Forum posts made by ladyx

Topic The Incest Category is going to be removed
Posted 19 Apr 2014 19:50

... and tetanus.

Agreed, I was fine until that one. But to wish rust-borne bacteria on us?

That's beyond the pale, my friend.

Topic Editing Caution
Posted 17 Apr 2014 15:46

The system of RRs is imperfect but has improved a lot since it was introduced and has moved on from simply being a form of promotion for mods and their author friends.

It never was like that, but if there's one thing I've figured out over the years here, is that some people seem to thrive off a "this site and it's cronies only give recognition to each other" narrative, and they push it publicly for dramatic effect (even if it's ostensibly in an offhanded, 'just throwing it out there' manner, because what good does it do to suspect some sort of cliquish hegemony if you can't capitalize on it and start an argument with it?). There's simply not enough dramatic payoff involved to simply think about it, or talk privately.

And you're right, it's hard to keep people from forming an opinion that favoritism exists. Partially because people periodically assert it publicly (with the aforementioned expectation of a drawn-out debate over it), and because it gives people something to feel aggrieved and victimized about, with the added perk of feeling like some truth-teller, staring clearly through the bullshit. Like drama, some people need that as well, and yet others appear to really need both. As with others before, this statement too comes from a lot of observation.

Topic Why misrepresent...
Posted 16 Apr 2014 10:27

It's not broken, that's just how I look


Topic Never tolerate the intolerant
Posted 15 Apr 2014 15:25

I agree to the fact that it is a semantic paradox, however, a person's personal views on a subject doesn't make them intolerant... it's the view of others who would object to those views that label him/her intolerant, thus being just as intolerant as the person they have just judged

Perhaps so, but would you not view some intolerance as justified, necessary even? Intolerance of racism, sexism, domestic 'intolerance' an improper reaction to those things? And if not, how do the rights of gay couples not qualify similarly?

Topic Surprise cumshot in pussy?
Posted 14 Apr 2014 13:39

Do you notice before it happens if he is completely quiet?

During it happening?

Do you panic and force him out of you in the middle of his orgasm or do you just let him finish inside even if it was unexpected or unplanned? I almost never have had the wherewithal to do anything about it while it's in progress. Anyway, that's what, five or six seconds in most cases? At that moment I'm typically occupied elsewhere mentally, even though I can feel it happening. After that moment, yes, then I have reacted.

Is it a pleasant surprise or infuriating?
Almost by definition, if I didn't expect it, I didn't want it. I wasn't always infuriated exactly, but I have been before.
Could a guy with a big cumshot cum inside you unnoticed?

Topic Popular Dating Site OkCupid Takes a Stance Against Mozilla Firefox
Posted 10 Apr 2014 11:50

I have never seen so much misinterpretation of the facts. Op 8 was about the definition of marriage and only that.

Sorry, wrong answer.

Proposition 8, written word for word identical to the previous Proposition 22, attempted to strictly define marriage, not only for the sake of doing so, but to in turn deny benefits and status which are only afforded to those legally considered 'married'.

Topic Popular Dating Site OkCupid Takes a Stance Against Mozilla Firefox
Posted 10 Apr 2014 11:02

There has been no evidence that he ever supported the denial of rights, simply the term marriage. The rest is pure speculation and I refuse to go along with it. I want some hard evidence before I'm going to condemn the accused. Isn't that the correct way to go about it? Innocent until proven guilty not the reverse, it reminds me of lynch mob justice.

The hard evidence is that Eich paid money to help put a policy of discrimination firmly into place through state law. It's not just a matter of him having an opinion about what the definition of marriage should be, because in this case his "opinion" is that there should be laws that exclude gay couples from the same rights as heterosexual couples, and he put his money where his mouth (or perhaps just opinion) was.

Topic Never tolerate the intolerant
Posted 10 Apr 2014 07:05

"Intolerate intolerance" may be a semantic contradiction, but so is "tolerate intolerance" ;)

well said! :)

Topic Never tolerate the intolerant
Posted 09 Apr 2014 16:56

I know you disagree, but he fact is that his donation (and thus his view) was serious egg on Mozillas face. Firing or resignation either one, they felt the best business decision was for him to not be CEO anymore. Conduct, as defined by employer, can and does get people fired regularly. If they choose to fight it on 1st Amendment grounds, it often goes nowhere, but more power to them.

