|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 10 2017 07:08 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2017 06:52 IgnE wrote:On November 10 2017 06:48 KwarK wrote:On November 10 2017 06:41 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2017 06:27 NewSunshine wrote:On November 10 2017 06:25 xDaunt wrote:
Why would I commit myself to a false dichotomy -- particularly one that is inapplicable to the topic at hand? I think people would happily accept an answer with some nuance to it. We're just trying to figure out what your position is, you know, the eternal struggle. I already explained my thoughts. It's not my fault that people won't accept them as is. You haven't explained them. You said that you don't care about voting rights bring denied when the people stripped of rights benefit from government spending but you haven't clarified at all on why you believe the two to be related. That's what we're all trying to get at. or kwark, putting on our charitable interpretation hats, he meant that even though it sucks that dc residents cant vote, he just cant muster much outrage about it given their relative prosperity and in consideration of other more pressing matters, which is apparently something the majority of dc residents would agree with dc residents don’t agree with this. they consistently push for statehood.
yeah some of them do, no doubt. ive spoken to activists on this very issue. and yet it seems that most are human beings who have more pressing matters than taking political action to rectify this. so we are going to hold xdaunt, likewise a human being with other human responsibilities and concerns accountable for not caring enough? this is silly. im done talking about it
|
On November 10 2017 06:49 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2017 06:42 kollin wrote:On November 10 2017 06:41 IgnE wrote:
asking permission is what i meant by "explicit permission". coincidentally in almost all of the stories in that NYT article louis ck did ask for explicit permission. so thats a case where asking for explicit permission didnt solve the problem, although im sure you meant to include something like waiting for an affirmative answer that you are sure was uncoerced
generally though a lot of flirting doesnt proceed by asking for explicit permission to flirt. Does masturbarion fall under flirting? i suppose the anawer is "it depends" but ill short circuit this digression and just say "no" to avoid this pointless line of questioning. obviously what louis ck apparently has a history of doing is not a good thing to go back to my original post on this topic though, i was thinking aloud about whether the #metoo movement, which has brought to light numerous instances of horrific and bad behavior, might have a chilling effect on flirting generally. im not even necessarily opposed to explicit permission to flirt, although a lot of women seem to enjoy flirting themselves, and a lot of them think that explicitly asking for permission is anathema to flirting itself anathema -- from the greek ana + tithemi . . .
I think you have a point, but not in relation this article. I agree that SOME (stress on some) of the allegations made public against certain figures seem extremely tenuous at best. I'm not sure how much you follow UK politics, but some of our politicians have been accused of things that are far from egregious and basically never proveable, which kind of waters down the very serious allegations in my opinion by inflaming public opinion about the minor allegations. These minor allegations led to public discussion in the media about what constitutes sexual harassment that was reductive to say the least. For example, the BBC polled men and women separately to see what they would constitute as flirting and what as sexual harassment which were pointless because the answer, as you say, depends.
I think the majority of normal men understand the bounds of flirting as depending on the context of the situation - I also think most women understand that having to turn someone's sexual approach down does not mean they have been harassed. I also think men (and women) could improve in leaps and bounds when it comes to creating an atmosphere in which women can feel harassed, thereby possibly pushing 'harmless' flirting into harassment.
