Login    Register
User Information
Username:
Password:
We are a free and open
community, all are welcome.
Click here to Register
Sponsored
Who is online

In total there are 57 users online :: 5 registered, 0 hidden and 52 guests


Most users ever online was 155 on Mon Aug 15, 2016 1:40 am

Registered users: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot], MSNbot Media, Yahoo [Bot] based on users active over the past 5 minutes

The Team
Administrators
Global Moderators
global_moderators.png CS

"Offtopic-posts-topic" NSFW

All non-spudgun related discussion goes here such as projects, theories, serious questions, etc. All "off-topic" posts (aka useless posting, determined by moderators) will be removed.
Sponsored 
  • Author
    Message

Re: "Offtopic-posts-topic" NSFW

Unread postAuthor: POLAND_SPUD » Fri Nov 29, 2013 12:17 pm

Let them have their petty rants.
It becomes an issue once they expect men to consciously think of themselves as being a potential rapist or appearing as one. That's just retarded

Speaking of rape.... A couple of months ago met a girl, average looks and boring. At first she was like yeah let's do it and you could tell from, her body language that was sincere, but then 'I am religious and not that kind of girls BS' so I dropped her off. Shortly after I cancelled the next date. Now the best part - learned two months later that precisely on the day we would have met again she got raped. Oh the irony... Out of the frying pan and into the fire

That's not the end really - got pregnant, didn't agree to get an abortion/morning after pill, the guy got jailed and last time I talked with her about it she was actually happy that it happened because now she has a reason to live or something like that. I do know that the rape really happened but now I am wondering if she hadn't made it easier for the guy on purpose. You know like some sort of the selfish gene telling her to yeah ignore that the guy is creepy and expose boobs more for no apparent reason
  • 0

Children are the future

unless we stop them now
User avatar
POLAND_SPUD
Chief of Staff
Chief of Staff
 
Posts: 5405
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 4:43 pm
Country: Israel (il)
Reputation: 10

Re: "Offtopic-posts-topic" NSFW

Unread postAuthor: jackssmirkingrevenge » Fri Nov 29, 2013 3:46 pm

That's f*cked up. Who knows what the hell is going on in their heads.

The first rule of Women's fight club is don't tell anyone what you're mad about...
  • 0

User avatar
jackssmirkingrevenge
Donating Member
Donating Member
 
Posts: 24225
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 11:28 pm
Country: Holy See (Vatican City State) (va)
Reputation: 66

Re: "Offtopic-posts-topic" NSFW

Unread postAuthor: Ragnarok » Fri Nov 29, 2013 5:43 pm

Gorramit, I don't have anything better to do this evening...

POLAND_SPUD wrote:Now the best part - learned two months later that precisely on the day we would have met again she got raped.

Bloody hilarious. </sarcasm>

Regardless of your personal feelings, I am struggling to see her being raped as proportionate retribution.

jackssmirkingrevenge wrote:Who knows what the hell is going on in their heads.

Now, I'm supposed to be autistic and thus stereotypically dense regarding what people are thinking, but perhaps I have certain advantages on this one nonetheless...

Those unwilling listen to women's views on women are pretty much limited to society's understanding of female sexuality, which is frankly laughable. All that logic is based on centuries old misogyny (largely guided by even older religious views).

It's common belief that women are sexually passive. Well, if you're going to bring them up in societies that tell them that women are sexually passive, exploring their sexuality outside marriage is a sin or that women are the property of men - yeah, that's kinda gonna happen.

A woman exploring her sexuality in some parts of the Middle East is pretty much a death sentence. In the West, it's a recipe for being called any number of colourful terms - where the terms used for sexually promiscuous men are sleazy, they don't have the negative connotations of those terms that describe sexually promiscuous women; that is to say, "Playboy" sounds far more endearing than "Slag".

Without the societal programming that women are supposed to have muted sexual desires, and the social pressure to not be interested in sex, you'd see a lot less of "pretends not to be interested, but still totally wants it" (as Poland_Spud somewhat crudely put it).
There's a reason why a certain novel sold like hotcakes, and it's not because of the quality of the prose. There is genuine sexual interest, even if society is still largely pretending it isn't there.

