Just because I can, here's what's going on in my life.
I'm on welfare and putting in hours at the salvation army. There's too many people doing it which means there is not enough work for all of us and I spend most of my time chatting with the other welfare bums and staying out of the way of the people who are paid and actually have something to do because they trust them with paperwork and computers and such. I've discovered that one of my co-workers is a member of the klu klux klan, and have already had a conversation in which I am pretty sure I was able to convince him that American Blacks are physically superior to American Whites (due to selective breeding during slavery)
I've written a novel over the course of NaNoWriMo that I am actually kind of proud of, that, so far, has a fairly good reception from people I never expected to like it. It's sci fi snuff porn, and the people on the snuff forum I frequent have made not one comment, meanwhile my geek friends like it, and even the cheerleader I had a crush on in high school seems to.
My wife's movie deal is on delay again, I can't go into much detail there, but the amount of money that is possible has been reduced considerably, although it is still enough to move us from dirt poor to decidedly upper middle class. If anything does happen it will be in the spring.
The cyber girlfriend that I was broken up about before and I are still friends, there is a distinct possibility she is stringing me along as some sort of cruel woman game, but I am enjoying her friendship even if I keep getting confused by her hints that rekindling things is possible. I've also struck something up with a lovely and very accomplished woman who lives in Tucson (yes, cyber again) who is very close with my wife. If it weren't for the fact that she is very happily married to a man who would probably not be open to the idea of sharing her I'd be doing my best to seduce her into all sorts of activities involving she and I and my wife in as many permutations as possible, I am working in seducing her into as many as I can get away with without feeling I am threatening her marriage.
My daughter is in Catholic school, which has made her decide she is definitely a pagan, she's struggling a bit with the idea that gods don't have to be good or bad, but can be both, and Eris is the main example I keep using. She's also in choir, which is sort of the highpoint of my weeks currently, I volunteer as a sort of adult presence at choir practice and listening to children's fairly well trained voices in a church that has nearly perfect acoustics is a really wonderful experience every Wednesday.
Well, um. I'm not quite sure what to make of some of it, but I hope things are going well. it seems like some are and some aren't. I hope it all works out for the best. :)
some good and some bad is just life I think. I appreciate the well wishes.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on December 16, 2010, 05:46:56 AM
some good and some bad is just life I think. I appreciate the well wishes.
Good point. And only the best. :)
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on December 16, 2010, 05:11:37 AMthe snuff forum I frequent
Have you ever considered just never saying things?
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on December 16, 2010, 05:11:37 AM
It's sci fi snuff porn, and the people on the snuff forum I frequent
:kingmeh:
People on a snuff forum liked a snuff book! The HELL you say!
Quote from: Hoopla on December 16, 2010, 02:31:02 PM
People on a snuff forum liked a snuff book! The HELL you say!
no no, they didn't, that's why it was worth saying. Or at least they said nothing about it one way or the other.
Snuff porn by its very nature is reprehensible to a degree that's hard to describe.
Being a fan of it makes you a bad person, and not in a good way.
My $0.02. There is no need to reply to this post.
TGRR,
Revolted.
2/3rds deserved it
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 16, 2010, 08:24:20 PM
Snuff porn by its very nature is reprehensible to a degree that's hard to describe.
Being a fan of it makes you a bad person, and not in a good way.
My $0.02. There is no need to reply to this post.
TGRR,
Revolted.
This. Before, I just thought you were a weird dude who wasn't MY kind of weird, thus worthy of occasional stick-poking but no actual animosity.
Now you actually disgust me and make me hope bad things happen to you.
Admit it. This OP was for the lulz.
what's wrong with stories about people getting murdered in a sexual way? I mean,yeah, maybe not your thing, but it's not hurting anybody except imaginary people. I really can't see a problem with doing whatever you like to imaginary people.
Because it's sick and wrong? You attaining sexual arousal and stimulation from the thought of killing someone sexually. WRONG WRONG.
That does it, Babylon! I'm telling the Rastas where to find you!
They've been wanting to take you down for a long time!
You Gonna Get Smoked, Mon!
\
(http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk316/Jerry_Frankster/haile_selassie_mil.jpg)
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on December 17, 2010, 12:27:56 AM
what's wrong with stories about people getting murdered in a sexual way? I mean,yeah, maybe not your thing, but it's not hurting anybody except imaginary people. I really can't see a problem with doing whatever you like to imaginary people.
That you even have to ask that question is even more disturbing. I wish you hadn't reproduced.
Well, I wasn't going to say anything, but fuck it. I don't care for snuff porn. At all. To be honest, I am disgusted by it.
HOWEVER, I am not going to judge a person by what arouses them. Some people are aroused by amputees (that's a little weird for me), some people are aroused by blood (hi there), hell, I know a dude who is aroused by motherfucking FIRE.
So, Babbel Whore, even if no one else will talk to you now, I still like you. I will not watch porn with you though. Sorry, I has lines.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on December 17, 2010, 12:27:56 AM
what's wrong with stories about people getting murdered in a sexual way? I mean,yeah, maybe not your thing, but it's not hurting anybody except imaginary people. I really can't see a problem with doing whatever you like to imaginary people.
It's not technically "wrong" in the same way that pornographic literature with young children as the objects is not technically "wrong".
Quote from: Doktor Phox on December 17, 2010, 05:06:34 AM
Well, I wasn't going to say anything, but fuck it. I don't care for snuff porn. At all. To be honest, I am disgusted by it.
HOWEVER, I am not going to judge a person by what arouses them. Some people are aroused by amputees (that's a little weird for me), some people are aroused by blood (hi there), hell, I know a dude who is aroused by motherfucking FIRE.
So, Babbel Whore, even if no one else will talk to you now, I still like you. I will not watch porn with you though. Sorry, I has lines.
While it's true that you can't control what sexually arouses you, it's also true that not everybody should be allowed to be a part of society.
This is probably the wrong thread to discuss the works of Marquis de Sade then, yes?
Is it ever the WRONG thread for that, though?
(OK, maybe the Buchenwald Uncle BadTouch one)
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on December 17, 2010, 12:27:56 AM
what's wrong with stories about people getting murdered in a sexual way?
Ugh. You make me ill.
Quote from: Doktor Phox on December 17, 2010, 05:06:34 AM
HOWEVER, I am not going to judge a person by what arouses them.
I am.
Today I learned what snuff porn is. I also learned it turns my stomach.
Yeah, I'm naive enough about porn I had to go look up a definition. :oops:
I still don't completely understand it but yanno, I don't think I want too.
TMI dude and I'm sorry but my opinion of you went from that weird guy to that really sicko guy.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on December 17, 2010, 01:01:13 PM
This is probably the wrong thread to discuss the works of Marquis de Sade then, yes?
Because I missed this earlier. :lulz:
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on December 17, 2010, 01:01:13 PM
This is probably the wrong thread to discuss the works of Marquis de Sade then, yes?
I've never found them to have any redeeming value.
I'm going to go ahead and be the lone dissenter to the idea that you can't choose what turns you on. There are choices everybody gets to make about what threads of arousal to pursue, and everyone has, at various times, the unbidden twinges of arousal at an idea or scenario that is as repulsive as it is arousing. Most people go "Ew, that's horrible, I'm not going to think about that" and the arousal cycle is broken, but a few people go "Heh yeah that turns me on, I'm going to think about it while I masturbate" and the arousal cycle gets reinforced. That's a choice.
Some people are really into the idea of being "edgy" or "alternative" and make choices to indulge what they see as a sexual dark side, not realizing they're locking their sexual preference in for something that is not so much dark as seedy and repulsive. Even so, it's hard to accept the idea that a mind that would turn toward sexual gratification in other people's suffering and death, even imagined, is a mind that started out anything but pathological to begin with.
Quote from: East Coast Hipster on December 17, 2010, 05:20:03 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on December 17, 2010, 01:01:13 PM
This is probably the wrong thread to discuss the works of Marquis de Sade then, yes?
I've never found them to have any redeeming value.
I'm not a fan, myself. Culturally interesting but sexually repulsive.
Now, I'm not going to say that I don't have some fantasies that are a little weird. I wilfully indulge my rape/seduction fantasies, such as they are. I am just saying that there are lines most people will not cross in their sexual fantasies because they choose not to encourage a sexual arousal feedback loop that centers around something ethically reprehensible and socially intolerable.
Quote from: Nigel on December 17, 2010, 05:34:59 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hipster on December 17, 2010, 05:20:03 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on December 17, 2010, 01:01:13 PM
This is probably the wrong thread to discuss the works of Marquis de Sade then, yes?
I've never found them to have any redeeming value.
I'm not a fan, myself. Culturally interesting but sexually repulsive.
The other problem with De Sade is that he was a piss-poor writer. I mean, that shit is TERRIBLE. It's like reading the sexual fantasies of Larry Craig & Jimmy Swaggart's retarded butt-baby.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2010, 07:29:54 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 17, 2010, 05:34:59 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hipster on December 17, 2010, 05:20:03 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on December 17, 2010, 01:01:13 PM
This is probably the wrong thread to discuss the works of Marquis de Sade then, yes?
I've never found them to have any redeeming value.
I'm not a fan, myself. Culturally interesting but sexually repulsive.
The other problem with De Sade is that he was a piss-poor writer. I mean, that shit is TERRIBLE. It's like reading the sexual fantasies of Larry Craig & Jimmy Swaggart's retarded butt-baby.
I dunno if part of that is the translator or not, his work might be better in the original French, but I agree completely on the only English versions I have read. Really really poorly written. Why this is the man that was chosen to lend his name to being turned on by other people's pain I have no idea.
I have no idea of Sader-Masoch is any better, I've never had access to any of his work.
Sacher Masoch is even more dull.
Even more so, I suppose, if you get turned on by snuffslashfic.
In truth, The Story of O kicks both of them in the balls.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2010, 07:29:54 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 17, 2010, 05:34:59 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hipster on December 17, 2010, 05:20:03 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on December 17, 2010, 01:01:13 PM
This is probably the wrong thread to discuss the works of Marquis de Sade then, yes?
I've never found them to have any redeeming value.
I'm not a fan, myself. Culturally interesting but sexually repulsive.
The other problem with De Sade is that he was a piss-poor writer. I mean, that shit is TERRIBLE. It's like reading the sexual fantasies of Larry Craig & Jimmy Swaggart's retarded butt-baby.
:lulz:
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on December 17, 2010, 08:27:49 PM
Sacher Masoch is even more dull.
Even more so, I suppose, if you get turned on by snuffslashfic.
In truth, The Story of O kicks both of them in the balls.
