as a kid I remember watching an italian movie (with subtitles) on the dutch television...where a very famous (in italy) singer was standing on a "landmark/postcard" wooden bridge in amsterdam and singing away
nothing strange, you'll say..
the thing is, I'm half italian and half dutch.. my italian father, at the time, lived in an appartment facing said bridge, and I was watching the movie on the dutch television, whilst sitting in the living room of his appartment.. it felt weird at the time, so much that I still recall the episode.
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Melting_pot
Over 90 days ago
Straight Male, 47
0 miles · Lombardy
Forum
Quote by BIoke
I think I'm best staying out of this :lol2: :giggle:
Oh... go on go on go on go on go no.....
I had mate who was asked by 'the sweetest couple you'd ever want to meet' (his words)to push chocolate cake down the front of their underwear while the other watched and then squidged it about....
:PI just hope chocolate cake wasn't a euphemism for something else...nowadays you never know..
Quote by Reacher359
it's also true, more often than not, that girls their age look up to slightly more mature guys..meaning they have to do the same or fight to the death over the "few" girls that are actually interested in guys of their own age group.
of course it's not always true..but often enough to create the idea that competition is less fierce if you look for older ladies.
melting pot are you trying to say the older woman is more grateful!!
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:oh oh no win answer to this run away....
:rotflmao:rofl.. nope..what I am saying is that there's more of them around, and they're not adverse to a bit of "young meat", whereas the girls of the younger group quite often look for older guys.. :lol:
*takes to the hills
it's also true, more often than not, that girls their age look up to slightly more mature guys..meaning they have to do the same or fight to the death over the "few" girls that are actually interested in guys of their own age group.
of course it's not always true..but often enough to create the idea that competition is less fierce if you look for older ladies.
of course it's not always true..but often enough to create the idea that competition is less fierce if you look for older ladies.
I went to 2 "faith schools".. 5 years in the jewish school in firenze and 4 years in a catholic one in milano..
the first one was because my mum did not want me to loose the "connection" with the whole "jewish thing"... (as we are not observant in the family, and the family is mixed to begin with)
the catholic school was because it was the best one in the area and 5 blocks away from home.
neither of my parents insisted on me believing anything or attending more than the strictly required minimum estabilished by the schools..
I strongly believe that "indoctrination/brainwashing" simply cannot happen in the one/two weekly hours of schooling in religious things you get at school.
it's all in the family if they want to perservere and instill certain values tennants or even ideas in their offspring..a religious school helps, yes..but the real difference is made at home.
you can go to all the jewish focus groups, schools, lessons you want..but if at home you get served ham sandwiches and you don't go to the sinagogue on saturdays..it's just not going to produce a fundamentalist..
of course I have no experience of islamic schools and their structure and level of "religious education"..or indeed english schools.. but I'm pretty sure that without the family being involved and very strict...it's just not going to happne.
so...my personal view is that religious schools are not to blame for the propagation of religious beliefs or narrowmindedness in that department(if they are good schools and teach the "regular subjects" on levels comparable to non religious schools, that is)
in fact, I feel enriched by the knowledge of something less menial than 2+2=4.
and no, I don't see myself as a believer
the first one was because my mum did not want me to loose the "connection" with the whole "jewish thing"... (as we are not observant in the family, and the family is mixed to begin with)
the catholic school was because it was the best one in the area and 5 blocks away from home.
neither of my parents insisted on me believing anything or attending more than the strictly required minimum estabilished by the schools..
I strongly believe that "indoctrination/brainwashing" simply cannot happen in the one/two weekly hours of schooling in religious things you get at school.
it's all in the family if they want to perservere and instill certain values tennants or even ideas in their offspring..a religious school helps, yes..but the real difference is made at home.
you can go to all the jewish focus groups, schools, lessons you want..but if at home you get served ham sandwiches and you don't go to the sinagogue on saturdays..it's just not going to produce a fundamentalist..
of course I have no experience of islamic schools and their structure and level of "religious education"..or indeed english schools.. but I'm pretty sure that without the family being involved and very strict...it's just not going to happne.
so...my personal view is that religious schools are not to blame for the propagation of religious beliefs or narrowmindedness in that department(if they are good schools and teach the "regular subjects" on levels comparable to non religious schools, that is)
in fact, I feel enriched by the knowledge of something less menial than 2+2=4.
and no, I don't see myself as a believer
I don't know why this happens..but I seem to only meet women between the ages of 32 and 36.
