Thread: Stupid shit in Medellin
+
Add Report
Results 2,701 to 2,715 of 7004
-
05-19-22 18:54 #4304
Posts: 682Originally Posted by Elvis2008 [View Original Post]
-
05-19-22 16:21 #4303
Posts: 3160Originally Posted by Nounce [View Original Post]
Originally Posted by Nounce [View Original Post]
Every relationship I have been in the women tail off sexually after a few months, and it is not just me. Studies have shown desire goes way down in both sexes in a relationship but with women it goes down much more quickly. To me, it is like, "Oh, I have got you now. I do not have to try in bed anymore. " So for me, if that is always the case, then why bother ever committing? So I kept women in a position where if they do not perform, I get rid of them. None of my sugar babies ever said "No sex tonight. I have a headache. ", yet women wanted all the fruits of a relationship even if they did not perform.
Huacho is a terd because he thinks women want him because he is in shape. He thinks beauty queens should want guys like him instead of me. He thinks it is all money, but it is not. All money does is attract. His little ego cannot take the notion that my game and character trump his physique. Thing about having a good physique is women like to think a strong man can protect them, but who cares if the the guy with a good physique is a paranoid coward?
Mr. E's comment is on point. Look at all these beautiful women and the guys who strayed. I get where he is coming from, and it justifies the monger POV of polyamory. The issue I have with it is if you look at it from a sexual POV, we do not know if say Beyonce was a good lover. She probably was. But Beyonce is not really yours. There was a good Netflix show called the Baker and the Beauty that touched on the issue. Everyone wanted the beauty's time.
Let's say Beyonce is great in bed, the best in bed. How many guys are really going to be sexually satisfied with her in a monogamous relationship? I doubt I would be. She is going to be so exhausted after performing for everyone else I doubt she would have the energy to care about performing and satisfying me.
And I have been with women from the top places: Playboy, Penthouse, breasturant calendar girls. A lot of them thought all they had to do was show up. I will never forget a Penthouse Pet who was horrible in bed.
What guys do not get with Ms. Cartagena is she runs her own charity and was doing physiology problems when I met her, so she was quality beyond just the looks. We had sex bareback and she was pretty good but then later that night she was ordering me around, "I want you to shower, shave, brush your teeth, and then get back into bed with me. " I do that and she is asleep. I called a different girl and was talking with her, and Ms. Cartagena heard me and stormed out of the hotel room.
She later told me that she was in love with me and it bothered her when I was talking to someone else. My comment when she said she loved me was "Well, that is nice, but I never promised you I would be exclusive. " She apologized and wanted me to see me again, but I never did. I do not give a fuck if you are Ms. Cartagena. If you do not sexually satisfy me, I am not going to commit, and I doubted she ever would satisfy me.
So to Mr. E's point with all these great women, were the women in all these cases sexually satisfying the men? My guess is more likely than not the answer is no. I wish some of the men would actually say that. When the woman says "You cheated on me", and the guy says "How would you expect any guy to not stray given your performance?" I am so sick and tired of men being shamed for their sexual desire.
So I disagree with you Nounce. I think mongers want great sex. I just think they have not found it in a monogamy relationship and given the way most women behave that belief is justified.
-
05-19-22 15:02 #4302
Posts: 5430Originally Posted by GeneHickman [View Original Post]
Democrats and Republicans use different tactics, and each group feels their methods are right and the others are wrong. Some individuals in each party are altruistic, they honestly believe they're working to make things better, but they're just there to be the poster child.
In the end, your choice in the matter makes no more difference than choosing your method of execution.
-
05-19-22 14:35 #4301
Posts: 1762Originally Posted by GeneHickman [View Original Post]
There are a few that I have noted in the Dem Party, but they are far away from leadership at this stage ... and most are groomed and turn in to corporate shills as they rise thru the ranks. It's actually a good motivation for independence of the states - then there would be more opportunity for real progressive politicians to do something tangibly good.
-
05-19-22 14:34 #4300
Posts: 5430Originally Posted by MrEnternational [View Original Post]
https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-relea...ime-statistics
To get some perspective, let's roll the calendar back about 65-70 years.
