Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Sonophos wrote:Is it actually possible to have voluntary sex without enjoying it?!

Yes. There's a saying 'bad sex is like bad pizza, it's still pretty good'. But I think it's only said by people who've never had genuinely bad sex, or genuinely bad pizza.

These neo-nasty fundaMENTAList christian types are the people that give you guys such a bad name over here. It is a shame that they manage to get so far in your political system and get so much press over here.

And it wasn't very fair to pick guys like Santorum out as representative of America when they were just a crazy fringe, but this guy is a presidential frontrunner. Something weird really is going on over there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

whitedragon wrote:Marry me!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sonophos wrote:I still do not understand how a man would reach climax or even maintain tumesence without enjoying the act. Viagra only facilitates arousal it doesn't start it.

You can hate yourself all you want after the act but the act itself must by definition be enjoyable to some degree for the man.
If your the female partner is not enjoying the act then it is in my mind rape in minor degree because force, coersion or compensation is being used.

You'd can be turned on by the prospect of good sex, then get something which is most definitely not that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Seaward wrote:So you're saying social conservatives are not, in fact, trying to get government involved in the individual citizen's bedroom? Because there's enough out there to refute that, from voting records to speeches made by the men - and it's usually men - themselves, to choke a small donkey.

If biccat doesn't personally like someone, he deems them leftwing. You might point that's a ridiculous way of thinking about politics, but then as rebuttal I'd point out biccat.

Santorum accused Romney of being part of the Occupy Whatever movement in tonight's debate.

What's most disconcerting is that people still take him seriously.

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

Sonophos wrote:Is it actually possible to have voluntary sex without enjoying it?!

That's what prostitution is for one of the parties involved.
Clue: it's not the person paying for it.

Paying a prostitute is minor rape. If you cared about the woman you would give her the money and wouldn't expect anything in return.

Yes. There's a saying 'bad sex is like bad pizza, it's still pretty good'. But I think it's only said by people who've never had genuinely bad sex, or genuinely bad pizza.

Stop making sense to me Sebster, I dont like it. But I agree, Ive had both terrible sex, and terrible pizza. I can say that neither is still considered good. When I have to call a pizza place and say "Youve got to take this pile of dog gak back, I want my money back" its obviously not good pizza still. Too bad that prostitute wouldnt give me a refund. I said caress, not kick

KingCracker wrote:

Yes. There's a saying 'bad sex is like bad pizza, it's still pretty good'. But I think it's only said by people who've never had genuinely bad sex, or genuinely bad pizza.

Stop making sense to me Sebster, I dont like it. But I agree, Ive had both terrible sex, and terrible pizza. I can say that neither is still considered good. When I have to call a pizza place and say "Youve got to take this pile of dog gak back, I want my money back" its obviously not good pizza still. Too bad that prostitute wouldnt give me a refund. I said caress, not kick

I think that, once either pizza or sex become bad, they are no longer pizza or sex.

The only truly awful "pizza" I've had was in Sydney. Why there was Vegemite on it, I'll never know.

Sonophos wrote:

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

Sonophos wrote:Is it actually possible to have voluntary sex without enjoying it?!

That's what prostitution is for one of the parties involved.
Clue: it's not the person paying for it.

Paying a prostitute is minor rape. If you cared about the woman you would give her the money and wouldn't expect anything in return.

Only in moral terms, and even then it's debatable. In the eyes of the law, it's consentual, though illegal (I think) for other reasons. Also, if someone uses a prostitute, it's not the woman they care about, clearly.
Personally, I see it as the devolution of something that should be more special into a simple good, to be traded. Not nice at all.

dogma wrote:

KingCracker wrote:

Yes. There's a saying 'bad sex is like bad pizza, it's still pretty good'. But I think it's only said by people who've never had genuinely bad sex, or genuinely bad pizza.

Stop making sense to me Sebster, I dont like it. But I agree, Ive had both terrible sex, and terrible pizza. I can say that neither is still considered good. When I have to call a pizza place and say "Youve got to take this pile of dog gak back, I want my money back" its obviously not good pizza still. Too bad that prostitute wouldnt give me a refund. I said caress, not kick

I think that, once either pizza or sex become bad, they are no longer pizza or sex.

The only truly awful "pizza" I've had was in Sydney. Why there was Vegemite on it, I'll never know.

