| On swallowing
Posted: 12/24/2007 10:39:53 PM | | In answer to the original question, I won't go down on a guy, or do anything else with him if there isn't a relationship there. And yes, I always swallow! | |
|
| On swallowing
Posted: 12/26/2007 1:55:59 PM | | mmm kissing after cumming is so hot its called snowballing sharing semen with a kiss | |
|
| On swallowing
Posted: 12/26/2007 4:07:12 PM | | this is soo very true, eating pineapple does change the flavor significantly, one of my ex's got me to do this, she says it makes it taste "yummy" and to this day, i always have some in my house...:) | |
|
| On swallowing
Posted: 12/26/2007 4:10:45 PM | *goes to buy some pineapple* 
 | |
|
| On swallowing
Posted: 12/26/2007 4:14:35 PM | | wow, you dont dont what you are missing..no it's not just a porn thing! | |
|
| On swallowing
Posted: 12/26/2007 7:29:26 PM | | You are right... but some people (like myself) are uncomfortable with it. I think as time goes on with the right man things do seem to feel natural. If both parties are in agreement and find satisfaction in the "do's and "don'ts" then it is all good. It is awesome you are that in love with your man. | |
|
| On swallowing
Posted: 12/27/2007 5:07:34 PM | It is a proven fact, some semen tastes better than others, they trend to lean towards diet, but I really dont believe that.
Its like women, some just taste better than others when they ejaculate | |
|
| On swallowing
Posted: 12/30/2007 8:25:43 AM | | i swallow for men im really into... | |
|
| |
| On swallowing
Posted: 12/30/2007 9:14:21 AM | | if you dont like the taste use the kids candy called pop rocks | |
|
| On swallowing
Posted: 12/30/2007 9:27:21 AM | I'd rather not. I really don't feel that swallowing is all that pleasant an experience. I've been doing some research , along with talking with my doctor, and throat cancer is a very real possibility for anyone who does it at least 5 times. But if you must, at least get the guy to load up on pineapple for a few days LOL. It's supposed to make things go down tasting better. | |
|
| On swallowing
Posted: 12/30/2007 11:08:02 AM | Leave it out!
For a start,if spunk can give you throat cancer whats it going to do to your fadge?
How did they decide it would be 5 times aswell? Load of whipped cream if you ask me  | |
|
| On swallowing
Posted: 12/30/2007 1:13:35 PM | | Throat Cancer? Suppose masturbation makes you go blind too??? | |
|
| On swallowing
Posted: 12/30/2007 5:00:12 PM | | This is soooo sad, but I was at the grocery store and actually had a pineapple in my hands to buy,,,,decided against it,,,,but there will be a day when I am putting that theory to the test! | |
|
| On swallowing
Posted: 12/30/2007 5:03:04 PM |
Throat Cancer? Suppose masturbation makes you go blind too???
LOFL!!!!!!! Damn near fell out of my chair on that one! Good point though,,,,totally! Ladies, put it all the way back as far as it can go in your throat and it should go down no problem,,,,it's that simple! | |
|
| On swallowing
Posted: 12/30/2007 7:03:25 PM | For a second I thought we were back in the "Dark" ages when we didn't understand germs. If you could get throat cancer from sperm, shouldn't it also surmise that I would have BALL cancer from producing it???
Hmmm, one of the best screws of my life was a woman that was totally addicted to oral sex... Just as I was about to Cum, she demanded her "Prize"! ;)
Women: It makes a guy feel like a million bucks when you're willing to give that "Gift" to us so for you that find it a turn on, it works for us too. And how!  | |
|
| On swallowing
Posted: 12/30/2007 9:28:46 PM | I think that if a man wanted blow his load on you face or where ever give him a hand job... But when you give a man a blow job the hot part about it is not having to pull out to be able to feal the warmth all of it and it makes it all that more enjoyable... Some women the idea of swallowing grosses them out... As for taste yeah some men really need to eat more greens !!!! | |
|
| On swallowing
Posted: 12/30/2007 9:52:31 PM | Why on earth would you go down on someone you don't have feelings for???
