consumation of marriage

I often read how society has become obsessed with sex and the media has created a society where everything has become sexualised.


My argument is that society has always placed an unhealthy obsession on sex as seen by marriage where the marriage can be annulled if it has not been consumated.

People get hung up on sex for no real reason. Sex is enjoyable so I really don't see the issue of going with as many people as you want, as long as you're careful. That applies to both men and women.

Lumbering_Jack wrote:People get hung up on sex for no real reason. Sex is enjoyable so I really don't see the issue of going with as many people as you want, as long as you're careful. That applies to both men and women.

Any chance you could PM Duty and let him know your views? I'm sure he'd be delighted (not to mention the countless people you'll stop him stalking)

My attitude towards sex before marriage has got me into a lot of trouble expecially when the woman I had sex with was getting married to someone else. Tried explaining we lived in a modern and enlightened society but I guess they couldn't hear me over the sound of crashing ornaments (very close to my head at one point).

As with anything these days, do who/what you like but don't bleat about consequences which there will invariably be at some stage

I'm a great believer in sex before marriage - because otherwise I'd never get any!

As Dave will attest to, I'm also a great believer in rimming.....before the first date.

I gather Duty is also a great believer in rimming...before asking a person's name although I believe it once caused a bit of a kerfuffle when he went into that alloys shop Rims-4-U

I fully support gay marriage...why shouldn't they be as f*****g miserable as everyone else?

Don't mind them getting marred but not in a church. Deliberately antagonistic in my opinion.

seanmichaels wrote:Don't mind them getting marred but not in a church. Deliberately antagonistic in my opinion.

Yes I'd agree with you there.

I can't fathom why a gay person would wish to be married in a church. It is, after all, rather difficult to be gay and religious.

Duty281 wrote:

seanmichaels wrote:Don't mind them getting marred but not in a church. Deliberately antagonistic in my opinion.

Yes I'd agree with you there.

I can't fathom why a gay person would wish to be married in a church. It is, after all, rather difficult to be gay and religious.

I'm sure, there are any number of clergymen who would disagree with you on that Duty (if only in private)

my girlfriend is increasingly leaning towards celibacy before marriage. I've tried making her see that a year into a relationship is way too late to make these decisions, but alas, the damn pastor may have convinced her for the time being. This is not cool, hope god understands its not me, it's my needs

YOU SHOULD INCREASINGLY LEAN TOWARDS GETTING RID OF HER FOR A WOMAN WHO WILL PUT OUT NOW BECAUSE I'LL TELL YOU THIS FOR NOWT...AS SOON AS YOU'RE MARRIED AND YOUR WIFE GETS WITH HER MARRIED FRIENDS, THEY ALL START TALKING BALLS ABOUT WHAT THEIR RIGHTS ARE AND HOW THEY WON'T ALLOW THIS, THAT AND THE OTHER AND BEFORE YOU KNOW IT, YOUR D!CK HAS RETIRED.

Take my mother in law, please.

I take my wife everywhere, beats kissing her goodbye.

Just wanted to fit in.

I've had sex before. It was ok.

I've had steak before. It was ok.

Duty281 wrote:

seanmichaels wrote:Don't mind them getting marred but not in a church. Deliberately antagonistic in my opinion.

Yes I'd agree with you there.

I can't fathom why a gay person would wish to be married in a church. It is, after all, rather difficult to be gay and religious.

A good mate of mine is gay and he said exactly the same, "Why would I want to try be part of something that doesn't want me?".

Hasn't helped for him that his dad is pretty evangelical and has never taken too well to his coming out.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

seanmichaels wrote:Don't mind them getting marred but not in a church. Deliberately antagonistic in my opinion.

Yes I'd agree with you there.

I can't fathom why a gay person would wish to be married in a church. It is, after all, rather difficult to be gay and religious.

A good mate of mine is gay and he said exactly the same, "Why would I want to try be part of something that doesn't want me?".Hasn't helped for him that his dad is pretty evangelical and has never taken too well to his coming out.

Duty would do well to listen to adopt that approach...although I think a better phrase is more likely to be "Why would I want to insert myself into someone who doesn't want me?"

Sex is normal, healthy and very enjoyable.  Why should anybody not want to do it..?   It doesn't matter if you're gay or straight.  As long as it's between consenting adults then what's not to like..?

