Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Resonance
Over 90 days ago
Straight Male, 53
Bisexual Female, 53
0 miles · Merseyside
Forum
Sex God
Quote by Jewlnmart
Population density is probably a factor.
Logic would dictate so.
However I do have a lovely little hankering for a swinging village somewhere obscure. Chorlton-Cum-Hardy or summat where the local gossip isn't who is shagging who, but rather who isn't shagging who and for what reason...
You could imagine the supermarket with a condom section the size of most frozen food sections and the most mind boggling display of cucumbers available anywhere. Shoe shops would sell nothing that (A) didn't have a six inch heel, (B) wasn't polished to a sharp sheen, (C) didn't run up to at least thigh length. At the bingo it would be "six and nine...dinner time"...
I quite like the sound of this place.
Sex God
Quote by Bluefish2009
I'm the most f*cking tolerant person on here right, and anyone who says I'm not is a f*cking two-faced, ugly, flat-footed, ginger, homo with small bits, a squint, bad teeth and breath that would make a Hippo turn and flee.
Oh! The irony! :really f*cking annoying rolly eye icon:
I don't know if swinging is about tolerance or not, I just find it very odd that the people who so often claim that it is their central tenet to living and swinging, often show an alarming disinclination to actually act that way. Be it about fatties, skinnies, lefties, righties, upsies, downsies, fishies or birdies. Tolerance it seems only extends to those who share your views on any particular subject and that, to be honest, isn't particularly taxing, even for the small-minded and indescribably petty.
Ideally, there should be a respect for others views, whether the same or different to your own, but there is also an alarming lack of that too in recent times. Seems you can litter a post with any derogatory epithet with impunity. Simply add a ;
:wink for safety so I can accuse you of being humourless when you take offense: smiley
and it is alright. It's not your fault if people read it the way it was intended, because you can blame them for taking offence too easily, or that the mods have got it wrong (again, as they always do. Bloody fools...)
Poor Mods. No wonder they are clearly deranged. Why only yesterday I had to walk Nola home as she was wondering the streets locally, muttering under her breath and seeking advice from a higher being. Either that or she was hiding in the bushes again with that mini-gay Bloke at the Park. :winky for immunity from prosecution from the puftas:
The thing is, it does taint your view somewhat. The vast majority of posters on here are fantastic, clever, intelligent, fair-minded, sensible I Even include Witchy in that ;-). Even if it doesn't seem that way at times. They may not agree on everything, but they can agree to disagree without resorting to petty name calling, pathetic sniping posts and handbags at 10 paces.
I mean look at Splendid, she hates me, I can't stand her, but do we resort to name calling on here? No. We do it in PM instead and save you all the hassle and we meet in town for a good bitchslap fight once a month to sort it out. Then we share a pink-lady cocktail and go and beat up some Goths because they look a bit different and we suspect one may be Welsh and seeking asylum.
Anyway, I'd better go. I'm late for my ACAS meeting.
Love each other and the skin you are in folks. Unless you are Belgian of course, in which case I hope you are whisked violently into a Fondue and served with hot bread to ravenous lions.
<<<Sings : "And I think to myself...What a Wonderful World...>>>
I was recently enlightened by the wonderful bouncy to my intolerance. It turned out that I was showing my intolerances by attempting to point out others. Go figure
Aha, but if the intolerant are allowed to be intolerant by the tolerant being tolerant, then there is no requirement on the intolerant to be anything but, I'm only intolerance of their intolerance and when that intolerance disappears then we shall all be...happy!
Clear as mud and twice as much sense, though not as fun to smear over your loins.
Au revoir mon ami!
Dougal
Sex God
Quote by Kaznkev
naughty ones?
1992,and naieve that we were we sent them off in kodak envelope to be developed
Some oik has probs been wanking over them for the past 19 yrs!
I resemble the remark that I am an oik! They've provided much needed solace during that time!
Oh and you didn't ask a question!
Fluff!?! Get the spanker ready again!
What is the worst food item you have tried to use in a sexual escapade?
Sex God
Quote by Kaznkev
But res if you follow spock arent you saying the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few?
And are we not only ultimatly responsible for our own morality,can we take responsibility for the actions of others.
Is it our fault if 20 die because we stick to our convictions?
Hello chuck,
Yes I am. The needs of the many do outweigh the needs of the few and certainly the needs of an individual. It's the perception of what we mean by a society, even if you believe the truth is different, or indeed opposite.
We are indeed the judge and jury of our own morality and as such taking responsibility for the actions of others is not necessary. However when your inaction is directly, and that is the key word, directly responsible for their suffering and death, then I think it is unfair to say that because you did nothing and stuck to your convictions, that it arbitrarily absolves you of any blame either justifiably, morally or, more contentiously, legally.
“A person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his inaction, and in either case he is justly accountable to them for the - John Stewart Mill (of his own free will, on half a pint of shandy was particularly ill...)
“Man's inhumanity to man is not only perpetrated by the vitriolic actions of those who are bad. It is also perpetrated by the vitiating inaction of those who are - Martin Luther King Jnr. (Python didn't do a song about him)
Sex God
Quote by cpl40s
We actually prefer amateur home made poor acting skills,no playing up to the 's real people doing what comes naturally.