Yeah, I enjoyed The Story of O a lot as a teenager, I'd say it was a transformative text for me that allowed me to realize that I wasn't the only person with the sort of desires I had (prior to discovering the internet and finding that not only was I not alone there are a lot of people who do)
For anyone who doesn't see O as snuff, remember how it ends.
Quote from: Nigel on December 17, 2010, 08:38:09 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2010, 07:29:54 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 17, 2010, 05:34:59 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hipster on December 17, 2010, 05:20:03 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on December 17, 2010, 01:01:13 PM
This is probably the wrong thread to discuss the works of Marquis de Sade then, yes?
I've never found them to have any redeeming value.
I'm not a fan, myself. Culturally interesting but sexually repulsive.
The other problem with De Sade is that he was a piss-poor writer. I mean, that shit is TERRIBLE. It's like reading the sexual fantasies of Larry Craig & Jimmy Swaggart's retarded butt-baby.
:lulz:
It's not even Buldada good, like Delgotha. It's like reading stereo instructions, except it's for rape and sodomy. The villains are by today's standards cheap masturbators, and the protagonists are utterly unsympathetic. It was "shock fiction", and it really distresses me that the book England had banned until the 80s turned out to be so pathetic.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on December 17, 2010, 08:58:57 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on December 17, 2010, 08:27:49 PM
Sacher Masoch is even more dull.
Even more so, I suppose, if you get turned on by snuffslashfic.
In truth, The Story of O kicks both of them in the balls.
Yeah, I enjoyed The Story of O a lot as a teenager, I'd say it was a transformative text for me that allowed me to realize that I wasn't the only person with the sort of desires I had (prior to discovering the internet and finding that not only was I not alone there are a lot of people who do)
For anyone who doesn't see O as snuff, remember how it ends.
It ended with Stephen and Rene abandoning O, and she requested to die rather than lose them. And that was written as an afterword, not using any sort of descriptions. Plus, it wasn't written in any sort of erotic manner whatsoever. Stop trying to justify it.
So, just to put a finer point on this turd...
Babylon, do you fantasize about:
1.) Killing people sexually
B.) Being Killed Sexually
۩.) All of the above
Ѭ.)None of the above
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on December 17, 2010, 09:22:57 PM
So, just to put a finer point on this turd...
Babylon, do you fantasize about:
1.) Killing people sexually
B.) Being Killed Sexually
۩.) All of the above
Ѭ.)None of the above
Mostly one and occasionally (but very rarely) two.
Um, I'm an exhibitionist of the worst order, so I kind of enjoy that you're delving into this, but considering everyone else's reactions I do have to ask, why?
WHAT THE CUNTFLAPPING FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU? GTFO MY SOCIETY, YOU SICK FUCK.
Quote from: Nigel on December 17, 2010, 07:56:44 AM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on December 17, 2010, 12:27:56 AM
what's wrong with stories about people getting murdered in a sexual way? I mean,yeah, maybe not your thing, but it's not hurting anybody except imaginary people. I really can't see a problem with doing whatever you like to imaginary people.
It's not technically "wrong" in the same way that pornographic literature with young children as the objects is not technically "wrong".
This. But its still fucking gross.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on December 17, 2010, 08:27:49 PM
Sacher Masoch is even more dull.
Even more so, I suppose, if you get turned on by snuffslashfic.
In truth, The Story of O kicks both of them in the balls.
It's true, I got Venus in Furs a long time ago, because of the Velvet Underground song, but man that book is fucking boring.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on December 17, 2010, 09:53:27 PM
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on December 17, 2010, 09:22:57 PM
So, just to put a finer point on this turd...
Babylon, do you fantasize about:
1.) Killing people sexually
B.) Being Killed Sexually
۩.) All of the above
Ѭ.)None of the above
Mostly one and occasionally (but very rarely) two.
Um, I'm an exhibitionist of the worst order, so I kind of enjoy that you're delving into this, but considering everyone else's reactions I do have to ask, why?
Mostly because of everyone else's reaction, and the fact that I'm conflicted as to how I feel about it.
I used to be a B type myself, but it faded to nearly nothing some time in my mid-to-late twenties (starting around age 5), so I have some sympathy/empathy for you.
It occurs to me that unrealistic scenarios (i.e. Sci-fi) are at least
somewhat less creepy than realistic ones (i.e. knife-fucking your hot neighbor in the parking lot).
I can think of at least two examples of what I would consider soft-core snuff porn that I doubt anyone here would consider mentally unhealthy; Barbarella, and Lexx. GWAR may also fall into that category.
So... long story short, if you're having fantasies about killing actual people who have occurred in your life, you may have a problem, and should seriously consider seeking professional psychological help. If it involves
strictly fictional characters not even remotely based on real people, then that would be significantly less creepy, but still pretty weird.
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on December 18, 2010, 01:41:56 AM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on December 17, 2010, 09:53:27 PM
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on December 17, 2010, 09:22:57 PM
So, just to put a finer point on this turd...
Babylon, do you fantasize about:
1.) Killing people sexually
B.) Being Killed Sexually
۩.) All of the above
Ѭ.)None of the above
Mostly one and occasionally (but very rarely) two.
Um, I'm an exhibitionist of the worst order, so I kind of enjoy that you're delving into this, but considering everyone else's reactions I do have to ask, why?
Mostly because of everyone else's reaction, and the fact that I'm conflicted as to how I feel about it.
I used to be a B type myself, but it faded to nearly nothing some time in my mid-to-late twenties (starting around age 5), so I have some sympathy/empathy for you.
It occurs to me that unrealistic scenarios (i.e. Sci-fi) are at least somewhat less creepy than realistic ones (i.e. knife-fucking your hot neighbor in the parking lot).
I can think of at least two examples of what I would consider soft-core snuff porn that I doubt anyone here would consider mentally unhealthy; Barbarella, and Lexx. GWAR may also fall into that category.
So... long story short, if you're having fantasies about killing actual people who have occurred in your life, you may have a problem, and should seriously consider seeking professional psychological help. If it involves strictly fictional characters not even remotely based on real people, then that would be significantly less creepy, but still pretty weird.
[/thread]
Seriously, let's all move on with our lives. I don't want to know the answers to any questions, so Babylon, please don't answer. For serious.
Quote from: Doktor Phox on December 18, 2010, 01:46:37 AM
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on December 18, 2010, 01:41:56 AM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on December 17, 2010, 09:53:27 PM
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on December 17, 2010, 09:22:57 PM
So, just to put a finer point on this turd...
Babylon, do you fantasize about:
1.) Killing people sexually
B.) Being Killed Sexually
۩.) All of the above
Ѭ.)None of the above
Mostly one and occasionally (but very rarely) two.
Um, I'm an exhibitionist of the worst order, so I kind of enjoy that you're delving into this, but considering everyone else's reactions I do have to ask, why?
Mostly because of everyone else's reaction, and the fact that I'm conflicted as to how I feel about it.
I used to be a B type myself, but it faded to nearly nothing some time in my mid-to-late twenties (starting around age 5), so I have some sympathy/empathy for you.
It occurs to me that unrealistic scenarios (i.e. Sci-fi) are at least somewhat less creepy than realistic ones (i.e. knife-fucking your hot neighbor in the parking lot).
I can think of at least two examples of what I would consider soft-core snuff porn that I doubt anyone here would consider mentally unhealthy; Barbarella, and Lexx. GWAR may also fall into that category.
So... long story short, if you're having fantasies about killing actual people who have occurred in your life, you may have a problem, and should seriously consider seeking professional psychological help. If it involves strictly fictional characters not even remotely based on real people, then that would be significantly less creepy, but still pretty weird.
[/thread]
Seriously, let's all move on with our lives. I don't want to know the answers to any questions, so Babylon, please don't answer. For serious.
Yeah, I chose to go with statements rather than questions for a reason.
So, Babylon... Fell free not to elaborate.
I think the only snuffslashfic I would read, would be about Palin
Stepping away from the direction the thread had been going in.
I spent all day today sorting cans at the salvation army, it's the annual Christmas food drive and for a change I really felt good about the work I'm doing there. I worked hard, and am physically tired, and all of the other people did as well, including some who are really terrible slackers on most days. One guy who usually does no work even came in without needing to, his hours for the month are done, and worked hard all day. I was proud of all of us welfare bums for the efficient and cooperative way we got it all sorted and I'm proud of the community as well, we took in a crazy amount of food. The Salvation Army Gym, which isn't an enormous gym, but does contain a full basketball court, is full from one end to the other of canned goods, pasta, and other non-perishable items. I know that it is going to make a difference in the lives of a lot of hungry people in town.
I've been observing the sort of relationship between two of the younger people I work with, one is 21, the other is 20, and they are both definitely still teenagers in most of the important ways. the girl is a single mother, her daughter, who I met doing laundry is a beautiful and friendly little girl who has the misfortune of having a father who is intentionally not paying child support because he feels he needs a new car (not a new to him car, a genuinely new car) after having purchased one in February (again, not just new to him, genuinely new) the guy is the brother of the Klansman I work with and toward the younger end of 8 brother's and sisters. I expect that welfare in that family is a generational thing and that the huge number of siblings was partly a way to increase benefits. The two of them flirt constantly although she insists she doesn't mean anything by it and he is meanwhile flirting with quite a few other girls while insisting he really does mean something by it with her. She is my second cousin twice removed and seems to have adopted me as a bit of a respected elder figure.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on December 18, 2010, 03:01:17 AM
Stepping away from the direction the thread had been going in.
I spent all day today sorting cans at the salvation army, it's the annual Christmas food drive and for a change I really felt good about the work I'm doing there. I worked hard, and am physically tired, and all of the other people did as well, including some who are really terrible slackers on most days. One guy who usually does no work even came in without needing to, his hours for the month are done, and worked hard all day. I was proud of all of us welfare bums for the efficient and cooperative way we got it all sorted and I'm proud of the community as well, we took in a crazy amount of food. The Salvation Army Gym, which isn't an enormous gym, but does contain a full basketball court, is full from one end to the other of canned goods, pasta, and other non-perishable items. I know that it is going to make a difference in the lives of a lot of hungry people in town.
I've been observing the sort of relationship between two of the younger people I work with, one is 21, the other is 20, and they are both definitely still teenagers in most of the important ways. the girl is a single mother, her daughter, who I met doing laundry is a beautiful and friendly little girl who has the misfortune of having a father who is intentionally not paying child support because he feels he needs a new car (not a new to him car, a genuinely new car) after having purchased one in February (again, not just new to him, genuinely new) the guy is the brother of the Klansman I work with and toward the younger end of 8 brother's and sisters. I expect that welfare in that family is a generational thing and that the huge number of siblings was partly a way to increase benefits. The two of them flirt constantly although she insists she doesn't mean anything by it and he is meanwhile flirting with quite a few other girls while insisting he really does mean something by it with her. She is my second cousin twice removed and seems to have adopted me as a bit of a respected elder figure.
