A question for women: what things related to sex do you find to be too slutty?

[Mish]

No, it doesn't work like that. The implication arrow is one way

Someones takes dicks inside them ==> they are inferior

DOES NOT MEAN

Someone is inferior ==> they take dicks

So you are saying it means:

Someones takes dicks inside them ==> they are inferior

Someone is inferior <== they take dicks

???

Meaning that Someone who is inferior is lesser than or equal to taking dicks?

Meaning that Someone who is inferior either takes dicks or is not worthy of taking dicks due to being inferior? (as in should be beaten with a baseball bat instead)

[DoesntMatter]

So you are saying it means:

Someones takes dicks inside them ==> they are inferior

Someone is inferior <== they take dicks

???

Meaning that Someone who is inferior is lesser than or equal to taking dicks?

Meaning that Someone who is inferior either takes dicks or is not worthy of taking dicks due to being inferior? (as in should be beaten with a baseball bat instead)

What I mean is exactly what I said:

Someones takes dicks inside them ==> they are inferior

DOES NOT MEAN

Someone is inferior ==> they take dicks

-------

Considering the first implication to be true, then you CAN say:

If someone is NOT inferior ==> They do NOT take dicks inside them

A implies B does NOT mean B implies A, but it DOES imply not B implies not A

There is nothing about more or less inferior or superior at play here

[Mish]

Alright DM, I'll withdraw from the argument

Since the statement regarding "inferiority of anyone who takes dicks being inferior" is obviously false and the guy who said it is pretty stupid for saying it, it doesn't really matter

[NeoSeminole]

Mishanya says:

"Logically it works the other way around. If you have a logical argument that "anyone who takes dicks inside of them = inferior", then "anyone who is inferior = takes dicks inside of them".

2+3=5 5=3+2

And he IS inferior in a certain setting, thus..."

it doesn't work if you reverse the order. Here is a simple analogy to help you understand.

"all cats are mammals, but not all mammals are cats."

"all people who take dicks inside of them are inferior, but not all inferior people take dicks inside of them."

[sarah_rsl]

LOL

That's so hilarious and ridiculous at the same time! It sounds like the guy has some serious superiority / inferiority complex issues. Extending these beliefs to their natural conclusion. He must also believe that his army officer as his superior and he is his inferior meaning that as an inferior he would gladly take it up the ass from his superior if he was ordered to, as inferiors naturally do.

I had abandoned this thread but I just found that statement to be brilliant, I wish I had thought of it at the time.

Although thinking about the statement which was that he could never take orders from someone 'that's been ****ed by a guy' that doesn't imply logically that an inferior would be ****ed by a superior. I have to agree with NeoSiminole on that point although it's still a good way to wind a guy like that up.

[LadieNisha4u2nv]

How would you know if someone is gay unless they tell you or are open about it(like the girly gays)?

I'd laugh if who ever is in charge of this guy is gay.

[Aeradalia]

How would you know if someone is gay unless they tell you or are open about it(like the girly gays)?

I'd laugh if who ever is in charge of this guy is gay.

Just knowing the military... chances are really good that somewhere along the chain of command some of his superiors are gay --- and very, very good at hiding it...

[Lite]

Alright DM, I'll withdraw from the argument

Since the statement regarding "inferiority of anyone who takes dicks being inferior" is obviously false and the guy who said it is pretty stupid for saying it, it doesn't really matter

Sounds a lot like the hispanic community double-standard of being gay. You're not gay if you let a guy suck you off, but if you suck a guy off you are...

[Aeradalia]

If there's a guy... and there's a dick involved that's not his or his dick involving another guy... then I would think he has 'homosexual tendencies.'

At the very least, they're bisexual... which is sometimes a gray 'comfort zone' for those that may truly be gay. Kind of like limbo between heterosexuality and homosexuality... Though there are some of us who call this 'limbo' home...

[Lite]

At the very least, they're bisexual... which is sometimes a gray 'comfort zone' for those that may truly be gay. Kind of like limbo between heterosexuality and homosexuality... Though there are some of us who call this 'limbo' home...

I suppose that depends on whether you subscribe to the Kinsey scale on sexuality really. Though sometimes sex is much more about power than it is about sexual gratification. IE: prison.