Does it tastes better when you DO have feelings? (Is Love better when you're in Love?)
Such simple questions, that could be answered by just trying.
Besides, I hear all the "Cool Kids" are gargling with his man juice first,
THEN swallowing.
And don't we ALL want to be cool?  | |
|
| On swallowing
Posted: 12/30/2007 9:58:13 PM | Actually all the cool kids like to leave it in thier mouth and hang it out on there tounges for all the boys too see because that is what makes it cool.... lmfao
OK I missed read the question I did not get the love part in there but either way I have been with men that I was not in love with and a man that I was in love with and to be frank about it it is all the same when he blows his load being in love is not going to change the taste... EAT GREENS!!! | |
|
| On swallowing
Posted: 12/31/2007 3:50:25 AM | | I know that it's more pleasant if you eat more veggies and less meat. I haven't been with anyone who doesn't. I find it kind of insulting and hurtful if they don't. Might be weird, but I see it as a kind of sexual rejection. It would be like having passionate sex with a woman and when she expects you to perform oral in the heat of the moment you wince and go "ewwww". Just ruins the passion of the experience in my opinion. | |
|
| On swallowing
Posted: 12/31/2007 3:55:54 AM | Why do some women keep banging on about love when it comes to oral and swallowing?
Your shagging the bloke for god sake,what difference does it make.
"erm ok richie,im going to ride your cock,but i don't love you so i'm not sucking it'' | |
|
| On swallowing
Posted: 12/31/2007 4:00:43 AM | | That sounds like woman logic to me. | |
|
| On swallowing
Posted: 12/31/2007 4:27:03 AM | With such a constant stream of ad hominums its surprising that the core of wisdom in your post.
First the problems :
Surpressed would be a better word then repressed, for as you ought to know, someone who is sexualy repressed has no sexual drive whatsoever. To diagnose someone with sexual repression is no easy task and to render a verdict on whether a society or a historical individual is repressed is next to impossible. Although it is true that the victorian age did surpress their citizens sex drives (but then so do we and so does ours) as to whether that is a good or evil (or if good and evil have any real meaning) thing that is a diffrent can of worms alltogether. As to the jugemental part of your first sentance, you seem to do a lot of it yourself the following would be an example "SOME women can actually break their pavlovian breain washing and social double standards" intrestingly if being jugemental is, as your first sentance implies, objectively wrong not just something you dislike. Then you sir have put yourself in the dock for the same charge you level.
In regards to your assertion that it is not tasteless since the taste of somthing is a subjective phenomenon you are incorrect. To someone who lacks the neccesary structures to taste the acidents of this emulsion there would be no taste and hence no differing in taste between diffrent samples. Of course there may be the chemical compounds required for taste to be transmited all the same. The other two points you make fall under the same blow. I lack a thorough knowlege of how our tase buds supposedly work so I will use another sence, that of sight to make an analogy to prove my point. A man who is color blind to both red and green may say that they look the same a blind man would say that all the colors of the rainbow look exactly the same to him. You would if you continue following the logic of your post unto this sence tell him that he is wrong. Forgeting that what he sees is subjective and there are only three possible response to a persons assertion of experienced subjective phenomena is to call him a liar accept what he says or to suspend jugement.
Any subjective phenomena in and of itself proves nothing objectively I may find that all semen tastes the same you may not well, viva la diferance. You can of course make the assertion that diffrent semen samples should taste diffrently but this assertion can only be advanced upon the grounds that one there is a form to the human body (not in the Aristotalian sence but as a Platonian idea though the platonian does not exclude the Aristotalian.) Two you have a sufficient understanding of how taste works. Three you have analized the samples and found that the molecules which your taste buds recieve are diffrent and to a degree and kind that the human tounge in proper condition and without adverse mind distortions can detect. Intrestingly if you do imply a form behind our taste organ you once again take a telelogical point of view towards minimaly (but not exclusivly) human origin/development/change (evolutionary or otherwise.)
