This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - ๐ Aria ๐ฎ
Pages: 1 ... 207208209 210211 ... 352
6241
« on: November 09, 2015, 06:58:12 PM »
Beware, this website might just be your kryptonite.
i'm aware of the kinsey scale, i'm just confused as to how it ties into my statement about gloryholes
the man you could be performing fellatio on could be one ugly motherfucker behind that stall
but as long as he remains hidden, it doesn't matter--you can let your fantasies go wild
It ties in because it provides an understanding that many people aren't strictly gay or straight; there's a difference between wanting something up the poop-shoot and wanting a guy to do it. I also just realized you were specifically referring to attraction on a person-by-person basis rather than by sex; in which case, yeah, it allows the two participants to create ideal fantasy partners.
6242
« on: November 09, 2015, 06:53:15 PM »
but you know what people do if they're having sex with someone they don't consider attractive?
or someone they can't see?
they fantasize
What about someone who jerks off while doing nothing? They don't fantasize, they just stroke themselves? You can still come from that.
That'd be caused by stimulation. Rape victims can orgasm from the intercourse, but that doesn't mean they like it. That's what I've been saying a lot here: stimulation does not guarantee enjoyment.
6244
« on: November 09, 2015, 06:49:01 PM »
Yeah, critic reviews are kind of irrelevant. I'd rather browse the yellow-score range in user reviews on Metacritic to see what's right and wrong about it.
6245
« on: November 09, 2015, 06:47:18 PM »
i mean, the existence of gloryholes kinda proves you right, sure
Kinsey Scale disagrees.
6246
« on: November 09, 2015, 06:46:03 PM »
Stomp me out, I have offended the Emperor with my heresy.
6247
« on: November 09, 2015, 06:45:05 PM »
If you're not attracted to someone, you won't enjoy sex with them
I dunno about that
I don't see why that isn't the case. Sexual attraction explicitly means that you would like sex with the person; no sexual attraction means no want. No want means no like.
6248
« on: November 09, 2015, 06:43:58 PM »
What if you just treat the man's dick as an instrument of pleasure? Completely separate the man from the penis, mentally?
That's called pegging, or masturbation. Both women and the pleasure-ee himself could do that.
But still enjoyable nonetheless.
But only if there's attraction to the one performing the act, or if it's done to one's self. Someone who's gay can have intercourse with the opposite sex, but that doesn't mean that they'd enjoy it. Attraction is the numero uno for enjoying the sex.
6249
« on: November 09, 2015, 06:39:38 PM »
What if you just treat the man's dick as an instrument of pleasure? Completely separate the man from the penis, mentally?
That's called pegging, or masturbation. Both women and the pleasure-ee himself could do that.
6250
« on: November 09, 2015, 06:39:04 PM »
I don't really understand all the hub-ub here: being gay means you're attracted to the same sex. If you're not attracted to someone, you won't enjoy sex with them; if you're a guy and you're only attracted to men (except for the "I would go gay/straight for x" situations), then you're gay. If you're a girl and you're only attracted the women, you're gay.
6251
« on: November 09, 2015, 06:35:39 PM »
I can't really comment too much on it, because I'm not entirely certain of the responsibilities held by a Canadian Prime Minister, but I'd assume that the point of a cabinet is the same in Canada as the US. He doesn't know everything about everything (and nobody does), which is the importance of having a cabinet to consult on matters. Only time will tell how he uses that.
Essentially. But fun-fact, the Prime Minister of Canada actually has more power per-capita than the President.
I'm not entirely surprised by that.
6252
« on: November 09, 2015, 06:30:31 PM »
Doesn't mean the top would enjoy putting it there, though.
Why wouldn't they? I don't understand this.
There would be a physical reaction to gay sex, that reaction would most likely be pleasurable considering that's the express purpose for the reaction.
Apparently, a good amount of gay porn actors are straight-- this is an advantage in the field exactly because they aren't going to enjoy it as much and thus last longer. It's one thing to show signs of arousal from stimulation, and another to outright enjoy the act. Physical symptoms are because of stimulation, not necessarily enjoyment (of which also manifests symptoms).
6253
« on: November 09, 2015, 06:22:15 PM »
but they're not gonna enjoy it.
Why not? Pretty sure men have the same kind of "pleasure zones" women do in their ass.
Doesn't mean the top would enjoy putting it there, though, nor does it change the fact that stimulation doesn't necessitate enjoyment. Otherwise, rape cases would have happier endings.
6254
« on: November 09, 2015, 06:21:14 PM »
obviously he put much greater thought into it than just making sure 50% of his cabinet was female.
I dunno how "obvious" that is, but alright. btw, Trudeau's father was considered to be a great intellect -- Justin? Not so much. But that's none of my business.
