|
|
Currently no members online:)
You are an anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here |
We have 58 guests online !
|
|
|
 |
 |
| Articles: sex |
Posted by
callei on Sunday, January 27, 2002 - 02:03 PM PST
News flash to the unaware out there....
this site will not get you laid*
It doesnt make you more attractive to others to post bad poetry.
It doesnt make you more desirable to use cap locks or ignore punctuation.
It doesnt fix that make up problem that you have.
It will give you a new set of people to tease and ridicule and maybe some new insults when you need them
It will give you a sense of the absurd and foolish when you need it most.
This is brain candy not eye candy, despite all the wonderful pictures that we all send in.
Back to the sex part. Since I seem to be on a rant today about sex anyways I thought I would flesh (hehe) out the idea a bit more.
Most of the resent submissions that i have read (yes i have skipped over a few, but who doesnt) are about the lack of sex in thier lives.
maybe they dont say that out right, but it is true none the less.
Take that metaphysical unified theory for example. If you were well laid and wobbly in the knees you wouldnt have the brain power to ask those questions. You would be asking things like "why are the wrappers of condoms so hard to open?" and "where are the clean sheets?" and " What's you name again?".
You wouldnt be trying to vicariously have sex through the intermingling of all of space-time. you wouldn't be wondering about overlaping realities because you would KNOW that realities overlap (and over couch and in the shower and ....)
The bible school one is too easy. Plus i wrote it all out as a comment there already.
The poser rant may seem a bit more obstruse to you, but believe me that is all about sex too.
We dont care what the sexy person is wearing or saying, we just want them. When they shun us, we get our feelings hurt and we lash out. And we call them posers. The whole idea behind labels is to seperate the world into those that you can (socially acceptably) have sex with and those that you cant (socially acceptably) have sex with today. Posers are the ones that you wouldnt sleep today. Ubers are the ones that you REALLY want to sleep with today.
The whole onesy arguement... well we are talking about, at its root, two women who both slept with the same guy and the issues (no pun intended) that arose and keep arising around that sex. Clear enough there huh? One feels that they have something in common because they have shared sperm. One feels that the other should shove her head up her backside.
These two women are having these issues because of sex and the games that we play with sex and the natural biological results of having sex. Its allllll about sex.
The primal scream? that is just backed up lust orgasming from the throat instead of the more usual orificies.
Colombine shootings? Kids with waaay to little sex on thier hands (eww). If they had been getting some, would they really have had time to plan the attack?
The jihad against America... (take this as the humourous and terribly lopsides view that it is), They are just pissed because they think we get laid more often over here. The saddest part is that they are wrong.
Lack of sex is the biggest contributor to anger and stoopidity. Why be macho and try to show off for the preety girls if you are still limp from the aerobics of the night before? Why flirt with a guy in uniform ( known as young dumb and full of energy) if you are still dehydrated from the sweat-fest of the morning? There goes the backbone of any war effort.
* except for Devin. This is his site after all and it is therefor an effective and useful tool for screening and developing bedmates. The rest of us have to get our own
|
| Note: had to happen someday right? |
| |
|
|
Average Rating : 5.0
Total ratings : 2
|
|
|
|
|
|
| sex | Login/Create an account | 35 Comments |
|
| | Comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content. |
Re: sex
by bettie_x (strangersangel@hotmail.com)
on Jan 27, 2002 - 09:43 PM
(User info | Send a Message)
http://bettie_x.tripod.com/strangeasangels/
|
*snort*
I"m not laughing at you, I'm lauging at some the the paradigms....
Couldn't have said it better, nobody could have!
Being well laid myself (hallelulha for husbands!)
things like that never occured to me *snicker*
caution: lack of (good) sex causes acne and mass murder....I think you're on to something.
