Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Never cup the boob. No one wants her boob cupped.

You run a hand up the torso, see if the kiss is getting more intense, and then you lightly, every so gingerly caress the boob.

If you have actual man sized hands, and she has less than DD, caressing is the same as cupping. The only thing I have to go to a Big and Tall Men's store for is gloves, now that I'm no longer playing football.

[SEC_Chick]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

If you have actual man sized hands, and she has less than DD, caressing is the same as cupping. The only thing I have to go to a Big and Tall Men's store for is gloves, now that I'm no longer playing football.

So what is it called for a guy with Trump sized hands? I'm confused.

LOL about him being spanked with a Forbes magazine and making Stormy watch Shark Week. Is anyone surprised she passed a polygraph, really?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

My theory: He asked Trump what his height was without bothering to measure. Trump being Trump inflated. I can't remember the last time a doctor actually measured me. They always ask instead. It's not like it changes that much over time once you're full grown.

Totally agree about self-reporting of height. That's been my experience too, whereas the staff never wants to go with the weight I report, which I guess shows that people lie about their weight but not their height. Re Trump's doctor, I was referring to how effusive he was in praising Trump's health.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

I don't follow you. There is an obvious difference between what a private participant can do regarding your privacy and what the government can do. This distinction is everywhere in the law of privacy, such that it is. That your friend can open your drawer full of weed and not have the evidence excluded doesn't not imply that Officer Krupke can too, for a very crude example.

Nor does that you let your friend into the house imply that you let strangers in and thus would let cops in.

You continue to see this subject with narrow, legalistic blinders. Yes, it's true that there is no Exclusionary Rule that applies to private parties who have committed illegal searches and are seeking to use that evidence, because that's just not a thing. But again, the point I was making wasn't about legal rules or the procedures sometimes protect privacy interests, which is all you can talk about, it's about the nature of a person's interest in privacy itself.

The interest is in being left alone by the government. You have no interest in being left alone by the person you invited into you bedroom with respect to what you did to them there. None. You invited them. You did what you did. They have an equal interest in what happened. You don't get to shush your victims because you don't think you did anything wrong. I can't believe you're even arguing this.

TM has said it already, and you are either being completely obtuse, argumentative for some higher cause, or you're a Martian. You have an interest in keeping some things private. I share things with other people that I expect them not to share with the world. It doesn't mean they never have interests too. It doesn't mean I "get to shush" them, whether they're victims or not.

I can't believe that I have to point this out in an internet chatboard to someone who has been using a sock for years. And yes, I know you IRL, which is exactly the point.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I'm sorry. Different people feel different things for different reasons. It would be great if everyone could pick up on (sometimes subtle) cues that what we're doing isn't okay. But that's not how it works.
TM

Have y'all hashed out yet? Assuming the author can be trusted in how she portrayed the night (which seems doubtful), they went on a date and got buzzed. She went back to his place, got naked, and she sucked his dick. He chased her around doing the "claw" and trying to have sex. She stayed for a time while he chased her doing his weitd finger/mouth thing, until she finally said no.

Those are the currently uncontradicted facts. Her "non-verbal" facts did not say no to him; they said quite possibly. In his mind, its moving to sex, until she says "no," and he accepts that graciously.

Where's Spanky when you need him to speak truth?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

There's only one truth regarding anything that happens, and that is exactly what happened. This doesn't change because someone feels a certain way.

You should check out postmodernism. If you want to reject many of the intellectual developments of the last century or more, that's fine, but you should know about them before you do.

Fantasyland is highly amusing, but can also be terribly depressing, except for this: The objective never goes away. Grace does not get her own reality. Nor does Donald Trump. In the end, they're all futile characters, speed-bumps in a progression toward a world based primarily on reason.

This is about as reassuring as Keynes saying that in the long run we're all dead.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Where's Spanky when you need him to speak truth?

I was just wondering about him. Where is he?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Don't tell me what to do.

Now I gotta go out and find some boobs to cup.