|
On November 10 2017 07:14 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2017 07:05 Gorsameth wrote:On November 10 2017 06:49 IgnE wrote:On November 10 2017 06:42 kollin wrote:On November 10 2017 06:41 IgnE wrote:
asking permission is what i meant by "explicit permission". coincidentally in almost all of the stories in that NYT article louis ck did ask for explicit permission. so thats a case where asking for explicit permission didnt solve the problem, although im sure you meant to include something like waiting for an affirmative answer that you are sure was uncoerced
generally though a lot of flirting doesnt proceed by asking for explicit permission to flirt. Does masturbarion fall under flirting? i suppose the anawer is "it depends" but ill short circuit this digression and just say "no" to avoid this pointless line of questioning. obviously what louis ck apparently has a history of doing is not a good thing to go back to my original post on this topic though, i was thinking aloud about whether the #metoo movement, which has brought to light numerous instances of horrific and bad behavior, might have a chilling effect on flirting generally. im not even necessarily opposed to explicit permission to flirt, although a lot of women seem to enjoy flirting themselves, and a lot of them think that explicitly asking for permission is anathema to flirting itself anathema -- from the greek ana + tithemi . . . I'm pretty sure a guy in a bar flirting with girls in short skirts isn't going to worry that she will tweet #metoo later. Flirting between 'normal' people will be perfectly fine. Those in the public light might be a little more careful and I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. sure maybe not. but the majority of flirting actually hapoens outside bars. let's also read these events in light of the decline in teen sex associated w increased screen time: Have Smartphones Destroyed a Generation?Show nested quote + Today’s teens are also less likely to date. The initial stage of courtship, which Gen Xers called “liking” (as in “Ooh, he likes you!”), kids now call “talking”—an ironic choice for a generation that prefers texting to actual conversation. After two teens have “talked” for a while, they might start dating. But only about 56 percent of high-school seniors in 2015 went out on dates; for Boomers and Gen Xers, the number was about 85 percent.
The decline in dating tracks with a decline in sexual activity. The drop is the sharpest for ninth-graders, among whom the number of sexually active teens has been cut by almost 40 percent since 1991. The average teen now has had sex for the first time by the spring of 11th grade, a full year later than the average Gen Xer. Fewer teens having sex has contributed to what many see as one of the most positive youth trends in recent years: The teen birth rate hit an all-time low in 2016, down 67 percent since its modern peak, in 1991. you can argue whether teen sex declining is good or bad, maybe its good. but the whole thing is set in a context of decreased risk-taking, autonomy, and agency.
I think its a MASSIVE leap from 'kids stare at phones all day, don't have personal contact' to "they are afraid of being accused of sexual harassment" as a reason for later sexual blooming.
|
United States43566 Posts
On November 10 2017 07:16 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2017 07:08 brian wrote:On November 10 2017 06:52 IgnE wrote:On November 10 2017 06:48 KwarK wrote:On November 10 2017 06:41 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2017 06:27 NewSunshine wrote:On November 10 2017 06:25 xDaunt wrote:
Why would I commit myself to a false dichotomy -- particularly one that is inapplicable to the topic at hand? I think people would happily accept an answer with some nuance to it. We're just trying to figure out what your position is, you know, the eternal struggle. I already explained my thoughts. It's not my fault that people won't accept them as is. You haven't explained them. You said that you don't care about voting rights bring denied when the people stripped of rights benefit from government spending but you haven't clarified at all on why you believe the two to be related. That's what we're all trying to get at. or kwark, putting on our charitable interpretation hats, he meant that even though it sucks that dc residents cant vote, he just cant muster much outrage about it given their relative prosperity and in consideration of other more pressing matters, which is apparently something the majority of dc residents would agree with dc residents don’t agree with this. they consistently push for statehood. yeah some of them do, no doubt. ive spoken to activists on this very issue. and yet it seems that most are human betins who have more pressing matters than taking political action to rectify this. so we are going to hold xdaunt, likewise a human being with other human responsibilities and concerns accountable for not caring enough? this is silly. im done talking about it
You're somehow not understanding xDaunt's point or why it's an issue. Nobody is asking him to fix it, the question is just whether it's an issue. He's repeatedly stated it's not an issue because they get government money.
