Babylon is an attention whore ITT, even for negative attention.

[Phox]

I shouldn't find that funny, but the orange kinda pulls it together.

Fucking fruits. 

...


Too fucking easy. 

Erm, I think that was an adjective, not a noun, Phoxy. 

Says you. 

[BadBeast]

I shouldn't find that funny, but the orange kinda pulls it together.

Fucking fruits. 

...


Too fucking easy. 

Erm, I think that was an adjective, not a noun, Phoxy. 

Says you. 

 

[Cain]

In the 1980s, some Tory MP was found in a London Hotel wardrobe, trussed up like a chicken, hanging upside down, with a plastic bag over his head, and an orange in his mouth.
He was a typical Tory.

What you said was also true, however so is this ammended version.

Our rightwing politicians aren't as necessarily closeted as American rightwing politicians, but they're certainly stranger.

[BadBeast]

In the 1980s, some Tory MP was found in a London Hotel wardrobe, trussed up like a chicken, hanging upside down, with a plastic bag over his head, and an orange in his mouth.
He was a typical Tory.

What you said was also true, however so is this ammended version.

Our rightwing politicians aren't as necessarily closeted as American rightwing politicians, but they're certainly stranger.

I dunno though, you can't get much more closeted than being found in a Hotel Wardrobe. Unless perhaps you're a dead spy, dressed up in a gimp suit, and found zipped up inside a suitcase! 
And he had all those pretty frocks he never got to wear.      

[East Coast Hustle]

Obviously this thread has moved onto something different, but I'll just respond to the things directed at me and step out if that's ok.

Negative reinforcement. You are what you eat, fill your mind with enough negative stimulus chances are its not going to have a positive effect in the long run.

That's fair and sensible.  I mean, it's not inevitable, but mostly yes.

So, you view CGI child pornography as being OK, since no actual children are involved in the making of it?

I think it's less reprehensible than actual child porn.  But then, I have a strong, instinctual dislike of paedophilia, and child abuse in general, a reaction that I don't seem to have towards snuff porn, which is probably why I invited explanations of it's "wrongness" to be passed my way.

Anyway, I'm here I might as well stir shit.  It could be argued that CGI child porn is a Good Thing:

Let's start with Event 1:  There are people with sexual inclinations towards children.

Now Option A:  These people express their desires by sexually abusing (or watching people sexually abuse) actual children.

Option B:  These people express their desires by watching CGI people abuse CGI children.

Now obviously a world without Event 1 would be most preferable, but given that there are paedophiles who wish to act on their inclinations, I think Option B is infinitely preferable to Option A.

DISCLAIMER:  I am aware that an interest in snuff porn is not exactly a healthy state of mind, and after being in a long-term relationship with a victim of sexual abuse, I'm thoroughly unimpressed by paedophiles, if the bastard ever has the misfortune to meet me I'll gladly break every bone in the fuckers body.

xx

p.s.  Sorry to all the people discussing homosexuality who's thread I may or may not just have ruined.

I understand what you're saying and agree with most of it, but I should point something out:

less bad != OK

[BabylonHoruv]

I misread burns as saying that in some homosexuality is a biological imperative, in the same way that heterosexuality is in others.  I hold that it is, some people are simply born with an overriding preference for one gender or the other.  Social roles then act on those genetic predispositions to create the sexual identities we end up with.

That's no excuse for willfully indulging in sexual fantasies that involve murder.  Sorry.

I don't think that statement had a thing to do with my fantasies actually.  How you might have managed to read it as related I do not know.

[BabylonHoruv]

Honestly, I don't think the extreme stuff is something you "move on" to after you've fucked a few times.

Unless it's a true fetish (i.e. you literally can't orgasm without it), these aren't things you do every time you have sex.

I would say that they develop parallel to standard sexuality, and just tend to cross over at times.  Most of the people I know who do heavy BDSM also have "normal" sex (whatever that is) in greater proportion to the BDSM stuff.


So, yeah.  "Basic" sex is the default, with occasional degrees of variation, depending on the couple.

This, except that couple may possibly be expanded to triple or group of other size.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Honestly, I don't think the extreme stuff is something you "move on" to after you've fucked a few times.