I don't especially seek them out..it just seems to happen that way.
honestly, I would not be adverse to meeting women in their 20's...but it just doesn't seem to happen
I'm not sure I'd push the "upper limit" much further than 36-37 though..
I don't especially seek them out..it just seems to happen that way.
honestly, I would not be adverse to meeting women in their 20's...but it just doesn't seem to happen
I'm not sure I'd push the "upper limit" much further than 36-37 though..
why do I always end up in the queue with the slowest check out lady of the lot, who will invariably blunder with the 2 people ahead of me causing me a 30 minutes wait, and then tops it off with an attempt at conversation that really is a monologue about her misfortunes, the attitude of the guy who's just left the counter, her opinion on the situation in the middle east and the breeding of purple hamsters?
I believe a distinction should be made between personal motivation/drive and "the plan"...between informed decision and "defending the colours" because it's what is expected.
a soldier that goes to afghanistan should be informed and very well aware that his actions there have the principal purpose of "going to the advantage of his nation"..be it in protecting the economic wealth of the UK or destroying opium fields.
the "carrying the torch of democracy, civilization and education" thing sounds nice but is a means to an end (a selfish end) and not a "freebie" for the afghan population
we "give them" that because stability is what we need for our own reasons (crimefighting and stable economy)
most soldiers however...but even more worryingly, a lot of their "blind supporters" use the "bringers of democracy" line as their main argument. as if it really was what this is all about.
(by all means, if you have a close relative or friend in the army or even "over there", you have all the right to support them "blindly"... I know I would do the same...
but if that is the case, it's more honest to say "I support the army because my son is in it and I will stand by him whatever he does" than to say "because they're always right and do the right thing by these poor uneducated barbarians)"
I'd much rather have a soldier say "yes, I know we're sent out there to fight for the petrol you stuff in your cars, and I'm ok with it because it also gives me a chance to do something good for those people..and after all it's what I'm paid to do"
I would admire such a person...
mostly though, even on the TV, the soldiers seem to say "we're here to do good and fight for the poor subjected women and children"... which is nice and to some extent true...but smells of propaganda behind which a lot more "down to earth" things are hidden.
my concern is that the soldiers go out there believing in the right things..
informed and educated, so to speak...and my fear is that they not always are. and that this is reflected by the attitude of their "supporters at all costs"
we don't go there to fight muslims..because if that were the case we would be rounding them up in england and putting them in camps..
we are not at war with islam... and the reason is that islam in itself is not a danger.
so, can we please let go of the notion of a islamic plot to rule the world by sharia? it's an idea shared only by a minority of extremists.. and that alone can guarantee it's failure, in the long run.
a soldier that goes to afghanistan should be informed and very well aware that his actions there have the principal purpose of "going to the advantage of his nation"..be it in protecting the economic wealth of the UK or destroying opium fields.
the "carrying the torch of democracy, civilization and education" thing sounds nice but is a means to an end (a selfish end) and not a "freebie" for the afghan population
we "give them" that because stability is what we need for our own reasons (crimefighting and stable economy)
most soldiers however...but even more worryingly, a lot of their "blind supporters" use the "bringers of democracy" line as their main argument. as if it really was what this is all about.
