OK, try this one:
"If the United Nations once admits that international disputes can be settled by using force, then we will have destroyed the foundation of the organization and our best hope of establishing a world order."
Maybe Tony Blair should have read it?
Phil.
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
JandPUK
Over 90 days ago
Straight Male, 65
Straight Female, 65
Forum
Quote by Vix
Very funny. But why has a bull got udders?
Why do men have nipples?
Taking the question seriously (which may or may not have been your intent!) the answer is as follows:
"‘Males and females are not separate entities, shaped independently by natural selection. Both sexes are variants upon a single ground plan, elaborated in later embryology. Male mammals have nipples because females need them and the embryonic pathway to their development builds precursors in all mammalian fetuses, enlarging the breasts later in females but leaving them small (and without evident function) in males."
Yes, a safe word is absolutely vital here if you've not done anything like this before, and as others have said, choose something that she can remember, but wouldn't ordinarily use. While the fantasy of having no choice is a very powerful one, and from what you say there's stuff she wants to try without being given an option you both need a safe word in case what you're doing is just downright painful and not in a good way.
Another point on safewords is that it's useful for you to have one. If you know that she's ok and happy with what you're doing, you can get into the swing of it. However, if you're always wondering if she's ok, and are not sure if 'stop it!' does actually mean she wants you to stop, you're not going to have a fun time of it.
Safewords work BOTH ways!
P
Another point on safewords is that it's useful for you to have one. If you know that she's ok and happy with what you're doing, you can get into the swing of it. However, if you're always wondering if she's ok, and are not sure if 'stop it!' does actually mean she wants you to stop, you're not going to have a fun time of it.
Safewords work BOTH ways!
P
This one went right over my head... I read the subject as Brian may found dead and my first thought was 'That's very poor English!'
Then it got worse.... the further down the thread I went I thought 'Who is Brian? Is he a SH contributor? Is he someone else everyone knows in SH other than me?' and continued in much puzzlement until someone asked the question and I realised I'd read the heading wrong!
P.
Then it got worse.... the further down the thread I went I thought 'Who is Brian? Is he a SH contributor? Is he someone else everyone knows in SH other than me?' and continued in much puzzlement until someone asked the question and I realised I'd read the heading wrong!
P.
There are a couple of good sources that can help recommend books to you. If you create an account at Amazon you can search for books that you've read and rate them, and Amazon will then be able to suggest things that you might like to read. If you choose a title you can also see a listing of what people who read that book have also read.
Another source is the AlexLit web site at If you register (free) you can again list books that you've read and rate them, and AlexLit will then recommend other things that you might like to read. Strange, but it does actually work very well indeed.
On personal recommendations, I don't think you can beat Iain Banks; any of his mainstream fiction (rather than the SF) is good, and in particular The Wasp Factory (very black humour and it also contains a description of the very worst thing I can possibly think of, so be warned), The Bridge, Crow Road and Espedair Street are all excellent as well.
P
Another source is the AlexLit web site at If you register (free) you can again list books that you've read and rate them, and AlexLit will then recommend other things that you might like to read. Strange, but it does actually work very well indeed.
On personal recommendations, I don't think you can beat Iain Banks; any of his mainstream fiction (rather than the SF) is good, and in particular The Wasp Factory (very black humour and it also contains a description of the very worst thing I can possibly think of, so be warned), The Bridge, Crow Road and Espedair Street are all excellent as well.
P
Well actually, I'm going to disagree here, because I don't think she IS the bravest girl in the world.! I might be a bit biased (ok, a lot biased), but I took a set of J a couple of years back in Central London one sunday morning.
I've added some of the shots that I took to our photo album (click on the www link at the bottom of the post or go to )and take a look. The include pictures of her opposite the Houses of Parliament, Buckingham Palace, in Soho and in Oxford Street. It was a great set to do and even though it wasn't London at its busiest, we still did get quite a lot of people watching.
Having said that, I do applaude the bravery of the young woman in the photographs. Having done this sort of stuff myself (er, from the photographers side I hasten to add), it can be a very nerve wracking thing to do. I've looked at her photographs in close detail, and I don't think that they're fake at all, and it always annoys me when people say that nude in public pictures are. I'm sure that with the law of averages some are, but fakes are not as common as some people would like to believe. The usual line that people take when trying to say that something is fake is that 'people aren't looking at the model'. However, this is actually exactly what happens - people DO tend to look away, because they're not sure how they should react. I've taken photographs of J naked in a busy pub, and it's amazing how few you get where people are actually looking at the model; you almost need to pose them (and then people say that they're fake because the pictures look too posed!)
