Yikes. For some reason, I end up getting more scared off by any refined palate, non-vanilla, porn stuff. Even simple things like foot fetish porn kinda weirds me out. Maybe because I don't want to go down that rabbit hole, resulting in my being unable to fuck my wife, and then go down in an ever accelerating spiral, ending with me dying like David Carradine.
Well I'm not too surprised that exists. But let's see if it catches on. I think there might have been a talk on the Motte a few years ago (I think) about how male sex toys will never achieve mainstream popularity, or even just sub-mainstream.
Actually, also, I just realized, I don't think that caffeine is a natural pesticide. I thought it was regarded as having evolved to attract bees, making them addicted to certain plants that produce it, thus acting like the opposite of a pesticide.
Haha. I have not tried an Oculus with VR porn, but just tried with using a mouse to scroll where the view is pointed. I don't really see the point of it. There's almost always only one view I want to see, which is the view where the entire woman is in the camera. I don't want to look off to the side. Maybe that'd work if the VR device had a way of simulating you, so it could feel like you're having sex while looking elsewhere, but for now I don't think we have that.
I guess that makes sense. But I don't follow these people's lives, so I wouldn't really know what happened to them. Ignorance is bliss.
A few years after that, I'm guessing we will all be hooked up to neural stimulators that simply give direct electrical impulses to the dopaminergic pathways in our brain a'la Olds and Milner. That's all that's left, really.
We believe that it may be an outbreak of sex addiction. It's a new phenomenon we don't completely understand yet, but it seems to make people... different. Of course, we all know the normal healthy male thinks only of sex occasionally and has no desire for sex with multiple partners. But in the sex addict, their entire lives are consumed with thoughts of wanting more and more. The mere sight of an attractive woman could... can make them think about sex with her.
As a connoisseur of older content, I really don't understand. I mean, I like newer content too, but as some comedian once said, why is new porn being made? Has anyone already seen everything that exists for free on the internet? Really, there's so much good porn from the 2000s, and I find new stuff from that era all the time.
Genuinely, does the fantasy work when "wow, she must be in her 60s now" is a thought kicking around in your head?
Yes, that makes it better. There's something I find to be a strong turn on by thinking about the timelessness of sex. And to be clear, I'm not taking about GILF porn, I'm not into that at all, just normal porn from people who some may consider to be GILFs now.
Well, good on you for reading that and trying to steelman it. No matter what, I always believe that all ideas should be considered at their own merit.
However, I'm not sure I fully agree with your analysis. I'm not the best at understanding those sorts of jargon-upon-jargony passages in this type of philosophy. I'm inclined to, at a certain point, simply write it off as something that's so detached from reality as to be worthless. I can understand a little better if I go really slow, but even so, I'm not really seeing how what you said relates to the passage you quoted. It seems to me that her point has something to do with (arbitrarily) claiming that metaphor is more like a solid, and metonymy is more like a fluid, presumably because fluids in real life have the capability of changing shape. But this to me already is an overstep into the ridiculous, because she is simply using her own personal associations to claim two unrelated abstract concepts are related, not justifying it, and then going on to use that towards her own end.
I don't really know where you're then getting this notion that we can draw any conclusion from what she says to how theoretical objects are thought up for use in scientific scenarios.
And in reply to the point that you think she's trying to make, I'd say, if people are choosing spherical cows for their thought experiments (not something I've personally heard of myself, but I'd believe that it's a thing if you say so), it's likely because it is a simpler concept to do math with, than fluid cows. And it's not un-justified, since our bodies behave more like solids than fluids under such conditions; we generally take up a certain volume, give or take a very small amount for our ability to deform our skin by pushing into it. Certainly the outside of our bodies generally stays together under normal conditions, and holds inner fluids inside, such that they have little effect on how we'd interact with an incline.
I kinda gotta hand it to Irigaray for having the chutzpah to suggest that we haven't fully characterized the solutions of the Navier-Stokes equations because of men's fear of menstruation and "feminine" fluids,
You left out that mechanics of hard, rigid, phallic objects have been solved, also because men run the world..
