Post by: roo_ster on August 16, 2008, 09:51:27 AM
These poor
Can't we all just get along (and park all over creation and leave used condoms in the lawn)?
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/PrintStory.pl?document_id=2008112632&zsection_id=2003925728&slug=swingersclub14m&date=20080814
Regan "Draco" Lane-Smith and "Naughty" Nonah Elliston outfitted their six-bedroom rental house with 15 mattresses, bondage crosses and sex swings. They built elaborate sets in their backyard for taking erotic photos.
And they promoted the Hardwood Cabin online.
Up to 60 guests at a time came to mingle, sunbathe nude by the pool and have sex with fellow swingers and fetishists, Elliston said. Parties were frequent enough that the couple's laundry service was cycling through 50 bedsheets a week.
But the couple shut down the sex club last month when they were cited for running a business without a license and threatened with fines of up to $513 a day.
...
The parties catered to "big beautiful women" and "big handsome men," and to the BDSM (bondage, discipline, sadomasochism) scene, they said.
...
The couple hosted a naked rally for presidential candidate Barack Obama and naked karaoke nights. A friend's "mobile sex dungeon" created in a small cargo truck was parked alongside the house.
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 16, 2008, 10:16:23 AM
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 16, 2008, 11:20:17 AM
Post by: mtnbkr on August 16, 2008, 11:25:39 AM
Elaborate for me, what is a "sex-positive culture"?
It's one of those wacky cultures where they not only have SEX, but they want you to know they have SEX, and exactly how they go about having SEX. If you say you don't want it shoved in your face, why, you're just a prude who wants to restrict their right to have SEX anywhere, anyhow, and with anyone.
Chris
Post by: MrRezister on August 16, 2008, 11:28:16 AM
Post by: BridgeRunner on August 16, 2008, 11:36:26 AM
Elaborate for me, why do "sex" and "dungeon" ever belong in the same sentence?
Why not? For example:
Dungeons are rarely, if ever, a good place for sex, since they tend to be chilly and otherwise lacking in creature comforts.
Post by: mtnbkr on August 16, 2008, 11:40:20 AM
Elaborate for me, why do "sex" and "dungeon" ever belong in the same sentence?
Why not? For example:
Dungeons are rarely, if ever, a good place for sex, since they tend to be chilly and otherwise lacking in creature comforts.
That is not sex-positive. You're a prude and a hater.
Chris
Post by: The Annoyed Man on August 16, 2008, 11:52:11 AM
Elaborate for me, why do "sex" and "dungeon" ever belong in the same sentence?
Why not? For example:
Dungeons are rarely, if ever, a good place for sex, since they tend to be chilly and otherwise lacking in creature comforts.
Post by: Tallpine on August 16, 2008, 12:28:42 PM
Either way, sounds to me like they need a bigger place out in the country somewhere
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 16, 2008, 01:06:34 PM
Elaborate for me, what is a "sex-positive culture"?
It's one of those wacky cultures where they not only have SEX, but they want you to know they have SEX, and exactly how they go about having SEX. If you say you don't want it shoved in your face, why, you're just a prude who wants to restrict their right to have SEX anywhere, anyhow, and with anyone.
And they call it "sex-positive," because anyone who doesn't approve obviously views sex as something dirty and shameful?
Post by: Manedwolf on August 16, 2008, 02:53:51 PM
Quote
Parties were frequent enough that the couple's laundry service was cycling through 50 bedsheets a week.
I hope their laundry service was properly equipped...
Post by: mtnbkr on August 16, 2008, 03:01:17 PM
Elaborate for me, what is a "sex-positive culture"?
It's one of those wacky cultures where they not only have SEX, but they want you to know they have SEX, and exactly how they go about having SEX. If you say you don't want it shoved in your face, why, you're just a prude who wants to restrict their right to have SEX anywhere, anyhow, and with anyone.
And they call it "sex-positive," because anyone who doesn't approve obviously views sex as something dirty and shameful?