Yea, Ive heard those folk eat that gak by the boat load. The worst pizza Ive personally ever had was supposed to be a hamburger pizza, which sounds good on the surface. But the company that made it, did a terribly bad job at it, and it tasted so fuggin gross we had them send the driver back and give us a different pizza, and take that pile of junk back

KingCracker wrote:Stop making sense to me Sebster, I dont like it. But I agree, Ive had both terrible sex, and terrible pizza. I can say that neither is still considered good. When I have to call a pizza place and say "Youve got to take this pile of dog gak back, I want my money back" its obviously not good pizza still. Too bad that prostitute wouldnt give me a refund. I said caress, not kick

And despite knowing there's bad sex and bad pizza, and being able to spot both a mile away, I've never turned it down.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:The only truly awful "pizza" I've had was in Sydney. Why there was Vegemite on it, I'll never know.

Seriously? I think someone was fething with you.

sebster wrote:
Seriously? I think someone was fething with you.

Possibly, the last time I was in Sydney I was 11.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

KingCracker wrote:
Yea, Ive heard those folk eat that gak by the boat load. The worst pizza Ive personally ever had was supposed to be a hamburger pizza, which sounds good on the surface. But the company that made it, did a terribly bad job at it, and it tasted so fuggin gross we had them send the driver back and give us a different pizza, and take that pile of junk back

I tend to stay away from the novelty pizzas (pizzas that have traditionally non-pizza ingredients) because they're hit or miss. That said, I love me a taco pizza, or a BBQ chicken pizza. Breakfast pizza can be good, but it has to have the eggs cracked directly on the cheese, and then baked off; not cooked before hand.

I even had a damn good potato pizza once.

But my absolute favorite pizza come from this Neapolitan place in St. Paul, MN. Super thin crust, prosciutto, basil, olive oil, sea salt, no sauce: glorious.

Seaward wrote:So you're saying social conservatives are not, in fact, trying to get government involved in the individual citizen's bedroom? Because there's enough out there to refute that, from voting records to speeches made by the men - and it's usually men - themselves, to choke a small donkey.

I don't see how your comment follows in any way from mine. If you do want to discuss this, cool, start a new thread.

Santorum's latest comment: "President Obama once said he wants everybody in America to go to college. What a snob."

There's a point to be made here - it's not necessary, or even desirable, for everyone to go to college - but Santorum is making it by appealing to anti-intellectualism and attacking higher education.

Yet another reason I have a problem with Santorum.

Ouze wrote:What's the argument for why sexual freedom is bad, exactly?

Because it doen't jive with the right wing agenda: "make war not love".

biccat wrote:
There's a point to be made here - it's not necessary, or even desirable, for everyone to go to college - but Santorum is making it by appealing to anti-intellectualism and attacking higher education.

Did Obama ever actually say that he wants all Americans to go to college?

I mean, I'm not saying that he didn't, its just that I only remember him giving speeches about having the opportunity to obtain some kind of higher education.

dogma wrote:[

I even had a damn good potato pizza once.

I don't care about the rest of this thread, but I had to call BS on this. Potatoes and pizza should never, ever go together. EVER!

You've never put fries on a pizza?

Why would I ruin pizza with french fries? Who eats french fries with pizza anyway?

What about a poutine pizza?

That's quite a concept.

Ozymandias wrote:Why would I ruin pizza with french fries? Who eats french fries with pizza anyway?

Exactly, potatoes on pizza is a sign of a weak mind.

Frazzled wrote:

Ozymandias wrote:Why would I ruin pizza with french fries? Who eats french fries with pizza anyway?

Exactly, potatoes on pizza is a sign of a weak mind.

An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.

-Dawn of War Imperial Thought of the Day

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
There's a point to be made here - it's not necessary, or even desirable, for everyone to go to college - but Santorum is making it by appealing to anti-intellectualism and attacking higher education.

Did Obama ever actually say that he wants all Americans to go to college?

I mean, I'm not saying that he didn't, its just that I only remember him giving speeches about having the opportunity to obtain some kind of higher education.

I don't believe he did... the opportunity yes, though.

He did actually say that and yes its elitist. A lot of kids would be much better served with a quality skilled vocational training/journeyman program. (Germany I am looking in your direction...)

Frazzled wrote:He did actually say that

Where?

Frazzled wrote:A lot of kids would be much better served with a quality skilled vocational training/journeyman program. (Germany I am looking in your direction...)

What works in Germany will not necessarily work in other places. THe UK has been trying to get it to work in the UK for a while now, it hasn't because of cultural differences.


Here's a piece discussing it:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/bagehot/2011/11/britains-labour-market

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/rick-santorum-labels-romney-an-elite-and-obama-a-snob/

I don't think Obama actually meant anything wrong with that, but that everyone should have opportunity. Its an amazingly Libertarian viewpoint for Obama...

For the record I feel like Marv in the electric chair. The warden et al are the Presidential candidates in this election. After their spiel (the juice) I spit out a lot of blood going (paraphrase) "thats the best you got?!"

Melissia wrote:I don't believe he did... the opportunity yes, though.

