Semen tastes awful and expecting someone to swallow, or getting pissy when they don't, is lame. That's all I'm sayin'.
I think most people in the conversation had it ending up on other parts of the person's body, including bits without tastebuds, to be a perfectly acceptable way for things to go down. It's mostly the kleenex scenario people seem to dislike with vehemence.
singular fish, plural fish vs singular person, plural people
"various peoples invented the wheel at the same time", sure
"various fishes evolved more efficient fins in the same epoch"?
nah, you'd say "fish"
just like how there is no call to use "sheeps" or "deers"
No, the sentence you used in quotes would be correct as is. Saying fish would imply that individual organisms were evolving fins over the course of an epoch.
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
Seriously though, it's basically blood plasma with some mucus mixed in. If you can't handle man juice, well, let me tell you, cooch-phlegm-sauce is probably worse so count your blessings. Maybe just stick to missionary if you can't handle the finishing the deed.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
um the word fishes appears in the bible as god wrote it (king james) and therefore is not only acceptable, but is also the only correct word and anyone who says otherwise can go to hell
singular fish, plural fish vs singular person, plural people
"various peoples invented the wheel at the same time", sure
"various fishes evolved more efficient fins in the same epoch"?
nah, you'd say "fish"
just like how there is no call to use "sheeps" or "deers"
No, the sentence you used in quotes would be correct as is. Saying fish would imply that individual organisms were evolving fins over the course of an epoch.
generally this is only the case in scientific texts
in everyday usage it is permissible to use "fish" to refer to both groups and individuals. note that many analogous plurals like "sheep" do not change in form when referring to a group of groups, which is part of the precedent for it.
Semen tastes awful and expecting someone to swallow, or getting pissy when they don't, is lame. That's all I'm sayin'.
of course getting pissy is lame. i'd also agree that 'expecting' it is lame, if you're using it with the connotation that someone is kind of rudely entitled, and they'll be pissy with people who don't meet that.
but i don't think there's anything at all wrong with 'expecting' to find a partner who digs it. if a girl doesn't swallow or tolerate semen in her mouth or whatever is the value approaching 'too gross'... then that is ok! she is still a nice person, and she will make someone very happy someday, i'm sure.
but it is something that i find sexually gratifying enough that i'd probably seek a partner who enjoyed that sort of thing. i 'expect' my partner to swallow sometimes in the sense that i expect myself to pursue a person who possesses that trait.
I would honest-to-goodness say any couple that participates in oral sex should both be swallowing because the male doesn't really have a choice unless you like cold juice running into your starfish. So, if you like good oral sex as a female you should reciprocate, female juices aren't very yummy in an appealing type of way, sexually it's probably fine because well sex.
I mean it's still better than Mountain Dew.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
i've never found vaginal fluid that tastes as bad- in general- as i expect semen tastes. it's pretty inoffensive. but when she's menstruating, it is pretty foul. probably still not as bad as semen, i'd guess, but definitely a lot closer.
i've never found vaginal fluid that tastes as bad- in general- as i expect semen tastes. it's pretty inoffensive. but when she's menstruating, it is pretty foul. probably still not as bad as semen, i'd guess, but definitely a lot closer.
Well the makeup of semen is more... favorable for ingestion. Cooch-plegm-sauce basically tastes like you're eating a really wet runny nose, because, well, that's basically what it is.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
haha apparently there is an accusation that after jay-z and beyonce rented out all the rooms on that wing of the floor for her delivery, their bodyguards prevented anyone from even passing through to get to other places- like the neo-natal ward
it seems like there's only the complaint of one of the other patients' families, so far, and no response from the hospital or whatever yet
I would honest-to-goodness say any couple that participates in oral sex should both be swallowing because the male doesn't really have a choice unless you like cold juice running into your starfish. So, if you like good oral sex as a female you should reciprocate, female juices aren't very yummy in an appealing type of way, sexually it's probably fine because well sex.
I mean it's still better than Mountain Dew.
I dunno, I think vagina is generally a perfectly appealing flavor. Flavors? I guess they all taste different. Maybe it's like alcohol and it's just a learned reaction to like it, but I think blowin' dames is its own reward.