Today the hot equal rights issue is for trans people. That's why any of us are discussing this. Back in the 50's and early 60's, the big equal rights issue was for blacks. Same issue, different group who felt the laws didn't treat them equally and fairly.
You may have learned, during that time, some black people were the victims of violence. Some claimed they were discriminated against. Some claimed that segregation laws were wrong. Many white people argued that black people needed to be segregated, that they couldn't be allowed to integrate with whites. And I'm sure there were some who questioned whether or not the black on black crime wasn't more important than a few friendly lynchings.
Just something to consider.
-
05-19-22 14:14 #4299
Posts: 5430Originally Posted by JustTK [View Original Post]
I've just never understood the bathroom panic, but I've heard the same "logic" applied to different groups throughout my life. One of the hazards of growing up where racism and bigotry are considered to be virtues.
It all begins with "they're not like us."
"You have to watch out for the 'colored'. They're not like us."
"You can't go to church with him. He's Catholic and they're not like us."
"Don't talk to those men. They're homosexuals and they're not like us."
"Your friend can't spend the night. He's Amish and they're not like us."
"Those men are Jewish. They're not like us."
Now it's "they're Democrat / Republican. They're not like us.
Pick a label and someone is telling us "be afraid. They're not like us."
If someone is threatening me, the color of their skin, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, immigration status or gender identity doesn't matter. I'm not thinking "he won't hurt me because he's a straight, white Protestant from the midwest." I'm certainly not thinking "this is serious because that guy is wearing lipstick. " A threat is a threat, regardless of how you label the person.
The threat doesn't come from the groups people want you to label. It comes from individuals and from the people who want you to put labels on everyone.
-
05-19-22 06:27 #4298
Posts: 46Counterpoint with pun
Originally Posted by MrEnternational [View Original Post]
I'll link to the video of that happening because it's kinda funny. (No animals were really hurt).
Actually I'm not sure if I'll run a foul (LOL) if I post that kinda video so if anyone wants to see it just google:
Chicken beats an Eagle.
-
05-19-22 06:18 #4297
Posts: 46Citation needed
Originally Posted by MrEnternational [View Original Post]
The point I was putting emphasis on was that trans people are not more prone to violence than the rest of the public.
-
05-19-22 05:14 #4296
Posts: 682Originally Posted by Elvis2008 [View Original Post]
Glue. Ja ja ja. No idea where that came from. But you can just continue to be morbidly obese and disgusting physically and I'll just, you know, get way more and better pussy than you do. And when I do pay for it, I will know what I am paying for. You find expensive hookers and think they like you. I find cheap hookers and don't care. I think you forget sometimes we've actually met, and so I know for sure how full of shit you are.
-
05-19-22 03:33 #4295
Posts: 407Originally Posted by JustTK [View Original Post]
-
05-19-22 03:07 #4294
Posts: 2891Originally Posted by Elvis2008 [View Original Post]
Originally Posted by Elvis2008 [View Original Post]
-
05-19-22 02:21 #4293
Posts: 1762Originally Posted by Huacho [View Original Post]
-
05-19-22 01:25 #4292
Posts: 3160Originally Posted by Huacho [View Original Post]
Webster's does not have to define loser in the dictionary. They can just show a picture of your face.
-
05-18-22 23:53 #4291
Posts: 15815Originally Posted by MrEnternational [View Original Post]
https://www.h13n.com/ocho-mujeres-tr...-hurto/108410/
-
05-18-22 19:18 #4290
Posts: 15815Originally Posted by DontSayMuch [View Original Post]
There are too many contributing factors, whereas the statement tries to get you to believe trans people are just walking down the street minding their own business and some stranger violently attacks them. The most abuse occurs in lesbian relationships, but if I just said lesbians are often violently attacked, it is not telling you they tend to be abused by their own mates and leads you to believe someone outside of their personal circle is doing the abusing or attacking. So are these trans having violence done to them purely because they are trans or is it for other reasons, and by whom?