|
Sports » uk.sport.football » Right, I'm Off
| Right, I'm Off [message #881767] |
Fri, 17 February 2006 13:53 |
|
I'm going to Southend for a couple of days.
Slightly worryingly, I think I may have agreed to have sex with this girl:
http://www.adultwork.co.uk/ViewProfile.asp?UserID=25282
Maybe there'll be another The Sex Report on teh whey.
BTN
|
|
|
| Re: Right, I'm Off [message #881769 ] |
Fri, 17 February 2006 14:06 |
|
On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 12:53:30 -0000, Sir Benjamin Nunn presented
this to uk.sport.football:
> I'm going to Southend for a couple of days.
>
> Slightly worryingly, I think I may have agreed to have sex with this girl:
>
> http://www.adultwork.co.uk/ViewProfile.asp?UserID=25282
>
> Maybe there'll be another The Sex Report on teh whey.
>
She looks nothing like diane appleton.
--
rob at rjp dot clara dot net
|
|
|
| Re: Right, I'm Off [message #881770 ] |
Fri, 17 February 2006 14:14 |
|
"Robert Poleson" <sp [at] m.no> wrote in message
news:MPG.1e5fda95bd77b3cd989759 [at] news.clara.net...
> On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 12:53:30 -0000, Sir Benjamin Nunn presented
> this to uk.sport.football:
>> I'm going to Southend for a couple of days.
>>
>> Slightly worryingly, I think I may have agreed to have sex with this
>> girl:
>>
>> http://www.adultwork.co.uk/ViewProfile.asp?UserID=25282
>>
>> Maybe there'll be another The Sex Report on teh whey.
>>
>
> She looks nothing like diane appleton.
I like variety.
Actually, she does look a bit like Mrs Kullrad, which is never a bad thing.
BTN
|
|
|
| Re: Right, I'm Off [message #881772 ] |
Fri, 17 February 2006 14:16 |
|
According to <bennunn [at] depro.co.uk>:
>Slightly worryingly, I think I may have agreed to have sex with this girl:
I like the way it's "may have". You're so damn wishywashy, Ben. :-)
--
Caption Competition: http://sig.comps.org/caption/
|
|
|
| Re: Right, I'm Off [message #881773 ] |
Fri, 17 February 2006 14:28 |
|
"Sir Benjamin Nunn" <bennunn [at] depro.co.uk> wrote in message
news:45lva3F7dnd8U1 [at] individual.net...
> I'm going to Southend for a couple of days.
>
> Slightly worryingly, I think I may have agreed to have sex with this girl:
Will there be money changing hands, or is this just more 'community work'
such as you performed on Tuesday morning?
> http://www.adultwork.co.uk/ViewProfile.asp?UserID=25282
I like her. Lots.
> Maybe there'll be another The Sex Report on teh whey.
I'm not sure The Archive can handle it, tbh.
--
Joe
Pay it fast it will be great..!!!
|
|
|
| Re: Right, I'm Off [message #881783 ] |
Fri, 17 February 2006 15:21 |
|
"Joe Horowitz" <my_name [at] youblunder.co.youghey> wrote in message
news:HbkJf.15769$YJ4.12612 [at] fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
>> Slightly worryingly, I think I may have agreed to have sex with this
>> girl:
>
> Will there be money changing hands, or is this just more 'community work'
> such as you performed on Tuesday morning?
Well, obviously it would be nice if she felt she wanted to pay me a little
something, but I'm not in it for the dollars.
>> http://www.adultwork.co.uk/ViewProfile.asp?UserID=25282
>
> I like her. Lots.
I'm ambiguous, not having met her.
I find the range of services she offers appropriate to my requirements. I
don't like the fact that she seems to have a record of not contacting
clients and abandoning bookings.
Which is probably what will happen to me.
BTN
|
|
|
| Re: Right, I'm Off [message #881784 ] |
Fri, 17 February 2006 15:24 |
|
"Sir Benjamin Nunn" <bennunn [at] depro.co.uk> wrote in message
news:45m4fvF7db2rU1 [at] individual.net...
> "Joe Horowitz" <my_name [at] youblunder.co.youghey> wrote in message
> news:HbkJf.15769$YJ4.12612 [at] fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> Will there be money changing hands, or is this just more 'community work'
>> such as you performed on Tuesday morning?
>
>
> Well, obviously it would be nice if she felt she wanted to pay me a little
> something, but I'm not in it for the dollars.
In the words of Starsailor, thank heavens for the good souls like Ben Nunn,
if it wasn't for Ben Nunn life would not matter. They actually sang that.
>> I like her. Lots.
> I'm ambiguous, not having met her.
You're ambiguous anyway.
> I find the range of services she offers appropriate to my requirements. I
> don't like the fact that she seems to have a record of not contacting
> clients and abandoning bookings.
>
> Which is probably what will happen to me.
Maybe if she knew how much you needed the money she'd be more committed.
--
Joe
Pay it fast it will be great..!!!
|
|
|
| Re: Right, I'm Off [message #881793 ] |
Fri, 17 February 2006 15:50 |
|
Vicky Conlan wrote:
> According to <bennunn [at] depro.co.uk>:
>
>>Slightly worryingly, I think I may have agreed to have sex with this girl:
>
>
> I like the way it's "may have". You're so damn wishywashy, Ben. :-)
He can't remember whether he's paying her for sex or to do the ironing.
NigelH
|
|
|
| Re: Right, I'm Off [message #881818 ] |
Fri, 17 February 2006 19:08 |
|
Nigel <useweb [at] nospam.com> reduced the crowd to uncontrollable tears by
saying news:43f5e297$0$44467$ed2619ec [at] ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net:
>> I like the way it's "may have". You're so damn wishywashy, Ben. :-)
>
> He can't remember whether he's paying her for sex or to do the
> ironing.
