Serious statement regarding bestiality
-
Okay, we all know the John/Goat fiasco of a few months ago was nothing more than humour, but we also all know that some people actually practise that kind of thing. So, my though-provoking question of the week is: "Why?" Why would anyone - under any circumstances - feel able to do such a thing? I suppose just as each person has different tastes, and probably feel the same things slightly differently; to some people it must be possible to have sexual feelings towards a goat, and even an iguanodon. Just look at transvestites. A while back this Anna chick linked to a site that tried to explain why people feel the need to change sex, and they had some very plausible – and pitiful - arguments. A really good one to get you in the correct thinking mood is to ask yourself if you’ve ever had homosexual thoughts. I have done (and do), and I’ve often wondered why that is so. I’ve put it down to hormones, and in particular that little bugger known as testosterone. Now it certainly seems plausible that some people’s bodies get too much of this “side effect” (or the female equivalent), and thus are gay; or too little, and thus are transvestites. Now, surely it must be possible for different people’s bodies to interpret and/or produce this stuff differently, somehow causing them to be attracted to animals? All men know how powerful testosterone is (you can consciously detect it regular as clockwork each evening, when your brain switches into sex mode), but just imagine if instead of girls your brain interpreted this differently and thus used goats instead. Or if that seems a little too “freaky” for you to accept open mindedly, what about guys? What could you do about it? The biological urge to reproduce is one of the most powerful that a human has, regardless of whether you do or not, and constant denial could easily drive you insane. I also can't help thinking that these people really have no choice but to follow where their body takes them. Constantly living in denial and/or abstention only goes to lower their quality of life – and why should they? To fit in with social rulings? Who gave the so called majority the right to dictate what is acceptable? As far as I'm concerned each individual has the right (“god-given” if you’d prefer) to do whatever they want, so long as they don’t break their own moral guidelines. Indeed, this is one of the major problems I have with mass religion. Okay, apart from the fact I choose to believe in the facts I can see rather than a “god”, whatever you may interpret that to
David Wulff wrote: Okay, we all know the John/Goat fiasco of a few months ago was nothing more than humour, but we also all know that some people actually practise that kind of thing. So, my though-provoking question of the week is: "Why?" Why would anyone - under any circumstances - feel able to do such a thing? I don't know why they would, but considering that a seemingly large (and disturbingly large at that) number of people do this, it tends to make you look at lunch meet just a wee bit differently. You just never know where that mutton has been, now do ya... David Wulff wrote: (you can consciously detect it regular as clockwork each evening, when your brain switches into sex mode) You mean your brain isn't always supposed to *be* in sex mode? I think I have to have my switch looked at... David Wulff wrote: but just imagine if instead of girls your brain interpreted this differently and thus used goats instead In some parts of the world, I assume it would be far better to jump a goat. At least a goat has all it's teeth... David Wulff wrote: What do you think? In particular, I’d be interested in any scientific research in this area you could point me to. Well, I wouldn't fuck one of our farmyard friends any sooner than I'd fuck a warm fresh, apple pie, but... now... ummm.... I seem to have forgotten what I was going to say. "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
-
Okay, we all know the John/Goat fiasco of a few months ago was nothing more than humour, but we also all know that some people actually practise that kind of thing. So, my though-provoking question of the week is: "Why?" Why would anyone - under any circumstances - feel able to do such a thing? I suppose just as each person has different tastes, and probably feel the same things slightly differently; to some people it must be possible to have sexual feelings towards a goat, and even an iguanodon. Just look at transvestites. A while back this Anna chick linked to a site that tried to explain why people feel the need to change sex, and they had some very plausible – and pitiful - arguments. A really good one to get you in the correct thinking mood is to ask yourself if you’ve ever had homosexual thoughts. I have done (and do), and I’ve often wondered why that is so. I’ve put it down to hormones, and in particular that little bugger known as testosterone. Now it certainly seems plausible that some people’s bodies get too much of this “side effect” (or the female equivalent), and thus are gay; or too little, and thus are transvestites. Now, surely it must be possible for different people’s bodies to interpret and/or produce this stuff differently, somehow causing them to be attracted to animals? All men know how powerful testosterone is (you can consciously detect it regular as clockwork each evening, when your brain switches into sex mode), but just imagine if instead of girls your brain interpreted this differently and thus used goats instead. Or if that seems a little too “freaky” for you to accept open mindedly, what about guys? What could you do about it? The biological urge to reproduce is one of the most powerful that a human has, regardless of whether you do or not, and constant denial could easily drive you insane. I also can't help thinking that these people really have no choice but to follow where their body takes them. Constantly living in denial and/or abstention only goes to lower their quality of life – and why should they? To fit in with social rulings? Who gave the so called majority the right to dictate what is acceptable? As far as I'm concerned each individual has the right (“god-given” if you’d prefer) to do whatever they want, so long as they don’t break their own moral guidelines. Indeed, this is one of the major problems I have with mass religion. Okay, apart from the fact I choose to believe in the facts I can see rather than a “god”, whatever you may interpret that to