(by all means, if you have a close relative or friend in the army or even "over there", you have all the right to support them "blindly"... I know I would do the same...
but if that is the case, it's more honest to say "I support the army because my son is in it and I will stand by him whatever he does" than to say "because they're always right and do the right thing by these poor uneducated barbarians)"
I'd much rather have a soldier say "yes, I know we're sent out there to fight for the petrol you stuff in your cars, and I'm ok with it because it also gives me a chance to do something good for those people..and after all it's what I'm paid to do"
I would admire such a person...
mostly though, even on the TV, the soldiers seem to say "we're here to do good and fight for the poor subjected women and children"... which is nice and to some extent true...but smells of propaganda behind which a lot more "down to earth" things are hidden.
my concern is that the soldiers go out there believing in the right things..
informed and educated, so to speak...and my fear is that they not always are. and that this is reflected by the attitude of their "supporters at all costs"
we don't go there to fight muslims..because if that were the case we would be rounding them up in england and putting them in camps..
we are not at war with islam... and the reason is that islam in itself is not a danger.
so, can we please let go of the notion of a islamic plot to rule the world by sharia? it's an idea shared only by a minority of extremists.. and that alone can guarantee it's failure, in the long run.
kent...I absolutely agree with you that we do need armed forces..getting back to the horiginal OP, and forgetting for a moment the debate about afghanistan and iran ..on which I'm sure we will never truly agree, can we at least agree with the fact that donning an uniform does not make you a hero by default?
there are plenty of cops and soldiers who are bullies in disguise..and on average despicable people (I personally know several of them). prince harry is no hero, I guess you'll agree...nor are the soldiers sadly famous for the abu grahib facts.. nor are other soldiers who simply chose that path because it was the only option for a regular income.(still better than living on the dole, but hardly a display of heroic behaviour, is it not?)
yes we should show understanding appreciation and respect for someone who does a difficult and dangerous job.. but is that not true of people that work in "difficult" schools or neighbourhoods or raise their children working 2-3 jobs? if that is so, then most of us are heroes..and that devalues the concept of heroism per se.
yes I agree it takes courage to go on patrol in afghanistan and not know if you'll return to base unscathed.. but there are loads of people in the army or navy that never go on patrol and never will.. people who are mostly clerks. but by your assumption, they too, should be heroes...
it just does not make sense.
heroes are people we should look up to... people who have led exceptional lives or have displayed exceptional virtues in specific extraordinary circumstances
I'm sure there are a lot of very good people and very brave ones in the army, that do it credit... but I simply will not accept that just because someone wears a uniform he is by default a splendid figure, a knight in shining armour.. a man to model my behaviour and aspirations after...a hero.
I don't believe I can do better than the VC decorated trooper, or that come the moment I could display true heroism in the "military" sense of the word..I might, and I might not.
I DO believe however that I can do better with my life than the average joe who spends his days holed up in a barrack somewhere... that I can give the world/society/my loved ones more than I could by standing guard outside an armory..(not that that's a menial job..someone has to do it and it's perfectly decent...it's just a job though..not particularily heroic)
I also believe that come the day my country goes to a war to defend itself from invading forces, I would be amongst the first to sign up, as I DO believe in the values our society and legal system stand for and am prepared to fight for those values not to be diminished
does that make me a hero? I believe not.
there are plenty of cops and soldiers who are bullies in disguise..and on average despicable people (I personally know several of them). prince harry is no hero, I guess you'll agree...nor are the soldiers sadly famous for the abu grahib facts.. nor are other soldiers who simply chose that path because it was the only option for a regular income.(still better than living on the dole, but hardly a display of heroic behaviour, is it not?)
yes we should show understanding appreciation and respect for someone who does a difficult and dangerous job.. but is that not true of people that work in "difficult" schools or neighbourhoods or raise their children working 2-3 jobs? if that is so, then most of us are heroes..and that devalues the concept of heroism per se.
yes I agree it takes courage to go on patrol in afghanistan and not know if you'll return to base unscathed.. but there are loads of people in the army or navy that never go on patrol and never will.. people who are mostly clerks. but by your assumption, they too, should be heroes...
it just does not make sense.
heroes are people we should look up to... people who have led exceptional lives or have displayed exceptional virtues in specific extraordinary circumstances
I'm sure there are a lot of very good people and very brave ones in the army, that do it credit... but I simply will not accept that just because someone wears a uniform he is by default a splendid figure, a knight in shining armour.. a man to model my behaviour and aspirations after...a hero.
I don't believe I can do better than the VC decorated trooper, or that come the moment I could display true heroism in the "military" sense of the word..I might, and I might not.