Good jib Nige. If I were Parkes, I'd tell you to keep it up, but he's
already done that so I'll re-iterate : "GOOD JIB"
|
|
|
| Re: Right, I'm Off [message #881821 ] |
Fri, 17 February 2006 19:16 |
|
"Sir Benjamin Nunn" <bennunn [at] depro.co.uk> reduced the crowd to
uncontrollable tears by saying news:45lva3F7dnd8U1 [at] individual.net:
> I'm going to Southend for a couple of days.
>
> Slightly worryingly, I think I may have agreed to have sex with this
> girl:
>
> http://www.adultwork.co.uk/ViewProfile.asp?UserID=25282
>
> Maybe there'll be another The Sex Report on teh whey.
I never knew Mariah Carey ran a sideline as an escort. I think there's
plenty of scope for naked ghey mandolin with Mariah's 12 octave voice as
counterpoint.
|
|
|
| Re: Right, I'm Off [message #881834 ] |
Fri, 17 February 2006 22:57 |
|
According to <my_name [at] youblunder.co.youghey>:
>> http://www.adultwork.co.uk/ViewProfile.asp?UserID=25282
>I like her. Lots.
Do you? I thought she looked manky.
--
Caption Competition: http://sig.comps.org/caption/
|
|
|
| Re: Right, I'm Off [message #881835 ] |
Fri, 17 February 2006 23:00 |
|
"Vicky Conlan" <comps [at] riffraff.plig.net> wrote in message
news:dt5gsm$11qo$1 [at] magenta.plig.net...
> According to <my_name [at] youblunder.co.youghey>:
>>> http://www.adultwork.co.uk/ViewProfile.asp?UserID=25282
>>I like her. Lots.
>
> Do you? I thought she looked manky.
>
What a polite way of saying she looks like a rancid whore.
|
|
|
| Re: Right, I'm Off [message #881836 ] |
Fri, 17 February 2006 23:39 |
|
"Sir Benjamin Nunn" <bennunn [at] depro.co.uk> wrote in message
news:45lva3F7dnd8U1 [at] individual.net...
> I'm going to Southend for a couple of days.
>
> Slightly worryingly, I think I may have agreed to have sex with this girl:
>
> http://www.adultwork.co.uk/ViewProfile.asp?UserID=25282
>
> Maybe there'll be another The Sex Report on teh whey.
>
Hmm, the real girlfriend experience. So you'll spend 4 hours walking round
the shops, stop for a pint and get moaned at for wanting a second, get home
and end up getting a take away cos she can't be arsed to cook. Get moaned at
for being on that poxy laptop again, get moaned at cos the 5.15 kick off
game clashes with location, location, location or property ladder or some
other shite, and end up in the toilet having a wank at 10pm cos she went to
bed early with a head ache. All for £50, what a fucking bargain.
|
|
|
| Re: Right, I'm Off [message #881838 ] |
Sat, 18 February 2006 00:45 |
|
According to <uksf_x [at] yahoo.co.uk>:
>>>> http://www.adultwork.co.uk/ViewProfile.asp?UserID=25282
>>>I like her. Lots.
>>
>> Do you? I thought she looked manky.
>
>What a polite way of saying she looks like a rancid whore.
Thank you. I aim to please, etc.
--
Caption Competition: http://sig.comps.org/caption/
|
|
|
| Re: Right, I'm Off [message #881839 ] |
Sat, 18 February 2006 00:46 |
|
According to <uksf_x [at] yahoo.co.uk>:
>Hmm, the real girlfriend experience. So you'll spend 4 hours walking round
>the shops, stop for a pint and get moaned at for wanting a second, get home
>and end up getting a take away cos she can't be arsed to cook. Get moaned at
>for being on that poxy laptop again, get moaned at cos the 5.15 kick off
>game clashes with location, location, location or property ladder or some
>other shite, and end up in the toilet having a wank at 10pm cos she went to
>bed early with a head ache. All for £50, what a fucking bargain.
Have you ever read any of Ben's posts?
--
Caption Competition: http://sig.comps.org/caption/
|
|
|
| Re: Right, I'm Off [message #881840 ] |
Sat, 18 February 2006 01:42 |
|
In article <dt5jb7$mk6$1 [at] nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>,
uksf_x [at] yahoo.co.uk says...
> bed early with a head ache. All for £50, what a fucking bargain.
>
Add a £130 to that... wonder what she charges for the wife experience.
|
|
|
| Re: Right, I'm Off [message #881841 ] |
Sat, 18 February 2006 01:43 |
|
In article <dt5h2p$sci$1 [at] nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>,
uksf_x [at] yahoo.co.uk says...
>
> "Vicky Conlan" <comps [at] riffraff.plig.net> wrote in message
> news:dt5gsm$11qo$1 [at] magenta.plig.net...
> > According to <my_name [at] youblunder.co.youghey>:
> >>> http://www.adultwork.co.uk/ViewProfile.asp?UserID=25282
> >>I like her. Lots.
> >
> > Do you? I thought she looked manky.
> >
>
> What a polite way of saying she looks like a rancid whore.
>
You forgot teh from Essex.
|
|
|
| Re: Right, I'm Off [message #881848 ] |
Sat, 18 February 2006 02:37 |
|
"Vicky Conlan" <comps [at] riffraff.plig.net> wrote in message
news:dt5gsm$11qo$1 [at] magenta.plig.net...
> According to <my_name [at] youblunder.co.youghey>:
>>> http://www.adultwork.co.uk/ViewProfile.asp?UserID=25282
>>I like her. Lots.
>
> Do you? I thought she looked manky.
Women can be attractive to men in all sorts of different ways, most of which
will leave other women going 'huh? She's manky etc etc'.