P.
I've added some of the shots that I took to our photo album (click on the www link at the bottom of the post or go to )and take a look. The include pictures of her opposite the Houses of Parliament, Buckingham Palace, in Soho and in Oxford Street. It was a great set to do and even though it wasn't London at its busiest, we still did get quite a lot of people watching.
Having said that, I do applaude the bravery of the young woman in the photographs. Having done this sort of stuff myself (er, from the photographers side I hasten to add), it can be a very nerve wracking thing to do. I've looked at her photographs in close detail, and I don't think that they're fake at all, and it always annoys me when people say that nude in public pictures are. I'm sure that with the law of averages some are, but fakes are not as common as some people would like to believe. The usual line that people take when trying to say that something is fake is that 'people aren't looking at the model'. However, this is actually exactly what happens - people DO tend to look away, because they're not sure how they should react. I've taken photographs of J naked in a busy pub, and it's amazing how few you get where people are actually looking at the model; you almost need to pose them (and then people say that they're fake because the pictures look too posed!)
P.
Water as hot as you can bear, with a fair amount of salt in it.
As above, but put a single drop of tea-tree in a glass full.
Cloves (as said earlier) deaden the pain.
But (and I'm sorry to say this), in the long run, you'll have to visit the dentist. Longer you leave it, the worse it'll get.
Jill.
Half way through a replacement crown procedure.
As above, but put a single drop of tea-tree in a glass full.
Cloves (as said earlier) deaden the pain.
But (and I'm sorry to say this), in the long run, you'll have to visit the dentist. Longer you leave it, the worse it'll get.
Jill.
Half way through a replacement crown procedure.
the next best ones are the plastic coloured ones....... 
ops:
,it was great,anyone remember them?.,it was massive or so it seemed .love to see one again!!!Quote by Mister_Discreet
And let's be honest here; the + is NOT to show that people are genuine, it's there to say that a group of people who know each other are saying they've fucked each other. It doesn't show that people are genuine at all!
I'm sorry but that accusation doesn't make the slightest bit of sense to me. The regulars and active people already know who each other are, so what would the point of introducing such a scheme at all if you were right? Even if it was there for the reason you suggest, then how could the people in it not be genuine?
The system is there so new people can see that certain people are genuine. End of story.
!
Because it's not a transparent system. The administrator of this scheme has chosen to remain anonymous. The system itself is open to abuse; how would someone know that a person is 'genuine' if they don't know who 'nominated' them (for want of a better word)? I can easily see how someone could say 'oh yes, you're my mate, I'll validate you' based on friendship rather than anything else. Already in this thread we've seen puzzlement and confusion as to why someone has been validated when they didn't ask for it, and don't regard themselves in that category. The criteria isn't based on anything else - not time spent in the chatroom, or meeting people at munches etc. It's basically a group of people self validating each other, which is no validation at all.
Quote by Mister_Discreet
If you've met people from the site, then they can verify you. It's only a small group at the moment because the verification process has only just started.
I'll say this for the third or fourth time: Not having the + does not mean you are not genuine. I don't know why that seems to be so hard to grasp (well, apart from a rather tricky triple negative, of course)!
No, this isn't the case since we can only be validated by people who are themselves validated. If you get two people who meet in the chatroom, they get together and do whatever they do, they clearly can't validate each other, despite the fact that they're actually 'genuine'. The entire criteria depends on meeting someone who is already validated.
I clearly understand what you're saying with the triple negative
However, my point back to you would be that since you've admitted that validation doesn't actually mean you're not genuine, and genuine people are not always validated, what's the point in having it there in the first place? Quote by Steve_D
This is the last time I am going to post on this thread as I am sick and tired of the petty whinging from people who don't even use the fucking chatroom.
