|
|
 | | |
| chabacz April 30, 2004 05:09 AM PDT  hear hear! You got a point there, can't deny that. But it's too logically and rationally explained to be plausible. Nice try though. :) | ||
| ||
| | |
| kablog April 30, 2004 04:53 AM PDT EXPLAINING THE ABSTRACT Hmmm...you've put me in the spot here, but I'll try my darndest to explain why it is plausible for a man to love two (or three or a thousand) women at the same time without betraying the other: If a man's love for a woman doesn't make him love the other any less, then there is no betrayal to speak of. (Betrayal only begins when one starts falling out of love.) Since love transcends flesh and bone, a man loving several women at the same time does not necessarily make him a womanizer (and it doesn't follow either that a womanizer loves every woman in his fold). In the same vein, a woman can love several men at the same time without betraying any of them. | ||
| ||
| | |
| chabacz April 29, 2004 06:29 AM PDT and you believe that author? someone who wrote a story that has 17 Aurelio's in them all named after their one father and all surnamed after their own mothers. Jeezz!! Love your entries by the way. :) | ||
| ||
| Leave a Comment: |