f13.net

f13.net General Forums => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kenrick on October 07, 2005, 12:38:59 PM



Title: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Kenrick on October 07, 2005, 12:38:59 PM
This might have been kinda hot.  As it is, I can't get over the utter cheesyness of these women's fashion senses.

(NSFW)http://www.incident.net/works/miseanu/nues.html(NSFW)


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: TheWalrus on October 08, 2005, 04:41:42 PM
Fuzzy FTW.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Big Gulp on October 08, 2005, 06:19:39 PM
Fuzzy FTW.

As long as it's well groomed I'll take pubic hair any day.  I've never liked the shave cooch horseshit that's been floating around for the past decade.  It makes me feel like I'm going after some prepubescent 12 year old.  It's goddamned creepy.  Especially considering that if you shave it on a constant basis you will get razor burn down there which is about as attractive as Bea Arthur taking a dump.

Even worse is the landing strip.  It serves no purpose and is the female equivalent of the pencil thin mustache on a guy.

Ladies, just keep it clean and trimmed.  All this extra gardening is a waste of goddamned time.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Merusk on October 08, 2005, 07:35:23 PM
It's porn.. it's very hard to blame porn for anything, but that one and certain practices single female aquantinces have commented on can both be traced to porn.

So sad.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Cheddar on October 08, 2005, 08:49:10 PM
It's porn.. it's very hard to blame porn for anything, but that one and certain practices single female aquantinces have commented on can both be traced to porn.

So sad.

It is an artist comparison chart, not porn. If you consider this porn then I feel bad for your children.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: stray on October 08, 2005, 08:50:26 PM
I don't think he was calling that link "porn". He was talking about porn in general and it's affects how people...

Err...Fuck it. Ya lost me.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Merusk on October 08, 2005, 09:22:32 PM
I was talking at Gulp's complaint of the current trend towards shaved vs trimmed... it was clear to me, at least.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Ironwood on October 09, 2005, 01:18:06 AM
And me, and me.  And kids in the country.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: stray on October 09, 2005, 06:06:45 AM
Anyways, on to what's important:

She's pretty hot.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v231/lonestar627/Misc/girl.jpg)
It's OK. You can mouse over it  :roll:.

Too bad she's the only one. Crappy art project imo!


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Ironwood on October 09, 2005, 06:09:18 AM
Um.  Hot, or hot when her clothes are off ?  'Cause I think if the former, this is one of those examples of tastes being different.


Wildly different.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: stray on October 09, 2005, 06:16:12 AM
Hot...as in...Proportional maybe?

She's got those pretty dark/French features though. I like her. /shrug

[edit] Oh yeah, this has nothing to do with "taste" so much as it has to do "taste relative to the other females on that page".


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Ironwood on October 09, 2005, 06:35:00 AM
Ok.  I still prefer the sorta latina with the white on.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Ironwood on October 09, 2005, 08:06:16 AM
It's porn.. it's very hard to blame porn for anything, but that one and certain practices single female aquantinces have commented on can both be traced to porn.

So sad.

I have to take issue with this :  It's also Fashion.  'Striping it' is simply a consequence of having thongs and bikinis made of string.  You look REALLY unnatractive with a pant mustache.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Cheddar on October 09, 2005, 08:17:58 AM
It has nothing to do pornography.  Maybe thats where some peoples issues lie, but the shaving of the entire region is very dominant in Eastern Europe and the Middle East.  It is part of feeling pure or some such thing (Men act macho, women should be virgins).  Personally I like a woman to change it as the sensation is different depend on the amount of hair (I should not need a machete).  Now I have shared to much, and I hope this thread dies.


Whats with the Puritans lately?


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Ironwood on October 09, 2005, 08:23:26 AM
If you haven't gone after a woman with a machete, you should try it sometime.  It's invigorating.


Try getting a reservation at Dorsia now, bitch.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: stray on October 09, 2005, 08:30:53 AM
The point I think he was making Cheddar is that some people do some things from the influence of porn. Whether this is one of them, I really don't care, but it should be mentioned that he NEVER SAID PORN WAS BAD (or good for that matter). He was merely hinting at pop culture influence. Not bad influence. Not good influence. Just....Influence.

Your reading of there being Puritans here isn't really grounded in anything, and I can't figure out why it is that you're picking a fight.

[edit] And if there are Puritans here, so what? That's their perogative...They haven't said anything though, so it's not even worth mentioning.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Llava on October 09, 2005, 12:47:14 PM
I like it when my girlfriend enjoys our sex.

One of the best things I can do to ensure that is book a flight South.

It's much more pleasant in the South when I don't have to navigate through a rain forest.

Therefore, I prefer shaven.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Kenrick on October 09, 2005, 02:19:44 PM
Naked people ≠ porn.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Merusk on October 09, 2005, 03:04:18 PM
It's porn.. it's very hard to blame porn for anything, but that one and certain practices single female aquantinces have commented on can both be traced to porn.

So sad.

I have to take issue with this :  It's also Fashion.  'Striping it' is simply a consequence of having thongs and bikinis made of string.  You look REALLY unnatractive with a pant mustache.


Well, yeah, but I noticed the trend to be shaved started in porn back around '96 thongs and super-string bikinis around '00.  Just my observation though, and it's only a theory.  It was postulated during a conversation with a close single female friend who wanted to know why all of her dates who she'd bedded in the recent past had wanted to 1) blow load on her face and 2) asked if they could shave her.  I blamed porn and so they theory's stuck with me.

Er and Yesh.. pr0n is evil. You should all send it to me for proper disposal.. that's why I have the elf porn chick for the avatar...  :-D



Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Pococurante on October 09, 2005, 03:29:19 PM
blah blah edgy blah blah skin blah blah sophomore year of college blah blah


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: stray on October 09, 2005, 03:43:06 PM
blah blah edgy blah blah skin blah blah sophomore year of college blah blah


blah blah agreed blah blah


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Margalis on October 09, 2005, 07:44:51 PM
If your friend is bedding guys who are asking to shave her and blow a load on her face your friend might consider that she should look for dates in some other location. Sounds like the guys she is find are pretty tasteless.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: tazelbain on October 09, 2005, 07:50:09 PM
Ya, that's like a second date thing.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Merusk on October 09, 2005, 07:54:41 PM
I just took it as a self-shaming personal hatred taste for men who'd treat her like shit.  Seems to be a theme for a large segment of women I've known.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Margalis on October 09, 2005, 09:55:04 PM
How do you go about asking that anyway? "Mind if I pull out and cum on your face? No?...Boom headshot!"


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: TheWalrus on October 09, 2005, 10:27:38 PM
Two to the chest, one to the head. ><


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Ironwood on October 10, 2005, 01:42:40 AM
Or you could have the 'Brazilian Engineer' - which is 7 loads on the face and one in the shoulder.


barumpttish.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Megrim on October 10, 2005, 06:25:16 AM
Which shoulder?

 - meg


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Jimbo on October 10, 2005, 06:26:40 AM
Well you can blame the Brazilians for the shaved look.  They wear those dang skimpy bathing suits and have gotten it to an art, and it took off about 1987'ish over here.

http://www.femail.com.au/brazilianwax.htm

http://ezinearticles.com/?Brazilian-Wax-for-a-Brazilian-Bikini-Line&id=71042

So pretty much from the invention of the Bikini to the addition of the Brazilian Dental Floss Bikinin, women have been looking for ways to keep it trimmed up.

Gotta luv all the red heads in there  :-D


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Cheddar on October 10, 2005, 06:39:16 AM
What exactly is chaos? The name "chaos theory" comes from the fact that the systems that the theory describes are apparently disordered, but chaos theory is really about finding the underlying order in apparently random data.
When was chaos first discovered? The first true experimenter in chaos was a meteorologist, named Edward Lorenz. In 1960, he was working on the problem of weather prediction. He had a computer set up, with a set of twelve equations to model the weather. It didn't predict the weather itself. However this computer program did theoretically predict what the weather might be.

One day in 1961, he wanted to see a particular sequence again. To save time, he started in the middle of the sequence, instead of the beginning. He entered the number off his printout and left to let it run.

When he came back an hour later, the sequence had evolved differently. Instead of the same pattern as before, it diverged from the pattern, ending up wildly different from the original. Eventually he figured out what happened. The computer stored the numbers to six decimal places in its memory. To save paper, he only had it print out three decimal places. In the original sequence, the number was .506127, and he had only typed the first three digits, .506.



Edit.  Altered the original post so as not to scar the children.

How do you go about asking that anyway? "Mind if I pull out and cum on your face? No?...Boom headshot!"

Really not that hard to ask.  If you have any experience at all it can be easy to find out if a woman would be ok with this, or even anal for that matter.  Personally I like it when a woman wraps her mouth around my cock as I cum after "making love." 

But thats just me, and I am wild.  You may prefer the mild. [/size]


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Ironwood on October 10, 2005, 06:41:33 AM
I prefer Mild Cheddar, yes.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Cheddar on October 10, 2005, 06:44:38 AM
I prefer Mild Cheddar, yes.


Touche.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Rodent on October 10, 2005, 09:16:35 AM
How do you go about asking that anyway? "Mind if I pull out and cum on your face? No?...Boom headshot!"

Hehe, awesome. Best laugh of the day.

Fucking TK.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: HaemishM on October 18, 2005, 11:25:18 AM
How do you go about asking that anyway? "Mind if I pull out and cum on your face? No?...Boom headshot!"

Quite funny.

However, if you can't talk about that kind of thing with your significant other, your sex life is going to suffer, IMO. Sex is one of those things that needs to be talked about frankly and fully, because otherwise you have one partner enjoying themselves while the other feels humiliated by all the camel spunk on her mug.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Shockeye on October 18, 2005, 11:26:59 AM
How do you go about asking that anyway? "Mind if I pull out and cum on your face? No?...Boom headshot!"
Sex is one of those things that needs to be talked about frankly and fully, because otherwise you have one partner enjoying themselves while the other feels humiliated by all the camel spunk on her mug.

I fail to see the problem.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: SuperPopTart on October 18, 2005, 11:36:16 AM
How do you go about asking that anyway? "Mind if I pull out and cum on your face? No?...Boom headshot!"

You just ask. If you are having any kind of sexual contact with the person then you've, by default, gotten personal enough to ask them directly about their sexual likes/dislikes.

The time for being repressed would be over at this juncture.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: voodoolily on October 18, 2005, 11:44:08 AM
[However, if you can't talk about that kind of thing with your significant other, your sex life is going to suffer, IMO. Sex is one of those things that needs to be talked about frankly and fully, because otherwise you have one partner enjoying themselves while the other feels humiliated by all the camel spunk on her mug.

There's a difference between what a girl will do (maybe even like) with her SO and what she does with a guy she is dating. Ya gotta leave some things for the honeymoon, if you know what I mean. If you take a moneyshot from a guy you just started seeing, what's after that? What do you do a coupla months into the relationship?


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Yegolev on October 18, 2005, 12:09:23 PM
There's a difference between what a girl will do (maybe even like) with her SO and what she does with a guy she is dating. Ya gotta leave some things for the honeymoon, if you know what I mean. If you take a moneyshot from a guy you just started seeing, what's after that? What do you do a coupla months into the relationship?


If this isn't denned immediately, we will all be sorry.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: WayAbvPar on October 18, 2005, 12:14:26 PM
[However, if you can't talk about that kind of thing with your significant other, your sex life is going to suffer, IMO. Sex is one of those things that needs to be talked about frankly and fully, because otherwise you have one partner enjoying themselves while the other feels humiliated by all the camel spunk on her mug.

There's a difference between what a girl will do (maybe even like) with her SO and what she does with a guy she is dating. Ya gotta leave some things for the honeymoon, if you know what I mean. If you take a moneyshot from a guy you just started seeing, what's after that? What do you do a coupla months into the relationship?


I would like to introduce you to my friend Robert. He is also known as Backdoor Bob.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Kenrick on October 18, 2005, 12:16:02 PM
If this isn't denned immediately, we will all be sorry.

Sort of like that "you'll shoot your eye out!" bb-gun line from that christmas movie.  Except... y'all are talking about a different kind of gun.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: voodoolily on October 18, 2005, 12:18:33 PM
It was a rhetorical question, people!!


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Furiously on October 18, 2005, 12:21:31 PM
Why do they call him Backdoor Bob?


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: stray on October 18, 2005, 12:24:23 PM
I'm all about equality among the sexes.

* And I don't mean anything nasty by that. I just mean, both sides should gain physical pleasure from something, else it's completely unnecessary.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: WayAbvPar on October 18, 2005, 12:28:35 PM
Why do they call him Backdoor Bob?

He likes to have sex in very uncomfortable places.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Furiously on October 18, 2005, 12:32:17 PM
You mean like in the back of a Volkswagon?


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Shockeye on October 18, 2005, 12:36:22 PM
I have yet to see anything that makes this thread Denable.

This is not an invitation.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: WayAbvPar on October 18, 2005, 12:41:59 PM
You mean like in the back of a Volkswagon?

Let's just say that Backdoor Bob and Fusilli Jerry have a lot in common.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Cheddar on October 18, 2005, 01:39:15 PM
Men are from Mars, Women are from venus hur hur hur.   That is a stupid attitude; saving stuff for later  :roll:.  If you do not take it anally and then let me spice up your rack/cock holster then I am kicking you out ASAP.


And you will be lucky if I pay you the agreed amount!


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: stray on October 18, 2005, 01:45:07 PM
Men are from Mars, Women are from venus hur hur hur.   That is a stupid attitude; saving stuff for later  :roll:.  If you do not take it anally and then let me spice up your rack/cock holster then I am kicking you out ASAP.


And you will be lucky if I pay you the agreed amount!

Explain "spice up"....


I can't tell if you agree with me or not....

I can't tell just about anything you just said there actually.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Samwise on October 18, 2005, 02:41:12 PM
Do you really want to?


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Pococurante on October 18, 2005, 02:45:27 PM
Is it happy hour already?  I never could get the hang of Tuesdays.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Ironwood on October 18, 2005, 03:13:32 PM
It's always happy hour.


Hell is posting on f13 over and over and over and over...


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Bunk on October 18, 2005, 03:19:24 PM
Men are from Mars, Women are from venus hur hur hur.   That is a stupid attitude; saving stuff for later  :roll:.  If you do not take it anally and then let me spice up your rack/cock holster then I am kicking you out ASAP.


And you will be lucky if I pay you the agreed amount!

If I interpret this correctly, he likes giving prostitutes vaginal infections.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: voodoolily on October 18, 2005, 03:35:13 PM
Men are from Mars, Women are from venus hur hur hur.   That is a stupid attitude; saving stuff for later  :roll:.  If you do not take it anally and then let me spice up your rack/cock holster then I am kicking you out ASAP.


And you will be lucky if I pay you the agreed amount!

Wow. And you mean to tell me you're single?


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: WayAbvPar on October 18, 2005, 03:37:48 PM
Men are from Mars, Women are from venus hur hur hur.   That is a stupid attitude; saving stuff for later  :roll:.  If you do not take it anally and then let me spice up your rack/cock holster then I am kicking you out ASAP.


And you will be lucky if I pay you the agreed amount!

Wow. And you mean to tell me you're single?

If you consider single to mean 'the subject of numerous restraining orders from members of the opposite sex', then I am guessing yes.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Merusk on October 18, 2005, 08:18:53 PM
Hey, I'm sure Cheddar had very valid reasons to be in those women's bedrooms at 3am in the Strawberry Shortcake outfit with that astral glide and the gimp mask.

We just don't need to hear them.

It was a rhetorical question, people!!

Oh sure, NOW you say that.


