28 Jul 2015, 2:32 pm
28 Jul 2015, 5:38 pm
28 Jul 2015, 6:19 pm
28 Jul 2015, 11:49 pm
nurseangela, you're making it increasingly hard for me to grant you the benefit of the doubt and not conclude you're pulling my leg, and I have better things to do with the time I spend here than repeatedly try to explain to you something which wasn't even adressed to you, and which you don't seem nearly as interested in understanding as in making a big fuss about by taking it out of context and putting in my mouth something having little to do with what I said, like you did to The_Face_of_Boo.
You keep ignoring posts by rdos where he colorfully claims moral superiority to sexual people who value their sexuality and want to live it, like this:
rdos wrote:
Yes, but I don't find the Western "consent-model" very useful. Why should we specifically need to consent to sex? Why not for flirting with each others too? Or even looking at somebody might require consent? Or merely breathing?
But I have a nice little alternative proposition that likely would wipe out NTs: Sexual intercourse without wanting to bread should become illegal with death penalty as the punishment.
But I have a nice little alternative proposition that likely would wipe out NTs: Sexual intercourse without wanting to bread should become illegal with death penalty as the punishment.
And then you act all worked up when we more or less jokingly reply in kind.
Spiderpig wrote:
I have another idea: let's make it illegal and punishable by death to complain about sexual freedom, trying to make it look like people who don't want to have sex are being attacked.
As you can see for yourself, he has actually dismissed sexual freedom as people being pressured to like sex. It's plausible for an asexual person to see it this way, since they don't feel our sexual drive, but it really gets old after so much fruitless arguing, and isn't ultimately very different from considering lack of racism an attack on the race which used to be dominant, or gender equality to be sexism against men.
If you still don't get it, I'm sorry, but I'm not devoting any more time to this. I don't think I can make my point any clearer, and I'm no fan of repeating myself. There comes a point when you have to accept it's not your choice how others take your words.
29 Jul 2015, 12:12 am
Ban-Dodger wrote:
The solution here is actually VERY SIMPLE...!
Let's just all starting having
GROUP-SMEX Right Now ! 
Let's just all starting having
GROUP-SMEX Right Now ! No thanks.
29 Jul 2015, 12:40 am
Spiderpig wrote:
nurseangela, you're making it increasingly hard for me to grant you the benefit of the doubt and not conclude you're pulling my leg, and I have better things to do with the time I spend here than repeatedly try to explain to you something which wasn't even adressed to you, and which you don't seem nearly as interested in understanding as in making a big fuss about by taking it out of context and putting in my mouth something having little to do with what I said, like you did to The_Face_of_Boo.
You keep ignoring posts by rdos where he colorfully claims moral superiority to sexual people who value their sexuality and want to live it, like this:
And then you act all worked up when we more or less jokingly reply in kind.
As you can see for yourself, he has actually dismissed sexual freedom as people being pressured to like sex. It's plausible for an asexual person to see it this way, since they don't feel our sexual drive, but it really gets old after so much fruitless arguing, and isn't ultimately very different from considering lack of racism an attack on the race which used to be dominant, or gender equality to be sexism against men.
If you still don't get it, I'm sorry, but I'm not devoting any more time to this. I don't think I can make my point any clearer, and I'm no fan of repeating myself. There comes a point when you have to accept it's not your choice how others take your words.
You keep ignoring posts by rdos where he colorfully claims moral superiority to sexual people who value their sexuality and want to live it, like this:
rdos wrote:
Yes, but I don't find the Western "consent-model" very useful. Why should we specifically need to consent to sex? Why not for flirting with each others too? Or even looking at somebody might require consent? Or merely breathing?
But I have a nice little alternative proposition that likely would wipe out NTs: Sexual intercourse without wanting to bread should become illegal with death penalty as the punishment.
But I have a nice little alternative proposition that likely would wipe out NTs: Sexual intercourse without wanting to bread should become illegal with death penalty as the punishment.