Our society conditions us to believe sex with animals is bad. Some people, devoid of influence, try it anyway and find it pleasurable. (Consider that on a basic level sex is just neurological stimulation.) The realization of this new source of stimulation can create a fantasy that fulfills mental satisfaction. For those that have been conditioned but partake anyway, the fantasy could be defiance. Truthfully, every case is unique. Personally, I have observed a uncomfortably large amount of heterosexual relationships exist under conditioned behavior. For a simple test, ask someone in a relationship what they like about their mate. If they describe physical attributes then it is they were conditioned to believe those attributes are attractive. Men are more prone to this than women. Women more often look for personality in their mate. There are more homosexual women than men (last stat I read). It could be said that attraction to personality types is conditioned also. As for homosexuality, I feel the that conditioning exists on some level. I have spoke with several people that debate otherwise; I do not discount other possibilities. There could be a chemical relation (testosterone, estrogen, etc.) but I think they dictate the desire for action more than the desire for action with a goat. This is just my opinion. I could be wrong. I'll give you chance to retort.
-
Our society conditions us to believe sex with animals is bad. Some people, devoid of influence, try it anyway and find it pleasurable. (Consider that on a basic level sex is just neurological stimulation.) The realization of this new source of stimulation can create a fantasy that fulfills mental satisfaction. For those that have been conditioned but partake anyway, the fantasy could be defiance. Truthfully, every case is unique. Personally, I have observed a uncomfortably large amount of heterosexual relationships exist under conditioned behavior. For a simple test, ask someone in a relationship what they like about their mate. If they describe physical attributes then it is they were conditioned to believe those attributes are attractive. Men are more prone to this than women. Women more often look for personality in their mate. There are more homosexual women than men (last stat I read). It could be said that attraction to personality types is conditioned also. As for homosexuality, I feel the that conditioning exists on some level. I have spoke with several people that debate otherwise; I do not discount other possibilities. There could be a chemical relation (testosterone, estrogen, etc.) but I think they dictate the desire for action more than the desire for action with a goat. This is just my opinion. I could be wrong. I'll give you chance to retort.
First, I disagree with the idea that all human behavior is somehow conditioned. If you look at societies around the world, you do find some behavior which exists across all of them. For example, the perception of beauty is linked to a number of things - such as wealth. Wealth has advantages irregardless of whether society "fools" us into believing it is a trait we want in a mate. What I find interesting is the way that our perceptions of beauty mirror the traits associated with wealth. In the middle ages, large women were considered beautiful. This is because being heavy was a sign of an abundance of food - which is a sign of wealth. Up until the middle of the twentieth century, being pale was beautiful - so models would work to avoid being in the sun, and nobles would employ blood-letting to make themselves more pale. This makes sense when you consider the fact that most work was done outside. As a result, laborers would have tans, wealthy people did not. Now, most jobs have moved indoors and only the wealthy can afford to spend a lot of time outdoors. Now tans are considered beautiful. Hmmmmmm. Another way people measure beauty is physical symmetry. For example, if your face looks the same on both sides, it is more beautiful. Why would society choose this as an attractive trait? In fact, people with greater symmetry tend to have better health and immune systems. This is an important trait to have when choosing a mate, but it's not immediately obvious why society would teach people that symmetry is beautiful (until you know the science behind it). Nevertheless, symmetry was beautiful long before we knew anything about the causes behind it. In short, I think society sometimes holds certain values as important because of evolutionary conditioning. Why isn't beastiality widespread? Because there is no direct evolutionary pressure to engage in the behavior. There are indirect pressures, however, such as a desire for sex. Maybe there is an added thrill in having sex with an animal? (The thrill of getting caught?) Animals are also available and accessible. Women, on the otherhand, can be much less willing to comply with a man's sexual advances.