I think it's mostly a female insecurity thing, though. Tell a girl you find
another girl attractive, and even if the girl you're talking to isn't the
least bit interested in you she'll still usually get a bit jealous and go to
great lengths to point out the various physical imprefections of said
desire-object.
My favourite one is always 'but she looks so cheap and tarty!'.
Well, yeah. What's the problem?
--
Joe
Pay it fast it will be great..!!!
|
|
|
| Re: Right, I'm Off [message #881853 ] |
Sat, 18 February 2006 08:39 |
|
"James Cook" <uksf_x [at] yahoo.co.uk> wrote in news:dt5h2p$sci$1
[at] nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com:
>> Do you? I thought she looked manky.
>>
>
> What a polite way of saying she looks like a rancid whore.
>
That doesn't make her better than us though.
--
Cheers, Os
|
|
|
| Re: Right, I'm Off [message #881859 ] |
Sat, 18 February 2006 12:57 |
|
According to <strikeboy [at] hotmail.com>:
>>> Do you? I thought she looked manky.
>> What a polite way of saying she looks like a rancid whore.
>That doesn't make her better than us though.
In some ways it really does.
--
Caption Competition: http://sig.comps.org/caption/
|
|
|
| Re: Right, I'm Off [message #881860 ] |
Sat, 18 February 2006 13:00 |
|
According to <my_name [at] youblunder.co.youghey>:
>>>> http://www.adultwork.co.uk/ViewProfile.asp?UserID=25282
>>>I like her. Lots.
>> Do you? I thought she looked manky.
>Women can be attractive to men in all sorts of different ways, most of which
>will leave other women going 'huh? She's manky etc etc'.
Yes, I think there's no argument that some men have strange tastes.
>I think it's mostly a female insecurity thing, though. Tell a girl you find
>another girl attractive, and even if the girl you're talking to isn't the
>least bit interested in you she'll still usually get a bit jealous and go to
>great lengths to point out the various physical imprefections of said
>desire-object.
Yeah, but I thought she was manky /before/ you said you liked her and made
me jealous, hun. ;-)
I wouldn't do her.
>My favourite one is always 'but she looks so cheap and tarty!'.
>Well, yeah. What's the problem?
Well, nothing, other than "you like cheap and tarty women then, do you?".
I guess.
--
Caption Competition: http://sig.comps.org/caption/
|
|
|
| Re: Right, I'm Off [message #881863 ] |
Sat, 18 February 2006 13:44 |
|
Tony McChrystal <tony.mcchrystal [at] hotmail.com> once famously said:
> Good jib Nige. If I were Parkes, I'd tell you to keep it up, but he's
> already done that so I'll re-iterate : "GOOD JIB"
There's also the fact that it's kinda not my job anymore. Don't get me
wrong, I've got a big eye on the squad, but this kid needs the attentions of
our new Youth Team Manager.
--
Al
"i like chelsea.
Are you?"
- Mr Bean, Dec 2005
|
|
|
| Re: Right, I'm Off [message #881864 ] |
Sat, 18 February 2006 13:49 |
|
Vicky Conlan <comps [at] riffraff.plig.net> once famously said:
>>>> I like her. Lots.
>>> Do you? I thought she looked manky.
<snip>
> Yeah, but I thought she was manky /before/ you said you liked her and
> made me jealous, hun. ;-)
*cough*
Nothing to see here.
--
Al
"i like chelsea.
Are you?"
- Mr Bean, Dec 2005
|
|
|
| Re: Right, I'm Off [message #881880 ] |
Sat, 18 February 2006 21:14 |
|
"Allen Parkes" <forename.surname [at] blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:45oj4lF7nohtU1 [at] individual.net...
> Tony McChrystal <tony.mcchrystal [at] hotmail.com> once famously said:
>> Good jib Nige. If I were Parkes, I'd tell you to keep it up, but he's
>> already done that so I'll re-iterate : "GOOD JIB"
>
> There's also the fact that it's kinda not my job anymore. Don't get me wrong, I've got a big eye on the squad, but
> this kid needs the attentions of our new Youth Team Manager.
Oh, don't you worry, Al. Nigel is on my radar. I'll be rounding up
the youthful and the naive in the very near future and moulding them
into a bastion of invincibility in my own image.
--
Mike
|
|
|
| Re: Right, I'm Off [message #881907 ] |
Sun, 19 February 2006 16:08 |
|
"Vicky Conlan" <comps [at] riffraff.plig.net> wrote in message
news:dt7293$1p06$2 [at] magenta.plig.net...
> According to <my_name [at] youblunder.co.youghey>:
>>Women can be attractive to men in all sorts of different ways, most of
>>which will leave other women going 'huh? She's manky etc etc'.
>
> Yes, I think there's no argument that some men have strange tastes.
Pfft. Women's tastes are even more varied than men's, which is very good
news for most of us men. Except Ben obviously.
> Yeah, but I thought she was manky /before/ you said you liked her and made
> me jealous, hun. ;-)
Of course, dear.
> I wouldn't do her.
She speaks very highly of you.
>>My favourite one is always 'but she looks so cheap and tarty!'.
>>Well, yeah. What's the problem?
>
> Well, nothing, other than "you like cheap and tarty women then, do you?".
> I guess.
Yes, yes I do. I also like 'posh and classy' women, 'cute and lovely' women
and 'fit and sporty' women. I like many sorts of women.
I like women, they r00lz.
--
Joe
Pay it fast it will be great..!!!
|
|
|
| Re: Right, I'm Off [message #881927 ] |
Sun, 19 February 2006 22:14 |
|
According to <my_name [at] youblunder.co.youghey>:
>> Yes, I think there's no argument that some men have strange tastes.
>Pfft. Women's tastes are even more varied than men's, which is very good
>news for most of us men. Except Ben obviously.