Well, Santorum said "President Obama once said he wants everybody in America to go to college." I think that is a reasonable extrapolation from Obama's desire to reduce the expense of college and make it affordable for everyone. Basically, Obama sees college as a good thing and wants everyone to have access to this good thing, regardless of their wealth, income, or family.

Personally, I think the government has no business subsidizing colleges. It makes the already high expense of college even higher while reducing the value of a college degree.

biccat wrote:[Personally, I think the government has no business subsidizing colleges. It makes the already high expense of college even higher while reducing the value of a college degree.

Unless of course you couldn't afford to go to college in the first place without that support.

People who then say "too bad" should have tghe joy of a welfare Christmas for a year or two. Then they can talk.
I won't say more for personal reasons and I would quickly get banned (and rightfully).

biccat wrote:Personally, I think the government has no business subsidizing colleges.

Without subsidizing, the local public colleges would have been about four to five times more expensive (the Texas government subsidises public colleges to reduce their prices), I wouldn't have had FAFSA support, and I wouldn't be able to transfer my credits (again, the Texas government legally ensures many classes will transfer). And if you suggest the government pull out of college education entirely, then there would be no public colleges to begin with, only private ones.

This would cut down the number of students by a remarkable amount, including myself-- I'd be stuck in a dead-end job more likely than not without education, the BEST I could hope for is to assist my father and eventually replace him when he retires, and even then without an education in mechanics, electronics, and so on I'd be hard pressed to replace him anyway (he has about fifty years of experience after all).

Melissia wrote:Without subsidizing, the local public colleges would have been about four to five times more expensive (the Texas government subsidises public colleges to reduce their prices)

For or five times more expensive for you. How much is your neighbors the Texas government contributing?

Melissia wrote:This would cut down the number of students by a remarkable amount

You say this as if it is a bad thing.

I figure when I went to school at least 50% of the students had no business being there. You don't need a college degree to design websites, program, or work in human resources. Yet college degrees are a prerequisite for these and many other occupations.

Frazzled wrote:Unless of course you couldn't afford to go to college in the first place without that support.

I couldn't when I went to college. I got private loans (which I'm still repaying). My parents were able to help some, but it wasn't easy for them.

A $100,000 handout from the government would have been nice, in hindsight.

biccat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Unless of course you couldn't afford to go to college in the first place without that support.

I couldn't when I went to college. I got private loans (which I'm still repaying). My parents were able to help some, but it wasn't easy for them.

A $100,000 handout from the government would have been nice, in hindsight.

You had parents that were able to help. I didn't.
Were those private loans via Pell Grant? Without government guarantee or parents on the hook no bank will privately fund you.

biccat wrote:

Melissia wrote:I don't believe he did... the opportunity yes, though.

Well, Santorum said "President Obama once said he wants everybody in America to go to college." I think that is a reasonable extrapolation from Obama's desire to reduce the expense of college and make it affordable for everyone.

Wanting X to be universally accessible doesn't indicate that X is universally desirable.

This hearkens back to what you said about the distinction between being pro-choice, and actually aborting a fetus.

And, of course, we further run into what "college" actually is. Only 4-years? 4-years and 2-years? 4-years, 2-years, and certs?

biccat wrote:For or five times more expensive for you

And everyone else that tried to go to them.

As for the Texas government, it had the foresignt to set up a fund that earns proceeds from land sales. Look up the Public University Fund while I'm in class.

biccat wrote:You don't need a college degree to design websites, program, or work in human resources.

You don't need a college degree to do anything aside from scientific research. Even that doesn't need a college degree, it's more that the degree itself is just training until you get to the level of being qualified for research.

What a college degree DOES do, however, is indicate to a prospective employer that you have certain knowledge and skills associated with the degree, thus making you more desireable.

Frazzled wrote:You had parents that were able to help. I didn't.

I'm not sure, but I doubt a few pizzas a month would have made all that much difference in your educational career.

Frazzled wrote:Were those private loans via Pell Grant? Without government guarantee or parents on the hook no bank will privately fund you.

No Pell Grants, because federal grants are income limited. This year you start to lose eligibility around $30,000/year. Apparently after that you can afford it on your own.

You're right, private guarantors did require parents to cosign student loans.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:As for the Texas government, it had the foresignt to set up a fund that earns proceeds from land sales. Look up the Public University Fund while I'm in class.

I'm not sure you see the point I'm making.

Colleges are expensive. Passing the bill to the taxpayer government doesn't mean they suddenly have fewer expenses.

Melissia wrote:You don't need a college degree to do anything aside from scientific research. Even that doesn't need a college degree, it's more that the degree itself is just training until you get to the level of being qualified for research.

Yep. Although I would expand that to any STEM degree. There may be some other, non-STEM, degrees that include a job-training component, but they're certainly rare.