-
First, I disagree with the idea that all human behavior is somehow conditioned. If you look at societies around the world, you do find some behavior which exists across all of them. For example, the perception of beauty is linked to a number of things - such as wealth. Wealth has advantages irregardless of whether society "fools" us into believing it is a trait we want in a mate. What I find interesting is the way that our perceptions of beauty mirror the traits associated with wealth. In the middle ages, large women were considered beautiful. This is because being heavy was a sign of an abundance of food - which is a sign of wealth. Up until the middle of the twentieth century, being pale was beautiful - so models would work to avoid being in the sun, and nobles would employ blood-letting to make themselves more pale. This makes sense when you consider the fact that most work was done outside. As a result, laborers would have tans, wealthy people did not. Now, most jobs have moved indoors and only the wealthy can afford to spend a lot of time outdoors. Now tans are considered beautiful. Hmmmmmm. Another way people measure beauty is physical symmetry. For example, if your face looks the same on both sides, it is more beautiful. Why would society choose this as an attractive trait? In fact, people with greater symmetry tend to have better health and immune systems. This is an important trait to have when choosing a mate, but it's not immediately obvious why society would teach people that symmetry is beautiful (until you know the science behind it). Nevertheless, symmetry was beautiful long before we knew anything about the causes behind it. In short, I think society sometimes holds certain values as important because of evolutionary conditioning. Why isn't beastiality widespread? Because there is no direct evolutionary pressure to engage in the behavior. There are indirect pressures, however, such as a desire for sex. Maybe there is an added thrill in having sex with an animal? (The thrill of getting caught?) Animals are also available and accessible. Women, on the otherhand, can be much less willing to comply with a man's sexual advances.
AnonymousA wrote: If you look at societies around the world, you do find some behavior which exists across all of them. Humans were not originally scattered all over the world. As groups split and spread across the world they took with them behaviors from the original group. AnonymousA wrote: Wealth has advantages irregardless of whether society "fools" us into believing it is a trait we want in a mate. Wealth is status. It brings peer acceptance and respect due to placement in the social hierarchy. We are conditioned to give these praises. AnonymousA wrote: Another way people measure beauty is physical symmetry. I am aware of the golden ratio but I question its plausibility when used to determine attractiveness in an objective matter. I believe perceptions of beauty are conditioned. Humans are exposed to stimuli from birth. Parents program their children from birth regardless of intention. In order to prove otherwise a baby, upon inception, would have to placed in a room with no interaction or sensory stimuli. (Personally, I believe this would need to begin upon conception.) No one could speak to them and they can not see anyone. Otherwise the child might pick up someone else's behavior. This can not be tested because of human right laws. Using this premise I believe attraction to wealth is conditioned. If someone in the middle ages never observed serfs with tans and nobles without; if s/he never observed other people's behavior toward nobles and serfs, given all other attributes the same, would they still have been attracted to the noble? The same question could be asked for heavy women then and skinny women now. If someone is very sick commonly they will develop a body disproportion. Good health is an attribute we look for in a mate for evolutionary reasons. However, if we never observed this effect of sickness or other people's behavior toward disproportionate people would we feel the same way? AnonymousA wrote: Why isn't beastiality widespread? Because there is no direct evolutionary pressure to engage in the behavior. I agree. AnonymousA wrote: Women, on the otherhand, can be much less willing to comply with a man's sexual advances. I agree. ;)
-
Okay, we all know the John/Goat fiasco of a few months ago was nothing more than humour, but we also all know that some people actually practise that kind of thing. So, my though-provoking question of the week is: "Why?" Why would anyone - under any circumstances - feel able to do such a thing? I suppose just as each person has different tastes, and probably feel the same things slightly differently; to some people it must be possible to have sexual feelings towards a goat, and even an iguanodon. Just look at transvestites. A while back this Anna chick linked to a site that tried to explain why people feel the need to change sex, and they had some very plausible – and pitiful - arguments. A really good one to get you in the correct thinking mood is to ask yourself if you’ve ever had homosexual thoughts. I have done (and do), and I’ve often wondered why that is so. I’ve put it down to hormones, and in particular that little bugger known as testosterone. Now it certainly seems plausible that some people’s bodies get too much of this “side effect” (or the female equivalent), and thus are gay; or too little, and thus are transvestites. Now, surely it must be possible for different people’s bodies to interpret and/or produce this stuff differently, somehow causing them to be attracted to animals? All men know how powerful testosterone is (you can consciously detect it regular as clockwork each evening, when your brain switches into sex mode), but just imagine if instead of girls your brain interpreted this differently and thus used goats instead. Or if that seems a little too “freaky” for you to accept open mindedly, what about guys? What could you do about it? The biological urge to reproduce is one of the most powerful that a human has, regardless of whether you do or not, and constant denial could easily drive you insane. I also can't help thinking that these people really have no choice but to follow where their body takes them. Constantly living in denial and/or abstention only goes to lower their quality of life – and why should they? To fit in with social rulings? Who gave the so called majority the right to dictate what is acceptable? As far as I'm concerned each individual has the right (“god-given” if you’d prefer) to do whatever they want, so long as they don’t break their own moral guidelines. Indeed, this is one of the major problems I have with mass religion. Okay, apart from the fact I choose to believe in the facts I can see rather than a “god”, whatever you may interpret that to
