VisorCentral.com Pages (11): « First ... « 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 »
Show 20 posts from this thread on one page

VisorCentral.com (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/index.php)
- Off Topic (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/forumdisplay.php?forumid=6)
-- Porn Module Idea (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/showthread.php?threadid=15303)

Posted by bblue on 06-06-2001 10:57 PM:

Cool True

Some people also use Porn as a stimulant. I guess looking at other people in "arousing" positions help them have a new-found appreciation for their sexuality with their partner. I really can't form an understanding of this. I'm not over 30.

Doesn't matter. The entire reason sex exists is to make more people. Yep. Our urges are simply to lure us into 10 minutes of pure pleasure for a 20 year headache to keep the survival of our species.

Besides, our culture still things sex is OBSCENE. There may be an inner-joy of keeping this something you wait till and enjoy it more, but people are AFRAID of sex. Usually because of the temporary chemical imbalance people go through from what I've read. From what I've heard, afterwards there's a real guilty feeling that lasts from 2-10 minutes. People don't talk about masturbation simply because our culture has not accepted it publicly yet.

But they eventually will.

__________________
<b><font size=1 color=teal>"Sorry about the whole thing about losing your life savings, but that Palmpilot is property of Enron, so please give it back"

Posted by bkbk on 06-06-2001 11:13 PM:

Uh, was I not really paying attn., or did the number of views on this thread triple overnight?

__________________
"Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds." -- Albert Einstein

Posted by bkbk on 06-06-2001 11:15 PM:

And i try TO wrITE things that are worTHWHile so that "MERely gettINg through THE stYLE of my posts" won't feEL like WASted effort....

__________________
"Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds." -- Albert Einstein

Posted by bkbk on 06-06-2001 11:20 PM:

Re: Woazza!!

quote:
Originally posted by bblue
You sounded just like a Greek philosopher. <snip>

I kind of am, but don't want to give out any more details on that at present.

__________________
"Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds." -- Albert Einstein

Posted by bkbk on 06-06-2001 11:21 PM:

I've read that 99.9% of all romance novel readers are women.

__________________
"Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds." -- Albert Einstein

Posted by bkbk on 06-06-2001 11:23 PM:

The hilarious thing about women "using chocolate for sex" is that it's fattening -- which almost guarantees that you'll have less (actual) sex ...
... and why you may never receive chocolates from "your" man. (I always get them flowers.)

__________________
"Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds." -- Albert Einstein

Posted by bkbk on 06-06-2001 11:30 PM:

The concept of "your" man I just raised ...
... of course ... begs the question ...
... is marriage proper to mankind?
Does it imply a real OWNERSHIP of another person? A "SHARED ownership" w/the gov't? (Backed up, as always, by a gun.) An enslavement? A PERMANENT state of being?
Or ... until death ... or divorce do you part?
Can you / should you marry again, then?
Should relationships be PERMANENT? Semi? Which ones? Why? Wherefore?
ENFORCEABLE BY LAWFUL GUNMEN?
Should they be transient? Which ones? Why? Wherefore?

Is marriage a simple "device" devised for the raising of children?
When we can clone people, and marriage is no longer "necessary" for this purpose, will it be necessary at all?
Is God, his supposed "authorship" of The Old and/or The New "testament" real? To be taken seriously? Provable?
Etc.
Is Satan?
Does Satan "author" anything?
How can we tell?
Is he the one leading us (not) into temptation?
Does God really "not allow more temptation than we can bear" -- even w/really sharp DVD pictures?

__________________
"Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds." -- Albert Einstein

Posted by bkbk on 06-07-2001 01:09 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by homer
Wouldn't that imply that only people over the age of 18 think, discuss, or partake in sex? ;o)

Well, this is the way it *prob. "should be"* -- as the conseq. of having children is SERIOUS.
Sadly, too many (like the kids that kill their babies at their prom, so they can finish dancing) seem to have been absolved of realizing the seriousness of the sex act.
13, 15 and even 17-yr. olds just SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED to have children. They certainly cannot DEVOLVE WISDOM to them.
Penalty?
At least 1 yr. in jail.
Baby is TAKEN from you. Hopefully adopted by someone more sagacious & caring. Last resort is foster care, I guess -- but I hear that sys. needs much imp. (Maybe some secure video hookup can allow proper monitoring of the care there.)

Still, NATURE (or was that God; is it Father Nature? Or Mother God?) seems to make kids start to get horny at about 15 -- and Lord knows the media further fuels the fire.