I can't really comment too much on it, because I'm not entirely certain of the responsibilities held by a Canadian Prime Minister, but I'd assume that the point of a cabinet is the same in Canada as the US. He doesn't know everything about everything (and nobody does), which is the importance of having a cabinet to consult on matters. Only time will tell how he uses that.
6255
« on: November 09, 2015, 06:16:26 PM »
Or maybe the ancient Greeks were all just gay.
Maybe. But consider this...
A man is straight, but he wants to find out what all the fuss is about shrouding gay sex. He has a man enter his anus.
Now at first, he doesn't like it. But maybe he thinks it's one of those tolerance things. So he does it again, and guess what? He likes it. He now has gay sex with men. He isn't attracted to men, he just enjoys things being shoved up his ass.
Gay sex isn't homosexual at all. You can get fucked by a man without being attracted to him. Being homosexual is different from having gay sex, and so, being asexual is different from not having sex.
Confirmed for casual correlation between gay sex and smoking. Being gay means that you'll get cancer.
6256
« on: November 09, 2015, 06:12:40 PM »
My head hurts from the sheer amount of dumb this is
Gay sex could be considered an acquired taste tbh
look at the ancient Greeks.
Or maybe the ancient Greeks were all just gay.
The Greeks and Romans just fucked whoever they wanted, nobody cared about all this gay shit.
That's because they were all gay, that's why they didn't make a distinction.
6257
« on: November 09, 2015, 06:11:29 PM »
Alright, that clears it up a bit. My only question is whether his secondary reasoning truly matters if you consider that he obviously made good choices. If a man writes a good essay, would you dock him points for writing in cursive versus print? The body of his idea was fundamentally right, and the only issue here is aesthetic.
Just confirmed that it was a part of his platform.
Yeah, I don't think anyone is criticising his choices. Just his apparent reasoning.
I realize that it was a part of his platform, but obviously another intention was making sure each area was headed by an expert. If his only goal was the 50-50 split, then that could have been any person in any position; obviously he put much greater thought into it than just making sure 50% of his cabinet was female.
6258
« on: November 09, 2015, 06:05:53 PM »
My head hurts from the sheer amount of dumb this is
Gay sex could be considered an acquired taste tbh
look at the ancient Greeks.
Or maybe the ancient Greeks were all just gay.
6259
« on: November 09, 2015, 06:03:54 PM »
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't nearly every instance that he's talked about the 50-50 gendered staff been instigated by questions from journalists and interviewers?
Pretty sure he promised the 50/50 gender thing as a part of his platform. So, no. But I could be wrong.
Alright, that clears it up a bit. My only question is whether his secondary reasoning truly matters if you consider that he obviously made good choices. If a man writes a good essay, would you dock him points for writing in cursive versus print? The body of his idea was fundamentally right, and the only issue here is aesthetic.
6260
« on: November 09, 2015, 05:59:47 PM »
WHAT Spoiler Is your favorite color?
6261
« on: November 09, 2015, 05:54:55 PM »
The health minister is a doctor, the transport minister is an astronaut, the defense minister is a Sikh army soldier who rose through the rank and is highly decorated with multiple tours under his belt, the veteran minister is a real disabled veteran. Fuck everyone has a background in the ministry they are working at.
Which is all well and good. No one is question his cabinet choices -- we're questioning his reasoning. It's one thing to appoint extremely qualified people for the job -- it's another to parade your decisions to appeal to the cancerous progressive in our country.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't nearly every instance that he's talked about the 50-50 gendered staff been instigated by questions from journalists and interviewers? Every person on his staff is extremely qualified for their respective positions; if he wanted to make some kind of message with the 50-50 (duh) then it's been done by action and not words. And being that they are all extremely qualified, that full and well means that his gender-reasoning was secondary to their qualifications. And really, if you're stuck between hiring two people who are both extremely capable at the position, what other method than preference can you really chose at the point? Flipping a coin? (Which, in theory, would have returned the same result kek)
6262
« on: November 09, 2015, 05:52:01 PM »
I'm pretty sure people who say "religion of peace" mean that it is A religion of peace, not THE religion of peace.
The latter would be even more ridiculous.
It's called sarcasm. I can't recall anytime when I heard someone use "the religion of peace" that they were referring to any religion other than Islam.
Buddhism, Quaker Christianity, Jainism, and Hinduism.