I agree we live in a much more sexualised society where it is perhaps, a bit too public and I'm not keen on that.  I'm no prude  (I've seen it all, trust me) but I don't want my grandchildren seeing inappropriate images in newspapers or on TV, and you may argue that that is a matter for parental control, but I would counter argue that you can't possibly put a filter on everything they come into contact with.  It's just not possible.

But mostly, I would have to say that we live in a much more liberal, tolerant and well adjusted society.   When I was a nipper, our society used to send homosexuals to prison.  Now they can be legally married.  That's social progress.  And in my opinion, it's a good thing.

Other enlightened laws such as the Abortion Act, and the invention of the contraceptive pill  (again, things that have come into being in my lifetime) have liberated women who used to be prisoners in their own bodies.

We have to be aware of the perils of sex, such as STD's in general, and HIV / AIDS in particular, but we are better educated today and know the risks and preventative measures. AIDS may take the foolhardy or careless, but nobody dies of ignorance anymore.

The liberation of women, the de-stigmatisation of homosexuals and greater awareness by men that sex is not a right has made us all better people.

Now we can all do sex and just enjoy it.   Great, innit..?

Did you really just refer to the abortion act as enlightened?

I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

Ent wrote:Did you really just refer to the abortion act as enlightened?

I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

Mmm, yes, I did.

OK…. I this thread is about sex but ENT has raised a point that could get out of hand on this thread so I’m going to attempt to put it to bed once and for all so we can keep on topic.  I might rabbit on a little but please indulge me as I believe it is an important issue.



I referred to it as an enlightened Act that means women can obtain safe, clean abortions in proper medical facilities, having first had access to sound medical advice and personal counselling that enables them to come to an informed and educated decision.  An Act that ensures they get proper treatment for the procedure itself, and then decent aftercare which promotes a full recovery from the physical and emotional effects.

This is in comparison to what existed before, where often terrified women could only turn to back street abortionists who were little more than savages who practiced, most often, in filthy, unsanitary conditions and used barbaric practices.  The usual method of termination was to have their uterus punctured with the end of an instrument not dissimilar to an unwound wire coat hanger.  

The back street abortionists did not advise women beforehand.  They preyed on the desperate and flourished because women had nowhere else to turn.    Once they had their money they walked away, leaving women bleeding and sometimes, physically destroyed forever.  Many died from septicaemia.  Some were so emotionally traumatised that they eventually committed suicide.

The Abortion Act of 1967 swept all that away.  

Was the Abortion Act an enlightened, civilised piece of legislation..?  You betcha.

Some people may have religious, moral or ethical objections to abortion but not to have such an Act only allows criminals to flourish which in turn has horrific consequences for women.  We decide which is the better option according to our own individual consciences.  As the father of daughters, I know what choice I would rather  have available to my girls.

Thank you for your indulgence, gentlemen.  



PS

Murderous criminals also took advantage of the desperation of some women.  Think on this:


John Christie was a man who lured pregnant women seeking an abortion into his house at 10 Rillington Place by telling them he could perform abortions.   There he would gas them (under the guise of an anaesthetic), strangle them (often with their own stockings or tights) and then r@pe them post mortem.   He then disposed of the bodies in and around his house.  

He even sent an innocent man to the gallows.  Timothy Evans was accused of murdering his wife and Christie gave evidence against him at the trial.  Relying on his credibility as a wartime special constable, Christie persuaded the jury that the crime was committed by Evans, who was hanged for it. Christie was later found out, convicted of the murders of 8 women (including his own wife) and hanged.

Evans was given a posthumous pardon (fat lot of good that did him) and the case was instrumental in bringing about the abolition of capital punishment in Britain.  Another piece of enlightened legislation.

Getting back on topic, I was amused to read CS's original post which suggests (correct me if I'm wrong, CS) that he thinks non-consummation of marriage leading to annulment is a recent factor in marital relationships.

I suggest it has been around a bit longer than you may think, old chap.  

Henry VIII had his marriage to Anne of Cleves (his fourth wife) under that very rule.  That was in 1539.

I would stress though, that I am in agreement with him on his general point that society is becoming highly sexualised.  And in a, sometimes unpleasantly, blatant way, too.