|
On November 10 2017 07:06 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2017 06:58 NewSunshine wrote:On November 10 2017 06:41 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2017 06:27 NewSunshine wrote:On November 10 2017 06:25 xDaunt wrote:
Why would I commit myself to a false dichotomy -- particularly one that is inapplicable to the topic at hand? I think people would happily accept an answer with some nuance to it. We're just trying to figure out what your position is, you know, the eternal struggle. I already explained my thoughts. It's not my fault that people won't accept them as is. I'm not going to get into a pissing match with you about why this isn't true, I think Kwark details that sufficiently above. What I will get at is, don't you ever wonder why you end nearly every conversation you're a part of with "well I said my piece, it's not my fault if literally everybody else was too stupid/mean to understand me"? Like, I'm not trying to make this personal, obnoxious as I find it, but communication is a two-way street. I know you know this, you're not stupid. When someone claims that the reason no one understands them is because everyone else just didn't "get" them, they're usually full of shit in one way or another. You're the one making the claim or statement, so it's on you to make your position clear to a certain degree. When someone asks you for clarification, you don't go "well you're just stupid and need to reread what I said". Like Kwark said, either clarify your position, or retract it and admit you misspoke. Let me make this abundantly clear for everyone who still doesn't get it: I have neither the time nor the inclination to suffer fools. If someone wants to have an intelligent conversation with me, I'm more than happy to do so. When people stupidly read all sorts of inane shit into my posts rather than just read what I put out there, my reaction is not going to be so good -- if I react at all. I explained my position regarding DC quite directly, making it clear that I don't care, and that to the extent that there is any injustice, it is more than offset by DC's unique position in the country and the economic benefits derived therefrom. That is more than adequate. In light of those statements, Kwark's subsequent question was not only patently stupid but also inherently dishonest in how it was framed. Unsurprisingly, the smart posters in the thread understood that. The dumb ones ... not so much.
We know what your original statement is: DC enjoys certain economic benefits, therefore you're cool with them not being able to vote. We're not even disputing the premise here, it's just a simple follow-up question. If you believe what you say, there should be some underlying logic that you're adhering to. Which leads very naturally to the question: is there an extent to which financial advantage begets disenfranchisement in your view, or is the right to vote inviolable, and something every American should enjoy? I thought I knew what your position was on this, but your original statement makes this very unclear.
|
Republicans need to just release whatever version of the Bible they've created for themselves, so the rest of Christianity will know what the fuck they're talking about.
Jesus was just some dude with a Dad who liked to fuck underage girls, for example. That seems to be a rather fundamental, critical difference to most people's understanding of the whole immaculate son-of-God thing.
Miraculous conception? Nope, just good ol' pedo-rape.
|
On November 10 2017 07:18 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2017 07:14 IgnE wrote:On November 10 2017 07:05 Gorsameth wrote:On November 10 2017 06:49 IgnE wrote:On November 10 2017 06:42 kollin wrote:On November 10 2017 06:41 IgnE wrote:
asking permission is what i meant by "explicit permission". coincidentally in almost all of the stories in that NYT article louis ck did ask for explicit permission. so thats a case where asking for explicit permission didnt solve the problem, although im sure you meant to include something like waiting for an affirmative answer that you are sure was uncoerced
generally though a lot of flirting doesnt proceed by asking for explicit permission to flirt. Does masturbarion fall under flirting? i suppose the anawer is "it depends" but ill short circuit this digression and just say "no" to avoid this pointless line of questioning. obviously what louis ck apparently has a history of doing is not a good thing to go back to my original post on this topic though, i was thinking aloud about whether the #metoo movement, which has brought to light numerous instances of horrific and bad behavior, might have a chilling effect on flirting generally. im not even necessarily opposed to explicit permission to flirt, although a lot of women seem to enjoy flirting themselves, and a lot of them think that explicitly asking for permission is anathema to flirting itself anathema -- from the greek ana + tithemi . . . I'm pretty sure a guy in a bar flirting with girls in short skirts isn't going to worry that she will tweet #metoo later. Flirting between 'normal' people will be perfectly fine. Those in the public light might be a little more careful and I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. sure maybe not. but the majority of flirting actually hapoens outside bars. let's also read these events in light of the decline in teen sex associated w increased screen time: Have Smartphones Destroyed a Generation? Today’s teens are also less likely to date. The initial stage of courtship, which Gen Xers called “liking” (as in “Ooh, he likes you!”), kids now call “talking”—an ironic choice for a generation that prefers texting to actual conversation. After two teens have “talked” for a while, they might start dating. But only about 56 percent of high-school seniors in 2015 went out on dates; for Boomers and Gen Xers, the number was about 85 percent.
