emma78
Emma78
emma78

The poster asked directly about people who only become aroused with people who they find attractive. Then asked directly about if you could find someone attractive who did not have the genitalia that you are expecting. If we are going to be about accepting very individual experiences of sex and learning to

I get how two asexuals are married to each other. But how is it that an asexual is married to a person who is not asexual? Does your wife have sexual relationships with others? Do you have sex with her in order to pleasure her but not receive any yourself?

-Is sexual attraction an all or nothing deal? You and others say 'if I am attracted to someone' but that statement doesn't leave room for an in between state. I assume that you didn't intend for it to be that way, so is it safe to also assume that how sexually attracted you are directly relates to how good the sex

Yes I understand that, but I thought that was sort of the definition of a libido in the first place.

Yes, for me it changes the way it feels. Maybe it's different for men; likely different for different people. But absolutely, when I'm not attracted to the person, there is no way I could become aroused in the first place, and then sex while unaroused would just be really — unpleasant.

I dunno. That has always been what confused me too. Last time I had this conversation, it was explained to me this way. Picture someone that you absolutely do not find attractive at all. Like, a child or something. Or a really elderly ill person. Someone/something for whom there is no way you could have any sort

Now playing

Here's a good little intro- live acoustic radio appearance of his last project with an interview about previous career stuff.

Yup for sure. You've got me thinking sort of more clearly about some of this. Saudi Arabia- no isn't like what ISIS wants. Thing is, it's run by a royal and business oligarchy. Most of those people in control there (making the deals with the US etc) are not wahhabi terrorists or even sympathizers. They are all

Thanks I'll check them out!

Yea I don't listen to the radio at all. Right now, my favorite musician is Andrew Bird. He has a lot of range from jazz/swing in his early career, indie rock in about the middle, then some more folkish/country right now. I don't listen to much modern rock n roll so I really can't tell you much about that, but what

Yea I agree with both of you and think you are saying the same thing. You must provide children with real culture if you don't want them to accept mass-produced consumer culture as an alternative. Real culture is about you and your life. Consumer culture is about the company that produces it. So- what is actually

Well two things. First, if you like what you like, then no prob- carry on! Second, don't be so dismissive of all new music (if that is what you are doing) as that really just means that you haven't heard anything you like, not that it doesn't exist. Not saying that you should take the time to explore it either

Most people are just not that interested in these things. I think a lot of this is product of class/exposure/education. The average person on the street (which is what Mills is talking about) is not going to be into music enough to know who any of those people are, and I don't think it's anything to be embarrassed

Yes, this exactly. Also, yes, most kids these days probably don't know who Paul McCartney is which is totally natural and normal. But any kid who really gets into music will know who he is (not saying they will worship him in the way a boomer-fixated culture did, but they will know him) which is usually how it works

Wahhabism comes out of Saudi Arabia, and is funded mostly by urban rich elite there. Certainly the backward conservatism of it appeals to rural people who have no experience with technology or modern processed food, etc. But the leadership and funding has always come from very modern people with a completely insane

These are the hardcore terrorists. They are just different from the ones ten years ago. This is the new wave of hardcore terrorism. They are well-funded and well-trained led by battle-hardened thugs- it's wahhabism with loads of US money and weapons. Some of them are Western born, all of them are Western

Sections of the border with Turkey is wide open, as is most of the Syrian-Iraqi border. Part of the reason they have had any success is that they are able to cross between countries and fight from several regions all at once. They move back and forth with ease. I'm far less concerned that they can run over to

One more thing real quick though- they don't go to trial for homicide. In most cases, they aren't even indicted. If they were to go to trial, there is a much bigger chance they'd be found guilty. Best I understand it (and I really never paid attention until recently to this issue), the judicial system flaw is

That's probably true. Also, I think it's true that a lot of times, seeing how quickly things escalate from the cop's POV can help the cop. It's easy to take the situation apart later and say what should have happened. I wish there were a video in the Brown shooting. When you hear the different versions of the

I don't think you get to decide at which point other people's words are the end. She wrote like ten posts in this thread. She talked about grabbing and hitting, both of which I think are totally normal depending on context and force. Hitting can be punching someone in the face. It can also be popping someone on