I DO believe however that I can do better with my life than the average joe who spends his days holed up in a barrack somewhere... that I can give the world/society/my loved ones more than I could by standing guard outside an armory..(not that that's a menial job..someone has to do it and it's perfectly decent...it's just a job though..not particularily heroic)
I also believe that come the day my country goes to a war to defend itself from invading forces, I would be amongst the first to sign up, as I DO believe in the values our society and legal system stand for and am prepared to fight for those values not to be diminished
does that make me a hero? I believe not.
Quote by Riotandantony
Ghandi ? now here's a sacred cow to kill ! - the partition of India was one of the bloodiest events of the 20th century - Ghandi sat back on his dhoti and watched the slaughter of millions of innocents in his cause- again in the name of religion - this time hindu vs muslim.
this does seem quite innacurate..if I remember correctly my readings about gandhi, he did all he could to end the violence..but by that time he had very little power over the muslim side of the conflict.
he still managed to force the indian side to pay up on the agreed sums that they were witholding..again, if I remember correctly. if you know otherwise, please tell me where to read about it or at least state your sources.
as for the rest of your posts... quite frankly, you scare me.. you come off like someone who talks through (and bases his arguments and believes upon) slogans and general assumptions rather than fleshed out arguments..
the Sun does that too.. and is commonly regarded (if I am correct) as a den of racist bigotry and irrational narrowmindedness..
apprentice to the "a man in the pub told me" school of life..
I can only hope that my impression is misguided by the filter of this medium
maybe I am wrong, and if the above offends you, then sorry..but it's how your words make you look
Quote by kentswingers777
He was obviously way too quick for me there FB.
I deleted it as am bored with it to be honest.
So am off to do something much more intersting.....wash my hair.
you see that's your problem,as soon as it looks like someone has a valid point about something...you go all "I'm bored now
" then make some silly juvenile remark!As usual Powers you choose to knock me, rather than coming up with anything sensible yourself!
Stop taking digs at me. If you want to enter a debate then say something constructive, that is to do with the subject......and you say I am " juvenile ".
IF you bothered, and I very much doubt you have, to read ALL of this thread...then you would realise I have already said many things. You obviously as usual just read the last couple of posts.....shame on you.
on one hand you're right..it would be more sensible to post one's opinion first, and "then" take a dig at someone else..
but I must say I thought exactly what Mr. Powers has said, when I read your last post.
I bought a second hand bike when I moved to cambridge, as it seems to be the most common way of getting around here..
first ride, park it in the square, and cycling back the tyre punctures.
have it repaired, decide to use it to go to the movies, park it in front of a bunch of kids..between several other bikes
when I get back the front tyre is cut.
sod it, I'll keep walking
first ride, park it in the square, and cycling back the tyre punctures.
have it repaired, decide to use it to go to the movies, park it in front of a bunch of kids..between several other bikes
when I get back the front tyre is cut.
sod it, I'll keep walking
there was this piccy years ago...a chick on a chickenfarm sneezes, in the next piccy all other chicks are heaped in a corner, with expressions of terror on their little faces, the sneezer chick is in the middle of the room laughing his arse of and the farmer is scolding it because he did not appreciate the joke
the avian flu still exists, has always existed and will continue to exist and to cause a small number of deaths every year, as it has always done..the only reason it became such an issue is not because it suddenly became more virulent..which it didn't... it's the media hype that surrounded it.
as for the swine fever... scaremongering porky or not, time will tell.
the avian flu still exists, has always existed and will continue to exist and to cause a small number of deaths every year, as it has always done..the only reason it became such an issue is not because it suddenly became more virulent..which it didn't... it's the media hype that surrounded it.
as for the swine fever... scaremongering porky or not, time will tell.
who are the talibans?
are they not members of the afghani people? are they not citizens of other countries who have moved there to follow an ideal and a religious belief?
if we accept this, and the fact that they face overwelming odds, troops, military equipment and training..
should they not be called heroes as well then?
surelly they put their lives on the line, are NOT paid for it (quite often not even trained for it), and do it for a higher purpose
is that not a definition of heroism?