The decline in dating tracks with a decline in sexual activity. The drop is the sharpest for ninth-graders, among whom the number of sexually active teens has been cut by almost 40 percent since 1991. The average teen now has had sex for the first time by the spring of 11th grade, a full year later than the average Gen Xer. Fewer teens having sex has contributed to what many see as one of the most positive youth trends in recent years: The teen birth rate hit an all-time low in 2016, down 67 percent since its modern peak, in 1991. you can argue whether teen sex declining is good or bad, maybe its good. but the whole thing is set in a context of decreased risk-taking, autonomy, and agency. I think its a MASSIVE leap from 'kids stare at phones all day, don't have personal contact' to "they are afraid of being accused of sexual harassment" as a reason for later sexual blooming.
well luckily im not making a leap like that. kids pick up on this kind of stuff in a much more sensitive way than adults. i have plural anecdotes (thats data right guys) from people involved in jobs with young kids who have noticed a lot more sensitivity to gender and identification in ways that would probably blow most baby boomers' minds.
|
also dude, be careful of the causality im asserting here. im not saying that #metoo has anything to do with the trends in that article which predate the movement itself. im saying that #metoo and its cultural ripples are an additional influence on certain trends that seem to be moving towards a different kind of socio-sexual sphere
|
On November 10 2017 07:21 Leporello wrote:https://twitter.com/AaronBlake/status/928727380629303296Republicans need to just release whatever version of the Bible they've created for themselves, so the rest of Christianity will know what the fuck they're talking about. Jesus was just some dude with a Dad who liked to fuck underage girls, for example.
What Bible do you have where that isn’t an accepted and culturally consistent reading?
It still doesn’t justify the conclusion he’s making, but it doesn't have anything to do with a point on different versions of the Bible.
|
On November 10 2017 07:23 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2017 07:18 Gorsameth wrote:On November 10 2017 07:14 IgnE wrote:On November 10 2017 07:05 Gorsameth wrote:On November 10 2017 06:49 IgnE wrote:On November 10 2017 06:42 kollin wrote:On November 10 2017 06:41 IgnE wrote:
asking permission is what i meant by "explicit permission". coincidentally in almost all of the stories in that NYT article louis ck did ask for explicit permission. so thats a case where asking for explicit permission didnt solve the problem, although im sure you meant to include something like waiting for an affirmative answer that you are sure was uncoerced
generally though a lot of flirting doesnt proceed by asking for explicit permission to flirt. Does masturbarion fall under flirting? i suppose the anawer is "it depends" but ill short circuit this digression and just say "no" to avoid this pointless line of questioning. obviously what louis ck apparently has a history of doing is not a good thing to go back to my original post on this topic though, i was thinking aloud about whether the #metoo movement, which has brought to light numerous instances of horrific and bad behavior, might have a chilling effect on flirting generally. im not even necessarily opposed to explicit permission to flirt, although a lot of women seem to enjoy flirting themselves, and a lot of them think that explicitly asking for permission is anathema to flirting itself anathema -- from the greek ana + tithemi . . . I'm pretty sure a guy in a bar flirting with girls in short skirts isn't going to worry that she will tweet #metoo later. Flirting between 'normal' people will be perfectly fine. Those in the public light might be a little more careful and I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. sure maybe not. but the majority of flirting actually hapoens outside bars. let's also read these events in light of the decline in teen sex associated w increased screen time: Have Smartphones Destroyed a Generation? Today’s teens are also less likely to date. The initial stage of courtship, which Gen Xers called “liking” (as in “Ooh, he likes you!”), kids now call “talking”—an ironic choice for a generation that prefers texting to actual conversation. After two teens have “talked” for a while, they might start dating. But only about 56 percent of high-school seniors in 2015 went out on dates; for Boomers and Gen Xers, the number was about 85 percent.