In this paper I seek to examine the epistemological consequences of ethical disagreement: how does the possibility of deep, irresolvable disagreement over ethical matters effect our ability to claim ethical knowledge? I will argue that such a possibility would be toxic to our ability to claim knowledge in the realm of ethics; as such, ethical knowledge cannot be preserved against a background where possible disagreement is unlimited. This, in turn, motivates us to look for a conception of ethics on which our basic access to ethical truth is not subject to unlimited disagreement.
The structure of the paper will be as follows: in section 2, I will sketch three broad possible views of the epistemology of ethics: the empirical model, pure coherence, and reductive epistemology. I will then give reasons to think that the empirical model and the pure coherence views cannot be correct. These classifications, as well as the objections there rehearsed, are entirely borrowed from Setiya (ms).
In section 3, I will then turn to reductive epistemology. I will argue that it also cannot be correct. Unlike the previous section, these objections are not borrowed from elsewhere; they are original to this paper, and they will constitute the bulk of this paper. What will emerge is a conception of non-accidental reliability which privileges first-person access: non-accidental reliability is reliability which the subject understands.
With this concept of reliability in hand, in section 4 I will then return to the empirical model. I will then show how the empirical model can be amended such that it satisfies the demand for non-accidental reliability; it will be crucial that in doing so we limit the scope of possible disagreement. We should carry out this amendment, and believe the subsequent theory. My argument here is simply everything that has come before: since the non-amended version, pure coherence, and reductive epistemology all fail, we ought to believe the amended empirical model.
I will then conclude by discussing, extremely briefly, the implications of the amended empirical model for normative ethics.
Normally I would say this is a badly structured introduction. By that I mean don't be so explicit that you're giving an introduction and don't set up a controversy that you are examining, tell us the conclusion you've come to and use the paper to say how you got there. It comes across as a bit muddled and you're telling instead of showing too much. Don't tell us what you're going to tell us, or say "I'm going to examine X and conclude Y" or "this book is about puppies." Say "in the framework of X, Y" or "Puppies". Something vaguely like :(The possibility of deep, irresolvable disagreement over ethical matters is toxic to our ability to claim knowledge in the realm of ethics. Consequently this motivates us to look for a conception of ethics on which our basis access to ethical truth is not subject to unlimited disagreement.) is stronger, clearer and more direct. You can then say something along the line of "Setiya perusasively argues against two of the three broad possible views of the epistemology of ethics: the empirical model and pure coherence. However, reductive epistemology can be salvaged from his objections such that it satisfies..." etc.
It may be that philosophy has a different standard though since the argument is the thing.
i've never found vaginal fluid that tastes as bad- in general- as i expect semen tastes. it's pretty inoffensive. but when she's menstruating, it is pretty foul. probably still not as bad as semen, i'd guess, but definitely a lot closer.
i never found semen that offensive
i've never gagged over manjam
but there have been cooches whose fragrance or fluids were downright horrific
just saying as a guy whose had experience on both sides of that fence
meh
0
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
somebody wrote this somewhere or said this to me
that before sex a vagina looks like a beautiful thing
then after sex it looks like a bulldog dribbling mayonnaise
also mrmr if you're just investigating the consequences, surely its "affect" in line 1
Well the makeup of semen is more... favorable for ingestion. Cooch-plegm-sauce basically tastes like you're eating a really wet runny nose, because, well, that's basically what it is.
The first time someone came in my mouth I literally spit it out before I knew what I was doing it tasted so foul--it was like biting into a rotten piece of fruit. 'Favorable for ingestion' my ass.
0
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
edited January 2012
yo
lets introduce the past form of spit into american english
No problem! Doesn't it taste like a that tiny bit of snot that lands on your lips that you forgot to wipe away after a pretty viscous sneeze when you've had a cold?
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Posts
[chat] wasn't born yesterday, quizzy
I think most people in the conversation had it ending up on other parts of the person's body, including bits without tastebuds, to be a perfectly acceptable way for things to go down. It's mostly the kleenex scenario people seem to dislike with vehemence.