That said, I have no idea how it came up. Probably, as Poptart pointed out, at the point you're both naked and sucking on various body parts, it's silly to think asking questions is rude.  It's even sillier that some folk probably WOULD think it rude.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: schild on October 18, 2005, 08:37:48 PM
Astral Glide?

(http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0000532SD.01-A1HH8X1DSLCZNP._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg)


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Margalis on October 18, 2005, 08:41:42 PM
You just ask. If you are having any kind of sexual contact with the person then you've, by default, gotten personal enough to ask them directly about their sexual likes/dislikes.

The time for being repressed would be over at this juncture.

I would hardly call waiting to cum on someone's face till the second date "repressed." And I don't think asking someone that is the same as asking them about their likes and dislikes. "Can I shoot my load on your face" is not the same as "do you you what I'm doing?" It has nothing to do with what the other person likes at all. I find it hard to believe that many women enjoy that, especially with what is essentially a random partner.

How about "can I choke you unconcious?" To ask otherwise would be all repressed or something...


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Margalis on October 18, 2005, 08:43:15 PM
That said, I have no idea how it came up. Probably, as Poptart pointed out, at the point you're both naked and sucking on various body parts, it's silly to think asking questions is rude.  It's even sillier that some folk probably WOULD think it rude.

Can I take a dump on your chest and piss in your mouth?


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Cheddar on October 18, 2005, 09:14:43 PM
Don't judge me!


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Merusk on October 18, 2005, 09:23:15 PM
That said, I have no idea how it came up. Probably, as Poptart pointed out, at the point you're both naked and sucking on various body parts, it's silly to think asking questions is rude.  It's even sillier that some folk probably WOULD think it rude.

Can I take a dump on your chest and piss in your mouth?


Bitch, you haven't even bought me dinner yet.
Astral Glide?

http://www.intothewind.com/shop/Traditional_Kites/Creative_Designs/Astral_Glide

Err.. right.  Could be either, but Cheddar asked us not to judge him.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Paelos on October 18, 2005, 10:38:49 PM
Welcome to the gutter. Make sure to clear the leaves while you're here.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: SuperPopTart on October 18, 2005, 10:50:12 PM
Hey, I'm sure Cheddar had very valid reasons to be in those women's bedrooms at 3am in the Strawberry Shortcake outfit with that astral glide and the gimp mask.

We just don't need to hear them.

It was a rhetorical question, people!!

Oh sure, NOW you say that.


That said, I have no idea how it came up. Probably, as Poptart pointed out, at the point you're both naked and sucking on various body parts, it's silly to think asking questions is rude.  It's even sillier that some folk probably WOULD think it rude.

You got my point.

Thank you.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: stray on October 18, 2005, 11:38:47 PM
That said, I have no idea how it came up. Probably, as Poptart pointed out, at the point you're both naked and sucking on various body parts, it's silly to think asking questions is rude.  It's even sillier that some folk probably WOULD think it rude.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what I'm reading out of that is:

"Since sex, being naked, and sucking body parts are viewed as nasty/naughty/freaky (or whatever) things, then asking about "other" nasty things shouldn't be questioned as being rude."

I for one see the former as being completely natural and GOOD, while the latter things to be a perversion of that goodness. I wouldn't put both in the same category at all. One does not qualify the other. And only one is nasty/naughty/freaky (or whatever ).

But since people have been told by centuries long Puritanical thinking that a good thing was a "bad thing", they in turn, lump all bad things with it (but I digress a bit...This is another thread in it's own right).

[edit] And no, I'm not calling any of you Puritans.....But if I understood correctly, then I AM calling you victims of Puritans.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Samwise on October 18, 2005, 11:57:55 PM
"Since sex, being naked, and sucking body parts are viewed as nasty/naughty/freaky (or whatever) things, then asking about "other" nasty things shouldn't be questioned as being rude."

I for one see the former as being completely natural and GOOD, while the latter things to be a perversion of that goodness. I wouldn't put both in the same category at all. One does not qualify the other. And only one is nasty/naughty/freaky (or whatever ).

So blowjobs are natural and good but facial comeshots are evil and perverted?

I'd be more inclined to say that as long as everyone's having fun it's all good.  But, you know, I'm a Puritan that way.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: SuperPopTart on October 19, 2005, 12:21:07 AM
"Since sex, being naked, and sucking body parts are viewed as nasty/naughty/freaky (or whatever) things, then asking about "other" nasty things shouldn't be questioned as being rude."

I for one see the former as being completely natural and GOOD, while the latter things to be a perversion of that goodness. I wouldn't put both in the same category at all. One does not qualify the other. And only one is nasty/naughty/freaky (or whatever ).

So blowjobs are natural and good but facial comeshots are evil and perverted?

I'd be more inclined to say that as long as everyone's having fun it's all good.  But, you know, I'm a Puritan that way.

I would love to know what people here consider to be evil and perverse or "non normal".


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Samwise on October 19, 2005, 12:52:13 AM
If that isn't an invitation to get this thread denned, I don't know what is.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: SuperPopTart on October 19, 2005, 12:58:23 AM
I honestly wasn't trying. It would just be interesting to hear the perspectives of people from different cultures/regions/backgrounds.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Ironwood on October 19, 2005, 01:00:17 AM
I honestly wasn't trying. It would just be interesting to hear the perspectives of people from different cultures/regions/backgrounds.


Well, if you really want to know :  I've never actually considered shooting my load on your face.  I respect your husband too much.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: SuperPopTart on October 19, 2005, 01:16:02 AM
Well thank you for saying you want to shoot a load on his face.

Now we can all sleep better knowing which way you swing.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: schild on October 19, 2005, 01:19:52 AM
Quote
Old Mother Hubbard
Went to the cupboard
To get her poor dog a bone
When she bent over,
Her Rover took over
And she got a bone of her own.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Samwise on October 19, 2005, 01:28:41 AM
Song lyrics AND furries.  I think schild just beat the Internet.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: schild on October 19, 2005, 01:34:39 AM
Song lyrics AND furries.  I think schild just beat the Internet.

Read it again, no furries there.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Samwise on October 19, 2005, 01:40:02 AM
Oh, you meant "dog" in the literal sense.  My bad.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Samwise on October 19, 2005, 01:40:48 AM
It would just be interesting to hear the perspectives of people from different cultures/regions/backgrounds.

Okay, in the interest of science: I'm of the opinion that anything that goes on between two consenting adults and doesn't hurt anyone else is just fine and dandy.  Bonus points if it doesn't result in permanent scarring.

Culture: Imperialist Yankee Pigdog.
Region: San Francisco, CA
Background: White/Hispanic Catholic.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Ironwood on October 19, 2005, 01:47:38 AM
Well thank you for saying you want to shoot a load on his face.

Now we can all sleep better knowing which way you swing.


God No, with that nose ??!  I'd cut my dick...


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: schild on October 19, 2005, 01:49:55 AM
Well thank you for saying you want to shoot a load on his face.

Now we can all sleep better knowing which way you swing.
God No, with that nose ??!  I'd cut my dick...

This is just a friendly reminder that being lewd is funny when it's funny.

For example:
Quote
Little Miss Muffet sat on a tuffet
Eating her curds and whey.
Along came a spider,
Who sat down beside her
And said, "Hey, what's in the bowl, bitch?"


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: SuperPopTart on October 19, 2005, 01:53:35 AM
Well thank you for saying you want to shoot a load on his face.

Now we can all sleep better knowing which way you swing.


God No, with that nose ??!  I'd cut my dick...


Hey! That's a strong English feature! One which I happen to love.


Thank you Samwise :)


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: stray on October 19, 2005, 07:16:09 AM
So blowjobs are natural and good but facial comeshots are evil and perverted?

Replace the word "blowjobs" with "oral sex", and remove the word "evil" (Why? BECAUSE I DIDN'T USE IT) and then I'll say "Yes".

Not sure if you consciously tried to do it, but that was really twisting my point, man.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Sky on October 19, 2005, 07:31:05 AM
Wow, schild is The Diceman? Whodathunkit?

Oh!


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Merusk on October 19, 2005, 07:49:35 AM
It would just be interesting to hear the perspectives of people from different cultures/regions/backgrounds.

Okay, in the interest of science: I'm of the opinion that anything that goes on between two consenting adults and doesn't hurt anyone else is just fine and dandy.  Bonus points if it doesn't result in permanent scarring.

Ditto.

Background:Middle-Class White Prodestent (Presby/ Epsicipalian) upbringing
Region: Ohio
Culture:  Capitalist Running Dog Yan-kee Amer-i-kan


That said, I have no idea how it came up. Probably, as Poptart pointed out, at the point you're both naked and sucking on various body parts, it's silly to think asking questions is rude.  It's even sillier that some folk probably WOULD think it rude.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what I'm reading out of that is:

"Since sex, being naked, and sucking body parts are viewed as nasty/naughty/freaky (or whatever) things, then asking about "other" nasty things shouldn't be questioned as being rude."

I for one see the former as being completely natural and GOOD, while the latter things to be a perversion of that goodness. I wouldn't put both in the same category at all. One does not qualify the other. And only one is nasty/naughty/freaky (or whatever ).

But since people have been told by centuries long Puritanical thinking that a good thing was a "bad thing", they in turn, lump all bad things with it (but I digress a bit...This is another thread in it's own right).

[edit] And no, I'm not calling any of you Puritans.....But if I understood correctly, then I AM calling you victims of Puritans.


No, I'm saying sex is an absurd biological process.  All of it. It's a good thing we don't think about that, though because we'd die out as a species if we thought about how stupid we look in the middle of things.  (The Tombstone would read,"Mankind: victims of self-image and ego.") Since it's so damn absurd anyway, you may as well inquire how best to maximize your and your partner's enjoyment of the process.  You're two (or more) people looking how best to get off and trigger that special pleasure toggle in the brain.  May as well find out how best to scratch that itch, since that's the goal in modern sex.

Hangups about it are even odder, and while i have my own limits on what I find thrilling, my hangups aren't my partner's problem.  They simply mean that the two of us aren't as compatable as we could be.  Something you either work around, or decide is enough that you can't be together.  The same as any other issue.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Ironwood on October 19, 2005, 08:02:22 AM
I think the problem is Strays definition that it has to involve physical pleasure to both parties or it's perverse.  (or at least, that's what I thought you said.)


I think that's not really a decent explanation to be going on with.  While I'm sure Mrs with Load on Face is sitting there saying 'What does he get out of this ??  Sigh'  I'm also sure that there are just as many men that are sitting there saying 'christ, my hand hurts now.'


Possibly.

But, really, this might turn into a 7 page anal sex thread.  Nothing good comes of that.  (oh God, puns.)


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Cheddar on October 19, 2005, 08:15:33 AM
You people are wierd.


Personally I draw the line on pain.  I do not mean little love bites, I am talking whippings and the like.  Same with "play" rape.  It makes me uncomfortable to choke someone during sexual intercourse; amazingly enough I have met with many women who enjoy this.  Anal sex, dotting the eyes, etc, I guess that would depend on the person.  Real key is to make someone comfortable and the ability for both to trust each other.

But that is just me!

And people who sexually abuse children should be shot.  Same with animals (people using them for sexual purposes).  One of the more popular posters argued those points many moons ago, but the simple fact of the matter is that things that cannot consensually decide should not be subject to anothers sexual perversions. 


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Kenrick on October 19, 2005, 08:24:11 AM
What the fuck kind of thread did I create here?  You people are... damn, I don't think there's a word for it.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Shockeye on October 19, 2005, 08:26:23 AM
What the fuck kind of thread did I create here?  You people are... damn, I don't think there's a word for it.

predictable


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Kenrick on October 19, 2005, 08:30:34 AM
heheh... you said "dick"... heheh

Den this motherfucker already.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: stray on October 19, 2005, 08:38:42 AM
But, really, this might turn into a 7 page anal sex thread.  Nothing good comes of that.  (oh God, puns.)

See, that would be funny.

But I actually like you guys, so I won't do it.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: MrHat on October 19, 2005, 08:45:02 AM
It started with some naked women.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Soln on October 19, 2005, 09:01:28 AM
(http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/racing-stripes-25.jpg)


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: voodoolily on October 19, 2005, 09:40:52 AM
Background: working class (read: poor white trash) Protestant
Region: Orygun
Culture: mostly far-left Socialist/Material Humanist/Fashionista

I have issues with porn. Firstly because most women who work in it are victims of childhood molestation, are drug-addicted and are therefore oftentimes not really cognizant of what they're doing (which leads the question of whether or not what they're doing is actually consensual). However, I am not one of those feminazis who wants pr0n banned. If people wanna look at it, fine. I understand it can be an important part of some couples' sex lives. But I don't want my partner to look at it. That's primarily because I, in my own fucked-up way, view it as infidelity if my partner gets off on other women. I know that's ridiculous from a biological perspective, but fortunately some men aren't that into porn and the one I'm marrying is one of 'em. And he thinks I'm hot. So nyah nyah nyah.

Anything else between consenting adults doesn't offend me (even if I'm personally not into it). I even think if some poor girl is so desperate she'll put peanut butter on her poonaynay to get a little doggie action, that's gross, but fine (sorry, I read Savage Love). Penetrating animals isn't. Sexual contact with children is not okay, but if kids wanna fool around with each other I don't see the harm. I don't think a girl who's 14, menstruates and has the body of an adult is necessarily a child, but that doesn't mean it's okay for a 20-yr old to bang her. But if she wants to fuck a boy her own age, her parents shouldn't be able to press statutory rape charges.

Clear as mud?


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Cheddar on October 19, 2005, 09:45:00 AM

I have issues with porn. Firstly because most women who work in it are victims of childhood molestation, are drug-addicted and are therefore oftentimes not really cognizant of what they're doing (which leads the question of whether or not what they're doing is actually consensual). However, I am not one of those feminazis who wants pr0n banned. If people wanna look at it, fine. I understand it can be an important part of some couples' sex lives. But I don't want my partner to look at it. That's primarily because I, in my own fucked-up way, view it as infidelity if my partner gets off on other women. I know that's ridiculous from a biological perspective, but fortunately some men aren't that into porn and the one I'm marrying is one of 'em. And he thinks I'm hot. So nyah nyah nyah.

Clear as mud?

Proof?


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: voodoolily on October 19, 2005, 09:47:58 AM
...that he thinks I'm hot or isn't that into porn? ask him.
...that sex workers are drug-addicted rape victims? It's pretty text-book actually. I can find links if you want.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: HaemishM on October 19, 2005, 09:57:17 AM
...that sex workers are drug-addicted rape victims? It's pretty text-book actually. I can find links if you want.

That one, because I'm really thinking that for the pr0n industry, that is not necessarily the case. While it might have been at one time in the seedier days of pr0n, nowadays, not so much.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Cheddar on October 19, 2005, 10:06:26 AM
...that sex workers are drug-addicted rape victims? It's pretty text-book actually. I can find links if you want.

That one, because I'm really thinking that for the pr0n industry, that is not necessarily the case. While it might have been at one time in the seedier days of pr0n, nowadays, not so much.

Exactly.  Of course this is from the woman who believes that the rape of little boys is humorous, but the rape of women is not.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: voodoolily on October 19, 2005, 10:28:29 AM
I think there are two distinctions regarding pr0n now vs. then: first, there are a few more studios (is that what you call them?) run by women/couples and appear to be healthier. These ones tend to test their employees for STDs and might actually use condom-application as part of the foreplay. The second is the snuff film/rape genre that I don't think has been popular for more than 10 or 15 years. This is obviously worse than regular porn from the standpoint of worker safety.