I was surprised to read the permissible reasons for annulling a marriage:

https://www.gov.uk/how-to-annul-marriage

Particularly:

the other person had a sexually transmitted disease when you got married

and

the woman was pregnant by another man when you got married

CS's post was saying that society has always been sexualised as non consumption has always been grounds for an annullment.

In that case, going back to the OP, I'd say the premise is wrong as consummation of marriage was not an obsession with sex but rather evidence of deference towards it. It was considered important only because sexual contact before marriage was considered such a grave sin. Quite the opposite of being obsessed with it, it suggests a society scared of it and keen to reserve it as just an act between consenting man and wife, whilst recognising its importance for procreation and the continuing human existence.

TopHat24/7 wrote:In that case, going back to the OP, I'd say the premise is wrong as consummation of marriage was not an obsession with sex but rather evidence of deference towards it.  It was considered important only because sexual contact before marriage was considered such a grave sin.  Quite the opposite of being obsessed with it, it suggests a society scared of it and keen to reserve it as just an act between consenting man and wife, whilst recognising its importance for procreation and the continuing human existence.

A very good assessment, Toppers.

It's an interesting point, this "sin" thing.....  The definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman has been quoted quite a lot in recent times and by sheer dint of constant repetition has become accepted by many as having always existed.

But I'm curious to know where it's roots are.   It certainly doesn't say so in the Bible.   You may point to Leviticus (as many quite erroneously do), but it doesn't say so there.  In fact, I once challenged both the Anglican and Methodist Chaplains on HMS Ark Royal to show me where, in the Bible, it says that marriage is intended to be between a man and a woman.  They made a lot of bluster and flannelled a great deal, but they had to concede in the end was that it simply isn't there.

So.... no biblical foundation for this "definition" exists.

Moving on to legislation, although I will stress that I'm not a lawyer and admit that I haven't read the Marriages Acts of 1753 1836, 1949 or 2013 through from end to end, again, I have been able to find no evidence whatsoever that the definition exists anywhere on the statutes of this country.  If somebody knows where it is, or whether it has been recently inserted (probably as some sort of political expedient) would they please enlighten us.

Before 1753, marriage was pretty much the exclusive domain of the Church and what the Pope or the Archbishop of Canterbury said, was law.  Homosexuality was so repressed by the churches that a definitive statement simply wasn't needed.

The 1753 Act was intended to prevent clandestine marriages but was flawed because it established that only marriages performed by Anglican clergy were legal, which discriminated against Catholics, Muslims, and other faith groups.

The 1836 Act remedied this in part by allowing those faith groups to be married by their own priest, and subsequently formalised in an Anglican ceremony, thus making them legal.  It also created civil weddings so that atheists could be legally married.

The 1949 Act tidied up a lot of the loose ends from the previous Acts, such as age of consent, etc.

The 2013 act was used to reflect the changes brought about by the Civil Partnerships Act of 2005 and the Parliamentary vote to legalise same sex marriage. Interestingly, I believe it also formalised the previous amendment to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act's decision to remove the "Need For a Father" clause.

So.......... from what I have been able to find, there has never, at any time, been any definitive statement in religion or British law, that marriage is a contract between a man and a woman.

As for the furtherance of the species, well, I'd reckon the human race isn't quite under imminent threat of extinction, apart from the possibility that we may launch nuclear armageddon upon ourselves.   We're not going to become extinct because of the alternative orientation of 10% of the population.  And in any case, human ingenuity has found a way round that now by inventing assisted fertilisation technology which renders sexual intercourse technically irrelevant as far as homosexuals are concerned.

So, statements about the definition of marriage are spurious and of extremely doubtful authenticity, and the  argument about the perpetuation of the species is anachronistic.  

We humans are in the luxurious position of being able to enjoy sex for the sheer pleasure of it without worrying about our continuance as a species, and we have finally come to a point in our social development where we can put discriminatory practices aside.  Some pockets of resistance still exist, but I believe they will wither and fade away in time.

Sex is great.  Just enjoy it.

The Fourth Lion wrote:

... Sex is great.  Just enjoy it.