6263
« on: November 09, 2015, 05:46:16 PM »
One-sixth of the U.S. population lives in the top 100 cities, and they voted 63% Democratic in 2004. 18 points is a pretty big deal. That's not even the biggest cities by state-- that's at the national level. That'd be multitudes larger state-by-state. One-sixth lives outside the nationโs Metropolitan Statistical Areas, and rural America voted 60% Republican. And again, 18% is a pretty big deal. If someone secured just the top 100 cities and the hick-vote, that'd be a third of the nation. Big cities do not always control the outcome of elections. The governors and U.S. Senators are not all Democratic in every state with a significant city. This has nothing to do with who is a Democrat or Republican, it's the fact that the Electoral College helps solve the problems of popular election. The most practical being where populations are located. Here's a map I threw together to help explain it:  The red states are the 9 most populous states. With just those nine states, you have a majority of the population. Right off the bat, you've narrowed your campaigning to less than 20% of the continent. The purplish-blue areas are the where a majority of each state's population is. Quite obviously, in every single instance, it is either near the coast and/or close to the state capital. There's no need to campaign an entire state, thanks to television, radio, and other media sources, so candidates only visit the highest concentrations of population. That would mean they would likely only touch on the largest of the purplish-blue areas on that map; that being where they already do visit, judging by the fact that four of the nine states are swing states with the Electoral College system, and the other five are nearly-evenly divided in whether they vote for the left or right. So with a popular election, the essential vote would be marginalized from 24% of states to 18%, and then even further when you realize that in no single instance is a population evenly divided throughout a state; if you high ball it, they would visit 2.3% of the country's area in campaigning. (This is, again, lower than the current system.) Another issue is the margin of error; when you limit you margins at lower countings, you end up closer to the realistic statistics. I'm going to assume that you're smart enough to realize that, even with popular election, it would have to be limited on a state-to-state basis; the failed idea of internet voting partially went the way of the buffalo due to the immensely impractical nature of containing all votes in one location and how easy it would be to sabotage the results. When you don't have representatives for each population (see: electors), your margin of error goes up; obviously, when talking about battleground states (which make up 22.2% of the US population, and 44.4% of the 9 most populous states) this can mean the difference between a win and a loss (see: 2000 Presidential Election). The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states, including polling, organizing, and ad spending) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows. When and where every voter is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere. Yeah, and that literally will never happen. Even in battleground states, they only visit the largest populated areas and capitals. Which is where they would still go in popular elections because, obviously, that's where the most people are. But, under the state-by-state winner-take-all laws, it makes no sense for a Democrat to try and do that in Vermont or Wyoming, or for a Republican to try it in Wyoming or Vermont. That isn't exclusive in the Electoral College. This is what makes me think you haven't bothered to educate yourself on the subject sans possibly the article you Googled and are regurgitating; Nebraska and Maine both use Proportional Representation in the Electoral College. And, shockingly, it completely works with the Electoral College. If you're upset about Winner-Take-All, that's a state-level issue and not the problem of the Electoral College. If your state offers a ballot-initiative, then circulate a petition within your state to have their system changed to Proportional Representation. If not, miraculously try to find the one Congressional candidate that would support it, and support him/her.
6264
« on: November 09, 2015, 11:25:03 AM »
The Xbone version comes with an unusual feature Spoiler  0fps gameplay
6265
« on: November 09, 2015, 11:16:34 AM »
Next Gen is here lads
Call me a race traitor but that looks fine for consoles.
race traitor
6266
« on: November 09, 2015, 11:05:31 AM »
Peppermint Mocha is bretty good tbh fam
6267
« on: November 08, 2015, 10:32:38 PM »
I'm an honorary cheesehead, so no chocolate def.
6268
« on: November 08, 2015, 10:31:51 PM »
i just can't get over that
you're supposed to be able to see people in a dimly lit house full of drunk idiots
and if you get hurt, it's your fault
that's something else--i'll have to tell that to one of my professors, i think he'd get a kick out of that
I wasn't aware that dimly lit means pitch black.
TIL you can't complain about not being able to see shit unless it's pitch black
as long as you can see extremely vague figures, it's your fault if you get hit by something--especially from behind, too
if you don't have eyes in the back of your head, "darwin award yourself"
Well, I'd love to continue entertaining my most avid internet debate colleague, but I fear that slumber calls me into its tender embrace. Too-da-loo, or however you spell that garblejunk.
6269
« on: November 08, 2015, 10:28:54 PM »
Right now?
Garlic bread, probably
why does garlic taste so good but smell so bad ;~~;
I don't know ;____;
Let's just destroy humanity's sense of smell!
Then we can eat all the food we want without suffering for it!
We'd have thay pesky problem of not being able to detect symptoms of necrosis or other bad things, but I've always wondered what it would be like to be a Ghoul!
6270
« on: November 08, 2015, 10:27:56 PM »
Depends on why, first of all. Depending on just how severe it is, or how averse they are to JUSTICE, I might have to turn them in. I've started to realize lately, what with having a number of people come in and out of my life recently, that you can never really know a person.
Pages: 1 ... 207208209 210211 ... 352
|
Show Posts