|
Accretionist posted:Good news, ladies and gentlemen (mostly ladies)! I'll gladly inject my dick with something if I can fire blanks and not worry If I can reverse it But birth control pills just to make things regular and not as awful for women is also a thing
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 15:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 03:55 |
|
|
I have never really been convinced by the argument that putting the boot on the man's foot is really is beneficial to women. Who on earth really thinks women will win out from putting the onus on men to get their reproductive ducks in a row?
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 16:05
|
|
|
Please resume food chat over dick chat
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 16:07
|
|
|
Uh, why can't it just be on both sexes equally rather than something that men never ever have to worry about? The best solution will be to invent a way to turn off fertility for both men and women until they are ready to have children, though I imagine the religious right and Catholics would hit the roof if we came up with a way to genetically shut off fertility in children even though it would mean zero abortions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 16:08
|
|
|
What about food chat that involves dicks? Kinky stuff 
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 16:09
|
|
|
Kitfox88 posted:What about food chat that involves dicks? Kinky stuff That guy in Germany who was prosecuted for consensually cutting off another guy's dick and eating it in front of him: justified or unjustified? This guy:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armin_Meiwes zoux fucked around with this message at 16:13 on Dec 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 16:11
|
|
|
Demon_Corsair posted:Mine was done this year, and the topical anesthesia was the worst part. It felt like being snapped by an elastic band. Took 15 minutes and I was on my way. Went in on a Friday, had a nice relaxing weekend and was back at work on Monday. This was almost exactly my experience. The doc had to hit me with a needle inside the ballsack a second time (the local was initially given with the pneumatic thing, followed by the first needle) when I mentioned discomfort. And it was discomfort, not pain. It felt like my balls were being squeezed by my pants seam or something. He made me stay really still while he did the injections and I was out of the office within the hour, totally safe to drive home. My girlfriend picked up the antibiotics and painkillers for me but I imagine I could have picked them up myself if I'd have had them called in to a place with a drive thru. Swapping out bags of frozen peas (hands down the best choice for this) was the worst part but I imagine there might be people who take issue with missed exercise or are necessarily more mobile than I was. I took the Monday off because I could but I don't think I would have had a problem with going in had I been expected to.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 16:14
|
|
|
Kitfox88 posted:What about food chat that involves dicks? Kinky stuff Well they do make vodkas infused pressurized whip cream. If goons ever had sex that would be perfect for this thread.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 16:14
|
|
zoux posted:That guy in Germany who was prosecuted for consensually cutting off another guy's dick and eating it in front of him: justified or unjustified? Real university exam question I once saw: 'Does the moral nature of an orgy change if the participants are wearing nazi uniforms?'. I'm not entirely sure why that just came to mind.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 16:17
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Please resume food chat over dick chat USPol January: Eating Makes It Hurt Less
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 16:17
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Real university exam question I once saw: 
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 16:19
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Well they do make vodkas infused pressurized whip cream. If goons ever had sex that would be perfect for this thread. Inject it straight into the anus for maximum facing to bloodshed Disinterested posted:Real university exam question I once saw: If they're wearing them because they agree with the ideology I'd think the moral nature changes. If it's just because they think Hugo Boss made some sharp duds 
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 16:20
|
|
|
Kitfox88 posted:If it's just because they think Hugo Boss made some sharp duds From food chat to dick chat to nazy orgy hitler chat and now dangerously close to fashionista chat.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 16:29
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:I have never really been convinced by the argument that putting the boot on the man's foot is really is beneficial to women. Who on earth really thinks women will win out from putting the onus on men to get their reproductive ducks in a row? How about personal responsibility for your own sexual organs? Men should supply their own condoms because then you'll always have the right size. Women should keep a box around just in case but a wrong sized rubber fails easier than a proper fit! So don't be mad she has regular ol Trojans that are too big for your micropenis!
