Home | Download | Discussion | Help | Site Map | New Posts | Sign in

Latest Site News

Nysha's New Creators for March - posted on 1st Apr 2018 at 9:00 AM
Replies: 90 (Who?), Viewed: 12263 times.
Page 2 of 4
Test Subject
#26 Old 6th May 2014 at 10:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hugbug993
Actually, he said he was bored of the thread and all the participants. Which is, of course, why he came to another thread and tried to duplicate it. I think he's just scared of me, since he fled the thread after I showed up.


Who in the "blue hell" are you!?!
Are you follow'n me bitch?

Just to let you know, I don't go for no "crazy ass net-stalkers".

I'm not trying to dupe nothing. I just thought it was funny that some "button up to the throat, doesn't look down in case she notices her own boobs" Victorian, claims to be LIBERAL.
Top Secret Researcher
#27 Old 6th May 2014 at 10:33 PM
Of course, if two people on the same forums happen to visit the same thread, it must be stalking. No other explanation. Also, I have a collection of your pubic hairs.

Also, I seem to notice a difference between liberals and Victorians. Namely, that liberals are not in favor of child prostitution and putting skirts on tables because the legs are too erotic.
Or, for that matter, a difference between putting sexual harassment in a game and anything else.

I see you've discovered that you can agree with your own posts, as well.
Test Subject
#28 Old 6th May 2014 at 11:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hugbug993
Of course, if two people on the same forums happen to visit the same thread, it must be stalking. No other explanation. Also, I have a collection of your pubic hairs.

Also, I seem to notice a difference between liberals and Victorians. Namely, that liberals are not in favor of child prostitution and putting skirts on tables because the legs are too erotic.
Or, for that matter, a difference between putting sexual harassment in a game and anything else.


DO NOT OPERATE HEAVY MACHINERY WHILE READING THE ABOVE POST
Mad Poster
#29 Old 6th May 2014 at 11:13 PM
Theorist
#30 Old 6th May 2014 at 11:19 PM
Nope, not wearing pants in this thread either.
Top Secret Researcher
#31 Old 6th May 2014 at 11:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by misterprickly
DO NOT OPERATE HEAVY MACHINERY WHILE READING THE ABOVE POST


Lightweight. Can't hold your posts at all.
world renowned whogivesafuckologist
staff: retired moderator
#32 Old 7th May 2014 at 8:04 AM
*looks down at cleavagey top and knee-length skirt, glances in mirror at purple/pink/turquoise hair, looks confused*

Nope, sorry, still liberal as fuck, just don't like EVERY DAMN THING to be low/high cut.

Also, I LOVE my boobs. They're awesome. I will bear no accusation that I do not love my own boobs. Or others' boobs. I have a framed picture of my BFF's boobs on my bookshelf, just above the Big Book of Breasts and the Big Book of Butts. FACT.

Crazy, I know, but it is actually possible to love and appreciate the female form without objectifying and/or making uncomfortable the actual human life support system for tits standing in front of you.

my simblr (sometimes nsfw)

“Dude, suckin’ at something is the first step to being sorta good at something.”
Panquecas, panquecas e mais panquecas.
The Great AntiJen
staff: moderator
#33 Old 7th May 2014 at 4:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hugbug993
I see you've discovered that you can agree with your own posts, as well.

I always thought that was a very handy feature.

Polgannon: Who Murdered Blaise Penhaligan?
(3rd ed. neighbourhood now available with corrections). Poll: http://strawpoll.me/6689876

Polls: length of neighbourhood play: http://www.strawpoll.me/10908815 & http://www.strawpoll.me/10908842

Thread for yakking about making TS2 stuff
Alchemist
#34 Old 7th May 2014 at 6:09 PM Last edited by Johnny_Bravo : 7th May 2014 at 8:21 PM.
How did I miss this?

This is my place, and I managed to miss this. I even managed to miss Mistermook not wearing any pants, even though I can sense it.


