At 11/24/09 09:42 PM, KrustyTheClown wrote: Ohhh. NG feminists? Your open window is right here.

I don't consider myself a feminist. There are equally as many problems with men as there are with women.

At 11/24/09 09:22 PM, JoshuaKidder wrote: Like what?

A general fear of appearing weak/feminine, over-aggressiveness, the constant attempt to show others up, etc. And, then there are the problems that are apparent in both sexes in different ways: obsession with sex, obsession with gender roles, egocentrism (in teenagers and young adults, mostly), etc. In the case of men, obsession with sex, I've seen, comes in the form of obsessing over the female form and body (or male form, if they're gay) to an absurd degree (whereas in women, it seems to come more in the form of being obsessed with the broader topic). For gender roles, men are constantly pushing each other to be masculine.

Again, these are generalizations and they're trends I've noticed, so they're not necessarily true for everyone.

I've noticed that women have a much harder time accepting new people into their "circle" than men. They're xenophobic, like people have to prove themselves as worthy of hanging out with, whereas I've noticed that men are more willing to just go with the flow (These are both generalizations and are just two trends that I've noticed. They're not true for everyone). They make the simple act of making friends much more complicated than it should be.

Women also have the perfected ability to hold grudges for the stupidest things. They can't just resolve an issue, they have to gossip about it to all their friends while avoiding the person who they're having the conflict with to the best of their ability. I'm currently having this dispute with this girl who, instead of confronting me about how she feels and about her problem with me, she's completely avoiding me, refusing to talk to me, and telling exaggerated stories to our mutual friends. Hell, half of the stories she's telling aren't even based in truth. They're not anywhere near the truth. This issue isn't even that big of a deal. I would be happy to just make amends and move on, but no, it has to be this complicated.

But, there are just as many flaws with the male gender that I could point out as well.

Man, this wizardry shit is so unrealistic. What was she thinking? This doesn't happen in real life.

Well, it'll be Christmas break, so I'll probably wake up at 10 or 11, then I'll amuse myself with watching the entire internet freak the fuck out. After that, I'll go about my day and wonder what I'll be getting for Christmas in a few days.

At 11/24/09 09:43 AM, sinfulwolf wrote: Peace and kindness and tenderness and all that is good and all, but sometimes your thrown into situations where you need to stand firm and fight.

I don't believe in using violence except as a means of self-defense.

At 11/23/09 06:11 PM, hhcash wrote: Sorry, underaged. Ha.

No one needs to know that.

At 11/23/09 05:10 AM, JohnnyWang wrote: Anywya, i think I have a solution to the lack of dates with people here; all we need is a place to meet up and a tanker-trunk of lube.

Yes.

At 11/22/09 09:59 PM, TheRadicalOne wrote: If we're talking stats, both of us are either very dedicated or have too much time on our hands.

Quite.

WHY AREN'T YOU ON MSN. >:c

It sounds like "nigruns."

At 11/22/09 08:23 PM, halen1 wrote: yeah i got nothing... unfunny n00b is unfunny

If we're talking stats, GC is 17 levels higher than you, has 30 times as many posts as you, and signed up a year before you.

At 11/22/09 08:30 PM, Chdonga wrote: Because xenophobia is a bandwagon. Out of every 100 people who don't like the movie, 100 of the people haven't really even seen it.

I saw the first movie and thought it was awful. Not just because of the absurd concept or the cannon characters, but because the movie itself made the book look like literary genius. I read the first book for a book report in eighth grade. It wasn't that good, but it wasn't terrible. I've read worse. And, I think reading the book made me dislike the movie even more, because the movie didn't follow the original plot in any way shape or form. Now, plot deviation works sometimes (Angels & Demons), but not here and not to this extent. It was like someone had taken the book's storyline, put it in a blender, taken it out, and then tried to put it back together again with shitty cinematics and bad acting. I also can't think of a way that they could have made Bella's character more boring short of having Al Gore play the part (although, it's arguable that that would have made it more interesting). It was boring, drab, poorly written, and arguably sexist.

So, unless someone can verify for me that New Moon is substantially better than the first movie was, I'm going under the assumption that I don't and won't like it.

But, I do see your point in that too many people spend way too much of their brain power hating Twilight and have become just as obnoxious as the fanbase.

At 11/22/09 08:27 PM, Blush wrote: Yeah, it is pretty sad that someone has 2 people in a relationship, and I don't even have one :0

Yeah. Sharing is caring.

Happy birthday, comrade.

I don't think I would be able to. I mean, I've never been in a situation like that (obviously), so I can't tell for sure. But, knowing myself and knowing that I'm pretty susceptible to guilt, I doubt I'd be able to do it.

I think that to be able to do something like that, you'd have to be able to completely emotionally detach yourself from the situation and the deed, which is something that I can't do.

By failing to the extent of humor.

SELF ESTEEM.

At 11/21/09 09:46 PM, camobch0 wrote: Sorry, I was pretty wasted when I wrote that. But I do have an open relationship with a boyfriend and a girlfriend.

