Where have you fucked a girl?

[Natasha Tori Maru]

This thread is now sad and full of poor quality arguments. Can't refute the arguement so we attack personal behaviour and presumed dating success. 

Learn to seperate intent from outcome. 

 

[Inliytened1]

1 minute ago, something_else said:

Again, this was not targeting @Inliytened1 specifically, there are many examples of that kind of language in this thread from several different users, hence why I worded it in a general way.

Jesus this way too much analysis. Are we gonna bring out Niels Bohr for this?  Or you wouldn't know who he is.

[questionreality]

2 minutes ago, something_else said:

It's not like those are the only examples of this kind of language in this thread, and I'm not targeting this specifically at him. It was a broader point about the language from several different people across the entire thread.

I would argue that actually makes it worse, not better. If you're going to insult someone you should at least say things you'd be willing to say to their face.

Who appointed you the arbiter of truth and morality, and put you in charge of policing this thread?

[Natasha Tori Maru]

5 minutes ago, questionreality said:

Who appointed you the arbiter of truth and morality, and put you in charge of policing this thread?

He doesnt need to be an arbiter of truth to express an opinion and argue a case. You don't appear able to stick to arguements though. Your avoiding addressing concerns by challenging some perceived sense of authority.

Edited 2 hours ago by Natasha Tori Maru

[something_else]

22 minutes ago, questionreality said:

Who appointed you the arbiter of truth and morality, and put you in charge of policing this thread?

The irony is that you accuse me of policing the thread while repeatedly telling people not to read it, engage with it or judge it. I haven’t tried to censor anyone, I’ve expressed my opinion about the language being used. You’re defending their freedom to speak crudely while trying to disqualify my (and others) freedom to criticise it. That is far closer to policing than anything I’ve done.

The same argument applies for morality too, you're essentially accusing anyone criticising crude behaviour of being immoral, which is itself acting as an arbiter of morality.

Not to mention continually resorting to personal attacks instead of actually addressing any arguments or opinions.

Edited 2 hours ago by something_else

[something_else]

13 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

Jesus this way too much analysis. Are we gonna bring out Niels Bohr for this?  Or you wouldn't know who he is.

Too much analysis? I said that a lot of the language in this thread is crude and unnecessarily insulting towards women. I don't think that requires a lot of analysis or brainpower to understand.

[questionreality]

9 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

He doesnt need to be an arbiter of truth to express an opinion and argue a case. You don't appear able to stick to arguements though. Your avoiding addressing concerns by challenging some perceived sense of authority.

I have presented my argument TWICE, and I repeated it for you already, yet you conveniently ignored it. Here it is for the 3rd time:

5 hours ago, questionreality said:

@Natasha Tori Maru

The title of the thread alone makes it clear that this is a man’s thread, so the few women who are on this forum can avoid it completely and don’t have to read it. Some of you (people in general not women) these days get offended and triggered way too easily…

Don’t like the language used? Then don’t read it or should there be a warning message in the beginning just like in videos, “viewer discretion is advised” ? 

 

 

Edited 2 hours ago by questionreality

[questionreality]

6 minutes ago, something_else said:

The irony is that you accuse me of policing the thread while repeatedly telling people not to read it, engage with it or judge it. I haven’t tried to censor anyone, I’ve expressed my opinion about the language being used. You’re defending their freedom to speak crudely while trying to disqualify my (and others) freedom to criticise it. That is far closer to policing than anything I’ve done.

The same argument applies for morality too, you're essentially accusing anyone criticising crude behaviour of being immoral, which is itself acting as an arbiter of morality.

Not to mention continually resorting to personal attacks instead of actually addressing any arguments or opinions.

I will not accept anymore lies or BS from you.

1) You either don't know what "policing" or "accusing" means, or you are just making being totally dishonest.

2) All I said was that a person has a choice. If you don't like the language used in the thread, nobody is forcing them to read it.

3) I have never accused you of being immoral, all I said was that you were petty. 

4) I have not made a single personal attack against you. Show me one example.

 

 

 

 

 

[something_else]

4 minutes ago, questionreality said:

I will not accept anymore lies or BS from you.

1) You either don't know what "policing" or "accusing" means, or you are just making being totally dishonest.

2) All I said was that a person has a choice. If you don't like the language used in the thread, nobody is forcing them to read it.

3) I have never accused you of being immoral, all I said was that you were petty. 

4) I have not made a single personal attack against you. Show me one example.

Calling something a lie doesn’t make it one.

1) By “policing,” I mean repeatedly attempting to delegitimise criticism by telling people not to read, engage with or judge the thread.

2) Yes, people can choose not to read it. They can also choose to read it and criticise it. You keep defending the first choice while treating the second as illegitimate.

3) Fair enough, you didn’t literally call me immoral. My point is that you object to me making moral judgements while freely judging my criticism as petty and illegitimate, which is also a moral judgement.