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 16:31
|
|
|
Happy Noodle Boy posted:From food chat to dick chat to nazy orgy hitler chat and now dangerously close to fashionista chat. We've been stuck on James Bond chat for the past couple pages in the freep thread. Tis the season to derail after all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 16:33
|
|
|
Happy Noodle Boy posted:From food chat to dick chat to nazy orgy hitler chat and now dangerously close to fashionista chat. Suddenly: circumcision chat.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 16:35
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Suddenly: circumcision chat. You should know by now you need to put up some half assed opinion about dick snip to get people going!! What's the most socialist way to celebrate New Years?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 16:39
|
|
|
I'm mostly concerned that the virility of the American male will cause that little polymer cork to fly loose at near lethal speeds. I plan to invest in a company that produces stylish eyepatches.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 16:41
|
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:What's the most socialist way to celebrate New Years? New 5 year plan?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 16:45
|
|
|
A medical contraceptive for men is a big deal because all of a sudden it will be a lot harder to craft legislation that only controls the sexuality of women, which is the actual purpose of opposition to medical contraceptives. I'll bet that the Hobby Lobby case would have been a lot different if they could have pointed out that they cover the 'male pill' instead of using vasectomies - there's a fundamental difference between medical and surgical techniques that opponents of contraceptives can use to rationalize their position. There will still be some true believers that oppose ALL contraceptives, but not enough to control the laws, I suspect.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 16:45
|
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:What's the most socialist way to celebrate New Years? Buy only one bottle of champagne and distribute one NyQuil cup's worth to each person, then ask each person their annual income and distribute the rest equally to the bottom 25% of earners. EDIT: Actually, take half of the champagne from the top 10% of earners and add that to your distribution to the bottom 25%.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 16:45
|
|
|
captainblastum posted:controls the sexuality of women, which is the actual purpose of opposition to medical contraceptives. People say this a lot and they're right but it doesn't translate to actual practical changes because it's a subconscious motivation. When people craft this legislation they aren't literally rubbing their hands together and cackling and thinking "ahah I'm SECRETLY hurting women". They are doing it under the auspices of social morality (which generally exists to control women's sexuality). People who oppose contraception think they are doing it because it's a sin against God otherwise, and ultimately when pressed on the issue will end up at "well maybe if they just kept their drat legs closed" conclusion but will rarely make that connection introspectively. The end result is that they will just oppose male birth control as stridently as female birth control.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 16:50
|
|
|
captainblastum posted:A medical contraceptive for men is a big deal because all of a sudden it will be a lot harder to craft legislation that only controls the sexuality of women, which is the actual purpose of opposition to medical contraceptives. I'll bet that the Hobby Lobby case would have been a lot different if they could have pointed out that they cover the 'male pill' instead of using vasectomies - there's a fundamental difference between medical and surgical techniques that opponents of contraceptives can use to rationalize their position. They'll simply claim they don't see the male version as an abortifacient unlike the pill. The SCOTUS has already made it clear incorrect belief trumps science.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 16:51
|
|
|
zoux posted:People say this a lot and they're right but it doesn't translate to actual practical changes because it's a subconscious motivation. When people craft this legislation they aren't literally rubbing their hands together and cackling and thinking "ahah I'm SECRETLY hurting women". They are doing it under the auspices of social morality (which generally exists to control women's sexuality). People who oppose contraception think they are doing it because it's a sin against God otherwise, and ultimately when pressed on the issue will end up at "well maybe if they just kept their drat legs closed" conclusion but will rarely make that connection introspectively. The end result is that they will just oppose male birth control as stridently as female birth control. Saying "oppose contraception" is a bit of a vague statement. Most of the people who "oppose contraception," if we're excluding abortion, mostly oppose forcing companies or using the government to cover contraception. It's not about the contraception so much as it is about who pays for it. Most of the people who oppose abortion do so because they consider it to be murder and there's not much you can do to convince them otherwise, it's just a difference of belief of when life begins. They don't want to oppose women, they just want women to use adoption over abortion so life isn't lost. EDIT: As for the "keep your legs closed" that's asking for women to use some self-control or forethought in avoiding unwanted pregnancies, which isn't too much to ask. We take precautionary measures to keep ourselves healthy in all sorts of ways, making sure you have condoms on hand is just one more precautionary measure. Amergin fucked around with this message at 17:03 on Dec 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 16:54
|
|
|
I see a big limiting factor as cost. They hope to have it down to less than a flat screen tv? That is pretty vague, but just the fact that it is something you would have to budget/save for will restrict how many guys will spring for it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 16:54
|
|
|
Amergin posted:Saying "oppose contraception" is a bit of a vague statement. I agree that's what they think they are doing but the origin of that cultural more is a desire to control women's sexuality. The "forcing companies or government to cover contraception" is just political messaging to make their position more palatable to the general electorate. I imagine they would strongly support measures to make birth control illegal if they though they could get away with it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 16:57
|
|
|
