Quandry

[Honor]

(I apologise if my verve has caused any non-cockians to shiver in any form of unpleasant response, sorry )

Well, sure... It made me vomit just a little in the back of my throat, but I certainly wouldn't hold that against you.

(I'm teasing... It was very cute. In truth, it's the things I remember when I read the way Misca put it that makes me feel more than a little sick to my stomach. It took me quite a long tome to write my last response. Still, even those disgusting memories couldn't make me the least bit offended by either of you.)

The question I come to, in order to validate the comparison, is as to whether or not you have in fact been plowed senseless by a woman with a well-made strap-on. Without that comparison "I love cock!" is a far more correct form than "I love cock more."

It was meant as a compliment.

Gilda Radner voice: Oh... Well, that's different. Nevermind.

(And thank you.)

Well, me for one. But then I don't find aggression to be at all arousing.
(go figure, the long-hair'd tattoo'd pacifist going against the typical stereotype)

To each his own, of course... But generally, when someone speaks of women being sexually aggressive, they're not talking physical restriction and forcible rape so much as healthy interest in taking the initiative.

Pacifist... Hm. I'd certainly say I'm a "peace loving" person... But pacifism..? The staunch belief that war or violence is simply never justifiable...? So we shoulda stuck with telling Hitler that he wasn't being a good dictator? Maybe we could show our disapproval for the wholesale extirmination of Jews, gypsies, blacks, and homosexuals by changing the name of "hamburger" to "Freedom Beef"? Rather than sending troops into Kosovo to stop outright genocide, we should have... What? Asked them to play nice? And after pearl harbor was bombed into the stone age, the proper response would have been to take one knee and ask Japan "C'mon, baby... Tell me what's bothering you."

Holy fuck... I certainly can't agree with that.

*sigh* Now I don

[Squidflakes]

Easy there Honor, everyone can have their opinion on the relative merits of being fucked till next Tuesday with a strap-on. Some women are just going to like the cock more, and you're just going to have to accpet that.
Yes, I know it screws with your master plan, but these are the eventualities you're just going to have to learn to work with.

[Honor]

Easy there Honor, everyone can have their opinion on the relative merits of being fucked till next Tuesday with a strap-on. Some women are just going to like the cock more, and you're just going to have to accpet that.
Yes, I know it screws with your master plan, but these are the eventualities you're just going to have to learn to work with.

And... I would be not accepting that how?

In fact, I'm very happy that some women enjoy the cock. I'll go to great lengths not to witness or imagine the physical reality of that enjoyment, but I'm still happy it's there.

None of which alters the simple fact that an opinion has to have basis to be a valid opinion. I can say "I think I'd like eating rat testicles less than I like eating porterhouse." ...That's a valid opinion. "I like porterhouse a lot more than I like rat testicles." is less so, because I have no basis for comparison. It's only a valid opinion in light of ignorance and lack of experience.

But... Since I'd have to eat rat testicles to validate my opinion, I'll stick with the imperfections of my current assumptions on that one.

A strap-on, chosen properly, will be exactly the right size and shape to get the job done. It's rigidity and firmness will remain at the correct levels for the duration of it's use. Not only will it not give up, shrivel, and die before the woman is finished with it, it will stick around and do it all again, if asked. And it'll be driven by someone who has both an understanding of the female anatomy and a genetic predisposition to bring pleasure and happiness to those she cares about. But it doesn't spit poisonous goo at you to let you know it's done with you... So yeah, in that respect, it's wayyy inferior.

So maybe that's not an opinion someone wants to validate, or maybe they already -have- validated it, by trying both. I don't know, and without trying to sound aloof, I honestly don't much care. My goal in making the initial observation wasn't to say that all women like strap-on sex better. It certainly wasn't to convert Misca or Lulu or anyone else to strap-on sex.