That's good to hear. I'm glad there's still some people out there willing to do honest work for no recompense.
Silly young people. Why must we be so fickle with our affections?
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on December 18, 2010, 03:01:17 AMShe...seems to have adopted me as a bit of a respected elder figure.
:weary:
Quote from: East Coast Hipster on December 18, 2010, 05:33:29 AM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on December 18, 2010, 03:01:17 AMShe...seems to have adopted me as a bit of a respected elder figure.
:weary:
Yeah, I'm bewildered. I'm 33 and on welfare. Find a respectable elder to respect.
Yeah, and the whole part where you're a disgusting headcase who gets his jollies thinking about murdering people sexually.
Quote from: Nigel on December 17, 2010, 05:28:06 PM
I'm going to go ahead and be the lone dissenter to the idea that you can't choose what turns you on. There are choices everybody gets to make about what threads of arousal to pursue, and everyone has, at various times, the unbidden twinges of arousal at an idea or scenario that is as repulsive as it is arousing. Most people go "Ew, that's horrible, I'm not going to think about that" and the arousal cycle is broken, but a few people go "Heh yeah that turns me on, I'm going to think about it while I masturbate" and the arousal cycle gets reinforced. That's a choice.
Some people are really into the idea of being "edgy" or "alternative" and make choices to indulge what they see as a sexual dark side, not realizing they're locking their sexual preference in for something that is not so much dark as seedy and repulsive. Even so, it's hard to accept the idea that a mind that would turn toward sexual gratification in other people's suffering and death, even imagined, is a mind that started out anything but pathological to begin with.
I agree to an extent.
Some basic inclinations seem hardwired or as close to as to be indistinguishable, but a lot of the stuff from a level or two below that is going to be based, in part, on feedback loops and the choice to induldge in certain scenarios and fetishes. It's classic operant conditioning at work.
All I know is this thread is a Criminal Minds episode in the making.
Or Castle.
Castle would be better, because it has Stana Katic in it, and Nathan Fillion's character would make terrible jokes about it.
Quote from: East Coast Hipster on December 18, 2010, 12:11:16 PM
Yeah, and the whole part where you're a disgusting headcase who gets his jollies thinking about murdering people sexually.
Well I'm not going to go telling my innocent lil second cousin that part, so I don't think she factors that into the decision.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on December 18, 2010, 03:47:05 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hipster on December 18, 2010, 12:11:16 PM
Yeah, and the whole part where you're a disgusting headcase who gets his jollies thinking about murdering people sexually.
Well I'm not going to go telling my innocent lil second cousin that part, so I don't think she factors that into the decision.
Is this you admitting that you are fucked up and that you are aware of it?
What I want to know is . . . Is the wife aware of your inclinations?
Charley Brown
Yes, I am aware that I am fucked up, I don't deny it.
Cardinal Pizza, yes she is, she'll ocasionally send me pictures that she thinks I'll enjoy, she has her fetishes, I have mine, and even the ones we share we mostly don't indulge in together.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on December 17, 2010, 08:58:57 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on December 17, 2010, 08:27:49 PM
Sacher Masoch is even more dull.
Even more so, I suppose, if you get turned on by snuffslashfic.
In truth, The Story of O kicks both of them in the balls.
Yeah, I enjoyed The Story of O a lot as a teenager, I'd say it was a transformative text for me that allowed me to realize that I wasn't the only person with the sort of desires I had (prior to discovering the internet and finding that not only was I not alone there are a lot of people who do)
For anyone who doesn't see O as snuff, remember how it ends.
So by your definition, ANY literature that includes a death is "snuff"? :lulz: Wow. That's beyond retardation. That's flat out pathetically delusional.
Do you wank to Macbeth? :lulz: Give me a fucking break.
Quote from: Hoopla on December 17, 2010, 10:46:19 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 17, 2010, 07:56:44 AM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on December 17, 2010, 12:27:56 AM
what's wrong with stories about people getting murdered in a sexual way? I mean,yeah, maybe not your thing, but it's not hurting anybody except imaginary people. I really can't see a problem with doing whatever you like to imaginary people.
It's not technically "wrong" in the same way that pornographic literature with young children as the objects is not technically "wrong".
This. But its still fucking gross.
Yep. It's not hurting anyone, but the people who enjoy it make my skin crawl and I don't want them near me.
Quote from: Cain on December 18, 2010, 12:18:36 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 17, 2010, 05:28:06 PM
I'm going to go ahead and be the lone dissenter to the idea that you can't choose what turns you on. There are choices everybody gets to make about what threads of arousal to pursue, and everyone has, at various times, the unbidden twinges of arousal at an idea or scenario that is as repulsive as it is arousing. Most people go "Ew, that's horrible, I'm not going to think about that" and the arousal cycle is broken, but a few people go "Heh yeah that turns me on, I'm going to think about it while I masturbate" and the arousal cycle gets reinforced. That's a choice.
Some people are really into the idea of being "edgy" or "alternative" and make choices to indulge what they see as a sexual dark side, not realizing they're locking their sexual preference in for something that is not so much dark as seedy and repulsive. Even so, it's hard to accept the idea that a mind that would turn toward sexual gratification in other people's suffering and death, even imagined, is a mind that started out anything but pathological to begin with.
I agree to an extent.
Some basic inclinations seem hardwired or as close to as to be indistinguishable, but a lot of the stuff from a level or two below that is going to be based, in part, on feedback loops and the choice to induldge in certain scenarios and fetishes. It's classic operant conditioning at work.
True enough. Some fundamentals, like homosexuality, seem to be biologically hardwired. However, I don't think anyone is biologically hardwired to want to fuck dead people, children, dogs, or their mom.
Babylon, I gotta say, this conversation has taken you from a pretty much OK guy in my eyes to
1. An unprincipled hypocrite (an anarchist on welfare? But it's OK for you because you have a family to support? At what point do you grow up and abandon anarchism because the principles not only don't work for special little magical unicorns like YOU, they don't work for anyone?)
2. Vaguely delusional (I was starting to suspect this was the case when you first started talking about your internet girlfriend, your wife's screenplay making you rich, and now this "novel" that you wrote, which is 99.9% probably terrible even aside from the subject matter)
3. Super creepy and actively pursuing your interest in proclivities that put you just barely above pedophiles in the "should be allowed to live" category.
Quote this post in a couple of years time when babylon is in the papers for murder.
Why is it that all the really creepy guys with the scummy sexual preferences are deadbeats/wasters?
Why cant they be charming and successfull like ted bundy?
Quote from: Nigel on December 18, 2010, 07:24:22 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on December 17, 2010, 08:58:57 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on December 17, 2010, 08:27:49 PM
Sacher Masoch is even more dull.
Even more so, I suppose, if you get turned on by snuffslashfic.
In truth, The Story of O kicks both of them in the balls.
Yeah, I enjoyed The Story of O a lot as a teenager, I'd say it was a transformative text for me that allowed me to realize that I wasn't the only person with the sort of desires I had (prior to discovering the internet and finding that not only was I not alone there are a lot of people who do)
For anyone who doesn't see O as snuff, remember how it ends.
So by your definition, ANY literature that includes a death is "snuff"? :lulz: Wow. That's beyond retardation. That's flat out pathetically delusional.
Do you wank to Macbeth? :lulz: Give me a fucking break.
Only if the death is sexualized. O is a story of a woman's complete destruction, sexuality is a really major component of that.
Quote from: Nigel on December 18, 2010, 07:39:36 PM
Babylon, I gotta say, this conversation has taken you from a pretty much OK guy in my eyes to
1. An unprincipled hypocrite (an anarchist on welfare? But it's OK for you because you have a family to support? At what point do you grow up and abandon anarchism because the principles not only don't work for special little magical unicorns like YOU, they don't work for anyone?)
2. Vaguely delusional (I was starting to suspect this was the case when you first started talking about your internet girlfriend, your wife's screenplay making you rich, and now this "novel" that you wrote, which is 99.9% probably terrible even aside from the subject matter)
3. Super creepy and actively pursuing your interest in proclivities that put you just barely above pedophiles in the "should be allowed to live" category.
1. Anarchist, not Libertarian. I don't have any problem with anyone else being on welfare either (well, I mean I do becuase it sucks for them, but I don't think they should be kicked off)
2. The novel may or may not be terrible, it's a nanowrimo book, so I'll admit probably not the best, still I do kinda wish you'd look before judging, I have had several people say nice things about it,although quite possibly they were just being nice. I'm not delusional about my wife's screenplay, althgouh admittedly apparently a bit overly optimistic.
3. No arguement there, I'm not going to try to defend my interest in snuff as healthy.
I said anarchist. How, exactly, does centralized welfare work out in anarchist philosophy?
Quote from: Nigel on December 20, 2010, 12:36:53 AM
I said anarchist. How, exactly, does centralized welfare work out in anarchist philosophy?
once an Anarchist society is in place it's replaced by localized community support. An Anarchist society isn't in place so I'm not going to act like it is. work toward it sure, but refusing to utilize government services that I would prefer were being taken care of in other ways doesn't help to build anything.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on December 20, 2010, 02:13:20 AM
Quote from: Nigel on December 20, 2010, 12:36:53 AM
I said anarchist. How, exactly, does centralized welfare work out in anarchist philosophy?
once an Anarchist society is in place it's replaced by localized community support. An Anarchist society isn't in place so I'm not going to act like it is. work toward it sure, but refusing to utilize government services that I would prefer were being taken care of in other ways doesn't help to build anything.
So what you want is basically what we have now, with a few token issues taken off the hands of the government. Fantastic. Real ideological marvel right there.
So a stand in for the free store
Quote from: Faust on December 20, 2010, 02:18:34 AM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on December 20, 2010, 02:13:20 AM
Quote from: Nigel on December 20, 2010, 12:36:53 AM
I said anarchist. How, exactly, does centralized welfare work out in anarchist philosophy?
once an Anarchist society is in place it's replaced by localized community support. An Anarchist society isn't in place so I'm not going to act like it is. work toward it sure, but refusing to utilize government services that I would prefer were being taken care of in other ways doesn't help to build anything.
So what you want is basically what we have now, with a few token issues taken off the hands of the government. Fantastic. Real ideological marvel right there.
Really not at all no. I want local control of everything, no larger government at all, and a society organized along the lines of much of Spain during the civil war. I don't see avoiding using government services currently as a path toward that. Building alternative networks yes, absolutely. Working to make the government less needed in our daily lives absolutely. Organizing workers and even lumpenproles like me and the other welfare bums, yep. Am I doing a good job of it all? No, not really, I am not doing a really good job of much except child rearing at the moment, but using government services doesn't make me less of an anarchist.
