Does anyone else find it hilarious that many of these women end up marrying athletes and celebrities? Do you think these guys even know about this?
[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
Ponce, I’ve been with well over a hundred women. Not sure of my actual number, but just to illustrate since I’ve been in Portland [about 4 months] I’ve been with 9 chicks, and the last 2 months I’ve been seeing just one girl. Not saying this to brag, just saying I’ve been with quite a few women and I’ve never once thought of gay porn to keep myself going. If fucking anything without a human vagina gets you going, you’re probably gay.[/quote]
I should’ve expanded my post a bit. I didn’t just mean banging, but imagine all manner of weird positions and perverted sex that happens on a porn set. Imagine that desensitizing you to what were your previous fetishes. I mean, throughout history, there have been some insane stories of escalating perversions of people in power, who’ve had access to anything and anyone. Read up on some of Pablo Escobar’s sex parties, for instance.
I think some people pursue the taboo to gratify a desire to feel powerful.
Found it:
“He [Dostoyevsky] also discovered that there is a tendency to despotism, a “will to power”, inherent in man. He found that love contains among its elements the desire to exercise power over its beloved, and that if this love is not gratified then the loved one can be hated and loved at the same time.”[/quote]
True love is that which gives itself completely to one other. - JPII
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]QuadasarusFlex wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
^^^ Meh, not really I read a while ago he experimented with homosexuality when he was younger.[/quote]
Havent we all?[/quote]
No.[/quote]
lol u uncomfortable bro[/quote]
U gotz me bro, wait 'til marriage = uncomfortable and homo.
After OP and a few responses glad I’ll just love one woman til I die.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
Ponce, I’ve been with well over a hundred women. Not sure of my actual number, but just to illustrate since I’ve been in Portland [about 4 months] I’ve been with 9 chicks, and the last 2 months I’ve been seeing just one girl. Not saying this to brag, just saying I’ve been with quite a few women and I’ve never once thought of gay porn to keep myself going. If fucking anything without a human vagina gets you going, you’re probably gay.[/quote]
I should’ve expanded my post a bit. I didn’t just mean banging, but imagine all manner of weird positions and perverted sex that happens on a porn set. Imagine that desensitizing you to what were your previous fetishes. I mean, throughout history, there have been some insane stories of escalating perversions of people in power, who’ve had access to anything and anyone. Read up on some of Pablo Escobar’s sex parties, for instance.
I think some people pursue the taboo to gratify a desire to feel powerful.
Found it:
“He [Dostoyevsky] also discovered that there is a tendency to despotism, a “will to power”, inherent in man. He found that love contains among its elements the desire to exercise power over its beloved, and that if this love is not gratified then the loved one can be hated and loved at the same time.”[/quote]
True love is that which gives itself completely to one other. - JPII[/quote]
Interesting you bring up JPII. While Heff was out showcasing women’s bodies for men to gawk at and lust over, JPII was educating people on what real love means. While Heff’s way produces behavior that is essentially destructive, JPII’s way produces behavior that is edifies both the self and society.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Read about the Kinsey Scale.
[/quote]
Kinsey’s research is essentially hogwash. First, he was a sexual deviant himself. This should be of no concern, because true science is as objective as possible (meaning the researcher attempts to remove his/her biases from their procedures). However, he enlisted those individuals with whom he carried out his sexual deviance to help him conduct his “research”. These “assistants” were deviants in and of themselves, and used their contacts as deviants to conduct the “research”. Thus, the survey sample was skewed to favor deviance. In addition, he began to solicit the input of the sexual capacity of children, as young as 2. Seeing as no children that young engage in sexual acts on their own, this meant that adults needed to rape them in order to report any findings. Kinsey assumed that the tears and screams of the children they raped were tears and screams of orgasm, and as such, he called for the legalization of sex with children.