But of course, the idea that women could be just as sexual as men - well, that's pretty much guaranteed to scare people, both men and women. It's not what people believe, it's not what they've been taught.
Women being equally willing to engage in and initiate sex changes a familiar dynamic, this concept that men are inherently the active participant in sex and the women are just a passive yes/no answer.

However, letting society include women's views on women's sexuality, rather than a view that's not much more than a slightly tweaked version of what men several centuries ago wanted their women to be like, could well let men partake in that particular recreation with considerably less in the way of unpleasantness or guilt attached.

Okay, that's not exactly a guarantee, but it's still incredibly fallacious to think that a society which feminism is trying to change has no wrong ideas about what women really think or want.

~~~~~

And with that said - guys, if you're going to complain about having to listen to women (or those who agree with them), then is not at least one reason why you don't know what's going on in their heads somewhat self-evident? :roll:
  • 0

Does that thing kinda look like a big cat to you?
User avatar
Ragnarok
Chief of Staff
Chief of Staff
 
Posts: 5339
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 8:23 am
Location: The UK
Reputation: 8

Re: "Offtopic-posts-topic" NSFW

Unread postAuthor: jackssmirkingrevenge » Fri Nov 29, 2013 6:28 pm

It's common belief that women are sexually passive


Not on this forum it ain't ;) quite the opposite!

In the West, it's a recipe for being called any number of colourful terms - where the terms used for sexually promiscuous men are sleazy, they don't have the negative connotations of those terms that describe sexually promiscuous women; that is to say, "Playboy" sounds far more endearing than "Slag".


There's a reason for this percieved "double standard" in how promiscuity is perceived.

This NSFW image is a bit crude but it sums it up pretty nicely.

this concept that men are inherently the active participant in sex and the women are just a passive yes/no answer.


Most women are more than happy to leave the risk of rejection to men.

And with that said - guys, if you're going to complain about having to listen to women (or those who agree with them), then is not at least one reason why you don't know what's going on in their heads somewhat self-evident?


Something I wrote in this thread a while ago:

Most of my younger years were fraught with frustration at my interactions with the opposite sex because I constantly tried to rationalise everything. The moment I realised that both genders operate on different levels and not everything a woman says has to make sense was the biggest epiphany I've ever had. Believing otherwise is a sure road to insanity.

In my experience, these "generalisations" aren't unfair stereotypes, but a good assumption to operate on. Stereotypes though exist for a reason, it's an evolutionary mechanism which helps you err on the side of caution. If faced with a sabre tooth tiger, the caveman who assumed it was going to attack him like all tigers before it was much more likely to pass on his genes than the one who wondered if unlike all other tigers, this one might be different and he should try to communicate with it. If a stereotype persists, its because there is a ring of truth to it.

I'm not saying men are better than women - the fact is that society evolved the way it is because it works, apparently rational and curious men need an emotional and nurturing counterpart in order for civilisation to work. Pretending we are not different is however not helping anyone.
  • 0

User avatar
jackssmirkingrevenge
Donating Member
Donating Member
 
Posts: 24225
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 11:28 pm
Country: Holy See (Vatican City State) (va)
Reputation: 66

Re: "Offtopic-posts-topic" NSFW

Unread postAuthor: POLAND_SPUD » Fri Nov 29, 2013 7:08 pm

Bloody hilarious. </sarcasm>

Regardless of your personal feelings, I am struggling to see her being raped as proportionate retribution.
retribution?? Nah meant in a sense if I had changed my mind none of that would have happened. So at first that was shocking.

Though she didn't really feel that much traumatized or anything. More like complete acceptance of what happened. That she could have asked for abortion as that's legal in such cases but she didn't and that she says it's ok because now her life has meaning. So it not only freaked me out that I met with a girl who got raped a couple of days later but also that it seems that she was subconsciously following some sort of plan to get pregnant. Reading about such things in the Selfish Gene is one thing but witnessing it in real life is something different.
  • 0

Children are the future

unless we stop them now
User avatar
POLAND_SPUD
Chief of Staff
Chief of Staff
 