He just wants to call himself an anarchist so that smelly trustafarian chicks will be more likely to let him touch their unwashed vaginas.
Are you all being deliberately obtuse, or do you just want to harp on him for anything at this point?
No we're not, but yes we do.
FACT: my previously-stated reason is the ONLY reason anyone actually publicly identifies themselves as any sort of anarchist.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on December 20, 2010, 02:13:20 AM
Quote from: Nigel on December 20, 2010, 12:36:53 AM
I said anarchist. How, exactly, does centralized welfare work out in anarchist philosophy?
once an Anarchist society is in place it's replaced by localized community support. An Anarchist society isn't in place so I'm not going to act like it is. work toward it sure, but refusing to utilize government services that I would prefer were being taken care of in other ways doesn't help to build anything.
That worked really well in the Old West.
Quote from: Doktor Phox on December 20, 2010, 02:26:52 AM
Are you all being deliberately obtuse, or do you just want to harp on him for anything at this point?
These are all points that were brought up in his OP, wherein he reveals that he's into snuff porn and is, in conflict to his stated political ideology, on welfare. I can really only address one point at a time. There is also at least one other point in the OP I'd like to get on his case about, plus the flattering new "I'm a victim" hat he's decided to wear, but it will just have to wait.
Well, first off, EW. Why on earth would you fucking write about your thing for snuff porn? I'm calling either attention whoring or that you somehow think that a murder fetish is alright.
Either way, please stop posting about it. No one wants to hear it, its disturbing and upsetting.
I'm into some weird shit, and my stomach still turned over hearing the OP talk about snuff and continue talking about snuff.
Ok I need a better definition. I thought snuff porn was sex porn in which one person kills (or pretends to) at orgasm. Now fucking people who are already dead is a whole other thing I thought. I don't want to know, but at this point I guess I need to in order to understand this. And just to ask this is different from the autoasphyxiation deal right?
For the record the whole thing disgusts me but I can't make an intelligent comment in my current state of ignorance.
Quote from: Niamh on December 21, 2010, 12:49:28 AM
Ok I need a better definition. I thought snuff porn was sex porn in which one person kills (or pretends to) at orgasm. Now fucking people who are already dead is a whole other thing I thought. I don't want to know, but at this point I guess I need to in order to understand this. And just to ask this is different from the autoasphyxiation deal right?
For the record the whole thing disgusts me but I can't make an intelligent comment in my current state of ignorance.
Fucking dead people is necrophilia, that is separate from snuff yes. asphyxia is sometimes associated with snuff and is sometimes a completely separate thing.
Damnit, I told myself I wasn't going to talk about any of it any longer, but at least i am not talking about my personal tastes.
Just to mention them though, I am not into necrophilia.
I am honestly apathetic towards snuff porn.
I generally tend to categorise the morality of an action based on its consequences and, apart from the really rather distant possibility that BH will turn into rapin' murderin' land pirate, I really don't see snuff porn as having any more of a negative impact on the world than you know, regular porn, or TV.
Rational arguments will be considered.
Quote from: Roaring Biscuit! on December 21, 2010, 01:09:35 AM
I am honestly apathetic towards snuff porn.
I generally tend to categorise the morality of an action based on its consequences and, apart from the really rather distant possibility that BH will turn into rapin' murderin' land pirate, I really don't see snuff porn as having any more of a negative impact on the world than you know, regular porn, or TV.
Rational arguments will be considered.
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.
Quote from: Roaring Biscuit! on December 21, 2010, 01:09:35 AM
I am honestly apathetic towards snuff porn.
I generally tend to categorise the morality of an action based on its consequences and, apart from the really rather distant possibility that BH will turn into rapin' murderin' land pirate, I really don't see snuff porn as having any more of a negative impact on the world than you know, regular porn, or TV.
Rational arguments will be considered.
So, you view CGI child pornography as being OK, since no actual children are involved in the making of it?
Quote from: Nigel on December 20, 2010, 12:36:53 AM
I said anarchist. How, exactly, does centralized welfare work out in anarchist philosophy?
Well, I'm not touching most of this thread with a 55 ft pole.
However, there are a number of anarchist philosophies that have centralized welfare built in.
These philosophies are generally called collectivist anarchism or social anarchism and various forms of it were the dominant anarchist philosophies in Europe during the late 1800's. The basic idea being the abolition of the State and its replacement by autonomous communes which would share in the work and rewards of the commune. Other theories of anarchist philosophy that provide for the common welfare are anarcho-communists and anarcho-syndicates.
The viability of such a system is not really germane here, I'm not saying its a good idea... just that the two ideas of centralized welfare and anarchism aren't mutually exclusive.
Anarchism may be untenable... but it has a lot more to it than "No Rulz"
Quote from: Nigel on December 18, 2010, 07:33:40 PM
Quote from: Cain on December 18, 2010, 12:18:36 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 17, 2010, 05:28:06 PM
I'm going to go ahead and be the lone dissenter to the idea that you can't choose what turns you on. There are choices everybody gets to make about what threads of arousal to pursue, and everyone has, at various times, the unbidden twinges of arousal at an idea or scenario that is as repulsive as it is arousing. Most people go "Ew, that's horrible, I'm not going to think about that" and the arousal cycle is broken, but a few people go "Heh yeah that turns me on, I'm going to think about it while I masturbate" and the arousal cycle gets reinforced. That's a choice.
Some people are really into the idea of being "edgy" or "alternative" and make choices to indulge what they see as a sexual dark side, not realizing they're locking their sexual preference in for something that is not so much dark as seedy and repulsive. Even so, it's hard to accept the idea that a mind that would turn toward sexual gratification in other people's suffering and death, even imagined, is a mind that started out anything but pathological to begin with.
I agree to an extent.
Some basic inclinations seem hardwired or as close to as to be indistinguishable, but a lot of the stuff from a level or two below that is going to be based, in part, on feedback loops and the choice to induldge in certain scenarios and fetishes. It's classic operant conditioning at work.
True enough. Some fundamentals, like homosexuality, seem to be biologically hardwired. However, I don't think anyone is biologically hardwired to want to fuck dead people, children, dogs, or their mom.
I wasn't going to derail the thread...but then i finished it :horrormirth: so i decided that it's not really going anywhere and I might take this opportunity:
Anyway...Nigel, I'm not sure about this one. How do you figure this one because it's been years and I haven't been able to make up my mind about it.
^ Lazy google search results: http://www.livescience.com/health/080617-hereditary-homosexuality.html (http://www.livescience.com/health/080617-hereditary-homosexuality.html)
Homosexuality in males may be caused in part by genes that can increase fertility in females, according to a new study.
The findings may help solve the puzzle of why, if homosexuality is hereditary, it hasn't already disappeared from the gene pool, since gay people are less likely to reproduce than heterosexuals.
A team of researchers found that some female relatives of gay men tend to have more children than average. The scientists used a computer model to explain how two genes passed on through the maternal line could produce this effect....
I dunno. I'm not sure that I agree that the biological behaviors of same-sex directed desire & intercourse also as a social role/label.
So when somebody refers to homosexuality being hereditary it somehow still doesn't jive. Like one one hand there's these biological drive and on the other there's all these social roles implied.
It seems to me that they're not the same thing at all but should be used separately rather than one and the same.
Edit: I am not really sure if that accurately describes what I'm getting at.
I didn't mean to step in on Nigel's question. And what do you mean by social role/label? Stereotyping?
Pretty sure he's making the argument that the need for procreation is a biological imperative, and any form of deviation from that formula is socially constructed. Burns, I apologize if that's not what your saying. But, you're full of shit if it is.
Quote from: Burns on December 21, 2010, 03:07:40 AM
Quote from: Nigel on December 18, 2010, 07:33:40 PM
Quote from: Cain on December 18, 2010, 12:18:36 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 17, 2010, 05:28:06 PM
I'm going to go ahead and be the lone dissenter to the idea that you can't choose what turns you on. There are choices everybody gets to make about what threads of arousal to pursue, and everyone has, at various times, the unbidden twinges of arousal at an idea or scenario that is as repulsive as it is arousing. Most people go "Ew, that's horrible, I'm not going to think about that" and the arousal cycle is broken, but a few people go "Heh yeah that turns me on, I'm going to think about it while I masturbate" and the arousal cycle gets reinforced. That's a choice.
Some people are really into the idea of being "edgy" or "alternative" and make choices to indulge what they see as a sexual dark side, not realizing they're locking their sexual preference in for something that is not so much dark as seedy and repulsive. Even so, it's hard to accept the idea that a mind that would turn toward sexual gratification in other people's suffering and death, even imagined, is a mind that started out anything but pathological to begin with.
I agree to an extent.
Some basic inclinations seem hardwired or as close to as to be indistinguishable, but a lot of the stuff from a level or two below that is going to be based, in part, on feedback loops and the choice to induldge in certain scenarios and fetishes. It's classic operant conditioning at work.
True enough. Some fundamentals, like homosexuality, seem to be biologically hardwired. However, I don't think anyone is biologically hardwired to want to fuck dead people, children, dogs, or their mom.
I wasn't going to derail the thread...but then i finished it :horrormirth: so i decided that it's not really going anywhere and I might take this opportunity:
Anyway...Nigel, I'm not sure about this one. How do you figure this one because it's been years and I haven't been able to make up my mind about it.
Partly because it tends to run in families and partly because it appears in animal populations that grow too numerous. I suspect it's a genetic "switch" that's built in to some percentage of the population. My guess is that it's activated in utero based on the mother's environment. I don't have anything more sophisticated than that to offer, but in my observation with growing up with (and raising) gay children, it usually becomes evident at a pretty young age, unless it's actively suppressed. And sometimes even if it's actively suppressed.
I know, on another level most people are bisexual to some degree... but I think primary attraction to same-sex partners may well be a social benefit trait that tends to kick in when the population is high enough that it could make do with more caretakers/providers and fewer breeders. I am pretty confident that it's heavily innate and not learned behavior.
Quote from: Nigel on December 21, 2010, 06:24:54 AM
Quote from: Burns on December 21, 2010, 03:07:40 AM
Quote from: Nigel on December 18, 2010, 07:33:40 PM
Quote from: Cain on December 18, 2010, 12:18:36 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 17, 2010, 05:28:06 PM
I'm going to go ahead and be the lone dissenter to the idea that you can't choose what turns you on. There are choices everybody gets to make about what threads of arousal to pursue, and everyone has, at various times, the unbidden twinges of arousal at an idea or scenario that is as repulsive as it is arousing. Most people go "Ew, that's horrible, I'm not going to think about that" and the arousal cycle is broken, but a few people go "Heh yeah that turns me on, I'm going to think about it while I masturbate" and the arousal cycle gets reinforced. That's a choice.