It was simply to inform one person who said she didn't know if she'd like it, that an awful lot of women do, in fact, like strap-on's at least as well as natural penii... Particularly from a performance criteria of the quality of orgasms they cause in the recipient. Of all the types of lesbian sex I've encountered, I'd probably have to say I actually like strap-on sex the least. I prefer using my own body to get a girl off... But the scale and quality and... type... of orgasms I can cause with a strap-on rock. I wouldn't say they're necesarily better than the ones I can cause with my mouth and hands... But they're obviously a very nice kind of "different".

As a point of curiosity, that part about the woman using the strap-on caring if you come or not...? That's the most likely deepest root cause of what Misca and Lulu are talking about, too. Studies on lesbian sex consistantly indicate that the one thing most lesbians consider most important in sex is the pleasure of their partner... But this isn't because they're lesbians, it's because they're women. Women are statistically much more likely to derive considerable enjoyment from causing their partner pleasure. That's what makes het sex such a beautiful thing: The man and the woman typically share a common primary concern... Whether or not and how well the man comes. And yes, of course there are exceptions, and lots of them. But for the most part, that's just the way it is.

[Squidflakes]

But it doesn't spit poisonous goo at you to let you know it's done with you...

That's insulting to us who have had our poison sacks removed, or at least rendered ineffective. ;P

[Honor]

But it doesn't spit poisonous goo at you to let you know it's done with you...

That's insulting to us who have had our poison sacks removed, or at least rendered ineffective. ;P

*lol* Well, I'm sorry... That certainly wasn't my intent.

[Squidflakes]

But it doesn't spit poisonous goo at you to let you know it's done with you...

That's insulting to us who have had our poison sacks removed, or at least rendered ineffective. ;P

*lol* Well, I'm sorry... That certainly wasn't my intent.

I'm just messing with you Honor, notice the ;P

[Tellner]

Hey! Some of us are trying to poison our women with the trouser worm.

[MaryxTyphus]

I have only one thing to say and that's this;

OH NOES!!1

[Honor]

*lol* Well, I'm sorry... That certainly wasn't my intent.

I'm just messing with you Honor, notice the ;P

Um... I know. Notice that I prefaced my response with a *lol*

[HentaiCat]

That's an easy one, hon... Think of yourself as a fortunate son of the most sexually and erotically advanced species on the planet. Seriously... If we're going to talk about technicalities, the facts are simple and clear. If they can relax and get over the mental barriers, having something poked into their butt is pleasant for boys. So you've got more ways to enjoy your body and the bodies of others than some other people. The correct term for someone like that is "lucky".

Hmm, ya that sounds good. (For the sake of my

[Honor]

[quote="HentaiCat"](For the sake of my

[HentaiCat]

*conspiratorial whisper* ...neither do I... But girls have fingers, and there are toys...

Now the fingers and toys part I

[Ce6]

Well, me for one. But then I don't find aggression to be at all arousing.
(go figure, the long-hair'd tattoo'd pacifist going against the typical stereotype)

To each his own, of course... But generally, when someone speaks of women being sexually aggressive, they're not talking physical restriction and forcible rape so much as healthy interest in taking the initiative.

Pacifist... Hm. I'd certainly say I'm a "peace loving" person... But pacifism..? The staunch belief that war or violence is simply never justifiable...? So we shoulda stuck with telling Hitler that he wasn't being a good dictator? Maybe we could show our disapproval for the wholesale extirmination of Jews, gypsies, blacks, and homosexuals by changing the name of "hamburger" to "Freedom Beef"? Rather than sending troops into Kosovo to stop outright genocide, we should have... What? Asked them to play nice? And after pearl harbor was bombed into the stone age, the proper response would have been to take one knee and ask Japan "C'mon, baby... Tell me what's bothering you."

Holy fuck... I certainly can't agree with that.