Because Kinsey was a scientist (a chemist, actually, not a social scientist), his research was given an air of authority, and thus accepted. It is important to note that no one, when conducting research according to typical research standards, has been able to replicate his findings. His Scale was based on his uncorroborated and flawed research. What is interesting to note is that while the statistics Kinsey reported have been rejected (as has his method and most of his findings), his scale is still promoted…despite the fact that his scale is based on flawed research.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]QuadasarusFlex wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
^^^ Meh, not really I read a while ago he experimented with homosexuality when he was younger.[/quote]
Havent we all?[/quote]
No.[/quote]
lol u uncomfortable bro[/quote]
U gotz me bro, wait 'til marriage = uncomfortable and homo.
After OP and a few responses glad I’ll just love one woman til I die.[/quote]
x2
[quote]defenderofTruth wrote:
In addition, he began to solicit the input of the sexual capacity of children, as young as 2. Seeing as no children that young engage in sexual acts on their own, this meant that adults needed to rape them in order to report any findings. Kinsey assumed that the tears and screams of the children they raped were tears and screams of orgasm, and as such, he called for the legalization of sex with children.
[/quote]
Going to have to call bullshit here. Wheres your proof?
That’s junk news. who cares
[quote]ouroboro_s wrote:
[quote]AccipiterQ wrote:
That article was from 2004 [/quote]
and is therefore invalid and unworthy of discussion. Move along. There’s nothing more to see here.[/quote]
[quote]QuadasarusFlex wrote:
[quote]defenderofTruth wrote:
In addition, he began to solicit the input of the sexual capacity of children, as young as 2. Seeing as no children that young engage in sexual acts on their own, this meant that adults needed to rape them in order to report any findings. Kinsey assumed that the tears and screams of the children they raped were tears and screams of orgasm, and as such, he called for the legalization of sex with children.
[/quote]
Going to have to call bullshit here. Wheres your proof?[/quote]
Coming from the guy who just said:
“While Heff was out showcasing women’s bodies for men to gawk at and lust over, JPII was educating people on what real love means. While Heff’s way produces behavior that is essentially destructive, JPII’s way produces behavior that is edifies both the self and society.”
And with a dash of irony from the post discrediting Kinsey because of “bias.”
Yep, no bias from defenderofTruth. None whatsoever.
Please don’t inject politics or religion into this thread. There’s a whole subforum for that.
Yeah Alfred Kinsey didn’t abuse any children.
But a bunch of the priests JPII protects certainly have.
But hey, it’s not surprising to see a religious zealot try to discredit any work that normalizes homosexuality.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
He’s probably bisexual and has suppressed his gay side so long that it’s the only thing that turns him on anymore.
[/quote]
I’ve talked to a coupe of gay dudes who’ve slept with women about this, and they all say they don’t believe in bisexuality. You’re either straigh or your gay. They experiemnted 'cause to them it’s just sex, but they got nothing out of it. Always found that interesting.[/quote]
I read an interview with a male pornstar and his wife at the time. I think he said that he’s thought of–not sure if he actually made any films–gay porn to arouse him during a scene with a woman, and the comment was that, after banging so many hot chicks, you need a new taboo to get you going sometimes.
Yes, I know our Pushharder from Montana will come in guns blazin and deny this, but I don’t think it’s entirely unbelievable, especially given the lifestyle of some of these people.[/quote]
Ponce, I’ve been with well over a hundred women. Not sure of my actual number, but just to illustrate since I’ve been in Portland [about 4 months] I’ve been with 9 chicks, and the last 2 months I’ve been seeing just one girl. Not saying this to brag, just saying I’ve been with quite a few women and I’ve never once thought of gay porn to keep myself going. If fucking anything without a human vagina gets you going, you’re probably gay.[/quote]
Read about the Kinsey Scale.
[/quote]
I know about the Kinsey scale. I don’t buy it for a second. Sounds like justification for wanting some dudes wang in his mouth.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Yeah Alfred Kinsey didn’t abuse any children.
But a bunch of the priests JPII protects certainly have.[/quote]
You’re an idiot if you think JPII protect priests. Going around running your fucking mouth without any proof.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
But hey, it’s not surprising to see a religious zealot try to discredit any work that normalizes homosexuality.[/quote]
What the hell you talking about, man with no proof? I didn’t know QF was a religious zealot, you should let him know that he’s a zealot.
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
He’s probably bisexual and has suppressed his gay side so long that it’s the only thing that turns him on anymore.