4) You’ve called me a masochist, implied I’m sexually unsuccessful, and suggested people disagreeing with you “don’t get laid” and have “serious troubles.” You’ve now accused me of lying and bullshitting.

Those are personal attacks. You can argue that they were justified if you want, but you cannot seriously claim you haven’t made a single one.

[oOo]

I am not really one for the law of attraction with respect to the way its portrayed overly simplistically to the mainstream in the same way I am not really fond of this thread.

It requires the minimum level of brain power which can only thus attract those that wish to exert the same or lower level of brainpower unless its someone like me encroaching with their snobbery, making the creators and participants aware that I think they're stupid and they're partaking in making the forum more stupid. 

This isn't a criticism in so much as it is an accurate observation, a pattern clearly documentable, that's an important distinction.

As it pertains to the actual question, we created vistas in our imagination, describing each to one another the most nuanced perceptions we could while we were in a long distance relationship with one another, joining at the fold of phenomenological symbiosis and breaking only upon relief. A long distance relationship of course.

As she created a world, so too I added to it, with each stretch of her mind to detail and feel the landscapes she created in her consciousness, so too would I attempt to match it from my perspective. It was an engagement of where empathy and imagination meets pleasure and connection. 

I don't think an IQ test would be an acceptable medium of testing the intelligence of the threads participants, perhaps a wooden ruler measuring in micro-millimetres may though.

As for interesting locations, based on my observations to date I don't think any physical location could truly match the unusual aesthetic breadth nor the activation of so many of centres that were needed in order to meet the threshold of both one another's making and breaking points.

Physical locations are overrated, its about the person and the making between one another that makes the physical location the world remembered.

As for the worlds that we created, co-created and shared with one another, well that's private of course. 

 

Edited 2 hours ago by oOo

[Inliytened1]

Can we just get back to fucking girls.

[TheGod]

On 18/8/2026 at 6:37 AM, Inliytened1 said:

Let's hear all the crazy places.

Hole in the wall bathroom - dark park - 

Did you bang her in your ex-girlfriends bed?

School bus?

Pool Table?

Hood of your Camaro?

Well I did all of those - but I wanna see where YOU fucked her.

Tell me where you fucked.her!

 

In the park at night

In the park during the day when people were walkign around 

On the balcony across the bus stop on the main floor and ppl were watching

In the basement of an abandoned house 

On the table where she had lunch with her husband day earlier 

In their bed 

In the tub

at her mom's place

[Inliytened1]

2 minutes ago, TheGod said:

In the park at night

In the park during the day when people were walkign around 

On the balcony across the bus stop on the main floor and ppl were watching

In the basement of an abandoned house 

On the table where she had lunch with her husband day earlier 

In their bed 

In the tub

at her mom's place

You bad devil you.  You got busy and didn't care where.

[questionreality]

22 minutes ago, something_else said:

Calling something a lie doesn’t make it one.

1) By “policing,” I mean repeatedly attempting to delegitimise criticism by telling people not to read, engage with or judge the thread.

2) Yes, people can choose not to read it. They can also choose to read it and criticise it. You keep defending the first choice while treating the second as illegitimate.

3) Fair enough, you didn’t literally call me immoral. My point is that you object to me making moral judgements while freely judging my criticism as petty and illegitimate, which is also a moral judgement.

4) You’ve called me a masochist, implied I’m sexually unsuccessful, and suggested people disagreeing with you “don’t get laid” and have “serious troubles.” You’ve now accused me of lying and bullshitting.

Those are personal attacks. You can argue that they were justified if you want, but you cannot seriously claim you haven’t made a single one.

1) & 2)  You are now again being dishonest and changed the meaning of what I said. I never said that people can't criticize. All I said was that for people who find it offensive can choose not to read it and then they will not be offended. Same thing as choosing to not watch a video that may be offensive to some viewers.

3) You are the one that uses the terms "right", "wrong" , "low quality" , "lower consciousness" , etc. I have never once used any of these terms, or anything similar. And yes, saying that I accused you of being immoral is a lie in this case. 

4) Before throwing around terms, you should at least know what they actually mean. You clearly don’t understand what constitutes a personal attack. None of those are personal attacks.  

This is my last reply to you.

[Inliytened1]

8 minutes ago, questionreality said:

1) & 2)  You are now again being dishonest and changed the meaning of what I said. I never said that people can't criticize. All I said was that for people who find it offensive can choose not to read it and then they will not be offended. Same thing as choosing to not watch a video that may be offensive to some viewers.

3) You are the one that uses the terms "right", "wrong" , "low quality" , "lower consciousness" , etc. I have never once used any of these terms, or anything similar. And yes, saying that I accused you of being immoral is a lie in this case. 

4) Before throwing around terms, you should at least know what they actually mean. You clearly don’t understand what constitutes a personal attack. None of those are personal attacks.  

This is my last reply to you.

@something_elseIt's really beginning to turn against you now, especially given the topic.