The decline in dating tracks with a decline in sexual activity. The drop is the sharpest for ninth-graders, among whom the number of sexually active teens has been cut by almost 40 percent since 1991. The average teen now has had sex for the first time by the spring of 11th grade, a full year later than the average Gen Xer. Fewer teens having sex has contributed to what many see as one of the most positive youth trends in recent years: The teen birth rate hit an all-time low in 2016, down 67 percent since its modern peak, in 1991. you can argue whether teen sex declining is good or bad, maybe its good. but the whole thing is set in a context of decreased risk-taking, autonomy, and agency. I think its a MASSIVE leap from 'kids stare at phones all day, don't have personal contact' to "they are afraid of being accused of sexual harassment" as a reason for later sexual blooming. well luckily im not making a leap like that. kids pick up on this kind of stuff in a much more sensitive way than adults. i have plural anecdotes (thats data right guys) from people involved in jobs with young kids who have noticed a lot more sensitivity to gender and identification in ways that would probably blow most baby boomers' minds.
I'm not exactly in touch with the young kids dating scene so you may well be right.
|
If the bible is the true word of god, having diffrent versions is kinda... uhm... killing the whole true word of god thing?
|
Lets not take the bait and jump into the “version of the bible” debate. It’s a black hole.
|
On November 10 2017 07:19 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2017 07:16 IgnE wrote:On November 10 2017 07:08 brian wrote:On November 10 2017 06:52 IgnE wrote:On November 10 2017 06:48 KwarK wrote:On November 10 2017 06:41 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2017 06:27 NewSunshine wrote:On November 10 2017 06:25 xDaunt wrote:
Why would I commit myself to a false dichotomy -- particularly one that is inapplicable to the topic at hand? I think people would happily accept an answer with some nuance to it. We're just trying to figure out what your position is, you know, the eternal struggle. I already explained my thoughts. It's not my fault that people won't accept them as is. You haven't explained them. You said that you don't care about voting rights bring denied when the people stripped of rights benefit from government spending but you haven't clarified at all on why you believe the two to be related. That's what we're all trying to get at. or kwark, putting on our charitable interpretation hats, he meant that even though it sucks that dc residents cant vote, he just cant muster much outrage about it given their relative prosperity and in consideration of other more pressing matters, which is apparently something the majority of dc residents would agree with dc residents don’t agree with this. they consistently push for statehood. yeah some of them do, no doubt. ive spoken to activists on this very issue. and yet it seems that most are human betins who have more pressing matters than taking political action to rectify this. so we are going to hold xdaunt, likewise a human being with other human responsibilities and concerns accountable for not caring enough? this is silly. im done talking about it You're somehow not understanding xDaunt's point or why it's an issue. Nobody is asking him to fix it, the question is just whether it's an issue. He's repeatedly stated it's not an issue because they get government money.
Actually, Igne is the only one who has demonstrated a complete understanding of my point.
|
muslims believe that the 'true word of god' is the qu'ran in original arabic, but i don't believe there's any such belief in christianity.
|
United States43566 Posts
On November 10 2017 07:38 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2017 07:19 KwarK wrote:On November 10 2017 07:16 IgnE wrote:On November 10 2017 07:08 brian wrote:On November 10 2017 06:52 IgnE wrote:On November 10 2017 06:48 KwarK wrote:On November 10 2017 06:41 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2017 06:27 NewSunshine wrote:On November 10 2017 06:25 xDaunt wrote:
Why would I commit myself to a false dichotomy -- particularly one that is inapplicable to the topic at hand? I think people would happily accept an answer with some nuance to it. We're just trying to figure out what your position is, you know, the eternal struggle. I already explained my thoughts. It's not my fault that people won't accept them as is. You haven't explained them. You said that you don't care about voting rights bring denied when the people stripped of rights benefit from government spending but you haven't clarified at all on why you believe the two to be related. That's what we're all trying to get at. or kwark, putting on our charitable interpretation hats, he meant that even though it sucks that dc residents cant vote, he just cant muster much outrage about it given their relative prosperity and in consideration of other more pressing matters, which is apparently something the majority of dc residents would agree with dc residents don’t agree with this. they consistently push for statehood. yeah some of them do, no doubt. ive spoken to activists on this very issue. and yet it seems that most are human betins who have more pressing matters than taking political action to rectify this. so we are going to hold xdaunt, likewise a human being with other human responsibilities and concerns accountable for not caring enough? this is silly. im done talking about it You're somehow not understanding xDaunt's point or why it's an issue. Nobody is asking him to fix it, the question is just whether it's an issue. He's repeatedly stated it's not an issue because they get government money. Actually, Igne is the only one who has demonstrated a complete understanding of my point.