Amergin posted:Most of the people who oppose abortion do so because they consider it to be murder and there's not much you can do to convince them otherwise, it's just a difference of belief of when life begins. They don't want to oppose women, they just want women to use adoption over abortion so life isn't lost. I hit a wall with this bit of it. It's hard to argue with someone who shares the same view I do about abortion itself (the above), while still supporting its legality, accessability and most of all safety. I don't have much of an argument besides asking whether they prefer to chain women to beds, or for more back-alley coat hanger jobs to happen. I want those folks who are so against it to stop lobbying for shitbirds who will try to make it illegal, and instead give that money to adoption agencies and orphanages.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 17:07
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:I thought the Korean War ended with an "armistice," which for some reason means that we're still at war? This is what the AP says in all its North Korea stories anyway. We are all in Schrodinger's War
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 17:08
|
|
|
Amergin posted:Most of the people who oppose abortion do so because they consider it to be murder and there's not much you can do to convince them otherwise, it's just a difference of belief of when life begins. They don't want to oppose women, they just want women to use adoption over abortion so life isn't lost. That would seem truer if they didn't sneak off to have abortions when it came down to it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 17:08
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:That would seem truer if they didn't sneak off to have abortions when it came down to it. Also would seem truer if they would support sex education and birth control as means to prevent unwanted pregnancies. When you have folks who claim to be anti-abortion, but are also anti-sex ed and anti-birth control, they really just are opposed to women.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 17:12
|
|
|
Or even guaranteed support for unwed mothers or low income families. It's easy to say a kid is a "gift from God" but then just saying that everyone should have been celibate if they couldn't afford it really isn't that caring to the long term benefit of the child that had no say in the matter. They also like to purposely misinform themselves and others regarding if birth control is an abortive while not giving a poo poo about other stuff that could cause a miscarriage or implanted egg to not attach to the uterine wall. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 17:18 on Dec 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 17:16
|
|
|
bassguitarhero posted:Also would seem truer if they would support sex education and birth control as means to prevent unwanted pregnancies. When you have folks who claim to be anti-abortion, but are also anti-sex ed and anti-birth control, they really just are opposed to women. It may be an underlying belief, but at least on the surface, they really just don't want to "encourage" more teen sex in general. They see any education or availability of contraceptives as encouraging the practice. They believe that it will only get worse, and will ignore any and all evidence to the fact that teenagers will just have sex anyway, as they always have. The amount of active misogynists I know from that demographic, I can count on one hand. Which is still much higher than the general population, but still not nearly as bad as we tend to espouse here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 17:21
|
|
|
Amergin posted:Saying "oppose contraception" is a bit of a vague statement. I don't like that last bit at all. The burden of sexual consequences gets placed squarely on the vagina through shaming women that like sex. Men aren't nearly as looked down upon for getting down and dirty (unless they're gay). It also doesn't help one bit that abstinence-only sexual education goes hand in hand with every other GOP shitstain opinion on banging. So girl gets unexpected pregnancy that she's stuck with unless her family's loaded. Which sort of adds into the above idea that it's about oppressing women and not about sex. Oh you can teach sex Ed without encouraging teens to bang (they get enough from their hormones). Put emphasis on STDs and how not banging everything with the right part is the only 100% way to not get one. Or pregnant too. Islam is the Lite Rock FM fucked around with this message at 17:24 on Dec 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 17:22
|
|
|
Radish posted:Or even guaranteed support for unwed mothers or low income families. It's easy to say a kid is a "gift from God" but then just saying that everyone should have been celibate if they couldn't afford it really isn't that caring to the long term benefit of the child that had no say in the matter. WRT unwed mothers and low income families, the onus is on the father and local culture of single-parent households being common and acceptable. Also you and a lot of other folks here are conflating people's opinions. There are plenty of people who dislike abortion and would prefer to see it illegal and don't think birth control is abortive (and even this is vague as there are multiple forms of birth control). You can't attribute beliefs to an entire group of people because of the few outspoken ignoramuses. EDIT: DemeaninDemon posted:I don't like that last bit at all. The burden of sexual consequences gets placed squarely on the vagina through shaming women that like sex. Men aren't nearly as looked down upon for getting down and dirty (unless they're gay). Women get the burden because women have the biological burden. There is a wall here and it's called biological differences between men and women. If a girl gets an unexpected pregnancy she isn't stuck with it, again she can opt for adoption. For some reason you and a lot of other folks here think that a women's only options with unwanted pregnancy is "abortion" or "keep it as a burden" and the increased accessibility to abortive measures continues this false set of options. Liberals seem to have an allergy to adoption. DemeaninDemon posted:Oh you can teach sex Ed without encouraging teens to bang (they get enough from their hormones). Put emphasis on STDs and how not banging everything with the right part is the only 100% way to not get one. Or pregnant too. Then you get liberals accusing your sex ed of being abstinence-only and apparently that's bad. Amergin fucked around with this message at 17:26 on Dec 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 17:23
|
|
|
Amergin posted:WRT unwed mothers and low income families, the onus is on the father and local culture of single-parent households being common and acceptable. Illegal how so? All cases no take backsies? Certain circumstances? Hell I've met fundie assholes you think you're denying God their rightful place in the bedroom by using any form of BC. Made it sound like God's sitting in the corner beating it and that's how the soul gets made. Oh hey now we're at Bio Truths!!!