According to a 1995 survey (http://www.cultsock.ndirect.co.uk/MUHome/cshtml/index.html), 24% of porn actresses that were surveyed had been molested as children. That seems awfully high to me. The survey is flawed, however, in that no non-sex wrokers were surveyed as a control, and the number of respondents is unknown. This is what that link says:

Quote
It would be interesting to know what proportion of sex workers (men as well as women) are satisfied or dissatisfied with their jobs, how many are forced into it by economic necessity and so on, but I have been unable to discover any formal survey.

Cheddar, just because I tell and laugh at fucked-up jokes doesnt mean I think it's funny that boys actually get molested. I do, however, think it's funny that you like to post pictures of your little girls on the internet and then get mad when people question what their futures hold.



Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Cheddar on October 19, 2005, 10:33:09 AM
Posting pictures of ones children (non sexual I might add) and laughing at the sexual molestion of children are two completely seperate topics.  Do not start with me young lady.

My hypocrisy < VD's.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Rasix on October 19, 2005, 10:34:04 AM
Wow, how exciting.  Take it to PMs.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Margalis on October 19, 2005, 11:05:02 AM
Wow, you people are absurd.

All I was saying is this: On a FIRST DATE it is a bit ackward and tasteless to try to bring up that you want to blow your load on your partners face. You guys tried to spin that as "repression" or fear or something like that. So again, can I take a dump on your chest and piss in your mouth? To not ask would be repressed, no?

I would be willing to bet that if you looked at men who asked that on the first date, 95% of them are total slimeballs. It has nothing to do with repression. And it doesn't mean you can't bring that stuff up eventually. Is it really so bad to suggest maybe that is second date (or later) material?

If you want to shit on someone, cum in their face, have anal sex, shove a carrot up their ass, have a threesome or whatever you can go ahead and do that. I just think asking about those on date one is a bit odd. That doesn't make me some sort of weirdly repressed individual.

"Can I shove my fist in your ass?"
"Um...no..."
"Ok then, can I piss on you then?"
"WTF no!"
"Hey, I'm just trying to find out what you like and dislike. So can we get your roomate in here?"
"..."
"Can I put on my Wizard hat and robe?"


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: voodoolily on October 19, 2005, 11:18:19 AM
...that sex workers are drug-addicted rape victims? It's pretty text-book actually. I can find links if you want.

That one, because I'm really thinking that for the pr0n industry, that is not necessarily the case. While it might have been at one time in the seedier days of pr0n, nowadays, not so much.

Well, I searched everywhere, and I haven't found published studies. I'm still waiting for a huge pdf from the American Journal of Sociology to load. Oh, well. But it's funny that you say "seedier days of pr0n" as a past-time thing, because the cnotent of modern porn is actually much seedier now (violent, anyway) in what it portrays.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Merusk on October 19, 2005, 11:21:51 AM
Meh, I'm of the opinion that if you're willing enough to hop in the sack with someone on the first date, it's your fault if they wanna piss on you.

See, I'm not 'easy' even if I am 'perverted.'


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Kenrick on October 19, 2005, 11:29:58 AM
This is one of those threads where we should all we especially thankful that TFWSNBN is no longer around.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: HaemishM on October 19, 2005, 11:56:31 AM
...that sex workers are drug-addicted rape victims? It's pretty text-book actually. I can find links if you want.

That one, because I'm really thinking that for the pr0n industry, that is not necessarily the case. While it might have been at one time in the seedier days of pr0n, nowadays, not so much.

Well, I searched everywhere, and I haven't found published studies. I'm still waiting for a huge pdf from the American Journal of Sociology to load. Oh, well. But it's funny that you say "seedier days of pr0n" as a past-time thing, because the cnotent of modern porn is actually much seedier now (violent, anyway) in what it portrays.

I wouldn't say that, I just think there is more pr0n being produced now, and more of it is being directly marketed through the Internet than in the early days of pr0n being run by the mob and only available through mail order and hush hush in a back room somewhere. More pr0n produced, of a lot more variety and much more above board these days.

Quote
most women who work in it are victims of childhood molestation

Also, 24% may be high, though I'm not entirely sure. However, 24% is hardly most women who work in pr0n.

Yes, if you ask for the money shot on the first date, that's a bit much. I wasn't talking about a first date myself, so I see the disconnect. Those who would ask that on a first date are probably only dating those they think will give it to them on the first date.

Quote from: Kenrick
This is one of those threads where we should all we especially thankful that TFWSNBN is no longer around.

Fuck yes.



Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Samwise on October 19, 2005, 12:03:33 PM
Replace the word "blowjobs" with "oral sex", and remove the word "evil" (Why? BECAUSE I DIDN'T USE IT) and then I'll say "Yes".

Not sure if you consciously tried to do it, but that was really twisting my point, man.

Hey hey hey now, you said:

Quote
I for one see the former as being completely natural and GOOD, while the latter things to be a perversion of that goodness.

You said "GOOD" in all caps, and then said the latter things are a "perversion of goodness".  It looked to me like a roundabout way of saying "evil", but I retract the word if that's not what you meant.

As for replacing "blowjobs" with "oral sex", I refuse.  If your statement applies to oral sex it applies to blowjobs, because blowjobs are oral sex, and a rose by any other name yada yada.  I used the slightly coarser word because I wanted to remind you subtly that not all people think oral sex is natural and good - in fact, oral sex is generally considered "sodomy" and is technically illegal in several states (though not enforced).

My point is that your notions of what's "good" and what's "perverted" are fairly arbitrary, and you're in no position to accuse other people of being victims of Puritanical repression because they consider a shot to the face to be in the same ballpark as a shot in the mouth (whether they consider both to be good or both to be "perversions of good").  I mean, if you look at it from a geographical standpoint, it's only a few inches of difference, right?  Any "perversion" or "degradation" or other Puritanical expressions of outrage are purely in the eye of the beholder IMO.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Margalis on October 19, 2005, 12:42:54 PM
Yes, it is important to realize that people's dating lives are self-selected.

If this is a constant problem for someone they obviously are doing something to constantly hook up with such winners. Usually the answer to "why can't I find a good man?" is "you aren't looknig for one."


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Shockeye on October 19, 2005, 12:44:55 PM
Usually the answer to "why can't I find a good man?" is "you aren't looknig for one."

It's hard to look for a good man when there's something in your eye.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Merusk on October 19, 2005, 01:07:50 PM
Usually the answer to "why can't I find a good man?" is "you aren't looknig for one."

It's hard to look for a good man when there's something in your eye.

We so need a rimshot emoticon. That was classic.

most women who work in it are victims of childhood molestation

Also, 24% may be high, though I'm not entirely sure. However, 24% is hardly most women who work in pr0n.

When I took my human sexuality course in college, some 10 years ago now, I was given the statistic that between 50-70% of all women will suffer some form of molestation or unwanted fondling during their lifetime.  If this is accurate, then the number molested in porn isn't that far off from the number molested in any other segment of socieity.  Scary shit when you're raising a daughter.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Cheddar on October 19, 2005, 01:11:21 PM
I agree Merusk.  Not a good statistic, but a large part of it is parents not parenting.  Did not mean to get all flamey earlier, I hope you people can forgive me one day.  I sent the individual an apology.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Shockeye on October 19, 2005, 01:12:00 PM
Usually the answer to "why can't I find a good man?" is "you aren't looknig for one."

It's hard to look for a good man when there's something in your eye.

We so need a rimshot emoticon. That was classic.

Request granted!

 :rimshot:


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: stray on October 19, 2005, 01:28:01 PM
Replace the word "blowjobs" with "oral sex", and remove the word "evil" (Why? BECAUSE I DIDN'T USE IT) and then I'll say "Yes".

Not sure if you consciously tried to do it, but that was really twisting my point, man.

Hey hey hey now, you said:

Quote
I for one see the former as being completely natural and GOOD, while the latter things to be a perversion of that goodness.

You said "GOOD" in all caps, and then said the latter things are a "perversion of goodness".  It looked to me like a roundabout way of saying "evil", but I retract the word if that's not what you meant.

As for replacing "blowjobs" with "oral sex", I refuse.  If your statement applies to oral sex it applies to blowjobs, because blowjobs are oral sex, and a rose by any other name yada yada.  I used the slightly coarser word because I wanted to remind you subtly that not all people think oral sex is natural and good - in fact, oral sex is generally considered "sodomy" and is technically illegal in several states (though not enforced).

My point is that your notions of what's "good" and what's "perverted" are fairly arbitrary, and you're in no position to accuse other people of being victims of Puritanical repression because they consider a shot to the face to be in the same ballpark as a shot in the mouth (whether they consider both to be good or both to be "perversions of good").  I mean, if you look at it from a geographical standpoint, it's only a few inches of difference, right?  Any "perversion" or "degradation" or other Puritanical expressions of outrage are purely in the eye of the beholder IMO.

Sigh.

The reason why I insist on using the term "oral sex" goes back to my first point. Women and Men can do it. What's so hard to understand about that?

It's not that I have a problem with using the word "blowjob". I have a problem with only using the word "blowjob".

As for "good": It's in the context of the word "natural". In other words, I'm simply saying that sex is a normal and human thing to do. A "good thing" in the frickin' Martha Stewart sense. Not "good" in the "good vs evil" sense.

And don't tell what "position" I'm in, and what I'm allowed or not allowed to accuse people of. IF I wanted to do, I could accuse people of ANYTHING. I could say just about ANYTHING. I'm very much "in the position" to do that. It would make no difference if I was dead wrong or dead right.

Let me make it simple for you:

How about you just "disagree" with me? This isn't a discussion about my "authority" on that matter.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Pococurante on October 19, 2005, 01:59:56 PM
(...) most women who work in it are victims of childhood molestation
Also, 24% may be high, though I'm not entirely sure. However, 24% is hardly most women who work in pr0n.

In 1997 the WHO stated 14-20% of all women had been "completedly raped".  Estimates run as high as 1 out of 3 women in the US are "molested".

So basically people are down on an industry that has safer statistics (24%) than open society (33%).  Sounds like rationalization... :P

The "(s)He cheats on me when (s)he consumes porn" is the argument that stands on its own merits.  But it does show the relationship is still in the uphill climb / don't slip mode.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Fargull on October 19, 2005, 02:06:12 PM
Holy crap.. this thread has gone to unusuall places.

Background: white non-christian
Region: austin
Culture:  geek

Sexuality between consenting adults is cool with me as long as no one shoots their eye out.. or hurts innocent bystanders.

The US is stupid with political / puritanical bullshit on sex.  Anything kept in the dark will fester and mold.



Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Samwise on October 19, 2005, 02:24:28 PM
Let me make it simple for you:

How about you just "disagree" with me? This isn't a discussion about my "authority" on that matter.

When you say things like:

Quote
But since people have been told by centuries long Puritanical thinking that a good thing was a "bad thing", they in turn, lump all bad things with it (but I digress a bit...This is another thread in it's own right).

[edit] And no, I'm not calling any of you Puritans.....But if I understood correctly, then I AM calling you victims of Puritans.

you are setting yourself up as an authority on what other people think and why they think it.  As such, you should expect to be challenged on it.

Also, when you say things like:

Quote
Let me make it simple for you:

you're spoilin' for a fight.  I won't oblige you, however.  Go look up WUN, I'm sure he's still lurking around the Intarweb somewhere.   :wink:


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: HaemishM on October 19, 2005, 02:35:47 PM
Usually the answer to "why can't I find a good man?" is "you aren't looknig for one."

It's hard to look for a good man when there's something in your eye.

We so need a rimshot emoticon. That was classic.

Request granted!

 :rimshot:

You are a god among insects.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: stray on October 19, 2005, 03:59:26 PM
you're spoilin' for a fight.  I won't oblige you, however.  Go look up WUN, I'm sure he's still lurking around the Intarweb somewhere.   :wink:

I'm not looking for a fight. Really I'm not. No matter what subject or thread, the only time you'll ever see me get heated is when I'm misunderstood. I don't care when someone disagrees with me, so long as they're disagreeing with "me", and not what they think is me. I just like people to know where I stand and leave it at that -- I feel no pressing need or obligation to convert the world to my viewpoints (once they understand them).

But now that you do know where I'm coming from (partly at least), I'm going to laugh my way through the rest of this thread. Just like any other. I don't give much of a shit about anything written here to get into fights with people.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: voodoolily on October 19, 2005, 04:51:16 PM
I agree Merusk.  Not a good statistic, but a large part of it is parents not parenting.  Did not mean to get all flamey earlier, I hope you people can forgive me one day.  I sent the individual an apology.

It's true, he did. Here it is:

Quote
« Sent to: voodoolily on: Today at 04:12:04 PM »     

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I hope you die.





-Cheddar

In 1997 the WHO stated 14-20% of all women had been "completedly raped".  Estimates run as high as 1 out of 3 women in the US are "molested".

So basically people are down on an industry that has safer statistics (24%) than open society (33%).  Sounds like rationalization... :P


The "study" that that statistic came from was criticized (by me) for not giving the sample size or sampling non-sex workers as a control. I still think that women who've been molested have a higher propensity for going into sex work than non-molested women, for the simple fact that they're already accustomed to being fucked by people who have no business fucking them. There are some stats for prostitutes, but I think there's a distinction in that porn "actresses" aren't putting themselves in the same kind of danger that street sex workers do.

Another flaw with the stat given (24%) is that many sex workers are aware of the link between childhood violence and chosen career paths, and in defiance may lie on a survey. Many sex workers want to believe (or may actually believe) that they like what they do and are in total control, and resent the notion that they don't really have a choice.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Margalis on October 19, 2005, 04:52:01 PM
When I took my human sexuality course in college, some 10 years ago now, I was given the statistic that between 50-70% of all women will suffer some form of molestation or unwanted fondling during their lifetime.  If this is accurate, then the number molested in porn isn't that far off from the number molested in any other segment of socieity.  Scary shit when you're raising a daughter.

Welcome to bullshit feminist stats 101.

70% of women will suffer from molestation or unwanted fondling? How much of that is molestation, and how much of that is unwanted fondling? I'm surprised it's only 70% - I would have guessed 95%.

95% of women will be raped or have their ass grabbed at some point in their life...ooh scary!

See the problem? Molestation and "unwanted fondling" are VERY different. Lumping them together is a scare tactic.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: voodoolily on October 19, 2005, 04:54:19 PM
There's also the date-rape issue, where a girl wakes up and regrets having fucked some guy, so charges date rape. This skews data. I think Paglia really nails the date "rape" issue for me, so I won't go into it.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Margalis on October 19, 2005, 04:54:42 PM

In 1997 the WHO stated 14-20% of all women had been "completedly raped".  Estimates run as high as 1 out of 3 women in the US are "molested".

So basically people are down on an industry that has safer statistics (24%) than open society (33%).  Sounds like rationalization... :P


You can't compare results like that across different studies!

That said, common sense tells us that sex industry workers are more likely to be sexually abused as children. You don't need a study to point out the obvious - just go watch reruns of Howard Stern.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Samwise on October 19, 2005, 05:38:56 PM
But now that you do know where I'm coming from (partly at least).

Actually, the more I reread your last few posts the more confused I get.  I should probably stop before I forget something important like where my chair is.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: stray on October 19, 2005, 06:02:20 PM
But now that you do know where I'm coming from (partly at least).

Actually, the more I reread your last few posts the more confused I get.  I should probably stop before I forget something important like where my chair is.

I'm on some medicine that's making my head spin. Maybe it's affecting my ability to be coherent. But here goes again:

"Blowjob" is only half of what "oral sex" conveys.

"Evil" is not the only opposite of good. The word Good can be used in more than one context (or did you not know that?). What's so hard to understand about someone saying "Sex is a GOOD and natural thing"?

