Germany and France are both totalitarian regimes nowadays, too, obviously

What a bunch of fucks

Is this, like, a surprising thing?

Are people surprised by this statistic?

freeze peach

Pretty fuckin' bene maxima tbh

Quote from: Verbatim on December 15, 2015, 12:56:38 PM

It was good.

How can people be so wrong?

Oh, shit, he finally made it?

Fuckin' NICE

We? I'm not Chinese, Indian, African, South East Asian, or Middle Eastern; and I don't live in any of those countries/regions. They are the ones with an overpopulation problem not me, not my New Zealand, and not my British Isles.

Yeah, but I'm just talking about humanity in general. Again, there's nothing wrong with having kids, but it should be left up to personal choice. The societal and familial pressure to have children is something that I find very silly because it's not a necessity anymore.

It's just it came across as doublethink to be supporting an idea while calling it a name that demeans it. I understand the use of specifics but the fact that they're needed is throwing me off.

I wouldn't say that it demeans it, though - just clarifies further on the specifics. The same way you might just call someone a "person" but then refer to them as a "black man" or "asian woman" when talking about race and gender, specifically.

Could you correct me if i'm wrong, but since your opposed to overpopulation, isn't that an environmental issue caused by having unnecessarily having kids? I'm under the impression that that's how your logic is stringing it all together, which makes it sound like Verb.

I suppose so, but I guess I'd hold a much less "radical" viewpoint than him. Verb and others like him think that the human race should voluntarily eliminate itself through not having children, I simply think that we should avoid overpopulation and the rapidly, exponentially increasing population of the planet so we don't drive ourselves to extinction by consuming all the resources at a rate too fast for the planet to replenish them.

I can't believe I forgot to mention it but this is quite important to my reasoning here: I'm not just thinking about this in terms of my life, but also of my future children; so when you say that we should be more accepting of promiscuity, what I'm imagining is a society in which my future daughters (or the daughters of any of my friends and family) are allowed to be used as fucktoys by any man that can sweet-talk them, and I can only see that leading to emotional/trust issues. I want them to have a family because their my family as well, and your idea is harmful to that

I'd agree. Well, not specifically that you shouldn't raise your daughters how you wish - it'd be your family and so on - but simply that I find the whole "daddy's girl" mentality to be incredibly creepy and an off-product of female sexuality and promiscuity being looked at as a negative across the board. Launching off into a tangent, I just find it really, really creepy how many fathers do the whole "cleaning the shotgun" routine as if their daughter's virginity is some precious thing to be ultimately protected, but might give their son a fist bump if he pulled a girl at the same dance. It's odd and kinda creepy.

Talking in a generalized sense, though, it is your household and so of course you would raise your children with the values that you yourself hold. Openness of sexuality isn't something that I think we need to break down on an individual level, just something that I don't like being faulted on a societal level.

They very well could, but what about a decade down the line, or two decades? or when they're past 60? They're allowed to have their fun but I don't see how it could last, and a lack of forward planning is a problem.

But, again, that boils down to personal preference. I do eventually plan to have a stable family - or at least a husband/wife, maybe not kids - and not continue deviancy into my adulthood, but some other people might prefer to remain independent.

Now I already know that dating has enough issues associated with it as is, so in my view the less baggage a girls' got the better. I see your view as one that adds baggage to everyone that goes along with it, and the more people that follow it the more I'll have to be on my guard about it; It creates too many questions that I'll have to ask without creating any answers that I could be happy with. Yes it is somewhat subjective, but even I can't live my whole life being inhumanly objective about things.

How does a woman's freedom of sexuality add MORE baggage? The way things are currently, a girl who has slept with more men is looked at as lesser, buy and large, than a woman who has slept with a small number or no men. That seems odd to me, especially in the context that you've brought things up. Just because a girl has had a number of relationships or casual encounters beforehand doesn't mean that she's "jaded" and incapable of finding her's with you special.