Good job, well said, keep up the good (well laid) fight, C.
|
- Re: sex by callei on Jan 28, 2002 - 07:21 PM
- Re: sex by bettie_x on Jan 28, 2002 - 11:01 PM
- Re: sex by callei on Jan 29, 2002 - 12:48 PM
- Re: sex by Devin on Jan 29, 2002 - 01:47 PM
- Re: sex by callei on Jan 29, 2002 - 08:39 PM
- Re: sex by bettie_x on Jan 29, 2002 - 10:48 PM
- Re: sex by bettie_x on Jan 29, 2002 - 10:46 PM
Re: sex
by whitedove (jaroddove@doveworksentertainment.com)
on Jan 28, 2002 - 10:32 AM
(User info | Send a Message)
|
We are a very sex driven society all together. Actually I would go as far as to say we are a sexually driven race. Being that we get so much pleasure from sex, it is something we desire - it becomes our fun - it becomes our stress relief - it becomes our after dinner snack (okay, that might sound pretty crude - but it is just a saying). Those who don't get it as often or the way they like are more prone to anger. There is a lot to support Callei's words throughout history. The average person thinks of sex at least 3 times a day (this includes sexual activities as well - including, but not limited to: kissing, touching, rubbing, holding, licking, etc.).
|
- Re: sex by Devin on Jan 28, 2002 - 10:56 AM
- Re: sex by whitedove on Jan 28, 2002 - 11:21 AM
- Re: sex by callei on Jan 28, 2002 - 07:16 PM
- Re: sex by whitedove on Jan 29, 2002 - 09:52 AM
- Re: sex by callei on Jan 29, 2002 - 12:45 PM
- Re: sex by whitedove on Jan 29, 2002 - 01:29 PM
- Re: sex by callei on Jan 29, 2002 - 08:56 PM
- Re: sex by whitedove on Jan 30, 2002 - 06:30 AM
- Re: sex by callei on Jan 30, 2002 - 03:31 PM
- Re: sex by whitedove on Jan 31, 2002 - 06:53 AM
- Re: sex by Devin on Jan 31, 2002 - 07:49 AM
- Re: sex by callei on Jan 31, 2002 - 10:08 AM
- Re: sex by whitedove on Jan 31, 2002 - 11:26 AM
- Re: sex by MystryssRavynDarque on Sep 07, 2005 - 10:28 PM
- Re: sex by Devin on Jan 28, 2002 - 07:24 PM
- Re: sex by whitedove on Jan 29, 2002 - 09:54 AM
- Re: sex by MystryssRavynDarque on Sep 08, 2005 - 12:34 AM
Re: sex
by chameleon on Jan 28, 2002 - 01:49 PM
(User info | Send a Message)
|
|
DAmmit, this makes me think too hard! I thought that becasue it was sex, it would be easy to understand. *slaps self in face* It does make me curious though, as to where you got your information and such. As a parting note, I admit it openly, I need more sex, period.
|
- Re: sex by Ianthe99 on Jan 28, 2002 - 04:07 PM
"sex taught me about the universe!"
by Alugarde on Jan 29, 2002 - 06:02 PM
(User info | Send a Message)
|
|
Ok, I agree with you on the bible school thing. But my theory? Granted I'm no master theorist, but you basically just said that everything everyone knows about the universe is due to a lack of sex. Reaching a bit there?
|
- Re: by callei on Jan 29, 2002 - 09:22 PM
- Re: by Alugarde on Jan 30, 2002 - 05:58 PM
- Re: by callei on Jan 31, 2002 - 03:38 AM
Re: sex
by Schizo on Feb 01, 2002 - 07:14 PM
(User info | Send a Message)
|
Really, I thought my onesie situation stemmed from a presence, rather than an absence of sex. But I suppose my presence of sex stemmed from a 24-year-long absence of that illustrious activity, so, since we're in the business of making indirect associations, you are right after all!
Hooray for Callei!
|
- Re: sex by callei on Feb 02, 2002 - 01:56 AM
- Re: sex by Schizo on Feb 06, 2002 - 05:02 AM
|
|