Steve
I think this is a very revealing comment. What you see as 'petty whinging' I and others see as individuals voicing a legitimate concern over the way in which they and their private lives are subjected to a judgement by other people regardless of their own personal opinions. Doesn't seem like 'petty whinging' to me. To try and discredit the thoughts and opinions of people who choose to express an opinion that is contrary to your own in this manner is quite simply breathtaking arrogance. Futhermore, it's incorrect, since a lot of the people who have posted on this thread DO use the chatroom to a greater or lesser extent. Besides that, what you appear to be saying is that unless you DO use it, your opinion is invalid, and I don't see why this should be the case. Simply because I or anyone else may not be directly involved does not mean these opinions are invalid; if we could only pass opinion on things that directly affected us would lead to a very strange world indeed. However, it's also indicative of the whole ethos behind this validation system 'Unless I know you, you don't count'. As I said, very revealing indeed.
Quote by Steve_D
The main mistake that I can see is that we have given a written definition for the barrack room lawyers to rip apart. In my mind the + was to show that people are genuine. It wasn't there to show that you had shagged someone
Steve
Are you therefore saying that in your opinion (and I take on board your point that this is your opinion, which is fair enough) that you *shouldn't* have provided a written definition? I think that would have lead to even more chaos than we've currently got, quite frankly! And let's be honest here; the + is NOT to show that people are genuine, it's there to say that a group of people who know each other are saying they've fucked each other. It doesn't show that people are genuine at all! We've met several people from this site already (and as others have also indicated, met others who are not from the SH site, or have played in clubs etc), but because they may not be known to this small, self selecting group, we are not apparently 'genuine'.
Quote by Steve_D
You'll note that the "Guidelines" are called exactly that. People are expected to use a little common sense, is that so difficult?
Steve
Given that a lot of people have raised valid concerns (which have so far gone unanswered) I don't, with respect, think that it's those posters who are not showing common sense.
Quote by Steve_D
The reason the admin is kept anonymous is to prevent them becomming the subject of harrassment. Repeated calls for them to "show their face" will do no good.
Steve
It seems to me (but please correct me if I'm wrong) that you feel that it's appropriate for those individuals passing comment on other people should be able to remain anonymous. That's a little bit tacky don't you think? I also think that it's interesting in that you state that they are being kept anonymous so that they don't have to deal with the barrage of complaints about the system! It would seem to me that this is not exactly a common sense approach; if you know lots of people are going to/are complaining, wouldn't it make more sense to actually be open and upfront about this, and to provide a level of transparency, rather than the anonymous back stairs skulking that is currently taking place. Does this lead to a better situation? Quite frankly I don't think that it does. It creates a climate of anonymity, it obfusticates the entire issue, and makes the whole question of who is genuine or not open to question - *exactly the opposite* of what you were trying to achieve!
Quote by Steve_D
Nobody has said that the first tranche of +'s was perfect, what has been said, over and over again, is that shagging an op won't get you a +. So for somebody to come in the room and ask which op they shagged was asking to get kicked IMO.
Steve
I'm not in the slightest bit surprised that this has happened; it was inevitable, due to the botched way in which this disaster has been rolled out. By kicking people who ask legimate questions regarding the way in which the scheme has been implimented you (a generic you here btw) are adding to this whole feeling of anonymity, and rather than creating an open and welcoming climate you are creating a situation where people feel that they cannot voice their concerns, and enhancing an 'us and them' situation, which I don't feel is in the interests of anyone!
Quote by Steve_D
This site belongs to one man, he is advised by the chatroom ops on the running of the chatroom, and the site moderators on the running of the forum and ads.
Steve
This makes sense to me, and I agree that SH is not a democracy. However, what you're saying here is that the site owner listens to, and takes guidance from chatroom ops, and you're implying (quite rightly IMO) that it's a good thing. Equally however, you're also saying that you (generic you again) are not doing that yourselves when other people (in the next tier down from ops) are also advising you and passing comment. Instead, you're referring to it as 'petty whinging'. At least try and be consistent in your approach here; advice and comment is either a good thing or it isn't; you can't have it both ways.