Topic Never tolerate the intolerant
Posted 09 Apr 2014 16:30

Then you become the intolerant that you or someone else won't tolerate! You create the vicious circle that can only be broken by .......tolerence.

perhaps. Depends on how one defines tolerance, more than anything. And if a discriminatory bigot thinks I'm intolerant, that's fine by me.

Topic Never tolerate the intolerant
Posted 09 Apr 2014 16:28

I hate to argue with you especially but I think, no I know, that you'll find that no contract can deny you statutory rights. The contract becomes illegal if it contravenes a statute. Nor can a person give up a statutory right unless there is a provision in the statute that allows a person to do so. If there is such a provision there can be no coercion to give up that right, it must be done freely.

The gray area becomes when the conduct sort of/sort of doesn't involve something like religion. Saying and doing offensive things that put the company in a bad light isn't justifiable just because you stand by your religion. That's a dubious claim. Everybody's free to lawyer up, but the bottom line is that an employer isn't going to be embarassed and continue to pay somebody. There's no law that really covers that, unless the employee/contractor has a contract that gives him ridiculously wide leeway.

Topic Never tolerate the intolerant
Posted 09 Apr 2014 16:13 intolerant to intolerants ?

yes. Semantic paradox aside, that's the idea.

Topic Never tolerate the intolerant
Posted 09 Apr 2014 09:57

Being a Christian isn't embarrassing to Mozilla. Neither of the acts by those two were embarrassing either. IMO



The Dude there, he makes the salient point: in both cases, it's not embarrassing to you . But both the Catholic Diocese and Mozilla, not to mention all of the consumers/followers on whom they depend for livelihood, it certainly seemed to be. It's all perception; there is no empirical designation of what is and isn't embarrassing. And like most things, it comes down to business. Mozilla felt that their bottom line was going to take a beating if they kept Eich on as CEO, and I trust their analysis. For the health of their business, they made a business decision.

Topic Never tolerate the intolerant
Posted 09 Apr 2014 09:33

I didn't say anything about abortion or taxes. My example was birth control and there have been pushes to make Catholic and/or Christian based businesses provide birth control coverage as part of their health care plan/insurance. In my opinion, that is counter to our constitution.

In the case of a church organization (non-profit, religious exemption), I totally agree. But company owners who happen to be Christian and incorporate for profit, yet wish to wield those religious restrictions on employees? Un-uh. Pick a lane. You can't both insulate yourself from your for-profit venture, making the owner a separate entity from the company, and also have the company retain the characteristics of the person, at employee's expense.

Don't like it? Be a sole proprieter or run a non-profit. Otherwise, this is the price you pay to make profit in this society. 2014 welcomes you.

Topic Never tolerate the intolerant
Posted 09 Apr 2014 09:20

I have no issue with the new majority getting vocal. But when it denies the opposing still legal view the opportunity to even be spoken for fear of political, societal, or any other form of unfair retribution, I think it's too far. Freedom of Speech prevents us from being locked up. But our employment laws include free speech, you can't be fired for your beliefs or what you say . A man could be a proud member of the Westboro Baptist Church, a 1st Amendment protected group, and not lose his job.

That's not true. If you embarrass your employer and they decide to fire you for it, it's perfectly legal for them to do so, especially in a right-to-work state. And in any contractual situation, there's going to be a clause that covers this ("you're representing us, so if you act or speak to our detriment, this contract is null and void"). First Amendment doesn't give one impunity to act the fool and say whatever they'd like without consequences, both in the workplace and in the public square.

I'm not sure I believe that everyone that opposes gay marriage qualifies as a bigot. Many perfectly normal people, who don't hate anyone, believe that marriage is a religious sacrament between man and woman. I'll post an excerpt from an article I read a few weeks ago on The Week

That's why the premier liberal virtue is toleration and not recognition. Toleration is perfectly compatible with — indeed, it presupposes — a lack of unanimity, or even majority consensus, about ultimate goods. It leaves the diversity of views about ultimate goods intact, forcing consensus on as few issues as possible, so that people belonging to specific regions, classes, ethnicities, and sociocultural and religious groups can build rich, meaningful lives together in freedom.