Please note that this is not a scientifically researched reply (unless you consider off the cuff replies scientific) David Wulff wrote: and even an iguanodon Now, now. Be careful about giving John any ammo to use against you :) I have to say though that while I am a pretty tolerant guy towards other peoples choices, beliefs and desires, bestiality really perplexes and rather revolts me. I honestly cannot see the pleasure someone can get out of it. Then again I can only barely understand the pleasure people get out of one night stands and having sex just for sex sake with another human. I think though that being a transvestite and being into bestiality are two totally different things. Done for, or caused by, different reasons. You should read an issue of Time magazine I read a few months ago which goes into quite a lot of detail about transvestites, homosexuality, transgenderism etc. Very interesting stuff. Bottom line for me is that while I may be revolted at the thought of beastiality if other people want to practice it and they find willing animals then they can go ahead. regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa Do you Sonork? I do! 100.9903 Stormfront "The greatest thing you will ever learn is to love, and be loved in return" - Moulin Rouge
-
Please note that this is not a scientifically researched reply (unless you consider off the cuff replies scientific) David Wulff wrote: and even an iguanodon Now, now. Be careful about giving John any ammo to use against you :) I have to say though that while I am a pretty tolerant guy towards other peoples choices, beliefs and desires, bestiality really perplexes and rather revolts me. I honestly cannot see the pleasure someone can get out of it. Then again I can only barely understand the pleasure people get out of one night stands and having sex just for sex sake with another human. I think though that being a transvestite and being into bestiality are two totally different things. Done for, or caused by, different reasons. You should read an issue of Time magazine I read a few months ago which goes into quite a lot of detail about transvestites, homosexuality, transgenderism etc. Very interesting stuff. Bottom line for me is that while I may be revolted at the thought of beastiality if other people want to practice it and they find willing animals then they can go ahead. regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa Do you Sonork? I do! 100.9903 Stormfront "The greatest thing you will ever learn is to love, and be loved in return" - Moulin Rouge
iguanodon..sounds sexy.. I wanna date one I oughta run and get there before John
**Paul Watson wrote:
**if other people want to practice it and they find willing animals then they can go ahead
You can't charge them animals with soliciting because apparently they don't know what is going on behind them - on the other hand ignorance of law is no excuse to break it. I am sure there might be many willing people out there if any good book offers iguanodons to them martyrs. :eek: :eek: -
Please note that this is not a scientifically researched reply (unless you consider off the cuff replies scientific) David Wulff wrote: and even an iguanodon Now, now. Be careful about giving John any ammo to use against you :) I have to say though that while I am a pretty tolerant guy towards other peoples choices, beliefs and desires, bestiality really perplexes and rather revolts me. I honestly cannot see the pleasure someone can get out of it. Then again I can only barely understand the pleasure people get out of one night stands and having sex just for sex sake with another human. I think though that being a transvestite and being into bestiality are two totally different things. Done for, or caused by, different reasons. You should read an issue of Time magazine I read a few months ago which goes into quite a lot of detail about transvestites, homosexuality, transgenderism etc. Very interesting stuff. Bottom line for me is that while I may be revolted at the thought of beastiality if other people want to practice it and they find willing animals then they can go ahead. regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa Do you Sonork? I do! 100.9903 Stormfront "The greatest thing you will ever learn is to love, and be loved in return" - Moulin Rouge
Paul Watson wrote: I honestly cannot see the pleasure someone can get out of it. ‘Stop being so picky about who you sleep with because it all feels the same in the dark.’ -- character from Mad TV Paul Watson wrote: Then again I can only barely understand the pleasure people get out of one night stands and having sex just for sex sake with another human. On the same note, I barely understand the pleasure people get out of having sex with another human. What it this obsession of putting the inflating protrusion in the incubation portal? Is it like the satisfaction of completing a puzzle? Paul Watson wrote: Bottom line for me is that while I may be revolted at the thought of beastiality if other people want to practice it and they find willing animals then they can go ahead. If it prevents them from killing someone because of sexual frustration then by all means.