No, the sentence you used in quotes would be correct as is. Saying fish would imply that individual organisms were evolving fins over the course of an epoch.
The peoples united under the Russian Empire spoke a staggering array of languages and covered an otherwise unprecedented geographic area.
Use it wisely.
Seriously though, it's basically blood plasma with some mucus mixed in. If you can't handle man juice, well, let me tell you, cooch-phlegm-sauce is probably worse so count your blessings. Maybe just stick to missionary if you can't handle the finishing the deed.
generally this is only the case in scientific texts
in everyday usage it is permissible to use "fish" to refer to both groups and individuals. note that many analogous plurals like "sheep" do not change in form when referring to a group of groups, which is part of the precedent for it.
of course getting pissy is lame. i'd also agree that 'expecting' it is lame, if you're using it with the connotation that someone is kind of rudely entitled, and they'll be pissy with people who don't meet that.
but i don't think there's anything at all wrong with 'expecting' to find a partner who digs it. if a girl doesn't swallow or tolerate semen in her mouth or whatever is the value approaching 'too gross'... then that is ok! she is still a nice person, and she will make someone very happy someday, i'm sure.
but it is something that i find sexually gratifying enough that i'd probably seek a partner who enjoyed that sort of thing. i 'expect' my partner to swallow sometimes in the sense that i expect myself to pursue a person who possesses that trait.
I mean it's still better than Mountain Dew.
I personally choose to phrase everything in iambic pentameter, to include Miranda rights.
I'll send you my Pigeot instead.
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter
what the hell europe
Enabler.
Anus.
Same as physics. It just sounds nicer.
economics physics etc
Well the makeup of semen is more... favorable for ingestion. Cooch-plegm-sauce basically tastes like you're eating a really wet runny nose, because, well, that's basically what it is.
Listen I was young. I needed the poke balls.
it seems like there's only the complaint of one of the other patients' families, so far, and no response from the hospital or whatever yet
but if true that is so terrible
I dunno, I think vagina is generally a perfectly appealing flavor. Flavors? I guess they all taste different. Maybe it's like alcohol and it's just a learned reaction to like it, but I think blowin' dames is its own reward.
Anything is better mountain dew.
It's the shortened form of mathematics.
Why would you not include the s?
it reverberates in an open way
it's a word that lends itself to echoing
Normally I would say this is a badly structured introduction. By that I mean don't be so explicit that you're giving an introduction and don't set up a controversy that you are examining, tell us the conclusion you've come to and use the paper to say how you got there. It comes across as a bit muddled and you're telling instead of showing too much. Don't tell us what you're going to tell us, or say "I'm going to examine X and conclude Y" or "this book is about puppies." Say "in the framework of X, Y" or "Puppies". Something vaguely like :(The possibility of deep, irresolvable disagreement over ethical matters is toxic to our ability to claim knowledge in the realm of ethics. Consequently this motivates us to look for a conception of ethics on which our basis access to ethical truth is not subject to unlimited disagreement.) is stronger, clearer and more direct. You can then say something along the line of "Setiya perusasively argues against two of the three broad possible views of the epistemology of ethics: the empirical model and pure coherence. However, reductive epistemology can be salvaged from his objections such that it satisfies..." etc.
It may be that philosophy has a different standard though since the argument is the thing.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
i never found semen that offensive
i've never gagged over manjam
but there have been cooches whose fragrance or fluids were downright horrific
just saying as a guy whose had experience on both sides of that fence
meh
that before sex a vagina looks like a beautiful thing
then after sex it looks like a bulldog dribbling mayonnaise
also mrmr if you're just investigating the consequences, surely its "affect" in line 1
beef curtains
The first time someone came in my mouth I literally spit it out before I knew what I was doing it tasted so foul--it was like biting into a rotten piece of fruit. 'Favorable for ingestion' my ass.
lets introduce the past form of spit into american english
dat clarification
i spat it out
it will halp everybody npnp
also the delightful form shat
No problem! Doesn't it taste like a that tiny bit of snot that lands on your lips that you forgot to wipe away after a pretty viscous sneeze when you've had a cold?