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
Not a stretch of logic, no, just bad logic.
The two are entirely different forms of physical activity.
For starters, being a good dancer doesn't provide you with information about your new partner's sexual preferences, it doesn't make you a generous lover, it doesn't make you passionate, it doesn't mean you're immune to premature ejaculation or severe impotence issues, it doesn't mean you know what to do with your fingers or tongue, it doesn't mean you can go straight to seconds, it means nothing. The only correlation is movement of the hips. It's all just a fallacy.
I accept that some people find skilled dancers to be an attraction, but I don't accept for a second that their skill refects in any way their sexual abilities. Sex isn't just about hip movement I'm afraid.
As for 'creativity', well I have a degree in art, I paint, draw, write, play music. As much as I'd like to say it was a reflection, it simply isn't. I was a good painter long before I became a good lover. ;)
I know it's a great romantic thought that dancers, artists and musicians make great lovers, but it has no merit outside of Mills and Boon.
I hope you realize that my point is not that being a good lover is a function of being a good dancer. But my point is that certain attributes that contribute to someone being a good dancer also contributes to them being a good lover.
No they're not - they both involve bodily movement, some form of synchronization with your partner, and someone usually leading. And you do both activities better if you're confident.Quote:
Originally Posted by Glith [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
I never said a good dancer will always be good in bed - I said it's likely. The problem with the counterargument that you posted above is that it can be used against anything I say and isn't really directed at dancing. I could've said being experienced and knowledgable makes you good in bed and you could've said nearly the same thing except take out the part about knowing what to do with fingers/tongue. I could've said knowing what your partner wants makes you good in bed and you could've said almost the same exact thing above to 'prove' me wrong.Quote:
For starters, being a good dancer doesn't provide you with information about your new partner's sexual preferences, it doesn't make you a generous lover, it doesn't make you passionate, it doesn't mean you're immune to premature ejaculation or severe impotence issues, it doesn't mean you know what to do with your fingers or tongue, it doesn't mean you can go straight to seconds, it means nothing. The only correlation is movement of the hips. It's all just a fallacy.
You contradict yourself when you say they're 'entirely different forms of physical activity' but then you say here that there's correlation between the two because of hip movement.Quote:
The only correlation is movement of the hips. It's all just a fallacy.
I agree with you that sex isn't just about hip movement; no one is gonna be dumb enough to argue with that.Quote:
I accept that some people find skilled dancers to be an attraction, but I don't accept for a second that their skill refects in any way their sexual abilities. Sex isn't just about hip movement I'm afraid.
If you assume that dance and making love are two entirely different forms of physical activity, then my point about creativity becomes null.Quote:
As for 'creativity', well I have a degree in art, I paint, draw, write, play music. As much as I'd like to say it was a reflection, it simply isn't. I was a good painter long before I became a good lover. ;)
Who the hell is that lolQuote:
I know it's a great romantic thought that dancers, artists and musicians make great lovers, but it has no merit outside of Mills and Boon.
But I'm fairly certain that if I went to parties, took 50 random people that were good dancers and 50 random people that weren't, the dancers (for the most part) would be better lovers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanctuary [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
So, riding a tandem bicycle would mean that somebody is probably a better lover? Or Boxing? Or tandem skydiving?
That doesn't negate the fact however that every point in this instance was valid in the case of dancing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanctuary [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
And if you had said that, you would have had more of a point than your point about dancing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanctuary [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
If we're getting pedantic, using your argument, the act of kissing your child on the forehead isn't a totally different physical activity to snowboarding because they both entail the movement of your head, lungs and heart. Every act, no mater how far removed, can be linked at some level. The fact that sex and dancing both involve movement of the hips (albeit totally different actions) does not mean that both activites require a similar physical movement. If that's how being good at sex worked, people would be signing up for shot-put lessons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanctuary [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
The world's biggest publisher of romance novels.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanctuary [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
And I'm fairly certain that wouldn't be the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanctuary [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
Seriously, there is no connection. I mean, I could put forward arguments to say quite the opposite to what you're saying.