TM

Cup an ass. Much more satisfying.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

If you have actual man sized hands, and she has less than DD, caressing is the same as cupping. The only thing I have to go to a Big and Tall Men's store for is gloves, now that I'm no longer playing football.

Are you calling me a short fingered vulgarian?

I've got ET length fingers (and toes, which kind of creeps me out). No one woman wants my entire hand splayed upon her breast. If she's a DD, I'm basically palming a basketball. If she's got small breasts, I'm effectively cupping the entirety of one side of her rib cage.

You want a woman to just cup your balls? What's that going to do for you? I mean, it's fine... I doubt any guy's going to protest having his balls cupped. But it's effectively just support. There's got to be some movement. Otherwise, you're just doing what her bra was before you removed it. And I'm not even getting into cupping over the bra. That's cupping balls over a jockstrap.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Totally agree about self-reporting of height.

You know, I just realized that I noticed the print out they gave my at my last physical had a BMI and they definitely did not measure my height or ask me about it (this time). Maybe they asked at some point in the past?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

You know, I just realized that I noticed the print out they gave my at my last physical had a BMI and they definitely did not measure my height or ask me about it (this time). Maybe they asked at some point in the past?

Maybe they just didn't want to pry.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Not sure I understand the need to establish whether we need to determine a definitive answer to "Is it nature or nuture,*" when it most assuredly is a mixture of both. But I read the whole thing anyway. And I think plf should too so he can continue to contribute.

"My suspicion is that it’s more about nature than about society, and one reason I believe this (apart from all the data) is I because I’m gay. I live in a sexual and romantic world without women, where no patriarchy could definitionally exist, a subculture with hookups and relationships and marriages and every conceivable form of sexual desire that straight men and women experience as well. And you know what you find? That men behave no differently in sexual matters when there are no women involved at all. In fact, remove women, and you see male sexuality unleashed more fully, as men would naturally express it, if they could get away with it. It’s full of handsiness and groping and objectification and lust and aggression and passion and the ruthless pursuit of yet another conquest. And yes, I mean conquest...

I know this must be a pain in the neck for most women. But it’s who we are. It’s a blessing and a curse. It’s called being male, this strange creature, covered in hair, pinioned between morality and hormones, governed by two brains, one above and one below. We can and should be restrained, tamed, kept under control. But nature will not be eradicated. And when left-feminism denies nature’s power, ignores testosterone, and sees all this behavior as a function entirely of structural patriarchal oppression, it is going to overreach. It is going to misunderstand. And it is going to alienate a lot of people. If most men are told that what they are deep down is, in fact, “problematic” if not “toxic,” they are going to get defensive, and with good reason. And they are going to react. So, by the way, are the countless women who do not see this kind of masculinity as toxic, who want men to be different, who are, in fact, deeply attracted to the core aggression of the human male, and contemptuous of the latest orthodoxy from Brooklyn.

And men, especially young men in this environment, will begin to ask questions about why they are now routinely seen as a “problem,” and why their sex lives are now fair game for any journalist. And because our dialogue is now so constrained, and the fact of natural sexual differences so actively suppressed by the academy and the mainstream media, they will find the truths about nature in other contexts. They will stumble across alt-right websites that deploy these truths to foment an equal and opposite form of ideology, soaked in actual misogyny, and become convinced that every sexual interaction is a zero-sum battlefield. They will see this as a war between the genders, not as a way to advance the freedom of both. They will fight back, and in this tribalized culture, the conflict will intensify. Suppress debate, ban ideas from civil conversation, and you won’t abolish these ideas. You will hand them to the worst bigots and give them credibility."

It seems pretty clear that he formulated a thesis and then wrote an article to support it, picking and choosing what he finds most helpful by way of support and ignoring the rest.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...-ideology.html

TM

*Especially when Trading Places has determined that it's clearly nurture. And it don't get no more scientific than that.

[Adder]

Not gonna read that, but it sounds like a repackaged "mean liberals made them Nazis" argument.