[/quote]
I’ve talked to a coupe of gay dudes who’ve slept with women about this, and they all say they don’t believe in bisexuality. You’re either straigh or your gay. They experiemnted 'cause to them it’s just sex, but they got nothing out of it. Always found that interesting.[/quote]
I read an interview with a male pornstar and his wife at the time. I think he said that he’s thought of–not sure if he actually made any films–gay porn to arouse him during a scene with a woman, and the comment was that, after banging so many hot chicks, you need a new taboo to get you going sometimes.
Yes, I know our Pushharder from Montana will come in guns blazin and deny this, but I don’t think it’s entirely unbelievable, especially given the lifestyle of some of these people.[/quote]
Ponce, I’ve been with well over a hundred women. Not sure of my actual number, but just to illustrate since I’ve been in Portland [about 4 months] I’ve been with 9 chicks, and the last 2 months I’ve been seeing just one girl. Not saying this to brag, just saying I’ve been with quite a few women and I’ve never once thought of gay porn to keep myself going. If fucking anything without a human vagina gets you going, you’re probably gay.[/quote]
Read about the Kinsey Scale.
[/quote]
I know about the Kinsey scale. I don’t buy it for a second. Sounds like justification for wanting some dudes wang in his mouth.[/quote]
Not only are you Captain of Haters, and Hater of all Haters…you are not a Religious Zealot.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Yeah Alfred Kinsey didn’t abuse any children.
But a bunch of the priests JPII protects certainly have.[/quote]
Going around running your fucking mouth without any proof. [/quote]
…Says the Catholic.
Proof? The countless examples of Catholic priests caught molesting boys raises questions. If the world allowed for a candid inquisition of the Catholic Church, we would find out the rabbit hole goes deeper than many thought.
EDIT: Letter Shows Future Pope Stalled Pedophile Case - ABC News
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
But hey, it’s not surprising to see a religious zealot try to discredit any work that normalizes homosexuality.[/quote]
What the hell you talking about, man with no proof? I didn’t know QF was a religious zealot, you should let him know that he’s a zealot.[/quote]
Who is QF?
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Yeah Alfred Kinsey didn’t abuse any children.
But a bunch of the priests JPII protects certainly have.[/quote]
Going around running your fucking mouth without any proof. [/quote]
…Says the Catholic.
Proof? The countless examples of Catholic priests caught molesting boys raises questions. If the world allowed for a candid inquisition of the Catholic Church, we would find out the rabbit hole goes deeper than many thought.
EDIT: Letter Shows Future Pope Stalled Pedophile Case - ABC News
[/quote]
- Pope Benedict XVI =/= John Paul II
- The Catholic Church has a LEGAL system, where people have RIGHTS. Properly you have to go through the legal system to defrock someone
- Bishops are the judge in such cases
3.1) The Cali Priest already asked to be laicized
3.2) The Cali Priest was already out of public ministry - Joseph Ratzinger was not in a position to deal with the abuse of children
- Joseph Ratzinger worked as a Prefect in which he dealt with the abuse of Sacraments
- The letter has already been proven to be a MISTRANSLATION
- Here is a list of other things that shows the AP story is nothing more than yellow as a sunflower.
[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
[quote]QuadasarusFlex wrote:
[quote]defenderofTruth wrote:
In addition, he began to solicit the input of the sexual capacity of children, as young as 2. Seeing as no children that young engage in sexual acts on their own, this meant that adults needed to rape them in order to report any findings. Kinsey assumed that the tears and screams of the children they raped were tears and screams of orgasm, and as such, he called for the legalization of sex with children.
[/quote]
Going to have to call bullshit here. Wheres your proof?[/quote]
Coming from the guy who just said:
“While Heff was out showcasing women’s bodies for men to gawk at and lust over, JPII was educating people on what real love means. While Heff’s way produces behavior that is essentially destructive, JPII’s way produces behavior that is edifies both the self and society.”
And with a dash of irony from the post discrediting Kinsey because of “bias.”
Yep, no bias from defenderofTruth. None whatsoever.
Please don’t inject politics or religion into this thread. There’s a whole subforum for that.[/quote]
The guy Ponce quoted is QF.