Interesting that size seems to play a significant part here - i.e. that the size of the women correlates with her preferred position. Hadn't thought about that one.
You learn something new every day. And thank you for playing!
I suspect this has been asked several times before, but there are always new people joining, so in the interest of science (of course):
Please rate your favorite position, in decreasing order - missionary, on top, or behind. (Note: you should rate all three - not just indicate which one is your favorite)
Pretty creative idea for a thread.
To the point - I looked up your bio page to see, since your avatar didn't give much away. You described yourself as "short, fat, and plain". So my initial response would probably have been "no". But then I loved the honesty. So I would have to change it to a "yes - definitely".
I have to pass on the Wheaties with beer. Ugh.
But getting back to the original question - I just posted a story like that myself. And I admit that I hesitated for the same reason - no real sex. But it turned me on, so I figured it might do the same for others.
I agree with you, CQ. I don't think it's about guilt, though. No reason why the past should threaten the present. The opposite, in fact - if we are able to love today, it's because we've learned how (often the hard way).
But it is harder to share it, perhaps, because it is so deeply personal. It's not easy to lay yourself open like that - first loves are full of false hopes, dashed expectations, and ultimate disappointments. Unless you are one of the lucky few who find yourselves celebrating your 50th wedding anniversary with your childhod sweetheart.
Well reasoned, Pam. Aside from the moral issues, Lush certainly needs to protect itself legally, or no one will benefit.
About the drinking and driving ages (even though this was not exactly the initial subject here) - here in Israel, kids can drive at 17, and drink beer (not hard liquor) at 18. They are also drafted at 18, and serve for a minimum of three years (two for women). The worst road accidents occur after midnite on weekends, generally boys home on weekend leave, driving way too fast after drinking too much beer. It is a serious problem.
You can argue the merits of handing an 18 year old a gun, although this does NOT seem to be a significant problem - the army successfully manages to inculcate in them the necessary training for safe handling of weapons and there are few accidents or incidents of misuse. Drinking and driving, however, seems to be another story, despite all the efforts to educate.
Pornography does not kill. But the combination of alcohol and automobiles certainly does. As far as allowing under-18 kids free reign at a site like this - I have my hesitations as well. There are some truly nice people here, but there is also plenty of opportunity for misuse.
His actions speak for themselves. And even though he surely sees it differently, he has done you a big favor. Get some good legal advice, and make sure you don't allow him to somehow creep back into your life.
Rocco -
Ian Anderson is amazing. He has the energy of a 20 year old. His voice also seems to have held up well with time. And his music is still as different from anthing else as it ever was.
I generally hesitate when old rockers come to town - too much chance to be disappointed. I'd rather have the "original" stay fresh in my mind. But I made an exception here, and I enjoyed every minute of it.
I'm afraid that I can't say that I've ever been as "close" to the scene as some of you guys here, but over the years I've had the privilege to see and hear:
Crosby & Nash (after the CSN&Y breakup, before the reunion, after the etc.)
Gordon Lightfoot
Jethro Tull (in the 80's) and Ian Anderson (just last year - he is still amazing)
Simon & Garfunkel (not nearly as good live as they were in the studio, apparently)
Joan Armatrading (at Carnegie Mellon in the late 70's)
Eric Clapton (absolutely phenomenal)
Sting (OK, but slightly disappointing)
Peter, Paul and Mary (OK, I'm REALLY dating myself here...)
Garbage (surprisingly good live)
Do:
- Encourage me when I do something right (most women don't come with a user's manual).
- Look me in the eyes when you are aroused.
- Feel free to make noises; it's a turn-on for me as well.
Don't:
- Switch positions every two minutes; if it's working for you, then savor it.
- Wring my member like a washcloth (either during or after).
- Be afraid to sweat; it's extraordinarily sexy.
- Worry about whether I'm enjoying it; I promise you I am.
Oh, and I second the finger thing as well - it's highly overrated.
Regarding the initial questions, my answers would be:
1. Do you think there is more to life than just what we live on earth? Yes
2. Do you think there is an afterlife of some sort? Unlikely
3. Do you think there is a God who created us and has a purpose for us? Yes
4. Or do you think that we are here on earth to just enjoy life, Yes
5. help people and do what we can to make the world better? Yes (or did you mean to imply that #4 and #5 should somehow be mutually exclusive?)
Regarding the issue of free will and fate, there is no real contradiction, as long as we realize that God (or whomever) is above time as well as space. Free will - by definition - can only be exercized by someone acting IN time. Past, present, and future are all one for a God who is not limited by time. So just because God "knows" what will happen (because it has always happened that way) doesn't mean that we are not acting on our own free will at the moment of decision.