And then you act all worked up when we more or less jokingly reply in kind.
Spiderpig wrote:
I have another idea: let's make it illegal and punishable by death to complain about sexual freedom, trying to make it look like people who don't want to have sex are being attacked.
As you can see for yourself, he has actually dismissed sexual freedom as people being pressured to like sex. It's plausible for an asexual person to see it this way, since they don't feel our sexual drive, but it really gets old after so much fruitless arguing, and isn't ultimately very different from considering lack of racism an attack on the race which used to be dominant, or gender equality to be sexism against men.
If you still don't get it, I'm sorry, but I'm not devoting any more time to this. I don't think I can make my point any clearer, and I'm no fan of repeating myself. There comes a point when you have to accept it's not your choice how others take your words.
I can only explain why I keep asking what you mean in this way... There are some Aspies on here that I just can't seem to understand what they are saying - maybe it's the words they use or the use of sarcasm at times - idk. What happens is that when I read their response my brain just can't understand what they are saying and my mind just shuts down. This has happened with you, Boo and Mr Blue M&M (I can't remember his name). Others I'll have no problem with. Honestly, I just read your response again and I get a headache (for real) trying to figure out what you're saying and it is just too exhausting for me to keep trying to figure it out. No matter how many times I read it, it never gets any clearer. My NT friend Julia also has problems whenever I'll send her a response from an Aspie on this site. And it's not all Aspies either. This is probably one reason there are so many miscommunications between Aspies and NT's. I don't know what to do about it, but I'll make a note not to ask for clarification on things anymore regarding your posts.
29 Jul 2015, 12:46 am
The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,095
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.
29 Jul 2015, 1:03 am
nurseangela wrote:
Spiderpig wrote:
nurseangela, you're making it increasingly hard for me to grant you the benefit of the doubt and not conclude you're pulling my leg, and I have better things to do with the time I spend here than repeatedly try to explain to you something which wasn't even adressed to you, and which you don't seem nearly as interested in understanding as in making a big fuss about by taking it out of context and putting in my mouth something having little to do with what I said, like you did to The_Face_of_Boo.
You keep ignoring posts by rdos where he colorfully claims moral superiority to sexual people who value their sexuality and want to live it, like this:
And then you act all worked up when we more or less jokingly reply in kind.
As you can see for yourself, he has actually dismissed sexual freedom as people being pressured to like sex. It's plausible for an asexual person to see it this way, since they don't feel our sexual drive, but it really gets old after so much fruitless arguing, and isn't ultimately very different from considering lack of racism an attack on the race which used to be dominant, or gender equality to be sexism against men.
If you still don't get it, I'm sorry, but I'm not devoting any more time to this. I don't think I can make my point any clearer, and I'm no fan of repeating myself. There comes a point when you have to accept it's not your choice how others take your words.
You keep ignoring posts by rdos where he colorfully claims moral superiority to sexual people who value their sexuality and want to live it, like this:
rdos wrote:
Yes, but I don't find the Western "consent-model" very useful. Why should we specifically need to consent to sex? Why not for flirting with each others too? Or even looking at somebody might require consent? Or merely breathing?
But I have a nice little alternative proposition that likely would wipe out NTs: Sexual intercourse without wanting to bread should become illegal with death penalty as the punishment.
But I have a nice little alternative proposition that likely would wipe out NTs: Sexual intercourse without wanting to bread should become illegal with death penalty as the punishment.
And then you act all worked up when we more or less jokingly reply in kind.
Spiderpig wrote:
I have another idea: let's make it illegal and punishable by death to complain about sexual freedom, trying to make it look like people who don't want to have sex are being attacked.
As you can see for yourself, he has actually dismissed sexual freedom as people being pressured to like sex. It's plausible for an asexual person to see it this way, since they don't feel our sexual drive, but it really gets old after so much fruitless arguing, and isn't ultimately very different from considering lack of racism an attack on the race which used to be dominant, or gender equality to be sexism against men.