Careful with your hyperbole, honor.
Not everyone takes all matters in life to their irrational extremes.
I do not live my life to the extremes of true pacifism as you are trying to claim, I simply decided to err on the side of brevity in my comment. "Non-agressive" would be more accurately discriptive, but I chose an easily recognizeable word that did not appear to be blatantly repetitive of the subject matter discussed immediately prior. Though given your penchant for grammatical exactitude, I should know better than to make assumptions that people wouldn't overreact to an obviously hastily-chosen word choice.
As for the accusations of extreme pacifism, I will support violence where it is due, but I do not believe violence alone should be the ultimate goal of one's life. The examples you give sound like they were taken from the Republican talking point about Democrats wanting to give therapy to the 9/11 attackers. There as here a blatantly untrue example set up purely to polarize the general public.
I often find that those who make a habit of seeking out conflict tend to have personal gain in mind or are seeking a scapegoat to rationalize thoughts or emotions which they harbor but are not willing to accept for what they truly are. We all have our issues in life, some of us just prefer not to take them out on others.

[Honor]

Well, me for one. But then I don't find aggression to be at all arousing.
(go figure, the long-hair'd tattoo'd pacifist going against the typical stereotype)

To each his own, of course... But generally, when someone speaks of women being sexually aggressive, they're not talking physical restriction and forcible rape so much as healthy interest in taking the initiative.

Pacifist... Hm. I'd certainly say I'm a "peace loving" person... But pacifism..? The staunch belief that war or violence is simply never justifiable...? So we shoulda stuck with telling Hitler that he wasn't being a good dictator? Maybe we could show our disapproval for the wholesale extirmination of Jews, gypsies, blacks, and homosexuals by changing the name of "hamburger" to "Freedom Beef"? Rather than sending troops into Kosovo to stop outright genocide, we should have... What? Asked them to play nice? And after pearl harbor was bombed into the stone age, the proper response would have been to take one knee and ask Japan "C'mon, baby... Tell me what's bothering you."

Holy fuck... I certainly can't agree with that.

Careful with your hyperbole, honor.
Not everyone takes all matters in life to their irrational extremes.
I do not live my life to the extremes of true pacifism as you are trying to claim, I simply decided to err on the side of brevity in my comment. "Non-agressive" would be more accurately discriptive, but I chose an easily recognizeable word that did not appear to be blatantly repetitive of the subject matter discussed immediately prior. Though given your penchant for grammatical exactitude, I should know better than to make assumptions that people wouldn't overreact to an obviously hastily-chosen word choice.
As for the accusations of extreme pacifism, I will support violence where it is due, but I do not believe violence alone should be the ultimate goal of one's life. The examples you give sound like they were taken from the Republican talking point about Democrats wanting to give therapy to the 9/11 attackers. There as here a blatantly untrue example set up purely to polarize the general public.
I often find that those who make a habit of seeking out conflict tend to have personal gain in mind or are seeking a scapegoat to rationalize thoughts or emotions which they harbor but are not willing to accept for what they truly are. We all have our issues in life, some of us just prefer not to take them out on others.

I overreacted to an "obviously hasty word choice"? No. It wasn't obvious at all. I just thought you actually meant what you actually said. My bad.

But still... Where was this world class hyperbole? The examples I chose are blatantly untrue? And the bit about them sounding like they come from a list of republican talking points...? Oh, yeah. 'Cause only the most warlike fringes of the republican party supported world war two.

The examples I chose were, in fact, as far from those republican extremes as I could get... They were situations where almost everyone could agree that violence was a sadly correct answer.

I don't think you'd have to look for someone who's an admitted stickler for linguistic exactitude to find someone who wouldn't see "I will support violence where it is due" as absolutely not being part of the definition of the word "pacifist"... But right after you take me to school for leaping to extremes, you make an implication that the listing of examples I use speak of someone for whom violence is the "ultimate goal" of their life?

I particularly like that last paragraph... If it hadn't been for the condescending, insulting tone of that paragraph, I'm not sure I would have replied. No... You know? I probably would have. Getting my shit jumped for not guessing that when you said the word you said you meant some other word probably would have been enough to get me to post.

So, as long as we're here, let's parse this bitch, huh?

I often find that those who make a habit of seeking out conflict...