As to what some people post on these places it is all intresting some of it is logicaly sloppy all of it influenced by known or assumed positions on morality e.t.c. that one should therefor make merry shows presumably either than you lack the ability to think from a position other than your own or that you lack the charity to refrain from mocking someone elses blunders.
As well in the first sentance you argue through the use of a ad hominum laced with a smidgen of chronological snobery. Instead of proving your point you begin by insulting the character of some of those who posted befor you (repressed, judgemental) state that their view points are outdated and hence as the modern notion goes wrong. Now it is illogical to attack someones character in order to prove your point of view. Jimmy may stink like bloody hell and I may smell as fresh as a daisy it does not therefor follow that Jimmies opinions are incorrect and mine correct. Furthure Jimmy may have a point of view in line with an Anglican devine while I may side, a few shades short of a spectrum, closer to Sarte this to has no bearing on whether I am right in my opinion or no (Sarte being a modern philosopher). If I wish to prove Jimmy to be incorrect I must advance evidence and argumentation against his position not his person or the temporal locality of the predominance of the point of view he holds. It is good therefor that you attempt to do so after this smatering of rehtoric.
But on your main stumble, this is where you link purposes to our breeding these being that of survival and reproduction. I presume by breeding you are refering to natural selection (a negative unintelegent force) and random mutation ( an unintelegent force which in the neo-darwinist theory of evolution is the positive mechanism of change) intrestingly this mechanism has not been proven to be adequate to the task of turing slime into men though perhaps it may. In any case my quarel here is not with the theory, let it be assumed to be true and the flaw in your logic remains. Simply put the word to implies purpose, as well as geared towards (direction = purpose), the part about functioning of our sences implies telology (sp?.) The only thing we know of which makes purpose is mind, namly our own, now unless you posit a mind behind evolution, 100% special creation, or a breeding program caried on by aliens (of the inteligent variety) or you assume some other means of purpose arising then one must logicaly drop all words/phrases with the implication of purpose (to, for, in order that e.t.c) when talking of the development of life on this planet. I realise that this will seem strained and unatural as a result of our language being essentialy theistic. But then so be it for if you endevor to prove your point clarity and precieion not ease need to be your watchwords. Intrestingly you once again imply a non-positivistic (that is un-scientific) premis this being that cognition has tainted our drives. Which is to imply that our natural drives are objectivly good (values are un-scientific.) If you do intentionaly imply telology my only points would be that one the implicationof such is unscientific and two and more damaging it is I think bad form to use words like only when talking of designs and increasingly more so when you are talkign about high degrees of intelect.
Your use of the words social evolution is troubling. Evolution being a word applied to the development of life by natural mechanism(s). The word development would be much more aplicable. But a furthure critisizm is that how does the change of society effect our sences in any way whatsoever. other people may effect us (for this is what society means) but their change at least on this level does not. Furthure society does not effect your sences but presumably you refer to its effect upon your mind which we are told in turn has an effect upon your perception of 'physical reality'.
Intresting as well is the imposibility of having repressed views. If by views you mean the metaphorical sence of an intelectual position.
positive points;
You demonstrate a desire for truth rather than fiction "are whether we like it or not"
You lay out how semen differ between diffrent men presumably in a way which may alter the taste of it.
So I suppose there is some grain amongst the wevils which predominantly form your post.
note I would understand if due to the limiting nature of our language you where unable to formulate a sentance in which all traces of telology where removed and if it where so you would do well to clearly state that you did not take the telelogical point of view. | |
|
| On swallowing
Posted: 12/31/2007 4:30:44 AM | | Note the above is in responce to Cunning_linguist's post third in order on the second page of this thread. | |
|
| On swallowing
Posted: 12/31/2007 10:27:12 AM | | Um, holy crap dude... Are you Human or Machine? Great thread killer ya got there. | |
|
Home
login 
