Heartland

Dawn Porter: Extreme Wife

DeWinter wrote:If the Iraq War was that unpopular, why were the protests dwarfed by the Poll Tax riots near fifteen years earlier? I saw no furious rioting or mass non-compliance with taxation. Most people disapproved, but didn't care enough about it. I they had, they could have stopped it. They even voted in Blair again!

I take your point. I don't know, I think the level of perception of the potential for genuine change through protest and democracy has decreased to the point that people don't bother even trying. (As an aside, deliberate non-payment of income tax is a bit tricky if you're on PAYE. )

DeWinter wrote:I suspect personally that the number of poly-amorous relationships that fit that description are slight. It's nearly always one person who wants such a relationship, and another who agrees to it reluctantly and is secretly very unhappy. Such is the case with those I have seen, at any rate. The type of personality that would want that is usually very narcissistic and quite often very selfish. Law of averages some must exist, but I'm not sure I'd risk a child's well-being on it personally.

It's difficult to make a judgement without actual data; I would guess that you're right, but I also imagine that people in polyamorous relationships who also have children would try to conceal their relationships for fear of government interference. It's hard to know what people are doing when the curtains are closed...

Ozpat wrote: In her case and without a doubt in many cases....an excuse and acceptance
to f**k around. I don't care as long as my own girlfriend doesn't start with this crap.

Thanks man. The Truth.

so @Andy the OP, ye really did just come round here to tell us how big your dick was...


shabby man, shabby

and to make it clear I'm on top.

markfiend wrote:It's hard to know what people are doing when the curtains are closed...

as long as it doesn't involve 2 girls and 1 cup...

it's been an interesting read, with loads of morals coming out and truths.

come on Unkle Jam~es Andy is probably too shy to come out and say thanks for the opnions as most of them are against the asked relationship for them personally.

can someone explain the two girls and one cup thing?
if you think it's wise.

emilystrange wrote:can someone explain the two girls and one cup thing?
if you think it's wise.

The old adage that; "curiosity killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back." would be better rephrased as: "Curiosity didn't kill the cat, but made it seriously regret finding out."

Getting back OT: As for polyamory...there's a BIG difference between it and polygamy. One is about sex, the other about commitment.

As a general rule, polyamorous relationships are generally better known as "open" or "swinging" as it pretty much amounts to the same thing IMHO.

Syberberg wrote: Getting back OT: As for polyamory...there's a BIG difference between it and polygamy. One is about sex, the other about commitment.

Both are about sex. A specious religous ceremony doesn't change that. The difference being polygamy gives you the control over the other partners that a marriage gives you. I would say polyamory is about freedom, and polygamy control over many. There is ALWAYS a dominant person in polygamy, and often a pecking order amongst the others.

emilystrange wrote:can someone explain the two girls and one cup thing?
if you think it's wise.

Basically two girls sh*t in a cup, drink it, and spit it into each others mouths. It became famous after a YouTube video showing peoples reactions to watching it was posted. I have not, and would not want to ever see it myself.

DeWinter wrote:

Syberberg wrote: Getting back OT: As for polyamory...there's a BIG difference between it and polygamy. One is about sex, the other about commitment.

Both are about sex. A specious religous ceremony doesn't change that. The difference being polygamy gives you the control over the other partners that a marriage gives you. I would say polyamory is about freedom, and polygamy control over many. There is ALWAYS a dominant person in polygamy, and often a pecking order amongst the others.

Monogamy is about sex. A specious religious (or civil) ceremony doesn't change that. The difference being monogamy gives you the control over the other partner that any marriage gives you. I would say polyamory is about freedom, and monogamy control over an individual. There is ALWAYS a dominant person in a monogamous relationship.

As for pecking orders, well, they are present within any social species.

But what about people who want to have a polygamous relationship where religion has nothing to do with it? (To clarify my standpoint, just in case any confusion should arise: Monogmay/polyamory/polygamy by CHOICE=Good Thing. The same by FORCE (social/religious)=Bad Thing).

Syberberg wrote: Monogamy is about sex. A specious religious (or civil) ceremony doesn't change that. The difference being monogamy gives you the control over the other partner that any marriage gives you. I would say polyamory is about freedom, and monogamy control over an individual. There is ALWAYS a dominant person in a monogamous relationship.