Again, not saying you're required to latch onto one thing in a romantic or sexual sense, but I'm just generally talking about what's accepted by society overall. It even seeps into the language - words for men that sleep with a lot of women like "womanizer," "playboy," "stud," are all positives, whereas words for women that sleep with a lot of men, "slut," "whore," "skank," and so on are all negatives. Again, I argue none of these points on an individual level, but it'd be great if society as a whole stopped tying a woman's worth to how many people she's slept with.

Off on another tangent, but it kinda has to do with that thread I wrote a while ago and how society tends to see things that are inherently feminine as negatives while viewing more masculine traits as positives - unless, of course, the feminine traits are attractive to a generic, straight male.

"Hey I'm in an open relationship, anyone want to fuck my girlfriend for me?"
That's what a cuckold is, that's what your advocating for.

I mean, if someone wants to be a cuck then I think that's weird as hell but, hey, more power to them.

You know i'm not sure if I fully understand the term since this is the first time i've ever heard it being used, could you give me a run down of it?

Not really sure which part you're talking about, so I'll just run down the whole list.

Open relationships/polyamory generally have to do with, as I said, the separation of romance and sex. One or both members of a relationship can more or less sleep around as they see fit because sex is looked at as something of a pleasurable act that does not necessarily tie in with romance. It's still a trusting relationship, of course, but a different type - rather than trusting your partner not to sleep with others and keep it form you, you trust your partner to separate romance and sex, be responsible, and stay in a loving relationship with you while you both have plenty of fun on the side. Unfortunately, these often get a bad rap from people who will more or less coerce their partner into staying faithful while they themselves go out and bang ever second broad at the bar.

Cuckolding is a fetish based on humiliation. I don't really get humiliation kinks in this form (I'm a fan of more, uh...direct forms of humiliation kinks), but some people apparently just love to hear about how terrible they are in bed, how small their cock is, how much better the "bull" (term for the person doing the cucking) is at fucking them, and so on. I don't understand it, but it's a kink and shouldn't be representative of the whole community.

D/s stands from Dom/sub which in turn stands for dominant/submissive, part of the BDSM portion of kinks. D/s relationships focus on the removal of power from the "sub" and the gratification of power to the "dom" and may take the form of a very wide range of kinks from simple rough sex all the way up to pet play, rape play, extreme bondage, and heavy sadomasochism. Humiliation, and there by cuckolding, are an extension of the 'domination' group of this kinks, but does not necessarily need to include the B, S, or M.

Quote from: SoporificSlash on December 14, 2015, 04:34:42 PM

Quote from: Cindy Claus on December 14, 2015, 04:29:12 PM

re-made the Teutonic and Templar orders

the Teutonic Order still exists

The Templar Order does too. Bunch of pacifists now though.

Uh, no they're not, idiot, they fight the assassins for control of earth

Dumbass

Quote from: Cindy Claus on December 14, 2015, 02:08:54 PM

Probably because Saudi Arabia is a shitshow

Except it isn't and could easily house these migrants.

No, I mean that the Saudi government is a corrupt shithole

I thought this thread is about sharing our fuck stories with feminists.
-1
Unsubscribed.

It is also that, now

Probably because Saudi Arabia is a shitshow

When I conduct a military coup of the united states, you're going right into the camps..

:^)

Besides, Das, you know you couldn't do that to me. I'm too sexually alluring for you to shackle up in a camp.

Bear in mind that, with this response, I am neither for or against affirmative action. I think that there are pros and cons to each side and hesitate to pick one to align myself with fully because I don't like making abject decisions on things that I am not really decided on.

That being said, I wanna say this just because I know this thread is gonna become a big talk on affirmative action in general so I wanna throw this out there just as a thought.

But a reminder that affirmative action policies and diversity quotas actually benefit white women more than any other racial or sexual statistic, especially in extremely high-level ivy league schools like Stanford, MIT, Rice, and so on.

I never thought someone could get so upset over a meme phrase.

It's just a prank, bro