Recognition, by contrast, requires much more from one's fellow citizens — because the end it seeks is far more demanding. Instead of aiming to "live and let live," as toleration does, recognition strives for psychological acceptance and positive affirmation of one's vision of the good from all of one's fellow citizens, including from those whose vision of the good clashes with it. That makes it a zero-sum game.

I appreciate the spirit of that, but surely you can see that anti-same sex marriage folks are being fairly disingenuous when they plea for "live and let live" co-existence with a group whom they actively wish to deny equal status. That's the bottom line here. Once it becomes legal everywhere, and once there's true equality between hetero and same sex couples, then we can talk about how out of control same sex activists are, if they still are at that point. Until then, it's an issue, and is our era's civil rights struggle. People who don't like seeing the world as they knew and want it disappear will of course be unhappy with strident activism. That's natural.

As for the word 'bigot'. It's a harsh one, I'll grant you. But if one believes that the group on the right deserves one set of benefits, including general equal treatment in society, and the group on the left deserves something less than that, based on nothing beyond one's personal beliefs, what would you prefer to call it? One word or another, it's the same thing: discrimination. These people who have anti-gay rights beliefs based on their religion? That's fine, but one's religious beliefs have no place denying others who don't share them their civil rights. And I'd never say they were bad people on balance, but not being a reprehensible person doesn't change the reality of a discriminatory belief.

The CEO of Chick Fil A, was ostracized for his views on same sex marriage. The Christian CEO of a Christian based company believes marriage should be between a man and woman? Shocking. Should he get the same luxury of being held to the standards of the company he works for? A company that believes in Christianity so much so that they close on Sundays? If he'd come out in support of gay marriage, and CFA had been pressured by the religious right causing him to resign, would we still hear that he should have held the same standards as his company? I doubt it. Shouldn't people have said, CFA was founded by a Christian family so it stands to reason he'd be against same sex marriage so no one should gripe about his stance?

Yes, to all of that. I of course have different beliefs from Mr. Cathey (CEO), but to me, that whole flap was another example of the system working. He had First Amendment rights to express his beliefs, and lucky for him (unlike the Mozilla guy), his beliefs were in line with his company's culture. People protested, as they have a right to do, and others made a special point to support his business as a way of backing up his/his company's beliefs. Nobody was muzzled, and he paid consequences, good and bad, for what he said. No issue, right?

Topic Never tolerate the intolerant
Posted 08 Apr 2014 12:23

Winning with ideas is of course a good thing. Sure, there are people who don't believe in climate change. But, I don't know of any CEOs that have lost their jobs for denying climate change.

In the future, they probably should. Especially if they lead companies that are actively abetting the climate change.

Victories in civil rights took years, and sometimes that's what has to happen. I think gay marriage should be legal and anyone should be allowed to marry whomever they choose. I don't believe that churches, priests, ministers, etc should be forced into performing same sex marriage if they feel it is contradictory to their beliefs.

Agreed, but that's basically opposing a strawman. In the US, that's not even remotely likely to be required of unwilling clergy or church facilities.

Beating bigots by way of changing society is the way to go. Beating them into silence is not. I'd rather they have the freedom to express themselves without the threat or fear of losing their jobs or anything else.

Now we're talking about the mechanics of societal change. How does one go about 'changing society'? It's a complicated answer. But one key component is when the tide of opinion shifts, and the new majority gets vocal. In the case of gay rights, the vocal majority is unwilling to allow bigoted, anti-gay viewpoints to stand as legitimate. Nobody's "beating" anybody; everybody's still allowed to speak, the first amendment ensures that. But nobody is entitled to speak without consequences. The duck dynasty/mozilla dude examples, where everybody bemoans that free speech is being infringed upon..that's idiotic. It really just boils down to people whining that their personal opinions are being vociferously countered.

All that will do is push them underground and produce a subversive culture of more hate and fear..

This happens anyway. The racists lost society, yet they're still around, in their little hate-societies, on websites, at KKK meetings, etc. You can never eradicate radicalism, and yes, when people are marginalized they occasionally act out, but that's just the way it is. They deserve to be pushed to the margins if their beliefs are hate-based. Better to have one nutso guy do something crazy than to allow them all to remain at the big table with the rest of us.