-
Okay, we all know the John/Goat fiasco of a few months ago was nothing more than humour, but we also all know that some people actually practise that kind of thing. So, my though-provoking question of the week is: "Why?" Why would anyone - under any circumstances - feel able to do such a thing? I suppose just as each person has different tastes, and probably feel the same things slightly differently; to some people it must be possible to have sexual feelings towards a goat, and even an iguanodon. Just look at transvestites. A while back this Anna chick linked to a site that tried to explain why people feel the need to change sex, and they had some very plausible – and pitiful - arguments. A really good one to get you in the correct thinking mood is to ask yourself if you’ve ever had homosexual thoughts. I have done (and do), and I’ve often wondered why that is so. I’ve put it down to hormones, and in particular that little bugger known as testosterone. Now it certainly seems plausible that some people’s bodies get too much of this “side effect” (or the female equivalent), and thus are gay; or too little, and thus are transvestites. Now, surely it must be possible for different people’s bodies to interpret and/or produce this stuff differently, somehow causing them to be attracted to animals? All men know how powerful testosterone is (you can consciously detect it regular as clockwork each evening, when your brain switches into sex mode), but just imagine if instead of girls your brain interpreted this differently and thus used goats instead. Or if that seems a little too “freaky” for you to accept open mindedly, what about guys? What could you do about it? The biological urge to reproduce is one of the most powerful that a human has, regardless of whether you do or not, and constant denial could easily drive you insane. I also can't help thinking that these people really have no choice but to follow where their body takes them. Constantly living in denial and/or abstention only goes to lower their quality of life – and why should they? To fit in with social rulings? Who gave the so called majority the right to dictate what is acceptable? As far as I'm concerned each individual has the right (“god-given” if you’d prefer) to do whatever they want, so long as they don’t break their own moral guidelines. Indeed, this is one of the major problems I have with mass religion. Okay, apart from the fact I choose to believe in the facts I can see rather than a “god”, whatever you may interpret that to
David Wulff wrote: That is wrong. Very wrong Just curious, David. I don't fault you your position on religion. I probably share many of your views. I have often described myself as an athiest to relgious people, although I am more than willing to believe that there is a God, and kind of like the idea of there being one. However, one of the things I've never understood is the basis upon which non-relgious people declare things to be "wrong" in a moral sense. I mean, if you do not believe that there is an ultimate (devine) source of moral authority than what does it mean for something to be "wrong" morally? For example, if I want to discriminate against someone who has sex in some way that I do not approve of for religious reasons - who are you to tell me I am "wrong"? Upon what source of moral authority do you base that judgement of me? Are you not in the same situation of judging me for my failure to measure up to your moral standards as I am for judging them for not measuring up to mine? What is the difference? Are you not being just as judgemental in defense of your morality as the religious people are of their's? How have you improved the very situation of which you complain? Are you not doing exactly the same thing, only worse, because you are free to make up any morality you like, unencumbered by the pesky presence of "holy scripture"? "Morality" can be whatever you want it to be from day to day. The big problem in living in a religious vacume is that there suddenly becomes no bedrock upon which to build a moral infrastructure. Consider that many of the "moral" codes that we subscribe to today, began as religious arguments. Slavery and racism are good examples of cultural movements which began in churches. I challange you to convince me why racism is "wrong" without resorting to an appeal to my religious beliefs. How do you convince an athiest that something, anything, is immoral? I don't know. Its a question I puzzle with a lot. "But, daddy, that was back in the hippie ages..." My twelve year old son - winning the argument. "Stan, you are an intelligent guy who responds in meaningful ways" Paul Watson 16/10/01
-
David Wulff wrote: That is wrong. Very wrong Just curious, David. I don't fault you your position on religion. I probably share many of your views. I have often described myself as an athiest to relgious people, although I am more than willing to believe that there is a God, and kind of like the idea of there being one. However, one of the things I've never understood is the basis upon which non-relgious people declare things to be "wrong" in a moral sense. I mean, if you do not believe that there is an ultimate (devine) source of moral authority than what does it mean for something to be "wrong" morally? For example, if I want to discriminate against someone who has sex in some way that I do not approve of for religious reasons - who are you to tell me I am "wrong"? Upon what source of moral authority do you base that judgement of