itt a strange man asks if you saw the ass on that one

yeah, contenderizer, you're wrong

we just got contenderized

wonder what the strange man would think if he read this thread

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2315/2305738968_9461cd6373.jpg

if a strange man asks you if you saw the ass on that one, and there's no woman there to hear it, is it still sexist?

i know, sorry for going on at ridic length, but i really did try to keep it short.

yeah, contenderizer, you're wrong

― ice cr?m hand job (deej), Friday, December 4, 2009 9:28 AM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark

what if the strange man actually was a bird of prey

but i really did try to keep it short.

there is no try; only do

sorry it's not beyond judgment if every time ~this guy~ sees an attractive lady he imagines flogging (?) her. also i think you are inventing a person who is consumed by evil, sexist thoughts and never acts on them in any way.

why do i bother? i dunno, bored.

just a dude, thinkin' baout floggin' chicks

if he's aware that it would be wrong to bind and flog her without her permission, and also that this is a potentially troublesome fantasy with regard to what it might reveal about his deeper feelings towards women, then the image (fantasy, kink or whatever you might want to call it) is not wrong or even necessarily sexist.

see, to me, this reads like "if hes aware that his image is wrong, than his image is not wrong"

lonely guy, just flogging things

*flogs furiously*

well, i knew i was throwing out chum with that one, so i guess i can't act too surprised when ppl take the bait.

there are folks out there with dominance fantasies (or so mr. savage tells me). i assume that for them, binding and flogging are part of ordinary sexual imagination. and, personally, i don't think there's anything wrong with that, so long as the fantasy/kink/whatever is managed appropriately.

but fine, this isn't something i expect everyone to agree on.

O_O

xp:

gbx, thank god you're here. "Engineer glasses" - what are "engineer glasses"?

sorry it's not beyond judgment if every time ~this guy~ sees an attractive lady he imagines flogging (?) her. also i think you are inventing a person who is consumed by evil, sexist thoughts and never acts on them in any way.

― harbl, Friday, December 4, 2009 9:49 AM (10 minutes ago) Bookmark

e are folks out there with dominance fantasies (or so mr. savage tells me). i assume that for them, binding and flogging are part of ordinary sexual imagination. and, personally, i don't think there's anything wrong with that, so long as the fantasy/kink/whatever is managed appropriately.

You know I was thinking about this not too long ago. It seems like in these domination fetish things that people do, usually (within the most accessible media to me, at least) it's the female who plays the dominant/flogger role.

This might just be my impression. Any thoughts?

xp Yeah, that doesn't seem that difficult for me to imagine.

I think, contenderizer, the position most people are taking is that it's not fair to judge someone for something they may or may not be thinking, but it is absolutely okay to judge someone for what they do/say. (Your judgment may not be correct but the act itself is certainly within your right.)

see, to me, this reads like "if hes aware that his image is wrong, than his image is not wrong"

Completely OTM; what I think you're trying to say is "if he's aware his would be wrong to act on in his current context, then that's okay" which is, to varying degrees, what practically everyone else is saying; obviously if he meets someone who is both receptive to that line of thought and receptive to that line of thought coming from him, the context makes it okay to express it.

To use an extreme example, I think the German dude from a few years ago who put out an ad for someone to fuck, kill and eat is pretty disturbed but the guy who answered it was even more disturbed and, at the end of the day, they are adults I don't know and I never would have known about it had it not been a weird news story; as such, I think they were deeply fucked up and in need of help but I'm not convinced that they committed a crime.

O_O

― ice cr?m hand job (deej), Friday, December 4, 2009 10:00 AM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

And I think there's probably a difference between someone who is "consumed" by certain thoughts and one who just has them every now and then.

he was just checking out the ass on that one

xp

ok but if he IS consumed by them but doesn't do anything, we still can't judge him because they're just thoughts

To use an extreme example, I think the German dude from a few years ago who put out an ad for someone to fuck, kill and eat is pretty disturbed but the guy who answered it was even more disturbed and, at the end of the day, they are adults I don't know and I never would have known about it had it not been a weird news story; as such, I think they were deeply fucked up and in need of help but I'm not convinced that they committed a crime.

― Huckabee Jesus lifeline (HI DERE), Friday, December 4, 2009 12:03 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark

wtfffffffffffff

what the fuck is wrong with you internet people

the position most people are taking is that it's not fair to judge someone for something they may or may not be thinking, but it is absolutely okay to judge someone for what they do/say. (Your judgment may not be correct but the act itself is certainly within your right.)

see, to me, this reads like "if hes aware that his image is wrong, than his image is not wrong"

Completely OTM; what I think you're trying to say is "if he's aware his would be wrong to act on in his current context, then that's okay" which is, to varying degrees, what practically everyone else is saying; obviously if he meets someone who is both receptive to that line of thought and receptive to that line of thought coming from him, the context makes it okay to express it.

― Huckabee Jesus lifeline (HI DERE), Friday, December 4, 2009 10:03 AM (52 seconds ago) Bookmark

otm! this is exactly what i was getting at. i'm not sure we see eye-to-eye 100%, because there still seems to be some perception of disagreement, but yeah, cosign.

the line i draw would wr2 consensual kink probably lies well to the south of mutual murder & cannibalism, but hey, that's just me...

yr asserting that ppl here think consensual kink = 'wrong' but no one here has said anything of the sort

well i did suggest flogging people is wrong but i wasn't aware contenderizer was talking about a consensual flogging

hey do u wanna come over sometime, maybe i could flog u?

pretty sure im just into thinking about flogging, not actually doing it -- that would be wrong

okay so "I'm not sure they committed a crime" is rhetorical overstatement, just so folks are clear; yes, I am aware they committed a crime

And I think there's probably a difference between someone who is "consumed" by certain thoughts and one who just has them every now and then.

― Nuyorican oatmeal (jaymc)

yeah, that's fair. i have a tendency to go for the maximum overstatement of whatever point i'm trying to make, as a sort of rhetorical device. like i wanna paint the situation in the starkest and most polarizing terms possible, in order to make the distinction i'm making stand out more clearly.

but it often causes more trouble than it's worth, polarization being polarizing, after all. example works just as well (and probably better) if we assume we're talking abouot someone who tends to bondage and dominance fantasies, rather than someone who is fiendishly "consumed" but them.

yr asserting that ppl here think consensual kink = 'wrong' but no one here has said anything of the sort

― ice cr?m hand job (deej), Friday, December 4, 2009 10:10 AM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark

yeah how about when you said I was being puritanical for saying the people who never express racist or sexist thoughts who nevertheless go on and on about the right to have racist and sexist thoughts make me think they have a hell of a lot of racist and sexist thoughts

yeah how about when you said I was being puritanical for saying the people who never express racist or sexist thoughts who nevertheless go on and on about the right to have racist and sexist thoughts make me think they have a hell of a lot of racist and sexist thoughts

― Huckabee Jesus lifeline (HI DERE), Friday, December 4, 2009 10:18 AM (40 seconds ago) Bookmark

point is, that was bullshit. i shouldn't have accused you of/used you as an example of puritanism. my apologies.

we are opening up a whole can of worms with the question of s&m & kink & consent

is there a special word for "worm fetish"

yeah we are gonna run out of worm cans soon

hey, can you guys tell i'm unemployed?

a "duner"
a "wriggler"
"bait"

"night crawlers"

dirt chomper

he was just checking out the ass on that one

O_O
13

I'd google it but I'm sure there will be pictures.

Didn't work; move the eyes to the right half an inch.

      O_O
13

what is this?

oh it's a butt