(before you start slating me for this, I am by no means an advocate for what they do or believe in, which I find despicable in several ways and out of touch with time and modern society.. I hope they will be, ultimately, defeated or at least have their weapons taken from them)
I agree that terrorism must be met with the strongest possible opposition...I agree that al quaeda is responsible for 9/11 and therefore should be hunted to the last man.
I however find it hard to believe that the several tens of thousands of soldiers employed, the best efforts of some of the most respected, equipped and competent intelligence agencies of the world and the billions of money spent in the concentrated efforts, have not been able to bring down al quaeda or ascertain the whereabouts of their leaders.
that oil is the primary concern here is obvious to anybody who is aware of the fact that terrorism, oppression, infringment of human rights and civil war are very much a current issue in several parts of the worlds...parts of the world where no resources are to be found..and which are therefore abbandoned to their own devices.
I am very much a believer of the necessity for armed forces to be there, and to be paid more than they more often than not are. I admire whoever choses to serve his country for less money than he could earn elsewhere, because s/he believes it's the right thing to do.
I admire anyone who can go to a warring country and put his life on the line..come back and be towards his loved ones the same person he was before being sent to war.
do I think these people are heroes? no I don't.
I know quite a few people in the military or who have been in the military, not only here in england but in other countries as well.
most of them chose to do so because of a family tradition to uphold (in other words it was all they knew or were educated to look up to), or because quite simply, it was a living, and they had not managed to find an equally paid alternative job. a number of people I have talked to in america got offered to sign up in the military to avoid a prison sentence...how is that commendable? until the same people actually display heroism by performing feats above the call of duty, these are nothing but people who are doing a job...
there have been soldiers in the past who have been decorated for "being there"...it still happens... whatever action they performed or were involved in.
this doesn't make sense to me.
also I can't help but notice that the same people who call all soldiers heroes, do so only with "their soldiers"...whereas any opposing force is necessarily wicked and evil...whether they were enemy soldiers, terrorists, freedom fighters or simple citizens who stood in the way.
give me a soldier who refuses to beat up a civilian out of peer pressure or who goes against the orders of his superior officer if these are unjust..give me a soldier who puts himself in the line of fire to recover a fallen comrade or keeps fighting after being wounded to allow his comrades to gain better position..give me a paramedic who crawls under a car on fire to retrieve a puppy or a child, or a missionary who goes unarmed to deliver waterpumps in a country where water is fought over with rifles and handgranades
give me any of these people any day, over a mindless machine...or a soldier who "just obeys" orders
I WILL make the distinction and call heroes those who deserve it and not those who have merely done the duty they chose to take upon themselves and got paid for.
no, not all soldiers are heroes by default.
and whoever does think so should question their motives for thinking just that very hard...with the same intensity I question my own motives when I make up my mind.
are they not members of the afghani people? are they not citizens of other countries who have moved there to follow an ideal and a religious belief?
if we accept this, and the fact that they face overwelming odds, troops, military equipment and training..
should they not be called heroes as well then?
surelly they put their lives on the line, are NOT paid for it (quite often not even trained for it), and do it for a higher purpose
is that not a definition of heroism?
(before you start slating me for this, I am by no means an advocate for what they do or believe in, which I find despicable in several ways and out of touch with time and modern society.. I hope they will be, ultimately, defeated or at least have their weapons taken from them)
I agree that terrorism must be met with the strongest possible opposition...I agree that al quaeda is responsible for 9/11 and therefore should be hunted to the last man.
I however find it hard to believe that the several tens of thousands of soldiers employed, the best efforts of some of the most respected, equipped and competent intelligence agencies of the world and the billions of money spent in the concentrated efforts, have not been able to bring down al quaeda or ascertain the whereabouts of their leaders.
that oil is the primary concern here is obvious to anybody who is aware of the fact that terrorism, oppression, infringment of human rights and civil war are very much a current issue in several parts of the worlds...parts of the world where no resources are to be found..and which are therefore abbandoned to their own devices.
