View Single Post
Old 02-16-2012, 10:37 PM
Posts: n/a

Ah, so this is what happens when I bring my colloquial knife to a fight fought by limp-wristed academics, pulling triggers softly like dandelions. "Nyah, nyaaaaah."


A little girl-on-girl has potential to be alluring, under the right circumstances, if they're both hot. Right on.

But the male friend who was so daft as to not see that a woman has been eyeing him, for several years, is not customarily the kind of guy who attracts especially attractive women (read: readily fertile, genetically healthy, and at the forefront of contribution to a more fit species).

Now, this is just one aspect of what makes him a beautiful, special person, blah, blah, blah. But how sexually and romantically appealing a person is to one or just a few other people is hardly a reflection of how, on a wider scale, attractive that person is to a larger chunk of the ones ready and willing to mate.

Life's not supposed to be all about something as, fun, but inconsequential as sex, you say? Yeah, well neither is life supposed to be about finding food, and shelter. And survival? Right, because we are a special species who've evolved arrogance at a pace faster than we've evolved intelligence.

"No one in my life fits into your boxes, sorry." If I had to describe, in a few words, what a polyamorous person is, to somebody who's never heard the word, I'd include the characteristically vehement hatred for "being labeled." This one's particularly curious, because I've come to believe, through empirical observation, that those who are most comfortable with who they are, shrug most effortlessly and with much indifference, at anyone daring to question what might be the legitimacy of their way of life.

The only approach that makes sense to me is a logical A = A, B = B, A isn't guaranteed to equal B approach. Too many people learn everything they know about love and sex from wives tales, Cosmopolitan, and movies. I thought that people who've at least pondered over various forms of love would be closer to coming up with an accurate, consistent explanation for much sexual behavior in humans.

Now I'm in the impression that it's all a very whimsical, anything goes as long as you're true to yourself, it's all about feeling good and feeling the love... thing.


It's just an aside.


Let's think about this one step-by-step. If I was a troll (hah, add that to the list of mythical creatures), my predominant motivator to post here would be in driving you nuts. If indeed I was so set on driving you nuts, wouldn't I just come back under a different name to repeat the process?

Escorting out, in that case, would serve no purpose, as it would be ineffective.

It's the "just so you know" part that makes me wonder, "Holy crap. Is that one of those 'I know powerful people, I know many powerful people and lawyers. Don't mess with me!' empties?"


Forgive me for an uninspired response, but crossing all the Ts and dotting the Is with so many replies has exhausted me. I'll try to be fair and reply anyway.

With all due respect, the only flaw in relying purely on your experience is that your experience is unlikely to be representative of what happens in the whole population, far out of the reach of your experience. Careful observation, along with pray-to-God careful speculation, is the only shot at getting down to the bottom of things.


I'm not a chauvinist. I do not think men are better than women. I simply am pointing out the differences, and see no reason to appease the crowd who screams "No, the grass is NOT green, and the sky is NOT blue! They're both equal in color!"

I think the issue you're having is with what you have perceived, in your head, to be me insisting that women are somehow inferior to men or are less deserving of great, hot sex. C'mon, you know that's not how I think.

I don't hate women, but I do have a certain dislike for feminists with a bad sense of entitlement. It's like... either shave your legs or stop complaining about men who won't give you attention because of your hairy legs. Lose a couple pounds or stop calling that guy you used to like a pig 'cause he likes to cum inside skinny bitches.

This common point is amongst my favorites: a woman (yeah, yeah, with issues, I know, 'cause no woman 'cause possibly be interested in getting easy money for her money) shakes her ass around, then gets paid by men more money than she could earn in a "respectful job."

I think the stripper gets least exploited. She makes an easy buck by taking advantage of some guy's tendency to pay often hard-earned money to see a little bare boob. Sounds to me like the only women who hate strippers are those whose husbands leave them for a stripper.

When's the last time you saw a guy making more money swinging around a pole than he would as a revered doctor? I CALL IT! DOUBLE STANDARD. Why should women get to make more money than do men in the same profession?

Because women are different, that's why. Hell, people within the same sex are different from others within the same sex! If equality really was what ran things, then everybody would be equally attractive.

By the way... how DARE you say that the woman or man you're in bed with is more attractive than the woman or man you don't want to be in bed with? That's discrimination. Discrimination is based on differences, not similarities.


I need a breather. This is more labor than arguing legal matters.
Reply With Quote Received Infraction