Now you get it.
Chris
Post by: BridgeRunner on August 16, 2008, 03:44:51 PM
I hope their laundry service was properly equipped...
Note to Avalanche2082: Your wife may not want to work in a laundry.
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 16, 2008, 09:18:03 PM
Elaborate for me, what is a "sex-positive culture"?
Comrade Wikipedia to the Rescue!
Quote
Elaborate for me, why do "sex" and "dungeon" ever belong in the same sentence?
A lot of people like faux dungeon settings, with fake chains and so forth.
Wait till I tell you about erotic suspension.
Post by: K Frame on August 17, 2008, 03:05:26 AM
Sex positive, in this case, may be akin to HIV positive...
Post by: roo_ster on August 17, 2008, 08:40:58 AM
Let me get this straight - was this a large group of swingers or a group of large swingers
I so wish I wrote that.
Hummmm...
Sex positive, in this case, may be akin to HIV positive...
Sex positive, in this case, may be akin to HIV positive...
Ayup.
"No doubt, love, but as long as people are still having promiscuous sex with many anonymous partners without protection while at the same time experimenting with mind-expanding drugs in a consequence-free environment, I'll be sound as a pound!"
----Austin Powers
Post by: Manedwolf on August 17, 2008, 08:49:29 AM
Hummmm...
Sex positive, in this case, may be akin to HIV positive...
Sex positive, in this case, may be akin to HIV positive...
People seem to have forgotten about all the other diseases out there. Syphilis and herpes and other things that are INCURABLE. As in, INCURABLE.
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 17, 2008, 08:57:21 AM
Hummmm...
Sex positive, in this case, may be akin to HIV positive...
Sex positive, in this case, may be akin to HIV positive...
People seem to have forgotten about all the other diseases out there. Syphilis and herpes and other things that are INCURABLE. As in, INCURABLE.
Safe sex technology exists for a reason. Not just condoms, but oral barriers and so forth.
Also, choosing your partners helps even if you are polyamory.
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 17, 2008, 08:59:17 AM
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 17, 2008, 09:35:48 AM
Apart from his support for the 'pro-life' cause, what is it that makes Obama such a big friend of the nekkid-fun people?
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on August 17, 2008, 09:41:30 AM
And I think MicroBalrog has shared a little bit more with us than we really want him to.
Careful, fistful. People might begin to think that you're sex-negative.
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 17, 2008, 09:43:55 AM
And I think MicroBalrog has shared a little bit more with us than we really want him to.
Careful, fistful. People might begin to think that you're sex-negative.It's fistful. We already do.
Post by: Jamisjockey on August 17, 2008, 10:00:01 AM
The big question is unanswered:
Apart from his support for the 'pro-life' cause, what is it that makes Obama such a big friend of the nekkid-fun people?
Apart from his support for the 'pro-life' cause, what is it that makes Obama such a big friend of the nekkid-fun people?
Because he's a liberal, and when he taxes us to the point of not being able to afford clothing, all that will be left is nekkid-fun.
Post by: K Frame on August 17, 2008, 12:01:53 PM
Syphilis is curable as an active infection for several years at least before it moves into the stage that turns your brain into swiss cheese.
Post by: BridgeRunner on August 17, 2008, 12:42:59 PM
Also, choosing your partners helps even if you are polyamorous.
Yeah. Until someone lies. Gee, now I wonder why a guy who has convinced four or five of his favorite lays to have all kinds of fun and games with him would lie.
What percentage of condoms fail again? And oral barriers? Please.
Post by: Dntsycnt on August 17, 2008, 01:09:56 PM
Also, choosing your partners helps even if you are polyamorous.
Yeah. Until someone lies. Gee, now I wonder why a guy who has convinced four or five of his favorite lays to have all kinds of fun and games with him would lie.
What percentage of condoms fail again? And oral barriers? Please.
Do you teach High School health?
Sex is quite safe if done intelligently.
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 17, 2008, 01:10:56 PM
.
