Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 11/15/11 08:24 AM, Korriken wrote:

Even then,they don't. plenty of people with no love for each other have sex, often. Also, I doubt my grandparents have had any form of sex in the last 20 years, and they're still together.

Oh so you think old people don't have sex? Also even if your grandparents don't it doesn't mean anything. And sex does get less important as people get older. Doesn,t affect my point.

Negative reinforcement is surprisingly effective. and yes, people ARE influenced by things like tv shows and movies, more so than most are willing to admit.

Negative rainforcement isn't necessairly more effective than positive one. Also some people may get influenced by these movies, but I believe most people know it's a carricature.

no

yes

No they don't. Stop saying that, they don't. Or if it does it's so rare it's not worth mentionning.

Also, some medicines/drugs can counteract birth control pills (depending on the pill) rendering them ineffective.

Yes but your doctor will ask you these questions and stuff and make sure it works.

If you keep getting pregnant you will. well, nor every month, I said every few months. Also, inserting a sharp object into the uterus to slice and suck the baby out can be very harmful if the thing hits the wall of the uterus. it is sharp after all

Once again, abortion has no more risk than any other similar operation.

*checks for Clergyness* nope. not a member of the clergy.

Could have fooled me. :P

If a man is unwilling to be with a woman without having sex with her, then does he really love her? no. such is nothing more than base lust. and over time lust will fade.

See, it depends, you should respect your parner and have sex when you feel both of you are ready. But after a while and after you have numerous talks to her about it and for some reason she still refuses and doesn't even want to talk about it it would be fair to move on, it's all relative and depending on the situation and certainly not as simple as you make it out to be.

yes, but we also have this thing called self control. it works wonders in preventing us from doing dumb things, like knocking up women we barely know... of course, most people never use it.

How dare people have sex... tsst.

Not as much as you would think. also. scientists agree with me.

Oh do they? Can you link me a story that has been peer reviewed or something? Because I would love to read about it, no sarcasm here.

Also do you really think theres alot of women going from boyfriend to boyfriend racking up the baby count?

yes

Well they don't. Exept rare exeptions, once again.

and thus the man's life is ruined for the next 18 years as he has to shell out child support.

Yes. And that's why you have to be careful with these things.

At 11/15/11 02:34 PM, VenomKing666 wrote: blah blah blah blah....

You ignore the links I gave you and try to reassert your points without bringing up any counterpoints.

Also, if a woman doesn't want to have sex before marriage and you dump her because of it, it reflects poorly on you, not her.

I think I'm done here.

At 11/15/11 02:50 PM, Korriken wrote:

You ignore the links I gave you and try to reassert your points without bringing up any counterpoints.

Also, if a woman doesn't want to have sex before marriage and you dump her because of it, it reflects poorly on you, not her.

I think I'm done here.

Well first of all I have to say I have this bad habit of clicking reply button and read the post in the reply window, which explain why I didn't notice the link, so no I did not ignore them, but still it was my mistake, and I apologize.

Now for your closing statement, it seems I will have to rephrase my argument because I have obviously failed at effectively communicating my toughts.

First, two questions:
Do you think having sex with someone will inherently harm the relationship?
Do you think refraining from having sex with the person you are in relationship with inherently enchance it?

See, is two people agree on waiting until marriage for them to have sex all the more power to them it's their choice.

But what if they disagree about that? it might be because of ideological differences or some events relating to their past lives. The question you need to ask then is: Does this fact hurt the relationship? It may not, but it's possible, and again for various reasons. If a member of the couple feels after a while he does no longer want to be part of the couple because they disagree on such an important subject, how does that make him for some reason an asshole? Sure in some occasions leaving for just that reason is not warranted and the guy is actually an asshole. But it's far from always the case.

And what if both people in the couple both agree to have sex, does their relationship has any less value? What if they both agree to just fuck and be friends and take all the precautions required? Does that make them bad people?

See, the problem is that you take a complicated issue in the sense it has to be dealt with and judged depending on specific cases and just go over making simple generalizations which arent even accurate to begin with.

--

Now, allow me to correctly reply to your links.

Birth control failure rate is 8%. Which means out of 100 women in a year 8% will get pregnant using this method. Not a big deal. Also if you use it WITH the condom the risk becomes 8% of 15%.

Now for your second link, where you said scientista gree with you.