Starting right there, I have a problem with the advancing trend of coloring any marginally strenuous intellectual exchange as some terrible "conflict", or twisting "argument" to mean something bad. The places in polite society where it's in poor taste to disagree on anything of more importance than how many sauce packets is appropriate for a Taco Bell Grande are becoming ubiquitous, and I think it's costing us our best chances to improve the world and society.

This isn't any grand "conflict". We're exchanging ideas here. Mine was "I'm a peace-loving person and I strive to avoid violence, but I think it's fairly obvious that pacifism as a defining philosophy is unrealistic and, on average, not too bright." Yours seems to have been "When I said 'pacifism' of course I didn't mean 'pacifism' and you're an aggressive, evil, sociopathic bitch for thinking I did." Close?

...tend to have personal gain in mind...

Shit. Busted. If my plan had gone one more week without being discovered, I would have gained... No, wait. What exactly am I supposed to gain here?

...or are seeking a scapegoat to rationalize thoughts or emotions which they harbor but are not willing to accept for what they truly are.

I'm... Uh... What the...? I really have no clear idea of what it is you're charging me with on this one.

We all have our issues in life, some of us just prefer not to take them out on others.

And that brings us back to the first point in the paragraph, doesn't it? Except now, instead of just confrontational, I'm apparantly borderline psychotic and filled with repressed hostility.

Seriously, dude... All I did was take what you said your position was, and explain why I didn't find it to be a particularly valid world-view. Now it turns out our world-view vis-a-vis the justifiability of violence seems to be essentially identical, and you're all goin' off about my harbor full of irrational scapegoats and how bad it was of me to take them out on you?

If the worst thing that happens to you today is that you say you subscribe to a philosophy that you actually don't, and someone say's that they disagree with the point of view you claimed, you're leading a charmed as hell life.

[Gengar003]

Dangit, Honor! You dripped sarcasm all over me, and I just washed these clothes! Watch out for the bystanders next time.

[Kenryoku]

... Im wondering if choosing all three, getting them drunk, and having them violate one another while I sit at the bar and watch would work? Cause you know it is like I have said to other people when the discussion of "fetish"; that being, "I dont get enough normal sex yet to require or even remotely necessitate changing to something else like a fetish." This would, of course, include getting it up the ass by most anything. Watching the twisted three way those other people made though would at very least be drunkenly humorous. 8)

[Ce6]

...

TL;DidR

After four hours of searing pain on top of the normal monotony of my daily life, I prefer to avoid a flame war at this time, and concede that I should no longer post things in a forum in which you may be reading without looking up proper definitions first.

If the worst thing that happens to you today is that you say you subscribe to a philosophy that you actually don't, and someone say's that they disagree with the point of view you claimed, you're leading a charmed as hell life.

You caught me there, I can't argue that point.
Now I'll just go back to my charmed life and catch a nap.

[Tha_Pig]

I went with option 3.

I'm hetero, but I don't have the prejudice of most guys, who think if someone touches your ass even accidentally you will automatically get a big red sign on your forehead that says FAG.

A little experimentation never killed anyone (except that guy who

[Tellner]

Good points, Pig.

In my case it isn't fear of the Scarlet Letters F.A.G. that makes being penetrated distasteful. It's more flashbacks to a prison-like environment (all-boy boarding school) where sexual abuse was more common than anyone admitted to. I don't care if it's a pre-op trannie, girl with dildo, gay man or the Angel with the Sword. The next one who tries, dies. Literally. The moment I can get a limb or teeth free.

[Honor]

TL;DidR

I can't help feeling like I should be able to decipher that... But I haven't been able to.

...I prefer to avoid a flame war at this time...

I'm sorry.

I never meant for there to be a flame war... Or even a small flame skirmish. I just really, really, really like vigorous discussion. Some people jog or climb rocks, I debate. Mental exercise has always been my favorite, and I so deeply enjoy crafting arguments that it's kind of obscene. I blame it on that natural litigator gene. I'll try to keep it on a leash.

But those things are usually HUGE! Not to mention made of a material harder than flesh. Also, she will not feel anything, so she can be putting it wrong and rip my colon or whatever without noticing