Nah, dude. We don't tell Nazis its okay to be a Nazi because you really don't like POC. We're not telling men it's okay to be "men" because they want to.

For what it's worth, some stories of trans men I've heard do make me believe that testosterone drives the kind of "nature" that he's talking about. I do think it's "natural" that men are visually stimulated, sexualized and crude.

It's just that being a functioning adult means keeping that shit to yourself when it's not appropriate (i.e., pretty much all the time).

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Not sure I understand the need to establish whether we need to determine a definitive answer to "Is it nature or nuture,*" when it most assuredly is a mixture of both. But I read the whole thing anyway. And I think plf should too so he can continue to contribute.

"My suspicion is that it’s more about nature than about society, and one reason I believe this (apart from all the data) is I because I’m gay. I live in a sexual and romantic world without women, where no patriarchy could definitionally exist, a subculture with hookups and relationships and marriages and every conceivable form of sexual desire that straight men and women experience as well. And you know what you find? That men behave no differently in sexual matters when there are no women involved at all. In fact, remove women, and you see male sexuality unleashed more fully, as men would naturally express it, if they could get away with it. It’s full of handsiness and groping and objectification and lust and aggression and passion and the ruthless pursuit of yet another conquest. And yes, I mean conquest...

I know this must be a pain in the neck for most women. But it’s who we are. It’s a blessing and a curse. It’s called being male, this strange creature, covered in hair, pinioned between morality and hormones, governed by two brains, one above and one below. We can and should be restrained, tamed, kept under control. But nature will not be eradicated. And when left-feminism denies nature’s power, ignores testosterone, and sees all this behavior as a function entirely of structural patriarchal oppression, it is going to overreach. It is going to misunderstand. And it is going to alienate a lot of people. If most men are told that what they are deep down is, in fact, “problematic” if not “toxic,” they are going to get defensive, and with good reason. And they are going to react. So, by the way, are the countless women who do not see this kind of masculinity as toxic, who want men to be different, who are, in fact, deeply attracted to the core aggression of the human male, and contemptuous of the latest orthodoxy from Brooklyn.

And men, especially young men in this environment, will begin to ask questions about why they are now routinely seen as a “problem,” and why their sex lives are now fair game for any journalist. And because our dialogue is now so constrained, and the fact of natural sexual differences so actively suppressed by the academy and the mainstream media, they will find the truths about nature in other contexts. They will stumble across alt-right websites that deploy these truths to foment an equal and opposite form of ideology, soaked in actual misogyny, and become convinced that every sexual interaction is a zero-sum battlefield. They will see this as a war between the genders, not as a way to advance the freedom of both. They will fight back, and in this tribalized culture, the conflict will intensify. Suppress debate, ban ideas from civil conversation, and you won’t abolish these ideas. You will hand them to the worst bigots and give them credibility."

It seems pretty clear that he formulated a thesis and then wrote an article to support it, picking and choosing what he finds most helpful by way of support and ignoring the rest.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...-ideology.html

TM

*Especially when Trading Places has determined that it's clearly nurture. And it don't get no more scientific than that.

"People need to shit. They need to shit whether or not there is a toilet nearby. It's who we are. It's a blessing and a curse. We can and should be restrained, tamed, kept under control, toilet-trained. But nature will not be eradicated. And when neat freaks deny nature’s power, ignore our powerful need to take a dump, and sees our crapping wherever we feel like it as a function entirely of poor hygiene, they are going to overreach. They are going to alienate a lot of people. If most people are told that what they are deep down is, in fact, “problematic” and "unclean," if not “toxic” and "completely full of shit," they are going to get defensive, and with good reason. And they are going to react. They will see this as a war between the neat freaks and those of us who shit outdoors, indoors, wherever we please, not as a way to advance the freedom of both. They will fight back, and in this tribalized culture, the conflict will intensify. Suppress debate, ban ideas from civil conversation, and you won’t abolish these ideas."

[Hank Chinaski]

��