Posts: 5405
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 4:43 pm
Country: Israel (il)
Reputation: 10

Re: "Offtopic-posts-topic" NSFW

Unread postAuthor: Ragnarok » Fri Nov 29, 2013 9:16 pm

jackssmirkingrevenge wrote:This NSFW image is a bit crude but it sums it up pretty nicely.

The image is clearly based on the misconception I'm talking about - the one that women are not interested in sex for its own sake (extending it into the idea that they're only willing to have sex because it gets them something).
And if you're using that as a core to an argument, I'm doubtful you're really clear by what I mean by sexually passive.

All of those scenarios come about as a form of sexual economics - supply and demand.
If the default is that women are expected to not supply sex, those who will supply it are naturally given a monopoly to exploit.

Imagine how most of those scenarios would go if women weren't chastised for being sexually promiscuous or those girls that wanted to go slower in a relationship weren't ignored and sidelined. If five times as many women were available, suddenly those that are in it for the shallow reasons like that image claims can't set their price as high.

It's simple - the more of the market you control, the more you can set your price. But less repression of female sexuality would sink any "gold-diggers" (not a positive term, but I'm not doubting that some people are this shallow) in about six seconds flat.

Most women are more than happy to leave the risk of rejection to men.

Because that's what society tells us it should be like. It's all "You've got to ask her out" and "I'm waiting for him to ask me out". When it comes to engagement, it's seen as somewhat emasculating if the man is proposed to by the woman.

If those cultural attitudes were allowed to be re-evaluated, making it more acceptable for interactions to be initiated in either direction, women would ask a lot more men out.

The moment I realised that both genders operate on different levels and not everything a woman says has to make sense was the biggest epiphany I've ever had. Believing otherwise is a sure road to insanity.

And herein I have two problems.

Firstly, both men and women are human. Despite the old adage about Mars and Venus, the different sexes are not from different planets. Their reasoning might be different, but that applies to so many other possibilities.

A different country, for example - Americans and Brits don't act the same. Compare people in Birmingham (the one in the English Midlands, not the one in Alabama) to those in Austin, and you'll find they behave quite differently. But I don't look at Americans and go "who knows what they're thinking?"

People are different, yes. But trying to understand, being willing to understand, is not a road to insanity, but one to unity. No two people, any two people, think exactly the same way - sex/gender isn't special in that respect.

Secondly, I don't see gender as a dichotomy. An individual might be physically female, but feel they should be male. Or vice versa. Some people feel they're third gender, bigender, trigender, neuter...
What about gays, bisexuals or asexuals? (Although that's of course sexuality rather than gender).

These aren't just delusions, these things are demonstrably visible in brain structure. Similarly, gay men tend to have brains structured more like heterosexual women (similarly, lesbian women more like heterosexual men).

It's a complete and utter spectrum. Where does the line get drawn before someone is an alien to you?

If a stereotype persists, its because there is a ring of truth to it.

Ha. If only.

As an example, the French have the best military history of any European power in the last 2,400 years - meaning the competition includes the Romans. The English language itself shows the impact of the French military - it's the reason why we get beef from cattle, mutton from sheep, pork from pigs*.
*Basically, the Lords were French. So the animal on the plates in front of them got called by the French name, while the animals in the field kept their English names. This resulted in having different names for the meat and animal.

That's hardly accurately reflected in the stereotype of the French as "surrender monkeys". Stereotypes are shallow parodies created by people who want to malign their subject matter, trying to garnish themselves with a pretence of any meaningful truth.
Sure, the French did surrender in WWII, but that's not in anyway a true or complete representation of their military. "Surrender monkeys" came up a lot when the French refused to go to war in Iraq.

... so exactly how many of Saddam's WMDs were actually found? But when actual proof of chemical weapons in Syria came up though...
If stereotypes had any meaningful truth to them, that one would be about people surrendering to the French.

POLAND_SPUD wrote:retribution?? Nah meant in a sense if I had changed my mind none of that would have happened.