We see a NEWS ARTICLE, from CBN, who is CBN you might ask? It means "Christian Broadcasting Network". Hahahahahaha! I wished so hard one of your links would be like that and so easy to refute. And you delivered. Obviously christians have no bias an totally understand contraception and stuff like that when countries that are more religious have disastrous results with stuff like teen pregnancies and related stuff.

But let's make sure and read the article anyways: The "scientist" they quote in the article is Dr. Joe McIlhaney. Now who is he? From wikipedia: "a Texas-based doctor known for his published beliefs rejecting the use of condoms to prevent the spread of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases, and his continued advocacy of abstinence-only programs despite negligible evidence that they actually reduce pregnancy rates among young people." Oh boy oh boy! Come on, this guy is a joke!

And the 3rd link: CBS... oh wait, this time it's different... It's the cbs that's not bullshit, so let's see what they say: 28% of us women with 2 or more children have them from different men. Okay yes that is quite a big number here. So yes I was wrong about the number of women somehow getting impregnated by different men. However this does not state that marriage or abstinence would reduce those rates. And these mathods have been shown to repeateadly fail.

Once again I am sorry I missed those links, because man, if I would have seen those before I swear I would have jumped straight on them.

Do you have anything else to say?

At 11/15/11 02:50 PM, Korriken wrote: Also, if a woman doesn't want to have sex before marriage and you dump her because of it, it reflects poorly on you, not her.

;;;
I don't know about the rest of you , but I wouldn't marry a woman without having had sex with her.
& I don't mean once...I mean LOTS OF TIMES.
IF she's no good in bed, there's no way I would stay with her & I expect it should be the same from her view point.
Can you imagine going to bed with a woman who lays there like a lump & barely responds ?!? Or who feels sex has to be put up with because yer married !?!?!?!
To hell with that attitude & I have met a couple of girls who were into sex about as much as a blow up doll is !
The only thing good about virginity is it is so easily cured...not that I have ever enjoyed helping to cure that problem, I have ...but it wasn't exactly enjoyable.

And if shes not into oral, both giving & getting, I outta that relationship seeya !

I think I'm done here.

I am as well.

At 11/15/11 02:50 PM, Korriken wrote: Also, if a woman doesn't want to have sex before marriage and you dump her because of it, it reflects poorly on you, not her.

Wrong again. For one, the main reason for not having sex before marriage is a religious one, so basically she was told not to have sex before marriage and she followed her brainwashing.
Two, she is refusing to give in to one of the more important parts of a lasting relationship, sex.
She is at fault for hindering the relationship.

As for the guy, he's only going to look bad in the eyes of other brainwashed girls, which he just dumped for being a prude, so I don't think he will mind.
If you can't spend $20,000 on a car without test driving it, why would you opt to spend the rest of your life with someone you have never met sexually?

At 11/16/11 02:26 AM, VenomKing666 wrote:

First, two questions:
Do you think having sex with someone will inherently harm the relationship?

inherently? depends. If you can't establish companionship before you jump into bed? then yes.

Do you think refraining from having sex with the person you are in relationship with inherently enchance it?

To a point, yes. If you don't really love someone, that will wear off sooner rather than later. good sex might extend this relationship for a while longer, but it will STILL fizzle out, leaving 2 ppl with negative feelings towards the other.

It also pretty much shitcans the notion of "we'll this isn't going to work in the long run, so let's be friends."

See, is two people agree on waiting until marriage for them to have sex all the more power to them it's their choice.

But what if they disagree about that? it might be because of ideological differences or some events relating to their past lives. The question you need to ask then is: Does this fact hurt the relationship? It may not, but it's possible, and again for various reasons.

It can, and if the person wanting sex is stubborn about it, it will.

If a member of the couple feels after a while he does no longer want to be part of the couple because they disagree on such an important subject, how does that make him for some reason an asshole?

uhh. yeah, it does. If you can't respect the other person's decision and still love them, then you don't love them at all and only want the booty. If sex before marriage is mandatory in your relationships, then it shows a rather selfish attitude. A good relationship entails more than just plugging the whole and living together. it's about respect, something a lot of people don't know much about anymore.

Sure in some occasions leaving for just that reason is not warranted and the guy is actually an asshole. But it's far from always the case.

I'd say it is the case.