I don't think I could ever be ultimately happy in an open relationship. I anticipate that if was the one with more than one partner, I would end up becoming more attached to one and having the relationship with the other ending messily. And, if it was the other partner that had another partner, then I think I would become unhappy that that person was only partially devoted to me. In other words, jealousy. I don't consider myself a jealous person. For instance, I wouldn't get jealous in a monogamous relationship if my partner admired the body of another person. My partner couldn't help that. But, I feel like an open relationship would put me in a position where there would difficult to maintain that leniency. Because, after all, that attraction would be turning into action.

I understand that in certain circumstances for certain people, it works. For instance, a partner in a couple has a certain fetish that the other partner isn't willing to fulfill, so the partner goes to a person of like interest (that is, a person who shares that fetish) to satisfy that desire. Both people understand that the open relationship has been created so that one partner can fulfill sexual needs that the other partner can't. There isn't an emotional connection to the third party.

Or, there's some level of emotional connection between the three people involved in the relationship, but it's not strong enough for two of them to want exclusivity. I don't know how I feel about this and I certainly wouldn't want to be involved in this sort of relationship myself. But, I suppose if it works for other people, their sexual lives and decisions are none of my business as long as all three are on the same page and they all agree with and want the arrangement.

But, a lot of times these relationships get messy and I think the problems should definitely be addressed the minute that the dynamics begins to become skewed. If one partner watches the other being involved sexually with someone else and is not entirely happy with it, but merely goes along with it to avoid hurting the relationship, that's not okay. I'll stress again that I think all three partners don't just have to accept the terms, but have to want the terms.

Those are my thoughts on that.

It sounds cliche, but I would choose love, though I suppose it also depends on the extent of the poorness. If we're talking single woman in Haiti with TB poor, then I'd have to go with money.

But, if we're talking working/lower middle class poor, then I can live with that if the alternative is never being loved by anyone ever again. Because, love would include the love of your friends and family wouldn't it?

At 11/21/09 11:36 AM, Grizzli wrote:

At least black people or any other groups who got targeted by Hitler don't constantly force Germany to pay millions per year to say sorry.

Are you suggesting that they shouldn't? It may have been almost 70 years but they caused they death of, what, over 40 million people in WW1 and 2?

Reparations should only be paid to those directly affected by the two wars. They don't need to apologize to all Jews as a whole, but to the people who actually suffered in and during WWI and WWII (most of which are already dead).

At 11/21/09 01:57 PM, Addsgohere wrote: There is undeniable proof that it didn't happen.

I would like to see it, then.

There will always be conspiracy theorists. For every action, someone out there will claim "conspiracy." They've managed to find a secure loophole in accusing their opposition of fabricating everything and we can't disprove that with anything more than logic, because we don't have physical evidence of everything. We have evidence of some, but not everything. Now, I don't agree with holocaust apologists, but to play devil's advocate, that would be their stance.

At 11/21/09 10:25 AM, Grizzli wrote: Well then Belgium is more enlightened than any other country so far. On this topic at least.

Restricting freedom of speech =/= enlightenment.

At 11/21/09 10:59 AM, Grizzli wrote: Did homosexuals die just because they were homosexual? and was it in the millions?

No. So shush.

I think his point is that the holocaust wasn't just about Jews.

At 11/21/09 08:24 AM, camobch0 wrote: Hey guys, just wanted to see if I could get in on this rainbow bandwagon. I've been bi for about 4 months, and currently have a girlfriend and a boyfriend.

Welcome.

At 11/21/09 08:27 AM, psychomilkman wrote: Cheating? not cool.

I'm guessing it's an open relationship.

At 11/19/09 09:30 PM, J1m wrote:

What's cool about watching guys you do know beat each other up? Anything that comes down to pure strength is not worth my time.

I like watching martial arts, because of the level is skill that is involved. It's not just a beat down, it's an art.

But, I lose interest in the fighting shows that are all about body builders flailing their arms at each other.

Ugh, today's not my day. Typos fixed:

At 11/19/09 09:37 PM, InsertFunnyUserName wrote: But 7 year olds aren't the only ones who watch the Disney channel. Preteens watch it, as well, and dating is soon going to become pertinent to them. Also, what's so wrong about teaching kids about dating? Disney doesn't portray dating as a sexual thing, as far as I've seen.

At 11/19/09 09:39 PM, geterkikzkid wrote: Dude, I'm sorry for being hostile. I'm just in a bad mood, which I should keep away from the bbs.
It's kind of hard because the BBS is a factor in this, though.

I hate posting something when I'm in a bad mood and then coming back later in a different mood to see how badly I handled the situation. Makes me want to post again in the thread to explain it, but then at that point the thread is dead and it's just better to leave it that way.

God dammit, I wrote up this whole thing replying to the girl with the "sexy" shirt story, but I lost it when I copied the CNN link. FFFFF

All well, I don't feel like writing it up again.

At 11/19/09 09:19 PM, geterkikzkid wrote: It seems to be otherwise if you use REAL EVIDENCE!
(back then, kids didn't talk back or have gay sex in the classroom)

Here's some real evidence. This one talks about physical discipline used on toddlers.
More. This one talks about when it's used in later years.