What percentage of condoms fail again? And oral barriers? Please.
What percentage of condoms fail again? And oral barriers? Please.
Assuming constant use (rather than people using them 'not always' or some other tomfoolery), condoms have a 2% failure rate in preventing pregnancy. As for STDs, read here.
Said barriers are generally composed of the same material as condoms, but I find no stats on them.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on August 17, 2008, 01:19:59 PM
Also, choosing your partners helps even if you are polyamorous.
Yeah. Until someone lies. Gee, now I wonder why a guy who has convinced four or five of his favorite lays to have all kinds of fun and games with him would lie.
What percentage of condoms fail again? And oral barriers? Please.
Do you teach High School health?
Sex is quite safe if done intelligently.
There are many things that can be said about swingers parties, anonymous sex, numerous partners, and "sex-positive lifestyles." But "intelligent" is not one of those things.
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 17, 2008, 01:21:00 PM
The big question is unanswered:
Apart from his support for the 'pro-life' cause, what is it that makes Obama such a big friend of the nekkid-fun people?
Apart from his support for the 'pro-life' cause, what is it that makes Obama such a big friend of the nekkid-fun people?
Because he's a liberal, and when he taxes us to the point of not being able to afford clothing, all that will be left is nekkid-fun.
No, it's because the alternative to Obama is McCain. And McCain will be Bush III. And the Bush administration is a fundamentalist theocracy that allows sex only through a hole in the sheet, for pro-creation. Duh.
Sex is quite safe if done intelligently.
Yeah, I'm sure Bridgewalker is really frightened of teh seks.
Post by: BridgeRunner on August 17, 2008, 01:22:14 PM
Yes, very safe if done intelligently. There are many things that can be said about swingers parties, anonymous sex, numerous partners, and "sex-positive lifestyles." But "intelligent" is not one of those things.
+1
Post by: BridgeRunner on August 17, 2008, 01:23:51 PM
Do you teach High School health?
Nope, I've just seen a lot of friends get hurt in various ways by the so-called "sex positive" culture.
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 17, 2008, 01:29:34 PM
Do you teach High School health?
Nope, I've just seen a lot of friends get hurt in various ways by the so-called "sex positive" culture.
I've also seen a lot of people get hurt in various ways in the... let's say, more traditional segments of society. That doesn't mean that the lifestyle is invalid, just that some people are irresponsible... rectums.
Post by: BridgeRunner on August 17, 2008, 01:33:15 PM
I've also seen a lot of people get hurt in various ways in the... let's say, more traditional segments of society. That doesn't mean that the lifestyle is invalid, just that some people are irresponsible... rectums.
Yeah. Whatever. Sure dude.
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 17, 2008, 01:34:10 PM
I've also seen a lot of people get hurt in various ways in the... let's say, more traditional segments of society. That doesn't mean that the lifestyle is invalid, just that some people are irresponsible... rectums.
Yeah. Whatever. Sure dude.
Basically, the plural of anecdote is not data.
Post by: jamz on August 17, 2008, 01:44:49 PM
Post by: roo_ster on August 17, 2008, 01:48:50 PM
Post by: BridgeRunner on August 17, 2008, 01:51:05 PM
Basically, the plural of anecdote is not data.
Nope. But the plural of women handy for sex whenever some dude wants it is a perversion.
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 17, 2008, 02:02:26 PM
Basically, the plural of anecdote is not data.
Nope. But the plural of women handy for sex whenever some dude wants it is a perversion.
Yes, this is all about subjugating women.
Post by: BridgeRunner on August 17, 2008, 02:12:00 PM
Yes, this is all about subjugating women.
Oh, I'm sorry, are you too post-modern for that to be a possibility?
Ftr, it does a real number on the kids too.
Post by: roo_ster on August 17, 2008, 02:36:00 PM
Do the math. That sort of behavior will get you killed since the advent of AIDS.