Good as in "one of the good things in life". Good as in Apple Pie. Good as in......

Damnit. To hell with it. Stay confused.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Samwise on October 19, 2005, 06:12:45 PM
So if A is an element of S and proposition X is true for all elements in S then proposition X is not necessarily true for A?

At least now we're talking logic instead of stat (bleh).  Unfortunately, I have just misplaced my chair.



Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: stray on October 19, 2005, 07:19:57 PM
Geez man, I'm just saying that I don't care to exclusively use the term "Blow jobs" when referring to Oral Sex. It has nothing to do with excluding blow jobs out of the definition of "oral sex". It's just that blowjobs are only a part of it.

I don't get it. Why is that hard to understand?

 


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: MrHat on October 19, 2005, 07:27:15 PM
8----------->

Look, I made a penis.

Edit for Stray: ( . Y . ) boobs so you don't get upset about only 1 facet of it.

Double edit:  How do I make a titjob show up in ASCII?


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Samwise on October 19, 2005, 07:43:05 PM
Let S be "oral sex".
Let A be "blowjobs".  Blowjobs are a subset of "oral sex".
Let X be "oral sex is good", or "S is good".
Let Y be "blowjobs are good", or "A is good".

X -> Y.  Yes?


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: stray on October 19, 2005, 07:47:17 PM
Rundown:

The conversation turned towards "facial cumshots" (or something!) and whether one should feel bad for requesting them.

Somewhere along the way, someone made a point that "since a couple is already having sex and sucking on body parts, then a guy shouldn't feel repressed about asking if he could cum on a chick's face" (or something to that effect).

I stepped in and said "One is not the other". Basically. According to my definition, having sex and sucking on body parts is a two sided thing (sucking doesn't just entail "blowjobs", which is the ONLY FUCKING REASON why I insist on the term "oral sex" for the sake of my argument).

Now when I define "sex" as being a two sided thing, I'm also saying that cumming on someone's face....Isn't. That's it. That's all. I don't define it as "sex" per se, and just because people are having sex and sucking on each other doesn't necessarily mean cumming on a chick's face is a done deal as well.

So in closing, go fuck yourselves for making me explain that to you.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Samwise on October 19, 2005, 07:48:51 PM
So oral sex is two sided, but blowjobs aren't, even though blowjobs are oral sex.  Correct?

I still can't find my chair anywhere.  Damn you.

(Edit) Also, here's a rough ASCII titjob.

   A
(.)|(.)
   |
  o|o


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: stray on October 19, 2005, 08:02:57 PM
Damn you dude.

My insistence on using the term "oral sex" includes BOTH kinds. Going down AND blowjobs. BOTH. Got it?

If I only used the term "blowjobs", then nothing I said in my original point would stand.

If you like math and numbers, then my argument is that

"Sex" = 69

Cumming on someone's face is more of a

42

Err..Or something.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Samwise on October 19, 2005, 08:15:37 PM
But if your statement applies globally to oral sex, then it should apply specifically to blowjobs as well.  Whether or not you said blowjobs specifically isn't the point.  If you had said specifically mutual oral sex and not oral sex in general, then applying that statement to blowjobs in general would be erroneous, but you said no such thing.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: stray on October 19, 2005, 08:23:03 PM
I was kind enough to presume that when people hear me say "oral sex" they should know that I'm not excluding any part of it. I don't have to say "oral sex in the 'mutual' sense" because by definition, it already says that. My whole point says that. My whole point was ALL about mutuality. I AM including blowjobs. Just not ONLY blowjobs.

What. The. Fuck.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Shockeye on October 19, 2005, 08:25:20 PM
If it wasn't for porn, would anyone ever request giving a facial?


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Samwise on October 19, 2005, 08:26:51 PM
I AM including blowjobs.

So the proposition "blowjobs are good and natural" is then true, according to you.  Yes?

(edit: Okay, I would normally assume this goes without saying, but: acknowledging that blowjobs are good and natural does not preclude the existence of OTHER good and natural things, including other forms of oral sex that are good and natural.)


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Samwise on October 19, 2005, 08:32:49 PM
If it wasn't for porn, would anyone ever request giving a facial?

Yes, if for no other reason that someone had to have the idea before it was ever recorded in porn.

I have no doubt that porn popularized it immensely, though.  Of course, I'm sure you could say that for a number of sexual practices and positions.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: stray on October 19, 2005, 08:35:29 PM
I AM including blowjobs.

So the proposition "blowjobs are good and natural" is then true, according to you.  Yes?

(edit: Okay, I would normally assume this goes without saying, but: acknowledging that blowjobs are good and natural does not preclude the existence of OTHER good and natural things, including other forms of oral sex that are good and natural.)

If it was a world where only "blowjobs" were what was understood as "oral sex" (and nothing else), then

No, it wouldn't be a good and natural thing.

[edit] Don't even reply with something Socratic, man.

[edit] Why?

Because I don't have time for it. Because this isn't a world where only "blowjobs" are what is understood as being "oral sex".


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Samwise on October 19, 2005, 09:05:59 PM
But in our world (the real world, where I thought we were having this conversation), blowjobs are good and natural.  Correct?

This isn't a trick or anything.  I'm not asking you for some exacting definition that I will proceed to tear to flinders, I'm just asking a yes or no question.  You said you got irritated by people not understanding you, and I'm trying to understand the point on which we disagree.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: stray on October 19, 2005, 09:09:39 PM
Yes.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Cheddar on October 19, 2005, 09:28:34 PM
I thought private messages were supposed to be private. :(  Well unless Schild gets snoopy.  And only stupid people re-enact porn movies in private.  I prefer to make my own.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Paelos on October 19, 2005, 09:29:39 PM
I think we should all grab a couple of drinks and finish this conversation in the dark places of the Ironforge Tram.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Cheddar on October 19, 2005, 09:34:41 PM
OUR AVATARS ARE DANCING TOGETHER. AWESOME!


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Samwise on October 19, 2005, 10:07:16 PM
PMs are too much bother, and it's not like this thread was useful anyway.

I am hypnotized by the dancing avatars.

Stray, we're in agreement on blowjobs being good, then.  I already retracted my inference of "evil".  What do we disagree on?


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: stray on October 19, 2005, 10:34:26 PM
What do we disagree on?

Maybe the Puritan thing, but oh well. At least you understood it  :wink:.

Apologies for getting angry. Not an excuse, but I've felt like crap all day.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Cheddar on October 19, 2005, 10:50:26 PM
What do we disagree on?

Pokemon.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Samwise on October 20, 2005, 12:15:47 AM
Damn.  Am I supposed to be pro-Pokemon or anti-Pokemon?


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Stephen Zepp on October 20, 2005, 12:17:13 AM
There is something REAALLLY scary about seeing symbolic logic proofs interweaved with discussions about oral sex...


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Hanzii on October 20, 2005, 01:02:10 AM
This is one of those threads where we should all we especially thankful that TFWSNBN is no longer around.

See, I miss the guy for the first time ever.
With his input this abortion of a thread would have been denned 4 pages ago (and imagine that I fought for 14 days to regain internet connection... and this is what I get).

Background: white aetheist
Region: Scandinavia
Culture:  Freethinking Scandinavian

I like porn and I think the women (who incidentially makes the most money in the business) are old enough to decide for themselves. I'm the same way about most forms of prostitution (in the part of the world I live in poverty is no excuse). Whatever two consenting adults do in the privacy
 of their own home is not mine nor the states business - I just wish the wouldn't post about it on gaming messageboards...


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Samwise on October 20, 2005, 01:33:37 AM
There is something REAALLLY scary about seeing symbolic logic proofs interweaved with discussions about oral sex...

I think I would have paid a lot more attention in discrete math if the problems involved oral sex.  It really does breathe new life into the subject matter to apply it to something useful.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Ironwood on October 20, 2005, 01:45:08 AM
Please Stop.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: HaemishM on October 20, 2005, 08:38:54 AM
There is something REAALLLY scary about seeing symbolic logic proofs interweaved with discussions about oral sex...

And I was just thinking there was too much goddamn math being used to discuss money shots.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Shockeye on October 20, 2005, 08:47:51 AM
There is something REAALLLY scary about seeing symbolic logic proofs interweaved with discussions about oral sex...

And I was just thinking there was too much goddamn math being used to discuss money shots.

"On a very special episode of Numb3rs..."


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Ironwood on October 20, 2005, 08:59:01 AM
Cue Sesame Street :  "I'm going to paint an Eleven.  Yeah, that's right.  An Eleven.  Take it all, bitch."



Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Pococurante on October 20, 2005, 09:44:01 AM
You can't compare results like that across different studies!

Welcome to wry humor - shake hands please.

I lived with a (cycling membership) group of dancers back in the bad old days when AIDs was still the gay pneumonia.  A handful did fit the classic abuse profile.  But the most of them were mindless twits who really liked partying and fucking all night - when I bothered to ask why they'd just shrug and ask where else can someone earn that kind of money doing what they'd do anyway.  These weren't folks with much of a long range view beyond who was picking up the latest tab.

Great times.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: voodoolily on October 20, 2005, 10:58:57 AM
I thought private messages were supposed to be private.

And I thought my blog was on a different site. Oh wells. Quit sending me hate mail, assbreath.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Margalis on October 20, 2005, 11:09:25 AM
You can't compare results like that across different studies!

Welcome to wry humor - shake hands please.

Urm...I'm as good as anyone at picking up sarcasm but with things like that it's really hard to tell.

Anyway, I would say there is a decent difference between porn star and dancer. Also notice that when porn stars get big a lot of them move to doing only girl-girl things? There is a reason for that.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Pococurante on October 20, 2005, 11:15:52 AM
What exactly is the difference?  One is live the other recorded - beyond that I see no difference.  Or do you not believe most dancers are also prostitutes?  Isn't a porn "star" just another way to sell sex services, a prostitute?

The girls I knew slid into the sexworker business - it was amazing how fast someone can justify baring boobs to friends, then baring them to strangers, then to backroom asembly-line servicing.  Every now and then one would move out saying she'd gotten an agent and was doing films.  One of them told me she looked forward to doing porn so "she'd have her nights back".  Hehe...


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: voodoolily on October 20, 2005, 11:27:32 AM
[Also notice that when porn stars get big a lot of them move to doing only girl-girl things? There is a reason for that.

Actually, girl-on-girl is how many young women are lured into doing porn, because it seems more vanilla than getting rammed by some dude in front of a camera. Women are recruited into it, usually by being asked on the street if they've ever done any modeling. The girl's flattered, agrees to show up, maybe does a few nudes, then gets asked if she wants to do film. She shyly declines, then gets the "it's cool, just with another girl. Nothing hardcore or anything." Then she relents and after a little while the money is too good to pass up and she doing anal before she knows what the fuck has happened.

I agree with Poco - that's why I refer to all of them as "sex workers". They are in the business of selling sex. If a chef works catering, at a restaurant or privately she's still a chef, right?


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Cheddar on October 20, 2005, 11:34:49 AM
Speaking from experience?  Really, for someone who does not watch porn, nor let her SO watch porn, you sure know a lot about how the industry works.  I think you are just making up facts to justify your view on the industry!


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: voodoolily on October 20, 2005, 11:43:16 AM
Actually, my views on it are largely based on how the industry works. I looked at a shitload of porn when I was younger, and learned about the other stuff when I was an activist teen and read feminist authors like Andrea Dworkin. One of best girlfriends in high school's mom was the director for the Center for Prostitution Alternatives. The only reason I don't want my SO to look at it is because of what I said before - it makes me sick to my stomach to think about him getting off on other women. I know that's silly, but it just is what it is. I've never tried to use it as any kind of justification.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Ironwood on October 20, 2005, 01:57:27 PM
it makes me sick to my stomach to think about him getting off on other women.


Holy fuck.  Do you know anything about guys ?


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: voodoolily on October 20, 2005, 02:04:12 PM
Yes, and that's why I don't think about it. If he doesn't have a blatant demonstration of it around the house, I don't have to.

Edit: He's gotten shit about this from buddies of his, but he sees it like this: on the one hand, he can't look at porn (which he says he doesn't really give a shit about). On the other, he's marrying a hot chick who's an awesome cook and games.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Ironwood on October 20, 2005, 02:07:55 PM
And you've checked the hard drive for Encrypted and hidden folders too ?


(If you're reading this honey, of course that's not what I do.  It's just an idea...  Honey ?  Come back ?!)


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Samwise on October 20, 2005, 02:09:11 PM
USB drive for the win.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: voodoolily on October 20, 2005, 02:10:53 PM
Every time I've ever snooped around past boyfriends' shit I've found something I wished I hadn't. I trust him, and respect his privacy.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Ironwood on October 20, 2005, 02:15:21 PM
Hypocrisy.  It's the key to a happy relationship.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Sauced on October 20, 2005, 02:22:22 PM
Oh for fucks sake.

For the record, she told me about this before we started dating.  The reason it is a non issue is because I don't look at porn.  I don't get off on it, I find the women disgusting (and very sad), and I don't have a complex where I need to feel powerful over the woman I'm with.  Feel free to make fun of me for that, but the fact of the matter is this:  If rubbing one out to porn was an important recreational habit for me, well, she made it clear from the outset that she wasn't down with that, and that would have been that.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Merusk on October 20, 2005, 02:36:59 PM
I mock you and your entire belief structure. Your thoughts are meaningless and your opinions matter not.

There, now that that's over can we move on? No? Ok I'll be over here organizing my pron CDs.  The wife says I can have 'em, I just can't watch 'em when she or the kids are around.  Damn you all for making divorce look less attractive.  :-D


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Roac on October 20, 2005, 02:45:05 PM
For the record, she told me about this before we started dating. 

For the record, no one cares about the record, since RL can't be verified.  Especially not when it's whether some random dood_2314 likes porn or not, unless the guy also claimed to be gay.  Doubly so when the guy will get in trouble for watching porn, and his SO is reading what he types.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: voodoolily on October 20, 2005, 02:49:46 PM
Gay guys watch way more pr0n than straight guys, dood_2314.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Roac on October 20, 2005, 02:52:02 PM
You're an inside expert on gays now too?


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Cheddar on October 20, 2005, 02:52:28 PM
Internet reputation is serious business.

And the thread just keeps getting better and better!



edit. added stuffs.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: voodoolily on October 20, 2005, 02:58:32 PM
You're an inside expert on gays now too?

Honey, when have I ever not been the biggest fag hag here? Ninja please. I send Sobelius a fucking lovenote when I found out he was gay.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Shockeye on October 20, 2005, 03:18:44 PM
You're an inside expert on gays now too?

Honey, when have I ever not been the biggest fag hag here? Ninja please. I send Sobelius a fucking lovenote when I found out he was gay.

You are so close to a Margaret Cho grief title...


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Roac on October 20, 2005, 03:27:46 PM
Honey, when have I ever not been the biggest fag hag here?

Heh, I know.  I just find it amusing that a woman who has a love of porn-fanatical gays (and proud of it), and an apparent personal history of porn-love, has control issues when it comes to your SO looking at a couple dirty pics.  Ironwood was spot on.  Please continue.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Paelos on October 20, 2005, 03:46:42 PM
To the women who think their SO doesn't beat off to porn...what do you think he is beating off to? If you think he's not beating off AT ALL, well, I won't even bother with how far out of touch with reality you are. You're in denial at that point. He is beating off, I can assure you of that. He is doing it with either porn or something in his head. And if you are touchy about the "cheating" aspect of beating off to other women, YOU CAN'T CONTROL OUR MINDS.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Cheddar on October 20, 2005, 03:49:55 PM
Dance puppets dance!