To be fair, I don't think I've been out with someone for looks since I was
about 15. I'm not entirely sure what I /do/ base it on. Probably "nearest
to hand when I've been drinking" or something.
>> Yeah, but I thought she was manky /before/ you said you liked her and made
>> me jealous, hun. ;-)
>Of course, dear.
Aww, you sound like you don't believe me
>> I wouldn't do her.
>She speaks very highly of you.
So she should.
>>>My favourite one is always 'but she looks so cheap and tarty!'.
>>>Well, yeah. What's the problem?
>> Well, nothing, other than "you like cheap and tarty women then, do you?".
>> I guess.
>Yes, yes I do. I also like 'posh and classy' women, 'cute and lovely' women
>and 'fit and sporty' women. I like many sorts of women.
Right.
>I like women, they r00lz.
We do, but we try not to let you know.
--
Caption Competition: http://sig.comps.org/caption/
|
|
|
| Re: Right, I'm Off [message #881940 ] |
Mon, 20 February 2006 01:35 |
|
"Joe Horowitz" <my_name [at] youblunder.co.youghey> wrote in
news:FR%Jf.18267$DM.7175 [at] fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk:
>
> I like women, they r00lz.
>
'I love the women!'
*queue large funky bass beats*
--
Cheers, Os
|
|
|
| Re: Right, I'm Off [message #881941 ] |
Mon, 20 February 2006 01:36 |
|
comps [at] riffraff.plig.net (Vicky Conlan) wrote in news:dt722s$1p06$1
[at] magenta.plig.net:
>>>> Do you? I thought she looked manky.
>>> What a polite way of saying she looks like a rancid whore.
>>That doesn't make her better than us though.
>
> In some ways it really does.
>
Is it our general lack of rancidity Vicky? Or our natural aversion to
whoring, that lets us down?
--
Cheers, Os
|
|
|
| Re: Right, I'm Off [message #881952 ] |
Mon, 20 February 2006 02:31 |
|
"Vicky Conlan" <comps [at] riffraff.plig.net> wrote in message
news:dtan3k$19ir$1 [at] magenta.plig.net...
> According to <my_name [at] youblunder.co.youghey>:
>>Pfft. Women's tastes are even more varied than men's, which is very good
>>news for most of us men. Except Ben obviously.
>
> To be fair, I don't think I've been out with someone for looks since I was
> about 15. I'm not entirely sure what I /do/ base it on. Probably
> "nearest
> to hand when I've been drinking" or something.
In terms of 'emotional involvement of any sort' for me, it would come down
to a myriad of different things. Enough ticks in enough boxes and I'll
overlook other shit. No-one's perfect.
As far as sex goes, though, I do kind of have to find them physically
attractive. Luckily have pretty varied tastes, in every respect except
size.
> Aww, you sound like you don't believe me
I do really. I think I was just being flippant and cunty for the sake of
it, which is something I do most of the time. Somehow it's slighly less
effort than not saying anything.
>>I like women, they r00lz.
> We do, but we try not to let you know.
Pfft. Only a total idiot thinks men are in charge, our fucking bollocks are
and you lot are in charge of those. Doesn't take a genius to work that out.
About the only line I liked in that daft Greek wedding film was when the
mother said 'yes, of course the father is the head of the household. But
the mother is the neck, and she can turn the head any way she likes'.
Something like that anyway.
Spot on.
--
Joe
Pay it fast it will be great..!!!
|
|
|
| Re: Right, I'm Off [message #881964 ] |
Mon, 20 February 2006 12:53 |
|
"Joe Horowitz" <my_name [at] youblunder.co.youghey> wrote in message
news:MTuJf.18433$YJ4.16830 [at] fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> I think it's mostly a female insecurity thing, though. Tell a girl you
> find another girl attractive, and even if the girl you're talking to isn't
> the least bit interested in you she'll still usually get a bit jealous and
> go to great lengths to point out the various physical imprefections of
> said desire-object.
Heh. AWTWP. Except the bit about 'even if' which I can't identify with
obviously. If I replace it with 'given that' it works better.
> My favourite one is always 'but she looks so cheap and tarty!'.
>
> Well, yeah. What's the problem?
AWTWP. I'm not even sure what 'cheap and tarty' is supposed to mean -
clearly it's a look that's often popular with men, and successful for women
who want male attention (and possibly who deliberately want to provoke
'cheap and tarty' jibes from other women) otherwise they wouldn't do it, so
the attitude seems to be barely-concealed jealousy that someone looks
attractive to others.
It's quite a lot like me complaining about 'mainstream' music and 'bland'
food'n'drink'n'shit actually. Except that I openly admit that it's driven by
blatant jealousy.
BTN
|
|
|
| Re: Right, I'm Off [message #881965 ] |
Mon, 20 February 2006 13:03 |
|
"Joe Horowitz" <my_name [at] youblunder.co.youghey> wrote in message
news:FR%Jf.18267$DM.7175 [at] fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>>Women can be attractive to men in all sorts of different ways, most of
>>>which will leave other women going 'huh? She's manky etc etc'.
>>
>> Yes, I think there's no argument that some men have strange tastes.
>
> Pfft. Women's tastes are even more varied than men's, which is very good
> news for most of us men. Except Ben obviously.
I DWTWP here. I think women's tastes in men are generally less varied than
men's tastes in women.
One only has to look at the diversity of fetish porn, and sex services
available which are almost completely marketed at men, to see how
diversified the tastes are.
There is far less variance in the men who appear in the sexual or romantic
dreams marketed to women IMHO, and far fewer non-mainstream channels in
which these tastes can be indulged.
Whoever heard of a dating service where women can specifically meet fat men?
Or Filipino men? Or men who like fisting? Etc.