I've quoted Einstein's:
"The tyranny of the majority of the stupid is impregnable and guaranteed for all time." (But am still not sure if that's exact or just my paraphrase.)
This may be God's / Nature's / SATAN'S way (making kids horny at 15) of ENSURING a perpetual race of bunglers.

ONE THING IS VERY CLEAR: NATURE INTENDS TO PERPETUATE THE RACE, AND HAS MANY SYSTEMS IN PLACE TO FORCE IT TO BE SO -- HORNINESS IS JUST 1 OF THEM. IMPERFECT CONTRACEPTION (ITSELF ONLY RECENTLY ADVENTED) IS ANOTHER.
"SEX AS THE #1 JOYFUL EXPERIENCE" (with my [fake] apologies to chocolate) SEEMS TO BE ANOTHER -- IF NOT DESTINY'S ABSOLUTE ACE-IN-THE-HOLE (so-to-speak).

Ein also said:
"Everything should be made as simple as possible. But NOT simpler." (bkbk's emphasis.)
He also said:
"Marriage is the attempt to make permanent that which is by its nature tempoarary."
(Again, I am not sure on this one if that's exact or just my paraphrase.)

I hear Ein was quite the ladies' man.

__________________
"Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds." -- Albert Einstein

Posted by bkbk on 06-07-2001 01:27 AM:

This is prob. a good place to "straighten out" the "myth" that IT IS THE FAULT OF OLDER MEN that they like younger women. (Women seem to impute this upon men, anyway; I don't think I've ever seen a man disparage the concept, however.)
EVEN IF it "came about" "due to" "wishful thinking" -- you STILL (as always) MUST QUESTION WHENCE & WHEREFORE THE ARCHETYPE?

It seems to be ingrained in women to "desire" an older man (even if only slightly). This is rife in the media.
AND THE CONVERSE: "older" men seem to "desire" "younger" women -- but, again: NATURE DEMANDS BABIES, which NATURE REFUSED TO WOMEN (by & large) OVER 40.

Just thought I'd point that out....

__________________
"Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds." -- Albert Einstein

Posted by bkbk on 06-07-2001 01:28 AM:

Hey, uh, and I don't want anybody to think: "Oh, there's bkbk up on his soapbox again" just because I made all of the last 10 or so posts & responded to them myself....

__________________
"Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds." -- Albert Einstein

Posted by homer on 06-07-2001 02:02 AM:

quote:
Well, this is the way it *prob. "should be"* -- as the conseq. of having children is SERIOUS.


Perhaps if we DID talk more about sex and relationships (and, of course, birth control) there would be less teen pregnancies.

quote:
Sadly, too many (like the kids that kill their babies at their prom, so they can finish dancing) seem to have been absolved of realizing the seriousness of the sex act.


First of all, killing your newborn at the prom is not an everyday thing for most teens.

Secondly, they have not been absolved of anything. We, as adults, have purposely witheld important information from them.

This does NOT mean that teens are not completely responsible for their actions...they are. I just think that we could do more to help them make better-informed decisions.

quote:
13, 15 and even 17-yr. olds just SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED to have children. They certainly cannot DEVOLVE WISDOM to them.
Penalty?
At least 1 yr. in jail.
Baby is TAKEN from you. Hopefully adopted by someone more sagacious & caring.


Who said a teen parent isn't caring?

(Well...come to think of it...that's not a bad idea. I know a lot of people both young and old that have no business having children.)

__________________
We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
-David Byrne

Posted by bblue on 06-07-2001 02:11 AM:

Cool eee!

bkbk, you're in the "zone" again.

---

But what is up with that young blondes dating (and in some cases, having kids with) older men? I'm not talking like a 28 year old going out with a 36 year old, I'm talking about a 28 year old MARRIED to a 65 year old! I'm seeing it more and more often!

Even worse, they're having kids!

Maybe it's just for the money...............



---

I really don't think it's fair to give one year in jail to a teenage parent.UNLESS they've done something that is seriously wrong. (Abused the child.) I think if they can take care of them (it has happened around here!) , they are, by all means, good enough to be parents. HOWEVER, I do think they should be forced to take MANDATORY child-care & education classes, AS WELL as having a reliable source of income.

I think the state should be strict, but jail for having sex under age & taking away the child is NOT right if the person will fully take on the responsibility.

Usually, the better educated kids are about the consequences, the less likely they are to do it in a way that would be harmful to others. (putting that less nicely, in a way that wouldn't result in another person.)

---

Now, bkbk, what are you taking that makes you go on these raves of knowledge? Can I have some? (just kidding ol friend!)