Teehee I love how our avatars dance together Paelos.  Then again shiny string amuses me also.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Sauced on October 20, 2005, 03:54:04 PM
So, help me get this right.  This is where I post song lyrics, right?


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Paelos on October 20, 2005, 04:00:35 PM
I just wanted to see how many times I could put "beat off" into a post while making a point.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Shockeye on October 20, 2005, 04:11:57 PM
So, help me get this right.  This is where I post song lyrics, right?

I love myself
I want you to love me
When I'm feelin' down
I want you above me
I search myself
I want you to find me
I forget myself
I want you to remind me

Chorus:
I don't want anybody else
When I think about you
I touch myself
I don't want anybody else
Oh no, oh no, oh no

You're the one who makes me happy honey
You're the sun who makes me shine
When you're around I'm always laughing
I want to make you mine

I close my eyes
And see you before me
Think I would die
If you were to ignore me
A fool could see
Just how much I adore you
I get down on my knees
I'd do anything for you

Chorus

I love myself
I want you to love me
When I'm feelin' down
I want you above me
I search myself
I want you to find me
I forget myself
I want you to remind me

Chorus

I want you
I don't want anybody else
And when I think about you
I touch myself
Ooh, oooh, oooooh, aaaaaah

Chorus


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Fabricated on October 20, 2005, 04:13:06 PM
(http://img466.imageshack.us/img466/975/mario5dj.gif)


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Cheddar on October 20, 2005, 04:18:12 PM
So, help me get this right.  This is where I post song lyrics, right?

Nooooo.  This thread is awesome on so many different levels!


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Sauced on October 20, 2005, 04:32:06 PM
Alright Ladies and Gentlemen!
I'm gonna do a smash hit rock song for all of you
 sittin in the audience
 watchin the show
 at the Ludlow.
Which is called Fuck With Me and Find Out.

You think you can get away with murder
You don't know who you foolin with.
I'm goin to shoot you with my BB Gun.

Fuck With Me and Find Out
Fuck With Me and Find Out
Fuck With Me and Find Out
Fuck With Me and Find Out
Fuck With Me and Find Out
Fuck With Me and Find Out

Keep on with this shit
Keep on talkin shit to me
  and I will bust you in the chops
Plus, I will knock your block off.

Fuck With Me and Find Out
Fuck With Me and Find Out
Fuck With Me and Find Out
Fuck With Me and Find Out
Fuck With Me and Find Out
Fuck With Me and Find Out

Gingerbread knocked me to the floor
He picked up a stick and hit me upside in the head once
  And in the back six times
He also BB-ed me in the back with his BB Gun

Fuck With Me and Find Out
Fuck With Me and Find Out
Fuck With Me and Find Out
Fuck With Me and Find Out
Fuck With Me and Find Out
Fuck With Me and Find Out
(... and then like 10 more times?  I lost count)

Rock Over London!
Rock On Chicago!
Diet Pepsi!


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: voodoolily on October 20, 2005, 04:33:28 PM
Honey, when have I ever not been the biggest fag hag here?

Heh, I know.  I just find it amusing that a woman who has a love of porn-fanatical gays (and proud of it), and an apparent personal history of porn-love, has control issues when it comes to your SO looking at a couple dirty pics.  Ironwood was spot on.  Please continue.

Duh, gay porn is hot. Fags are cute and hilarious - what's not to love? Everyone has control issues. I'm just honest about mine.

Edit: omg is that that one retarded black guy? What's his name again?


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Fabricated on October 20, 2005, 04:34:26 PM
 My last girlfriend didn't like me thought she might be
most likely a dyke she just didn't excite me,
Lefty? ya, but that was alright,
She was hotter than the sun, but she just wasn't that bright
My mistake she was more flakey than a leper colony
I think a wooden clothespin would have been much better company
Ass like donkey acting funky gave her "L" now she's a flunky
So my love for her died quicker than a batch of sea monkeys
Early bird gets the worm spread your legs or spread the word
So what if I'm not he smartest peanut in the turd
I'm white which goes with everything but I can come in any colour
And I'm looking for the kind of girl that reminds me of my mother
But it's hard to find a girl with a viper tattooed on her tushy
And how many girls do you know that can play the harmonica with their pussies?
Like em easy and hot and sweet like a Rice Krispy Treat, gee
You know what I really want in a girl? Me.

I need to find a New Vagina
Any kinda New vagina
It's hard to rhyme a word like vagina
Calvin Klein? kinda, North Carolina

Women are like dog doo hear me through don't interrupt
It'd just the older that they are the easier they get to pick-up
I'd fill the generation gap, clear the cobwebs from her rafters
Old hens would rather put out than be put out to the pasture
No age just ain't a gauge I like my girls like my cheese
Preferrably for me fat-free American singles only
I want my next chic anorexic the winner is the thinner
Won't have to take her skinny ass out to a fancy dinner
Like Sizzler she go ta beef we'll chew the fat
If I forget to put the seat up I can put up with her crap
Let her lash out and crack the whip but not in bed I don't play rough
No I can't be tied down with a girl that wants me tied up
Just independant like NOFX smart like Janeane Garafalo
She'd use big words to make fun of me so that I would never know
Bestow upon me of her wisdom of the Dewey Decimal System gee
You know what I really want in a girl? Me.

I need to find a New Vagina
Any kinda New vagina
It's hard to rhyme a word like vagina
Kevin Klein? kinda, South Carolina

Vagina. . . .


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Cheddar on October 20, 2005, 04:35:47 PM
You people sicken me.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Sauced on October 20, 2005, 04:36:56 PM
Edit: omg is that that one retarded black guy? What's his name again?

Wesley Willis.  R.I.P.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: stray on October 20, 2005, 04:38:04 PM
Heh, I had one of his albums. I didn't know he was retarded though. I thought he was schizophrenic.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: voodoolily on October 20, 2005, 04:39:46 PM
I get him confused with someone I knew from riding the bus that always had a boombox on his wheelchair and talked like Wesley Willis. THe other guy was retarded, but maybe Wesley Willis wasn't?


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Xerapis on October 20, 2005, 05:55:50 PM
Gay guys watch way more pr0n than straight guys, dood_2314.

Nice stereotype.

For the record (just had to do that), I don't watch any. And I don't let my b/f do it either.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Paelos on October 20, 2005, 07:02:38 PM
I'm more inclined to believe a gay man on how much porn they watch than Voodoo.

Thanks Xerapis!


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Samwise on October 20, 2005, 07:08:26 PM
I hadn't heard the one about gay guys watching more porn than straight guys... it's hard to fathom ANYONE watching more porn than straight guys.

I could easily believe that gay guys watch more porn than straight women, though.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Margalis on October 20, 2005, 09:20:40 PM
I hadn't heard the one about gay guys watching more porn than straight guys... it's hard to fathom ANYONE watching more porn than straight guys.

Gay men have invented the time machine!

Anyway...yeah men like their porn. The thing women don't understand is that it really doesn't mean anything at all - it's purely biological. That said, it's fine to tell you SO not to look at porn - as long as you don't expect them to take it seriously. Don't ask don't tell is probably the best approach there.

I remember when I was in college two of my friends were dating, and the girl found porn on the guys computer and got all upset. It's silly.

I don't think porn is particularly good for society, but tons of things are bad for society but still have a right to be around. Fast food is bad for society, in a much more demonstrable way than porn.

And how come there are so many anti-porn crusaders yet so few anti-Romance novel ones? Romance novels are basically porn for women. And there is no way those are good for society - so dumb.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Samwise on October 20, 2005, 09:51:20 PM
Romance novels are more like hentai than live action porn, in that no real live men are involved in the production of romance novels.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: stray on October 20, 2005, 09:51:43 PM
So basically...

You guys are saying that Sauced is a liar. Either that, or you're saying that you know him better than Voodoolily or he himself does?


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Samwise on October 20, 2005, 09:57:24 PM
I'm going with "freak of nature", personally.  (I mean that in a good way.)


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Margalis on October 20, 2005, 10:38:07 PM
Eh...I'm sure there are men that are not into porn. Personally I'm not into hardcore porn at all. (Men in porn = keep away!) Some people think I'm really weird for liking my porn sans penises. So to each his own.

I'm just saying in general asking a man to keep away from porn is kind of silly, especially if you understand that porn is not threatening any more than Fabio on the cover of some romance novel is. And again, it's not the asking so much that's silly - it's the expecting that they will listen. As a man your duty is to at least hide your stuff a bit. Like I probably wouldn't make a naked woman my desktop.

People shit but I don't really want them telling me about it and I certainly don't want to watch them do it. Sort of the same deal here - out of sight out of mind.

If someone told me there is no way we could date if I had any porn around, I would probably say that's fine but there is no way we could date if she wore matching sox. Just to be a bit silly and contrary.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Fabricated on October 20, 2005, 11:06:48 PM
Eh...I'm sure there are men that are not into porn. Personally I'm not into hardcore porn at all. (Men in porn = keep away!) Some people think I'm really weird for liking my porn sans penises. So to each his own.
I have always believed that particular preference points towards some sort of a problem. I'm probably thinking of Freudian psychology though, which is largely a load of crap.

Ditto with women who don't want their man having any sort of porn.  Sorry, you're either a religious prude or very insecure in some way. The vast majority of guys will pleasure themselves, and oh noes, they may not be thinking about you when they do it. Get the fuck over it or don't date ever again.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Hanzii on October 20, 2005, 11:31:51 PM
Okay, all you pus-sucking motherfuckers out there
It's time to win a chance to butt-bang
Your daughter's tight virgin cherry ass to caller #666

The urge is too much to take
All I can think about is playing with myself
It's time to masturbate
I've got my Hustler and I don't need nothin' else

Ginger...Ginger

My hand gets tired and my dick gets sore
But the girls of porn want more
So I flip throught the pages one more time
And I just let the jism fly

Yeah yeah yeah

A quarter for a peep show
A private booth or talking to a naked whore
XXX video
976 and I can whack it on the phone

Nobody's home, I'm alone
The devil in Miss Jones
Nobody's home, I'm alone
Aja & John Holmes

We got gushin' gonads, tingling tushes
Hairy balls and hairy bushes
S & M, whips and chains
Pregnant ladies with menstrual pains
We got hand jobs and nipple tweaks
Finger bangs and slappin' cheeks
We got rape, necro & both ways
And lots of hung studs for all you gays
We got incest & bestiality too
We got Sade & the sweetest taboo
We got girls who'll eat your pee and poo
And guys who'd love to fuck your shoe
There's she-males, lezbos, & shaved beav
And D-cup mamas with so much cleave
Senior citizens who love to watch
And sniff those skid marks from your crotch - yeah!

Ain't got no woman next to me
I just got this magazine
And what's on the TV screen
But that's okay with me

I was trained to fuck you baby...


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: stray on October 20, 2005, 11:38:50 PM
Get the fuck over it or don't date ever again.

Geez man, is this like offensive on some personal level to you, or are you just that rude?

Lol. So if people don't like porn, they've got insecurity problems? Seriously man. That speaks more about yourself than it does them.




Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Margalis on October 21, 2005, 12:03:31 AM
I have always believed that particular preference points towards some sort of a problem.

Err..come again? I have a problem because I don't like to see mens dicks flopping around in my porn? One mans problem is another mans heterosexuality.  :wink:

Either that or I'm a lesbian trapped in a straight mans body.

Anyway I think it's normal for women to not want their men to have any porn. And I suspect that a lot of women that are perfectly fine with their man looking at porn all the time have issues of their own. A certain amount of jealousy is normal and dare I say attractive in some cases. Just like a lot of women prefer a slightly jealous man. My point is just if you DO find out your man is looking at porn it's not the end of the world and it doesn't say something terrible about either of you. Men like to look at naked women. That's all there is to it. Women like to look at smartly dressed men - we don't deny them that!


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: SuperPopTart on October 21, 2005, 03:22:46 AM
Gay guys watch way more pr0n than straight guys, dood_2314.

No they don't.

In the adult industry, and I've become somewhat of a mini expert now that I am otherwise thrust into the world of adult themed business and what it's main selling points are. I can tell you right now that the adult industry caters towards one preference when it comes to videos, stories, audio, pictures - Straight Males.  In fact, it goes about like this:

<Biggest Target Audience> Straight Males
<Second Biggest> Bi-Sexual Males and Females
<Third Biggest> Gay and Lesbian "Fantasy"
<And finally...> Straight Females

(As you can see we are on the bottom of the ladder, and we may be lower than that because I did not count the social deviants that love things that society doesn't see as norm. Point is, it's typical Male fantasy that is  dealt with.) 

On the other note:

I understand if pornography doesn't turn you on, okay that's a personal preference but why in the world does it bother you that your S/O is looking AT pornography? It's just that.. it's virtual. It's your man or woman fantasizing. Congratulations, you are married/dating a LIVE human being that actively enjoys being sexual. It's a great world to express with another person. No one should be cut at the knees because of their preference if it is healthy, sane, legal and a personal choice.  Margalis is right. Men love to look at women and fantasize "What it would be like". Women do as well. It's GOOD to do that. Newsflash for women: This can benefit you.


On a personal note, I encourage my husband to look at porn. In fact we shop for porn together, he goes over and looks at content I have to post on the websites I work for I have more pornography on my computer then he will ever have on his. I run ideas by him for banners and looks and outlines. I don't want to be with someone who cannot express themselves in the way they want to. Luckily, I am with someone who can and I hope feels freely to do so.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Ironwood on October 21, 2005, 05:07:43 AM
To the women who think their SO doesn't beat off to porn...what do you think he is beating off to? If you think he's not beating off AT ALL, well, I won't even bother with how far out of touch with reality you are. You're in denial at that point. He is beating off, I can assure you of that. He is doing it with either porn or something in his head. And if you are touchy about the "cheating" aspect of beating off to other women, YOU CAN'T CONTROL OUR MINDS.


OMG, The Bloomin' CHRISTIAN made my point for me.

Arg.


Edited : And then the SuperPopTart filled in the rest of the details with a female perspective.

For Clarity :  To each his own.  I'm not judging or even caring.  I just find it weird when something annoys a woman and she'll tell her man not to do it.  Then she won't even attempt to verify if he's not doing it because 'she trusts him'.  False trust fucks relationships faster than none, imo.



Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Merusk on October 21, 2005, 05:17:46 AM
It doesn't matter where you get your appetite, so long as you eat at home.  (And don't mention how great that place up the street looks when dining.)


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Hanzii on October 21, 2005, 05:27:07 AM
... and we're back at oral sex.








(which is just as bad as toe-sucking)


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Ironwood on October 21, 2005, 05:32:15 AM
Toe Sucking is Never discussed in Britain anymore, not since David Mellor did it.

Yuck.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: SuperPopTart on October 21, 2005, 06:25:20 AM
See Feet do nothing for me. I mean what happens if you are gnawing on a big toe and then crack.. a toenail comes off in your mouth or you get a bacterial fungus?

Ew.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Ironwood on October 21, 2005, 06:43:19 AM
Urg, urg, urg.

Heebies.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Kenrick on October 21, 2005, 07:16:47 AM
My wife has sharp toenails.  I think the only time I ever tried, i sliced the roof of my mouth.

Never again.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: HaemishM on October 21, 2005, 09:06:16 AM
So, help me get this right.  This is where I post song lyrics, right?