Some people are really into the idea of being "edgy" or "alternative" and make choices to indulge what they see as a sexual dark side, not realizing they're locking their sexual preference in for something that is not so much dark as seedy and repulsive. Even so, it's hard to accept the idea that a mind that would turn toward sexual gratification in other people's suffering and death, even imagined, is a mind that started out anything but pathological to begin with.
I agree to an extent.
Some basic inclinations seem hardwired or as close to as to be indistinguishable, but a lot of the stuff from a level or two below that is going to be based, in part, on feedback loops and the choice to induldge in certain scenarios and fetishes. It's classic operant conditioning at work.
True enough. Some fundamentals, like homosexuality, seem to be biologically hardwired. However, I don't think anyone is biologically hardwired to want to fuck dead people, children, dogs, or their mom.
I wasn't going to derail the thread...but then i finished it :horrormirth: so i decided that it's not really going anywhere and I might take this opportunity:
Anyway...Nigel, I'm not sure about this one. How do you figure this one because it's been years and I haven't been able to make up my mind about it.
Partly because it tends to run in families and partly because it appears in animal populations that grow too numerous. I suspect it's a genetic "switch" that's built in to some percentage of the population. My guess is that it's activated in utero based on the mother's environment. I don't have anything more sophisticated than that to offer, but in my observation with growing up with (and raising) gay children, it usually becomes evident at a pretty young age, unless it's actively suppressed. And sometimes even if it's actively suppressed.
I know, on another level most people are bisexual to some degree... but I think primary attraction to same-sex partners may well be a social benefit trait that tends to kick in when the population is high enough that it could make do with more caretakers/providers and fewer breeders. I am pretty confident that it's heavily innate and not learned behavior.
Very well put, Nigel.
Quote from: StoreBrand on December 21, 2010, 05:18:40 AM
I didn't mean to step in on Nigel's question. And what do you mean by social role/label? Stereotyping?
I think Stereotyping goes with it. That's part of what i'm unsure of. I included the dictionary definition of homosexuality in trying to explain it but it just seems to be so much more important to our society than mere same-sex desire / intercourse. That's about where I get lost. It's such a distinction to loving. and maybe it's just my model of loving but it seems so much more all encompassing to me to have such a distinction in the first place.
But then I see the value of it for it's social role. The necessary social action against those who wish to define loving to a degree that it affects another's freedom to love equally.
Quote from: Doktor Phox on December 21, 2010, 05:23:23 AM
Pretty sure he's making the argument that the need for procreation is a biological imperative, and any form of deviation from that formula is socially constructed. Burns, I apologize if that's not what your saying. But, you're full of shit if it is.
I'm not making an argument at all. Just wondering about it again. But you're mostly right on the last sentence.
Quote from: Nigel on December 21, 2010, 06:24:54 AM
Quote from: Burns on December 21, 2010, 03:07:40 AM
Quote from: Nigel on December 18, 2010, 07:33:40 PM
Quote from: Cain on December 18, 2010, 12:18:36 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 17, 2010, 05:28:06 PM
I'm going to go ahead and be the lone dissenter to the idea that you can't choose what turns you on. There are choices everybody gets to make about what threads of arousal to pursue, and everyone has, at various times, the unbidden twinges of arousal at an idea or scenario that is as repulsive as it is arousing. Most people go "Ew, that's horrible, I'm not going to think about that" and the arousal cycle is broken, but a few people go "Heh yeah that turns me on, I'm going to think about it while I masturbate" and the arousal cycle gets reinforced. That's a choice.
Some people are really into the idea of being "edgy" or "alternative" and make choices to indulge what they see as a sexual dark side, not realizing they're locking their sexual preference in for something that is not so much dark as seedy and repulsive. Even so, it's hard to accept the idea that a mind that would turn toward sexual gratification in other people's suffering and death, even imagined, is a mind that started out anything but pathological to begin with.
I agree to an extent.
Some basic inclinations seem hardwired or as close to as to be indistinguishable, but a lot of the stuff from a level or two below that is going to be based, in part, on feedback loops and the choice to induldge in certain scenarios and fetishes. It's classic operant conditioning at work.
True enough. Some fundamentals, like homosexuality, seem to be biologically hardwired. However, I don't think anyone is biologically hardwired to want to fuck dead people, children, dogs, or their mom.
I wasn't going to derail the thread...but then i finished it :horrormirth: so i decided that it's not really going anywhere and I might take this opportunity:
Anyway...Nigel, I'm not sure about this one. How do you figure this one because it's been years and I haven't been able to make up my mind about it.
Partly because it tends to run in families and partly because it appears in animal populations that grow too numerous. I suspect it's a genetic "switch" that's built in to some percentage of the population. My guess is that it's activated in utero based on the mother's environment. I don't have anything more sophisticated than that to offer, but in my observation with growing up with (and raising) gay children, it usually becomes evident at a pretty young age, unless it's actively suppressed. And sometimes even if it's actively suppressed.
I know, on another level most people are bisexual to some degree... but I think primary attraction to same-sex partners may well be a social benefit trait that tends to kick in when the population is high enough that it could make do with more caretakers/providers and fewer breeders. I am pretty confident that it's heavily innate and not learned behavior.
I'm not worried about sophisticated details. I'm more than convinced THAT it happens. ;) The whole runs-in-families catches me a bit. And maybe i'm overgeneralizing but doesn't everybody have that -one uncle-?
It just seems too all encompassing to be broken down so much. i dunno
Quote from: Burns on December 21, 2010, 06:46:48 AM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on December 21, 2010, 05:23:23 AM
Pretty sure he's making the argument that the need for procreation is a biological imperative, and any form of deviation from that formula is socially constructed. Burns, I apologize if that's not what your saying. But, you're full of shit if it is.
I'm not making an argument at all. Just wondering about it again. But you're mostly right on the last sentence.
Just so long as you know. :wink:
Our society generally has the concept of people having sexual orientations, which is part of their identity as a person. Other societies (I'm thinking like in the past), there were no heterosexual/homosexual people, only heterosexual/homosexual acts. Is that what you're saying about about social roles and such?
Quote from: Burns on December 21, 2010, 06:54:45 AM
I'm not worried about sophisticated details. I'm more than convinced THAT it happens. ;) The whole runs-in-families catches me a bit. And maybe i'm overgeneralizing but doesn't everybody have that -one uncle-?
Well, for example, both me and my only brother ended up teh gay. When I tell people this I also like to joke that our parents must have done something terribly, terribly wrong.
There is ample evidence that homosexuality tends to run in families, which is not exactly the same as being an inherited trait. It's not quite as simple as, say, blue eyes, obviously.
What it means in this case is that while one in ten people in the US is gay, that doesn't mean that a family cluster with 20 kids (say, divided between 5 siblings) will have 2 gay people in the youngest generation. It means that some such family clusters will have zero gay children, and some families will have four. So in one family, you may find that 5 siblings have 4 kids each, and none of them are gay. In another family, 4 siblings have 5 kids each, and there is a 5th sibling who is gay and has no children. Of the 20 offspring, 4 are gay.
That's a ridiculous oversimplification, of course, but there is evidence that it works that way. Families with gayness tend to have a lot of gayness, and there are families that seem to lack it entirely. My mother's family does not have teh gay, but my dad's family totally has it, and EFO & MO's dad's family has a wealth of it, not to mention LO's dad's lovely family.
I have to admit, it's all what you know, but I kind of feel sorry for families that don't have it.
Quote from: Nigel on December 21, 2010, 07:42:53 AM
but I kind of feel sorry for families that don't have it.
Because it's FABULOUS!
Quote from: Nast on December 21, 2010, 07:45:03 AM
Quote from: Nigel on December 21, 2010, 07:42:53 AM
but I kind of feel sorry for families that don't have it.
Because it's FABULOUS!
:lulz:
I have been informed many times that I'm a fag.
I was BORN fabulous!
Quote from: Nast on December 21, 2010, 07:08:07 AM
Our society generally has the concept of people having sexual orientations, which is part of their identity as a person. Other societies (I'm thinking like in the past), there were no heterosexual/homosexual people, only heterosexual/homosexual acts. Is that what you're saying about about social roles and such?
That's kind of it. I can see how it
has to be the case in our culture. Maybe there's no hetero/homo people? My ignorance comes from the fact I could never pick a side lol. It just seems like such a division when it isn't really necessary. I guess I'm not really speaking from within the culture's point of view.
Maybe the roles just seem too limiting to me.
Quote
Quote from: Burns on December 21, 2010, 06:54:45 AM
I'm not worried about sophisticated details. I'm more than convinced THAT it happens. ;) The whole runs-in-families catches me a bit. And maybe i'm overgeneralizing but doesn't everybody have that -one uncle-?
Well, for example, both me and my only brother ended up teh gay. When I tell people this I also like to joke that our parents must have done something terribly, terribly wrong.
:lol:
Quote from: Burns on December 21, 2010, 07:57:14 AM
Quote from: Nast on December 21, 2010, 07:08:07 AM
Our society generally has the concept of people having sexual orientations, which is part of their identity as a person. Other societies (I'm thinking like in the past), there were no heterosexual/homosexual people, only heterosexual/homosexual acts. Is that what you're saying about about social roles and such?
That's kind of it. I can see how it has to be the case in our culture. Maybe there's no hetero/homo people? My ignorance comes from the fact I could never pick a side lol. It just seems like such a division when it isn't really necessary. I guess I'm not really speaking from within the culture's point of view.
Maybe the roles just seem too limiting to me.
I quite understand. A lot of such divisions are arbitrary to one's personal identity, but eh that's culture for you. If you think about it in terms of preference it seems to make sense. Just like how some people like chocolate ice cream, some like vanilla, some like both, and some people are
real perverts and like strawberry.
Quote from: Nast on December 21, 2010, 08:06:22 AM
Quote from: Burns on December 21, 2010, 07:57:14 AM
Quote from: Nast on December 21, 2010, 07:08:07 AM
Our society generally has the concept of people having sexual orientations, which is part of their identity as a person. Other societies (I'm thinking like in the past), there were no heterosexual/homosexual people, only heterosexual/homosexual acts. Is that what you're saying about about social roles and such?
That's kind of it. I can see how it has to be the case in our culture. Maybe there's no hetero/homo people? My ignorance comes from the fact I could never pick a side lol. It just seems like such a division when it isn't really necessary. I guess I'm not really speaking from within the culture's point of view.
Maybe the roles just seem too limiting to me.