[Aeradalia]

I suppose that depends on whether you subscribe to the Kinsey scale on sexuality really. Though sometimes sex is much more about power than it is about sexual gratification. IE: prison.

Very true... prison is an unnatural situation for males - lack of females - so other instincts would come into play to fill the void. Some more effeminate males would sadly be forced into roles often satiated by females... and due to sexual frustrations males would incorporate sexual desires with displays of power over another as well.

However, in a situation where females are readily available and a male still chooses to be with another male... it may be safe to say he has true homosexual tendencies...

[sarah_rsl]

Sounds a lot like the hispanic community double-standard of being gay. You're not gay if you let a guy suck you off, but if you suck a guy off you are...

I've heard military guys say that in all seriousness. When I originally decribed what the guy said I meant to use it as an example of how guys in extremely masculine enviroments relate to women when they intrude.

Maybe this story isn't entirely relevant but I'll tell it anyway. On an army exercise years ago, myself and a guy I was good mates with spent two weeks living out of a truck at the edge of the exercise area. Anyway normaly in a mixed sex unit sending one guy and one woman out by themselves just wouldn't happen. But he was a pretty level guy and I had a reputation for not shagging guys I worked with so we were considered safe.

I'll say right now nothing sexual happened, we got on really well. Its hard to live in close quarters with the opposite sex, but he was really considerate. In other situations like that I'd usually shoot away in the morning to get changed and washed with whatever privacy I could get. But with him I could get changed in the back of the truck and trust him completley to keep his back turned.

So when on exercise you don't have access to a laundry and as theres only a finite amount of spare clothes you can pack, so basically you wear the same shirt trousers and jacket all the time and all you change is your bra, knickers and t-shirt.

Anywho typically I'd wear mens boxers rather than knickers, because, they were cheap, I didn't want my own being ruined and I could wear them like shorts for modestys sake. So in the moring I'd tell K to turn his back then once I changed my undies and t-shirt I'd tell him he could turn around.So i'd potter around in my t-shirt and boxers for a bit cause all my bits were safely covered. Anyway this one morning rather than change into boxers I changed into an old set of knickers I had they were girly and pink but not provocative. The reason being my period was due to start and the boxers didn't really work with pads.

Anywho if you've stuck with this long rambling story untill now I'll get to the point. What happened next was the one time in my life that a mans called me a slut in all seriousness. I stood up to put my trouser on and he just went ape shit, saying that I couldn't just traipse around dressed that way, that I was trying to provoke him etc etc then the slut word appeared.

So I went crazy then we were both sitting in the back of a truck in the middle of nowhere. Anyway after a while we both calmed down I thought he might apologize, he didn't. So we had another 5 days of uncomfortable silence. In the future I made sure he didn't see me in any underwear boxers or knickers. the whole thing just left me shaken.

Anyway I hope there's some relevance to the discussion, how men can see a hint of sexuality as something threatening.

[ecojeanne]

Very true... prison is an unnatural situation for males - lack of females - so other instincts would come into play to fill the void. Some more effeminate males would sadly be forced into roles often satiated by females... and due to sexual frustrations males would incorporate sexual desires with displays of power over another as well.

However, in a situation where females are readily available and a male still chooses to be with another male... it may be safe to say he has true homosexual tendencies...

or

maybe men will take any hole thats available to them. prison showing that as proof? what would happen if you put a gay man into a womens prison?

[Mish]

Anyway I hope there's some relevance to the discussion, how men can see a hint of sexuality as something threatening.

Sounds interesting. He probably felt uneasy about the changing going on in close proximity to him and this was the first knee jerk way to express himself. Maybe you should have asked him to leave the truck each time you had to change?

[sarah_rsl]

Sounds interesting. He probably felt uneasy about the changing going on in close proximity to him and this was the first knee jerk way to express himself. Maybe you should have asked him to leave the truck each time you had to change?

He beat me to it, before I had a chance to tell him he had to leave in the morings he told me that was what he was going to do in future. incidently he said himself it was the change in my style of underwear that did it, He was fine when I was dressed like a bloke but as soon as i looked anyway feminine he went nuts.