I love myself
I want you to love me
When I'm feelin' down
I want you above me
I search myself
I want you to find me
I forget myself
I want you to remind me

Chorus:
I don't want anybody else
When I think about you
I touch myself
I don't want anybody else
Oh no, oh no, oh no

You're the one who makes me happy honey
You're the sun who makes me shine
When you're around I'm always laughing
I want to make you mine

I close my eyes
And see you before me
Think I would die
If you were to ignore me
A fool could see
Just how much I adore you
I get down on my knees
I'd do anything for you

Chorus

I love myself
I want you to love me
When I'm feelin' down
I want you above me
I search myself
I want you to find me
I forget myself
I want you to remind me

Chorus

I want you
I don't want anybody else
And when I think about you
I touch myself
Ooh, oooh, oooooh, aaaaaah

Chorus

Thinking about the video for that song.

HAAAAWWWWTTTTT.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: ClydeJr on October 21, 2005, 09:08:34 AM
When I got married to my wife, she had about as much porn as I did. Marrying her was like winning the lottery twice!

Toe Sucking

She doesn't like toe sucking but if I give her a foot massage, she'll do almost anything :lol:


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: voodoolily on October 21, 2005, 09:17:56 AM
For the record (just had to do that), I don't watch any. And I don't let my b/f do it either.

Sorry for the gross generalization, One Gay Man. What do you have to say about my stereotype that y'all are all cute and hilarious? Did that one sting? But at least that proves that not all men (of whatever persuasion) are into porn. FACE, Fabricated.

No they don't.

In the adult industry, and I've become somewhat of a mini expert now that I am otherwise thrust into the world of adult themed business and what it's main selling points are. I can tell you right now that the adult industry caters towards one preference when it comes to videos, stories, audio, pictures - Straight Males.  In fact, it goes about like this:

<Biggest Target Audience> Straight Males
<Second Biggest> Bi-Sexual Males and Females
<Third Biggest> Gay and Lesbian "Fantasy"
<And finally...> Straight Females


There's a difference between the type of porn produced and the consumers of said porn. I'd hazard a guess that the majority of consumers of lezzie porn are also straight men, not lesbians. Some homosexuals get off on straight porn (or watch it because there aren't as many choices for them). There are also more straight men in the world than gay, but per capita I don't think straight guys take the lead.

But you are 100% correct about one thing: the adult entertainment industry exists almost solely for the pleasure of straight men. Maybe that's where my resentment comes from.

btw there's no such thing as "bacterial fungus" - they are two different kingdoms of life


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Sky on October 21, 2005, 10:03:35 AM
Quote
But you are 100% correct about one thing: the adult entertainment industry exists almost solely for the pleasure of straight men. Maybe that's where my resentment comes from.
Porn, yes. Because that's how men are supposedly wired: for the shallow visual thrill.

For women? Romance novels.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Cheddar on October 21, 2005, 10:13:36 AM
blah blah words

Idiot.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: voodoolily on October 21, 2005, 10:14:52 AM

Ha ha, your wife left you.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Margalis on October 21, 2005, 10:17:26 AM
Ha ha...you guys can really get worked up over this stuff.

 :mob:


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: voodoolily on October 21, 2005, 10:20:46 AM
He started it.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Sauced on October 21, 2005, 10:25:42 AM
Just ignore him.  It's not like he's going anywhere.  I mean, if he did, he'd have to spend a whole day at the DMV and you know what a pain in the ass that can be.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: stray on October 21, 2005, 10:33:41 AM
Y'know, Wesley Willis was probably a better artist than he was a musician

Exhibit 1

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v231/lonestar627/Misc/danryan.jpg)



Exhibit 2

Rock 'n' Roll McDonald's (http://www.alternativetentacles.com/octopodes/483/@-tv3vu5zw4-z4XmkIP/Wesley_Willis-Rock_n_Roll_McDo.mp3)


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Sauced on October 21, 2005, 10:38:27 AM
Linking to one of the finest examples of Dada-ism in musical form isn't helping your argument.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Shockeye on October 21, 2005, 10:39:50 AM
See Feet do nothing for me. I mean what happens if you are gnawing on a big toe and then crack.. a toenail comes off in your mouth or you get a bacterial fungus?

Ew.

What happens if you're sucking on a dick and get smegma all over your blouse?

See, there's drawbacks to sucking on just about anything.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: voodoolily on October 21, 2005, 10:43:59 AM
wow, magic markers ftw.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Nevermore on October 21, 2005, 11:08:21 AM
For women? Romance novels.

Romance novels are like Skinemax.  For the good stuff it's Black Lace (http://www.blacklace.co.uk), an imprint out of the UK.  Most Borders carry at least a few titles.

By the way, this thread is retarded in far too many ways to list.

Edit: inserted the link for the one or two people who might actually care.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: SuperPopTart on October 21, 2005, 11:10:09 AM
See Feet do nothing for me. I mean what happens if you are gnawing on a big toe and then crack.. a toenail comes off in your mouth or you get a bacterial fungus?

Ew.

What happens if you're sucking on a dick and get smegma all over your blouse?

See, there's drawbacks to sucking on just about anything.



Well you should be swallowing anyway.


And VDL... now don't go making fun of people's marital status. That isn't very nice. Marriage and Divorce is a personal thing and shouldn't be made fun of unless one has personal knowledge of said information.

That being said. Congratulations on getting engaged? May marriage treat you better then it has others and may you never, ever endure a painfully slow, agaonizing and emotionally pricey divorce.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: HaemishM on October 21, 2005, 11:39:15 AM

That's not cool. Stop it.

Just because this thread is talking about retarded stuff doesn't mean we should start attacking each other. That goes for everyone.

Voodoo believes what she believes about pr0n and that's fine, because her man's on this board and seems to have no problems with it. I only called into question her assertion that most pr0n women were molested, when even her stats didn't say that at all. There's no reason to be douchebags about this thing.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Margalis on October 21, 2005, 12:12:51 PM
No, keep going, this is enjoyable. :evil:


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Fabricated on October 21, 2005, 12:59:15 PM
Get the fuck over it or don't date ever again.

Geez man, is this like offensive on some personal level to you, or are you just that rude?

Lol. So if people don't like porn, they've got insecurity problems? Seriously man. That speaks more about yourself than it does them.
It's not so much as not liking porn as it is not liking other people having it, especially significant others. There's some sort of deeply seated insecurity or jealousy going on if you want your man/woman thinking only about you 100% of the time, considering the imperfect beings we are.

And I'm not rude, I'm right.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Samwise on October 21, 2005, 01:08:20 PM
He's blunt, but he has a point.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Kenrick on October 21, 2005, 01:29:40 PM
Doggystyle is pretty popular too. (http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/10/21/D8DCCAI83.html)


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: voodoolily on October 21, 2005, 01:35:58 PM
It's not so much as not liking porn as it is not liking other people having it, especially significant others. There's some sort of deeply seated insecurity or jealousy going on if you want your man/woman thinking only about you 100% of the time, considering the imperfect beings we are.

And I'm not rude, I'm right.

So, you don't have a problem with the notion that your woman might think about banging other guys? Seriously, think about that one for a minute. While you're in the sack, or wherever, are you really cool with her thinking about someone else? If so, then I totally commend your openmindedness. I wish we could all be that healthy.

I don't think anyone ever said that they don't like other people having porn, I only said it makes me feel icky to think about my SO having it. Jealousy has a biological basis (the same way male visual stimulation does).


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: voodoolily on October 21, 2005, 01:39:23 PM
Also, Cheddar, I'm sorry for punching below the belt. I have a younger brother. As a big sister, being a cunt is my god-given talent and birthright.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Ironwood on October 21, 2005, 01:45:12 PM
So, you don't have a problem with the notion that your woman might think about banging other guys? Seriously, think about that one for a minute. While you're in the sack, or wherever, are you really cool with her thinking about someone else? If so, then I totally commend your openmindedness. I wish we could all be that healthy.

Yes.  *thinks a minute* Yes.

Thank you.

To be honest, if I was my wife I'd pretty much have to be thinking about other guys....


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: stray on October 21, 2005, 01:47:55 PM
Move over Rodney Dangerfield....



Oh wait   :cry:


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: voodoolily on October 21, 2005, 01:48:29 PM
You mean you're not that dashing bearded man IRL? Got a little Desperate Housewives sitch?


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Cheddar on October 21, 2005, 01:55:04 PM
I am so hurt inside that only pictures of boobies can console me.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Shockeye on October 21, 2005, 01:55:53 PM
I am so hurt inside that only pictures of boobies can console me.

That kind of pain never goes away. I suggest subscribing to all skin magazines and pay TV channels you can.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Cheddar on October 21, 2005, 01:57:06 PM
I am so hurt inside that only pictures of boobies can console me.

That kind of pain never goes away. I suggest subscribing to all skin magazines and pay TV channels you can.

Good point.  Subscribing to Hustler and downloading Asian pron even as we speak.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Fabricated on October 21, 2005, 01:58:19 PM
So, you don't have a problem with the notion that your woman might think about banging other guys? Seriously, think about that one for a minute. While you're in the sack, or wherever, are you really cool with her thinking about someone else? If so, then I totally commend your openmindedness. I wish we could all be that healthy.

I don't think anyone ever said that they don't like other people having porn, I only said it makes me feel icky to think about my SO having it. Jealousy has a biological basis (the same way male visual stimulation does).
I'd be perfectly cool with that as long as we both enjoyed it.

And some jealousy does have its place in a relationship. I mean, everyone wants to be wanted right?


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Cheddar on October 21, 2005, 02:01:33 PM
Honestly, who cares what the woman thinks?  Like Bernie Mac said, "Bitch I am getting mine, its up to you to get yours!" or something along those lines. 


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: stray on October 21, 2005, 02:07:06 PM
Oh come on, man!


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Cheddar on October 21, 2005, 02:07:32 PM
Oh come on, man!

Its true.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: voodoolily on October 21, 2005, 02:13:36 PM
And size does matter.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Cheddar on October 21, 2005, 02:14:23 PM
And size does matter.

Concur.  Am I big enough?

(http://badgas.co.uk/moments/moment_060.jpg)


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Bunk on October 21, 2005, 02:28:50 PM
I am so hurt inside that only pictures of boobies can console me.

That kind of pain never goes away. I suggest subscribing to all skin magazines and pay TV channels you can.

Good point.  Subscribing to Hustler and downloading Asian pron even as we speak.

Damn, thought he was talking about VDL's boobies...


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: voodoolily on October 21, 2005, 02:32:28 PM
Why look at mine when there's a perfectly decent set on Santa up there?


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Fabricated on October 21, 2005, 02:33:17 PM
And size does matter.
Length or girth?


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Merusk on October 21, 2005, 03:30:28 PM
Why look at mine when there's a perfectly decent set on Santa up there?

Nobody likes pancake boobs.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: voodoolily on October 21, 2005, 03:38:54 PM
And size does matter.
Length or girth?

Both.

(http://www.braveheart-ventures.co.uk/assets/images/autogen/a_Paul___David_with_giant_beer.jpg)


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Paelos on October 21, 2005, 03:54:10 PM
I  :heart: Giant Beer


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Yegolev on October 21, 2005, 07:34:41 PM
I am so hurt inside that only pictures of boobies can console me.

That kind of pain never goes away. I suggest subscribing to all skin magazines and pay TV channels you can.

usenet ftw


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Yegolev on October 21, 2005, 07:40:07 PM
So, you don't have a problem with the notion that your woman might think about banging other guys? Seriously, think about that one for a minute. While you're in the sack, or wherever, are you really cool with her thinking about someone else? If so, then I totally commend your openmindedness. I wish we could all be that healthy.

My wife and I know firstly that sex is just a physical act that does not imply any sort of comittment beyond fluid-swapping.  We are soul-mates and the only jealousy we would have would center around falling in love with someone else, which isn't likely.  Just from my end, I don't care if she thinks about other guys, and I would bet that she does although she has never said it... and I haven't asked.  Don't care.  We are two halves of the same person and nothing as stupid as sex will get between us.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Llava on October 21, 2005, 08:26:38 PM
So, you don't have a problem with the notion that your woman might think about banging other guys? Seriously, think about that one for a minute. While you're in the sack, or wherever, are you really cool with her thinking about someone else? If so, then I totally commend your openmindedness. I wish we could all be that healthy.

Absolutely- as long as it's just thought.  The mind wanders during sex.  Of course, there's a fine line between "thought about banging" and "developed an unhealthy fixation upon" so that's there, but otherwise I really can't imagine being angry because she thought of some other guy.  I'll play like I'm upset sometimes, but we both know it's just a joke.  The notion is as ridiculous to me as being angry because of something she dreamed.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: schild on October 21, 2005, 08:30:33 PM
So, you don't have a problem with the notion that your woman might think about banging other guys? Seriously, think about that one for a minute. While you're in the sack, or wherever, are you really cool with her thinking about someone else? If so, then I totally commend your openmindedness. I wish we could all be that healthy.

Absolutely- as long as it's just thought.  The mind wanders during sex.  Of course, there's a fine line between "thought about banging" and "developed an unhealthy fixation upon" so that's there, but otherwise I really can't imagine being angry because she thought of some other guy.  I'll play like I'm upset sometimes, but we both know it's just a joke.  The notion is as ridiculous to me as being angry because of something she dreamed.

What if it's her dad?

(http://www.redbrick.dcu.ie/~cult/images/quagmire.gif)


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Llava on October 21, 2005, 08:42:51 PM
Then I don't want to hear about it.

But if it's Johnny Depp, the guy from Incubus, or just some guy she works with, I'm okay with it.  As long as we're just talking about thought.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: schild on October 21, 2005, 08:46:49 PM
Then I don't want to hear about it.

But if it's Johnny Depp, the guy from Incubus, or just some guy she works with, I'm okay with it.  As long as we're just talking about thought.

Johnny Depp? Ok.
Incubus? Ok.
Guy she spends most of the waking hours with on work days? Huh? Ok? What? That's dirty pool.

You dream about the things you simply can't have, not what you can after a few cocktails.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Cheddar on October 21, 2005, 08:47:59 PM
Ha ha, your wife left you.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Llava on October 21, 2005, 08:50:50 PM
Then I don't want to hear about it.

But if it's Johnny Depp, the guy from Incubus, or just some guy she works with, I'm okay with it.  As long as we're just talking about thought.

Johnny Depp? Ok.
Incubus? Ok.
Guy she spends most of the waking hours with on work days? Huh? Ok? What? That's dirty pool.

You dream about the things you simply can't have, not what you can after a few cocktails.

She could have most any guy where she works.  If she wanted.  She's in love with me, and I trust that (sometimes I don't understand it, but I trust it).  I also trust that fleeting sexual attractions are nothing more than that.  We've spent enough time together that I don't have to worry about her ditching me for someone "better" anymore.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Nebu on October 21, 2005, 09:15:10 PM
She could have most any guy where she works.  If she wanted.  She's in love with me, and I trust that (sometimes I don't understand it, but I trust it).  I also trust that fleeting sexual attractions are nothing more than that.  We've spent enough time together that I don't have to worry about her ditching me for someone "better" anymore.

I thought that too... after 7 years of marriage.  What happened?  She screwed someone she worked with and left me. I'm not saying that it could or even might happen to you.  I'm just saying that it can.  People are fickle.  When they find someone that they perceive to be better, sometimes they act on it, especially if they can.  My ex regrets what she did and wants me back now, but for me trust is a one-way bridge.  Once you cross it, there's really no way to go back.

There are some things you take on faith.  For a minority of people, that faith pays off in spades.  For the rest of us, we move on and learn a little something in the process. 

I guess this makes me jaded.

Edit - I'm not sure why I'm even sharing this... I guess it's the anonymity the intraweb grants.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Cheddar on October 21, 2005, 09:21:47 PM
The point is that it is all true.  People are stupid, and we all get married stupidly.  Personally I have met the person who completes me now.... it took 4 divorces but it was worth it.  LOVE YOU SCHMOOK UMS!