I quite understand. A lot of such divisions are arbitrary to one's personal identity, but eh that's culture for you. If you think about it in terms of preference it seems to make sense. Just like how some people like chocolate ice cream, some like vanilla, some like both, and some people are real perverts and like strawberry.
That seems like the simplest way of looking at it...too bad it has to be such a federal case in our culture. Then all the details seem to really "matter-or-not."
Quote from: Burns on December 21, 2010, 08:39:28 AM
Quote from: Nast on December 21, 2010, 08:06:22 AM
Quote from: Burns on December 21, 2010, 07:57:14 AM
Quote from: Nast on December 21, 2010, 07:08:07 AM
Our society generally has the concept of people having sexual orientations, which is part of their identity as a person. Other societies (I'm thinking like in the past), there were no heterosexual/homosexual people, only heterosexual/homosexual acts. Is that what you're saying about about social roles and such?
That's kind of it. I can see how it has to be the case in our culture. Maybe there's no hetero/homo people? My ignorance comes from the fact I could never pick a side lol. It just seems like such a division when it isn't really necessary. I guess I'm not really speaking from within the culture's point of view.
Maybe the roles just seem too limiting to me.
I quite understand. A lot of such divisions are arbitrary to one's personal identity, but eh that's culture for you. If you think about it in terms of preference it seems to make sense. Just like how some people like chocolate ice cream, some like vanilla, some like both, and some people are real perverts and like strawberry.
That seems like the simplest way of looking at it...too bad it has to be such a federal case in our culture. Then all the details seem to really "matter-or-not."
Yeah, I think it's pretty weird that something as relatively trivial as whether you like to get sticky with innies, outies, or both is considered a major matter of identity.
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.
QuoteNegative 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.
QuoteSo, 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.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on December 21, 2010, 12:54:20 AM
Damnit, I told myself I wasn't going to talk about any of it any longer,
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
Ok, I guess I should weigh in, for realsies.
Snuff porn seems at first to be at the far end of BDSM, a sort of "logical extension brought to illogical extremes", if you will.
Light spanking --> Restraints/hair pulling --> rape fantasies/roleplaying --> sexual torture/visible injuries --> complete dominance of another's life/fucking someone to death.
Granted, it's more of a web than a line, but fuck it, you get the picture. If you start thinking about the enjoyment of pain (giving and receiving), and control over another human being (or of giving control), it initially appears that if you escalate far enough, you will end with snuff.
There is a problem that stands in the way of this train of thinking: Snuff is not considered "Safe, Sane, and Consentual". Doing something that leads to death is not Safe; wanting to die (and wanting to kill) is not Sane; and killing an unwilling partner is not Consentual. It fails on all three fronts. Oddly enough, hebephilia can sometimes be considered Safe and Consentual, which could lead to some uncomfortable debates which I won't begin to get into.
But we're not talking about actual snuff, we're talking about snuff fantasy, which gets into grey areas that appear to be subject to an "ick" factor, and arguments could be made that "torture porn" movies such as Hostel tap into this. In any case, idolizing or aspiring to achieve sexual gratification via another's death is not, in my opinion, cool.
LMNO, I don't think anyone should be regulating fantasies, of course.
But I DO reserve the right to sneer at shit like this, the same way I'd sneer at a wife-beater or a pedo.
An actual wife beater and/or pedo, I'd go after with all available force: socially, legally, physically.
And someone who is engaged in the "fantasy" of spousal abuse/pedo/snuff, well... Sorry, Babs-Hor, it crosses a personal line.
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.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on December 21, 2010, 07:42:38 PM
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 was once engaged in some awesome sex and after climaxing a few times the girl looked at me, with beautiful wide eyes and said "Choke me".
I'd known her for a long time and we'd played together several times, but this was a first.. she asked again and so I tried. Not only did it not work, but I uh, lost the erection almost immediately. I can't even begin to imagine how much I personally wouldn't like snuff porn. I don't think less of her for wanting to be choked, I don't think less of someone who likes snuff 'FICTION'. However, I don't think either are something I could get into. I don't think that's hardwired. My BiP is still influenced by my upbringing and sex has always been a thing you do with a wonderful person (or persons if you're lucky)... not someone you wish to kill, choke or maim. I'm sure she wasn't into choking cause she might die... but in my head that's all I could see of it.
Hell, I have no idea what IS and IS NOT hardwired versus what IS and IS NOT learned behavior. Maybe by default we're all hardwired to be like bonobos, fucking everything for pleasure and occasionally for procreation. Maybe society turns us into heterosexuals or homosexuals or bisexuals or transsexuals or *sexuals (because I can't keep up with all the new ones that keep appearing on the Internet). On top of that, I think (at the very least) society has some kind of impact on the perception that a hetero/homo/othersexual has about themselves. I've known homosexuals that occasionally have sex with the opposite sex. I've known others that get physically ill if they even think about it. To me, the second seems more likely a product of something psychological rather than physiological. Obviously I'm not an expert... and I don't care why they act the way they do... its their life they should fuck or not fuck whatever they like.
When it comes to fucking animals or the dead, I think that must be psychological. Humans under the age of 18, on the other hand I think may be physiological and/or psychological (depending on the individual), prepubescent children on the other hand seems strongly psychological.
A transsexual dressing up like a drag queen seems probably psychological to me, but a transsexual that dresses as they feel that they should may well be physiological.
In the end, what does it matter if it's psychical or psychological? As long as its consensual, its none of my business.... and probably a false dichotomy anyway.
Also if anyone would like to enlighten me as to why choking is fun... I'm still confused by it.
Quote from: Ratatosk on December 21, 2010, 09:31:45 PM
I was once engaged in some awesome sex and after climaxing a few times the girl looked at me, with beautiful wide eyes and said "Choke me".
I'd known her for a long time and we'd played together several times, but this was a first.. she asked again and so I tried. Not only did it not work, but I uh, lost the erection almost immediately. I can't even begin to imagine how much I personally wouldn't like snuff porn. I don't think less of her for wanting to be choked, I don't think less of someone who likes snuff 'FICTION'. However, I don't think either are something I could get into. I don't think that's hardwired. My BiP is still influenced by my upbringing and sex has always been a thing you do with a wonderful person (or persons if you're lucky)... not someone you wish to kill, choke or maim. I'm sure she wasn't into choking cause she might die... but in my head that's all I could see of it.
Hell, I have no idea what IS and IS NOT hardwired versus what IS and IS NOT learned behavior. Maybe by default we're all hardwired to be like bonobos, fucking everything for pleasure and occasionally for procreation. Maybe society turns us into heterosexuals or homosexuals or bisexuals or transsexuals or *sexuals (because I can't keep up with all the new ones that keep appearing on the Internet). On top of that, I think (at the very least) society has some kind of impact on the perception that a hetero/homo/othersexual has about themselves. I've known homosexuals that occasionally have sex with the opposite sex. I've known others that get physically ill if they even think about it. To me, the second seems more likely a product of something psychological rather than physiological. Obviously I'm not an expert... and I don't care why they act the way they do... its their life they should fuck or not fuck whatever they like.
When it comes to fucking animals or the dead, I think that must be psychological. Humans under the age of 18, on the other hand I think may be physiological and/or psychological (depending on the individual), prepubescent children on the other hand seems strongly psychological.
A transsexual dressing up like a drag queen seems probably psychological to me, but a transsexual that dresses as they feel that they should may well be physiological.
In the end, what does it matter if it's psychical or psychological? As long as its consensual, its none of my business.... and probably a false dichotomy anyway.
Also if anyone would like to enlighten me as to why choking is fun... I'm still confused by it.
I had a similar experience to yours. I was 30, she was 17, up for just about anything, great girl in many respects, but had some issues. She asked me to choke her too. So I thought, why not? Clamped my hand tightly around her throat, and squeezed. For as long as I dared. Then I let go, because her eyes rolled back in her head. "Again again" she begged, so I obliged her. But the nagging thought of "How do I explain this if it goes wrong?" wouldn't let go.
I can't say I didn't enjoy it either, that was quite scary. But the summer went, and off she went, back to College. Haven't heard from her since.
Quote from: Ratatosk on December 21, 2010, 09:31:45 PM
Also if anyone would like to enlighten me as to why choking is fun... I'm still confused by it.
Oxygen deprevation, utter abandonment/submission, power games, rape fantasy, trust, getting your passionhatelustsex wires crossed.
LMNO
-but I don't consider that snuff, just another BDSM variant.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on December 22, 2010, 12:50:19 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on December 21, 2010, 09:31:45 PM
Also if anyone would like to enlighten me as to why choking is fun... I'm still confused by it.
Oxygen deprevation, utter abandonment/submission, power games, rape fantasy, trust, getting your passionhatelustsex wires crossed.
LMNO
-but I don't consider that snuff, just another BDSM variant.
Yeah, it's not even in the same
fetish ball park as snuff. Unless, of course, it all goes horribly wrong, then the Prosecution will prove that indeed, you did it to satisfy your depraved sexdeath urges, and make sure that your first Parole application won't be for at least 30 years.
Whatever happened to your basics? You know, young delivery guy brings a box of dildos and sex gel to a house of wanton older women who proceed to have their wicked way with him?
Been there, fucked that.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on December 22, 2010, 03:26:28 PM
Been there, fucked that.
So once conquered the hill has no appeal?
Of course not. But once you've conquered the basics, why not explore the peaks and valleys?
That's like a cook learning how to scramble an egg, and then asking, "what's the point of poaching them, served with hollandaise?"
Quote from: Niamh on December 22, 2010, 03:34:33 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on December 22, 2010, 03:26:28 PM
Been there, fucked that.
So once conquered the hill has no appeal?
The hill is overrated, and has a flabby ass...
Like Paris Hilton:
(http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/1089/parishiltonass.jpg)
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on December 22, 2010, 03:38:49 PM
Of course not. But once you've conquered the basics, why not explore the peaks and valleys?
That's like a cook learning how to scramble an egg, and then asking, "what's the point of poaching them, served with hollandaise?"
Eh I'm not saying that exploration and experimentation is not a good thing and absolutely necessary.....
My thinking was more along the lines of have we gone so far that this (snuff porn, torture porn etc..) is the next infatuation because we've been there and done that with everything else?
I don't know, I'm very naive when it comes to this.
I don't really ever get tired of exploring the basics. Somehow, not only does the novelty never really wear off, but there always seems to be more to find out, without ever venturing near pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, snuff, torture, etc.
Quote from: Nigel on December 22, 2010, 03:59:25 PM
I don't really ever get tired of exploring the basics. Somehow, not only does the novelty never really wear off, but there always seems to be more to find out, without ever venturing near pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, snuff, torture, etc.
See yes, it's ok to try new stuff, but it doesn't mean once tried you can't go back for seconds (or thirds, fourths or millionth) right?