Up, M'Lady, pack your things // This place is not your home
__________
Need help building? We'll help.
Test Subject
#35 Old 8th May 2014 at 4:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by HystericalParoxysm
*looks down at cleavagey top and knee-length skirt, glances in mirror at purple/pink/turquoise hair, looks confused*

Nope, sorry, still liberal as fuck, just don't like EVERY DAMN THING to be low/high cut.

Also, I LOVE my boobs. They're awesome. I will bear no accusation that I do not love my own boobs. Or others' boobs. I have a framed picture of my BFF's boobs on my bookshelf, just above the Big Book of Breasts and the Big Book of Butts. FACT.

Crazy, I know, but it is actually possible to love and appreciate the female form without objectifying and/or making uncomfortable the actual human life support system for tits standing in front of you.


Typical reaction; which is OVER REACTION
Has to evoke the "O word" (objectification) like it's some kind of boogeyman.

NEWS FLASH
The universe is made of objects and all living things objectify.

What we eat, what we drink, what we read, the clothes we wear, the way you cut/style your hair, the things we use to tantalize and excite us are ALL a result of objectification.

Did I just blow yer mind or what?
Former Hamster
staff: retired moderator
#36 Old 8th May 2014 at 5:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by misterprickly
Did I just blow yer mind or what?


Not mine, sorry. That happened years ago when I got a bit over-objectified at a Def Leppard (Krokus and Quiet Riot, too) concert.

What? I did just says years ago. Yep, I'm old. Really old. Huh. There's always the possibility that AGE is responsible here..
world renowned whogivesafuckologist
staff: retired moderator
#37 Old 8th May 2014 at 7:19 AM

my simblr (sometimes nsfw)

“Dude, suckin’ at something is the first step to being sorta good at something.”
Panquecas, panquecas e mais panquecas.
Mad Poster
#38 Old 8th May 2014 at 12:13 PM Last edited by simmer22 : 8th May 2014 at 12:37 PM.
Quote:
Originally Posted by misterprickly
The universe is made of objects and all living things objectify.


Newsflash!

The world is not made of objects. It's made of atoms, which again is made of protons, electrons and neutrons, which again are made up of quarks. And inbetween the atoms, there's nothing. And there's a lot more nothing than something. So all objects, and even all living things, and even the space between all the living things are really a big bunch of nothingness with a little something thrown in.

When things form an object, it only means that the atoms are just a little bit tighter thrown together than when they form liquids or air.

Did I just blow yer mind or what?

As for boobs, they're not there to jiggle or bounce or make men go all caveman. They are there to feed babies. Evolution will have to account for why men have boobs as well, and sociology will have to account for why in the western culture girls are 'supposed' to show as much boobs as possible without actually showing them, while in other cultures boobs can jingle freely without men going drooly. It's a culture thing. If something is inaccessible or hard to get, it automatically becomes something to yearn for. It's why western culture teenage boys go all "I saw her boobs! It was awesome!" while in certain other cultures they don't because women don't even bother to cover their boobs.

Did that blow your mind? No?

How about dynamite?
Test Subject
#39 Old 8th May 2014 at 2:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by simmer22
Newsflash!

The world is not made of objects. It's made of atoms, which again is made of protons, electrons and neutrons, which again are made up of quarks. And inbetween the atoms, there's nothing. And there's a lot more nothing than something. So all objects, and even all living things, and even the space between all the living things are really a big bunch of nothingness with a little something thrown in.

When things form an object, it only means that the atoms are just a little bit tighter thrown together than when they form liquids or air.

Did I just blow yer mind or what?

As for boobs, they're not there to jiggle or bounce or make men go all caveman. They are there to feed babies. Evolution will have to account for why men have boobs as well, and sociology will have to account for why in the western culture girls are 'supposed' to show as much boobs as possible without actually showing them, while in other cultures boobs can jingle freely without men going drooly. It's a culture thing. If something is inaccessible or hard to get, it automatically becomes something to yearn for. It's why western culture teenage boys go all "I saw her boobs! It was awesome!" while in certain other cultures they don't because women don't even bother to cover their boobs.