One doesn't have to drag out any moral arguments or ethics to figure out that that sort of behavior is A VERY BAD IDEA in this day & age.
Reducing the likelihood by 85% of transmission of HIV with the use of condoms does one no good if you double/triple/quadruple/etc-down on the number of folks you get jiggy* with.
Not to mention the baker's dozen of other STDs and other blood, fluid, and feces-borne illnesses (Hepatitis, HPV, cervical cancer, etc.) not so dramatic as AIDS. A simple case of HPV or the clap can render the afflicted sterile** and herpes will, in the immortal words of Eddie Murphy, "Be with you forever, like luggage."
The most "sex positive" demographic, (homosexual men) lose roughly half their life span, on average, due to their "sex positive" activities. And the last years of their average of 35-37 years are spent dying. Hoo-freakin'-ray for halved lifespans and lingering deaths!
Also, trusting folks to be honest when they already show they are at odds with conventional ideas of morality, ethics, and social mores is a fool's wager.
* Or, since the OP referred to large types, "get jiggly" might be more appropriate.
** Not much spoken about, but probably second only to a woman's age as a cause for sterility, but applicable to both sexes.
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 17, 2008, 03:07:10 PM
Quote
The most "sex positive" demographic, (homosexual men) lose roughly half their life span, on average, due to their "sex positive" activities. And the last years of their average of 35-37 years are spent dying. Hoo-freakin'-ray for halved lifespans and lingering deaths!
Let's not get technical here, but IMO the biggest reason of high STD incidence among homosexual men is the promotion, by various homosexual media (not just porn), of anal sex as the prevalent way for gay men to get into it, and specifically also unprotected anal sex.
I will not go into more details since this is a family-friendly forum.
I also wish to have a source about the gay lifespan being 35-37. Google brought no such studies.
Quote
Also, trusting folks to be honest when they already show they are at odds with conventional ideas of morality, ethics, and social mores is a fool's wager.
I'm at odds with current prevailing ideas of morality, ethic, and social mores. I'd say I'm pretty honest.
Post by: BridgeRunner on August 17, 2008, 03:12:52 PM
I'm at odds with current prevailing ideas of morality, ethic, and social mores. I'd say I'm pretty honest.
Pardon me for not being willing to bet my life and health on it.
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 17, 2008, 03:16:00 PM
I'm at odds with current prevailing ideas of morality, ethic, and social mores. I'd say I'm pretty honest.
Pardon me for not being willing to bet my life and health on it.
...I have not made any propositions to you, I think. But I do not think your opinion that people who make different sexual choices than you are somehow stupid or evil holds up.
Post by: BridgeRunner on August 17, 2008, 03:27:22 PM
...I have not made any propositions to you, I think. But I do not think your opinion that people who make different sexual choices than you are somehow stupid or evil holds up.
Nope. Just really, really dishonest. The overwhelmingly vast majority of them. And not people who make different sexual choices than me. Just people who make sexual choices that are dangerous, inherently coercive, and that celebrate ritualized coercion in ways that frequently prove dangerous.
Wait, no, plenty are just stupid. Where's AD and his latest blog post about interesting objects in rectums?
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 17, 2008, 03:36:09 PM
Post by: BridgeRunner on August 17, 2008, 03:37:42 PM
And you're calling me post-modern?
Yep.
Post by: 2swap on August 17, 2008, 04:14:10 PM
I even thought it was an awesome thing to do to create positive publicity.In my opinion, sex can be pretty disgusting (unprotected sex with strangers, certain fetishes which I won't list here) but also very good. It can be You can not say it is bad or good just because it is sex, the same goes for demeaning to women, btw. If people consentually decide to have sex or do sex-related things together, it is their decisionand I do not think that it is something which needs to be ruled by law.
I used to live in one of the gay capitals of Germany and I think the idea that the average lifespan of gays is 35-37 is rather off. Of course sex is not perfectly safe, but then, nothing is (a certain road I have to cross at least once a week comes to mind, where I got involved into 2 accidents). What we should attempt to promote thus is not abstinence or some form or traditional moral code, but responsibility. Because this helps in almost any situation. Even in those for which a traditional moral code does not exist.