Quote from: Nigel on December 22, 2010, 03:59:25 PM
I don't really ever get tired of exploring the basics.
This. If it gets boring, you're doin' it wrong.
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.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on December 22, 2010, 04:17:13 PM
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.
Phox,
Knows what she likes, but likes to get weird
I just love it when Terri and I run our hands all over each other.
Quote from: Charley Brown on December 22, 2010, 06:02:22 PM
I just love it when Terri and I run our hands all over each other.
Is there any other option at your age? :lulz:
TGRR,
Relatively young punk, on yer lawn.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 22, 2010, 06:03:38 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on December 22, 2010, 06:02:22 PM
I just love it when Terri and I run our hands all over each other.
Is there any other option at your age? :lulz:
TGRR,
Relatively young punk, on yer lawn.
:argh!:
Dammit, I wish I could think of something snappy to say.
An MI6 spy found dead in a padlocked holdall in his central London flat had accessed bondage websites several times, police have revealed.
Gareth Williams, 31, from Holyhead on Anglesey, had also visited a drag show and owned £15,000 worth of women's designer clothing, detectives said.
Mr Williams' naked body was found at his Pimlico flat in August.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-12059910
I think he did it wrong.
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 doing it wrong too.
I shouldn't find that funny, but the orange kinda pulls it together.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 22, 2010, 07:00:07 PM
I shouldn't find that funny, but the orange kinda pulls it together.
Fucking fruits. :eek: :lulz:
Quote from: Charley Brown on December 22, 2010, 07:01:13 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 22, 2010, 07:00:07 PM
I shouldn't find that funny, but the orange kinda pulls it together.
Fucking fruits. :eek: :lulz:
...
Too fucking easy. :lol:
Quote from: Doktor Phox on December 22, 2010, 07:21:36 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on December 22, 2010, 07:01:13 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 22, 2010, 07:00:07 PM
I shouldn't find that funny, but the orange kinda pulls it together.
Fucking fruits. :eek: :lulz:
...
Too fucking easy. :lol:
Erm, I think that was an adjective, not a noun, Phoxy. :evil:
Quote from: BadBeast on December 22, 2010, 07:29:16 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on December 22, 2010, 07:21:36 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on December 22, 2010, 07:01:13 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 22, 2010, 07:00:07 PM
I shouldn't find that funny, but the orange kinda pulls it together.
Fucking fruits. :eek: :lulz:
...
Too fucking easy. :lol:
Erm, I think that was an adjective, not a noun, Phoxy. :evil:
Says you. :lulz:
Quote from: Doktor Phox on December 22, 2010, 07:30:03 PM
Quote from: BadBeast on December 22, 2010, 07:29:16 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on December 22, 2010, 07:21:36 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on December 22, 2010, 07:01:13 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 22, 2010, 07:00:07 PM
I shouldn't find that funny, but the orange kinda pulls it together.
Fucking fruits. :eek: :lulz:
...
Too fucking easy. :lol:
Erm, I think that was an adjective, not a noun, Phoxy. :evil:
Says you. :lulz:
:buttsecks: :eek:
Quote from: BadBeast on December 22, 2010, 06:58:25 PM
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.
Quote from: Cain on December 22, 2010, 07:44:45 PM
Quote from: BadBeast on December 22, 2010, 06:58:25 PM
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. :horrormirth:
Quote from: Roaring Biscuit! on December 21, 2010, 12:52:00 PM
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.
QuoteNegative 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.
QuoteSo, 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
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 21, 2010, 07:45:05 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on December 21, 2010, 07:42:38 PM
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.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on December 22, 2010, 04:17:13 PM
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.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on December 22, 2010, 11:56:26 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on December 22, 2010, 04:17:13 PM
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.
Quote from: Nigel on December 23, 2010, 01:57:14 AM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on December 22, 2010, 11:56:26 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on December 22, 2010, 04:17:13 PM
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"
Quote from: Nigel on December 23, 2010, 01:57:14 AM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on December 22, 2010, 11:56:26 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on December 22, 2010, 04:17:13 PM
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.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on December 23, 2010, 03:40:44 AM
Quote from: Nigel on December 23, 2010, 01:57:14 AM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on December 22, 2010, 11:56:26 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on December 22, 2010, 04:17:13 PM
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
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on December 22, 2010, 11:56:26 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on December 22, 2010, 04:17:13 PM
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.
I thought that was the point of this thread.
This thread is making me appreciate the plain, vanilla sex the wife and I have. But, it is a fine quality vanilla.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 23, 2010, 04:08:01 PM
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.
Quote from: BadBeast on December 23, 2010, 06:05:26 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 23, 2010, 04:08:01 PM
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.
:lulz:
Had to re-read that a couple of times!
Quote from: BadBeast on December 23, 2010, 06:05:26 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 23, 2010, 04:08:01 PM
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.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on December 23, 2010, 02:15:07 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on December 22, 2010, 11:56:26 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on December 22, 2010, 04:17:13 PM
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.
This. Plus it was a really obvious play on his part to try to "share" more about his sex life. Woohoo, sometimes BHU has group sex. Or hopes to.
Nobody cares.
Quote from: BadBeast on December 23, 2010, 06:05:26 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 23, 2010, 04:08:01 PM
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.
:lulz:
Quote from: Nigel on December 23, 2010, 06:38:06 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on December 23, 2010, 02:15:07 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on December 22, 2010, 11:56:26 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on December 22, 2010, 04:17:13 PM
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.
This.
Unless of course Babylon meant that a poly amorous relationship also ends up being basic sex with occasional variations...
I think it could simply be said that any long term sexual relationship, no matter the configuration tends to end up being basic sex with occasional variations.
It doesn't fucking matter because "couple" still covers polyamorous couples. Including any two of a triad or quartet. Stupid pedantry is stupid. Some people don't default to "basic sex"; see LMNO's correct use of the word "most".
Quote from: Nigel on December 23, 2010, 06:38:06 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on December 23, 2010, 02:15:07 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on December 22, 2010, 11:56:26 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on December 22, 2010, 04:17:13 PM
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.
This. Plus it was a really obvious play on his part to try to "share" more about his sex life. Woohoo, sometimes BHU has group sex. Or hopes to.
Nobody cares.
It's almost outlandish in it's progressiveness. My monocle absolutely popped.
Do you know what snuff porn is call in Salazore?
Porn.
Quote from: Hoopla on December 23, 2010, 02:39:53 PM
I thought that was the point of this thread.
It is yes, thank you.
Quote from: Enrico Salazar on December 23, 2010, 07:18:00 PM
Do you know what snuff porn is call in Salazore?
Porn.
Not to be confused with "Snuffy Porn", (Sesame St productions) The most infamous example of which is "Big Bird gets roasted". Where Big Bird is spit roasted first by Grover, and Oscar the Grouch, then by Bert and Ernie, before being reamed to Death by Mr Snuffleupagus. Then necro-fuckeded, by The Cookie Monster, The Count, and The Swedish Chef, before being dragged halfway down the stairs by Kermit the frog's little nephew, Robin. Who is then also skullfucked to death by a priapically proportioned, and crack raddled Snuffy.
(Culturally interesting, but lacking any real depth, or plot)
Quote from: BadBeast on December 23, 2010, 07:58:53 PM
Quote from: Enrico Salazar on December 23, 2010, 07:18:00 PM
Do you know what snuff porn is call in Salazore?
Porn.
Not to be confused with "Snuffy Porn", (Sesame St productions) The most infamous example of which is "Big Bird gets roasted". Where Big Bird is spit roasted first by Grover, and Oscar the Grouch, then by Bert and Ernie, before being reamed to Death by Mr Snuffleupagus. Then necro-fuckeded, by The Cookie Monster, The Count, and The Swedish Chef, before being dragged halfway down the stairs by Kermit the frog's little nephew, Robin. Who is then also skullfucked to death by a priapically proportioned, and crack raddled Snuffy.
(Culturally interesting, but lacking any real depth, or plot)
I thought they did the gerbil thing with Robin....
Quote from: Ratatosk on December 23, 2010, 08:08:00 PM
Quote from: BadBeast on December 23, 2010, 07:58:53 PM
Quote from: Enrico Salazar on December 23, 2010, 07:18:00 PM
Do you know what snuff porn is call in Salazore?
Porn.
Not to be confused with "Snuffy Porn", (Sesame St productions) The most infamous example of which is "Big Bird gets roasted". Where Big Bird is spit roasted first by Grover, and Oscar the Grouch, then by Bert and Ernie, before being reamed to Death by Mr Snuffleupagus. Then necro-fuckeded, by The Cookie Monster, The Count, and The Swedish Chef, before being dragged halfway down the stairs by Kermit the frog's little nephew, Robin. Who is then also skullfucked to death by a priapically proportioned, and crack raddled Snuffy.
(Culturally interesting, but lacking any real depth, or plot)
I thought they did the gerbil thing with Robin....
They did, but unfortunately, he survived. Then Richard Gere stepped in and hijacked the whole of Project Rodentia, and took the credit for himself, hoping (in vain) to win the Nobel Prize for Cultural Diversity.
Quote from: BadBeast on December 23, 2010, 07:58:53 PM
Quote from: Enrico Salazar on December 23, 2010, 07:18:00 PM
Do you know what snuff porn is call in Salazore?
Porn.
Not to be confused with "Snuffy Porn", (Sesame St productions) The most infamous example of which is "Big Bird gets roasted". Where Big Bird is spit roasted first by Grover, and Oscar the Grouch, then by Bert and Ernie, before being reamed to Death by Mr Snuffleupagus. Then necro-fuckeded, by The Cookie Monster, The Count, and The Swedish Chef, before being dragged halfway down the stairs by Kermit the frog's little nephew, Robin. Who is then also skullfucked to death by a priapically proportioned, and crack raddled Snuffy.
(Culturally interesting, but lacking any real depth, or plot)
Isn't that what they did with Mr. Hooper?
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 23, 2010, 08:43:49 PM
Quote from: BadBeast on December 23, 2010, 07:58:53 PM
Quote from: Enrico Salazar on December 23, 2010, 07:18:00 PM
Do you know what snuff porn is call in Salazore?
Porn.
Not to be confused with "Snuffy Porn", (Sesame St productions) The most infamous example of which is "Big Bird gets roasted". Where Big Bird is spit roasted first by Grover, and Oscar the Grouch, then by Bert and Ernie, before being reamed to Death by Mr Snuffleupagus. Then necro-fuckeded, by The Cookie Monster, The Count, and The Swedish Chef, before being dragged halfway down the stairs by Kermit the frog's little nephew, Robin. Who is then also skullfucked to death by a priapically proportioned, and crack raddled Snuffy.