Topic Never tolerate the intolerant
Posted 08 Apr 2014 10:57

The Culture Of Shut Up

That's a good article.

Though I'm not sure how one goes about "winning with ideas" without, at some point, declaring the argument too offensive to discuss seriously, because all the relevant points have been made and the other side isn't budging. There's a quote from some talking head recently that basically said "when somebody says 'the discussion is over', that's when you know that person is actually losing the argument", but I"m not sure that's true. Take climate change, for instance. 99% of relevant scientists have laid out irrefutable evidence pointing toward dire shifts in the earth's climate, yet after a dozen or so years "winning with ideas", what do we still have? A loud legion of crackpot fantasy denialists and naysayers, and a government that's not collectively willing to do a damn thing about it. It's only our planet's future at stake, right? So fuck this, "win with ideas" talk, at least at a certain point.

In other words, at a certain point, the collective majority of us must (and generally do) decide when an issue is closed, and then drive home the point. Nobody was going to "win with ideas" when fighting for civil rights vs. millions of racists in the 50s and 60s. Nobody "wins with ideas" when opponents of gay marriage (and gay rights, in general) point to the bible and say their religious rights are now under attack. We didn't "win with ideas" in World War II, either.

So while I stand by the fact that hypersensitivity and shrill commentary is getting pushed to the extreme, an unrelenting shout-down is sometimes the way to handle it, especially for the benefit of those victimized by the outmoded ways of thinking. We can tell others to 'shut up' all we want. They of course do not have to, pursuant to the First Amendment to the US Constitution. But cowing bigots into submission, at least in the public square, is never a bad thing. We should be thankful that we have the freedom to do so. Many don't.

Topic Regulating Circumcision
Posted 08 Apr 2014 07:48

the baby feels everything!

This is not true, at all, at least not anywhere around here.

My baby was given a pain reliever by suppository, a local anesthetic, and a temporary nerve block by injection. In essence, the pain felt at the time of procedure was the same as if he'd been fully anesthetized. I understand many people passionately oppose circumcision, but "the baby feels everything" isn't a valid reason for it.

Topic What are they?
Posted 08 Apr 2014 07:43

I've never used it. My experience is that when it's used, especially when said "partner" is not around, it's a subtle way to indicate that it's a same-sex relationship. Not every time, but that's common, at least here in the US. But now that I think about it, I will occasionally refer to him as my partner when it's just he and I, as in "you're my partner in life", and everywhere we go in life, we'll go together. But I've never said "please meet my partner" when introducing him.

I suppose it comes down to ones' preference.

Topic Never tolerate the intolerant
Posted 08 Apr 2014 07:32

I agree that there's a growing hypersensitivity issue on the left of this country (USA), and it's frustrating to watch. Usually I feel that "PC is out of control!" is code for "I'm saying bigoted things and am butthurt for being taken to task for it!". And I don't know if it's changing as quickly as I think it is, or if some of it is me growing up, but these days, I do find myself often thinking that PC really is getting out of control.

That said, I don't think this situation applies. This man was not a government employee, nor did he lead an investment bank. He led a company with a distinct, recognizable mission and culture, which his views/actions ran counter to in a really obvious way. He exercised free speech by donating to a "please don't let homos marry" campaign, and the public exercised their free speech by taking him and the company to task for it. As a result, it was decided (by whom is nothing more than a footnote now) that the benefits of having him as a CEO were exceeded by the heat the company would take by keeping him as its CEO. The system worked.

I'm not sure what's hard to comprehend about that, or how it speaks to a larger issue about hypersensitivity or hypocrisy.

Topic For you that voted for Obama...
Posted 08 Apr 2014 07:26

Obamacare is working just fine for me. Is it cheap? Fuck no. And I make too much to get it subsidized, and that's fair, so I'm fine with it. But it's working. It's not doomsday, doctor's aren't quitting in droves, our country isn't on the brink of collapse as a result.

I don't disagree with every conservative idea, but their freak-out over Obamacare looks funnier by the day, as more people sign up and it continues to function as it should.

Topic Do you pee in the bath or shower
Posted 06 Apr 2014 17:11

You don't - shit - in there do you?