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 17, 2008, 04:17:55 PM
Quote
I do not think your opinion that people who make different sexual choices than you...
You sound awfully post-modern, there; interpreting any moral judgment as mere arbitrary preference. Or in this case it wasn't even moral, so much as pragmatic.
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 17, 2008, 04:52:29 PM
I just do not have the belief that consensual sex between those capable of such consent is a moral issue for me.
There are people whose religion tells them not to eat a particular food, or to avoid in a particular kind of a sexual relationship. There are even people whose religion tells them to avoid the use of a given invention or tool. I do not have to be a postmodernist to say that I do not share these beliefs.
From a pragmatic and moral standpoint, I think sex is a lot like guns or drugs - use them responsibly, and everything will be okay barring a freak accident.
Also I wanted to elaborate on this to a great extent, but my sweet 2Swap has swooped down and said everything beautifully.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on August 17, 2008, 05:07:13 PM
Also I wanted to elaborate on this to a great extent, but my sweet 2Swap has swooped down and said everything beautifully.
Post by: BridgeRunner on August 17, 2008, 05:10:29 PM
I don't think anyone is saying that "sex-positive" people shouldn't be free to do what they do. I think we're mostly saying that what they do is stupid and risky. Responsible sex is fine and dandy. Sex-positive uber promiscuity doesn't seem at all responsible to me.
Yep. Dunno where y'all are seeing advocacy of legislation to restrict sex.
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 17, 2008, 05:15:41 PM
Post by: BridgeRunner on August 17, 2008, 05:24:33 PM
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 17, 2008, 05:28:50 PM
Anyhow, I'm with the liberals on one thing.
It's not sufficient, in my opinion, that we make certain options in our lives legal, or keep them legal. It is necessary to retain - or introduce - a mindset of individual liberty and responsibility.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on August 17, 2008, 05:39:08 PM
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 17, 2008, 05:53:32 PM
In general, I want a world where people like Loretta Nall are equal members of the society, not outcasts.
(And as long as we have laws prohibiting sex toys, we clearly don't have enough tolerance and freedom).
Post by: roo_ster on August 17, 2008, 07:31:36 PM
Oh, here we go, the city was Vancouver and the study published in the International Journal of Epidemiology:
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=12178.msg219415#msg219415
Upshot: mean life expectancy for gay males was 34 years, given 3% of the male population was gay.
I bet the median is lower than 34 years.
Those are pretty freaking horrific numbers. We're talking "sub-Sarahan Africa with a genocidal revolution" sorts of average lifespans.
So what if the costs go up care to explain how you imagine they won't go up?
cool you write the check
and there are quite a few legal issues that arise. ones that can be be addressed in a civil unions context.
civil unions would also allow couples who chose not to get married to qualify for benifits wether they are gay or hetero
cool you write the check
and there are quite a few legal issues that arise. ones that can be be addressed in a civil unions context.
civil unions would also allow couples who chose not to get married to qualify for benifits wether they are gay or hetero
You first.. how will they go up in any real sense? You first brought up the cost issue and if I'm supposed to refute something I need to know what it is.
Hokay, time to add some light to the heat. Or at least some data.
For those who think that it would cost nothing, dollar-wise, for insurance to cover the "partner" of a homosexual employees at a company, you fail basic arithmetic. Those folks, even if they had similar illness & mortality rates, would end up costing somebody more money, because they use dollars to cover their health care. TANSTAAFL...or TANSTAAFHC to be more specific.
Thing is, there are studies showing that homosexual males have an incredibly high mortality rate and use of health care during their peak earning years. This is relative to heterosexual males.