I also think this diversity is entrenched in our cultural processes and has
been for centuries. Go somewhere where you have to dress formally, and every
fucking bloke will be wearing broadly similar clothing, because that's what
you have to do, whereas there's so much more variance and freedom in what
teh women can wear, what hairstyles are considered acceptable etc.
>> Well, nothing, other than "you like cheap and tarty women then, do you?".
>> I guess.
>
> Yes, yes I do. I also like 'posh and classy' women, 'cute and lovely'
> women and 'fit and sporty' women. I like many sorts of women.
AWTWP.
BTN
|
|
|
| Re: Right, I'm Off [message #881966 ] |
Mon, 20 February 2006 13:14 |
|
"Vicky Conlan" <comps [at] riffraff.plig.net> wrote in message
news:dtan3k$19ir$1 [at] magenta.plig.net...
> According to <my_name [at] youblunder.co.youghey>:
>>> Yes, I think there's no argument that some men have strange tastes.
>>Pfft. Women's tastes are even more varied than men's, which is very good
>>news for most of us men. Except Ben obviously.
>
> To be fair, I don't think I've been out with someone for looks since I was
> about 15. I'm not entirely sure what I /do/ base it on. Probably
> "nearest
> to hand when I've been drinking" or something.
I think you're extremely unusual to do so, in this image-obsessed society
and that's very admirable.
I was having this discussion with my friends in Southend the other day, and
we reckoned that the age at which relationships are formed on the basis
other than looks has been steadily rising for the last 50 years or so, and
is now around the 40-50 mark. Which is a bad thing AFAIC. But obviously good
for people who look a certain way and therefore have lots of options in the
love department.
A generalisation I know, but even in the 1970s and 80s, by the time they
reached their 20s, people were looking to settle down with someone they
could relate to, who could offer security and a spiritual connection, and be
a good parent to the children'n'shit, having got their superficial
looks-based romances out of their systems in their teens.
Now for various reasons we have 'younger' 30-somethings who are leading more
frivolous lives, and rightly or wrongly, have different priorities to
previous generations at their age. Cunts.
BTN
|
|
|
| Re: Right, I'm Off [message #881968 ] |
Mon, 20 February 2006 13:22 |
|
"Sir Benjamin Nunn" <bennunn [at] depro.co.uk> wrote in message
news:45tpg1F898r5U1 [at] individual.net...
>
> "Joe Horowitz" <my_name [at] youblunder.co.youghey> wrote in message
> news:FR%Jf.18267$DM.7175 [at] fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> Pfft. Women's tastes are even more varied than men's, which is very good
>> news for most of us men. Except Ben obviously.
>
>
> I DWTWP here. I think women's tastes in men are generally less varied than
> men's tastes in women.
>
> One only has to look at the diversity of fetish porn, and sex services
> available which are almost completely marketed at men, to see how
> diversified the tastes are.
>
> There is far less variance in the men who appear in the sexual or romantic
> dreams marketed to women IMHO, and far fewer non-mainstream channels in
> which these tastes can be indulged.
>
> Whoever heard of a dating service where women can specifically meet fat
> men? Or Filipino men? Or men who like fisting? Etc.
Heh. Good points, these. Well made as well.
One thing that did strike me, though, is how far out of touch most 'sexual
or romantic dreams marketed to women' are, possibly because they are mostly
created and marketed by men to fit their understanding of how they think
women work, which in turn possibly shapes younger girls's fantasies a little
until they've matured a but and had a chance to explore their own
sexualities.
I read someof that 'Secret Garden' book before I sent it off to Juicy for
Christmas, certainly didn't seem much like a Keanu Reeves film to me.
> I also think this diversity is entrenched in our cultural processes and
> has been for centuries. Go somewhere where you have to dress formally, and
> every fucking bloke will be wearing broadly similar clothing, because
> that's what you have to do, whereas there's so much more variance and
> freedom in what teh women can wear, what hairstyles are considered
> acceptable etc.
Fucking GPWM, and something that I've always thought highly unbalanced and
cunty. So when I get some woman moaning to me about how unfiar it is that
they have to shave their legs to conform, I just point out that most
companies won't employ blokes with huge great shaggy beards for top jobs
either, the difference being that a woman can cover her legs.
>> Yes, yes I do. I also like 'posh and classy' women, 'cute and lovely'
>> women and 'fit and sporty' women. I like many sorts of women.
>
>
> AWTWP.
Different sorts of 'looks' on women inspire different urges in me. Some
women make me feel animalistic, others make me want to hold them tenderly,
kiss them all over and take away the pain. Others look ticklish and
playful. Etc etc.
Some women can cleverly interchange between different looks using wardrobe
and hairstyles'n'shit.
--
Joe
Pay it fast it will be great..!!!
|
|
|
| Re: Right, I'm Off [message #881969 ] |
Mon, 20 February 2006 13:33 |
|
"Sir Benjamin Nunn" <bennunn [at] depro.co.uk> wrote in message
news:45tou8F87barU1 [at] individual.net...
> "Joe Horowitz" <my_name [at] youblunder.co.youghey> wrote in message
> news:MTuJf.18433$YJ4.16830 [at] fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>
>> I think it's mostly a female insecurity thing, though. Tell a girl you
>> find another girl attractive, and even if the girl you're talking to
>> isn't the least bit interested in you she'll still usually get a bit
>> jealous and go to great lengths to point out the various physical
>> imprefections of said desire-object.
>
> Heh. AWTWP. Except the bit about 'even if' which I can't identify with
> obviously. If I replace it with 'given that' it works better.
Yeah, sorry. I didn't think.