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Nebu on October 21, 2005, 09:24:49 PM
The point is that it is all true.  People are stupid, and we all get married stupidly.  Personally I have met the person who completes me now.... it took 4 divorces but it was worth it.  LOVE YOU SCHMOOK UMS!

I didn't mean to come off badly towards you.  I guess I'm just pointing out that you are a lucky bastard to have what you have.  I hope that you always appreciate eachother for that.  That's one thing about divorce (at least for me)... it really makes you appreciate a keeper.





Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Yegolev on October 21, 2005, 09:28:21 PM
Four?  Well... congratulations and hooray for persistence.  I am seriously being complimentary.  Like Curly Howard said while eating a lemon: "If at first you don't suck seed, keep on sucking 'till you do suck seed."


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Llava on October 21, 2005, 09:29:37 PM
<shrug> If it happens, I'll deal with it then.  But I can't imagine being happy in a relationship where you're insecure and second guessing your partner's loyalty.  That's the sort of thing that leads to a lot of problems, when you say you're commited but refuse to allow yourself to be fully commited.  It's one of those "dance like no one's watching" rules of life.  Sometimes, it's appropriate to throw caution to the wind.  If I didn't share that trust, I might as well be tacking on a "but I'm not really sure how you feel about me" to every "I love you."

Frankly, it's no way to live.  If that ends up hurting me in the future, oh well, at least I was sincere.

Sorry that happened to you.

(I should probably note, however, that I have no idea whether or not she thinks of other guys when we're having sex.  I do know she thinks other guys are hot every now and again.  Can't blame her for that, or I'd better stop looking at porn real quick.  But I am saying that whatever thoughts she has, it's what she actually does that matters- and as long as that's me  :rimshot: , I'm happy.)


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Shockeye on October 21, 2005, 09:40:28 PM
The point is that it is all true.  People are stupid, and we all get married stupidly.  Personally I have met the person who completes me now.... it took 4 divorces but it was worth it.  LOVE YOU SCHMOOK UMS!

Dude, 4? Dude.

Dude.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: SuperPopTart on October 21, 2005, 09:56:08 PM
It's not so much as not liking porn as it is not liking other people having it, especially significant others. There's some sort of deeply seated insecurity or jealousy going on if you want your man/woman thinking only about you 100% of the time, considering the imperfect beings we are.

And I'm not rude, I'm right.

So, you don't have a problem with the notion that your woman might think about banging other guys? Seriously, think about that one for a minute. While you're in the sack, or wherever, are you really cool with her thinking about someone else? If so, then I totally commend your openmindedness. I wish we could all be that healthy.

I don't think anyone ever said that they don't like other people having porn, I only said it makes me feel icky to think about my SO having it. Jealousy has a biological basis (the same way male visual stimulation does).

I don't think you understand, as of yet the concept of fantasy and it's place in a healthy sexual relationship. And since there is no other way to say the following I am just going to say it.

If my husband, while having sex with me is thinking of say.. oh.. I don't know... Asia Carrera, and the sex is going i n c r e d i b l y. Then I am more than happy to indulge in that fantasy because he isn't having sex with HER, he is having sex with ME and the fantasy of her body, actions, what have you are only spurring him on. (To my benefit, WAHOO!) I -know- I am attractive to my husband and that I turn him on and that's what matters. He makes me feel beautiful and I am beautiful (to me anyway, so nyah).  And I've got to tell you, if you are about to sit there and respond that neither you or your fiance' never think about "banging" other people I am going to immediately call bullshit.

I just have to know. Why the heck would you be jealous of something in Penthouse/Hustler/Domenintheass.com or what have you?

Are you terribly insecure?


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Shockeye on October 21, 2005, 09:59:33 PM
Ok, I need to say this:

If we're going to have a catfight, please have the decency to oil up first.

Thank you.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: schild on October 21, 2005, 10:00:30 PM
Asia Carrera? Why'd you beeline to a porn star? I mean, ya know, you can already see them fucking. Most people (I think, I may be wrong), would go for the actress with a nudity clause in her contracts. :hello_kitty:


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: stray on October 21, 2005, 11:01:35 PM
Heh, come to think of it, I don't think I've ever "fantasized" about a porn star per se (maybe my memory's shoddy..what the hell). I wouldn't even call looking at porn "fantasizing" in any real sense. Same goes for any remote celebrity for that matter. Fantasy (to me at least) is really about chicks I've met (and haven't slept with). Even the not so good looking ones.  8-) Even if it's "fantasy", I still need something tangible to base it on. Some detail...A sense of touch, the sound of their voice up close to me, etc..

[edit] Whoa anonymity. Y'all are lucky you don't know hang around me...With your girlfriends  :evil:


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Margalis on October 21, 2005, 11:24:18 PM
You know...there is a happy medium here...

Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they are repressed, insecure or living in the dark ages.

I do find it a bit disconcerting that someone would be fantasizing about another sex partner *while enaged in sex.*

"God, that sex was great!"
"Yeah...the whole time I was pretending I was plowing Jennifer Love Hewitt."

All you guys seem to somehow not grasp the notion that different things work for different people. If you want your man to call you Asia in bed fine, but don't preach at someone if that isn't their thing. Personally I think jealousy in small doses is charming - and natural.

Your legs never get tired from standing on your soapbox?


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Ironwood on October 22, 2005, 12:33:11 AM
All you guys seem to somehow not grasp the notion that different things work for different people. If you want your man to call you Asia in bed fine, but don't preach at someone if that isn't their thing. Personally I think jealousy in small doses is charming - and natural.

I grasp that.  I've said so a couple of times.  I'm not bashing Voodoo - I just don't think she's right and I think she's got some growing to do.  And whatnot.  (And I don't mean that in a bad way.)

I agree totally with Tart and all. 

Further, I'd say about the work colleague thing - Let your wife have her fantasies because YOU CAN'T STOP THEM.  If she's GOING to bang that guy from her work, your relationship was fucked anyway.  If it was going to happen, it was going to happen and no amount of 'I don't want you doing that' is gonna help.

Love you all.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: schild on October 22, 2005, 01:07:56 AM
What the fuck does a soap box have to do with it?

Brad Pitt
Sean Connery 20 years ago
Ted from work

Charlize Theron pre or post Monster
Jennifer Love Hewitt
Asia Carrera

One of the things in each group is not like the other. The comments weren't about the preferences so much as the examples used. Sorry if I found it strange, but I live in reality land. Purely as a courtesy to my other I wouldn't think about slamming the secretary at work or fucking someone I can watch fuck on film. There's no fantasy to the second one and the first one - as mentioned before - is a fleeting thing. It's the kind of thing you think about on your own, not when you go to bed. As for the other 4 folks, those are the things that no one should be allowed to get in trouble for thinking about. They are pure 100% fantasy. There is no chance you're sleeping with any of them (particularly connery from 20 years ago). So really, what I'm trying to do here is turn the conversation into an argument about the semantics of the word "fantasy."


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: stray on October 22, 2005, 01:34:03 AM
So really, what I'm trying to do here is turn the conversation into an argument about the semantics of the word "fantasy."

Well, you've definitely done your part to complicate the discussion even more, I'll give you that.

Besides, Samwise and I already had a semantical debate (except it was about "oral sex"...Or something). Isn't that enough for one thread?  :-P

Fantasy, I guess, is whatever we want it to be. Happily ever after. The end.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Llava on October 22, 2005, 02:21:36 AM
I don't see what's so different between Asia Carrera and Jennifer Love Hewitt in fantasy land.  They're "other women".  One you've seen naked.

Is Halle Berry fair game?  Seen her boobs, but she's not a porn star.

If you've seen Jennifer Love Hewitt in person, is she no longer fair game?
Maybe you're a grip and you see her more than most people, but you two have never spoken and are still basically strangers.  Fair game?
Maybe you have spoken.

Where is the line?


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: SuperPopTart on October 22, 2005, 02:31:45 AM
Asia Carrera? Why'd you beeline to a porn star? I mean, ya know, you can already see them fucking. Most people (I think, I may be wrong), would go for the actress with a nudity clause in her contracts. :hello_kitty:

I wonder how many actors/actresses have a nudity clause.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: schild on October 22, 2005, 02:33:41 AM
Asia Carrera? Why'd you beeline to a porn star? I mean, ya know, you can already see them fucking. Most people (I think, I may be wrong), would go for the actress with a nudity clause in her contracts. :hello_kitty:
I wonder how many actors/actresses have a nudity clause.
Teri Hatcher should've in the 90s. Ho ho ho.

Really though, shot in the dark - 90% of the major players today.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Paelos on October 22, 2005, 09:21:42 PM
This thread is officially a rollercoaster of rational discourse. I'll summarize my feelings on the new points:

Fantasizing about impossible people is normal and healthy. Fantasizing about people in your monkeysphere repeatedly is probably NOT healthy. Why? Because you can do better in your fantasies. Live large.

Marriage...it's not for everyone.

Don't fuck people at work. Married or not.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: stray on October 22, 2005, 09:25:28 PM
So negative!


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Cheddar on October 22, 2005, 09:44:36 PM
Don't fuck people at work. Married or not.

This is the greatest advice anyone can give to another, yet people mess up on all the time.  NEVER shit where you eat.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Margalis on October 23, 2005, 12:21:53 AM
It just annoys me when everyone thinks the know the one right thing about things like this. Nobody does and to pretend otherwise is silly.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Ironwood on October 23, 2005, 01:18:07 AM
Don't fuck people at work.


I can't stress this one enough.  I did and now I'm happily married.


AVOID.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Llava on October 23, 2005, 04:12:36 AM
Don't fuck people at work.


I can't stress this one enough.  I did and now I'm happily married.


AVOID.


Okay, that actually did make me laugh aloud.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Megrim on October 23, 2005, 06:39:22 AM
This thread rocks! Is it me, or has anyone noticed that Schild mostly talks about men when talking about fantasy? IS there something you aren't telling us duckling?  :heart:


Har. In other news, my sim almost scored last night, after only one day of romance. However, it seems that he missed the crucial step of serving his sweetheart lunch-meat sandwiches for dinner, and was swiftly defenstrated for his failure. As punishement i made him eat chef salad and juggle coffee cups all night. I think we're making good progress but he seems a little afraid of me since i make him clean the toilet at least three times per day now.

 - meg


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: schild on October 23, 2005, 11:04:38 AM
This thread rocks! Is it me, or has anyone noticed that Schild mostly talks about men when talking about fantasy? IS there something you aren't telling us duckling?  :heart:

I'm trying to be an equal opportunity chauvinist, if that's possible.

Quote
Har. In other news, my sim almost scored last night, after only one day of romance. However, it seems that he missed the crucial step of serving his sweetheart lunch-meat sandwiches for dinner, and was swiftly defenstrated for his failure. As punishement i made him eat chef salad and juggle coffee cups all night. I think we're making good progress but he seems a little afraid of me since i make him clean the toilet at least three times per day now.

I shouldn't have hit quote after I read the first part, now I'm stuck responding to someone talking about not people. Is there SOMETHING you aren't telling us?


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: MrHat on October 23, 2005, 11:53:02 AM
Asia Carrera plays unreal tournement.  I kid you not.

Edit for Truth. (http://www.lanparty.com/articles/asiacarrera/asiac.shtml)


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Megrim on October 23, 2005, 03:01:55 PM
This thread rocks! Is it me, or has anyone noticed that Schild mostly talks about men when talking about fantasy? IS there something you aren't telling us duckling?  :heart:

I'm trying to be an equal opportunity chauvinist, if that's possible.

Quote
Har. In other news, my sim almost scored last night, after only one day of romance. However, it seems that he missed the crucial step of serving his sweetheart lunch-meat sandwiches for dinner, and was swiftly defenstrated for his failure. As punishement i made him eat chef salad and juggle coffee cups all night. I think we're making good progress but he seems a little afraid of me since i make him clean the toilet at least three times per day now.

I shouldn't have hit quote after I read the first part, now I'm stuck responding to someone talking about not people. Is there SOMETHING you aren't telling us?


HE IS A REAL PERSON TO ME! *sob*

 - meg


p.s.

Yea, and she isn't too bad at it too, apparently. Which brings me to my next point; railguns and why i love them.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Ironwood on October 24, 2005, 01:56:56 AM
Asia Carrera plays unreal tournement.  I kid you not.

Edit for Truth. (http://www.lanparty.com/articles/asiacarrera/asiac.shtml)

I lost IQ points reading that interview.  LOL !!  ROFL !!!


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: SuperPopTart on October 24, 2005, 06:17:06 AM
Asia Carrera plays unreal tournement.  I kid you not.

Edit for Truth. (http://www.lanparty.com/articles/asiacarrera/asiac.shtml)

I lost IQ points reading that interview.  LOL !!  ROFL !!!


She does indeed and she is a good player. I used to play alongside her. I haven't seen her in a long time though, I moved my normal 99 server.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: SuperPopTart on October 24, 2005, 06:21:34 AM
Oh and on a side note,


Cheddar says Jesus hates me because I look at porn :(


I need saving.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Ironwood on October 24, 2005, 06:25:37 AM
Nonsense.  Jesus hates you because he had to die for your sins.  That crucifiction bloody well hurt, you  know.



Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: SuperPopTart on October 24, 2005, 06:26:12 AM
Thank you Iron. You get cookies.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Roac on October 24, 2005, 06:31:03 AM
Cheddar says Jesus hates me because I look at porn :(

Nonsense.  Jesus loves you.

(http://webzoom.freewebs.com/zamigos/Buddy%202.JPG)

See?  Yes, you.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Dren on October 24, 2005, 06:31:32 AM
Oh and on a side note,


Cheddar says Jesus hates me because I look at porn :(


I need saving.

Well He certainly wouldn't agree with your actions if you look at porn with lust in your heart.

You don't have lust in your heart for the porn community do you SPT?  Do you?


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: SuperPopTart on October 24, 2005, 06:39:25 AM
Lust and a side of fries :(  (http://www.cspinet.org/images/fries.gif)


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Sky on October 24, 2005, 06:45:23 AM
Quote
So, you don't have a problem with the notion that your woman might think about banging other guys? Seriously, think about that one for a minute. While you're in the sack, or wherever, are you really cool with her thinking about someone else? If so, then I totally commend your openmindedness. I wish we could all be that healthy.
There's nothing wrong with looking at the menu, so long as she's eating at home, imo. I'd be disturbed if she didn't find sexy guys sexy, honestly. I want her monogamous, not dead :) I have zero tolerance for cheating and I've never cheated on anyone. I've shown plenty of girls the door because they don't have control over their libido. That's part of being an adult, just like controlling jealousy.

SPT - that's a great pic. Like a cow on a burger wrapper saying "EAT ME". On the small fry we have an excellent example of potato cannibalism.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Cheddar on October 24, 2005, 08:19:49 AM
Oh and on a side note,

Cheddar says Jesus hates me because I look at porn :(

I need saving.

This is not what I stated.  I said Jesus would like to meet you!

http://www.datejesus.com/

See?


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: SuperPopTart on October 24, 2005, 08:28:06 AM
There is something emotionally wrong with you. And spiritually.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Sky on October 24, 2005, 09:38:36 AM
That's actually a pretty interesting blog.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Samwise on October 24, 2005, 10:28:39 AM
Quote
Asia: maybe they only ask me 'cause i do upgrades naked, and they like seeing me bent over their hard drive like that LOL

ph34r my l33t n3kkid skillz! (http://www.megatokyo.com/index.php?strip_id=70)


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Kenrick on October 24, 2005, 04:02:46 PM
So, was anyone here 17 in 1992?