Edited 1 hour ago by Inliytened1

[LordFall]

I think it's very predictable that a thread on sex would trigger a lot of shadow from the members of a mostly stage green forum. Both because stage green is more sensitive to derogatory language and wants to include everyone but also because it tends to want to run away from the more direct evaluation and burden of competence that stage orange brings. 

Let's not make it a man vs woman thing, women talk about sex just as crudely as men if not more. You can see it for yourself on the sex subreddit or on the female dating strategies subreddit or on the twoxchromosone subreddit.

Talking about which kind of partners you prefer is a sensitive subject but that's also the difference between talking in generalities vs addressing someone's life specifically. Saying you don't like one kind of partner as a stated presence for your own sex life is different than an overweight user asking for dating help and someone saying sorry you are fat, fat people aren't attractive so we can't help you. That would be a demonstrably false statement since plenty of people date overweight partners and BBW porn is a very thriving community. On the reverse, telling someone that they should workout and get in shape to ameliorate their dating life is a completely different line of discussion. Let's be cognizant of what's being said here and not be triggered snowflakes for the sake of it. 

@Inliytened1 has already apologized for his phrasing when commenting about some humans he's not particularly into but his intent in making this thread is clearly just to discuss sexuality openly to contrast with the members of this forum who seem to be terrified of it; which is why I replied openly and honesty to it. 

[enchanted]

10 hours ago, Someone here said:

Men don’t care about anything other than sex . 
that’s what women will never understand.

Everything in society is about sex, and sex is about power. 

Don't mind me I'm just adding more nonsense to this trainwreck of a thread.

Edited 1 hour ago by enchanted

[something_else]

20 minutes ago, questionreality said:

1) & 2)  You are now again being dishonest and changed the meaning of what I said. I never said that people can't criticize. All I said was that for people who find it offensive can choose not to read it and then they will not be offended. Same thing as choosing to not watch a video that may be offensive to some viewers.

3) You are the one that uses the terms "right", "wrong" , "low quality" , "lower consciousness" , etc. I have never once used any of these terms, or anything similar. And yes, saying that I accused you of being immoral is a lie in this case. 

4) Before throwing around terms, you should at least know what they actually mean. You clearly don’t understand what constitutes a personal attack. None of those are personal attacks.  

This is my last reply to you.

My core argument was that calling women “whales,” “ugly bitches,” “leftovers”, "resource-hoarding hamsters,” claiming women cannot listen properly, and crudely assigning their entire value according to age (among other examples from this thread) is unnecessarily degrading, and does not provide any value to the discussion.

“Don’t read it” only explains how someone can avoid seeing the language. It doesn’t address whether that language is reasonable or what its negative effect on the forum’s culture is. Nor does anything you've said address that other members are allowed to critique public posts if they think the language being used is unnecessarily degrading.

I don't think you've addressed the core argument at all, but several of the comments you made are personal attacks.

[LordFall]

4 minutes ago, enchanted said:

Everything in society is about sex, and sex is about power. 

Don't mind me I'm just adding more nonsense to this trainwreck of a thread.

I really like this saying, I think it's quite deep and teaches us a lot about human nature. I don't think it's fundamentally true though. I think psychology goes beyond sex and a lot of men and women live their lives disconnected from their libido and thus life force and don't live their lives based on sex.

If we combine sex, companionship, love, identity and power then I think we have a complete reduction of human existence into 5 main concepts though. Love and companionship are two facets of a same concept and identity completes the psychological depth that the adage is pointing to.

How do you interpret it? 

[Ulax]

36 minutes ago, LordFall said:

I think it's very predictable that a thread on sex would trigger a lot of shadow from the members of a mostly stage green forum. Both because stage green is more sensitive to derogatory language and wants to include everyone but also because it tends to want to run away from the more direct evaluation and burden of competence that stage orange brings. 

Let's not make it a man vs woman thing, women talk about sex just as crudely as men if not more. You can see it for yourself on the sex subreddit or on the female dating strategies subreddit or on the twoxchromosone subreddit.

Talking about which kind of partners you prefer is a sensitive subject but that's also the difference between talking in generalities vs addressing someone's life specifically. Saying you don't like one kind of partner as a stated presence for your own sex life is different than an overweight user asking for dating help and someone saying sorry you are fat, fat people aren't attractive so we can't help you. That would be a demonstrably false statement since plenty of people date overweight partners and BBW porn is a very thriving community. On the reverse, telling someone that they should workout and get in shape to ameliorate their dating life is a completely different line of discussion. Let's be cognizant of what's being said here and not be triggered snowflakes for the sake of it. 

@Inliytened1 has already apologized for his phrasing when commenting about some humans he's not particularly into but his intent in making this thread is clearly just to discuss sexuality openly to contrast with the members of this forum who seem to be terrified of it; which is why I replied openly and honesty to it. 

I agree. Many suffer from sexual shame and criticise based on that