> AWTWP. I'm not even sure what 'cheap and tarty' is supposed to mean -
> clearly it's a look that's often popular with men, and successful for
> women who want male attention (and possibly who deliberately want to
> provoke 'cheap and tarty' jibes from other women) otherwise they wouldn't
> do it, so the attitude seems to be barely-concealed jealousy that someone
> looks attractive to others.
Precisely. It doesn't seem to work the other way around, though. I see it
all the time at work, for instance we employed a chap about a year ago who
it's fair to say pretty much all the girls fancied. The boys don't seem to
have a problem with that, they're all 'yeah, he's a good looking guy
alright', and took him as they found him.
If we employ a girl who all the boys fancy, though, that girl will have to
work _really_ fucking hard to convince the other girls that she's not a
threat to their various little empires, and it's unliklely she'll be judged
on her merits. In many cases, she'll attract huge amounts of
resentment'n'shit just for the way she looks.
It's a bit sad really.
> It's quite a lot like me complaining about 'mainstream' music and 'bland'
> food'n'drink'n'shit actually. Except that I openly admit that it's driven
> by blatant jealousy.
So, did you shag that bird what only I fancied, then? HDTWOFY?
--
Joe
Pay it fast it will be great..!!!
|
|
|
| Re: Right, I'm Off [message #881971 ] |
Mon, 20 February 2006 13:45 |
|
"Joe Horowitz" <my_name [at] youblunder.co.youghey> wrote in message
news:RviKf.29332$YJ4.14553 [at] fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> One thing that did strike me, though, is how far out of touch most 'sexual
> or romantic dreams marketed to women' are, possibly because they are
> mostly created and marketed by men to fit their understanding of how they
> think women work, which in turn possibly shapes younger girls's fantasies
> a little until they've matured a but and had a chance to explore their own
> sexualities.
AWTWP, although I don't think they are just created and marketed by men
these days, but also by women who've been through the conditioning process
themselves.
I had a refreshingly open talk about sexuality and putting things up
arses'n'shit with a woman on Saturday. Effectively she's been the GHL of a
friend of mine for many years, complete with a chavcunt husband. If she's
that uninhibited and experimental in bed, then I feel his pain. (My friend,
not the chavcunt husband who probably doesn't even appreciate it,
obviously).
> I read someof that 'Secret Garden' book before I sent it off to Juicy for
> Christmas, certainly didn't seem much like a Keanu Reeves film to me.
Yeah, although I suspect more women will see Keanu Reeves films than read
that book.
Just like more men will see pictures of a page 3 stunner, than will put a
triple-glansed plug in their arses.
>> I also think this diversity is entrenched in our cultural processes and
>> has been for centuries. Go somewhere where you have to dress formally,
>> and every fucking bloke will be wearing broadly similar clothing, because
>> that's what you have to do, whereas there's so much more variance and
>> freedom in what teh women can wear, what hairstyles are considered
>> acceptable etc.
>
> Fucking GPWM, and something that I've always thought highly unbalanced and
> cunty. So when I get some woman moaning to me about how unfiar it is that
> they have to shave their legs to conform, I just point out that most
> companies won't employ blokes with huge great shaggy beards for top jobs
> either, the difference being that a woman can cover her legs.
Yeah. And women can equally wear trousers to hide their legs, or wear skirts
and dresses'n'shit, without being considered dangerously subversive, while
men have fewer choices.
Women can even wear blatant mens suits'n'shit, and still look good, and be
accepted for that look.
Basically, there are two kinds of clothing: Unisex and Woman Only. Cunts.
>>> Yes, yes I do. I also like 'posh and classy' women, 'cute and lovely'
>>> women and 'fit and sporty' women. I like many sorts of women.
>>
>>
>> AWTWP.
>
> Different sorts of 'looks' on women inspire different urges in me. Some
> women make me feel animalistic, others make me want to hold them tenderly,
> kiss them all over and take away the pain. Others look ticklish and
> playful. Etc etc.
Hmm... I guess the only ones I've really liked have all been in the 'hold
them tenderly, kiss them all over and take away the pain' category.
Maybe I do have a 'type' after all.
> Some women can cleverly interchange between different looks using wardrobe
> and hairstyles'n'shit.
Yeah, diane appleton did that a lot last Tuesday.
BTN
|
|
|
| Re: Right, I'm Off [message #881972 ] |
Mon, 20 February 2006 13:57 |
|
"Joe Horowitz" <my_name [at] youblunder.co.youghey> wrote in message
news:XGiKf.29390$YJ4.26330 [at] fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
>
>> Heh. AWTWP. Except the bit about 'even if' which I can't identify with
>> obviously. If I replace it with 'given that' it works better.
>
> Yeah, sorry. I didn't think.
Your blatant Nunnxclusivity knows no bounds.
> Precisely. It doesn't seem to work the other way around, though. I see
> it all the time at work, for instance we employed a chap about a year ago
> who it's fair to say pretty much all the girls fancied. The boys don't
> seem to have a problem with that, they're all 'yeah, he's a good looking
> guy alright', and took him as they found him.
Heh. I know I'd have a problem with it. I do work with people like that, and
I think they're cunts of the highest order.
But then, maybe that's just my strong feminine side coming through?
> If we employ a girl who all the boys fancy, though, that girl will have to
> work _really_ fucking hard to convince the other girls that she's not a
> threat to their various little empires, and it's unliklely she'll be
> judged on her merits. In many cases, she'll attract huge amounts of
> resentment'n'shit just for the way she looks.
>
> It's a bit sad really.
I think it's sad, but possibly for different reasons than you - to me it's
tragic because this sort of competetiveness is not necessary, and is less
justified among women than it would be among men.
Deep down, what is their ultimate objective? Biologically, it's probably
going to relate to dominating the tribe, attracting a man, mothering
children, and all the other fucking shit that drives us on a primal level.