me? Are you not in the same situation of judging me for my failure to measure up to your moral standards as I am for judging them for not measuring up to mine? What is the difference? Are you not being just as judgemental in defense of your morality as the religious people are of their's? How have you improved the very situation of which you complain? Are you not doing exactly the same thing, only worse, because you are free to make up any morality you like, unencumbered by the pesky presence of "holy scripture"? "Morality" can be whatever you want it to be from day to day. The big problem in living in a religious vacume is that there suddenly becomes no bedrock upon which to build a moral infrastructure. Consider that many of the "moral" codes that we subscribe to today, began as religious arguments. Slavery and racism are good examples of cultural movements which began in churches. I challange you to convince me why racism is "wrong" without resorting to an appeal to my religious beliefs. How do you convince an athiest that something, anything, is immoral? I don't know. Its a question I puzzle with a lot. "But, daddy, that was back in the hippie ages..." My twelve year old son - winning the argument. "Stan, you are an intelligent guy who responds in meaningful ways" Paul Watson 16/10/01
Firstly, I was stating that "religions make a habit of excluding people because they are not what the originators’ deemed as normal" was very very wrong, not religion, though obviously I share that belief too. But I respect a persons right to hold their own beliefs enough not to have stated that. Stan Shannon wrote: I mean, if you do not believe that there is an ultimate (devine) source of moral authority than what does it mean for something to be "wrong" morally? Each person has a sense of what is morally right and what is morally wrong. No two people will ever share exactly the same set of moral standards to the same extent, so a devine source or moral authority is irrelavent. Even today when we supposedly have this devine source, we each use our own to guide us. Stan Shannon wrote: For example, if I want to discriminate against someone who has sex in some way that I do not approve of for religious reasons - who are you to tell me I am "wrong"? If I was to believe it was wrong (and this would only be if the other party disaproved), then I would base my moral reasoning on the fact that I do not believe anybody - read: anybody, including individuals, priests, and even governments - has a right to force their views or practises onto a person without their will. This stems from the simple "do not do unto others what you do not want done unto yourself", wherever that came from. This stems from personal experience and observation, which I would argue is the root of each persons morality. Obviously though, I can never tell you that you are wrong, as there is no set of rules laid down by nature as to what is right and what is wrong. This, of course, is where devine entity religions tries to chip in by throwing in their own solution. In the absense of a definative answer, all I could do was to tell you my view and hope that you are willing to accept it. I would never try to force this upon you if you were not willing, as this would only go to strengthen your defiance of the view. That is something religious nuts should take heed of (and I mean religios "nuts", not people who are religious). Stan Shannon wrote: Are you not being just as judgemental in defense of your morality as the religious people are of their's? Of course. The only difference is that I seek to provide evidence that everyone can physically see in the world around them, rather then spiritual or otherwise unobservable evid
-
David Wulff wrote: Okay, we all know the John/Goat fiasco of a few months ago was nothing more than humour, but we also all know that some people actually practise that kind of thing. So, my though-provoking question of the week is: "Why?" Why would anyone - under any circumstances - feel able to do such a thing? I don't know why they would, but considering that a seemingly large (and disturbingly large at that) number of people do this, it tends to make you look at lunch meet just a wee bit differently. You just never know where that mutton has been, now do ya... David Wulff wrote: (you can consciously detect it regular as clockwork each evening, when your brain switches into sex mode) You mean your brain isn't always supposed to *be* in sex mode? I think I have to have my switch looked at... David Wulff wrote: but just imagine if instead of girls your brain interpreted this differently and thus used goats instead In some parts of the world, I assume it would be far better to jump a goat. At least a goat has all it's teeth... David Wulff wrote: What do you think? In particular, I’d be interested in any scientific research in this area you could point me to. Well, I wouldn't fuck one of our farmyard friends any sooner than I'd fuck a warm fresh, apple pie, but... now... ummm.... I seem to have forgotten what I was going to say. "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: David Wulff wrote: but just imagine if instead of girls your brain interpreted this differently and thus used goats instead In some parts of the world, I assume it would be far better to jump a goat. At least a goat has all it's teeth... Sounds like you've been to Bullhead City, John... We rate a lady as a '9' if she has three kids, three teeth, & three tatoos. If she has a car, she's a ten!