And what if both people in the couple both agree to have sex, does their relationship has any less value? What if they both agree to just fuck and be friends and take all the precautions required? Does that make them bad people?

Friends with benefits is not something I would call a relationship. Still, a relationship should be about mutual respect and trust, not sex.

See, the problem is that you take a complicated issue in the sense it has to be dealt with and judged depending on specific cases and just go over making simple generalizations which arent even accurate to begin with.

--

Now, allow me to correctly reply to your links.

Birth control failure rate is 8%. Which means out of 100 women in a year 8% will get pregnant using this method. Not a big deal. Also if you use it WITH the condom the risk becomes 8% of 15%.

Now for your second link, where you said scientista gree with you.

We see a NEWS ARTICLE, from CBN, who is CBN you might ask? It means "Christian Broadcasting Network". Hahahahahaha! I wished so hard one of your links would be like that and so easy to refute. And you delivered. Obviously christians have no bias an totally understand contraception and stuff like that when countries that are more religious have disastrous results with stuff like teen pregnancies and related stuff.

hmm maybe I should have double checked that one. I never heard of CBN until that point and figured it might have been a local news corporation. oops.

And the 3rd link: CBS... oh wait, this time it's different... It's the cbs that's not bullshit, so let's see what they say: 28% of us women with 2 or more children have them from different men. Okay yes that is quite a big number here. So yes I was wrong about the number of women somehow getting impregnated by different men. However this does not state that marriage or abstinence would reduce those rates. And these mathods have been shown to repeateadly fail.

I'm pretty sure abstinence would reduce the rate. Not having sex is a GREAT way to make sure you don't get pregnant or knock someone else up. It's worked great for me. I don't have a single child.

Also a monogamous marriage that doesn't end in divorce would reduce the total possible men that could knock up the woman down to 1. Of course, if the woman is a cheating whore...

At 11/16/11 08:05 AM, bcdemon wrote:

Wrong again. For one, the main reason for not having sex before marriage is a religious one, so basically she was told not to have sex before marriage and she followed her brainwashing.

Or maybe, just maybe, she wants to make sure her man really loves her before she gives up her virginity.... oh who am i kidding, the culture today kinda threw that idea out the window. holding onto your virginity is about as demonized as cannibalism... maybe more so.

Two, she is refusing to give in to one of the more important parts of a lasting relationship, sex.
She is at fault for hindering the relationship.

Or perhaps she has her own moral values that don't follow that of an atheistic tail chaser, like yourself. Some people do subscribe to a set of moral values and more often than not, are better off for it, especially when they finally meet a like minded person.

If you can't spend $20,000 on a car without test driving it, why would you opt to spend the rest of your life with someone you have never met sexually?

uhh, yeah, I would. and personally, I would prefer to meet a woman who doesn't jump in bed with every guy she encounters. Women are not objects, they are people. Most men forget this little factoid about life... kinda like you. Shame for comparing a woman to a car.

At 11/16/11 07:45 PM, Korriken wrote:

At 11/16/11 08:05 AM, bcdemon wrote:

Wrong again. For one, the main reason for not having sex before marriage is a religious one, so basically she was told not to have sex before marriage and she followed her brainwashing.

Or maybe, just maybe, she wants to make sure her man really loves her before she gives up her virginity....

Ohhh so the only way a man can prove his love for a woman is by marriage? What's the fucking ring for then?

Two, she is refusing to give in to one of the more important parts of a lasting relationship, sex.
She is at fault for hindering the relationship.

Or perhaps she has her own moral values that don't follow that of an atheistic tail chaser, like yourself. Some people do subscribe to a set of moral values and more often than not, are better off for it, especially when they finally meet a like minded person.

lol I'm not a tail chaser, wife and I have been happily together for 14 yrs. And I don't think two like minded people who save the sex for marriage are better off. I think they're a major part of the 50% divorce rate.

If you can't spend $20,000 on a car without test driving it, why would you opt to spend the rest of your life with someone you have never met sexually?

uhh, yeah, I would. and personally, I would prefer to meet a woman who doesn't jump in bed with every guy she encounters. Women are not objects, they are people. Most men forget this little factoid about life... kinda like you. Shame for comparing a woman to a car.

Well see now you're going to an extreme, "jump in bed with every guy she encounters"... I was never talking about the bar sluts you must be encountering.
Sex is a natural occurrence, not a religious event.