...Since dancers are self-confident, it just so happens that self-confident people are more likely to be selfish or arrogant than shy people, therefore they would be poor lovers as they'd be less giving in bed. Self-confident people tend to be less sensitive emotionally than shy people, therefore they wouldn't be as attuned intimately with the needs of a partner...
...all that would of course be rubbish, as there is simply no connection whether it be pro or con.
I just get tired of tenuous connections being made between unrelated actions.
As I said earlier, I have nothing to lose. I'm artistic, and with that comes the old cliche of artists being good lovers. I'm not saying they're not, all I'm saying is that if some ARE, it's nothing to do with their skill with a paintbrush, it's down to the fact that they've put in time learning how to be a good lover.
Funny you 2...
I disagree with Glith wholeheartedly. You're picking out exceptions to prove him wrong while he opts to generalize from the greater population.
Terrible dancers with no nack for the beat couldn't send me running faster. I'm not talking about mildly bad dancers I'm talking about the ones who go on so you think you can dance? and get laughed at.
Bad dancer, bad lover. I've actaully had a bad dancer bad lover. It was lame.
Yeah, I am picking out exceptions, because they prove that generalization doesnt work.Quote:
Originally Posted by girl68 [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
Bad dancers sending you running, well, thats your personal taste, fair enough.
As for bad dancer= bad lover. I didn't really want to go into personal experiences as they prove nothing to other people, but from my experience with a terrible dancer (she had absolutely NO sense of rhythm, she couldnt even tap along to a drum beat), it was totally the opposite.
My first long term relationship on the other hand was with a girl who admitedly wasn't a GREAT dancer, but she was good. The sex however, well, she should have just stuck to dancing.
As for other partners, well, I can't say I noticed their dancing skills. But, again, I'm yet to see any proof whatsoever that being a good dancer makes you good in bed, and my personal experiences and common sense dictate that there is no connection at all.
A generalization is just that it will never apply to everyone, the apply to the majority of people. How can your argue something everyone already agrees on!?
But I use my personal experience and you throw it out saying it proves nothing to other people. According to that your exceptions prove nothing becasue it proves nothing to other people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by girl68 [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
That's exactly why I said it before providing my own exceptions, because MY experience wont disprove your view, however I provided them nontheless to counterbalance your own and to show both sides of the story.
Generalizations don't in fact apply to most people. A generalization only applies to most people in the eye of the author. Unfounded generalizations plucked from thin air are of no merit to anybody. I could spout out any number of false generalizations myself if they're the new currency for proving points.
Unfortunately generalizations continue to be worthless and lazy, especially when faced with 'evidence' to the contrary.
As for arguing something that everybody already agrees on, I'm yet to see everybody agree.
Sanctuary and Girl68. there are ALWAYS going to be geeks, whose sole enjoyment in life is practicing computer oneupmanship, by pointing out exceptions to every generally held truth. Glith.........we get it, yes there are people who are good in bed , who are terrible dancers.....Feel better now?
Your posts are not 'evidence' to the generalization held here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perryville [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
Also, there will always be intellectually challenged people who resort to name calling when their weak arguments and childish assumptions fail to garner absolute agreement.
I'm afraid guesswork on behalf of a couple of members on a forum wouldn't really count as a "generally held truth".
You're right, they're evidence to the contrary.Quote:
Originally Posted by girl68 [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
No, because tandem bicycling and skydiving have nothing to do with rhythm. It's also not a form of expression like dance or sex is. However, you could make the argument that someone who skydives tends to be more adventurous and this could be good in the bedroom.Quote:
Originally Posted by Glith [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
Boxing is an adversarial sport which requires tremendous skill and hones your upper body movement and legwork. I suppose it can make you better in bed because you will be in amazing shape. And someone who's willing to put forth such effort into a sport is probably not lazy so that's also a good thing. But it's quite dissimilar from dance for the reasons I stated about tandem bicycling and skydiving.
For whatever reason, you just don't see the connection between dancing and sex at all. I don't think I could convince you even if it was absolutely true.
...Quote:
That doesn't negate the fact however that every point in this instance was valid in the case of dancing.