To give an idea, the following study shows just how significant the difference is:
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/26/3/657.pdf
Summary:
Vancouver, BC, Canada had X number of male HIV deaths over a period of time. Due to various factors, the homosexual population could not be accurately estimated as one percentage, so three estimates were used, high (95), med (6%) and low (3%). These three models were used to determine homosexual male mortality rates and loss in life expectancy due to HIV (see note 1).
Take a good, long, look at Tables ! & 2 and Tables 1 & 2. They are sobering tally a huge loss of life...and increased health care costs sooner, rather than later.
Code:
Life Expect Loss due to HIV
Gay and bisexual men
3% of population 34 (0.70) 21.3 (0.90)
6% of population 42.6 (0.50) 12.7 (0.70)
9% of population 46.3 (0.40) 9 (0.60)
All men 54.3 (0.10) 1 (0.20)
(Std err for each value in parenthesis)
Gay and bisexual men
3% of population 34 (0.70) 21.3 (0.90)
6% of population 42.6 (0.50) 12.7 (0.70)
9% of population 46.3 (0.40) 9 (0.60)
All men 54.3 (0.10) 1 (0.20)
(Std err for each value in parenthesis)
If you think it would cost fellow employees on the same insurance plan a big, fat, nuthin', I think the data says otherwise. The data shows that while men are in their prime earning years, homosexual males are in a big hurry to fall ill and die. Not only is the enterprise denied their skill and labor, it has to pay out big bucks for life-saving & extending treatments. I would bet that in addition to health care costs, that we can toss in disability for them.
Note 1: HIV is not the only thing that drives down homosexual life expectancy. There are large correlations between homosexuality and other risky behaviors.
Post by: Antibubba on August 17, 2008, 08:02:26 PM
And thus is a perfect metaphor for the Democratic Party as a whole.
Post by: BridgeRunner on August 17, 2008, 08:14:24 PM
What you have to grasp about these swingers is, while at first thought it seems exciting and liberating and rebellious, when you see it up close and see just who is involved in it, it becomes repellent.
And thus is a perfect metaphor for the Democratic Party as a whole.
And thus is a perfect metaphor for the Democratic Party as a whole.
Hm. Yep.
Post by: Tallpine on August 18, 2008, 04:30:42 AM
Quote
condoms have a 2% failure rate in preventing pregnancy
So does that mean that if you have sex twice a week, that you only have two babies per year
Post by: 2swap on August 18, 2008, 07:03:27 AM
It mentions those who dies but disregards those who are alive now due to better medication. And probably disregards that the elderly would not answer truthfully.
The same kind of study done in 1980 would show a significantly lower life expectancy for Bundesliga players. the Bundesliga is the first German soccer league. One could deduct from that that soccer is dangerous. one could however also deduct that, since the Bundesliga exists only since 1963, many living Bundesliga players simply do not appear in the statistic (and didn't have time to die of natural causes).
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 18, 2008, 07:28:09 AM
Quote
The data shows that while men are in their prime earning years, homosexual males are in a big hurry to fall ill and die
No, the study shows no such thing. It is specific in that it discusses the impact of HIV on life expectancy, and even the author points that out.
We know, as a matter of fact, that the situation today is not the same as it was at the time the study was made.
"In contrast, if we were to repeat this analysis today the life expectancy of gay and bisexual men would be greatly improved. Deaths from HIV infection have declined dramatically in this population since 1996. As we have previously reported there has been a threefold decrease in mortality in Vancouver as well as in other parts of British Columbia."
"Death is a product of the way a person lives and what physical and environmental hazards he or she faces everyday. It cannot be attributed solely to their sexual orientation or any other ethnic or social factor. If estimates of an individual gay and bisexual man's risk of death is truly needed for legal or other purposes, then people making these estimates should use the same actuarial tables that are used for all other males in that population. Gay and bisexual men are included in the construction of official population-based tables and therefore these tables for all males are the appropriate ones to be used."