Hardly well described as the "best part" of the story though.

it seems that she was subconsciously following some sort of plan to get pregnant.

Acceptance of a situation isn't the same thing as planning it or bringing it about.

I accept that most of my grandparents are dead, but that doesn't mean I arranged cases of pancreatic cancer, pneumonia and traumatic aortic rupture.
  • 0

Does that thing kinda look like a big cat to you?
User avatar
Ragnarok
Chief of Staff
Chief of Staff
 
Posts: 5339
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 8:23 am
Location: The UK
Reputation: 8

Re: "Offtopic-posts-topic" NSFW

Unread postAuthor: POLAND_SPUD » Fri Nov 29, 2013 11:07 pm

Acceptance of a situation isn't the same thing as planning it or bringing it about.
When I say not traumatized I mean like I was more traumatized hearing this than she was. Plus she was into it but then said no (for like no apparent reason and it seemed really weird to me at the time felt almost as if she was fighting it), and precisely when she was the most fertile went somewhere she has never been and got raped. Said no to free abortion that could return her life back to normal, and now she's happy that she's pregnant and totally ok with her getting rape and like 'ohh well it just happend. Trust me when I say it was weird it was WEIRD.
  • 0

Children are the future

unless we stop them now
User avatar
POLAND_SPUD
Chief of Staff
Chief of Staff
 
Posts: 5405
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 4:43 pm
Country: Israel (il)
Reputation: 10

Re: "Offtopic-posts-topic" NSFW

Sponsored

Sponsor
 


Re: "Offtopic-posts-topic" NSFW

Unread postAuthor: jackssmirkingrevenge » Sat Nov 30, 2013 6:55 am

Ragnarok wrote:It's simple - the more of the market you control, the more you can set your price. But less repression of female sexuality would sink any "gold-diggers" (not a positive term, but I'm not doubting that some people are this shallow) in about six seconds flat.


Precisely why the drivers of "slut shaming" are women.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/19/scien ... .html?_r=0

“Sex is coveted by men,” she said. “Accordingly, women limit access as a way of maintaining advantage in the negotiation of this resource. Women who make sex too readily available compromise the power-holding position of the group, which is why many women are particularly intolerant of women who are, or seem to be, promiscuous.”


It is women who are responsible for the repression of female sexuality, because a glut of promiscuous women would make it a buyers market.

If those cultural attitudes were allowed to be re-evaluated, making it more acceptable for interactions to be initiated in either direction, women would ask a lot more men out.


Women love confident men. Taking the plunge of asking a woman out takes confidence. Are you suggesting this mould can be broken by cultural conditioning?

Totally.

People are different, yes. But trying to understand, being willing to understand, is not a road to insanity, but one to unity. No two people, any two people, think exactly the same way - sex/gender isn't special in that respect.


http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3sk7fy

Don't try to understand women

Women understand women and they hate each other


This is the most shared actual advice mallard meme. Clearly it resonates with people.

Men and women are different.

Secondly, I don't see gender as a dichotomy. An individual might be physically female, but feel they should be male. Or vice versa. Some people feel they're third gender, bigender, trigender, neuter...
What about gays, bisexuals or asexuals? (Although that's of course sexuality rather than gender)


Outliers.

These aren't just delusions, these things are demonstrably visible in brain structure. Similarly, gay men tend to have brains structured more like heterosexual women (similarly, lesbian women more like heterosexual men).

It's a complete and utter spectrum. Where does the line get drawn before someone is an alien to you?


It's hard to get reliable statistics on people who identify as LGBT but it seems they represent less than 5% of the general population and therefore are not statistically relevant to the discussion.

That's hardly accurately reflected in the stereotype of the French as "surrender monkeys". Stereotypes are shallow parodies created by people who want to malign their subject matter, trying to garnish themselves with a pretence of any meaningful truth.
Sure, the French did surrender in WWII, but that's not in anyway a true or complete representation of their military. "Surrender monkeys" came up a lot when the French refused to go to war in Iraq.


The British have been imperialistic colonizers for most of the past 1000 years, would it be fair to characterize you or the general population as being the same?