No, because the similarities between dancing and sex are much greater than a kiss on the forehead and snowboarding.Quote:
If we're getting pedantic, using your argument, the act of kissing your child on the forehead isn't a totally different physical activity to snowboarding because they both entail the movement of your head, lungs and heart. Every act, no mater how far removed, can be linked at some level. The fact that sex and dancing both involve movement of the hips (albeit totally different actions) does not mean that both activites require a similar physical movement. If that's how being good at sex worked, people would be signing up for shot-put lessons.
This I did not know.Quote:
The world's biggest publisher of romance novels.
But they're not very good ones...Quote:
And I'm fairly certain that wouldn't be the case.
Seriously, there is no connection. I mean, I could put forward arguments to say quite the opposite to what you're saying.
Where do you get that self-confident people are more likely to be selfish and less attuned than shy people?Quote:
...Since dancers are self-confident, it just so happens that self-confident people are more likely to be selfish or arrogant than shy people, therefore they would be poor lovers as they'd be less giving in bed. Self-confident people tend to be less sensitive emotionally than shy people, therefore they wouldn't be as attuned intimately with the needs of a partner...
Selfishness is pretty evenly distributed amongst confident and insecure people; it's just that confident selfish people more outwardly display selfishness than insecure selfish people. If anything, confident people tend to be happier and this will make them more generous.
As for empathy, that trait just makes you more confident because being empathic results in greater social success in life. So to say that confident people aren't empathic is kinda weird in my mind (I'm not saying that confidence denotes empathy though).
So.. you didn't understand my point, paralleled it with a really bad argument of your own, concluded that your own said argument was terrible.. and that's supposed to invalidate my point?Quote:
...all that would of course be rubbish, as there is simply no connection whether it be pro or con.
But this is your own fault cause you can't see the connection.Quote:
I just get tired of tenuous connections being made between unrelated actions.
Huh? Why would you have something to lose? lolQuote:
As I said earlier, I have nothing to lose. I'm artistic, and with that comes the old cliche of artists being good lovers.
I think what I said in my previous post bears repeating cuz you seem to have missed it:Quote:
I'm not saying they're not [good lovers], all I'm saying is that if some ARE, it's nothing to do with their skill with a paintbrush, it's down to the fact that they've put in time learning how to be a good lover.
"I hope you realize that my point is not that being a good lover is a function of being a good dancer. But my point is that certain attributes that contribute to someone being a good dancer also contributes to them being a good lover."
And I'll state again, there is no connection whatsoever.
Being a good dancer doesnt require self confidence.
Being good in bed doesn't require high self confidence.
(Although I accept that low self confidence can be a problem)
As for my bad examples, as I said, I deliberately chose them to mirror the redundancy of those which had been offered to strengthen the case of 'good dancer=good in bed'.
I had a female friend who used to prefer the guys who werent good dancers. She said the 'good' dancers were too self obsessed with image and their own needs, to be a "pleaser" in the bedroom. I don't necessarily agree with her, but it's what she found to be true, and it's another example of quite the opposite.
What makes a good lover? Willingness to experiment, selflessness, passion, sponteneity, experience...I don't find being a good dancer to be a great source of any of these qualities.
It is all just a fallacy, a silly urban myth. Please don't tell me that you believe that shoe size relates to penis size too?
My bad. I meant to say your posts are nothing more than the exceptions which I've already alotted for. They are not evidence to support that the contrary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Glith [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
Glith I really hope that you're a dancer because you seem to know (or think you know) a whole helluva lot about what it does and does not take to be one.
Actually, you stated in a previous post that there was.Quote:
Originally Posted by Glith [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
Yes it does or else your movements would be inhibited.Quote:
Being a good dancer doesnt require self confidence.
I never said being a good lover requires high self confidence, I said having high self confidence helps you be a good lover.Quote:
Being good in bed doesn't require high self confidence.
(Although I accept that low self confidence can be a problem)
I never said good dancer=good in bed, I said it's likely.Quote:
As for my bad examples, as I said, I deliberately chose them to mirror the redundancy of those which had been offered to strengthen the case of 'good dancer=good in bed'.