Did that blow your mind? No?

How about dynamite?


BIG disagree!
Even the individual sub atomic particles are STILL objects.
A single electron, proton or neutron is still an object.
An even a beginning paleontology student will tell you that it's because of their physical appeal that humans have developed the way they have.
This is the reason why HUMAN males have the biggest dicks over all the other primate based life forms and why HUMAN women have the nicest breasts and shapeliest butts.

Also... Going gaga over tits isn't a "western thing" look at any part of the eastern hemisphere and you'll find breast love to.
The Europeans love tits.
The Slavic's love tits.
The Mediterranean's love tits.
The African nations love tits.
Even the ASIANS love tits!

BTW

There just called "man-boobs", they're not ACTUAL boobs. XP
It's like how... It's called "a blow" but there's no blowing involved.
Née whiterider
staff: administrator
#40 Old 8th May 2014 at 2:25 PM

What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact.
Mad Poster
#41 Old 8th May 2014 at 2:28 PM
Loving breasts is a CULTURAL thing of humans. You don't see other primates falling head over heels for seeing other primates' udders. You don't see bulls being even the slightest bit interested in the udders of a cow, either. Also, if men had more breast tissue and more of the correct hormones, they would be able produce milk. They are actual boobs, they just naturally have too little of the milk-producing hormone. It's why females don't usually have milk, either. Men can get breast cancer, just like women, and breast cancer happens in breast tissue.

In the animal kingdom, it's usually the males who have to do the work. Peacocks with tail feathers, for instance. If males wanna get some, they better have something to show for it. Bigger seem better, and we're simple like that...

And any sane girl would tell you that big isn't always best. Big breasts can cause quite severe back pain. Big equipment isn't what most girls are after, either, particularly when it's shoved up you-know-where.

An object happens where atoms are so tightly bound that they can't move apart easily. An atom in itself is not an object. You don't call oxygen an object, do you? Oxygen is just as much made up of atoms as a chair is, and you can't sit on oxygen.
Top Secret Researcher
#42 Old 8th May 2014 at 3:14 PM
It's like someone tried to make a male sexbot, but bound up all the patriarchal self-hatred and perceived obsession with sexuality instead of making a personality.

Hey! Dude! Answer me this: if it's natural for men to like breasts, why do women dislike it when you ogle us?
Test Subject
#43 Old 8th May 2014 at 3:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by simmer22
Loving breasts is a CULTURAL thing of humans. You don't see other primates falling head over heels for seeing other primates' udders. You don't see bulls being even the slightest bit interested in the udders of a cow, either. Also, if men had more breast tissue and more of the correct hormones, they would be able produce milk. They are actual boobs, they just naturally have too little of the milk-producing hormone. It's why females don't usually have milk, either. Men can get breast cancer, just like women, and breast cancer happens in breast tissue.

In the animal kingdom, it's usually the males who have to do the work. Peacocks with tail feathers, for instance. If males wanna get some, they better have something to show for it. Bigger seem better, and we're simple like that...

And any sane girl would tell you that big isn't always best. Big breasts can cause quite severe back pain. Big equipment isn't what most girls are after, either, particularly when it's shoved up you-know-where.

An object happens where atoms are so tightly bound that they can't move apart easily. An atom in itself is not an object. You don't call oxygen an object, do you? Oxygen is just as much made up of atoms as a chair is, and you can't sit on oxygen.


1) culture has nothing to do with it; it's BOILOGY!
2) Every creature is attracted to what they find attractive be it the colouring, size, shape etc.
3)There is a difference between breast tissue and body fat.
4) Everybody should know by now that size does NOT equal quality... Horses are well endowed but that doesn't make them good lovers.
5) An object is an object regardless of it's size and number of particles. Oxygen IS an object; even though it lacks weight, colour or scent it doesn't make it any less an object than a chair.
OH! When placed inside a flexible membrane, like that of an "inflatable chair", one CAN sit upon oxygen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hugbug993
Hey! Dude! Answer me this: if it's natural for men to like breasts, why do women dislike it when you ogle us?