It's raw and it does it for us !
Totally agree... When sex is acting it loses all its appeal for me.
I'd much rather a poorer quality version of the real thing.
Sex God
Moralistic thought experiments! On a Tuesday morning! Tsk!
This is a logic v morality issue really. Do you kill one life to save nineteen, or kill none and know that while you did not bloody your own hands, because of your inaction nineteen others have died needlessly?
Mr Spock would obviously look at this and find the oldest, frailest Indian and shoot them and let the others go free. This of course makes him guilty of cold-blooded murder however you want to look at it.
However if Mr Spock's logic suddenly deserted him in a whiff of Vulcan smoke, and he refused to kill one person, then his in-actions have led directly to the needless death of another nineteen.
Could you cope that knowing you killed one person, but saved nineteen from death, or that you killed none by your actions, but by your inactions, twenty died. Nineteen needlessly?
I'd like to think I'd be brave enough to follow Duncans and Mr Spock's lead and kill one to save nineteen. I fear that I'd be too weak to follow this through and condemn nineteen to a needless death by an act of totally selfish and inaccurate form of moral cowardice and self-preservation. The only solace I can take from the thought of killing one person is that one persons death is the best possible scenario for everyone, regardless of whether I do the killing or not and regardless of my own personal distate.
The other alternative of course is the Rambo theory. Take the gun and shoot the person ordering you to kill the Indian. Now in your fantasy, you then free the Indians, see off the remaining baddies and ride off in the sunset to father gorgeous children with some young, nubile squaw. The reality is however, that if you did that, you and the Indians would all die under a hail of bullets from the other townsfolk and however illogical that may seem, it may well appeal to some.
This is a logic v morality issue really. Do you kill one life to save nineteen, or kill none and know that while you did not bloody your own hands, because of your inaction nineteen others have died needlessly?
Mr Spock would obviously look at this and find the oldest, frailest Indian and shoot them and let the others go free. This of course makes him guilty of cold-blooded murder however you want to look at it.
However if Mr Spock's logic suddenly deserted him in a whiff of Vulcan smoke, and he refused to kill one person, then his in-actions have led directly to the needless death of another nineteen.
Could you cope that knowing you killed one person, but saved nineteen from death, or that you killed none by your actions, but by your inactions, twenty died. Nineteen needlessly?
I'd like to think I'd be brave enough to follow Duncans and Mr Spock's lead and kill one to save nineteen. I fear that I'd be too weak to follow this through and condemn nineteen to a needless death by an act of totally selfish and inaccurate form of moral cowardice and self-preservation. The only solace I can take from the thought of killing one person is that one persons death is the best possible scenario for everyone, regardless of whether I do the killing or not and regardless of my own personal distate.
The other alternative of course is the Rambo theory. Take the gun and shoot the person ordering you to kill the Indian. Now in your fantasy, you then free the Indians, see off the remaining baddies and ride off in the sunset to father gorgeous children with some young, nubile squaw. The reality is however, that if you did that, you and the Indians would all die under a hail of bullets from the other townsfolk and however illogical that may seem, it may well appeal to some.
Sex God
Quote by little gem
Well, hard cheese, of course you'd want hard cheese cos soft cheese, is well... soft. :doh:
Not nearly so good for purpose as a good bit of Lancashire. :rascal: Smooth, bit of a tang and lovely on the palate. Why wouldn't anyone choose a bit of Lancashire?
Goldfish... that's who. Evil, you are correct.
Once upon a time I used to have a harem of goldfish. They took care of my cooking, cleaning,ironing and other household chores which I never seemed to get around to due to being busy all the time. Well, no more.
They went on STRIKE! Strike I tell you.
How very dare they.
Couldn't cross the Pennines into Yorkshire they said. Wouldn't be the same, they said. Something about being in a county that liked flat caps, ferrets and a completely different weather system. Said it would dry their scales out and make them a bit flaky.
Who'd want flaky goldfish anyway, they'd never get anything done.
Ahhh... the old "flaky goldfish" argument. Straight from Engels that one I think. Or was it Wittgenstein? Nope, he was the arrogant chaffinch man I believe.
It is well known in carp circles (that isn't a spelling mistake) that Goldfish are notoriously fickle as to their surroundings. There are reports of several staging a mass breakout of an Aquarium in Sale earlier this year when they heard that the cost of strange underwater ornaments, that look like a skull, and bubble blowing mock-coral reefs was much cheaper just a short swim away. They took up residence in a squatters fishtank in Northwich and have steadfastly refused all attempts to move them on, even with the promise of some extra flaky fish food and a no battering guarantee.
Goldfish militance is a new one on me though, however I believe it is due to cross-breeding with the notoriously uppity Stickleback. Who can forget the terrifying Stickleback rampages of the 1980's inspired by anti-social Tory domestic policy and the fact that too many fisherman had frightening beards, alarming lack of social skills and a worrying tendency to get excited by large chub.
Send in Captain Birdseye, that's what I say. Teach 'em a lesson.