Elsewhere in your post you've also stated that you're not going to post to this thread again, and that is of course your choice, which I respect. However, that approach does tend to at the very least imply that you're making your opinion known, and are not interested in listening to, commenting on, or debating the issue with other people who have equally strong opinions on the matter, but who come at it from a different angle. Once again this is clearly indicating (in my view and please feel free to correct me if this isn't the case) that you are not interested in any views other than your own and that of your friends/people who agree with you. Once again we're back right at the start, with your own comment 'If I don't know you, and my friends don't know you, you don't matter'. It's not an approach that I'd take personally, but it's entirely your choice, of course. However, as I said earlier, I think it reveals at least in part, the true motivation behind this whole validation issue, and I think it's sad that which should be an open and enjoyable place to be (ie. the chatroom) is turning into something quite different, and I think that's a shame.
Phil.
Quote by Mister_Discreet
I don't know why people are so offended that they are being verified
Perhaps because they don't have any say in the matter? Perhaps because they don't want a + next to their name for a whole host of reasons. If you perceive being verified as a good thing I can see where you're coming from. However, if you try and look at it from others perspectives, if they *don't* see it as a good thing, they're not going to be happy about it are they?
But perhaps it's because of the lack of choice? They didn't ask to be verified, they may not know who did it, and they may object to people passing comment on them in such a very public fashion?
For what it's worth (and we do visit the chat room now and then) I think it's a dreadful idea. It's divisive, open to abuse, it panders to cliques, it's unhelpful, unclear, it creates a two tier system, it's unfriendly to new people to the room, and it creates a whole series of assumptions (oh look, she's got +, that means I can fuck her etc.) While I accept that it's been proposed with the best of possible intentions, it's been badly thought out and the roll out of this thing has been botched beyond all belief.
Phil.
Before you upgrade, it's worth checking that all the extensions that you use work with ver 1.0. Stupidly I thought they would, and just upgraded. My Google toolbar didn't want to play, so I had to go and find a different version, and superdragandgo (which I simply cannot do without) doesn't yet have an upgrade. 
Other than that, the install worked fine!
P.
Other than that, the install worked fine!
P.
A guy is at work and he wants to remind his wife about something, so he rings home. The phone is answered by the little girl and he says 'Hallo darling, it's daddy. Can you go and get mummy please?'
The little girl answers 'Well, she's in bed.. with Uncle Frank.' And the guy says 'hang on.. you don't HAVE an Uncle Frank!' He thinks for a moment and then says 'Darling, I want you to do something for me...go upstairs and tell mummy that daddy is just pulling up into the driveway, and then come and tell me what happens...'
Long pause.... little girl again 'Alright daddy, I did that.' 'And what happened?' 'Well, mummy looked very scared, and jumped out of bed, and she wasn't wearing any clothes! And she tripped up and fell over and banged her head and hasn't moved.' And the guy says 'And what about Uncle Frank?' 'Oh' says the little girl - 'He looked scared as well, and he jumped out of bed, and HE wasn't wearing any clothes either. He jumped out of the window, and I suppose he must have forgotten that you'd emptied the swimming pool to clean it, and he's not moving either... I think he must be dead'
Long pause 'Er... swimming pool? We don't have a swimming pool... er.. is THIS 020 7589......?'
The little girl answers 'Well, she's in bed.. with Uncle Frank.' And the guy says 'hang on.. you don't HAVE an Uncle Frank!' He thinks for a moment and then says 'Darling, I want you to do something for me...go upstairs and tell mummy that daddy is just pulling up into the driveway, and then come and tell me what happens...'
Long pause.... little girl again 'Alright daddy, I did that.' 'And what happened?' 'Well, mummy looked very scared, and jumped out of bed, and she wasn't wearing any clothes! And she tripped up and fell over and banged her head and hasn't moved.' And the guy says 'And what about Uncle Frank?' 'Oh' says the little girl - 'He looked scared as well, and he jumped out of bed, and HE wasn't wearing any clothes either. He jumped out of the window, and I suppose he must have forgotten that you'd emptied the swimming pool to clean it, and he's not moving either... I think he must be dead'
Long pause 'Er... swimming pool? We don't have a swimming pool... er.. is THIS 020 7589......?'
There must be one question that someone could ask you that's going to be really embarassing for you to answer and you're really not sure you will, with your mouse poised over the 'submit' button, thinking 'shall I or shan't I? until you think 'oh sod it!' and submit it.
So... what's the question you'd rather not have asked, and what's your answer to it?
Phil.
So... what's the question you'd rather not have asked, and what's your answer to it?
Phil.