__________________
<b><font size=1 color=teal>"Sorry about the whole thing about losing your life savings, but that Palmpilot is property of Enron, so please give it back"

Posted by bkbk on 06-07-2001 02:27 AM:

Funny shots at bkbk, but he takes them well (presently).
I think I just read a combination of a number of seminal works all around the same time -- or maybe in a certain seq. (Yeesh, there's a tough concept, eh? That someone not only make a booklist -- but that it's only "maximized" if you read, say 20 books, in EXACTLY the right seq! THAT sounds like the kind of joke the Lord would play on us!)
I'll try to print a list.
(Did I do so in that mammoth thread about InnoGear way back when? Maybe you can check that. Anyway, I know I've e-mailed a few to some people, so I'll try to find one of them and paste it here. There are some GREAT lists on ... is it Amazon.com? where they ask you to "list your favorite" ... blah, blah, blah, etc?)

I should clarify when I say "jail."
I think the present prison sys. (in the U.S., where it's supposed to be "the best," no?) SUUUUUUUUUUUUCKKKKKKKKKS!!!

I doubt it:
rehabilitates, educates, heals, instructs, socializes, etc.
ANYONE that goes in it.

ONCE AGAIN, bkbk's "big idea" is 24/7 video:
- make sure the guards don't abuse the inmates (not just physically);
- make sure the inmates don't;
- make sure the food is good;
- make sure it's prepared properly (not spitting in it, etc.);
- make sure cons are schooled;
- make sure they GO TO school, attendance, etc.
Etc.

It doesn't have to be POST-GRAD. COLLEGE in there -- but I think (I guess I should research to be sure) they're getting NOTHING in the way of this now.

HOWEVER you "can" (if you can, and I hope you can) turn untutored and/or angry, and/or unenlighted people w/out any oppty. INTO ITS OPPOSITE -- THAT'S what we should be doing.

And this would include kids who break the law by having kids pre-18.
And 18 is a low age. It might have to be 21.
Because, who:
Makes a good living before 18/21 (HAVING kids MEANS needing MONEY to raise them -- esp. for college later), or has a lot of wisdom before 18/21?

Precious few of us. I don't think it's asking so much. (I don't REALLY want to see young people go to jail for this -- just get the msg. NOT TO HAVE KIDS SO YOUNG.)

And I'm really only aware of Anna-Nicole Smith and that 89-yr. old guy with a massive age disparity. I guess it was assumed IF he died (he did), she'd get a ton of cash to raise any kids (did she?).

__________________
"Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds." -- Albert Einstein

Posted by Yorick on 06-07-2001 02:28 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by bblue
But what is up with that young blondes dating (and in some cases, having kids with) older men? I'm not talking like a 28 year old going out with a 36 year old, I'm talking about a 28 year old MARRIED to a 65 year old! I'm seeing it more and more often!

Presumably it has something to do with arcane concepts like "love" or "desire"

quote:

Even worse, they're having kids!

Why is that "worse"?
A great number of married couples of all ages want children.

quote:

I really don't think it's fair to give one year in jail to a teenage parent.UNLESS they've done something that is seriously wrong.

I think that was the idea?
I mean, you can't just throw someone in jail for having a child when they're under 18. (well, perhaps in NYC, based n bkbk's earlier posts.)
You can, however, put someone who's over 18 in jail for having sex with someone under 18 (regardless of the circumstances); it's called "statutory rape."
Or a person of any age ( believe) for abusing their child.

quote:

HOWEVER, I do think they should be forced to take MANDATORY child-care & education classes, AS WELL as having a reliable source of income.

Strong words, bblue.
perhaps "required" instead of "forced."
I wonder about the reliable source of income; many American employers would be wary of persons under 18 who already have a child -- depending on the location, of course.

quote:

...taking away the child is NOT right if the person will fully take on the responsibility.

What if they will take on the responsibility but are clearly incapable of managing?

__________________
The light at the end of your tunnel has been disconnected due to non-payment. Please remit funds immediately for restoration of hope.

Posted by BobbyMike on 06-07-2001 02:28 AM:

Bkbk wrote:
"13, 15 and even 17-yr. olds just SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED to have children. They certainly cannot DEVOLVE WISDOM to them.
Penalty?
At least 1 yr. in jail.
Baby is TAKEN from you. Hopefully adopted by someone more sagacious & caring."