If you still don't get it, I'm sorry, but I'm not devoting any more time to this. I don't think I can make my point any clearer, and I'm no fan of repeating myself. There comes a point when you have to accept it's not your choice how others take your words.
I can only explain why I keep asking what you mean in this way... There are some Aspies on here that I just can't seem to understand what they are saying - maybe it's the words they use or the use of sarcasm at times - idk. What happens is that when I read their response my brain just can't understand what they are saying and my mind just shuts down. This has happened with you, Boo and Mr Blue M&M (I can't remember his name). Others I'll have no problem with. Honestly, I just read your response again and I get a headache (for real) trying to figure out what you're saying and it is just too exhausting for me to keep trying to figure it out. No matter how many times I read it, it never gets any clearer. My NT friend Julia also has problems whenever I'll send her a response from an Aspie on this site. And it's not all Aspies either. This is probably one reason there are so many miscommunications between Aspies and NT's. I don't know what to do about it, but I'll make a note not to ask for clarification on things anymore regarding your posts.
Probably a generational thing, you didn't understand the use of ' ' for the word good in my post before which indicates sarcasm nowadays. This is something of recent I think, in the texting era.
Or maybe Waldo is messing your head
.
The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,095
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.
29 Jul 2015, 1:07 am
Quote:
Boo, I understand what you are saying now. I apologize because I wasn't understanding what you were saying before and it sounded to me like you would prefer things to be how they used to be.
Aww...good...It bothered me too for being thought of me as a rape apologist.
I accept your apology but still...
no hugs
29 Jul 2015, 1:10 am
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
nurseangela wrote:
Spiderpig wrote:
nurseangela, you're making it increasingly hard for me to grant you the benefit of the doubt and not conclude you're pulling my leg, and I have better things to do with the time I spend here than repeatedly try to explain to you something which wasn't even adressed to you, and which you don't seem nearly as interested in understanding as in making a big fuss about by taking it out of context and putting in my mouth something having little to do with what I said, like you did to The_Face_of_Boo.
You keep ignoring posts by rdos where he colorfully claims moral superiority to sexual people who value their sexuality and want to live it, like this:
And then you act all worked up when we more or less jokingly reply in kind.
As you can see for yourself, he has actually dismissed sexual freedom as people being pressured to like sex. It's plausible for an asexual person to see it this way, since they don't feel our sexual drive, but it really gets old after so much fruitless arguing, and isn't ultimately very different from considering lack of racism an attack on the race which used to be dominant, or gender equality to be sexism against men.
If you still don't get it, I'm sorry, but I'm not devoting any more time to this. I don't think I can make my point any clearer, and I'm no fan of repeating myself. There comes a point when you have to accept it's not your choice how others take your words.
You keep ignoring posts by rdos where he colorfully claims moral superiority to sexual people who value their sexuality and want to live it, like this:
rdos wrote:
Yes, but I don't find the Western "consent-model" very useful. Why should we specifically need to consent to sex? Why not for flirting with each others too? Or even looking at somebody might require consent? Or merely breathing?
But I have a nice little alternative proposition that likely would wipe out NTs: Sexual intercourse without wanting to bread should become illegal with death penalty as the punishment.
But I have a nice little alternative proposition that likely would wipe out NTs: Sexual intercourse without wanting to bread should become illegal with death penalty as the punishment.
And then you act all worked up when we more or less jokingly reply in kind.
Spiderpig wrote:
I have another idea: let's make it illegal and punishable by death to complain about sexual freedom, trying to make it look like people who don't want to have sex are being attacked.
As you can see for yourself, he has actually dismissed sexual freedom as people being pressured to like sex. It's plausible for an asexual person to see it this way, since they don't feel our sexual drive, but it really gets old after so much fruitless arguing, and isn't ultimately very different from considering lack of racism an attack on the race which used to be dominant, or gender equality to be sexism against men.