At 11/16/11 07:40 PM, Korriken wrote:

inherently? depends. If you can't establish companionship before you jump into bed? then yes.

No inherently doesn't "depend". "Inherently" applies TO ALL situations. Now you took a specific example, that was also quite over the top.

To a point, yes. If you don't really love someone, that will wear off sooner rather than later. good sex might extend this relationship for a while longer, but it will STILL fizzle out, leaving 2 ppl with negative feelings towards the other.

Not necessairly, good sex life enchances a relationship more than anything. Sure there are situations when a relationship is abusive or unhealthy that having sex may in some cases make it worse or create false attachment. The thing however is that the sex is not the cause,the relationship itself is"

It also pretty much shitcans the notion of "we'll this isn't going to work in the long run, so let's be friends."

I would answer: "How about friends... with benefits" (awesomeface.jpg)

uhh. yeah, it does. If you can't respect the other person's decision and still love them, then you don't love them at all and only want the booty.

WHat about her respecting MY decision to want to have sex? See stuff like this goes both ways, and yes to some extent especially with relationship involving young people you should definitely give time and not push it. And if for some reason she really does not want sex after a relatively long period then she is the one with a problem because what the hell is wrong with two consenting adults having fun together and sharing complicity in bed?

If sex before marriage is mandatory in your relationships, then it shows a rather selfish attitude. A good relationship entails more than just plugging the whole and living together. it's about respect, something a lot of people don't know much about anymore.

Spoiler Alert: Having sex with someone does not in any way reduce the respect you have for that person nor should it.

Friends with benefits is not something I would call a relationship. Still, a relationship should be about mutual respect and trust, not sex.

Is "friends with benefit" two people having interactions together? Yes, then it's a fucking relationship. Of course it's not the same thing than being lovers.

And what I am trying to say is: SEX DOES NOT IN ANY WAY DAMAGE RELATIONSHIPS OR TRUST IN A RELATIONSHIP. Not by itself, if it does then it's the relationship itself that was fucked already.

See, the problem is that you take a complicated issue in the sense it has to be dealt with and judged depending on specific cases and just go over making simple generalizations which arent even accurate to begin with.

hmm maybe I should have double checked that one. I never heard of CBN until that point and figured it might have been a local news corporation. oops.

Well everybody makes mistakes and knowing it was a genuine mistake from your part and the fact you had the guts to admit it then I won't hold it against you.

I'm pretty sure abstinence would reduce the rate. Not having sex is a GREAT way to make sure you don't get pregnant or knock someone else up. It's worked great for me. I don't have a single child.

In theory sure not having sex will not make anybody pregnant, however explain to me how countries and even states that are more religious and tend to push abstinence over other contraception methods have the highest teen pregnancy rates?

Also a monogamous marriage that doesn't end in divorce would reduce the total possible men that could knock up the woman down to 1. Of course, if the woman is a cheating whore...

Or if that couple is open to various practices, but how does that affect anything?

At 11/17/11 12:56 AM, bcdemon wrote:

Ohhh so the only way a man can prove his love for a woman is by marriage? What's the fucking ring for then?

If the woman wants to wait, and the man really loves and respects her, then he'll wait.

lol I'm not a tail chaser, wife and I have been happily together for 14 yrs. And I don't think two like minded people who save the sex for marriage are better off. I think they're a major part of the 50% divorce rate.

Huffington Post says otherwise now what? yeah a liberal source telling you this.

Well see now you're going to an extreme, "jump in bed with every guy she encounters"... I was never talking about the bar sluts you must be encountering.
Sex is a natural occurrence, not a religious event.

minor exaggeration. point is, i'd rather have an inexperienced woman over a promiscuous woman.

At 11/17/11 02:49 AM, VenomKing666 wrote:

At 11/16/11 07:40 PM, Korriken wrote:

inherently? depends. If you can't establish companionship before you jump into bed? then yes.

No inherently doesn't "depend". "Inherently" applies TO ALL situations. Now you took a specific example, that was also quite over the top.

nothing in life is "inherent" except death.

Not necessairly, good sex life enchances a relationship more than anything. Sure there are situations when a relationship is abusive or unhealthy that having sex may in some cases make it worse or create false attachment. The thing however is that the sex is not the cause,the relationship itself is"

When the relationship becomes all about sex, rather than trust, love, and respect, then no, it doesnt enhance anything.