Not on purpose, no fish

Topic Do you pee in the bath or shower
Posted 04 Apr 2014 11:42

I pee in the shower but not in the bath. Pee in bathwater seems really gross. Pee in the shower? It washes off. Besides, there's a lot nastier stuff to wash down the drain than pee, honestly.

Topic The Third Date Rule
Posted 17 Mar 2014 09:44

3rd date rule sounds like someone made it up to say "fuck me or get lost - those are the rules!"
Geesssssssh. What about doing what come naturally and letting it happen when it happens - safe, sane and consensual.

"Okay, this is our third date, now I've got the condoms. You on the pill? Been checked for STD? I have. You want to fuck now and then go get something to eat (see a movie etc) or eat (whatever first) as long as we both understand that neither one of us goes home without being fucked. Are we clear?"

LOL. That would turn me on so much.

My understanding of it in practice is that it wasn't meant to be compulsory on the third date; it was meant to refrain from having sex until at least the third date, assuming the other person is somebody you'd want to engage in sex with to begin with. I've heard of it but never followed it. I kind of thought it was an antiquated thing, really.

Topic Should kids in the untied states have to say the pledge of alligence in school
Posted 13 Mar 2014 11:42

It's coercive indoctrination in it's most pure form and unleashed and often enforced upon children who can't yet think clearly for themselves.

...which is exactly the argument that supporters are making on its behalf. Of course, they use different terms, but the whole point of the exercise is to ingrain unconditional patriotism deeply into people at a young age, so that as long as possible (and maybe for their entire lives) those people won't stop and ask themselves, "what am I pledging allegiance to exactly, and why"? There is otherwise no good argument for making the pledge of allegiance compulsory. The only argument is whether or not one feels this is appropriate.

Topic How long is to long to be a virgin
Posted 13 Mar 2014 10:48

If you make it to 50, that's a pretty good haul.

Topic Say something nice about the profile of the person above you
Posted 27 Feb 2014 14:20

He likes there's that.

Topic A big thanks to LIZ for helping with the new header design
Posted 27 Feb 2014 12:42

It looks awesome!

What CAN'T she do ?


Topic The Rage Cage
Posted 27 Feb 2014 01:52

I'll make a quick-reference .jpg and post it soon, but until's just not that hard, folks.

The ground rules here are very simple: enter and, without referencing other posts or disparaging other members or the site, post your rage in word form. Videos, .gifs, dog/cat jokes, and random non-rage observations belong elsewhere. Anyone that wants to start a "rage expressed through YouTube or pics" thread is more than welcome to do so; I'm sure it will get takers.

Now: rage on!

Topic Curious about the BDSM relationships on lush
Posted 27 Feb 2014 00:09

Just my opinion and I am not looking to upset anybody just provoke further thought.

That's fine between forum members, but the moderators are like parents and are there to maintain order. Mum and Dad should not fight or be disunited in front of the kids, and they can't be friends with the kids because their role is to monitor the kids and ensure they behave in an appropriate manner.

I am sure all parents can relate to where I am coming from. At some point the parent has to assume a position that the child is not going to like but as the parent they are just protecting the child and the family unit as a whole.Think

In theory, and in the strictest sense possible, you're right. And the bit about multiple accounts is definiteiy best not aired publicly, so apologies on everyone's behalf regarding that comment. But in practice, and in general, the standards you laid out above are taking it a little far. After all, this isn't Wikipedia or WebMD.

We aren't talking about parenting here; it's a sex stories site, the stakes just aren't that high. Of course moderators are going to be friends with non-moderators, and are going to give their own opinions, which sometimes don't necessarily reflect official site policy. With the exceptions of maybe two people, everyone that helps out here is doing so on a volunteer basis, because they love the place and want to give back a little. They will sometimes grow frustrated, and not everything they say will be universally agreed with, even among other moderators, who are just regular members except for that one little badge with the yellow dot. Everybody's human.

In short: now is the time for everyone to chill down a little. Tempers wil sometimes flare, but it's really not that big of a deal. At the end of the day, it's just a forum thread full of opinions. If you find yourself really getting worked up about what this person posted or how that moderator reacted (and believe me, I've been there a time or ten), then it's time to step away from the computer for a bit, or at least surf a different part of the site.