If you still don't get it, I'm sorry, but I'm not devoting any more time to this. I don't think I can make my point any clearer, and I'm no fan of repeating myself. There comes a point when you have to accept it's not your choice how others take your words.
I can only explain why I keep asking what you mean in this way... There are some Aspies on here that I just can't seem to understand what they are saying - maybe it's the words they use or the use of sarcasm at times - idk. What happens is that when I read their response my brain just can't understand what they are saying and my mind just shuts down. This has happened with you, Boo and Mr Blue M&M (I can't remember his name). Others I'll have no problem with. Honestly, I just read your response again and I get a headache (for real) trying to figure out what you're saying and it is just too exhausting for me to keep trying to figure it out. No matter how many times I read it, it never gets any clearer. My NT friend Julia also has problems whenever I'll send her a response from an Aspie on this site. And it's not all Aspies either. This is probably one reason there are so many miscommunications between Aspies and NT's. I don't know what to do about it, but I'll make a note not to ask for clarification on things anymore regarding your posts.
Probably a generational thing, you didn't understand the use of ' ' for the word good in my post before which indicates sarcasm nowadays. This is something of recent I think, in the texting era.
Or maybe Waldo is messing your head
.That could be true, after all Waldo is Aspie you know.
29 Jul 2015, 1:33 am
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Quote:
Boo, I understand what you are saying now. I apologize because I wasn't understanding what you were saying before and it sounded to me like you would prefer things to be how they used to be.
Aww...good...It bothered me too for being thought of me as a rape apologist.
I accept your apology but still...
no hugs
Boo, you make me smile.....but only a little.
29 Jul 2015, 4:07 am
29 Jul 2015, 4:51 am
nurseangela wrote:
Spiderpig wrote:
I have another idea: let's make it illegal and punishable by death to complain about sexual freedom, trying to make it look like people who don't want to have sex are being attacked.
What??! ! What does this mean? What is the point to this statement?
its a counter argument against
rdos wrote:
Yes, but I don't find the Western "consent-model" very useful. Why should we specifically need to consent to sex? Why not for flirting with each others too? Or even looking at somebody might require consent? Or merely breathing?
But I have a nice little alternative proposition that likely would wipe out NTs: Sexual intercourse without wanting to bread should become illegal with death penalty as the punishment.
where one takes what another says rewords or twists it so its used against the person now.
like
liberal says:
lets make a law banning conservatives
conservative counter says:
no, how about a law banning liberals
rdos proposed a law that would kill all people who like sex, so spiderpig countered with another law that would kill all people who don't like sex.
that's all not much else to it. spider pig wasn't being serious, though rdos maybe idk with him anymore.
29 Jul 2015, 4:53 am
nurseangela wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
nurseangela wrote:
Spiderpig wrote:
nurseangela, you're making it increasingly hard for me to grant you the benefit of the doubt and not conclude you're pulling my leg, and I have better things to do with the time I spend here than repeatedly try to explain to you something which wasn't even adressed to you, and which you don't seem nearly as interested in understanding as in making a big fuss about by taking it out of context and putting in my mouth something having little to do with what I said, like you did to The_Face_of_Boo.
You keep ignoring posts by rdos where he colorfully claims moral superiority to sexual people who value their sexuality and want to live it, like this:
And then you act all worked up when we more or less jokingly reply in kind.
As you can see for yourself, he has actually dismissed sexual freedom as people being pressured to like sex. It's plausible for an asexual person to see it this way, since they don't feel our sexual drive, but it really gets old after so much fruitless arguing, and isn't ultimately very different from considering lack of racism an attack on the race which used to be dominant, or gender equality to be sexism against men.
If you still don't get it, I'm sorry, but I'm not devoting any more time to this. I don't think I can make my point any clearer, and I'm no fan of repeating myself. There comes a point when you have to accept it's not your choice how others take your words.