WHat about her respecting MY decision to want to have sex? See stuff like this goes both ways, and yes to some extent especially with relationship involving young people you should definitely give time and not push it. And if for some reason she really does not want sex after a relatively long period then she is the one with a problem because what the hell is wrong with two consenting adults having fun together and sharing complicity in bed?

the decision should be made by both. if one doesn't want it, and the other person can't live without it, then the 2 people are not compatible and should probably find another.

Spoiler Alert: Having sex with someone does not in any way reduce the respect you have for that person nor should it.

It can. especially when one person decides that sex is a right they should have and begin to try and exercise that right more often than the other person wants.

And what I am trying to say is: SEX DOES NOT IN ANY WAY DAMAGE RELATIONSHIPS OR TRUST IN A RELATIONSHIP. Not by itself, if it does then it's the relationship itself that was fucked already.

it can, it most certainly can. Mostly when one side begins to try and pressure the other for sex, which is a common problem.

In theory sure not having sex will not make anybody pregnant, however explain to me how countries and even states that are more religious and tend to push abstinence over other contraception methods have the highest teen pregnancy rates?

yeah i can, actually. shit parenting and the glorification of sex in the media.

Or if that couple is open to various practices, but how does that affect anything?

at that point its not a monogamous marriage without cheating... in the classic sense anyway. Open marriages usually involve the complete loss of love and the 2 stay together, typically for monetary reasons. both people hate each other, but dividing the business assets will ruin both.

At 11/17/11 09:16 AM, Korriken wrote: Huffington Post says otherwise now what? yeah a liberal source telling you this.

the article does seem to describe the more likely issue is the nature of the first sexual encounter(s?) than when they first had sex. not to mention that i would expect some correlation between being taught to wait as a strong moral belief may have something to do with it (if your devout enough to wait for marriage, it doesn't seem to far-fetched to assume they may be a little more serious about the nature of marriage too).
though its a little disappointing that this whole sexual liberation thing seems to have taught people that sex should have no reason to be postponed.

or that avoiding sexual acts has no value.

ignore my homophonic typos please.

At 11/17/11 06:55 PM, Korriken wrote: nothing in life is "inherent" except death.

So then you would agree that having sex before marriage doesn't inherently harm a relationship?

When the relationship becomes all about sex, rather than trust, love, and respect, then no, it doesnt enhance anything.

Yes I said than, but you keep ignoring tha part where it's a good thing when the relation itself isn't fucked up or going wrong, see sex being the only reason for a relationship to still exist is a consequence, not a cause.

the decision should be made by both. if one doesn't want it, and the other person can't live without it, then the 2 people are not compatible and should probably find another.

That was my point too. Hey are we starting to find common grounds of agreement? Shit, make a wish!

Spoiler Alert: Having sex with someone does not in any way reduce the respect you have for that person nor should it.

It can. especially when one person decides that sex is a right they should have and begin to try and exercise that right more often than the other person wants.

Noo, again, the sex here is a consequence of one member of the couple not respecting the other not the cause. I already explained all that.

it can, it most certainly can. Mostly when one side begins to try and pressure the other for sex, which is a common problem.

Again, in a healthy normal relationship people can have a perfectly healthy and normal sex relationship, is it that hard to accept?

yeah i can, actually. shit parenting and the glorification of sex in the media.

Define "shit parenting" in that specific case. And even if some forms of bad parenting may fuck a person's relationship with their own sexuality, (and it does) it happens before any relationship and again the relationship is not the cause not is the "sex". As for sex being glorified by the media... really? Especially in the united states, how is it glorified? It's repressed in every single way possible.

At 11/17/11 09:16 AM, Korriken wrote:

At 11/17/11 12:56 AM, bcdemon wrote:

Ohhh so the only way a man can prove his love for a woman is by marriage? What's the fucking ring for then?

If the woman wants to wait, and the man really loves and respects her, then he'll wait.

Maybe she should show her love and respect for him and give it up, or is this "love and respect" thing a one way street?

lol I'm not a tail chaser, wife and I have been happily together for 14 yrs. And I don't think two like minded people who save the sex for marriage are better off. I think they're a major part of the 50% divorce rate.