Reminds me of a story when I was in the sixth form at school almost forty years ago. One day each week, the final period was a free lesson but, rather than being allowed home, we had to spend it in the school library. As you might imagine, all we wanted was to get out and head for the hills (or somewhere else) and so we were always packed up in good time. During this time we were under the notional supervision of the school librarian, an elderly Canadian, who tended to turn a blind eye to most things and normally said nothing. We were therefore pretty amazed when one day late in the period, he suddenly called out, ''I feel sorry for you guys. You're all going to have terrible sex lives.'' After a short stunned silence, someone enquired as to why and he explained, ''You always want to pack up two minutes early. One day you'll realise the last two minutes are the best!''   

guildfordbat wrote:

The Fourth Lion wrote:

... Sex is great.  Just enjoy it.

Reminds me of a story when I was in the sixth form at school almost forty years ago. One day each week, the final period was a free lesson but, rather than being allowed home, we had to spend it in the school library. As you might imagine, all we wanted was to get out and head for the hills (or somewhere else) and so we were always packed up in good time. During this time we were under the notional supervision of the school librarian, an elderly Canadian, who tended to turn a blind eye to most things and normally said nothing. We were therefore pretty amazed when one day late in the period, he suddenly called out, ''I feel sorry for you guys. You're all going to have terrible sex lives.'' After a short stunned silence, someone enquired as to why and he explained, ''You always want to pack up two minutes early. One day you'll realise the last two minutes are the best!''   

Nice story, Guildford.

You were lucky. We had double maths for the last two periods on Friday afternoons. I hated Friday afternoons.

Our librarian was a middle aged spinster who we called "The Green Cardigan", for a very obvious reason. She was stern to the point of ruling her domain with a rod of iron and the thought of having to face her if I brought a book back late scared me more than getting beat up by the 'ard kids in the playground. I could take a kicking, but she was beyond scary.

Your story brings back to mind a time when a bunch of scruffs, such as we were at the time, were having a crafty fag in the playground bogs and sharing adolescent fantasies about which of the female teachers and staff we'd "do it" with. All pretty normal stuff for 15 year old boys no matter which generation you're born in.

One lad said he'd like to do the Green Cardigan. His cred within the group plummeted like a stone (he really took some serious stick for that), but all these years on I can see where he was coming from.

She was, in truth, quite a comely woman despite her fearsome reputation and awful choice of knitwear. And for all we knew.... well.... I'll let your own imagination play on that.

The thing is, in the great pantheon of human sexuality, we are all made of flesh and blood. We all have "needs" and we all find our own fulfilment in whatever way serves our desires.

It's not for me to say whether this person or that person is a "pervert". As long as they're not committing a criminal act then let them get their jollies in whatever way they please.

Vive la difference...!!

TopHat24/7 wrote:In that case, going back to the OP, I'd say the premise is wrong as consummation of marriage was not an obsession with sex but rather evidence of deference towards it.  It was considered important only because sexual contact before marriage was considered such a grave sin.  Quite the opposite of being obsessed with it, it suggests a society scared of it and keen to reserve it as just an act between consenting man and wife, whilst recognising its importance for procreation and the continuing human existence.

An obsesson can involve a liking or a fear, so even if society was fearful of sex it is still an obsession because there was so much emphasis on it.

But anyway as said in the thread, society has always been obsessed with sex hence why a husband/wife could annul a marriage if they haven't had sex. This highlights the obsession society had on sex in the past.

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:In that case, going back to the OP, I'd say the premise is wrong as consummation of marriage was not an obsession with sex but rather evidence of deference towards it.  It was considered important only because sexual contact before marriage was considered such a grave sin.  Quite the opposite of being obsessed with it, it suggests a society scared of it and keen to reserve it as just an act between consenting man and wife, whilst recognising its importance for procreation and the continuing human existence.

An obsesson can involve a liking or a fear, so even if society was fearful of sex it is still an obsession because there was so much emphasis on it.

But anyway as said in the thread, society has always been obsessed with sex hence why a husband/wife could annul a marriage if they haven't had sex. This highlights the obsession society had on sex in the past.

Is society not still obsessed with sex..?

For a start, the wording of your post suggests that you believe annulment on the grounds of non-consummation is no longer extant, whereas Toppers' link shows that it is.  Your post also seems to suggest that our society no longer has this 'obsession'.  I disagree.

I would argue that sex is more prominent now than at any time in history.  The internet saw to that..!!  