As for pecking orders, well, they are present within any social species.

But what about people who want to have a polygamous relationship where religion has nothing to do with it? (To clarify my standpoint, just in case any confusion should arise: Monogmay/polyamory/polygamy by CHOICE=Good Thing. The same by FORCE (social/religious)=Bad Thing).

You can't have a polygamous relationship without religion, my sweet. The word means "multiple marriages". Not multiple partners (which is "polyamory" in Greek), marriages.
(I have a similair-ish debate with certain gays. "Marriage=religous ceremony. Religions don't like bumsex. So no gay marriages.". The general response is to stamp their little feet and refuse to listen, seemingly insisting churches ignore their own holy books so they can have a tacky ceremony and have some pretty pictures taken.)
Always a dominant person in a monogamous relationship? Really? Maybe from your personal perspective, and certainly historically, but I doubt many would agree with that in the here and now. Check out any polygamous relationship, and it is always one man or woman, with a group of wives/husbands, who have to remain exclusive to that one original person. Control. Which does not exist in polyamory as much.

DeWinter wrote:Marriage=religous ceremony. Religions don't like bumsex. So no gay marriages.

Marriage is not a religious ceremony. It is (and always has been) primarily a civil contract. It's only really Christianity that has tried to claim a monopoly on marriage (and even then only fairly recently).

(Also heterosexual couples have more anal sex (both proportionally and in absolute numbers) than gay couples. (I admit I can't provide a citation for that though.))

DeWinter wrote:

emilystrange wrote:can someone explain the two girls and one cup thing?
if you think it's wise.

Basically two girls sh*t in a cup, drink it, and spit it into each others mouths. It became famous after a YouTube video showing peoples reactions to watching it was posted. I have not, and would not want to ever see it myself.

I was just biting into my cheese on toast as I read that.

Hom_Corleone wrote:

DeWinter wrote:

emilystrange wrote:can someone explain the two girls and one cup thing?
if you think it's wise.

Basically two girls sh*t in a cup, drink it, and spit it into each others mouths. It became famous after a YouTube video showing peoples reactions to watching it was posted. I have not, and would not want to ever see it myself.

I was just biting into my cheese on toast as I read that.

Oh just pass on the rest of your cheese on toast to me please!

Marmite Debs? Or, in the light of the above posts, is that a bit too... brown?

boudicca wrote:Marmite Debs? Or, in the light of the above posts, is that a bit too... brown?

crude, but funny

Hom_Corleone wrote:

DeWinter wrote:

emilystrange wrote:can someone explain the two girls and one cup thing?
if you think it's wise.

Basically two girls sh*t in a cup, drink it, and spit it into each others mouths. It became famous after a YouTube video showing peoples reactions to watching it was posted. I have not, and would not want to ever see it myself.

I was just biting into my cheese on toast as I read that.

Curiosity killed me and my lunch and breakfast ...

weebleswobble wrote:

boudicca wrote:Marmite Debs? Or, in the light of the above posts, is that a bit too... brown?

crude, but funny

Well Claire knows how much I love my marmite, so of course loads of brown!

MadameButterfly wrote:

weebleswobble wrote:

boudicca wrote:Marmite Debs? Or, in the light of the above posts, is that a bit too... brown?

crude, but funny

Well Claire knows how much I love my marmite, so of course loads of brown!

Vegemite is far superior. Or are you still being rude?

Hom_Corleone wrote:

MadameButterfly wrote:

weebleswobble wrote: crude, but funny

Well Claire knows how much I love my marmite, so of course loads of brown!

Vegemite is far superior. Or are you still being rude?

We were being rude? Oh I get it now, buttjam or whatever as reference to Marmite...get it!

Don't know the Don, have never tried Vegemite. Good old Marmite still does it for me.

Three men on their honeymoon are talking to each other. Each one reckons he will make love to his wife the most that night. They decide to let each other know by the amount of toast they order at breakfast in the morning so that the wives wouldn't be suspicious.

The next morning the first man orders three slices of toast. The second one orders four and grins rather pleased with himself until the third man says with a loud voice "I'll have six slices of toast - and make two of them brown!"

ayethangyew... all week... veal etc...

Where do people get time? I barely see my gf as it is....