Unless it's a true fetish (i.e. you literally can't orgasm without it), these aren't things you do every time you have sex.

I would say that they develop parallel to standard sexuality, and just tend to cross over at times.  Most of the people I know who do heavy BDSM also have "normal" sex (whatever that is) in greater proportion to the BDSM stuff.


So, yeah.  "Basic" sex is the default, with occasional degrees of variation, depending on the couple.

This, except that couple may possibly be expanded to triple or group of other size.

Fuck off nobody cares and internet sex doesn't count anyway.

[BadBeast]

Honestly, I don't think the extreme stuff is something you "move on" to after you've fucked a few times.

Unless it's a true fetish (i.e. you literally can't orgasm without it), these aren't things you do every time you have sex.

I would say that they develop parallel to standard sexuality, and just tend to cross over at times.  Most of the people I know who do heavy BDSM also have "normal" sex (whatever that is) in greater proportion to the BDSM stuff.


So, yeah.  "Basic" sex is the default, with occasional degrees of variation, depending on the couple.

This, except that couple may possibly be expanded to triple or group of other size.

Fuck off nobody cares and internet sex doesn't count anyway.

"Conference fuck" doesn't have the same kind of ring to it as "Clusterfuck"

[BabylonHoruv]

Honestly, I don't think the extreme stuff is something you "move on" to after you've fucked a few times.

Unless it's a true fetish (i.e. you literally can't orgasm without it), these aren't things you do every time you have sex.

I would say that they develop parallel to standard sexuality, and just tend to cross over at times.  Most of the people I know who do heavy BDSM also have "normal" sex (whatever that is) in greater proportion to the BDSM stuff.


So, yeah.  "Basic" sex is the default, with occasional degrees of variation, depending on the couple.

This, except that couple may possibly be expanded to triple or group of other size.

Fuck off nobody cares and internet sex doesn't count anyway.

It does when the people from the internet actually come and visit.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Honestly, I don't think the extreme stuff is something you "move on" to after you've fucked a few times.

Unless it's a true fetish (i.e. you literally can't orgasm without it), these aren't things you do every time you have sex.

I would say that they develop parallel to standard sexuality, and just tend to cross over at times.  Most of the people I know who do heavy BDSM also have "normal" sex (whatever that is) in greater proportion to the BDSM stuff.


So, yeah.  "Basic" sex is the default, with occasional degrees of variation, depending on the couple.

This, except that couple may possibly be expanded to triple or group of other size.

Fuck off nobody cares and internet sex doesn't count anyway.

It does when the people from the internet actually come and visit.

See: A) Nobody cares

[LMNO]

Honestly, I don't think the extreme stuff is something you "move on" to after you've fucked a few times.

Unless it's a true fetish (i.e. you literally can't orgasm without it), these aren't things you do every time you have sex.

I would say that they develop parallel to standard sexuality, and just tend to cross over at times.  Most of the people I know who do heavy BDSM also have "normal" sex (whatever that is) in greater proportion to the BDSM stuff.


So, yeah.  "Basic" sex is the default, with occasional degrees of variation, depending on the couple.

This, except that couple may possibly be expanded to triple or group of other size.

Wow.  That's not just pedantic, it's flat out wrong.

"Basic" sex = 2 people.  A couple.  Which is exactly what I said.

It's exceedingly rare (to the point where I have never witnessed it) to have three or more people simultaneously start a physical polyamorous relationship prior to knowing any of the others in the group.

A couple who opens the relationship up to polyamory is adding a degree of variation, which is exactly what I said.

I highly advise you stop posting in this thread, because you're smearing FAIL all over it.

[hooplala]

I thought that was the point of this thread.

[AFK]

This thread is making me appreciate the plain, vanilla sex the wife and I have.  But, it is a fine quality vanilla. 

[BadBeast]

This thread is making me appreciate the plain, vanilla sex the wife and I have.  But, it is a fine quality vanilla. 

After reading this all back through, I'd just like to add that the good old fashioned, uncomplicated "Menage et mois" is often overlooked as irrelevent these days.