I don't even find thongs sexy. Doubt I'm the only one. They wouldn't indicate sex to me, girls seem to just wear them like any other sort of underwear generally.
Thongs are way overrated. Like I said, boy shorts are much hotter on chicks.
I don't even find thongs sexy. Doubt I'm the only one. They wouldn't indicate sex to me, girls seem to just wear them like any other sort of underwear generally.
etiolate said:Thongs are way overrated. Like I said, boy shorts are much hotter on chicks.
Rorschach said:Fucking hell...if you didn't want a discussion, you shouldn't have used a forum.
Gaming-Age Forums > Discussions > Off-Topic Discussion > Why are guys so stingy?
I recommend Livejournal.
Most of this thread, you make up your own assumptions instead of reading and comprehending posts. It's extremely annoying.
Trizten Dareeque said:Jesus ned....you of all people getting uptight about that crap? You have to be joking, considering the amount of misogyny you display. How disappointing, I thought i had you pegged as a cool dude.
J2 Cool said:Hey robert, would you wait a year to do some heavy petting with a girl? I'm pretty sure it was you who said he doesn't go 3 days without a girl coming over to sex you up :lol I think the guy was probably just really irritated, and wanted to reply to "other girl's bf's do this and this" with "other guy's gf's have sex with them".
Well, yeah...robertsan21 said:but i dont have to, you dont know how girls are around me, it would not take a year for her to have gone all the way with me, i would make her feel safe and secure.
Rorschach said:Well, yeah...
Of course girls feel safe around gay guys.
Third week? I will never understand you people on the other side of the pond.Incognito said:to me, heavy petting = fondling. which after the 3rd week is fuck worthless.
Oops sorry. I had you confused with the guy in the pink v neck baby T. I didn't mean any offense either.robertsan21 said:yeah they do, but i am not gay so i am twice as lucky
aku:jiki said:Third week? I will never understand you people on the other side of the pond.
As a swede, I'll say it's worthless after the third hour.
funny boyRorschach said:Oops sorry. I had you confused with the guy in the pink v neck baby T. I didn't mean any offense either.
What?etiolate said:PS: Don't be douchebags and troll her LJ.
THAT'S A COME-ON?Some guys like the "hey honey I need a new DVD player" hint
Ned Flanders said:I am a cool dude. If you're looking for hot dudes you can always put some jews in a furnace DUR HUR!!
See? Not funny, was it? I'm sorry, its one thing to call various women broads or bitches (which I'm guilty of and I assume is the misogyny to which you refer) or various men assholes or bastards, but when you start using ethnic/racial/religious stereotypical quips I get testy. It bothers me even more when they are used in such a non-chalant manner. At least at places like Opa-Ages its understood that the racism is out in the open and unrestrained with no apologies. Here there is an irritating double standard, as I'm sure if he'd implied something about black folks being gorillas or Mexicans being lazy he'd get the boot immediately. Jew quips go unpunished, but we ban a dimwitted girl for being...dimwitted. Go figure.
So yes if it means that I'm not a cool dude because I believe that "If you can justify the chides, you can justify the genocides", then I guess I'm not a cool dude.
NetMapel said:Ehhh... banning Waychel on something silly like this ? We should try to understand her point of view at least. She's a conservative girl who does not want to talk too much in detail about her "sex life". Sure it sounded contradicting when she said she has done stuff with her boyfriend, yet she is thinking of "heavy petting" now, after a year of relationship. However, I think she may see it as a hostile move when Mikes pointed out that faulty logic. Can we not just agree that she just said it the wrong way, and you guys are interpreting this too much ?
Waychel is a pretty valuable member to GAF and it is a shame to see her banned.
Waychel is a pretty valuable member to GAF and it is a shame to see her banned.
Drinky Crow said:As I understand it, she purportedly fabricated her situation as part of a sociology paper. She says that her intial post was an invented story posted to this forum (as well as a more female-centric one) to gauge gender-specific response to the postulated situation.
However, the good ol' Bishop of Pckham (the internet-savvy brother of the Bishop of Ockham) sez: "bitch got caught lookin' stupid, made up an LJ post to cover her ass."
And how is she valuable? Because she's female? Fuck that noise. You get as good as you give here, and up until this point, I had no idea who she was. I read a few posts from her history, and all I get is a history rife with the sort of superficial pseudo-Libertarian arguments we can get from ANY privileged but insecure white teenager. I ain't gonna miss her, and I suspect that outside of a few "the mods are assholes we wuv you waychel!!!!" posts subsequent to this, she'll be soon forgotten.
J2 Cool said:oddly enough, iawtp. Variety and unique style is always great. If it's a hot chick, lingerie, shorts, tighty whities, high socks... all look good. The usual Victoria's secret stuff just gets boring sometimes. Not that'd I'd deny it if some girl wants to show me her lingerie. Just that, you can do other stuff too.
android said:Or this
Azih said:Anyways Azala
THAT'S A COME-ON?
:lol Beat me to it.Drinky Crow said:little boy pants for little boy butts
sickos