Yawn. Medications. Interest in sex list...slipping away. When I come back I expect a list of minority practises, not just in the kink class, but the sort of stuff vanilla people get up to once in a while when feeling playful. Also will be disappointed if there hasn't been a MOVE THREAD.
I'll get you started: Rubbing butter and Jam into each others' hair and clothes, as a sublimated form of foreplay...
Going in for the kill, then beating each other into a standstill, a la Mr & Mrs Smith as a sublimated form of foreplay...
·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- Out Of Topic
- Ex-gay?
Ex-gay?Follow
I... feel no desire to have sex right now.
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people
lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
I had sex this morning. 
Kink is fun, but lord, if you've got the right person it's not needed.
Kink is fun, but lord, if you've got the right person it's not needed.
I had sex twice today, but that's neither here nor there.
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.
LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
Tyrrant wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
I also don't think that forcing people to pay money to people who weren't slaves because their ancestors owned slaves is fair.
So, you're a racist. Got it.
My family on my mothers side had owned slaves in the south and I would tell anyone to go fu*k themselves with a sledgehammer if they thought they would get any cash out of me. Does this make me racist? Hell no, and anyone that thinks I am racist for not wanting to give money to someone for something I neither did nor supported and that happened hundreds of years before I was born is out of their gourd. Oh and do you think that black people should have to pay into it too? Considering that many of the slave traders in Africa were of African and Middle Eastern decent. If you say that no blacks shouldn't have to then you are a racist according to your own definition.
Wikipedia wrote:
Africans themselves played a role in the slave trade. The Africans that participated in the slave trade sold their captive or prisoners of war to European buyers. Selling captives or prisoners was common practice amongst Africans and Arabs during that era. The prisoners and captives that were sold were usually from neighboring or enemy ethnic groups.These captive slaves were not considered as part of the ethnic group or 'tribe' and kings held no particular loyalty to them. At times, kings and businessmen would sell the criminals in their society to the buyers so that they could no longer commit crimes in that area.
I wasn't being serious. I'm merely demonstrating how stupid it is to call someone a name of hate simply because you don't support something that benefits another group. Nilatai's whole argument is "you don't support SSM because you're a bigot".
Idigg wrote:
Not to mention the fact that we ONLY ever see reparations to African Americans. We never see them for Native Americans, or Hawaiians.
Are you certain about that?
I took a monster crap. It was almost as painful as this thread.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
lolgaxe wrote:
I took a monster crap. It was almost as painful as this thread.
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
Uglysasquatch wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
I took a monster crap. It was almost as painful as this thread.
I find getting drunk the night before helps with ease of evacuation.
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.
LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
Good lord Alma, way to be a buzzkill.
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people
lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
I'm somewhat of a *********, but I can't decide which is better: a loose tooth, a whipping, or reading alma's nonsnese.
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
That's not a season, it's a lifetime.
This is also funny, because he brings up Viagra as a valid point that people aren't "sexually driven" past the age of 50. The point of Viagra is to help people have sex after 50 (I actually think it's way past 50, closer t 70 in a normal circumstance, but I digress) because they still have a sex drive.
I think I left this out.. I don't want you to think I'm trying to pull a "Naliatai" and completely contradict myself.
Maybe "sex drive" was the wrong terminology. I'm differentiating you mentally wanting sex vs your body craving sex. As a young male, you wake up with an erection. The simple touch, bump, smell, sight or even thought from/of a woman can result in an erection. As you get older, that apparently goes away.
If our sexual organs were primarily for pleasure, then the man's ***** should generally continually to operate throughout his life time. If it were all about pleasure, both the men and women would be sterile with full sexual functionality. That's not the case.
Now, you can believe it's all a coincidence that these sexual reactions just so happens to only coincide when women are able to give birth, but I don't accept that.
Almalieque wrote:
If our sexual organs were primarily for pleasure[...]
I never argued that they were.
Or maybe you could not be so @#%^ing stupid that you would realize that bodies failing is a natural biological process resulting largely from the fact that few organisms ever lived long enough for the failing of a body to be naturally selected against.
Evolution cannot choose to favor the ***** functioning for a man's entire lifetime if:
1. Nearly all men died from disease/nature before their bodies ever had a chance to deteriorate.
2. Men were alive at 80, they would have already fathered the bulk of their children. Even if they had been able to father one or two more, the evolutionary bonus of being able to do so would be miniscule.
3. Women's bodies naturally stop reproducing at a certain age (though their sex drives don't disappear with it, which is the irony of your argument). So old men would need to reproduce with young women. Since strength and vitality were socially powerful selectors, older men were vastly less likely to be in a position to reproduce, even if able to.
[EDIT]
And, again, there is no primary function of a sexual organ, objectively. It's primary function is only that which society attributes to it.
Edited, Jun 27th 2011 5:03pm by idiggory
Evolution cannot choose to favor the ***** functioning for a man's entire lifetime if:
1. Nearly all men died from disease/nature before their bodies ever had a chance to deteriorate.
2. Men were alive at 80, they would have already fathered the bulk of their children. Even if they had been able to father one or two more, the evolutionary bonus of being able to do so would be miniscule.
3. Women's bodies naturally stop reproducing at a certain age (though their sex drives don't disappear with it, which is the irony of your argument). So old men would need to reproduce with young women. Since strength and vitality were socially powerful selectors, older men were vastly less likely to be in a position to reproduce, even if able to.
[EDIT]
And, again, there is no primary function of a sexual organ, objectively. It's primary function is only that which society attributes to it.