I think what happened in this particular case was that the 'good dancers' she met were of the variety that are incredibly concerned with looking good as opposed to enjoying the moment. I agree with her cuz I've met some people like that and I can imagine they would do the same in bed.Quote:
I had a female friend who used to prefer the guys who werent good dancers. She said the 'good' dancers were too self obsessed with image and their own needs, to be a "pleaser" in the bedroom. I don't necessarily agree with her, but it's what she found to be true, and it's another example of quite the opposite.
A good dancer definitely has spontaneity and willingness to experiment (think about this for a second before you decide to blindly refute it). Maybe passion too, but kissing him would be a better indicator of that than dancing with him.Quote:
What makes a good lover? Willingness to experiment, selflessness, passion, sponteneity, experience...I don't find being a good dancer to be a great source of any of these qualities.
No, but I do believe that the length of your ring finger in proportion to your index finger is a good indicator of how stereotypically male you are.Quote:
It is all just a fallacy, a silly urban myth. Please don't tell me that you believe that shoe size relates to penis size too?
Actually no I'm not. I've got a good sense of rhythm, but find dancing to be tedious and uncreative. Give me a blank canvas and a paintbrush anyday. I do however know how to move parts of my body to music, I know what it entails, and I know what being a decent sexual partner entails. Other than perhaps the extreme example of somebody who's physical fitness is entirely reliant on their dancing activites, dancing has no realistic impact on a person's sexual abilities. Romantic or erotic symbolism is about as far as it goes.Quote:
Originally Posted by girl68 [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
I'm afraid I see no tangible reason for sponteneity and willingness to experiment being requirements to be a good dancer. I've been to dance classes (not to participate, long story) and saw how rigid (creatively) the 'good' dancers were. Sponteneity was not on the menu.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanctuary [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
As for the kissing, I absolutely agree. I've read about a person's kissing ability being anchored to their sexual abilities, and while I do think it's another case of lazy generalization, I CAN at least see some relation between the two. 'Willingness to experiment, selflessness, passion, sponteneity, experience' I think that they all play a big part in kissing. Well....good kissing anyway!
Dancing is uncreative BHAHAHAHAHAHA OMG. Sorry, I'm not making fun of you but unless you're speicifcally talking about structured ballroom and nothing else it IS absolutely creative.
Whew that was hilarious, I'm going to go post in "what I enjoyed today".
Your points have reached a level of obvious absurdity that I no longer feel compelled to debate them anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by Glith [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
...Quote:
I'm afraid I see no tangible reason for sponteneity and willingness to experiment being requirements to be a good dancer. I've been to dance classes (not to participate, long story) and saw how rigid (creatively) the 'good' dancers were. Sponteneity was not on the menu.
I said being a good kisser is an indicator of a passion not sexual ability. You have a knack for twisting everything I say lol.Quote:
As for the kissing, I absolutely agree. I've read about a person's kissing ability being anchored to their sexual abilities, and while I do think it's another case of lazy generalization, I CAN at least see some relation between the two. 'Willingness to experiment, selflessness, passion, sponteneity, experience' I think that they all play a big part in kissing. Well....good kissing anyway!
Sanctuary find peace knowing that I get what you're trying to say and I agree. This Glith character cannot seem to wrap his brain around it. Debate over. We tried.
On other forums the major arguments are about politics/religion. These are more hilarious.
This thread was originally about the relationship of two people dancing. It has now turned into an adolescent sparing match between two posters who don't know any more about dancing, than they do about sex. Lets get back to the dancing part.:D
Lol thanks. I'm not annoyed or anything, just bored now. I like debates.Quote:
Originally Posted by girl68 [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
I find no creativity involved in somebody moving their limbs, especially when they've been 'taught' what movements to make.Quote:
Originally Posted by girl68 [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
I guess you class walking as creative too.