I was at the gym yesterday afternoon and on the big screen (I have no idea why they have to have four 50 inch TV monitors on the walls of a place where people go to keep fit, but they do) was an endless stream of pop videos that featured as near as makes no difference naked women performing highly sexual dance routines.  The language used was as near to the bone as it gets and the general tenor of these videos was that the entire point of the song was sex.  How to get it, how the singer likes doing it and how frequently.  I'm not necessarily complaining, btw <grin>, just emphasising the point.

Read a newspaper today and it's a reasonable bet that there will be a number of articles in which sex features prominently.  Sex is used in advertising.  Ask yourself which is the first advert that springs to  mind for selling a chocolate bar and it's a fair it would involve a naked woman in a bath sliding a rather phallic Flake slowly into her mouth.   That ad is around 30 years old and pre-dates Youtube.  But it's on there.

Sex IS prominent in our society and I would argue that it is more so now than ever.

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:In that case, going back to the OP, I'd say the premise is wrong as consummation of marriage was not an obsession with sex but rather evidence of deference towards it.  It was considered important only because sexual contact before marriage was considered such a grave sin.  Quite the opposite of being obsessed with it, it suggests a society scared of it and keen to reserve it as just an act between consenting man and wife, whilst recognising its importance for procreation and the continuing human existence.

An obsesson can involve a liking or a fear, so even if society was fearful of sex it is still an obsession because there was so much emphasis on it.

But anyway as said in the thread, society has always been obsessed with sex hence why a husband/wife could annul a marriage if they haven't had sex. This highlights the obsession society had on sex in the past.

I think you're making leaps between points to try connect the dots into a sustainable argument.

If marriage consummation required regular/multiple 'engaging' then you might have a point. Equally if you could prove the obsession point rather than just re-iterating it. Placing importance on a standalone one-off act suggests far from obsession, it just highlights a very traditional view that back in the day the 'purpose' of marriage was to unite male & female for procreation. Can't procreate without having sex.

If a couple weren't going to have sex, then the marriage was purposeless, ergo it could be annulled as it would be considered 'invalid'.

The Fourth Lion wrote:

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:In that case, going back to the OP, I'd say the premise is wrong as consummation of marriage was not an obsession with sex but rather evidence of deference towards it.  It was considered important only because sexual contact before marriage was considered such a grave sin.  Quite the opposite of being obsessed with it, it suggests a society scared of it and keen to reserve it as just an act between consenting man and wife, whilst recognising its importance for procreation and the continuing human existence.

An obsesson can involve a liking or a fear, so even if society was fearful of sex it is still an obsession because there was so much emphasis on it.

But anyway as said in the thread, society has always been obsessed with sex hence why a husband/wife could annul a marriage if they haven't had sex. This highlights the obsession society had on sex in the past.

Is society not still obsessed with sex..?

For a start, the wording of your post suggests that you believe annulment on the grounds of non-consummation is no longer extant, whereas Toppers' link shows that it is.  Your post also seems to suggest that our society no longer has this 'obsession'.  I disagree.

I would argue that sex is more prominent now than at any time in history.  The internet saw to that..!!  

I was at the gym yesterday afternoon and on the big screen (I have no idea why they have to have four 50 inch TV monitors on the walls of a place where people go to keep fit, but they do) was an endless stream of pop videos that featured as near as makes no difference naked women performing highly sexual dance routines.  The language used was as near to the bone as it gets and the general tenor of these videos was that the entire point of the song was sex.  How to get it, how the singer likes doing it and how frequently.  I'm not necessarily complaining, btw <grin>, just emphasising the point.

Read a newspaper today and it's a reasonable bet that there will be a number of articles in which sex features prominently.  Sex is used in advertising.  Ask yourself which is the first advert that springs to  mind for selling a chocolate bar and it's a fair it would involve a naked woman in a bath sliding a rather phallic Flake slowly into her mouth.   That ad is around 30 years old and pre-dates Youtube.  But it's on there.

Sex IS prominent in our society and I would argue that it is more so now than ever.

What.... I dont see how my thread indicates that I think society is not obsessed with sex or that annullment or marriage due to not having sex is not legal. Everone should know it is legal to annul a marriage due to not having sex it was a storyline on eastenders not o long ago

My thread was saying how society has ALWAYS been obsessed with sex and this is evidenced by marriage being annulled if it is not consumated.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:In that case, going back to the OP, I'd say the premise is wrong as consummation of marriage was not an obsession with sex but rather evidence of deference towards it.  It was considered important only because sexual contact before marriage was considered such a grave sin.  Quite the opposite of being obsessed with it, it suggests a society scared of it and keen to reserve it as just an act between consenting man and wife, whilst recognising its importance for procreation and the continuing human existence.