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: stray on October 24, 2005, 04:13:14 PM
15 in 1992. But I dated 17 year olds. Does that count?


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Samwise on October 24, 2005, 04:45:26 PM
11 in 1992.  But I lusted after 17 year olds.  Does that count?


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: WayAbvPar on October 24, 2005, 04:55:40 PM
I was 22. Now get off my lawn!


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Merusk on October 24, 2005, 04:57:46 PM
So, was anyone here 17 in 1992?

Yep.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Shockeye on October 24, 2005, 06:03:49 PM
So, was anyone here 17 in 1992?

I was.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Shockeye on October 24, 2005, 06:04:14 PM
I was 22. Now get off my lawn!

Time for a walker, grandpa.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: RhyssaFireheart on October 24, 2005, 11:09:58 PM
I was 22. Now get off my lawn!

Time for a walker, grandpa.

Guess that means I need a wheelchair or something; I was 24.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Shockeye on October 24, 2005, 11:40:09 PM
I was 22. Now get off my lawn!

Time for a walker, grandpa.

Guess that means I need a wheelchair or something; I was 24.

If my wife has taught me anything, it's that women stop aging once they hit 29.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: schild on October 25, 2005, 12:09:55 AM
I was 22. Now get off my lawn!
Time for a walker, grandpa.
Guess that means I need a wheelchair or something; I was 24.
If my wife has taught me anything, it's that women stop aging once they hit 29.

ROFL, NEWB. That's what they want you to think. They get older too.

Seriously though, they never get older than 29. I actually start counting backwards when they hit 29 just to cover all my bases.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: SuperPopTart on October 25, 2005, 03:26:44 AM
So, was anyone here 17 in 1992?

Uh no I was...14


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Kenrick on October 25, 2005, 05:06:15 AM
I was 13 in 1992. The only thing I really remember is getting mono from some skanky identical twin bitch on a church ski trip to Winter Park.  Never saw her again, until three years later... with a baby.

I was forced to deal with the fact that my tongue lost its virginity to a whore.  :crying_panda:


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Sky on October 25, 2005, 06:35:58 AM
I was 22. Now get off my lawn!
I'm in WAP's club.

In 1992 I was playing bass with my band in San Francisco. Goddamned kids. Off the lawn, indeed!


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: SuperPopTart on October 25, 2005, 06:53:53 AM
Old farts, all of you!


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Sky on October 25, 2005, 08:33:40 AM
So that's what that smell is.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: SuperPopTart on October 25, 2005, 08:41:58 AM
Your avatar makes me cry.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Fargull on October 25, 2005, 08:42:53 AM
I was 23 in 1992.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Sky on October 25, 2005, 09:51:25 AM
Your avatar makes me cry.
(http://www.starstore.com/acatalog/spaulding-headknocker.jpg)
BWAHAHAHA


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: HaemishM on October 25, 2005, 09:58:10 AM
I was 21. I don't remember if I liked 'em shaved or not back then.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: SuperPopTart on October 25, 2005, 10:20:39 AM
Your avatar makes me cry.
(http://www.starstore.com/acatalog/spaulding-headknocker.jpg)
BWAHAHAHA

What have I ever done to you? :(


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Sky on October 25, 2005, 11:10:06 AM
Have some chicken.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: voodoolily on October 25, 2005, 11:17:26 AM
I was 16, but wished I was 30.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: SuperPopTart on October 25, 2005, 11:56:08 AM
Have some chicken.


No cookies for you.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: HaemishM on October 25, 2005, 11:59:26 AM
You should feel sad, Sky. Her cookies are da bomb, y0.  :rock_hard:


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Samwise on October 25, 2005, 12:53:34 PM
My avatar isn't an evil clown thing.  It's an evil half-man half-rat thing.  Can I have a cookie?


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: SuperPopTart on October 25, 2005, 01:01:28 PM
You may have a cookie.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Samwise on October 25, 2005, 01:05:46 PM
YAY COOKIE!   :heart:


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Sauced on October 25, 2005, 01:14:16 PM
You should feel sad, Sky. Her cookies are da bomb, y0.  :rock_hard:

Do they taste better if you pretend Rachel Ray baked them? 

Anyways, yeah, 17 in 1992.  Thank god 30 is the new 20.



Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: SuperPopTart on October 25, 2005, 01:26:48 PM
You should feel sad, Sky. Her cookies are da bomb, y0.  :rock_hard:

Do they taste better if you pretend Rachel Ray baked them? 

Anyways, yeah, 17 in 1992.  Thank god 30 is the new 20.




I'm better then Rachel Ray. Hands down.

Oh yeah and newsflash. 40 is the new 30. 30 and you are still getting freaking old.

Have at it.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Sky on October 25, 2005, 01:45:26 PM
Good thing I can bake my own cookies I guess  :heartbreak:


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: stray on October 25, 2005, 01:45:38 PM
30 is the new midlife crisis age, as far as I'm concerned.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Samwise on October 25, 2005, 01:49:44 PM
Haw!  I started my midlife crisis at 20.  I'm hoping to be peacefully resigned to my fate by the time I hit 30.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: HaemishM on October 25, 2005, 02:49:52 PM
Don't bet on it.

Also, when eating her cookies, I can't think of anything but the gooey goodness that is her cookies.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Cheddar on October 25, 2005, 03:15:32 PM
PEOPLE can we please get back on topic?  I think we all agree that a woman is to old to date after 20.  Sheesh.  :roll:

(http://www.f13.net/images/top/07.jpg)


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: stray on October 25, 2005, 03:23:19 PM
Like I said, I dated older chicks when I was 15. And I still do it now, for the most part. At our age, I don't see why any guy would want to hang around a girl who's younger than 20.

[edit] Unless, of course, you've hit that midlife crisis stage that I was talking about.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Furiously on October 25, 2005, 03:24:49 PM
For one month of 1992 I was 21. And drunk in bars.

The other 11 months. I was drunk somewhere else.

Don't rememeber much about it.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Pococurante on October 25, 2005, 03:26:42 PM
Haw!  I started my midlife crisis at 20.  I'm hoping to be peacefully resigned to my fate by the time I hit 30.

Good luck - I started mine at age 13 and I'm still happily careening along well past 30.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Llava on October 25, 2005, 03:58:01 PM
In '92, I was 10 years old.  You are all so old.  So very, very old.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: voodoolily on October 25, 2005, 04:05:54 PM
You should feel sad, Sky. Her cookies are da bomb, y0.  :rock_hard:
Do they taste better if you pretend Rachel Ray baked them? 

/slam dunk

Dang but I love some cookies. Soft, gooey cookies. *cue homer simpson gargle sound* I can't figure out how to make oatmeal/chocolate chip/walnut/raisin ones though - they always fall apart 'cuz there's too much stuff in 'em. Any suggestions, PopTart? I'm not much of a baker and don't know how to fiddle with this stuff.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: stray on October 25, 2005, 04:12:54 PM
So umm....This is a cookie thread now?


May I ask Poptart then, If they are SO good, then why don't you start a business?

Good cookies could be even more lucrative than that other thing.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Cheddar on October 25, 2005, 04:20:43 PM
So umm....This is a cookie thread now?


May I ask Poptart then, If they are SO good, then why don't you start a business?

Good cookies could be even more lucrative than that other thing.

She is too busy peddling her smut.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: stray on October 25, 2005, 04:23:59 PM
See, but as we've established, only straight guys like smut.

Everybody likes cookies. All ages. All types. Gay people. Straight people. Male, female, no matter.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: voodoolily on October 25, 2005, 04:28:50 PM
Good cookies could be even more lucrative than that other thing.

Good cookies will never be as lucrative as that other thing. Not if all the ingredients are legal, anyway.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Cheddar on October 25, 2005, 04:29:49 PM
Nothing has been established in this thread.  Will F13 ever come out with an ignore function?


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Stephen Zepp on October 25, 2005, 05:26:23 PM
Asia Carrera plays unreal tournement.  I kid you not.

Edit for Truth. (http://www.lanparty.com/articles/asiacarrera/asiac.shtml)

I lost IQ points reading that interview.  LOL !!  ROFL !!!


Maybe you should ask Asia for some of her extra points--she's a (NSFW) member of Mensa (http://www.asiacarrera.com/bio.html).

Oh, and she was 19 in 1992.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: voodoolily on October 25, 2005, 05:34:59 PM
Nothing has been established in this thread. 

Except that I'm desperately insecure and can be a total fucking bitch when provoked.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Samwise on October 25, 2005, 05:39:35 PM
Nothing has been established in this thread.

Au contraire!  I used unassailable logic to prove that blowjobs are good.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: SuperPopTart on October 26, 2005, 01:46:57 AM
Nothing has been established in this thread. 

Except that I'm desperately insecure and can be a total fucking bitch when provoked.


I have the corner market on being a total fucking bitch. My mother is Sicilian. It's like a legacy. Her gift to me. I always thank her for it.

And Cheddar... now don't you go being mean! I don't peddle smut. I put the smut in pretty pictures and place them on the internet. It's all legal smut. I make sure of that.

And Stray: I live in Mississippi. Cookie business has been cornered here. I can't go into my actual field of choice because well.. this is not the epicenter of the nation and as I try to get one business off the ground, I work in THIS business which pays me pretty decently to stay at home and do web design.

But...

I love smut.
I bake extra gooey cookies.
I'm a bitch.

I'm perfect.

Now I just have to wake up.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Llava on October 26, 2005, 03:20:36 AM
Asia Carrera plays unreal tournement.  I kid you not.

Edit for Truth. (http://www.lanparty.com/articles/asiacarrera/asiac.shtml)

I lost IQ points reading that interview.  LOL !!  ROFL !!!


Maybe you should ask Asia for some of her extra points--she's a (NSFW) member of Mensa (http://www.asiacarrera.com/bio.html).

Oh, and she was 19 in 1992.

She doesn't seem particularly stupid to me.  Just bubbly.  Very bubbly.  The interviewer came across as quite stupid, though, and dumbass questions generally lead to fairly stupid answers at best.

But she is clearly far too enamored with internet acronyms.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Ironwood on October 26, 2005, 07:27:04 AM
Er, guys, I was talking about the interviewer...


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: HaemishM on October 26, 2005, 08:48:07 AM
Er, guys, I was talking about the interviewer...

I'm sure the interviewer was entirely too preoccupied with other things to sound in anyway intelligent.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Cheddar on October 26, 2005, 08:51:43 AM
Nothing has been established in this thread. 

Except that I'm desperately insecure and can be a total fucking bitch when provoked.
Not just when provoked.

I bake extra gooey cookies.
I'm a bitch.

Bitch I do not like cookies, I like pie.  Get in the kitchen and make me some pie!

I am sorry Haemish it was in jest please do not ban me I will give you all my gold in WoW please please sir sorry SPT is the greatest BTW is your computer fixed and are you going to play with us ever, your fans want to know!


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: SuperPopTart on October 26, 2005, 09:17:06 AM
Nothing has been established in this thread. 

Except that I'm desperately insecure and can be a total fucking bitch when provoked.
Not just when provoked.

I bake extra gooey cookies.
I'm a bitch.

Bitch I do not like cookies, I like pie.  Get in the kitchen and make me some pie!

I am sorry Haemish it was in jest please do not ban me I will give you all my gold in WoW please please sir sorry SPT is the greatest BTW is your computer fixed and are you going to play with us ever, your fans want to know!

Cheddar, why didn't you speak up what you said in REALLY SMALL PRINT.


LOL You are such a dork. NO PIE.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Cheddar on October 26, 2005, 09:28:23 AM
It was meant to be subliminal :(


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: voodoolily on October 26, 2005, 01:13:17 PM
Nothing has been established in this thread. 

Except that I'm desperately insecure and can be a total fucking bitch when provoked.


I have the corner market on being a total fucking bitch. My mother is Sicilian. It's like a legacy. Her gift to me. I always thank her for it.


But my mom was a corporal in the Marines! Okay, tell you what - you can have total fucking bitch but I take the monopoly on raging cunt. Deal?

Haha, Cheddar is stuck with cheese and crackers!


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: HaemishM on October 26, 2005, 01:17:22 PM
Mmmm, raging cunts facing off against total fucking bitches?

HAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWTTTTTTTTTTTTTT.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Cheddar on October 26, 2005, 01:18:31 PM
I am so confused.  Someone post boobies plz.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: voodoolily on October 26, 2005, 01:23:51 PM
I am so confused. Someone post boobies plz.

(http://pinkrabbitsays.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/blue_footed_booby.jpg)


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Cheddar on October 26, 2005, 01:26:31 PM
Are you trying to make me hate you?  Sheesh.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: voodoolily on October 26, 2005, 01:28:31 PM
You asked for boobies, and I gave you a blue-footed booby. Would have preferred yellow-footed?


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: SuperPopTart on October 26, 2005, 01:31:10 PM
Nothing has been established in this thread. 

Except that I'm desperately insecure and can be a total fucking bitch when provoked.


I have the corner market on being a total fucking bitch. My mother is Sicilian. It's like a legacy. Her gift to me. I always thank her for it.


But my mom was a corporal in the Marines! Okay, tell you what - you can have total fucking bitch but I take the monopoly on raging cunt. Deal?

Haha, Cheddar is stuck with cheese and crackers!

Hey. Isn't it nice when you admit precisely what a douchebag you are?

I know for me it is.

Cheers, sweetheart!


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Cheddar on October 26, 2005, 01:46:27 PM
Hey. Isn't it nice when you admit precisely what a douchebag you are?

I know for me it is.

Cheers, sweetheart!

Oh God SPT, you just put a smile on my face.  I feel bad for the admins PM's right about now.

And VD, I will retort to you with a compliment.  Congratulations on your review, it was very apt.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: stray on October 26, 2005, 01:52:09 PM
Wtf?

Why are you two fighting?

And why is Cheddar posting in the middle of it?


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: SuperPopTart on October 26, 2005, 01:53:54 PM
Who is fighting? Just your run-of-the-mill fun chatter.

I know I'm chuckling. Aren't you? :-)


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: voodoolily on October 26, 2005, 01:57:14 PM
Hey, wait a minute! I never admitted to being a douchebag. A total fucking bitch, yes, a raging cunt, true. But not a douchebag!  :oops: (<--sarcastic frown)

Thanks for saying nice things about my review, Ched. I had to write it with my left hand to get that "little kid palsies" effect.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Cheddar on October 26, 2005, 01:58:55 PM
Wtf?

Why are you two fighting?

And why is Cheddar posting in the middle of it?

You have no idea what you are getting into little man.  There are things going on behind the scene, things that would shatter the illusions you have built around yourself.





PS. I was teasing Stray.  I just wanted to squeeze VD a compliment in somewhere before returning to my curmudgeon ways.  Thats all.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: WayAbvPar on October 26, 2005, 01:59:03 PM
I write that way with my left hand too. Only I am left-handed. Thank Christ for keyboards!


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Samwise on October 26, 2005, 02:17:18 PM
I think what Cheddar meant to say is that he wanted to see some hooters.

(http://www.ync.ca/owls.jpg)


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Ironwood on October 27, 2005, 01:10:45 AM
Er, guys, I was talking about the interviewer...

I'm sure the interviewer was entirely too preoccupied with other things to sound in anyway intelligent.

It is hard typing with one hand.


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: Sky on October 27, 2005, 06:34:01 AM
Quote
It is hard typing with one hand.
:rimshot:


Title: Re: If you were 17 in 1992...
Post by: SuperPopTart on October 27, 2005, 07:59:35 AM
I almost left a comment that I was sure there was something with suction the interviewer could just clamp on and go..

But I am wayy too tired today.

So moo.