(Culturally interesting, but lacking any real depth, or plot)
Isn't that what they did with Mr. Hooper?
Yeah, but that was because he was selling Crack to the Street Kids in order to get them to come back everyday.
Otherwise they would have taken one look at the whole place, and it's creepy ass population of Furries, told their Parents, who would have arranged something like the Dresden firebombing on the whole "Nieghbourhood".
Quote from: Faust on December 23, 2010, 07:13:59 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 23, 2010, 06:38:06 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on December 23, 2010, 02:15:07 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on December 22, 2010, 11:56:26 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on December 22, 2010, 04:17:13 PM
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.
This. Plus it was a really obvious play on his part to try to "share" more about his sex life. Woohoo, sometimes BHU has group sex. Or hopes to.
Nobody cares.
It's almost outlandish in it's progressiveness. My monocle absolutely popped.
It's so scandalous that I became light-headed from my rapid breathing, and while I was fanning myself I think my bustle popped a stay. My goodness, I shall have to have my handmaiden recorset me.
Quote from: BadBeast on December 23, 2010, 07:58:53 PM
Not to be confused with "Snuffy Porn", (Sesame St productions) The most infamous example of which is "Big Bird gets roasted". Where Big Bird is spit roasted first by Grover, and Oscar the Grouch, then by Bert and Ernie, before being reamed to Death by Mr Snuffleupagus. Then necro-fuckeded, by The Cookie Monster, The Count, and The Swedish Chef, before being dragged halfway down the stairs by Kermit the frog's little nephew, Robin. Who is then also skullfucked to death by a priapically proportioned, and crack raddled Snuffy.
(Culturally interesting, but lacking any real depth, or plot)
OMG you should write this and post it on literotica
Quote from: Nigel on December 23, 2010, 09:02:24 PMIt's so scandalous that I became light-headed from my rapid breathing, and while I was fanning myself I think my bustle popped a stay. My goodness, I shall have to have my handmaiden recorset me.
And in this thread about various fetishes and sexual tastes, I present to you the sexiest thing yet said. :fap:
You can snuff me out anytime you like baby!
\
(http://i1093.photobucket.com/albums/i430/AriesPrincess24/Aries1.jpg)
Wow. We hardly realized. :|
Ban the poptard now?
Quote from: Hoopla on December 23, 2010, 09:36:31 PM
Wow. We hardly realized. :|
I shat myself with surprise.
I wonder how phones and browser bombs interact?
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on December 23, 2010, 09:32:03 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 23, 2010, 09:02:24 PMIt's so scandalous that I became light-headed from my rapid breathing, and while I was fanning myself I think my bustle popped a stay. My goodness, I shall have to have my handmaiden recorset me.
And in this thread about various fetishes and sexual tastes, I present to you the sexiest thing yet said. :fap:
:lulz:
Quote from: Cheef Medijuana on December 23, 2010, 09:34:12 PM
You can snuff me out anytime you like baby!
\
(http://i1093.photobucket.com/albums/i430/AriesPrincess24/Aries1.jpg)
I would. (Well? I would!) Just sayin'. And she probably wouldn't enjoy it.
Quote from: Cain on December 23, 2010, 09:49:35 PM
I wonder how phones and browser bombs interact?
Not sure, but I hear google maps is a good way to fuck with an android
Christmas and Solstice have both been beautiful. Solstice I celebrated out at a friend's, had a fire, got drunk and whatnot. My one friend combined his alcohol poorly and ended up brawling with my other friend but aside from a bruised testicle and some vomiting no serious damage was done. We got snow Christmas Eve, so we had a lovely white blanket to cover up the dirty of the town. We're broke, so there wasn't much in the way of presents for my wife or myself, and less than usual for our daughter, but we managed to scrape a few things together, how I managed to get such an outstandingly gracious child I don't know, but she responded with complete enthusiasm and joy over the somewhat reduced amount of gifts.
Quote from: Able on December 23, 2010, 10:17:10 PM
Quote from: Cain on December 23, 2010, 09:49:35 PM
I wonder how phones and browser bombs interact?
Not sure, but I hear google maps is a good way to fuck with an android
- "Hey Cherry2K, your place or mine?"
- "I dunno, lemme check Google Maps baby ..."
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on December 25, 2010, 06:45:04 PM
Christmas and Solstice have both been beautiful. Solstice I celebrated out at a friend's, had a fire, got drunk and whatnot. My one friend combined his alcohol poorly and ended up brawling with my other friend but aside from a bruised testicle and some vomiting no serious damage was done. We got snow Christmas Eve, so we had a lovely white blanket to cover up the dirty of the town. We're broke, so there wasn't much in the way of presents for my wife or myself, and less than usual for our daughter, but we managed to scrape a few things together, how I managed to get such an outstandingly gracious child I don't know, but she responded with complete enthusiasm and joy over the somewhat reduced amount of gifts.
Good to hear someone's having a good day, at least. :)
GF's Son swung by for Dinner today, good to see him. Brought me a great little pressie, that he knew I'd really appreciate. Had Dinner of Turkey bits, drank Vodka & Ginger Beer until a contented level of drunkeness set in.
And later on, I'm going to open my present. A Gram of Ketamine. :banana: Who ever said Kids aren't thoughtful? :D
I got into it with a few people because I over-estimated the traumatic effects of being raped as a child. Some deity or other seemed to feel it would be appropriate to point out how wrong I was. Two friends recently revealed to me that they had been raped, one as a child (teen, but relatively young teen) While I certainly see things that may be consequences of those unfortunate incidents I am dearly grateful that both are alive and a part of my life.
Thank you whichever deity felt the need to prove me wrong in such a dramatic and direct fashion.
Shrapnel is a bitch
Hey, what's going on in this thr-
(http://i518.photobucket.com/albums/u346/heinous_simian/door.gif)
Quote from: Sigmatic on January 09, 2011, 08:01:32 AM
Hey, what's going on in this thr-
(http://i518.photobucket.com/albums/u346/heinous_simian/door.gif)
I know we have a zillion emoticons right now, but I really like that one.
Way I look at it, the more emoticons, the rarer : lulz : will become, and maybe it can go back to feeling special again.
bump for peanut gallery consideration
Quote from: The Bad Reverend What's-His-Name! on January 09, 2011, 02:55:14 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on January 09, 2011, 08:01:32 AM
Hey, what's going on in this thr-
(http://i518.photobucket.com/albums/u346/heinous_simian/door.gif)
I know we have a zillion emoticons right now, but I really like that one.
I still dp.
You still disco pickle?
Quote from: Iron Twiddleton on June 28, 2012, 11:15:26 PM
You still disco pickle?
Don't play games. You know he was talking about double penetration.
:aaa:
well i suppose in a maine winter extra body heat doesnt hurt.
Fuck, it was supposed to be "do". Curse you iPad! :argh!:
Quote from: Nigel on December 18, 2010, 07:39:36 PM
Babylon, I gotta say, this conversation has taken you from a pretty much OK guy in my eyes to
1. An unprincipled hypocrite (an anarchist on welfare? But it's OK for you because you have a family to support? At what point do you grow up and abandon anarchism because the principles not only don't work for special little magical unicorns like YOU, they don't work for anyone?)
2. Vaguely delusional (I was starting to suspect this was the case when you first started talking about your internet girlfriend, your wife's screenplay making you rich, and now this "novel" that you wrote, which is 99.9% probably terrible even aside from the subject matter)
3. Super creepy and actively pursuing your interest in proclivities that put you just barely above pedophiles in the "should be allowed to live" category.
Oh fuck this guy. I'm barely on page 2.
What gets me about this guy is that he would want his child's rapist to kill her when finished, to spare her. And yet neither he or Wyldkat had a problem with 'reformed' pedophiles doing their babysitting.
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on April 24, 2014, 05:35:57 AM
What gets me about this guy is that he would want his child's rapist to kill her when finished, to spare her. And yet neither he or Wyldkat had a problem with 'reformed' pedophiles doing their babysitting.
What in the shit?!!??!
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on April 24, 2014, 05:35:57 AM
What gets me about this guy is that he would want his child's rapist to kill her when finished, to spare her. And yet neither he or Wyldkat had a problem with 'reformed' pedophiles doing their babysitting.
Yeah. Pretty much at the very pinnacle of "NOT FUCKING OK".
And, really, an extra not-OK thing for him to say given that he writes and gets off on rape-snuff porn. The level of heebie-jeebies is off the charts. "I have rape-snuff fantasies that I wilfully indulge in online groups and write about. I hope that if anyone ever rapes my daughter, they kill her too".
In retrospect we should have called the FBI on the sick fuck, because that shit is exactly the profile of someone who rapes and murders his kid. Indulging in the fantasies, joining online groups, writing about it... just edging closer and closer to actually doing something fucked-up.
What's REALLY funny is the list of people from here (or who used to hang out here) that are facebook friends with him. I'd like to think that some of you just don't realize who he actually is, but I don't actually think that, I'd just like to.
Can you PM me his name? I don't know what it is IRL, and, well...
Yeah, same here, if you could...
Sent.
Yeahhhh I'd appreciate a heads-up in that regard, just to be sure.
Also sent. At this point, someone will be passing on chain letters to people in China within a week letting them know his FB name
:lulz: Much appreciated
Perhaps tellingly, everyone who has so far been worried that he is on their friends list has been in the clear.
Reasonably sure I don't have him on my list, but I'd like to be sure plz.
Sent again.
I'm not even on Facebook and I'd like to know. Just in case I ever see it on a CV.
Had a CV the other day - "Criminal convictions - One - Rape - Sentence served"
I shuddered for a good 5 minutes.
Quote from: Cain on April 24, 2014, 01:16:10 PM
Sent.
Me too, just in case? I sorta friended a bunch of possible discordians on FB without giving much thought to who was who...
I don't want it. I don't want the temptation to do something regrettable.
Sent again
Me 2 send name plox.
I need that name too. :x
I'm curious, but confident that he's not friended.
I don't think he's on mine, but then again I only figured out who he was a couple months ago, so I should check.
Nope, I'm good. Unless he has another account I'm unaware of, in which case, someone please tell me...
Funny thing, I saw one of his comments on a thread on my FB feed for the first time just this morning, and I was like "Naw, that can't be him."
Totally him.
Hrm, I've been friending a few random Discordians. Care to shoot me that PM, anyone?
OK, I think everyone is up to date now.
I mean, it's pretty obvious if he's on your list. Look for someone named babylon.
:lulz:
Today's updates in this thread have been beautiful.
I'm going to invent FaceBleach.
FaceBleach : For those special moments when you realize someone needs to be purged from the internet in ways it would be unethical to perform in real life.