An obsesson can involve a liking or a fear, so even if society was fearful of sex it is still an obsession because there was so much emphasis on it.

But anyway as said in the thread, society has always been obsessed with sex hence why a husband/wife could annul a marriage if they haven't had sex. This highlights the obsession society had on sex in the past.

I think you're making leaps between points to try connect the dots into a sustainable argument.

If marriage consummation required regular/multiple 'engaging' then you might have a point. Equally if you could prove the obsession point rather than just re-iterating it.  Placing importance on a standalone one-off act suggests far from obsession, it just highlights a very traditional view that back in the day the 'purpose' of marriage was to unite male & female for procreation.  Can't procreate without having sex.  

If a couple weren't going to have sex, then the marriage was purposeless, ergo it could be annulled as it would be considered 'invalid'.

You proved the obsession point in your previous post where you said people were frightened of sex before marriage hence why sex within marriage was so important, hence society's obsession with sex.

tophat wrote:It was considered important only because sexual contact before marriage was considered such a grave sin.

Just a few things off the top of my head which highlights society had an obsession with sex. The laws which allowed annullment of marriage if no sex had taken place, the laws prohibiting certain sexual acts eg homosexual acts which highlights an obsession of sex ( an obsession can be a liking or a disliking). The media in the olden days broadcasting very popular stories about males who had lots of sexual partners eg Casanova and those papers/stories selling very well. Religion created an obsession with sex by constantly talking about it being a sin.

Either way I am not here to have a pointless debate with you that will last 2 days about sex. The thread was meant as a bit of light hearted 'off topic' chat about society and sex.

Still taking big leaps to make your argument stack up.

By your definition we are/always have been 'obsessed' with literally anything that existed ever.

Agree 'debate' with you is pointless though.

Two unmarried guys arguing about the consumation of marriage..

It could be love on 606..

Jealous.....  

And they're around the same age. I think they both live in London as well.

I've seen enough chick flicks to know that if you hate him, you must like him.

They do say opposites attract......    

TopHat24/7 wrote:Still taking big leaps to make your argument stack up.

By your definition we are/always have been 'obsessed' with literally anything that existed ever.

Agree 'debate' with you is pointless though.

Well as highlighted previously, the media had an obsession with sex in the past eg casanova and many other famous stories. religion made sex outside of marriage a massive taboo and made everyone fearful of the consequences of sex outside of marriage and also the law highlighted society's obsession with sex eg consumation of marriage, death penalty for sex with the same sex (homosexuality).

All of the things I posted above are what people use to suggest that socety has an obsession with sex in the present eg media attention, religion and laws on sexual behaviour.

If debating with me is pointless then stop doing it

Duty281 wrote:And they're around the same age. I think they both live in London as well.

I've seen enough chick flicks to know that if you hate him, you must like him.

I have been saying this for a while but ever since I posted a video of me on 606 I started getting a lot of attention from Tophat. I have strong suspicions that he does find me attractive and seeks my attention on a daily basis.

For a guy that has both stalked me on Twitter and also admitted saving all my v2 posts on their home computer, I think you need to look a little closer to home for who is 'obsessed' with whom....

Top Hat, CS. Can I offer my advice to you both. One of you or both of you would do well to familiarise yourself with the foe button option extremely quickly. Trust me, you dealing with your inability to debate with each other in a civil manner will be much more preferable than me dealing with it.

Rowley wrote:Top Hat, CS. Can I offer my advice to you both. One of you or both of you would do well to familiarise yourself with the foe button option extremely quickly. Trust me, you dealing with your inability to debate with each other in a civil manner will be much more preferable than me dealing with it.

I never realised TopHat had twitter.

*Duty goes off for a look*

Rowley wrote:Top Hat, CS. Can I offer my advice to you both. One of you or both of you would do well to familiarise yourself with the foe button option extremely quickly. Trust me, you dealing with your inability to debate with each other in a civil manner will be much more preferable than me dealing with it.

I shall take your advice and foe him now.