If the "kids" are too young to have children, how can you justify jailing them? Sounds like a great way to permanenetly screw up their lives. If you want to jail someone, how about their parents?
Teen pregnancy can be lived through. Case in point, my fraternal grandmother was 16 when she had my dad. She did a great job raising him and three others. Lived through 3 husbands and was Jacksonville "Woman of the Year" several years ago for her work with seniors. She had NO parental help through that (parents dead) and did most of it on her own. She preservered through some serious times because she felt a responsibility to her kids.
The problem with your response lies in the 'punishment'. Most foster kids in this country fare worse than if they are left with their natural parent(s).

__________________
"I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."

Posted by Yorick on 06-07-2001 02:38 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by bkbk
ONCE AGAIN, bkbk's "big idea" is 24/7 video:

Who watches the watchers?

quote:

And this would include kids who break the law by having kids pre-18.
And 18 is a low age. It might have to be 21.

I may be demonstrating ignorance here, but where is it against the law to procreate if you're under 18?
I know it's frowned upon, but illegal?

quote:
And I'm really only aware of Anna-Nicole Smith and that 89-yr. old guy with a massive age disparity. I guess it was assumed IF he died (he did), she'd get a ton of cash to raise any kids (did she?).

Last I'd heard, one court awarded Smith a large settlement from her husband's (some oilman named Marshall) estate, but a higher court overturned it. One of her husband's children from a previous marriage was awarded the estate, and there are still appeals.
Smith has no children by Marshall.

__________________
The light at the end of your tunnel has been disconnected due to non-payment. Please remit funds immediately for restoration of hope.

Posted by Yorick on 06-07-2001 02:43 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by bkbk
It seems to be ingrained in women to "desire" an older man (even if only slightly). This is rife in the media.
AND THE CONVERSE: "older" men seem to "desire" "younger" women -- but, again: NATURE DEMANDS BABIES, which NATURE REFUSED TO WOMEN (by & large) OVER 40.

I thought it was "over 50"?
Perhaps this stereotype is a psychological factor; the "father figure" syndrome where some women seek out a mate who is similar to her father, or her perception of her father. Conversely, some men seek out a mother figure, or just stay with their mother -- which would bring us back around to the potential appeal of a porn module!

quote:
Previously posted by bkbk
Still, NATURE (or was that God; is it Father Nature? Or Mother God?) seems to make kids start to get horny at about 15 -- and Lord knows the media further fuels the fire.

I'd call it nature. Puberty leads to the maturation of the body and hopefully the mind.

__________________
The light at the end of your tunnel has been disconnected due to non-payment. Please remit funds immediately for restoration of hope.

Posted by bblue on 06-07-2001 02:45 AM:

Cool Hehe

The thought of the process of a 65 year ..... ah... just forget it. *shiver*


ANNNNYYYWAAAYYYYY.....

You can get married when you are 16. (last time I checked.) Not in every state, but you can. So under 18 would be a bit awkward.

Yorick... you're picking at my words!!!!! Being able to take on the responsibility , (in my tiny world) means that they ARE capable mentally and physically to take care of the child.

Here's a cure-all. Why not neuter everyone, and have a license to get your "nuts" "turned on" ??? You need a license to drive an autocar, you need a license to even fish! Shouldn't something like creating another child require that you are able to bring him up? It sounds infringing, but think how many child neglect / abuse / endangerment cases this could prevent! Not all, but many!

__________________
<b><font size=1 color=teal>"Sorry about the whole thing about losing your life savings, but that Palmpilot is property of Enron, so please give it back"

Posted by bblue on 06-07-2001 02:49 AM:

Cool FLASH OF INSPIRATION!

This is 200% off topic, but reading bkbk's posts remind me of those Dodge Neon commercials!

"AmBLING in A midNIGHT trANCE, bob SAW his old flame-FLO WIsk by in HIS FLAshY red car....

so LONG NIGHT owl FRIEND, live it up IN YOur CRAZY NEON W O R L D !!!!"

I love those ads. bkbk should be proud!

__________________
<b><font size=1 color=teal>"Sorry about the whole thing about losing your life savings, but that Palmpilot is property of Enron, so please give it back"

Posted by Vertigo on 06-07-2001 03:01 AM:

Re: Hehe

quote:
Originally posted by bblue

Here's a cure-all. Why not neuter everyone, and have a license to get your "nuts" "turned on" ???


hahahahaha....

All times are GMT. The time now is 04:46 AM. Pages (11): « First ... « 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 »
Show 20 posts from this thread on one page

Powered by: vBulletin Version 2.3.4
Copyright © Jelsoft Enterprises Limited 2000 - 2016.