Huffington Post says otherwise now what? yeah a liberal source telling you this.

Important parts of the story "specifically, before age 16" - "whether that sex qualified as "wanted.""
So girls who have unwanted sex as kids tend to divorce. K, that has nothing to do with what I am talking about. Thanks for the useless read though.

Well see now you're going to an extreme, "jump in bed with every guy she encounters"... I was never talking about the bar sluts you must be encountering.
Sex is a natural occurrence, not a religious event.

minor exaggeration. point is, i'd rather have an inexperienced woman over a promiscuous woman.

Look up how important sexual compatibility is to a healthy marriage. Sexual incompatibility is one of the top ten reasons for divorce.

At 11/18/11 09:21 AM, bcdemon wrote: Look up how important sexual compatibility is to a healthy marriage. Sexual incompatibility is one of the top ten reasons for divorce.

;;;
Isn't #1 , lack of money ?

I know that even great sex isn't going to get you through times with no money !

At 11/18/11 09:21 AM, bcdemon wrote: Maybe she should show her love and respect for him and give it up, or is this "love and respect" thing a one way street?

so the article Korriken linked to provided strong support for the dangers of sex while not fully comfortable/prepared with the action, yet that should be ignored because she said she cared for someone who wants to have sex now?

At 11/18/11 12:51 AM, VenomKing666 wrote:

So then you would agree that having sex before marriage doesn't inherently harm a relationship?

it can. I never said it always does. but the odds of it are become decent enough.

Yes I said than, but you keep ignoring tha part where it's a good thing when the relation itself isn't fucked up or going wrong, see sex being the only reason for a relationship to still exist is a consequence, not a cause.

Good? dunno, thing you overlook is sex can seriously fuck up a good relationship. one of the top reasons for divorce is money issues. unwanted pregnancy can bring that on in a hurry. proper protection can reduce this by quite a lot, but doesn't totally nullify the chances.

Noo, again, the sex here is a consequence of one member of the couple not respecting the other not the cause. I already explained all that.

never heard of the term "corruption of character" have you? as with any other vice like alcohol, crack, and so on, sex can change a person's personality, usually not for the better when it does. doesn't always change them, but some people gain an ego problem after they have sex.

Again, in a healthy normal relationship people can have a perfectly healthy and normal sex relationship, is it that hard to accept?

Define "shit parenting" in that specific case. And even if some forms of bad parenting may fuck a person's relationship with their own sexuality, (and it does) it happens before any relationship and again the relationship is not the cause not is the "sex". As for sex being glorified by the media... really? Especially in the united states, how is it glorified? It's repressed in every single way possible.

How is it glorified? let's see.
glorified HEAVILY in the rap genre. Which of course, is incredibly popular among the younger generation (though I have no idea why...)

I could make a huge list of the "I gotta lose my virginity! or "I gotta get laid!" movies, but you can find those easy enough.

of course when people pick up on it all, they gotta have someone else to have sex with. so in comes the peer pressure. some give in quickly, some try to relent but want to be seen with the "cool guy/girl" or don't want to be dumped, and give in to the pressure.

course, then you got all the magazines. you can walk up to any magazine rack in a store and get about 500 sex tips. Not so much this one, as it is the movies and music. both can have more of an effect on a person than most imagine. This also goes back to my role model point several posts back. people take role models, especially from around 5-25 or so. problem is, (especially in some areas) when you got people blasting dirty music around you, everyone is dressed in trashy fashion, acting out some rapper fantasy world of drugs violence sex and money, it's kind of hard not to grow up to act just like those around you.

forgot to add the point on what "shit parenting" is in no particular order.

#1. letting your kids listen to filthy music, like i posted above.

#2. letting them watch garbage channels like MTV, along with mentally damaging shows like Jersey Shore. there are better shows out there than Spongebob and Jersey Shore for kids to watch.

#3. not paying attention to their progress in school. Also goes with not impressing the value of a good education and making sound life decisions. (making sound life decisions would cut down on the odds of teen pregnancy. It's not wise to have sex before you're ready to raise a child)

#4. not keeping them in line. some parents let their kids rule the house. big mistake.

#5. lashing out in anger instead of disciplining your children in a calm fashion. (common mistake)

#6. Spoiling kids from birth to about 4-5 then trying to teach them discipline.

meh i could probably do about 30 of these, but you get the hint.