Just because they did well in the distant past, there is no reason to classify the French as fantastic warriors as opposed to "surrender monkeys".

But when actual proof of chemical weapons in Syria came up though... If stereotypes had any meaningful truth to them, that one would be about people surrendering to the French.


No action was taken in Syria, sabre rattling is hardly a good example of military prowess.

Not trying to denigrate the French military here, they do have a well equipped and trained army - but their recent military history is what it is.
  • 0

Last edited by jackssmirkingrevenge on Sat Nov 30, 2013 1:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
jackssmirkingrevenge
Donating Member
Donating Member
 
Posts: 24225
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 11:28 pm
Country: Holy See (Vatican City State) (va)
Reputation: 66

Re: "Offtopic-posts-topic" NSFW

Unread postAuthor: Biopyro » Sat Nov 30, 2013 7:50 am

Anyone think it might be good to have a general discussion forum rather than just a single thread which devolves into multiple streams of consciousness without discussion, when multiple topics are raised simultaneously?
  • 0

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. -Benjamin Franklin
User avatar
Biopyro
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 656
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 5:32 am
Location: UK
Reputation: 0

Re: "Offtopic-posts-topic" NSFW

Unread postAuthor: jackssmirkingrevenge » Sat Nov 30, 2013 8:25 am

I don't know, I quite like the quirky nature of this thread and it's often fun to read through older pages :)

Rag, can I ask if you have ever had a long term relationship with a woman? A few years ago I would have agreed with you on many points but exposure to the real world as opposed to my childhood indoctrination radically altered my perspective on most things. This is pretty much the conclusion I had reached with MrC.

F*** off Picard

Seriously quickmeme what the hell is going on.

Now that's a shot.

I recently remembered Sinfest, a webcomic I used to enjoy. Checked it out and it's gone full feminazi for some reason.
  • 0

Last edited by jackssmirkingrevenge on Sat Nov 30, 2013 10:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
jackssmirkingrevenge
Donating Member
Donating Member
 
Posts: 24225
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 11:28 pm
Country: Holy See (Vatican City State) (va)
Reputation: 66

Re: "Offtopic-posts-topic" NSFW

Unread postAuthor: mark.f » Sat Nov 30, 2013 10:21 am

Haqd?
  • 0

User avatar
mark.f
Donating Member
Donating Member
 
Posts: 3464
Joined: Sat May 06, 2006 11:18 am
Country: United States (us)
Reputation: 21

Re: "Offtopic-posts-topic" NSFW

Unread postAuthor: jackssmirkingrevenge » Sat Nov 30, 2013 10:42 am

Nope, messed up :roll:
  • 0

User avatar
jackssmirkingrevenge
Donating Member
Donating Member
 
Posts: 24225
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 11:28 pm
Country: Holy See (Vatican City State) (va)
Reputation: 66

Re: "Offtopic-posts-topic" NSFW

Unread postAuthor: jakethebeast » Sat Nov 30, 2013 12:46 pm

192 layers, 1095 and 15n20. Poorly etched and picture is pretty bad but you'll get the point
Damn I love my new forge! :D
Image
  • 0

Est Sularus Oth Mithas
User avatar
jakethebeast
Brigadier General
Brigadier General
 
Posts: 934
Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2010 4:20 pm
Location: Jakes cave
Country: Finland (fi)
Reputation: 11

Re: "Offtopic-posts-topic" NSFW

Unread postAuthor: Talk » Sat Nov 30, 2013 5:50 pm

I had this silverfish in my ear for the whole day
F*** the whole insect kingdom
If you ever feel like something moving in your ear as you move do this
1: bend your head with your ear facing the ground(the ear in which there is trouble)
2: take a cotton bud remove the cotton on top of it(leave some at the top)
3: put it deep in your ear slowly until the thing comes out -thats what I did
Guys never mistake those things thinking it's just water in your ear, seriously
Any one here ever had a silver fish in the ear?

And they said "roboroach" I say we make it for all insects, let them be our slaves :evil:
When the silverfish fell out of my ear I poked it with needle until it stopped moving :evil: :angryfire:
  • 0

User avatar
Talk
Staff Sergeant
Staff Sergeant
 
Posts: 105
Joined: Tue Sep 24, 2013 2:47 pm
Country: Maldives (mv)
Reputation: 1

Re: "Offtopic-posts-topic" NSFW

Unread postAuthor: POLAND_SPUD » Sat Nov 30, 2013 6:20 pm

thx for making me even more paranoid
  • 0

Children are the future

unless we stop them now
User avatar
POLAND_SPUD
Chief of Staff
Chief of Staff
 
Posts: 5405
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 4:43 pm
Country: Israel (il)
Reputation: 10

PreviousNext

Return to Non-Spudgun Related Discussion

Who is online

Registered users: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot], MSNbot Media, Yahoo [Bot]

Reputation System ©'