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/30/6/1499
[Same researcher, same methods]
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on August 18, 2008, 09:24:25 AM
you folks overlooking hep c as well as the interesting problems associated with child birth if you have herpes.
there was a class a long time ago where folks were given a box with a "terrain" in the bottom and a tiny hole in the top. they weree to use a thin rid to poke through the hole and determine the profile with a few random samplings. i see folks do the same with life. the younger and more academic they arer the more assured they seem that they "know" remarkably older folks who have actually been there done that seem to move the other way. hmmm most peculiar
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 18, 2008, 10:43:18 AM
The older professors at my Uni are all crazy-ass Marxists, guess I'm going to convert to worshipping Comrade Che now.
Post by: BridgeRunner on August 18, 2008, 05:17:18 PM
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 18, 2008, 05:19:31 PM
There's a bit of a difference between old people and old professors. And between old professors and old Israeli professors.
A valid point. I often wonder if they are people, myself.
Post by: Balog on August 19, 2008, 04:35:27 AM
Age and experience can lead to increasing maturity and wisdom, but it's hardly a forgone conclusion.
Post by: 2swap on August 19, 2008, 06:37:32 AM
The older professors at my Uni are all crazy-ass Marxists, guess I'm going to convert to worshipping Comrade Che now.
You said it! *hugs the Marxist*
Post by: Tallpine on August 19, 2008, 08:17:23 AM
Quote
Age and experience can lead to increasing maturity and wisdom, but it's hardly a forgone conclusion.
That's what you think - you young whippersnapper
Post by: MicroBalrog on July 06, 2011, 04:14:55 PM
Post by: seeker_two on July 06, 2011, 04:47:19 PM
Obama has been President for two and a half years now. What benefits have these individuals reaped to their cause since he's been elected?
Well....Obama has shown that it's OK to screw all Americans.....does that count? =|
Post by: AJ Dual on July 06, 2011, 05:07:49 PM
Well....Obama has shown that it's OK to screw all Americans.....does that count? =|
</thread> :laugh:
Seriously though, it's just the usual knee-jerk affiliations that any .alt subculture has with the political Left, feeling it to be more tolerant etc. Of course neglecting the strategic thinking that perhaps supporting a smaller .gov through the Right might mean a .gov too small/busy to do anything about them even if it was "hostile" to their lifestyle.
Of course, both sides have their statists. The anti-porn moral crusaders on the Right are well matched by anti porn feminist crusaders on the Left.
Post by: grislyatoms on July 06, 2011, 05:10:37 PM
I enjoy sex just as much as anyone but I don't wanna see it in the friggin' street! Wait did I make a pun? Anyway [barf]
Post by: roo_ster on July 06, 2011, 05:42:08 PM
Post by: Hawkmoon on July 06, 2011, 06:01:03 PM
Wait till I tell you about erotic suspension.
No, no, not necessary.
Really, it's not. Don't trouble yourself.
Post by: Hawkmoon on July 06, 2011, 06:04:45 PM
Sex is quite safe if done intelligently.
Always with the negative vibes ...
Post by: Jocassee on July 06, 2011, 06:05:14 PM
Post by: seeker_two on July 06, 2011, 06:08:34 PM
Always with the negative vibes ...
If you're getting negative vibes, you've got the batteries in wrong.... ;)
Post by: vaskidmark on July 06, 2011, 06:11:10 PM
Oh...its THIS thread...always heard about it...never seen it. UNTIL NOW.
Mee, too. Not sure how I missed it, what with my basic purient interests filter having been set to "FIND" ever since, well, forever.
Now I'm seriously considering putting something in there to filter things like this out.
stay safe.
Post by: Hawkmoon on July 06, 2011, 06:14:44 PM
There's a bit of a difference between old people and old professors. And between old professors and old Israeli professors.
Is this where we comment that there are old professors, and there are bold professors ... and then ask if there are any old, bold professors?
Post by: AJ Dual on July 06, 2011, 06:27:34 PM
Is this where we comment that there are old professors, and there are bold professors ... and then ask if there are any old, bold professors?
In these modern days of Viagra, anything is possible.