I would only add - as long as we are talking about beliefs - that while I believe that God exists, I also believe that the vast majority of those who claim to speak for God, or to know God's mind, don't really have a clue as to what they are talking about.
I hope you won't take this the wrong way, but...... this may be the most entertaining thread I've seen here yet! (*laughing*)
All this, and educational as well. Thanks, Mara!
It's a bit difficult to cover all of the past forum questions to be sure that this has never come up, but at the risk of being redundant (and realizing that this is perhaps not the most burning issue of the day):
I can understand applying lipstick to go out somewhere. But if you're expecting any action, it seems to me like it just gets in the way. Does anyone think that applying lipstick makes lips more (rather than less) kissable?
Nicola - your secret is safe with me. Besides, a woman needs to maintain a bit of mystery, right? (*laughing*)
Just to clarify - I'm certain that BeachGirl's question (and ToniC's respopnse) was about romantic involvement with two or more women in parallel, not having sex with two women at once. I didn't mean to imply otherwise, thereby bringing down the intellectual level of the discussion.....(*smiling*)
Nicola -
I can point out at least half a dozen clues that the photo of those girls in civvies with guns was taken in Israel. But none of those reasons are obvious at all. How did you know that?
I second hangin's comment - I'm impressed, too.
Favorite children's movie - it's a tie between two:
Labyrinth - Creative, clever, funny, and with a wonderful message that sneaks up on you rather than hitting you over the head. Plus David Bowie.
Fly Away Home - A wonderful adventure story with something to say about loss and growing up, all shot on an achingly beautiful backdrop. The kind of movie that Disney wishes it could make.
My father got the same thing for Father's Day every year - a new button-down sweater and a home-baked lemon meringue pie. He loved the pie (he was the only one in the family who did, so he had it all to himself), and he wore the weater, so I guess it was a success.
He was definitely my hero. I miss him.
And thanks, Pam
There appears to be an unspoken assumption here - that men are more likely than women be involved with more than one romantic partner at a time. Maybe so. Or maybe not. I've known plenty of women who enjoy attracting the attention of multiple suitors.
I do suspect that many women probably switch to the "desire for commitment" mode sooner than many men. Which is fair enough. As long as BOTH parties are completely honest with each other, there should be no cause for complaint. It's when honesty gets sacrificed (generally for short-term gratification) that people get hurt in the long run.
As far as ToniC's statement, I agree that it's most men's wet-dream (i.e. two women at once). However, there's a reason, I think, that most civilizations have gotten away from polygamy. Two wives (or more) is almost certainly a recipe for disaster, for any man.
Hey, I just noticed this. Is it too late to add my congratulations as well?
That would probably increase their value on Ebay. Among certain prospective bidders, anyway.....
Well, Rocco, you can't say that you didn't ask for it (*laughing*).
And just to clarify my own point of view - there is NOTHING to compare with being with a woman who wants to be with you for real. The best "pros" have learned to mask their ennui, and sometimes there can even be a personal connection made, but it's no substitute. It can be a pleasant way to pass the time - something better than masturbation but still less than real lovemaking. But never underestimate the power of the touch of a woman. We all hunger for it, and if it's not perfect, it can still be good.
By the way, I would also point out a (not too well hidden) secret - the biggest turnon for a man is to know that the woman he is with actually wants him. My guess (and I admit that I have not conducted a formal survey here) is that men would rather spend ten minutes in the company of a woman who is interested in him, than several hours in the company of a supermodel. So don't worry ladies - despite the cynicism, "paying for it" is never going to replace the real thing. (*smiling*)
Sorry, Catnip - not much of a market here for that (*smiling*). You could try Ebay - I actually know someone there who supplemented her income that way for a while.
One example that Davies presents is the formation of heavier elements inside stars. It seems that if the relationship between the weak force and the strong force was changed by even 2%,no elements from carbon and up could have formed. It's difficult to imagine any chemistry or biology taking place under those circumstances - the Universe would likely be barren. This is not a proof of anything, of course. But there are enough examples like this to make the question worth asking.
On a personal note - while I do believe in God, I don't think that He/She/It bears any resemblance to what 99% of "believers" imagine. And I'm pretty certain that anyone claiming to speak in the name of God doesn't have a clue as to what they are talking about. I am much more impressed by people who understand what they DON'T know.
Finally - is it just me, or is that smiling llama really getting ready to spit?
I agree on the peeing - water sports (and worse) seem about as gross as can be imagined. Not a fetish to aspire to.
Since there has been a complaint about a lack of male response - the most unusual request for me (and I'll agree that it was probably not THAT unusual) was to masturbate for her. Which felt a bit strange - since I'm not used to doing it with an audience - but a turnon nonetheless.