Newsflash: Women really don't need to fucking worry about this shit. I
genuinely believe that no woman in western civilisation is *involuntarily*
single. Not one.
Some have more options than others, naturally, but every woman out there
probably has some guy in her life, who would get together with her, given
the chance.
But no, they'd rather all compete over the one guy that all the other women
like...
>> It's quite a lot like me complaining about 'mainstream' music and 'bland'
>> food'n'drink'n'shit actually. Except that I openly admit that it's driven
>> by blatant jealousy.
>
> So, did you shag that bird what only I fancied, then? HDTWOFY?
Fairly obviously not. The annoying thing about that adultwork website is
that you're entirely reliant on the girl getting in touch with you to
confirm the booking. You don't get their numbers or anything.
I might try using it again for another girl in the future, but, tbh, so much
of the feedback seems to revolve around girls simply not even calling the
client.
BTN
|
|
|
| Re: Right, I'm Off [message #881977 ] |
Mon, 20 February 2006 15:42 |
|
"Sir Benjamin Nunn" <bennunn [at] depro.co.uk> wrote in message
news:45tq5eF8fki1U1 [at] individual.net...
> A generalisation I know, but even in the 1970s and 80s, by the time they
> reached their 20s, people were looking to settle down with someone they
> could relate to, who could offer security and a spiritual connection, and
> be a good parent to the children'n'shit, having got their superficial
> looks-based romances out of their systems in their teens.
I think that's still the case, to a certain extent. For instance, I'm not
with Juicy because of the way she looks, sure I find her attractive
physically but there's others who score much higher in that respect.. I
wouldn't swap her with anyone, though, on grounds of sexual and social
compatibility, and I'm pretty sure relationships based on anything else are
doomed to rapid failure.
At the end of the day, most people don't come anywhere near fitting the
societal ideal of how we should all look, if your argument was completely
correct then nearly everyone would be single.
> Now for various reasons we have 'younger' 30-somethings who are leading
> more frivolous lives, and rightly or wrongly, have different priorities to
> previous generations at their age. Cunts.
Yeah, cunts. There's nothing I hate more than younger 30-somethings who
lead frivolous lives. Why can't they all just conform to the correct
societal ideal of how we should all live and what we should aspire to?
All I ever wanted was a good career and some kids, that should be enough for
anyone.
--
Joe
|
|
|
| Re: Right, I'm Off [message #881980 ] |
Mon, 20 February 2006 16:01 |
|
"Sir Benjamin Nunn" <bennunn [at] depro.co.uk> wrote in message
news:45trueF8diomU1 [at] individual.net...
> I had a refreshingly open talk about sexuality and putting things up
> arses'n'shit with a woman on Saturday. Effectively she's been the GHL of a
> friend of mine for many years, complete with a chavcunt husband. If she's
> that uninhibited and experimental in bed, then I feel his pain. (My
> friend, not the chavcunt husband who probably doesn't even appreciate it,
> obviously).
What, probably as in you know him and you've chatted to him about these
things, or probably as in she says he doesn't, or just probably as in
"because he's pulled and you haven't"? I ask because Juicy's fucked three
men in her year in Australia, and I thin it's safe to say they all
appreciated her uninhibited experimental nature.
> Yeah, although I suspect more women will see Keanu Reeves films than read
> that book.
>
> Just like more men will see pictures of a page 3 stunner, than will put a
> triple-glansed plug in their arses.
Yep, kinda, except the difference being that the book entirely consists of
interviews with women about their fantasies, which would suggest that the
acts depicted are possibly more mainstream than the cunts making Keanu
Reeves films might like to think.
Besides, page 3 stunnas are rubbishcunt, I've never found those images
attractive.
> Yeah. And women can equally wear trousers to hide their legs, or wear
> skirts and dresses'n'shit, without being considered dangerously
> subversive, while men have fewer choices.
Hell, they can even wear stockings to hide their hairyness and be considered
more sexy in most cases than if they had bare, exposed, shaved legs. The
only reason a woman needs to shave her legs is if she expects to pull, or
it's fucking hot as fuck outside and she's going to expose her legs out of
neccessity. I have to shave every fucking day or I look like some kind of
stubbly latino cunt.
> Women can even wear blatant mens suits'n'shit, and still look good, and be
> accepted for that look.
>
> Basically, there are two kinds of clothing: Unisex and Woman Only. Cunts.
AWTWP. Women's underwear is the best example of all, it's quite a hobby of
mine but it's conversely hard to get excited about 'briefs or boxers?'.
I've a lot of time for cross-dressers, especially those who aren't teh ghey
or anything, they just want to wear women's clothes because
why-the-fuck-shouldn't-they. Shame most companies wouldn't employ them.
> Hmm... I guess the only ones I've really liked have all been in the 'hold
> them tenderly, kiss them all over and take away the pain' category.
>
> Maybe I do have a 'type' after all.
It's quite possible. My only real type is 'little', I'm sexually attracted
to slender girls of all different ages and looks, but not, not matter how
much I might like to be, to any girl who is even 'normal' size.
*shrug*
> Yeah, diane appleton did that a lot last Tuesday.
BWOHL, I expect.
--
Joe
Pay it fast it will be great..!!!
|
|
|
| Re: Right, I'm Off [message #881986 ] |
Mon, 20 February 2006 16:18 |
|
"Joe Horowitz" <my_name [at] youblunder.co.youghey> wrote in message
news:7RkKf.30685$YJ4.26525 [at] fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
>
> What, probably as in you know him and you've chatted to him about these
> things, or probably as in she says he doesn't, or just probably as in
> "because he's pulled and you haven't"? I ask because Juicy's fucked three
> men in her year in Australia, and I thin it's safe to say they all
> appreciated her uninhibited experimental nature.