Because they are taught to. DUH! :p
Top Secret Researcher
#44 Old 8th May 2014 at 3:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by misterprickly
1) culture has nothing to do with it; it's BOILOGY!

Because they are taught to. DUH! :p


Test Subject
#45 Old 8th May 2014 at 4:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hugbug993


WOW!
I thought the republican convention was full of ignorant fucks!

Thank you all for showing me otherwise.
Top Secret Researcher
#46 Old 8th May 2014 at 4:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by misterprickly
WOW!
I thought the republican convention was full of ignorant fucks!

Thank you all for showing me otherwise.


Yes, I know the truth hurts, but we can't keep you looking dumber than a republican, can we?

It's a simple question: if this is true, what's your proof?
world renowned whogivesafuckologist
staff: retired moderator
#47 Old 8th May 2014 at 4:23 PM
Oi. This forum is not a free-for-all. It's supposed to be fun. Poking fun is fine, but don't be a dick. Take it too far and I'll have to start giving a fuck and like, doing actual work and... I -hate- doing that.

my simblr (sometimes nsfw)

“Dude, suckin’ at something is the first step to being sorta good at something.”
Panquecas, panquecas e mais panquecas.
Mad Poster
#48 Old 8th May 2014 at 4:27 PM Last edited by simmer22 : 8th May 2014 at 11:14 PM.
Boilogy... The science of cooking?

Oh, and why do men usually get all red and flushy if they're caught naked, and instinctively cover up their equipment? Gee, I wonder why! (not really). It's culture. Western culture is all about "show the most without actually showing it" unless it's unintentional, of course. It's not biology. Not directly, anyway.

There is a difference between body fat and breast tissue, but men have breast tissue, believe it or not. They just have less of it. Their nipples might be more for decoration than for actual use in men, but given enough stimulation in form of hormones, and they will work. Female breasts don't produce milk without hormones, either. They don't even grow to look like female-sized breasts without hormones, either.

And just for the sake of a reasonable argument, the definition of object, from dictionary.com:

Quote:
1. anything that is visible or tangible and is relatively stable in form.
2. a thing, person, or matter to which thought or action is directed: an object of medical investigation.
3. the end toward which effort or action is directed; goal; purpose: Profit is the object of business.
4. a person or thing with reference to the impression made on the mind or the feeling or emotion elicited in an observer: an object of curiosity and pity.
5. anything that may be apprehended intellectually: objects of thought.


An oxygen bottle is an object, but the oxygen in it is not paticularly visible, tangible or stable in form. So in the first sense, oxygen is not directly an "object". The definitions are open for discussion, of course. Some would say oxygen is an object under some of the definitions, but perhaps not under others. It's not an object that you can directly touch or grasp, and it's not directly visible. In the sense I meant above, oxygen isn't an object in the way a chair or a house is.

In the case of an inflatable chair, you're sitting on air pressure, not oxygen. You can't sit on oxygen if it's on its own.
Top Secret Researcher
#49 Old 8th May 2014 at 4:46 PM
In any case, you don't objectify oxygen. Unless you're pervy that way.



Ooh, look at the shape of those electrons! OI, OXYGEN, STICK YOUR PROTONS OUT!



Watch them bond! Those dirty, dirty atoms...



Oxygen's having a threesome with little atoms!



It's an orgy!
Mad Poster
#50 Old 8th May 2014 at 5:01 PM Last edited by simmer22 : 8th May 2014 at 5:58 PM.
*wipes off blackboard*
Instead of a nice little rant about atoms, you get a jumping bunny. Isn't it cute?



How on Earth did we get from the whole "firing HP" thing to chemistry lessons, anyway?
Page 2 of 4
Back to top