At 11/19/09 09:28 PM, Gobblemeister wrote: Umm okay, I didn't say CENSOR FUCKING EVERYTHING

I just said, and I even gave you an example, that it would be nice to have some guidlines from the federal government.

This means keeping the inappropriate commercials to later hours and maybe asking certain networks to tone it down, like the Disney channel. Less about dating and boys and maybe some more about things little kids SHOULD learn about.

But 7 year olds are the only ones who watch the Disney channel. Preteens watch it, as well, and dating is soon going to because pertinent to them. Also, what's so wrong about teaching kids about dating? Disney doesn't portray dating as a sexual thing, as far as I've seen.

Since the networks are fine with instilling sex and violence into childrens programs; unfortunately the government has to make some kind of reform

Children's programs don't talk about sex, they talk about relationships. There's a difference. Besides, Disney is a private company. They can create whatever media they please. All they need to do is rate the programs accurately and then let the parents decide whether or not the programs are suitable for their kids.

At 11/19/09 09:34 PM, WeHaveFreshCookies wrote: And Hannah Montana recently did a video that featured her sporting some really skanky clothing and pole dancing on an ice cream cart. And she's the main role model for millions of impressionable little girls across the UK and America.

I saw the video. She wasn't pole dancing. She was hanging on to a pole so she wouldn't fall off.

Though, I do agree that we need to stop portraying all of the women in our media as sex objects.

At 11/19/09 09:02 PM, Gobblemeister wrote: Government just needs to set guidelines of decency for which certain channels broadcast because kids are growing up sooner and sooner until we have 7 year olds having sex and smoking

Or we could educate them and teach them morals, so that they understand that sex doesn't make you cool and that smoking is hazardous to your health. Sheltering kids will not make any sort of difference. Knowledge is only harmful when it turns into action, which is necessarily have to. That's where the parents' responsibility comes in to teach the kids wrong from right.

Male enhancement commercials are worded so that you have to have a certain amount of knowledge to figure out what they're talking about. They don't say, "HEY THIS MAKE YOUR DICK BIGGER SO THAT YOU CAN HAVE BETTER SEX." I remember when I was a kid and I first saw a male enhancement commercial. I didn't understand what it was. I just saw a very happy looking man named Bob, heard some very happy music, and listened to the narrator use phrases I wasn't familiar with. I found out by asking my parents. Now, if my parents didn't feel that it was appropriate for me to know, they wouldn't have told me.

We don't need more censorship. We need parents to stop being dependent on the government doing their job for them. Male enhancement commercials aren't aired on children's channels and I think that's enough regulation.

At 11/19/09 09:06 PM, FunnyStuff707 wrote: I remember once these 2nd or 3rd grade girls were talking about how her mom would not let her wear this shirt, because it was too sexy. I got pissed about it, they don't know anything about that kind of stuff, but they blow it out their mouth.

Monkey see, monkey do.

The mother stepped in to tell the girl what isn't appropriate for her to wear. That's good and that's all that needs to be thought about.

At 11/19/09 09:02 PM, Thegluestickman wrote: Fighting in general is stupid, I mean what's so cool about to guys you don't know beating each other up?

What's cool about watching guys you do know beat each other up? Anything that comes down to pure strength is not worth my time.

At 11/19/09 08:57 PM, geterkikzkid wrote: I'm starting to lose hope in you guys. FUCK YOU!

Fuck him for not being interested in asking what "fuck" meant? Logical.

At 11/19/09 08:54 PM, Kittykylie wrote: See no one smacks kids anymore and look at them now.. lil stuck up bastards. A crack never did me no harm.

Bring back the cane!

It's been proven that physical discipline leads to permanent psychological damage. I can find the studies if you don't believe me.

At 11/19/09 08:42 PM, Haloya wrote: You know they don't actual know what they talk about most of the time right?

Exactly.

Their innocence isn't ruined by the fact that they talk about relationships. Hell, even if they do know what certain sexual things are, it's not that big of a deal. Knowledge is just knowledge. Now, when they start actually giving each other blow jobs, that gets a bit more complicated, but as far as talking about it and having "relationships" (which, at that age, is just for the bragging rights) goes, I'm not concerned.

It's much easier to access information these days what with the internet and all. And, as a whole, our society is because less prude. It's not that our society is become any more corrupt than it was a generation ago, it's just that we're talking about certain things more. And, kids see that and they copy that. That doesn't mean that they're being corrupted or that their childhood is being ruined. Childhood is ended by responsibility, work, and cynicism, not the definition of "blowjob."

At 11/19/09 08:22 PM, 13oobs wrote: How did I make a complete dick of myself when you called me out, if I didn't know better I would say you are the dick. And I did not call you 12, I called the OP a 12 year-old (get your facts straight needledick). And you did not trick me at all because you made yourself look like a complete fool.

He was screwing with you, just let it go.

At 11/19/09 08:18 PM, Andrewboy895 wrote: COCK JOKE

No.