Probably because she's been moaning about his lack of interest in her (and
yet staying with him) for years, and tbh it's going to be clouded by my
mate's perspective as that's basically what he said, and I nod along
thinking 'yep, I know the story'. She is his GHL, and clearly he feels a
long times worth of feelings for her that I'm going to understand.
And not to mention the alleged violence and abuse and serial philandering.
Maybe violent and abusive chavcunts *do* appreciate what they have, but I'm
led to suspect that they take it for granted. That's why it's a 'probably'.
>> Yeah, although I suspect more women will see Keanu Reeves films than read
>> that book.
>>
>> Just like more men will see pictures of a page 3 stunner, than will put a
>> triple-glansed plug in their arses.
>
> Yep, kinda, except the difference being that the book entirely consists of
> interviews with women about their fantasies, which would suggest that the
> acts depicted are possibly more mainstream than the cunts making Keanu
> Reeves films might like to think.
True, although maybe it only looks that way because even to talk about her
fantasies to somebody compiling a book requires a non-mainstream level of
inhibition. Maybe.
> Besides, page 3 stunnas are rubbishcunt, I've never found those images
> attractive.
Me neither. AWTP3S.
>> Yeah. And women can equally wear trousers to hide their legs, or wear
>> skirts and dresses'n'shit, without being considered dangerously
>> subversive, while men have fewer choices.
>
> Hell, they can even wear stockings to hide their hairyness and be
> considered more sexy in most cases than if they had bare, exposed, shaved
> legs. The only reason a woman needs to shave her legs is if she expects
> to pull, or it's fucking hot as fuck outside and she's going to expose her
> legs out of neccessity. I have to shave every fucking day or I look like
> some kind of stubbly latino cunt.
And my skin still gets irritated and rubbish, and still feels hairy no
matter how often or infrequently I try to shave it. Fucking rubbishcunt
skin.
>> Women can even wear blatant mens suits'n'shit, and still look good, and
>> be accepted for that look.
>>
>> Basically, there are two kinds of clothing: Unisex and Woman Only. Cunts.
>
> AWTWP. Women's underwear is the best example of all, it's quite a hobby
> of mine but it's conversely hard to get excited about 'briefs or boxers?'.
>
> I've a lot of time for cross-dressers, especially those who aren't teh
> ghey or anything, they just want to wear women's clothes because
> why-the-fuck-shouldn't-they. Shame most companies wouldn't employ them.
AWTWP.
>> Hmm... I guess the only ones I've really liked have all been in the 'hold
>> them tenderly, kiss them all over and take away the pain' category.
>>
>> Maybe I do have a 'type' after all.
>
> It's quite possible. My only real type is 'little', I'm sexually
> attracted to slender girls of all different ages and looks, but not, not
> matter how much I might like to be, to any girl who is even 'normal' size.
Heh. I think that makes you responsible for all the eating disorders in the
world.
I don't think I've ever noticed a womans size actually. I have found myself
thinking 'she's a bit thin', or 'she's a bit chunky' and then been told that
this was wrong, or they were the same size and some other shit.
> *shrug*
Conlan's not that slender though.
>> Yeah, diane appleton did that a lot last Tuesday.
>
> BWOHL, I expect.
Yes, and hers.
BTN
|
|
|
| Re: Right, I'm Off [message #881987 ] |
Mon, 20 February 2006 16:22 |
|
"Sir Benjamin Nunn" <bennunn [at] depro.co.uk> wrote in message
news:45tslpF8e05bU1 [at] individual.net...
>
> "Joe Horowitz" <my_name [at] youblunder.co.youghey> wrote in message
> news:XGiKf.29390$YJ4.26330 [at] fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> Yeah, sorry. I didn't think.
>
>
> Your blatant Nunnxclusivity knows no bounds.
And neither should it.
> Heh. I know I'd have a problem with it. I do work with people like that,
> and I think they're cunts of the highest order.
Oh, so you don't ever judge people on appearances, except when you do? Or
does it simply become non-cunty if you're judging people on the basis of how
others judge them?
I took this lad as I found him, which is a very genuine and interesting
person who also happens to have the finest reggae collection this side of
Greedy G. I also respect the fact that he could very easily be a total
womaniser if he wanted, and most blokes would in his position, but he's
actually quite romantic'n'shit and would much rather be faithful and loving
to a GHY. He's a total sweetie, tbh. One of my favourite staff, and it
also helps that he is very good at the job. Shame he's moving to Spain next
month.
I couldn't give a fuck if lots of girlies fancy him, though, that's between
him and them. It's certainly not his fault, any more than it would be if he
looked a bit odd and no girlies fancied him at all. Branding him a cunt on
the basis of other's cunty prejudices just seems like the most cunty thing
imaginable, it's times like that I just have no fucking understanding of
your values whatsoever.
> But then, maybe that's just my strong feminine side coming through?
I think that's just your bitter and emotionally immature side coming
through, tbh. Actually, yeah, YPS. Disregard.
> I think it's sad, but possibly for different reasons than you - to me it's
> tragic because this sort of competetiveness is not necessary, and is less
> justified among women than it would be among men.
I just think it's sad if anyone gets judged on the basis of their
appearance. I'm really surprised that you don't, it seems like the most
awful double-standard to me. Maybe I've misunderstood'n'shit.
> But no, they'd rather all compete over the one guy that all the other
> women like...
To a certain extent, and not wishing to totally defend shallow and cunty
behaviour, society puts ridiculous pressure on women to be phyically
attractive to men (just as it does on men to be financially attractive etc
to women), and so being the one who teh AlphaMale chooses in some ways
validates them in terms of today's societal values. I'm not totally without
sympathy on this issue.
--
Joe
Pay it fast it will be great..!!!
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Thu Jan 8 20:12:20 CET 2009
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0.17144 Sekunden |