What Igne said and what you said are different things. If what you were trying to say is that it's wrong and it sucks, where you went wrong is saying you don't care because they get government money.
If you're now saying disenfranchisement of D.C. residents is bad then we're in agreement. But you completely refused to say that previously, instead attempting to argue that their degree of privilege meant their loss of voting rights wasn't an issue.
|
All versions of the Bible claim Mary is a virgin, so the debate isn't baited or needed. Christ son-of-God is kind of the central theme to Christianity.
But, anyways...
edit: actually the Jeffersonian Bible... Well, he was a Deist, anyways. Doesn't count.
|
On November 10 2017 07:05 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2017 06:49 IgnE wrote:On November 10 2017 06:42 kollin wrote:On November 10 2017 06:41 IgnE wrote:
asking permission is what i meant by "explicit permission". coincidentally in almost all of the stories in that NYT article louis ck did ask for explicit permission. so thats a case where asking for explicit permission didnt solve the problem, although im sure you meant to include something like waiting for an affirmative answer that you are sure was uncoerced
generally though a lot of flirting doesnt proceed by asking for explicit permission to flirt. Does masturbarion fall under flirting? i suppose the anawer is "it depends" but ill short circuit this digression and just say "no" to avoid this pointless line of questioning. obviously what louis ck apparently has a history of doing is not a good thing to go back to my original post on this topic though, i was thinking aloud about whether the #metoo movement, which has brought to light numerous instances of horrific and bad behavior, might have a chilling effect on flirting generally. im not even necessarily opposed to explicit permission to flirt, although a lot of women seem to enjoy flirting themselves, and a lot of them think that explicitly asking for permission is anathema to flirting itself anathema -- from the greek ana + tithemi . . . I'm pretty sure a guy in a bar flirting with girls in short skirts isn't going to worry that she will tweet #metoo later. Flirting between 'normal' people will be perfectly fine. Those in the public light might be a little more careful and I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing.
I think a main point here is how people view consent. If you think that consent is a hurdle that you need to trick other people (usually women) over to get what you want, you don't get what it is about. This view leaves your very likely to have the problem where people accuse you of sexual harassment. Because you don't care about the other person, you care about what you want to get, and you try to convince and/or trick the other person to allow you to take it from them.
If you view consent as something that is important to you, too, you simply don't have that problem. Because you make certain that the other person is really okay with what you want to do, before doing it. You don't try to trick the other person. If you are uncertain about consent, you make sure that you are both on the same wavelength with regards to what you intent to do. That possibly involves going slowly, and carefully watching the other person. And stopping as soon as there is any doubt that they might not be okay with what is happening, either completely or to ask and clarify.
Don't go for minimum possible consent necessary. Go for more. Make sure. If it is not absolutely clear, ask.
I am also not quite certain what kind of flirting people do that might be mistaken for sexual harassment?
|
Wait so Luie cK got naked in front of some adult women and wanked? I mean, the women stayed there in the room ... or? I'm quite confused. 5 female "comedians"?
If a woman does that they charge you and call it a strip club. No exceptions. Triple standards?
|
First dates and first attempts as physical affection are already super awkward. Asking "Is this cool?" isn't going move the needle.
On November 10 2017 08:00 Kickboxer wrote:
Wait so Luie cK got naked in front of some adult women and wanked? I mean, the women stayed there in the room ... or? I'm quite confused. 5 female "comedians"?
If a woman does that they charge you and call it a strip club. No exceptions. Triple standards?
This is Grade F bait. This thread has some standards.
|
On November 10 2017 08:00 Kickboxer wrote:
Wait so Luie cK got naked in front of some adult women and wanked? I mean, the women stayed there in the room ... or? I'm quite confused. 5 female "comedians"?
If a woman does that they charge you and call it a strip club. No exceptions. Triple standards?
Imagine your female Boss, who is 30 years older than you are, asking you to come into her room. You being there, she asks "Is it fine if i masturbate while you watch?", and while you are stunned by that question, she starts doing just that. Doesn't sound like a fun event to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
