Sex on the new forum

[starr]

We want to spread our depravity everywhere until the world is a slobbering cesspit of immorality.

I miss you Ani

I miss you too

PS. I actually don't care that they kept the rules. They wanted a home away from home. Let them have it.

Holy fucking Moley! When did you get over 10 000 posts!

[Animavore]

Yesterday.
At least someone gave me recognition. Every one else gave me scorn and derision.

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 9814&start

[Doubtdispelled]

They're even more concerned about their own PR than Richard was.

And how is that anything to be surprised about, Anth?

You really think it would be a good idea for the new forum to demonstrate, and thus prove, to critics and watchers that there really was "something rotten in the Internet culture" - as described by Richard in his 'Outrage' post - present in the old forum and which was the primary reason for shutting it down? Do me a fucking favour.

And if I'm really that much of a fucking 'prude', then I really don't understand how I came to have four kids.

[Animavore]

They're even more concerned about their own PR than Richard was.

And how is that anything to be surprised about, Anth?

You really think it would be a good idea for the new forum to demonstrate, and thus prove, to critics and watchers that there really was "something rotten in the Internet culture" - as described by Richard in his 'Outrage' post - present in the old forum and which was the primary reason for shutting it down? Do me a fucking favour.

And if I'm really that much of a fucking 'prude', then I really don't understand how I came to have four kids.

Immaculate conception

[Hermit]

Yesterday.
At least someone gave me recognition. Every one else gave me scorn and derision.

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 9814&start

And if I may so so: so richly deserved.

As far as I am concerned, Rational skepticism is RDF MarkII. So be it, but I regret that it saw fit to carry over the restrictions on sexual matters just as much as I objected to their introduction in RDF MarkI. Further, I would not describe discussions of personal sexual issues, desires, or problems, nor images, descriptions or discussions of sexual acts as depravities. That reeks too much of christianity to me. At least Dawkins had tangible reasons for the prohibitions. Is Life after a knighthood as well?

[CJ]

They're even more concerned about their own PR than Richard was.

And how is that anything to be surprised about, Anth?

You really think it would be a good idea for the new forum to demonstrate, and thus prove, to critics and watchers that there really was "something rotten in the Internet culture" - as described by Richard in his 'Outrage' post - present in the old forum and which was the primary reason for shutting it down? Do me a fucking favour.

And if I'm really that much of a fucking 'prude', then I really don't understand how I came to have four kids.

One can have kids and still disagree with other peoples sexual behaviour. It's when a person starts criticising somebody else's consensual adult sexual behaviours, which they have no business to do, that their behaviour becomes that of a prude. Having children and being prudish are not related as one is a primary biological function and the other is a secondary social attitude.

[Doubtdispelled]

Immaculate conception

Fuck yeah, that must be it. I always did swear that I could get pregnant just by standing next to a guy at a bus-stop.

Come to think of it, when my 2nd ex and I announced the imminent arrival of our No1, I was working nights and he was working days, so someone asked how we had managed it. I said that we had passed on the stairs one day, which kindof confirms it really.

Should I change my user name?

[CJ]

Should I change my user name?

Why would you want to do that?

[starr]

Yesterday.
At least someone gave me recognition. Every one else gave me scorn and derision.

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 9814&start

And if I may so so: so richly deserved.

As far as I am concerned, Rational skepticism is RDF MarkII. So be it, but I regret that it saw fit to carry over the restrictions on sexual matters just as much as I objected to their introduction in RDF MarkI. Further, I would not describe discussions of personal sexual issues, desires, or problems, nor images, descriptions or discussions of sexual acts as depravities. That reeks too much of christianity to me. At least Dawkins had tangible reasons for the prohibitions. Is Life after a knighthood as well?

If you are picking up on my choice of the word 'depravity' there then I think you are quote-mining somewhat Seraph.

Sex can be discussed here at Rationalia in a multitude of ways ranging from intellectual ponderings to absolute depravity.

I did not intend to pass any judgements by using the word 'depravity' to describe one end of the spectrum by the way. I was just trying to acknowledge that all of the sex stuff here is not 'smut' as such. I quite like most of the smut here by the way.

[Hermit]

The meaning of what I said does not depend on whether I was referring to your post or not.

[Thinking Aloud]

Drama! Must be one of Dev's posts.

[starr]

Drama! Must be one of Dev's posts.

Dev instigating drama? Never!

[Doubtdispelled]

They're even more concerned about their own PR than Richard was.

And how is that anything to be surprised about, Anth?

You really think it would be a good idea for the new forum to demonstrate, and thus prove, to critics and watchers that there really was "something rotten in the Internet culture" - as described by Richard in his 'Outrage' post - present in the old forum and which was the primary reason for shutting it down? Do me a fucking favour.

And if I'm really that much of a fucking 'prude', then I really don't understand how I came to have four kids.

One can have kids and still disagree with other peoples sexual behaviour. It's when a person starts criticising somebody else's consensual adult sexual behaviours, which they have no business to do, that their behaviour becomes that of a prude. Having children and being prudish are not related as one is a primary biological function and the other is a secondary social attitude.

Oh, get off your high horse before you fall off, CJ. "Criticising somebody else's consensual adult sexual behaviours"? No. As far as I am concerned you can do whatever the fuck you like, and yes, it's no business of mine.

But somebody else's consensual adult sexual behaviour described in graphic detail with the aim of titillation whilst trying to pass it off as 'a personal journey of revelation' is hypocrisy, and that I can criticise until the cows come home.

You tried to tell me that I had hurt your feelings with my criticism, remember, CJ? But to say more would require revealing the contents of PM's, although as they were on the now defunct forum I'm not sure the rules against that still stand.

And if it hadn't been for one of your 'coterie' propositioning me to meet for sex, then I probably wouldn't have been inclined to believe what was being said about the true nature of what was going on.

[virphen]

[irreligionist]