Edited, Jun 27th 2011 5:03pm by idiggory
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people
lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
idiggory wrote:
And, again, there is no primary function of a sexual organ, objectively. It's primary function is only that which society attributes to it.
No, the primary biological function of reporductive organs is reproduction. He's right about that.
The thing is, it doesn't matter, as pleasure is also a biological function of our reproductive organs.
Take a shower now, dirty girl.
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
Take a shower now, dirty girl.
Is this because I replied to Alma, or because I mentioned that our mommy and daddy parts are made for pleasure as well as reproduction?
Or because I agreed with Alma?
Or do I smell so bad you can smell me in Canada?
Who's this Naliatai person?
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.
LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If our sexual organs were primarily for pleasure[...]
I never argued that they were.
Several people in this thread did, though.
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
idiggory wrote:
And, again, there is no primary function of a sexual organ, objectively. It's primary function is only that which society attributes to it.
No, the primary biological function of reporductive organs is reproduction. He's right about that.
The thing is, it doesn't matter, as pleasure is also a biological function of our reproductive organs.
Its biological function is to get humans to procreate though, right? We might even say (I did say earlier in fact) that the entire reason why humans have weak mating cycles and the ability to have and enjoy sex all the time is specifically so that they'll have sex as often as possible in order to maximize the rate at which babies are made, while giving men an incentive to stick around while the woman is pregnant and continue to stay around providing for the mother and child after she gives birth.
It's certainly arguable that if human children were able to walk and feed themselves within hours of being born, we might not have those specific sexual biological adaptations. But they aren't, and we do. It's not rocket science to see that one is related to the other.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
Take a shower now, dirty girl.
Is this because I replied to Alma, or because I mentioned that our mommy and daddy parts are made for pleasure as well as reproduction?
Or because I agreed with Alma?
Or do I smell so bad you can smell me in Canada?
Because you agreed with him. It happens, but its still a dirty feeling.
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
gbaji wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If our sexual organs were primarily for pleasure[...]
I never argued that they were.
Several people in this thread did, though.
What I said was:
Nilatai wrote:
No I'm saying that sexual intercourse in our species is practised primarily for pleasure. Otherwise we'd be limited by a mating season. It's the same with other primates, like bonobos.
I didn't say reproductive organs were for pleasure first. What I said was that we as a species use them for pleasure primarily.
Which is true. Unless every time you have sex it's to reproduce. Which is what happens in most other species.
Edited, Jun 27th 2011 5:29pm by Nilatai
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.
LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
gbaji wrote:
Its biological function is to get humans to procreate though, right? We might even say (I did say earlier in fact) that the entire reason why humans have weak mating cycles and the ability to have and enjoy sex all the time is specifically so that they'll have sex as often as possible in order to maximize the rate at which babies are made, while giving men an incentive to stick around while the woman is pregnant and continue to stay around providing for the mother and child after she gives birth.
Sure, why not? Never gave it much thought. Since I don't plan to procreate but I plan to have lots of sex, I don't really care why it feels good. I'm just glad that one of the biological functions of my private parts is to feel goooooood.
Though... if what you said is true, then it would make sense that it wouldn't feel good to **********, and that a man's g-spot would not be in his ****...
Regardless, that doesn't detract from my point that I'm trying to make with Alma, however.
Edited, Jun 27th 2011 4:30pm by Belkira
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
idiggory wrote:
And, again, there is no primary function of a sexual organ, objectively. It's primary function is only that which society attributes to it.
No, the primary biological function of reporductive organs is reproduction. He's right about that.
The thing is, it doesn't matter, as pleasure is also a biological function of our reproductive organs.
Yeah, but very few people have sex with a uterus.
Nadenu wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
idiggory wrote:
And, again, there is no primary function of a sexual organ, objectively. It's primary function is only that which society attributes to it.
No, the primary biological function of reporductive organs is reproduction. He's right about that.
The thing is, it doesn't matter, as pleasure is also a biological function of our reproductive organs.
Yeah, but very few people have sex with a uterus.
I'm sure there's a ***** length joke in there somewhere.
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.
LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
Quote:
No, the primary biological function of reporductive organs is reproduction. He's right about that.
No he isn't. There's no such thing as a "primary biological function." We choose to use our organs to procreate, that is not their function. It is merely one possible function for them out of a looooooooong list of other possibilities.
The fact that most animals use their reproductive systems primarily for reproduction does not give them an objective function of reproduction. And we might as well note that not all animals that have reproductive systems are actually able to reproduce, afaik, such as worker ants. They have fully developed reproductive systems that just happen to include cells that are incapable of reproduction (if I understand correctly how it works).
That said, humans primarily use their reproductive systems for pleasure. That does not make it their primary function (as they don't actually have a primary function--nothing does).
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people
lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
Nilatai wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If our sexual organs were primarily for pleasure[...]
I never argued that they were.
Several people in this thread did, though.
What I said was:
Nilatai wrote:
No I'm saying that sexual intercourse in our species is practised primarily for pleasure. Otherwise we'd be limited by a mating season. It's the same with other primates, like bonobos.
I didn't say reproductive organs were for pleasure first. What I said was that we as a species use them for pleasure primarily.
I'm seeing a lot of this form of illogic on this forum lately.
So Mt Everest exists primarily so that people can climb it?
Sex is pleasurable so that we'll do it and thus fulfill the species need for reproduction. I'm unsure why or how anyone is failing to see this.
Quote:
Which is true. Unless every time you have sex it's to reproduce. Which is what happens in most other species.
What you intend when you have sex has nothing to do with why sex is pleasurable.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Recent Visitors: 42
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (42)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- Out Of Topic
- Ex-gay?
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC