I'm not a woman, nor have I been raped, but I would say yes. A good friend of mine was raped when she was 17 and she is still fucked over it. She is an amazing chick, yet hasn't had a lasting relationship since then.
---
i mean, not to make light of this conversation... but if you accidentally put it into the wrong* hole, that's rape
*any hole not previously agreed upon
Bwahaha, I had a FWB a while back that actually would take it in the pooper, but on one occasion, she got a surprise. It was completely unintentional, and she was on top, so I was innocent, but the look on her face was pretty funny.
I don't have the time it takes to recover from the day
I sit and moan and mope and groan and never have my say
A crown of thorns from which is born a little baby bird
To fly away and have its day is nothing but absurd
What do you think is worse? The wrong hole surprise or the full weight dick bend? Or are they about equal you think? Cause while I'm sure accidentally putting it in her butt, especially if she's an anal virgin, is pretty fucking horrible. But it's a hole. It has some give. An erection really doesn't have much give.
What do you think is worse? The wrong hole surprise or the full weight dick bend? Or are they about equal you think? Cause while I'm sure accidentally putting it in her butt, especially if she's an anal virgin, is pretty fucking horrible. But it's a hole. It has some give. An erection really doesn't have much give.
Deep thoughts with Gnomad.
Originally posted by Knifeboy
I appreciate your distrust in the machine that is the medicinal industry
Reddit, where douches rub their douchenobs together and proclaim it a fantastic sword fight. Bunch of low-life twerps, really.
I don't have the time it takes to recover from the day
I sit and moan and mope and groan and never have my say
A crown of thorns from which is born a little baby bird
To fly away and have its day is nothing but absurd
Recently my colleagues and I announced the discovery of a remarkable planet orbiting a special kind of star known as a pulsar. Based on the planet’s density, and the likely history of its system, we concluded…
Pretty good article on how climate science is treated compared to other science
Pretty good article on how climate science is treated compared to other science
Unfortunately, it's just his opinion, as he is no more an expert on the matter than a PhD in Chemistry.
Now, his big revelation was:
"Sadly, the same media commentators who celebrate diamond planets without question are all too quick to dismiss the latest peer-reviewed evidence that suggests man-made activities are responsible for changes in concentrations of CO2 in our atmosphere."
Which is a total strawman argument. I have never seen a single person argue that the increases in atmospheric CO2 cannot be traced to human activity. However, that says nothing about climate change. The climate change models have been very inaccurate. That's the problem.
This guy uses an increase in atmospheric CO2 as if it IS climate change. Quite frankly, that last paragraph makes me question the nature of his entire article.
I don't have the time it takes to recover from the day
I sit and moan and mope and groan and never have my say
A crown of thorns from which is born a little baby bird
To fly away and have its day is nothing but absurd
It's not about the specifics of climate change, as he says he's not a climate scientist.
It's about how the vast majority of climate scientists agree about what's going on, and an increasingly small percentage disagree, yet get disproportionate airtime.
Last edited by Knifeboy; September 14, 2011, 11:14 PM.
Comment