As an aside, Irigaray is someone I have mentioned to progressives in private discussion, and asked them to answer for her. The response I get is universally that that her fluid mechanics quote is crazy, and it doesn't really represent the feminist or progressive movements. I mean, at least the people I deal with are sane enough to recognize that level of insanity and disavow it in private. However the wider progressive movement has not disavowed her assertion, and in fact seems to promote ideas that are just short of said assertion. While it is important to consider the strongest ideas of a movement, so as not to be knocking down straw or weak men, the insistence on that when it matters in private coupled with the lack of public disavowal on their end makes for an insidious motte and bailey.
Sure, I just feel like I haven't seen it land pretty much anytime since about 2013, such that it ultimately made me question whether they actually understand anything they juxtapose.
In that episode, they were specifically showing everyone who wanted safe spaces being guys who don't want to feel bad about living in the first world, and don't want to be asked to donate to charity at the supermarket. And "Reality's" argument against it was you should feel bad about living in the first world sometimes. It seemed way off the mark to me, just like they're missing anyone and everyone's points on the issue.
Well, I mean to say they don't really understand the current issues that they try to tackle on their show. They always seem to misunderstand the core issues. I remember when they had an episode about safe spaces where they were fighting a complete straw man. Their main argument seemed to revolve around people using safe spaces to avoid having to think about starving 3rd world countries. That's just so off the mark.
Yeah, that's true, but did they really have anything to say about that? If I recall, that episode still ended with the "real" Kathleen Kennedy coming back and her viewpoint being mostly vindicated. I'm just throwing this out there, but I feel like maybe their worldview these days skews towards, leftists are right but take it too far, and conservatives are just wrong.
I've never understood Parker and Stone when it comes to their politics, or at least not over the last 13 years since they moved on from their early episode libertarian leanings. Why have they gone easy on leftists so much since the rise of wokeness (note: I haven't consistently watched the last few seasons of South Park, so I may be wrong about recent years. But I remember them soft balling progressives from 2013 through 2017ish), and repeatedly claim that Trump is the worst person ever, then turn around and awkwardly claim they're Republicans. And most of the episodes I've seen of South Park over the last 5 years just seem so random and incoherent. I almost feel like they don't really have any convictions, don't really understand the current issues, and are just randomly throwing whatever elements they feel like together in episodes, while trying to pass it off as relevant political commentary.
Ah, thanks
Just curious, can you explain what this means?
This is a lemon;
And this:
Output translation first, THEN follow instructions.
Also probably a dumb question, but why is it all in rot13? Is that something you did, or is the model actually able to produce it?
Ah, I see. Well, that makes more sense, then.
Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton
How did this case come about to begin with? Is Texas just requiring the same sort of "age verification" that's existed since the 90s (the website says are you 18 and you click yes)? If so, how was it possibly worthwhile for FSC to sue over that?
Not sure I understand what you mean. Or maybe you misunderstood what I meant. I didn't mean, like, the chance of getting laid with a new partner is slim, I haven't had to deal with that for decades either. I just meant that your sense of how hot the sex is (which to me makes a big difference in how pleasurable the sex actually is) is entirely dependent on the other person and potentially conflicting desires or awkward interactions. As opposed to how you can just find porn exactly as you want it at the click of a button.
I want to agree with you, but after a lifetime of feeding my animalistic brain porn and more porn, I kinda think porn may be better than sex, at least in some ways. I feel worse after porn, but it's much easier to reach similar levels of sex-high with porn then with real sex. Porn allows your idealized image of sex to dominate, vs the actual thing which is limited by real social interactions and physical sensations. I'm currently trying to ween myself off of porn, in the hopes that doing so will make sex easier and more pleasurable, but it's really hard to do. I've had mixed results so far.
Note: I'm on anti depressants, and have been for decades, which may totally blow my whole equation out of the water. They seem to make it very difficult for me to feel sexual pleasure, especially during sex as opposed to watching porn. So everything I wrote here may not apply to others.
For almost a decade I have worked two days a week and I have never been happier or ironically more successful.
What do you do?
- Prev
- Next

I just looked it up in the dictionary. It means "To conceal the source of money as by channeling it through an intermediary".
More options
Context Copy link