Yes, and unfortunately I had the audacity to agree with you, but ALSO have an opinion about it's relationship to sexual ability. I apologise for not mirroring your own view of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanctuary [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
It would seem that if somebody doesn't have the same opinion as you, they 'cant wrap their brain' around an issue. I'm guessing you don't even know what a debate is.Quote:
Originally Posted by girl68 [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
Hahahaha....that actually made me laugh. You think you know from a discussion about the connection between dancing and sex, what we know about sex. Heh heh. You amuse me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Perryville [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
I'm glad. It's good for teenagers to have a sense of humor. Maybe your MOM can explain dancing and sex to you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perryville [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
Ermmm, do I need to point out the irony of a supposed adult resorting to 'mom' quips in an embarrassing attempt to deprecate somebody?
This thread has started to bore me now, but I do enjoy your posts Perry, I'll look out for them in other threads. Cringeworthy, but entertaining nonetheless, and worthy of monumentalization.
ARE you a teenager, Glith?
I wish. Early 30s.
My point is, that any man , who knows so little about social networking and it's relationship with sex, is either a geek or a kid or both. You have all the intellectual skills and none of the "soul."
I feel like going dancing right now.
I do too! My new sweetie and I are going out for D&D, tonight, to celebrate our becoming a "couple".
Is that the girl you called when your boy was sick? :)
You sly fox.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perryville [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
We weren't talking about social networking, we were talking about dancing, you seem to be confused. BIG difference I'm afraid.
I'd suggest somebody who can't cope with other people having a different opinion to their own is either a geek, a kid, or both. Personally I'd rather 'prove' my sexual abilities in the bedroom than the dancefloor.
As for no 'soul', I don't think you'd make it through years of studying the arts, writing for various creative publications, illustrating for others, writing music and writing/illustrating your own children's books, without 'soul'.
;)
Dude, you can't acquire "soul", by study. You get it through life experiences, not in a library or on a computer. If you had any, you wouldn't be arguing about dancing. You are an intelligent dude, but not a very experienced one. ...........Vash, yes she's the one I called. She's done more for my kids in two weeks than my ex ever did, other than giving birth. She has also shown me a lot of love and friendship and integrity. I may be "off the market", soon> LOL:D:D
Woah, woah, woah... You have just proven that you are in fact NOT a dancer. Dancing IS a social network. And I'd love to prove it to you as well I can send you link after link about social networking through the activity of dancing. I have about 3 different dance clubs/ functions that come together on a regular weekly basis to throw social dances. You dance, you talk you learn, you meet folk, you network.Quote:
Originally Posted by Glith [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
Quote:
Originally Posted by girl68 [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
I proved that I'm not a dancer when I stated that I don't dance.
Dancing can be Social Networking, but Social Networking is not dancing. Again, big difference. I can partake in social networking in countless ways, without ever having to set foot on a dancefloor. I didn't say that dancing isn't a form of social networking, it was however suggested that because I have no interest in dancing, that I know nothing about social networking, which of course is crazy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perryville [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
You have a very rigid and flawed set of rules when it comes to life. Absolutely, you can't acquire soul in a library or computer.
Do you think theres a possibility that studying the arts involves more than sitting in a library? Painting in the rain in London, writing in a Blues bar in New York, singing and laughing in central park, sending your work to Italy for charity auctions, meeting and socializing with amazing artists, poets and musicians, teaching young children how to put their thoughts and beliefs onto a canvas or song.
Please, don't tell me that you need to dance to have soul. I read that John Lennon wasn't a fan of dancing...I doubt many people would deny that he had 'soul'.
As for experience, well, perhaps if you knew what I'd experienced in my 30 something years you'd have cause to comment. I've travelled the world, I've loved and lost, said goodbye to close friends and family due murder, disease, and terrorist bombs, I've failed miserably in business ventures, and surpassed my highest expectations in others, I've been paid for my creativity, produced work for the 'hollywood elite', I've stupidly broken hearts and had my heart broken in return, won awards and lost races, put myself in danger to stop a woman from being raped, yet cowardly walked by when guys have needed a friend in a fight, supported a heartbroken mother, finally stood up to an abusive father, skied down snowy Austrian mountains and climbed Spanish hills, given in to lust in the most public of places and fallen foul of embarrassing situations.
Of course this is more than I needed to say, but you should never expect others to live their lives according to your rules or values, and more importantly, never second guess the experiences of a friend, let alone a stranger.