You keep ignoring posts by rdos where he colorfully claims moral superiority to sexual people who value their sexuality and want to live it, like this:
rdos wrote:
Yes, but I don't find the Western "consent-model" very useful. Why should we specifically need to consent to sex? Why not for flirting with each others too? Or even looking at somebody might require consent? Or merely breathing?
But I have a nice little alternative proposition that likely would wipe out NTs: Sexual intercourse without wanting to bread should become illegal with death penalty as the punishment.
But I have a nice little alternative proposition that likely would wipe out NTs: Sexual intercourse without wanting to bread should become illegal with death penalty as the punishment.
And then you act all worked up when we more or less jokingly reply in kind.
Spiderpig wrote:
I have another idea: let's make it illegal and punishable by death to complain about sexual freedom, trying to make it look like people who don't want to have sex are being attacked.
As you can see for yourself, he has actually dismissed sexual freedom as people being pressured to like sex. It's plausible for an asexual person to see it this way, since they don't feel our sexual drive, but it really gets old after so much fruitless arguing, and isn't ultimately very different from considering lack of racism an attack on the race which used to be dominant, or gender equality to be sexism against men.
If you still don't get it, I'm sorry, but I'm not devoting any more time to this. I don't think I can make my point any clearer, and I'm no fan of repeating myself. There comes a point when you have to accept it's not your choice how others take your words.
I can only explain why I keep asking what you mean in this way... There are some Aspies on here that I just can't seem to understand what they are saying - maybe it's the words they use or the use of sarcasm at times - idk. What happens is that when I read their response my brain just can't understand what they are saying and my mind just shuts down. This has happened with you, Boo and Mr Blue M&M (I can't remember his name). Others I'll have no problem with. Honestly, I just read your response again and I get a headache (for real) trying to figure out what you're saying and it is just too exhausting for me to keep trying to figure it out. No matter how many times I read it, it never gets any clearer. My NT friend Julia also has problems whenever I'll send her a response from an Aspie on this site. And it's not all Aspies either. This is probably one reason there are so many miscommunications between Aspies and NT's. I don't know what to do about it, but I'll make a note not to ask for clarification on things anymore regarding your posts.
Probably a generational thing, you didn't understand the use of ' ' for the word good in my post before which indicates sarcasm nowadays. This is something of recent I think, in the texting era.
Or maybe Waldo is messing your head
.That could be true, after all Waldo is Aspie you know.
explained above. not everything is a nt vrs aspie thing. i don't get how you don't understand it was a counter argument though if you didn't see rdos post some how, then I see how it would be confusing.
Ban-Dodger
Veteran
Joined: 2 Jun 2011
Age: 1027
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,820
Location: Возможно в будущее к Россию идти... можеть быть...
29 Jul 2015, 5:10 am
Have over-whelming need for a « fix » upon some post at random... 
nurseangela wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Quote:
Boo, I understand what you are saying now. I apologize because I wasn't understanding what you were saying before and it sounded to me like you would prefer things to be how they used to be.
Aww...good...It bothered me too for being thought of me as a rape apologist.
I accept your apology but still...
no hugs
Boo, I need your help, I have suddenly turned into this like, cat-girl, and my body is somehow feeling really all hot & bothered, and I can't get you out of my mind right now, please do something to relieve all my stress & tension...!
Not a bad Profile-Avatar if I do say so myself...
The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,095
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.
29 Jul 2015, 5:19 am
nurseangela wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Quote:
Boo, I understand what you are saying now. I apologize because I wasn't understanding what you were saying before and it sounded to me like you would prefer things to be how they used to be.
Aww...good...It bothered me too for being thought of me as a rape apologist.
I accept your apology but still...
no hugs
Boo, I need your help, I have suddenly turned into this like, cat-girl, and my body is somehow feeling really all hot & bothered, and I can't get you out of my mind right now, please do something to relieve all my stress & tension...!
Sorry babe, I have a lot of fans horny for me already.
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Getting Worse with Age? |
02 Jan 2025, 11:19 am |
| I don't know which is worse |
29 Dec 2024, 4:25 pm |