On another occasion, there was a request to probe my nether regions with her finger. I know she was looking for a certain gland, but I'm pretty sure she never found it.
Hey Apple,
Just for the sake of accuracy (and I agree that it's beside the point), there were just under 7 million Jews killed in the Holocaust. Plus a whole lot more Gypsies, homosexuals, and others. And there were no more than a hundred thousand Japanese Nisei interned in camps during WWII. While what the Americans did was awful, it cannot be compared (or even mentioned in the same breath) with the Nazi extermination program.
"For the two gentlemen above I have a few questions, I have read all your threads and they made me think, what are you calling flaws / victories?"
I'm not overly interested in keeping a scorecard. But I don't agree that "it's all relative".
If your premise is that "one person's war crime is another person's justified act of self defense", then I have to take issue with you. I do believe that some acts (and people) are just plain evil. We can try to understand what may have happened to them to make them the way they are. But in the end, I believe that we are all accountable for our own actions. Strapping a bomb to yourself and blowing up two teenage girls sitting in a pizza shop is just not an acceptable form of social protest, in my book.
"I think that is way more then enough, now I will sit back and wait for the angry people to come rip me to shreads over this."
If anyone tries to touch a hair on your lovely head, they'll have to come through me.... (*smiling*)
Glad to see someone was interested enough to actually respond.
Hmmm, it seems that someone else may actually have been reading this after all......
Durrasch -
Errr... I feel obligated to point out that it is difficult to expect the last word if you insist on asking a question. (*smiling*)
The Goldilocks Dilemma refers to the fact that the Universe is "juuuust right". There are so many fundamental physical laws and phenomena which, if they were only slightly different, would have prevented intelligent life from ever evolving. So the question is - does this mean that it had to be by design? Or do we say that the question is moot, because if the Universe were otherwise we would not be here to even ask this question? Or are there other possible answers?
Paul Davies is a theoretical physicist who also lectures and writes in philosophy of science. He does a wonderful job of presenting things as they are, asking the right questions, and then letting the facts (what we know, and what we DON'T know) speak for themselves. To be honest, I don't even know whether he believes in God himself - he is very scrupulous about not letting his own opinions interfere with his exposition. And when he DOES interject an opinion of his own, he is almost apologetic about it. I think you'll enjoy him. Truly mind-expanding stuff.
About your last comment:
"I have never met a "believer" that was interested in finding the truth, etc."
If we may be considered to have "met", you will have to modify that sentence to replace "never" with "seldom". (*smiling*)
Daniel
OK, Ali. Since few people seem to be willing to admit it - I have "paid for it" on occasion.
Massage parlors, whorehouses, and escort services are generally not worth the time and money. The women are at best jaded, and at worst expoited.
Independents can be better, especially the older ones. Younger ones are often inexperienced, unwilling to let down their guard, and reluctant to react to the client on a human level. It is the older ones, oddly enough, who are often the least jaded. My guess is that's because (a) if they have stuck around so long in the business, it's because they actually enjoy themselves; (b) they are not just counting on their youthful good looks to make the guy pony up; and (c) they are comfortable enough to relax and perhaps even see the client as a real person (if the situation allows).
On certain occasions, I have found myself enjoying a nice interlude with a woman who takes the money, and then sets it aside (mentally speaking) - allowing the two of us to have some real fun for an hour or two. Those are the ones who are worth a repeat visit.
And if you want to know more, just give me a buzz.....
I knew it! I killed the thread! Oh well.
[Maybe it can still be revived.....]
So what color panties is anyone wearing?
D -
The fact that no one else has jumped in here is probably the best indication that - if we keep this up - they will all run away screaming from this thread. But at the risk of being accused of insisting on having the last word -
I read Dawkins on Darwin ("The Selfish Gene") - his writing style is more than a bit dense, but he certainly has what to say. I think you'll find Paul Davies more readable. And a bit less dogmatic - he tends to present multiple viewpoints and let the facts speak for themselves.
About the cycnicism - no doubt there's room for that aplenty. I could try to list human achievements in a vain attempt to counter the horrors that you've listed. However, I think that the (absolutely amazing) fact that an inanimate universe with simple physical laws has produced a mind capable of contemplating (and understanding) it dwarfs everything else by comparison.
About your last point - I doubt that most atheists are any more likely to accept anything as a proof of God than most of the faithful are otherwise. Either side can always find some explanation to justify their stance or deny the other (e.g. all "miracles" are just unusual natural phenomena). There are plenty of truth-seekers though, on both sides.
But I promise to let you have the last word....(*smiling*)
