[003]
69.47.43.173
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
It\'s not that long and has a {{laconic| wiki}} already. My concerns are it touching on developments in a part of the world as if they happened that way everywhere(\
to:
It\\\'s not that long and has a {{laconic| wiki}} already. My concerns are it touching on developments in a part of the world as if they happened that way everywhere(\\\"the church\\\" was imposing itself somewhere but was being beheaded and sold into slavery elsewhere), and implies only men wore condoms.
But if length is to be cut, why not cut everything between \\\"Second addendum: The partner who is in love will demand fidelity from the other partner.\\\" and \\\"In reality the correlation between sex and romance can be anything from strict fidelity between exclusive lovers, to casual sex between friends, to dating, experimenting and anything in-between\\\" and cut the [-note-] too? Because that just seems too preachy to me.
But if length is to be cut, why not cut everything between \\\"Second addendum: The partner who is in love will demand fidelity from the other partner.\\\" and \\\"In reality the correlation between sex and romance can be anything from strict fidelity between exclusive lovers, to casual sex between friends, to dating, experimenting and anything in-between\\\" and cut the [-note-] too? Because that just seems too preachy to me.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
It\'s not that long and has a {{laconic| wiki}} already. My concerns are it touching on developments in a part of the world as if they happened that way everywhere(\
to:
It\\\'s not that long and has a {{laconic| wiki}} already. My concerns are it touching on developments in a part of the world as if they happened that way everywhere(\\\"the church\\\" was imposing itself somewhere but was being beheaded and sold into slavery elsewhere), and implies only men wore condoms.
But if length is to be cut, why not cut everything between \\\"Second addendum: The partner who is in love will demand fidelity from the other partner.\\\" and \\\"In reality the correlation between sex and romance can be anything from strict fidelity between exclusive lovers, to casual sex between friends, to dating, experimenting and anything in-between\\\" and cut the [-note-] too? Because that just seems overly preachy to me.
But if length is to be cut, why not cut everything between \\\"Second addendum: The partner who is in love will demand fidelity from the other partner.\\\" and \\\"In reality the correlation between sex and romance can be anything from strict fidelity between exclusive lovers, to casual sex between friends, to dating, experimenting and anything in-between\\\" and cut the [-note-] too? Because that just seems overly preachy to me.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Oh please, it\'s not that long and has a {{laconic| wiki}} already. My concerns are it touching on developments in a part of the world as if they happened that way everywhere(\
to:
It\\\'s not that long and has a {{laconic| wiki}} already. My concerns are it touching on developments in a part of the world as if they happened that way everywhere(\\\"the church\\\" was imposing itself somewhere but was being beheaded and sold into slavery elsewhere), and implies only men wore condoms.
But if length is to be cut, why not cut everything between \\\"Second addendum: The partner who is in love will demand fidelity from the other partner.\\\" and \\\"In reality the correlation between sex and romance can be anything from strict fidelity between exclusive lovers, to casual sex between friends, to dating, experimenting and anything in-between\\\" and cut the [-note-] too because that just seems overly preachy.
But if length is to be cut, why not cut everything between \\\"Second addendum: The partner who is in love will demand fidelity from the other partner.\\\" and \\\"In reality the correlation between sex and romance can be anything from strict fidelity between exclusive lovers, to casual sex between friends, to dating, experimenting and anything in-between\\\" and cut the [-note-] too because that just seems overly preachy.