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 17:28
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:I have never really been convinced by the argument that putting the boot on the man's foot is really is beneficial to women. Who on earth really thinks women will win out from putting the onus on men to get their reproductive ducks in a row? Some women's bodies have poor reactions to many of the the currently available hormonal birth control methods (side effects of the last one I was on included mood swings, lethargy, and a small chance of developing blood clots.) If you're in long term monogamous relationship and you and your partner don't have diseases, condoms are a real drag. I am in a long term monogamous relationship and I currently have the Nexplanon, which is an implant approved for 3 years of continuous use (rumored to work for 4 years.) I love that I just went in to the gynecologist one day, had it put in, and now I can totally forget about birth control for 3 years. Wouldn't you men in similar relationships like to have that luxury? Edit (lol phone posting): To be more clear - at the moment if a woman's body can't tolerate any hormonal methods she and her partner will have to use one-time-use-only contraceptive methods, which are annoying, have higher failure rates (in part due to human error), and have to be used every time - forgetting just once can result in pregnancy -- or she'll have to use a copper IUD, which causes women to have heavier and longer periods. (Anecdotally, I also have a friend - married, so no "slut" by conservative just-wold standards - whose uterus was perforated due to bad IUD insertion. A rare occurrence but  just thinking about it.)This long-term reversible (male) birth control is beneficial to both partners because it's the the only long term reversible contraception that doesn't involve hormones or making the woman have huge painful periods. Xibanya fucked around with this message at 17:50 on Dec 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 17:30
|
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:Illegal how so? All cases no take backsies? Certain circumstances? Both, all of the above? The problem is this thread's conversation about conservatives always devolves to every conservative votes and thinks in line with the most fundamental Jesus Krispie they ever met and obviously that's why all conservatives are bad and they disagree with everything people in this thread believe. I'm just saying you can't take the ultra-religious minority and apply their morals to every conservative, even if they vote for the same person. EDIT: Xibanya posted:If you're in long term monogamous relationship and you and your partner don't have diseases, condoms are a real drag. Part of the conservative argument here is that "condoms are a real drag" isn't really an argument for anything, but instead can be construed as laziness. EDIT: Talmonis posted:It may be an underlying belief, but at least on the surface, they really just don't want to "encourage" more teen sex in general. They see any education or availability of contraceptives as encouraging the practice. They believe that it will only get worse, and will ignore any and all evidence to the fact that teenagers will just have sex anyway, as they always have. The amount of active misogynists I know from that demographic, I can count on one hand. Which is still much higher than the general population, but still not nearly as bad as we tend to espouse here. Looking at teen pregnancy rates and rates of teens having sex, the types of sex they have and when they start, it's not as simple as "they always have." It's a relatively recent phenomenon and that's part of what scares/agitates conservatives. Amergin fucked around with this message at 17:33 on Dec 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 17:30
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:It may be an underlying belief, but at least on the surface, they really just don't want to "encourage" more teen sex in general. They see any education or availability of contraceptives as encouraging the practice. They believe that it will only get worse, and will ignore any and all evidence to the fact that teenagers will just have sex anyway, as they always have. The amount of active misogynists I know from that demographic, I can count on one hand. Which is still much higher than the general population, but still not nearly as bad as we tend to espouse here. "Active misogynists"? I suppose you're the sort of person who needs to hear someone marching around yelling "friend of the family" before you tag them an "active racist." Having policy beliefs as stupid and unexamined as the ones you mention make you a misogynist, period.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 17:31
|
|
Xibanya posted:Some women's bodies have poor reactions to many of the the currently available hormonal birth control methods (side effects of the last one I was on included mood swings, lethargy, and a small chance of developing blood clots.) Yes, generally speaking. I think there are some benefits to women in having this thing generally speaking under their control, even if it's symptomatic of their being hosed over. I have less faith in modern man than modern woman to exercise control of this important thing responsibly. On the other hand, the best way to get men to be less lovely about it is to force them to take more control of the situation, so there's that.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 17:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 03:55 |
|
|
SedanChair posted:"Active misogynists"? I suppose you're the sort of person who needs to hear someone marching around yelling "friend of the family" before you tag them an "active racist." I too am incapable of nuance.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 17:33
|
|