I am very much a believer of the necessity for armed forces to be there, and to be paid more than they more often than not are. I admire whoever choses to serve his country for less money than he could earn elsewhere, because s/he believes it's the right thing to do.
I admire anyone who can go to a warring country and put his life on the line..come back and be towards his loved ones the same person he was before being sent to war.
do I think these people are heroes? no I don't.
I know quite a few people in the military or who have been in the military, not only here in england but in other countries as well.
most of them chose to do so because of a family tradition to uphold (in other words it was all they knew or were educated to look up to), or because quite simply, it was a living, and they had not managed to find an equally paid alternative job. a number of people I have talked to in america got offered to sign up in the military to avoid a prison sentence...how is that commendable? until the same people actually display heroism by performing feats above the call of duty, these are nothing but people who are doing a job...
there have been soldiers in the past who have been decorated for "being there"...it still happens... whatever action they performed or were involved in.
this doesn't make sense to me.
also I can't help but notice that the same people who call all soldiers heroes, do so only with "their soldiers"...whereas any opposing force is necessarily wicked and evil...whether they were enemy soldiers, terrorists, freedom fighters or simple citizens who stood in the way.
give me a soldier who refuses to beat up a civilian out of peer pressure or who goes against the orders of his superior officer if these are unjust..give me a soldier who puts himself in the line of fire to recover a fallen comrade or keeps fighting after being wounded to allow his comrades to gain better position..give me a paramedic who crawls under a car on fire to retrieve a puppy or a child, or a missionary who goes unarmed to deliver waterpumps in a country where water is fought over with rifles and handgranades
give me any of these people any day, over a mindless machine...or a soldier who "just obeys" orders
I WILL make the distinction and call heroes those who deserve it and not those who have merely done the duty they chose to take upon themselves and got paid for.
no, not all soldiers are heroes by default.
and whoever does think so should question their motives for thinking just that very hard...with the same intensity I question my own motives when I make up my mind.
from a practical point of view, shaven/waxed is the best, both for hygiene and the practical side of sex..
but from a "attraction" point of view, I prefer to see a trimmed pussy.
that said, I have no "must"... as I refuse to let a razor anywhere near my private parts, I am in no position to require a girl to do anything.
even so, I have yet to come across a "unkept" garden... having always found at least a bit of grooming performed
but from a "attraction" point of view, I prefer to see a trimmed pussy.
that said, I have no "must"... as I refuse to let a razor anywhere near my private parts, I am in no position to require a girl to do anything.
even so, I have yet to come across a "unkept" garden... having always found at least a bit of grooming performed
Quote by ScarletTheHarlot
as for the debate, I doubt it would go anywhere with the admins either..which is why profile and ad have been restored
my interest is and was more in "how things are perceived"..
I just didn't want you to have the impression that things "don't go anwhere" when Admin are involved - as I found them to be quite charming and helpful.
what I meant is that that way the "debate" of the issue would have remained private whilst the considerations of fem4taboo for instance would not have been made..nor debated..
Quote by fem_4_taboo
humm,
i see the issue is that she( the ther person) isnt a member, but what if you are a single member and theres another single member and you do play together but also want to meet others as a couple? you can then say on your single profile that you have another male/female that you play with and would like to meet others with?
but only if your both members, but hw would you know? unless those two single memebrs have to state on each of the profiles that they are paired up for sex with ***** o, infacto breaching discretion?
also if two singles are a couple but liek to remain as singles as they also play alone they cant actually advertise to meet as a couple as they dont have a couples account. or should thay have 3 accounts?
just pondering really.
back the the op.
i wouldnt come across you looking for a bi fem to join you casue if i was looking for a couple you wouldnt come up in the search.
xx fem xx
much better worded than my posts..and it goes to the crux of the matter..
the fact that my friend is not a member can of course be of "concern" to the aup and has some merit, which is why I've pulled the modifications to ad and profile...
but indeed the main concern in keeping the other person unnamed could very well be to protect her privacy or not to tell the world that you're seeing that very person. (which would of course be revealed after the first contact with interested parties)..
and who is to say if that other person is or isn't a member?
I guess however that it would still sound pretty dodgy to most readers..
